Homeland Security and 1984

There isn't a thing I respect about Homeland Security.  Certainly not the departmental name, nor its utility, nor what it represents.   Homeland security is a colossal waste of the taxpayer's money, it's a disgrace to America and its ideals, and it serves no purpose but to propagandize the American public that if not for Homeland Security we would be in some sort of dire straits.  What absolute bunk!

While the terrorist attack of 9/11 was certainly tragic and unfortunate, it was not an attack on American soil similar to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, in which Japan had a real air force, a real army, a real navy, munitions, monies, and desire to take war to the USA.   The terrorists of 9/11 were very successful in their mission but hardly a continuing threat to our sovereignty, our country, our principles, or our people and haven't been so since 9/11.

George Orwell's dystopian novel, 1984, was incredibly far-reaching, far-seeing, and prescient, and we owe an deep debt of gratitude to George Orwell for showing us the future that we should be actively opposing.  Unfortunately, though, Big Brother is here today, alive and well in our Department of Homeland Security and Big Brother isn't going away anytime soon.

For our protection we are told that we need cameras so that we can always know what is going on around us, and Homeland Security is quick to point out to us anytime those cameras are successfully used to prosecute notorious criminal acts such as the Boston Marathon bombing.  This is done purposely to send a direct message to the general public that Homeland Security is here to protect us and that we should be grateful for this vital protection.

In America, we are always in a state of war whether domestic or foreign.  For instance, we have the ongoing war against drugs, allowing the United States to continually beef up on more military weapons and personnel in order to protect us and to eradicate this scourge which we have been fighting since 1971.  Our longest international war is against a foreign nation far from home, impoverished, under-populated and destitute, but America keeps fighting Afghanistan year after year since 2001.

Homeland Security delights in selling the story that if not for Homeland Security we would have been attacked again and again by terrorists on our soil with thousands of Americans either lying dead or injured.   Homeland Security would have you believe the lie that because of its monitoring of Americans that it has saved thousands of lives, of terrorist attacks thwarted or prevented.  The more that the public swallows lies such as this, the more lies we will surely get.  While it is conceivable through all of its meddling in private American business, that Homeland Security, may have done something to prevent an attack that in of itself hardly justifies its existence.  If America by its acts, by its laws, by its behavior, no longer is the country of true liberty and the pursuit of happiness, than America has already ceased to exist and is just a shell of its former glorious self.

Homeland Security is un-American, detrimental to Americans, and a disservice to the traditions and honor of America.  It isn't needed and it isn't wanted.  America is too powerful of a nation to collapse from without; our only fear lies within.

Does Mexican Trade Matter?

The United States is bound by two big countries, Mexico and Canada.  Even though Canada's square footage is approximately the same as the United States, its' population pales in comparison though, with Canada's total population of approximately 34 million peoples, is less than California at 37 million.  While Mexico is the 14th largest country in the world, it is far smaller than the United States in both land size and population.  Mexico has about 110 million residents as compared to the United States which has over 313 million residents.

The most meaningful difference between these three countries though is per capita income.  Whereas Canada's per capita income is slightly ahead of the United States, Mexico trails far behind both countries at a mere $10,059 per capita, as compared to the United States per capita income of $51,704.  It is this huge income disparity between our countries and also the fact that within Mexico there is a massive underclass that barely makes enough to live on that creates the desire for the better opportunities that the USA provides.

I do believe that it is fair to say that most Mexicans would prefer to remain within Mexico if they could find the opportunity to make adequate and consistent wages to support themselves and their families.    Mexico currently has a minimum day wage in which in the highest paid out of the three zones, that minimum is about 65 pesos a day which equates to a mere $5 per day.   These low wages and Mexico's proximity to the United States, makes Mexico the ideal place for American companies to utilize for manufacturing.

America should make it part of their national policy to trade with and to work in conjunction with Mexico as much as possible.  A stronger Mexico makes for a stronger America and with America being the largest nation by far in gross national product, we have an obligation to see that our closest neighbor is able to benefit from our size, our power, our money, and our example.

For instance, Mexico should be our #1 import choice for items that because of their size or other reasons are expensive and time-consuming to transport.  Mexico offers the advantages of proximity, cost, and time savings.  Additionally, while working with Mexico to produce finished-goods, because of our respective locations, Mexico will be more likely to use USA items in the creation of the finished products because of our proximity to Mexico which helps our overall trade imbalance.

