Greetings, Mr. President,
I'm posting you a little note, as you seem to have confused Goldman Sachs for Uncle Sam. Believe me, Mr. President, they aren't even related.
Using huge loans from Uncle Sam (that's the people's government) to Goldman Sachs, AIG and other banking and financial institutions, these same institutions have predictably "grabbed the money and run." They want to give huge bonuses to "key" personnel, such as partners, for the grand guidance provided these same institutions by the lucky recipients. Yes, there has been some negative media attention, which generates some negative political posing on Capitol Hill. You and they have weathered that storm. Good show!
I understand from "experts" reporting over radio airwaves that the economy shows signs of life, and in a few years Uncle Sam should be feeling pretty good again. Should he have gotten a vaccine, you think? Let's blame that carelessness on the Bush Administration, shall we?
Now, Mr. President, it's probably too late in your economic game plan to allocate a significant national dividend to the citizenry, as all the money has been allocated to the big banks. How can Uncle Sam possibly borrow abroad any more money for the people? I can't help thinking that the best place to send all that money would have been to small businesses and to the general citizenry. Redistribution of the nation's wealth from big banks to the general population and the small businesses that are of, by and for these same people may not be everyone's "cup of tea," of course.
Your "boyo" over at the Department of the Treasury, Mr. Geithner, thinks that things have improved substantially for the big banks. Your "boyo" over at the Federal Reserve, Mr. Bernanke, intends to hold interest levels near zero on loans to big banks. This allows them to gather large sums of money at almost no interest and invest that same money in U.S. Treasury Bonds at higher interests, pocketing the difference. It's a very safe means of "pumping up" these big banks' assets. When they are "feeling their Wheaties," they will be willing to make many more loans.
Guess what? Trickle, trickle, trickle!
Now, for the more than 10 million unemployed Americans, there is precious little money. That makes spending much on products and services provided by American manufacturers almost impossible. These manufacturers and small businesses need that money to continue in business. Uncle Sam needs for them to have money.
You say: Wait patiently for a couple-to-three years for the big banks to - as with John D. Rockefeller, Sr., - hand out shiny dimes to the begging masses of Americans. Of course, that can only happen after they slice off half a billion here and a couple of hundred million dollars there in bonuses for themselves. I know you consider that "chump change" of no consequence.
Mr. President, you are very comforting about America "fighting" its way out of this "inherited" economic mess. And darn it! If the economy can't be fixed, then we can declare World War III (or IV) and make our debt-holders pay reparations to us! Won't that be fun?
The main thing to remember, Mr. President, is that - in the long run - we're all dead anyway. Soon, the big banks will have enough loot to finance our next "world war." There IS light at the end of the tunnel.
Your Pal,
JGS
November 08, 2009
In our view President Obama has not served the pressing needs of the United States during his time in office. Rhetoric alone does not heal the nation's ills. The ruling circles in America wax richer, even as the nation wanes. Are we alone in seeing an unwholesome situation that itself points in the direction of the source of our illnesses?
Given America's long entrenched leadership - both elected and background "advisers," why do we fear al Qaeda, the Taliban and "lone wolf" terrorists? None of these "Johnny-come-lately" enemies represent a speck on Uncle Sam's shoes, while our leaders loom as monstrous Godzillas, breathing fire and destroying anything in their path.
Mr. President Obama has from the outset of his administration catered to the great banking institutions and international corporations, while encouraging ordinary Americans to spend more and save more. He surely understands the insanity of his approach.
He bids America to await the moment when all the American money that he has given Lloyd Blankfein at Goldman Sachs, et al, trickles down to main street. "Workers of America take heart! Tomorrow is just a day away!" he seems to be saying. No one has ever told President Obama that "tomorrow never comes."
American money is invested by banks and international corporations in the safest possible interest-bearing securities and accounts. Why should they risk their boondoggle loot by loaning it to small businesses, trying to sell products and services to a bunch of near-broke citizens. Better to invest in booming China.
When the problem is a broad-based insufficiency of money in the hands of the citizens, the solution is obvious: you get them earning more money. Once they earn money, then they can save some and spend some.
How do you get them this money? First, you don't borrow it from banks or foreign nations. Second, you don't listen to the rich, ruling circles who have never provided a correct answer for insuring "the general good." Third, you order the Treasury to issue 14 trillion dollars in the form of interest-free U.S. Treasury Notes. Fourth, you begin to immediately spend this money on asset-building infrastructural construction and maintenance projects, institute a national bank with many branches and ATMs, offering checking accounts to all citizens (no savings accounts), and buy homes for interested citizens who can pay the monthly "rent-to-own" from their salaries/wages. Fifth, you have the national bank invest in promising small businesses that agree to operate solely as a domestic company. Sixth, you impose tariffs on all products entering America for sale, based on worker wage differentials, earmarking the proceeds for the Medicare fund. These tariffs would apply to nominally American international companies as well. Hence, General Electric products made overseas would face tariffs when offered for sale in America. Seventh, you "take," after fair recompense, all the nuclear energy facilities held in private hands. This will allow the government to see that enough money is spent to assure a "fail-safe" standard for each nuclear unit and properly monitor the facility thereafter. Maintenance shortcuts by private businesses would be only a bad memory.
The development of enhanced nuclear energy would allow America to "go electric" on its highways at an expedited rate. This would be needed, as U.S. government investment through its national bank to entrepreneurial electric car-makers (not to GM, Ford, et al) would soon result in numerous affordable options for ordinary citizens.
However, President Obama has neither the vision nor the freedom-from-bankers capacity to do anything but "wait for the bros" over at Goldman Sachs to decide to throw scraps from their bountiful table to the citizen dogs below.
October 09, 2011
Having just endured a 26" blizzard in my section of Northern Virginia, I was just advised about 7:00 PM that another two-day storm was imminent. Television viewers were advised to expect anywhere from 4" to 14" of additional snow between the evening of Tuesday, the 9th of February, and the evening of Wednesday, the 10th of February. In my case the current prediction was 6" to 12." Areas in nearby Maryland can expect 12" to 20" of snow. Areas 25 miles or so south of my location may have only 2" to 5" of additional snow. Therefore, in my case there may be 3' of snow or more which has been measured during the seven-day period ending Wednesday, when this latest "snowstorm" subsides.