The United States trades all throughout the world but it is Mexico that the United States should take a special interest in.  It is right next door to us with easily accessible roadways into America, a willing labor force that can be trained and utilized, a population that is underemployed, and desirous of employment.  If Americans are so concerned about keeping Mexicans out of the United States, we need only take the steps to give them opportunities within their own country that will mutually benefit both nations.  

Common Core

Common Core is rotten to the core.  This is government's massive conformity move to take away local school board authority along with parental authority, and replace it with national educational standards that are antithetical to American ideals and its dreams.  This is a nation of fifty states and of numerous communities and cities.  Part of what makes America great is its diversity, its heritage, and its individualism.  It is a wonderful thing for a group of concerned citizens, or concerned parents, or concerned people in general to get together for a common cause and for common needs.  That is part and parcel of what makes a society great, the voluntary getting together of people that aspire to make things better in their community, their schools, and their society. 

I have a lot of respect for local school boards that have not been corrupted by federal monies, or federal grants, or federal interference, but strive instead to do right by the student body that they have been given the awesome responsibility to nurture, to develop and to care for.  The federal government's deep desire in having all states follow the same educational standards is a corrupting power-play to indoctrinate the youth of America, the future of America, to the federal government's way and there is no other way but their way.  That is bad business and bad politics which, if successful will end up subverting the authority of the parents along with marginalizing local school boards. 

The education of one's children has historically been a parental responsibility.  In colonial times, it most definitely was, and home schooling was thereby the norm, in conjunction with schooling created by local government and its own townspeople.  Common Core ignores these historical precedents by believing the lie that one national educational system will work for all of America, all of the time.  If this indeed was true, that one size fits all, in every circumstance, and that therefore this would initiate a new revolution of a brave new world, it would have its merits.  But it's not true, it's a lie.

The federal government does few things right, and many things wrong, partially wrong, or wholly wrong.  Common Core is a mistaken idea, a pathetic reach, and a dangerous precedent, which should be slapped down.  The best education has always been one-on-one, that may be hard to find, and difficult to pay for, but there is no better way to educate a mind than a tutor to a pupil.  The next best educational system is one in which the players have a vested interest in the success of their pupils; which is any school in which there is an accounting that is done concurrent with the education provided. 

As an educational system, any educational system, gets more centralized, more bureaucratic, more about them and less about those that are being educated, the education experience itself disintegrates.  Federal controlled education is one step away from federal controlled groupthink. 

Nobody cares more about your child than you do as a parent.  As a parent, you will do things for your child that no self-serving bureaucrat would even consider doing.  The bureaucrat cares only for himself and the federal government only for what sort of utility that they can exploit from your child.  You, as a parent, care for the content of your child's character.  

Brain Injuries

All of our cognitive thinking comes from our brain, which logically should mean that we should be quite concerned about any trauma or impact directly made to our head.  Our knowledge of head injuries, traumatic brain injuries is increasing and this increased knowledge will benefit mankind as we learn more about the treatment of and prevention of head injuries.

Traumatic brain injuries will impact your life.  For instance, I have a good friend, a family man, with four children, and a steady job, in which he got into a severe car accident and received a traumatic head injury.  Now this same man that I know so well is different, he can't hold a job, and not only that he's become a troubled man and a child molester.  This change in personality could only have come about by his traumatic brain injury as it was not in existence previous to his terrible car accident. 

Recently we have read of professional football players who having suffered from repeated blows to the head have committed violent acts against themselves, against others, suffered severe depression or dementia, and fundamentally their personality has changed over the years.  Autopsy of these players have shown many to have had chronic traumatic encephalopathy.

Howard Hughes was once one of the richest and most powerful people in the world, an entrepreneur, adventurer, aviator, film-maker, and ladies man, but for the last thirty years of his life he was a far different man who had become paranoid and eccentric to the absolute extreme.  What possibly could have taken a man like Hughes in the prime of his life and destroyed him from within?

The fact of the matter is that Hughes had many tragic accidents, for instance while filming "Hell's Angels" he crashed in a small plane resulting in a skull fracture.  Later, in 1936, while driving his car he hit and killed a pedestrian.  In 1943, Hughes crashed the amphibian aircraft Sikorsky S-43 resulting in the death of two men and a severe head injury for Hughes. In 1946, while testing the FX-11 fighter plane, Hughes crashed again with multiple severe injuries.

Each of these crashes, in and of themselves, could have cause the traumatic brain injury that Hughes later exhibited.  I am always surprised that so many people are amused by Hughes' eccentricities, but don't consider as to why his personality would have so dramatically changed.  Head trauma can and will change a person's personality so that they are no longer themselves, because they are no longer capable of thinking as a rational man.