The storm was sufficiently bad that my area had no Internet service from Friday evening through Sunday evening. A call to Cox Cable established that they were working desperately to repair the cable transmission by Super Bowl 44 kickoff. This is perfectly understandable, as irate football fans might migrate in droves to dish television, Verizon, or however else they might obtain reliable television/Internet service. Furthermore, tomorrow, viewers were advised by tv weather people, high winds up to 40 miles per hour may rip about my area. This conjured images of fallen trees and broken limbs wiping out electric lines. That could be chilling.
According to the radio news reports and also tv reports, the airlines had cancelled flights out of local airports. Due to closed government offices, businesses, schools, etc., the traffic flowing along the snowy roads were relatively light.
Considering all these matters and factoring in the power that President Obama can bring to bear for special, localized projects, I thought that this would be an excellent time to invite the leaders of the World Community to Washington, D.C. to discuss the urgent problem of global warming. The objective conditions would limit press intrusion, make security easier, and, when it was all over, the President could lead the World Leaders to the White House lawn for a good old-fashioned, snowball fight. When the World Leaders play together, then they stay together.
Andrews Airforce Base outside Washington, D.C. could easily make ready its airstrips to accommodate the flights from overseas. The National Harbor hotels and convention facilities could be pre-empted by presidential edict. Non-World Leaders could be escorted to suitable alternate facilities at some Virginia or District of Columbia site(s). Pet scientists and eggheads from around the world could also come to add factual evidence about global warming to persuade the most skeptical minds. Each World Leader could bring six. However, the White House snowball fight would be strictly limited to World Leaders.
February 09, 2010
Ever since the great assembly in Copenhagen, Denmark to discuss global problems, most prominently that of global warming, that latter issue seemed to have been - excuse the expression - put on ice. What gives?
Even President Obama and Michelle flew to Copenhagen to lobby the representatives of the "world community" on the urgent need for action. More than a few weeks have passed since then, and there has been no further alarming pronouncements.
Desperate for the latest knowledge, I attempted to contact former "world community" spokesperson, Condoleezza Rice. I had no luck.
Cynical friends have opined that the fact that much of North America, Great Britain and Europe were dealing with unusually cold weather made jeremiads about "global warming" seem oddly inappropriate. Some viewed such preaching questionable at any rate. Given the tons of snow that fell upon Great Britain and straight across to Germany and beyond, warnings of global warming and melting Polar Regions seemed downright ludicrous.
No wonder, then, that the Great Chill gave birth to the Great Silence. However, this issue is not likely to go away. To quote Alexander Pope:
" 'Tis with our judgement, as our watches; None go just alike, and each believes his own."
January 25, 2010
The word coming out of the White House and from the media is that there are signs that the economy is "picking up." This suggests that great banking institutions will cease borrowing money at very lay rates from the Fed and investing that money in Treasury bonds at higher rates, guaranteeing a handsome profit even a bank couldn't "blow." Gorged now on easy money, they will begin to "eye" loans calculated to bring in much higher profits.
However, the lending may be initially selective. Not all sectors of the economy ascend at the same rate. Yes, diversity operates in the economy too. In the American system surviving banks lead the way, followed by surviving corporations operating in lucrative niches or in non-discretionary product areas. Slowly, the bull emerges from the pit.
President Obama has carefully explained that it was "W." fault that things got so bad. There is some reason to credit this assertion.
"W." has remained mute on his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
I think that splitting the "bill of ills" is fair. "W." must take the blame for the second Iraqi invasion. Barack must accept the blame for the endless Afghanistan War. "W." must take responsibility for the bulk of the incredible debt incurred over the last ten years. Barack must accept responsibility for the Great Depression-like levels of unemployment.
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley can shoulder the blame as the leading elements in the derivative poison introduced into the world economy.
I learned from an "expert" commenting on jobs in the economy that there were signs that skilled jobs in technical areas were hiring. This commentator rued the fact that most of our American unemployed happened to have worked in areas not much needed in the New American Economy. For them the prospects don't appear so rosy. However, for the worker with a masters in engineering AND in cyber-ciphering (or some such), there were great opportunities.
It's funny how these fields are never mentioned by guidance counselors in schools. Perhaps they feel that they aren't realistic options for ordinary students.
Recently, Dell Computers announced they were closing down their factory in the Carolinas and opening facilities in Mexico and China. It only makes sense to go with the winners.
September 26, 2010
Several blogs ago, I voiced the opinion certain that President Obama needed to get money to small businesses. This was only one of my suggestions for getting money directly into the hands of the general citizenry. Small business has for years been the major source of employment for working Americans. Hence, it was only common sense to provide "dividends" or outright grants to small business to halt their perilous slide toward their extinction.
The money would return in taxes. But before that occurred, the money would have been banked by small businesses at the bank of their choice. This would have helped the smaller banks who are most directly related to small businesses, while lessening the pressure on them to "call in" loans. The latter situation only worsens an economic slide, as money is extinguished from circulation in the process of calling in the loans.
Alas, President Obama chose to first help the dinosaur mega-banks, beginning with Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.
Both of these were led by people who were politically influential. The financial support of Barack Obama's campaign by "bigwigs" at Goldman Sachs would naturally be "remembered." The AIG rescue again centered on an influential VIP of business. Good Gussie! The assumption of a political quid pro quo is utterly mundane. However, I lobbied by means of my blog for the general citizenry first, as well as small business. Emphatically, I opposed putting the interests of mega-banks first.
I believe that I've lost every fight I've ever engaged in. No matter! Why? Because I have been right. If being right isn't motivation to continue, what would be? Money? Sadly, for many the answer is just that. Mega-banks are dominated by this sort. For me the lure of an idea trumps the ability to buy things I don't need nor even have the time to enjoy.
However, money does bring political recognition and may bring power as well. Speaking of motivation, Dr. Henry Kissinger stated decades back that "money was the best aphrodisiac." Is Dr. Kissinger's "days of aphrodisiac bliss" over? General Jones allegedly stated recently that he gets his orders from Dr. Kissinger. There is food for thought!
The mega-banks, mega-corporations, and mega-egos all seem to constitute a "me-first" elite that is anything but wholesome for America or the world community.