Head injuries are trickier to diagnose because the brain is hidden from our eyes.  That is why it is so important to continue to develop the tests and medical equipment necessary to diagnose correctly potential traumatic brain injuries and then to do what is possible to correct this ailment over time.  Unfortunately, the person himself that suffers the traumatic brain injury may not have the necessary cognition to know that they have a significant head injury and it is therefore vitally important that trained medical personnel take the necessary steps to address this issue in a timely and considerate manner.

Why America is Still Great

Sometimes to answer a question you have to take a look first at the opposing side of the issue.  For many people, there is still an inbred belief or perhaps an indoctrination that America is the greatest country in the world and nothing that is shown or said will ever convince these people otherwise.  In that case, you can call these folks true believers, stubborn, obstinate, wrong-headed, or just plain fools.  If the facts say one thing, yet you don't believe them, than either the facts are wrong, or wrongly stated, or misapplied, or your understanding of the word "facts" needs some serious updating.

America is not great for having the highest income disparity in the world, in which a very select elite, have enormous sums of money, while millions of impoverish people own virtually nothing.   In addition, despite this being a democracy, the country is run like an oligopoly, in which a few corporations have a tremendous influence on government policies and corporate governance.   When certain banks are considered to be too big to fail, yet others are allowed to fail, to whom do we owe this discretionary judgment?  Those decisions certainly aren't made by the people, and government bailouts, which essentially take the taxpayers money and reallocate it to industries that politicians and their lobbyists wish to protect or to enhance, are a travesty in whole, and crony capitalism at their core.

America is not great for spending billions upon billions on Defense spending for no logical reason.  There is no country or countries that could conceivably or possibly confront the United States on the battlefield.  Defense spending should be on a precipitous decline but the military-industrial complex will not short-change or short-circuit itself and apparently there is no power or powers within our government that will challenge them.

America is not great for having the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world.  Having so many people locked up is so unnecessary because the cost of incarcerating criminals is a high burden on the taxpayer, whereas for non-violent and victimless crimes, technology of today would allow appropriate government monitors to easily track the whereabouts of convicts in exchange for their being released early from their incarceration.

What made America great, why America is still great, are certain people within this country.  It is the people that made America great, not the government itself which seldom understands the very country and the principles for which it stands.  America is great, because of entrepreneurs that have great vision and desire to bring a new vision to the forefront.  America is great, because so many care about the less fortunate amongst us and donate time, money, and wisdom to so many charities and good causes.  America is great because of our freedom of thought, our freedom to pursue our dreams, our freedom to develop our ideas, our freedom to believe in God, and our freedom to not be held back by our class status or race or creed in our pursuit of the American dream.

America is still great because so many still have the courage, the vision, the work-ethic, and the desire to move forward despite or even because of the obstacles in their way.

Was Hiroshima Necessary?

On August 6, 1945, an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the primary target of the scheduled bombing.  On August 9, 1945, an atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki which was the secondary target of the scheduled bombing.  These atomic bombs killed either that day or in the ensuing weeks an estimated total of over 200,000 civilians.  While the bombs did also kill Japanese soldiers and took out some infrastructure, the deliberate and premeditated annihilation of civilians on this scale was unprecedented.

History has told us that if not for these atomic bombs, Japan would not have willingly surrendered and therefore the continuation of the war would have resulted in the death of many thousands more of American soldiers in order to bring about Japanese capitulation.  Logically, and without even a cursory review of historical documents, this doesn't make sense.  Italy had surrendered on September 3, 1943, and Germany surrendered on May 7, 1945.  Japan was challenged with a two-front war against the Russians by land and the Americans by sea, so the ending for Japan was already written in the cards.  General Eisenhower stated in 1963: "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

Additionally, there are two more important arguments in regards to the atomic bombings.  First, there was only a three-day gap between the first atomic bomb and the second atomic bomb.  That gap should have been considerably longer, which would have allowed more time for diplomatic channels to ascertain the willingness of the Japanese to surrender with terms that were acceptable to the United States.  Because of the incredible and horrible destructive power of the atomic bomb, considerations to humanity alone should have necessitated a meaningful cooling off period before the second atomic bomb was dropped.  One atomic bomb, in of itself, accomplished more than enough, there should therefore have been no rush to drop a second.

The second argument in regards to the atomic bombings is the targets of the strikes themselves.  The following cities were either primary or secondary targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, and Nagasaki.  Hiroshima had an estimated population of 300,000 civilians with an additional 43,000 soldiers.  Kokura had an estimated population of 130,000 and Nagasaki had an estimated population of 240,000.  While each of the cities had legitimate military reasons to be bombed, the nature of the bomb dropped was so in-discriminatory that the result could only be massive civilian casualties, and therefore none of these cities should have been designated as targets.  Instead, the military should have considered striking against an abandoned Japanese military base, or one of the many small uninhabited islands that surround Japan.

Chillingly though, within this, there is another reason, perhaps the real reason, why not one but two atomic bombs were dropped.  The first atomic bomb was a uranium fission bomb and the second atomic bomb was a plutonium fission bomb.  Japan became, therefore, the de facto real world test site for these different atomic bombs; the civilians killed were victims, and the warning shot was made quite clearly to our future red menace, the Soviet Union.

Warren Buffett

I always get suspicious when everyone loves the same guy, with accolades from virtually every political persuasion and mainstream media.  That just raises alarm bells with me and the only reasonable conclusion that one can come to is that someone like Warren Buffett must be extremely well connected.  And no doubt he is.

It does help that he has an avuncular look, and a sort of "aw, shucks" attitude.  Guys like that are dangerous though, because it's people that look non-threatening that can be the most lethal of all.  The fact of the matter is, while one can see investing and the business world as all sorts of things, I have a tendency to see it as a game in which there are winners and there are losers.  While I will admit there can be circumstances that allow for that win-win outcome, more often than not, one party out-wins the other and to be a consistent and proven winner in this game you're going to have to have a lot of wisdom, experience, savvy, gumption, thoroughness, desire, and probably connections.

Although the media likes to portray that you too can make the same investing decision and deals that Buffett makes this is pure nonsense.  Buffett gets deals done that you and I could never hope to obtain because Buffett has the capital to do the transactions and because Buffett is a superb negotiator. In 2008, Buffett purchases $5 billion of preferred shares from Goldman Sachs along with a 10% annual dividend.  In 2011, Buffett also purchased $5 billion of Bank of America's preferred shares along with warrants for their common shares.  Both of these deals made Berkshire Hathaway a lot of money and neither one of these deals were available to me or you.

The fact of the matter is that Buffett has the type of political connections that allows him to have the confidence to make the deals that he does.  Wouldn't you like to be able to pick up the phone and talk to the President of the United States, the Federal Reserve Chairman, or any of the top executives in the largest corporations in the world?  Buffett is going to get the assurances that he needs from the people that make policy so that he can make the best decision for his company.  Buffett is no country bumpkin, he is the insider of insiders and because his public persona is so low-key, he is the go-to guy to get deals done that quite frankly most other corporations and conglomerates just aren't going to have the flexibility or desire to accomplish.

Warren Buffett is one of the elite, one of the power brokers of the world.  Buffett makes the money, gets the deals, because he is part of the club, a member of the Bilderberg Group and who knows how many others.  Buffett is as establishment as they come, and because of his positive self-image, he can be used again and again to get things accomplished that the power brokers want to get done.  Buffett is the second richest man in the world, he's not one of us, and instead he's one of them that control us.

The REAL ID Act

In 2005, the REAL ID Act passed congress, a law that encompasses many things, but its primary purpose is to provide national standards for the issuance and the presentation of identity for state driver's licenses.  Although there has been an attempt to modify this act through another proposed law known as the PASS ID Act, this act has not been ratified by congress.

Many countries, perhaps a majority of countries have National ID acts.  The United States has two primary sources for ID:  its national social security card and our individual state ID.  The social security card does not have a picture attached to it, nor does it have an address attached to it, nor is it commonly used or is to practical to use for everyday purposes; whereas your state driver's license is commonly used as a form of identity in most everyday business transactions and it is most definitely the primary form of ID used in America.

The problem the federal government has with state issued driver's licenses is that formerly each state had its own peculiar way of issuing requirements needed for an individual to acquire a driver's license, the ID itself displayed on the driver's license varies by state by state, and each state has its ownalphanumeric system for tracking driver's licenses issued.  None of this is surprising given that this is a nation of fifty states, but for the monitoring of its citizens, this is a cumbersome burden for the federal government and therefore unacceptable to them.