I therefore applaud President Obama finally making a move to get federal funding going toward the remaining small businesses in America. For many of them it's not too late.
December 12, 2009
Living as I do within the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, specifically Northern Virginia, I have had some exposure to international, national and local politics. Usually, one of the sources of information that observers utilize are news outlets employing the printed word. This week the "rough-n-tumble" contest for governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia took an unexpected turn. The usually partisan but measured approach of newspapers and news magazines witnessed a tantrum in their ranks, when The Washington Post went "wilding" against Mr. Robert F. McDonnell. Among his dreaded flaws, according to the Post is a law degree from a law school that is affiliated in some way with Pat Robertson, the Christian Cable Network founder.
The Post did not accuse him of being a "shyster" lawyer. I am not aware that the Post has charged that he is incompetent to practice law, due either to his education or to his demonstrated abilities (or lack thereof). The Post has not developed evidence which shows that the law school in question is not accredited. The Post has not produced evidence that Mr. McDonnell failed, or cheated on, his Bar Examination (presumably administered by the Commonwealth of Virginia). Is his crime that he didn't graduate from Harvard University Law? Or is it a religious thing with the Post?
Intolerance in matters of religion has been discouraged in America for many years. Is it this discouragement that the Post fears? Is religious intolerance toward people such as Pat Robertson the "tomorrow" that the Post yearns for - and feels that Mr. McDonnell threatens?
Perhaps only The Washington Post publisher, Ms. Catharine Weymouth, can answer this question. There is an unwholesome "state of mind" at the Post. It has become overtly divisive in expressing its most profoundly held viewpoints. There is a "flighty" quality haunting its belfry, which has been let loose to inform their nightmarish perception of a McDonnell "tomorrow." Yes, it IS almost Halloween. Has Ms. Weymouth merely directed the Post to don its costume for the Virginia elections? Will the dark arts of the Post melt away before the dawn of the November elections? Or are the signs of hate more substantial and consequential than a mere Halloween pose?
Say a little prayer for this "troubled" newspaper.
October 21, 2009
As an investment gold has long been sought as a sort of survival item, which should be kept somewhere with the other items in one's disaster survival kit. It was viewed as a guardian investment against the dread inflation. Other commodities may also fit this purpose, but none has the long history of acceptance as a valuable substitute for the currency of the realm of virtually any country.
However, gold has also been long associated with crimes of theft. Perhaps the most common form of these over the years has been the "clipping" of small portions from a gold coin. These added up. It prefigured fractional banking. Theoretically, a government could allow a privileged class to "clip" money to "expand" the national currency to meet growing demand. A well known alternate option, of course, would be to send out pirates under the nomenclature of "buccaneer" to steal gold from another country (which may have stolen it from still another country or nation).
Let's face it! The nations of the world don't have a very good record for ethics or morality. The wealth of other nations has typically been "fair game." A nation doesn't earn the title of "perfidious Albion" by chance.
In the United States the record of gold as "coin of the realm" reflects the sort of criminal mischief that one might expect. As a scarce commodity, its value could be manipulated by withdrawal or infusion. Naturally, banks were in the best position to do this. Some did it "big time" and were sufficiently large to initiate "panics." The combination of sudden scarcity and of "calling in" loans by banks characterized the descent into panic by debtors. At the bottom of the panic, the buying power of gold had increased substantially, allowing those who possessed it a "once in a lifetime" opportunity. Since these panics were so lucrative for the few, they insured that there would be more of these than "once in a lifetime."
The naive supposed that the Federal Reserve Act would straighten all this out. Dah! The Federal Reserve System was planned by the biggest financiers in America, guiding by some of the richest of Europe. Wherever wolves gather, the sheep are in peril.
Many years ago, a Virginian wrote and published a paperback booklet entitled, "Mr. President, Where Is Our Gold?" I read it with interest. At the time I was the most naive sheep on the block.
One of the net events of America's combination of natural resources, industry, and involvement in European wars was the accumulation of a vast amoubt of gold bullion. Most Americans assumed that it was safely tucked away at Fort Knox. The Virginian's booklet challenged this assumption, noting that no annual audit occurred.
The last audit had been under President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953. Since then, no public accounting.
Forced by a swelling curiosity, a woman, holding some position such as Secretary of the Mint, or the like, surrounded by friendly media, opened one of the many vaults which held the nation's gold. "Here it is," she beamed to the media cameras. Non-media observers thought the color of the "gold" bars was funny - it was not quite right.
To this day there is great suspicion that "criminals within government" have managed to "shanghai" the national gold bullion. Where the gold went no one knows. It is known that the French and some other nations began to demand gold bullion in exchange for the U.S. dollars that had collected through trade, etc. This eventually led to Richard Nixon severing the link between the U.S. dollar and convertibility into gold.
At that point all Americans should have become suspicious of our leadership in regard to finance.
Now, it seems, the entire world is becoming suspicious of our leaders and financiers, especially the likes of Goldman Sachs, which has been one of President Obama's biggest supporters and advisers. Consider:
"The gold scandal first surfaced two years ago when millions of dollars in 'gold' at the central bank of Ethiopia turned out to be bogus. What were supposed to be bars of solid gold were nothing more than gold-plated steel. The bars the Ethiopians allegedly received were so obviously phony - gold-plated steel weighing a few pounds less than half of what each bar should weigh - that a few experts speculated the Ethiopian bankers knew that they had been ripped off and were simply trying to pawn it off on South Africa. It didn't work, and the South African banks returned it." [American Free Press,Feb. 15, 2010, Issue 7, page 4]
I believe that small episode demonstrates the descending ethics in international finance. It was not the only incidence of "funny" gold bullion. Consider:
"This leads us to 2010 and the mysterious report concerning phony gold bars dating to the Clinton administration some 15 years ago. As we reported in the Feb. 1 issue of American Free Press, the Chinese government discovered it had been swindled last October after analyzing nearly 6,000 gold-plated tungsten bars received from the U.S. that had reportedly been stored in Fort Knox.
"The chief suspects immediately became Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan and Lawrence Summers, all top U.S. financial officials during the Clinton administration and all strong supporters of Israel, undoubtedly spawning the account about the real gold from Fort Knox having been secretly taken to that country.
"[Gold expert Theo] Gray added that such 'top-quality fake London gold delivery bars' would cost thousands of dollars apiece to produce because such a bar has a considerable amount of real gold in it.
" 'You'd still make a nice profit considering that a real one is worth closer to $400,000,' added Grasy. 'A lower-budget version could be made. Such a bar would still feel and sound right and be only very slightly underweight, while costing less than $500 to ptroduce in quantity. It wpould not pas X-ray fluorescence, and whether it passes a chemical test would depend on how thick the electroplating.' " [supra]
Now, it seems to me that such doings are entirely in the spirit of gold clipping, which I mentioned above. Any international currency is certain to be manipulated by the likes of George Soros, who is a sort of modern buccaneer enriching the Queen of England among others. [She had entrusted a billion dollars with him to "increase and multiply.] But the story of fake gold doesn't end with Ethiopia and China. Consider:
"Amid international accusations that U.S. officials in the Clinton administration replaced gold in Fort Knox with phony, mostly-tungsten bars that were later shipped to China and other olaces yet unknown, a German refinery has now discovered that it has received a bogus 'gold' bar as well.
"The video proof was shown on the German television station ProSieben that ran the news story covering W.C. Heraeus in Hanau, Germany, the world's largest privately owned refinery.
"In the story, Wilfried Horner, head of the gold foundry, shows a 500-gram bar (16.0755 tro ounces) received from an unidentified bank. The bar had the right physical dimensions to be an authentic gold bar, but one of the Heraeus employees suspected something. After the bar was cut in half, the TV audience could plainly see that the dark insides were tungsten, with only a coating of gold on the outside." [supra, March 29, 2010, Issue 13, page 5]
There are expert counterfeiters in certain locations and among organized criminal groups. One wonders if the U.S. may be doing this itself, or, as with the C.I.A., contracting with known criminal groups who were known to have expertise in phony gold bullion. However it goes, there seems to be little doubt that the U.S.A. continues to be plagued by criminals in high government positions. Further, since the U.S.A. is not the only place where ethics in government is low, does this prefigure massive international swindles as corrupt governments vie to cheat each other?
In the articles cited above there was a paragraph noting that the Rothschild firm that has been on the London Gold Board since its formation, was "withdrawing" from the gold bullion business for the time. This suggested that one of the most sophisticated companies in the world may believe a great scandal is inevitable regarding gold bullion and doesn't want to be caught up in it.
In regard to America and its representatives, one cannot help but think of Pogo, the old cartoon strip, and its legendary comment: "We have met the enemy, and they are us."
April 04, 2010
With Obama Economics now solidly in place, what can the average American citizen expect ahead? Certainly, politicians and press will sing optimistic duets, and, therefore, there will be an inclination to be positive about matters. Still, upon sober reflection, it appears that the buying power of the dollar is going down and that taxes are going up. If true, then the average American is going to be spending basically on basics. There won't be too much "free" money to go elsewhere. This should be the natural result of spending several trillion dollars of borrowed dollars to stimulate the economy and achieving success thereby. Uncle Sam has played the role of a "Candy Man," and we all feel good - for a little while. Hey! Maybe we'll need another hit, doncha know?
With all that interest to pay on the borrowed money, the "loan sharks" are going to want their "vigorish." Where can Uncle Sam go for that money? To another "loan shark?" Not likely, but not because he's unwilling to go; at some point the lending purses will close. He is going to his own "bad boys" (IRS) to get the money he needs to pay the interest on his debts. The result will be that taxes are going up, probably across the board, and more audits will be made. The returns from such audits should break all IRS records. The IRS may well hire a boatload of new people for this purpose.
With many of America's former jobs now situated in various nations overseas and with many domestic employers, even in the less-well-paying service sector, laying off workers, free spending from the American people seems to be unrealistic. Yet, Mr. Obama's "money doctors," politicians generally, and the press assure Americans that the terrible state of the economy is the people's fault for not spending - and also for not saving. Crazy? Surely you do not think that they are going to shoulder the major burden for the economic wreckage?
Years of "Free Trade" have annihilated broad, deep areas of industrial America. The citizens were told that we were unloading polluting, heavy-handed industries - sometimes likened to dinosaurs - for high-tech, intellectual enterprises. The latter are also migrating to overseas locations. Recently, I chatted with a man in India about a problem I was having with my computer. Such events are common nowadays. The glorious "It's a small world after all" praise of the course which has been set for the American Ship of State does not speak to the possibility that in the "world community" the Americans may find themselves born "on the wrong side of the street."
Mr. Obama's team of “money doctors” seems to believe that the worst of the disease is now past. The entirety of the world's economic system will probably not collapse into a black hole of debt. By adroit use of "monetary Viagra," the money doctors believe that Uncle Sam's "manhood" has been saved.
What if Uncle Sam's romance with his trading partners went cold, because his "vigor" had just melted away? What if the economic implosion picked up steam? In that scenario, money would be scarce. Then the rich would get richer, as they buy up "fire sale" properties, which must be unloaded by desperate people trying to avoid their own personal collapse. Overall, money is scarce. How is Uncle Sam going to pay for all the trillions of dollars of debt newly entered upon?
Usually, under these kinds of circumstances, an American president thinks of distracting everyone by engaging in a major war. Iran is right there. A nation such as America, that has energy issues, might think of warring against a "wicked" nation, or nations, defeating them, putting puppet regimes in place, and then saddling the defeated nation with very generous allotments of oil to the U.S. (and to its allies) as reparations. After all, the wages of sin are reparations.
Mr. Obama is a man possessed of exceptional oratorical abilities. His words are assuring. Yet, they are like a "Potemkin village" - a facade hiding reality; there is nothing behind the glorious words.
Caveat emptor.
August 26, 2009
Once again, President Obama is pushing hard for a massive new law to provide an embracing medical care package for Americans. Personally, I'm for a comprehensive national health system that is run by the federal government. As I see it, the federal government should make health and not war. One thing I'd like to see is the construction of rational hospital facilities throughout the country. This should be done on the massive scale that President Eisenhower and his congress used to construct the interstate system.