The terrorist act of 9/11/2001 was the perfect storm for the government to step forward and insist that we needed national identity standards applicable to all fifty states in order to preclude and prevent future terrorists from being able to readily falsify driver's licenses or to receive them in the first place.  While there may be some truth in the above statement, there is probably more truth in stating, that 9/11 is simply used as the excuse for our national government to more closely monitor and track persons within our country.

This act, in and of itself, is basically a national ID act in which by standardizing state ID, your state-issued driver's license ID willnow be effectively nationalized, since all state databases will now share information across state lines.  As bad as the REAL ID Act is of itself, by compelling all citizens to be within a national database that correlates and combines their address, their social security number, their driver's license number, and their birth certificate, it gets significantly worse with the magnetic strip which is now mandated by the REAL ID act.

It is one thing for some flunky to take a look at your ID before allowing you to purchase alcohol, or to verify your ID before entering a club, or any other of the various mundane and myriad activities that a person does on any given day.  Most people can live with that, and don't have a real problem with providing their ID that proves that they are entitled to what they want to participate in.  Further, unless the person looking at your ID has a photographic memory or a secret camera they aren't going to be able to remember everything about you, so your identify remains semi-private.  However, with the magnetic strip on your ID and the swiping of that magnetic strip on a reader you have just given up your entire ID on your driver's license which has been recorded into a database that has been time-stamped and duly noted.

Perhaps in ten years, maybe less, it will be common to swipe your driver's license in order to enter a restaurant, a bar, a library, an office, and just about any public area.  If you like being watched, if you like being tracked, if you like being monitored like a criminal, you will embrace it. 

If you don't like it, you should rail or fight against it.

The Nixon Shock

On August 15, 1971, President Nixon authorized: "Secretary Connally to suspend temporarily the convertibility of the American dollar." What this action did in effect was to unilaterally suspend the convertibility of the American dollar from gold which had been previously pegged at the fix rate of $35 per ounce, and in return this gold convertibility was replaced with the dollar being backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Further, this action resulted in the repudiation of the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944 and thereby precluded foreign nations from being able to redeem their US Treasury assets into gold.  Consequently, this meant that the dollar had now become a fiat currency and that there was no longer anything holding back the American government from monetary fiscal restraint.

In Nixon's speech, he stated many things of which history shows he was wrong and Nixon probably knew he was wrong at the time he stated them.  For instance, Nixon claimed that the following would happen:

A.    "Halting Inflation"

B.     "American dollar as a pillar of monetary stability"

C.      "International money speculators would lose"

D.    "American dollar will be worth as much tomorrow as it is today"

E.     "Our best days lie ahead"

None of the above is true today and clearly none of the above was true immediately after the Nixon shock.  Anytime one country unilaterally repudiates an agreement, one can expect that there will be some ugly long-term ramifications.  Our global monetary system has been in disarray over the past forty-two years, suffering from erratic and persistent inflation, recession, and the booms and busts of economic cycles.

The average annual inflation rate since 1971 is 4.26%, so that $100,000 in 1971 would be the equivalent of $576.657 today.  Looking at it the other way, $1 in 2013 would be worth a mere $0.17 in 1971.  Whereas, $100,000 worth of gold, priced at $35 an ounce in 1971 would as of today be priced at $1,257 per ounce or the total of   $3,591,428.40.  Clearly, since the deliberate devaluation of the dollar, the dollar has not stabilized, has not been worth as much tomorrow as it was yesterday, has not halted inflation, and our best days look quite troubled, given the massive deficits that the US Government is presently and persistently running.

As for the international monetary speculators, they are alive and well.  In fact, these are the biggest benefactors from our floating exchange rate system.  The international monetary speculators are able to use their size, power, and sophistication to run havoc over third world nations; they undercut their democratic process, they determine how funds are allocated within these countries, they benefit the few and politically connected while punishing the many and powerless.

The dollar today is a fiat currency and it has degraded itself considerably since its introduction as such in 1971.  This is the shell game of all shell games and it can only end badly.  The dollar as we know it will not exist in 100 years.  When the fox is guarding the henhouse, it will only be a matter of time.  The collapse will come, it is inevitable, and it will be terrifying.

The lie that God doesn’t exist

Certain segments within America including the judiciary spend an inordinate amount of time, money, and resources along with producing propaganda espousing the lie that God doesn't exist.  Force-feeding this trope to the American public does a huge injustice to the founding principles of this great republic and dishonors the legacy of those that created through their blood, sweat, and tears this wonderful land of freedom.