In my view one of the problems with American medicine is the "for profit" hospital system. If the federal government built, owned and operated/supervised the hospitals of America, they could rent the use thereof to physicians and skilled nurses. The whole pharmaceutical and medical supply system would come under federal supervision with stated maximum earnings above cost for their products. Furthermore, all physicians and patience at these facilities would be offered a limited insurance by the federal government. A law on this issue would instruct all judges to limit any claim to the maximum the federal insurance system allowed. Physicians’ would pay a modest fee for this insurance which would be included within the general fee charged physicians by the federal government to use the facilities to treat their patience.
This would not end "for profit" hospitals, which physicians, insurance companies, patients, pharmaceutical companies and hospital supply companies, etc., could opt for. However, the benefits that accrued to those who used the federal health system hospitals would not obtain for those who opt for the private system. The latter would be mostly Republicans and rich people.
My vision of a proper health system isn't President Obama's vision. I don't think that my system would require “million-jillion” sentences to express its intent. There is a constant danger in any large legislative act passed. Within the massive complex of clauses in these monsters may often be found non-relevant directives that have the effect of injuring the Bill of Rights. Already, in our time, there are many important politicians and thinkers who view the Bill of Rights as "quaint" and not suited to an "inter-connected" world.
Such people, aware that there are still a few defenders of citizen rights as stated in the U.S.A. Constitution's first ten amendments, hide their nefarious hearts' intentions in a sea of words. As Mao Tse-tung observed that the people were the sea, and the communist were the fish, so "moderns" view massive verbiage as the sea, and their revolutionary clauses as the fish. These should be sought out and expunged.
However, the "hurry! hurry!" urgings of President Obama make legislative scrutiny less likely. The Democrats chant: "Just do it!" Does this rush inspire confidence? The fault for slowness rests with those who made it massive. Massive legislature is dangerous to your liberties.
March 20, 2010
Why would a wealthy, aristocratic gentleman want to war against the West? I've given the matter due consideration and arrived at the most plausible answer. Osama bin Laden suffers from thread envy. As proof of this, at every opportunity photographs reveal that the al Qaeda “big man" has slipped into western-style camos or hiking duds. He doesn't want to wear dresses! His mother-of-all-yentas culture forces him to wear dresses against his will. Bro, he's in deep rebellion. It is true that when he journeys to the west to party down, he can and does slip into slick threads from Savile Row. That's because he thinks that Mom's not looking. The Muslim world knows. It's a downer. It brings frustration. They have to then sport long beards so no one will think they are western-style women. To prove their manhood, they turn to terror. The primary target is the hated West, which is the homeland of slick threads. Bro, it's a love-hate thing.
My suggestion is that we all back-off the triggers for an agreed period of peace. Instead of sending Pentagon warriors to wage war, let the State Department gather together several teams of expert tailors, hair-stylists, cosmeticians, decision-makers on "in" accessories, TV-talk show image-masters, and gag-writers to go to the Levant to assist Islam into the New World Order of Norman Lear America. We were informed several years ago by the Wall Street Journal that the real imperial victory of the West over the world has come through syndicated TV shows and, of course, Hollywood movies, rather than by any military action. Bankers and Hollywood are bringing the world into the same room. If we are to "party down," it can't be an endless Mardi Gras or Halloween. Mostly, kool threads are the key to the new culture (which is admittedly a bit old to Americans surrounded by it). Kool threads and great hair will determine the new pecking order.
People, grow up! You know the Muslims have an inferiority complex on this issue. Help them! The United States must organize something akin to the Peace Corps to go to the Hobo Jungles of the world and get them up to cultural-running speed. I suggest the title "Makeover Corps." Osama bin Laden should be the first Levantine makeover. He will resist at first, but deep down, you know he wants it.
I'd like to add my personal encouragement to Osama. "Get laced and down, Osama. Keep your pockets full of spending loot. Get down, Sheikh, - shake your booty! Turn al Qaeda into a fashion statement. Terrorism? Forgetaboutit!"
November 21, 2009
Sometime after the advent of the atom bomb, someone came up with the idea that the nuclear destruction system was too dangerous to be left unprotected. There had to be discrete, layered protections. No one person could "push a button" and start a nuclear World War III. Consistent with the conceptual operation of the U.S. republic, there would be "checks" built into the system.
As time went by and data had accumulated on radiation, etc., from such experiences as Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Bikini Island, the idea of environmental damage being greater then the actual explosive events. The living would envy the dead, after such a war, we were advised.
The presidents and congresses seemed to readily understand the nuclear danger, even when they knew nothing of physics. Why was it so impossible for these people to understand the perils of petroleum exploration off-shore? After all, the Exxon Valdez event in Alaskan waters made manifest the problem of oil spilled from a tanker. Why was the federal government not able to envision a "spill" from drilling pipes deep under the sea? Is this not criminal negligence?
It is not hard for congress to write a bill and enact it. There would be no problem writing a bill that required a fail-safe method(s) for shutting down an oil-well under any circumstance conceivable. It could be made the sine qua non of getting an oil lease. It would not be difficult to write a bill that penalized a company that frustrated the law by deceitful circumvention. Such penalty might include confiscation of the assets of a guilty company to defray the costs involved in halting a disaster such as has been unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico. Further, deceitful circumvention of the law should exact a series of criminal charges that at the minimum would be equal to those levied against a poor person who robbed a branch of Citibank. In the name of the People congress should force top executives to be, first of all, good citizens. Consciousness-raising may be a first step.
Isn't all this mess in the Gulf of Mexico extraordinary, when one considered the decades of concern about global warming? How numerous the scientists climbing on the bandwagon of this issue, and how scant the numbers of scientists concerned about an offshore, deepwater petroleum leak? Would it never enter any of the heads of this exalted set of gurus that a gusher might not merely ruin a beach area but travel into the Gulf Stream or other ocean current? Global warming may be deadly long term, but the befouled oceans would be a quicker doom. It would be truly ironic if the only way to seal the gushing hole in the Gulf was with a nuclear bomb.
June 02, 2010
As with many Americans, I've listened to the radio reports and watched the television reports churned out in regard to the Delta plane bomber and the suicide bombing that killed the seven C.I.A. agents. In these matters President Obama has gotten directly involved. High councils have been summoned to deliberate on these matters. Analyses have been offered privately (assertion based on probability) and publicly.
Comes now the President of the U.S.A., Barack Obama, to say in effect: "There was a failure of intelligence in our intelligence agencies and no one was to blame." Undoubtedly, the information had been gathered by our "crack" intelligence people, along with data that was gathered by our allies, which in sum contained the required information necessary and sufficient to neutralize the two terror events prior to their execution. The American public was advised that for unknown reasons the accumulated data had not engendered a well-formed view that a terror event was rapidly gathering into perilous form, and, hence, preventive steps ought to be taken.
As these individuals were - and are - well-paid government employees whose only known function is to study intelligence data with an idea of understanding potential dangers to America from its enemies, as well as potential threats to our allies, friends and others, and to bring this danger to the attention of suitable executive branch authorities, then how was it possible that no one was at fault? Individuals employed by government to protect America failed America. Was President Obama issuing a sort of "executive pardon?" Is this another case of American society being guilty, rather than a gaggle of intelligence personnel in possession of the intelligence data which revealed the potential threat and which gave cause for security warnings on these issues to be passed promptly to the executive branch?
The President explained that our intelligence people failed to "connect the dots." Are we children? Why did President Obama insult us by stating our "intelligence" agencies failed to connect the dots? "Intelligence" is not the appropriate label to employ regarding these people. They are mere bureaucrats more interested in the machinations of Dan Snyder and the Redskins football team than in facing the masses of raw intelligence data gathered continually and understanding what their import might be for our America.
Maybe our "intelligence agencies" have outgrown America. Perhaps they perceive that there are larger issues with which the "world community" must come to grips.
One cannot help wondering, if this is true, does it also apply to the President?
January 11, 2010
The recent verbal explosion in Rolling Stone magazine and its subsequent dank, oily, foul plumes of political chatter in the guise of statesmanship may take America's collective mind off the Gulf of Mexico for a few days. Dispersants have already been spread about, as high official Washington tried to come to grips with the breach. Yet, something nasty may be lurking beneath the surface of official poses.
President Barack Obama was and is a strong ally of Israel. It was and is Israeli intelligence that paved the way for the Bush Neo-Cons to attack Iraq. Yet, Iraq was never the end-game of Neo-Con strategists. Essentially, all of the Levant was to be forced into an artificially constructed "democracies" which would be led by friendlies eager to open their borders to outside exploitation. Needless to say, Halliburton, et al, were in the vanguard. There was probably an assumption that we would control nuclear development among the new democracies.
Americans, after watching many billions of dollars seemingly vanish in the reconstruction of Iraq by such giants as Halliburton, learned that they are corrupt. After America has listened to the Bush Neo-Cons lie about WMDs, distort the influence of al-Qaeda (whose titular leader, Osama bin Laden, has probably been dead for years), and scratch their heads at the persistent resistance, now learn that Iraqi, Afghani, and Irani leaders have not been honest.
If the latter have been Machiavellian in their strategies, have Westerners - especially American leaders - been forthright?
President Obama came into the presidency calling for a gradual withdrawal from Iraq and a gradual build-up in Afghanistan. He saw this host of mountains desperately seeking a meadow as a likely place for American intrusion. Although far from America, he saw importance in this land of poor and poorly educated people. Maybe, thought President Obama, we could export some IT companies there to take advantage of its cheap labor force.
Recently, media reported that there were many billions of dollars worth of valuable minerals in Afghanistan. Does anyone in America believe that this knowledge was "just revealed?" Surely, American, British and European geologists, employed by vast natural resources companies, had long ago stumbled upon these valuable veins of minerals. Oil, natural gas, abundant fields of desirable minerals sprawled across the Levant might well "get the wheels turning" in the heads of ruling circles throughout the West.
President Obama might have conceived of himself as a modern Alexander the Great. As with the Macedon hero, he would be willing to respect his vanquished foes, if they paid tribute and provided "peace-keeping" troops to strengthen his warlike path.
I believe that the ambitious Barack Obama had lost patience with the pace of victory. If he were "Great," then the failures in Afghanistan could not be his. They must be the failure of generals who had proven to be "not the right stuff." As with another of President Obama's historical mentors, Abe Lincoln, Barack was having trouble finding the winning general.
Not so long ago, General David McKiernan was removed from his command in Afghanistan halfway through his two-year assignment. This general had called for "new thinking" and a "new approach" in the war in Afghanistan. Naturally, to a president with an "Alexander the Great" complex, this must have seemed presumptuous indeed.
General McKiernan was dumped.
Parenthetically, Afghanistan has historically been a nearly impossible country to conquer. I use the word "country" more in a geographical sense than a national sense. The British at their apex of power couldn't. Genghis Khan could, but he was a conqueror - not a cadre of British administrators backed by a regiment of Redcoats. Even opium madness could not gain for the British their desired Afghanistan Mandate.
The ambitious Barack Obama, surrounded by voices little different from "W.'s" Neo-Cons, does not plan for future history books to give him bad marks in this adventure. Yet, he needed the right sort of general. The president needed victory, craved for it, and would not stand for less than victory.
General Stanley McChrystal had failed. The president and his chief advisers had decided that Afghanistan could not be secured under his leadership. McChrystal had to go.
By using diplomatic rumor-mongers and the media, the president's advisers hoped to trap the general into a resignation. If a pretext could only be found that legitimized in the public eye the demand for McChrystal's resignation, then President Obama could look him in the eye and say, "you have forced my hand, general." The president's advisers must have looked carefully at General McChrystal's civilian advisers. If one or two could be "turned" to help the president, then a trap could surely be sprung.
Since there is a likelihood that privately many officers with service knowledge of Afghanistan, as well as historical knowledge, have drawn the conclusion that it is a theater too costly to pursue, given its remote threat to the United States. Some may have thought that talking to the press might be a way of informing their fellow citizens - the voters. There must also be concern that, if the several billion dollars per month that the war in Afghanistan costs should continue, then it will create an overwhelming justification for looting Afghanistan's "newly found" mineral wealth to pay back part of the "Cost of Freedom."
I believe that President Obama had gotten plenty of unwanted feedback about the private views of several officers, forcing him to the conclusion that he would need to clean out the barracks of all who doubted the vision of Barack the Great. The itty-bitty congressman on the Hill certainly would support their conquering hero, President Obama. That would probably also mean that McChrystal will not be the last general to be forced out.