That our own government behaves in such a manner is a disgrace to our country, and is clearly worrisome.  Why is it that so many influential people in the government, in the media, and in our universities, want to suppress God and invoke instead the delusion of a paradisiacal secularist society?  The biggest reason is that our government wants to be our god.  The bible teaches us that you can only serve one master, and our government knows this lesson all too well, and further that it can ill-afford to handle the competition.  The government wants you to believe from your inception, that you are created to serve this nation and owe obeisance to no other entity but to it.

However, once God is removed from the public square that massive void has to be replaced with something and that something is big government and media propaganda.  The problem with this very poor tradeoff is that by doing so you have sown the seeds of your own demise.  No country, no matter how great, no matter how powerful, can long survive when it believes that it no longer needs the beneficence or approval of almighty God.

Man believes wrongly in his own mind that he needs no God, that he is no less a god in of himself.  That viewpoint is absurd.  To listen to pundits espouse that they know for a certainty that there is no God, is to listen to total nonsense.  Mankind forgets God when he finds no current usage for Him, or finds that God's moral code to be too constricting, but let man find himself in a situation in which he needs God's help, and how quickly the tide turns.

A country without God is a country without a moral code.  A country that has decayed to "evil be thou my Good," is a world turned upside down, inside-out, and wrong side up.

America wants to be a nation of laws but there is only one law that all law must answer to and that is God's moral law.  There can be no other way.  Man's law vacillates through the sands of time, through corruption, ill-vision, and lesser mores, but God's moral law is the same today, tomorrow, and forever.  God's law is the foundation that any real republic aspires to live up it.  

Destroy the temple of God's law and you have destroyed the temple of your own law.  God is here in every aspect and in every facet of our lives.  He is here, even if we deny Him, ignore Him, or despise Him.  There is and always will be, one absolute: God is and always will be.

The Banks Control America

There is more than one kind of freedom.  There is freedom of thought, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and so forth.  All freedoms are important and economic freedom is of critical importance to an advanced and monetarily rich country such as the United States.  Most of our transactions in America, from our paychecks, to our bills, to our debts and to our assets are made and denominated in dollars.  In fact, take a look at your dollar bills and it states that it is a “Federal Reserve Note”.  But what is a Federal Reserve Note?  These are notes that are printed by the U.S. Treasury at the behest of the Federal Reserve Bank.  But what is the Federal Reserve Bank?  Despite its name, the Federal Reserve Bank is not publicly own, it isn’t run by the Federal government, instead it is own and backed by publicly traded banking corporations overseen by a federal board of governors that are nominated by the President. 

That means that the control, distribution, and the worth of our most essential asset, our money, is held in the hands of entities that do not directly answer to the people, additionally we have little or no influence over them, and further that their interests are not in alignment with our own.  These bankers, these elite, implement policies and goals that are to their benefit and wholly without real regard for our own, these elite bankers fulfill their lust for power and money, and their only interest in the common people is their successful exploitation of them to their maximum benefit.

While it is conceivable that the people’s desires and the bankers’ interests can be in alignment with each other and consequently not necessarily diametrically opposed to one another, that isn’t of any real concern to the bankers.  The bankers and the powerful organizations and executives that work with them are the chosen in which their only real interest is in furthering their own.  A government of the people, for the people, and by the people is not what the bankers are about.  It is important and critical that the people are kept under wraps, ignorant of their true power and purpose, and subservient to the masters that wish to control and indoctrinate them.

You might well ask, how that is so few, so very few, can control so many.  But isn’t that the entire history of the world?  Certainly, one way to keep the people at bay is to control their economic value, and their worth.  There can be no worse slavery for an educated and hard-working man than to be diligent for all your life and to find that in the twilight of your career, that your money, and your net worth has turned into essentially nothing making you effectively a serf of the state.  For recent examples of this, you need only look at Zimbabwe, Indonesia, and Yugoslavia in which each of these countries had within the last twenty years, monumental meltdowns of their monetary system.

Can a monetary meltdown happen here?  It has already started, look at the massive inflation that the United States had in the years 1979-1981 in which the most powerful country, the economic foundation of the world, had inflation rates of double-digits for three straight years!  Fast forward to present times and although our nominal inflation rate is low, the country is running massive deficits, and has an admitted national debt of over $17 trillion, with some pundits putting our actual national debt at $70 trillion or even more!

When the chickens come home to roost in America, you can rest assured that the powerful elite of bankers will profit enormously from blood in the streets and panic in the air.  The losers will be the people that worked diligently and hard to create the wealth and had it unjustly snatched from them through sophisticated financial legerdemain.

Siege warfare

When you are the most powerful and most feared country in the world with a military that is so far superior, so far advanced, so entirely complete, as compared to any other country, than there are a multitude of ways to conduct your military business.  While there is a lot to be said about simply facing your enemies and doing battle, there are other alternative ways which will cost both sides less in military personnel, civilian casualties, and military armaments.  A siege is a type of warfare that should be employed as often as it is available.  A siege properly conducted will save significant lives on both ends and is probably more humane than virtually any other alternative.

Because modern military units need access to shelter, food, and energy, taking away or impacting the enemy's access to any of these will significantly weaken them.  The type of engineering and forward thinking needed to perform these actions is well within the capability of a country like the United States which prides itself on assembling thorough and complete information.  While there are legal protocols in regards to what actions are or are not allowed in regards to siege warfare and the treatment of civilian populations, none of them are game stoppers.  The object of any siege is to vanquish the enemy by putting them into the unenviable position in which although their defensive position may be strong, they are not strong enough to attack and further they do not have the means to self-sustain themselves over an extended period of time. 

Performing a naval blockade is extremely effective in tightening the grip on recalcitrant countries.  On land, access to roads can be stymied, communications disrupted, and the like.  The objective is to get the defender to surrender without having to actually go to battle.  Siege warfare may be slow but it is also steadily effective, like a snake applying constriction. Sometimes the enemy is reluctant to recognize the futility of their situation, but an unrelenting reality will often bring clarity.

Siege warfare can also be analogous to hostage negotiations, in which you have a significant risk that innocent civilians will be hurt or killed if the paramilitary unit or equivalent was to go in with full force in which they will be trying to simultaneously protect the hostages while also taking out the bad guys.  Sometimes that is the only choice that can be made but that choice often comes with unfortunate collateral damage.

When you are in the superior position, most of time there isn't any real pressure on you that something has to be done, right then, right there.  Take away easy access to items that humans need to survive on and capitulation will come.  History has shown again and again that when the opposition loses their ability to sustain themselves, they will eventually submit.  Anytime that you can get the enemy to walk away from their entrenchments and to surrender their arms without having to do battle with them, you have succeeded in your primary mission which is to neutralize the enemy without unnecessarily endangering your forces or civilians.

Open Borders

In 2010 about 73% of deportations or "removals" as the U.S. Dept of Homeland Security prefers to call them were Mexican citizens.  That statistic isn't surprising as we share a border of nearly 2,000 miles with Mexico and the Mexican economy can't hold a candle to the United States.  The United States is still seen as the beacon of hope for impoverished Mexicans, perhaps slightly less so in recent years, but the beacon remains quite bright.  It isn't surprising, and I would call it human nature, that if you live in a country in which the opportunity to make a living and provide for your family is suspect that you would want to at least consider other possibilities, rather than a life of abject poverty.  Additionally, ten states of our present Union were either all or in part, once owned by Mexico.    Our two most populous states, California and Texas, were originally part of Mexico.   Some might argue, that's past history and not really relevant but history is always relevant and should be taken into account.

Give credit to Canada, the United States, and Mexico for signing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which was implemented in 1994.  This agreement essentially removed tariff barriers between these neighboring countries and thereby created a "free market" economy between these three North American countries.   The removal of tariffs not only reduced the cost of goods between countries, it also reduced paperwork and bureaucracy.  If the NAFTA agreement is good enough for economic reasons and benefits for all countries involved, why not take the next logical step and open up the borders between neighboring countries so that people can more easily traversed from one country to another.

The net benefit for these countries would be tremendous as there is no better trade partner than your immediate neighbor.  Take, for instance, the example of Germany in which they were torn asunder in the aftereffects of World War II in which for the first time in its history there was an arbitrary border and distinction between West Germany and East Germany.  This division into two separate nations lasted from 1945 through 1990.  Since their reunification in 1990, East Germany has modernized at a rapid rate to which its current productivity is about 80% of the former West Germany, and although their salaries are about 20% less than present-day West Germans, the former East Germany productivity in whole surpasses all other previous Communist countries in Eastern Europe.

Of course, Germans speak the same language and have been united for most of their history, but here in America, this country has acted and behaved in a bi-lingual way for a number of years.  The fact of the matter is a more prosperous Mexico would be a net benefit for all parties involved.  The more that Mexico can become a true partner with America, the greater our security, our freedom, and our mutual strengths.    Mexico has great wealth and wonderful potential which Uncle Sam can help to develop.