June 23, 2010
Republican & Democrat politicians claim that America is broke. This nation has taken on too much debt to fund too many wasteful projects. We've got to "get our house in order." Governors of the several states also shrug before the burden of debt they've embraced and look for a "sugar daddy" to rescue them. Everything is on the auction block - including the people - to get the money to continue scaled-down governance. Of course, we'll all have to "pull in the belt" for a while. "Cut spending!" demand stern, newly elected politicians. They all now claim to interpret the voters and "what they were telling Washington."
Frankly, these politicians are more dreadful than the economic mess.
These politicians and their predecessors made this situation inevitable when they passed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. That allowed a money trust to be created and operated by private bankers. Instead of a sovereign nation issuing its money as needed to pay for the required assets and work required by the creation of the asset, such as roads, bridges, harbors, rails, tunnels, ports, shipping, utilities, natural resources, national health, educational facilities, agriculture, energy, and the general welfare otherwise, the American people got stuck with greedy, private bankers creating money through multiple loans after fractional reserves were deducted on each. By this means a hundred dollars can be "stretched" into a thousand. I have not even mentioned the Federal Reserve's ability to merely write a check for a trillion dollars, creating the money from nothing, collateralized generally by U.S. Treasury Bonds carrying and interest burden which the citizenry must shoulder. Thus, Congress and the White House have more money to play with, and Uncle Sam has more debt to distribute among his "kids."
If infrastructural assets need to be created, have the U.S. Treasury issue positive legal tender U.S. Dollars to pay for them. The General Accounting Office would be instructed to list these purchases as "assets" because that is what they are. They would appear on the positive side of the ledger - not the negative. Why have old gas pipelines all over the country exploding because "there is no money to repair or replace?" To keep bankers happy? To comfort ignorant politicians?
Today, commercial bankers try every scheme in the blackguard's books to increase their "profits" at the cost of their "customers." How Wall Street perceives "their growth potential" is far more important than sound, just banking practices. Wall Street has more in common with Vegas than any other instution - other than organized crime.
A nation should create its own money and not borrow it from others. The money saved from payment toward the national debt could fund vast needful projects. There is no need for a nation to be "out of money" and unable to fund the replacement of pipelines or the underground placement of electrical wires.
This nation will continue in peril so long as Uncle Sam must "sell the farm" to get a dime from the bankers.
February 2011
Way to go, Mr. President! I know that winning Nobel Prizes for Peace for American presidents is as easy as "falling off a log," Norwegians have a weakness for contradictions, not to mention guilt. They are still trying to resolve the grim Grendel affair, lurking in their collective memory. The results are obvious: A U.S. president invades another country, and they become frontrunners for the Nobel Prize. As with the Grendel "thing," they are trying to see beyond the facts of the matter to the rosy vision beyond.
Mr. President, you are not to feel guilty or unworthy. The Nobel Peace Prize doesn't go to anyone for their achievements; it is "cheerleading" for a game in progress. These are "best wishes" in your work of drawing the world together in peace by means of the "military sciences."
Mr. President, your wisdom is at one with the great political leaders of our times. Mao Tze-Tung had declared that the "people are the sea" and the "communist revolutionaries are the fish." Unfortunately, as you know, terrorists can also play the fish. Your decision to evaporate the water can only be "hailed," as a triumph of military science in pursuit of peace.
Mr. President, your actions in the Levant are consistent with the worldwide aspiration for true democracy. In this you are now an acknowledged leader. With your noble vision, aided by your wise counselors at international law, you have begun choosing the democratic leaders that will be the future patriarchs of these emerging democracies. One day soon, they will take their rightful place among the democratic leaders of the world in the march for collective progress and universal peace. How can hunger and suffering stand against our very own Ozimandias?
Mr. President, in you we come "full circle," and "loose ends" are fading from the memory of a world, which will soon be at peace. We prize you!
October 10, 2009
The recent news coverage about gangs of pirates operating around the Horn of Africa call to mind that terminology is critical to explain actions and reactions. To most Americans the issue is pretty clear: Some form of theft and accompanying violence in international waters by hoodlums in boats. This justifies the use of force to liberate persons and property, to restore the "freedom of the seas," and to punish the malefactors. After all, sending American Marines to Tripoli to rout pirates in that North African locale in the early 19th Century was part of our national heritage. There is a Marine "fight song" that alludes to "the shores of Tripoli" and that episode of "pirate-bashing."
President Obama and our recent political regimes prefer to work as part of a "world community" and therefore are, likely as not, inclined to put together a naval task force of many colors (flags). There would be no problem in rounding up representative naval forces from Great Britain, France, Italy, Greece, Japan, Argentina and other marine powers. Whether or not the pirate gangs are well identified is another issue unknown to the layman in such matters. Certainly, marine troops must be landed to put the quietus on these cheeky bandits.
That's the way many Americans might look at the matter.
How do the pirates look at their actions? Why are they doing the piracies?
Certainly, money is a primary issue. The implication is that these pirates don't have any, or much, money. Are these seaways "fished out?" Were these fisherman once? I can't say - but it is possible. There are reasons to suppose that the "Horn of Africa" is a poor, largely jejune area. Finding a way to survive may not be "a piece of cake." Land areas that can be cruel to those who try to live in them may induce in such people a hard, even cruel, approach to life. Crime can pay. Therefore, one need only develope a new term for an old crime to justify and "launder" the planned action(s). This process may lead to grasping energetically at revolutionary doctrines, radical religious doctrines, et al, to make the actions taken, if rightly seen, altogether proper, moral and humane.
When I consider these African pirates, I cannot help but to think of the old "Robber Barons" that forced travelers on certain rivers in Europe, such as the Seine, to pay a "toll" to proceed safely along their way. Those who did not might be assaulted by boats or bombarded by cannon, or both. There was a kind of "travelers tax" imposed.
Now, this idea has not gone away by any means. The District of Columbia's political regimes have for more than twenty years tried to impose a "commuter tax" on residents of Virginia and Maryland. They have not succeeded yet, but, with statehood, they might well pass such a law.
The District of Columbia's political regimes, frustrated in their attempts to gain more "moolah" to spend well or foolishly by means of a "commuter tax," then turned to the "camera on every corner" strategy to increase the income from "speeding tickets." By setting unnatural speeds and employing quick light changes, these cameras have brought in a lot of loot for the Mayor and City Council to mispend. The AAA Organization even had a spokesperson employ the term "speed trap" to describe the District of Columbia. These cameras can be useful in expanding the revenue base by mailing "jaywalking" tickets to offenders and, potentially, by other natural or ingenious rationales for revenue expansion.
All this leads back to the pirates of northeast Africa. Rather than attacking them with violence, why not allow them to set up "toll bouys" at sea which include cameras that can identify a ship. A monthly "Toll Bill" could then be mailed to the ship's owner(s)? Similarly, "speeding at sea" in the area of the Horn might earn the "scofflaw" shipowner a "marine speeding citation." More developed technological countries could advance the former pirates the necessary and sufficient equipment, based on anticipated income. The Horn of Africa would become, as with most progressive countries, regulated. Some of the poor people in the area of the Horn would have a new, honest source of income. Role models would be created for the youth.
Rather than tax the citizens of "wealthy nations" (typically translated as taxing the poor of wealthy nations) for the purpose of directly providing aid of a charitable sort to distressed people in poorer areas of the Earth, why not give them a little monopoly upon which to build a base for an expanding, progressive economy? All one needs to do is expand the definition of natural resource to include these "artificial" resources.
Can't pirates develop by means of "quantum leap," social evolution into Post-Modernist Administrators?
April, 2009
While listening to a news report around the 13th April, a learned individual provided information to the effect that the Pentagon planners had considered recent times dire enough to continence a "world economic collapse" scenario. Perhaps it has been finally realized that the great banks and investment companies are possessors of weapons of mass destruction. Since debt is their primary "product," as well as banks' primary weapon of international intimidation, they have amassed considerable leverage.
Now, let me make clear that in terms of America, the great banks are few in number but control upward of 80% of total bank reserves. They are the great "money creators," using deposits from the Federal Reserve, federal government, and other depositors to make theoretically infinite numbers of down-tier loans. These loans are denominated in United States Dollars. They have no physical reality. What has no substance can vanish quickly or be "reborn" as something else. In films these are usually monsters. In the political economy they are derivatives.
These great banks and investment groups may also invest in Treasury Bonds, state bonds, international bonds, or in packages of debt instruments known as derivatives. What they issue as a loan to a borrower is "money." It is so denominated and so employed. Through the "miracle" of fractional banking and the Federal Reserve System, perhaps 90% of this "new money" (a bank loan to a borrower) can be loaned to another borrower, once deposited. What that borrower received as a loan is denominated in U.S. Dollars and so deposited somewhere in the banking system.
This process is repeated as long as rationally feasible. It is most pronounced during "bubbles." A controlled deflation of this bubble may eventually achieve a certain state of banking sanity. An uncontrolled one is a frightening implosion of the structure of conceptual money. Such money without substance vanishes fast. The political economy is in big trouble, and pundits and sages talk of a Great Depression.
Although "conservatives" laud the "capitalist system," our system is 99% credit. Derivative debt alone has been estimated at something in the order of $56 trillion. These credits are "promises to pay" that typically translate to be the coerced labor of the general mass of people, due to the fact that their labor is the ultimate collateral. That is the hidden meaning of national debt. That most nations are led by traitors to the general population, which is the nation, is certain. Otherwise, there would be no such system. A course of action that will lead to massive bondage in the future doesn't seem to be Lincolnesque to me.
American leaders always help the great banks first in times of great deflation, as loans implode into nothingness and "money" vanishes. It would be simpler and more productive to send money directly to the people to deposit in local banks, and to let relentlessly mismanaged banks such as CitiCorp collapse. It would be simpler to send free grants of money to small businesses than to the inept "great banks." Let small businesses deposit the checks in the banks of their choosing. Issue the interest-free money directly from the Treasury to small business and adult Americans and the national debt would not increase; it would decrease as real money entered the system. The end of "funny money" and the return to Treasury issued, interest free dollars, wedded to an end to fractional banking, would be the beginning of "the Great Society." Let there be national reserve banks for the people in every state, not Federal Reserve Banks for the privileged.
All forms of debt are international. It is true that gold is - or might be - internationally accepted, if the leaders of the world's nations allowed it unhampered movement. However, only debt is given this "courtesy."
I do not advocate gold as a national currency. I advocate a closed domestic currency that is one hundred percent computerized, that is issued directly by the Treasury, that works in conjunction with national banks throughout the states, and that are accessible by debit cards issued by the Treasury to every citizen. Since usury would be outlawed, all bank accounts, including the federal government and state governments, would be checking accounts. Money would be spent into the economy by the Treasury, persuant to needful legislation, such as building roads, bridges, trains and rails, merchant ships, harbors, dams, stocking natural resources for sale to private enterprises, building and operating utilities, waterworks, and so on. Once the money liquifies the political economy, various enterprises may be entered into by those who wish to realize a dream. This is a society of plenty. Willful men cannot control people who are independent of their purses.
The power of a debt system is that a few at the top of the debt pyramid can control the entire lower system. It is good for the "hidden masters," unless the whole thing collapses like the Tower of Babel.
An interesting aspect of all this is that, although debt is international in its nature, knowing no boundaries, the various Lords of Debt may be a gaggle of provincial interests who speak the language of globalism but who harbor distinctly limited visions of its final manifestation. They may fall apart at the end. I expect this to occur between 2020 and 2025 A.D.
Therefore, I expect this nation and the world to crawl out of the hole into which all have fallen. There should be another fourteen years before final disaster. I assume that no fundamental changes to the global system of debt-engendered money will occur. As substantiation of this, I believe that I heard correctly on the radio that Goldman Sachs, formerly a preeminent investment bank, whose partners tended to support Barack Obama "big time" in his election race, had profits for the first quarter of one billion dollars. Quid pro quo? I can't say, but this datum is consistent with the American leadership's First Rule of Governance: Bail out the Big Banks. Usury on debt is unGodly, so the present world establishment will in the end become the Great Adversary.
Does that scare you?
"Fear not, little sheep..."
April, 2009