While campaigning for the Presidency in November, 1979, future President Reagan said: "…any person with the courage, with the desire to tear up their roots, to strive for freedom, to attempt and dare to live in a strange and foreign place, to travel halfway across the world was welcome here."  I wholeheartedly agree with his sentiments and would love to see the United States live up to its ideals and to welcome into our land all those that desire to be part of this Promised Land.

America's Longest War

I suppose if you asked most Americans which war was our longest, you might get answers such as our Revolutionary War or the Vietnam war, both of which are meaningful answers andnearly correct, but in actuality it is the ongoing war with Afghanistan that started in October of 2001.  Afghanistan?  Give me a break.  We went to war in Korea and Vietnam to help prevent or contain the spread of communism, but Afghanistan?!  We've been told that the reason we went to war with Afghanistan is because of al Qaeda.  That reason certainly doesn't seem fair to Afghanistan, or to its people, or to the people of the United States.  You should not, nor do you not, need to attack a sovereign nation for the unproven crimes of a few.   You certainly don't need to be at war with this country for over twelve years and counting.  It doesn't make any sense and it can only make matters worse.

The United States claims it is fighting against al Qaeda and the insurgents, on behalf of the Afghan people.  Really?  That seems not only highly unlikely but very doubtful in the real world.  Afghanistan can take care of its own people and its own governance and in the event that it has difficulties in ruling its people, it can call upon many resources such as neighboring countries, historical precedents, or the United Nations.  Al Qaeda was the rallying point for United States intervention into a sovereign nation and incredibly after twelve years we still haven't completed our mission.  The fact of the matter is if al Qaeda is hanging out in caves and mountains, isn't that exactly where we want them?!  Why do we need to hunt them down or to chase them if they are far away from civilian populations and their size is so puny?   If al Qaeda and the Taliban are interfering, subverting, or running government and/or paramilitary agencies within Afghanistan bordersisn't that an Afghanistan issue and not ours?  Is Afghanistan really and realistically a country that we need fear for anything?

If there are any al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan that were part and parcel of the 9/11 attack upon American soil, they should be brought to justice, and I suspect that they already have in one way or another.  Any new al Qaeda operatives created since then have a lot more to do with our meddling into Afghanistan affairs, killing civilians, disrupting their economy, and invading their country.  Besides the unnecessary destruction and deaths of Afghanistan people, we have also put our own resources and troops into harm's way.  For what?  Is the world really safer, is the United States more respected, more feared, than it was twelve long years ago, or is the United States more despised internationally with certain foreign countries that have felt our unending wrath.

Of course, the more cynical pundits believe that the Afghanistan war has been waged so that we can get access to the invaluable minerals that Afghanistan has such as gold and lithium, and a deep desire to see an oil pipeline and possibly a natural gas pipelined extend from the Caspian Sea to the Arabian Sea.  Sad to say, there is more truth in this previous sentence than anything the US administration has been shoving down our throats for the past twelve years.

The military and the Presidency

Our first President, George Washington, was General and Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, the highest military position in our land.  Grant was appointed General-in-Chief of the Union Army during the civil war and later became President for two terms.  Eisenhower was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Invasion of Europe during World War II and was elected to two terms as President.  Another nine Presidents reached the rank of either Brigadier General or Major General in their careers before they too became elected as President.   In fact, most Presidents have served in the military in some capacity or other in their lives, with only twelve of our forty-four presidents having never been in uniform.  Should such a high percentage of Presidents having been at such a high military ranking worry us?  Yes, I believe so.

While I have the utmost admiration for Washington, Grant, and Eisenhower, there is a supreme danger in any top military leader becoming President of the United States.  Our defense department today is our largest employer, has a monstrous global footprint, and a budget that is somewhere around $650 billion to nearly $800 billion, depending on what departments that you do or don't assign to the Department of Defense.  Our military is second to none, and has the power, personnel, and strength to annihilate, dominate, overturn, control, or invade virtually any country in the world in which that country will either have to submit forthwith or bear the consequences of their obstinacy.

While you can make arguments either way, that for instance the United States given its awesome power has been remarkably restrained in its use of it in foreign endeavors, or you could also argue with validity that the United States has acted as the world's bully policeman with virtual impunity; what can't be argue, is that power of that sort is truly dangerous in the wrong hands.    A man that commands respect from the military knows the military, and how to use the military, is one or two steps removed from being a quasi-dictator in our country.  If a man has control of the military, what use are our laws, our courts, or our people (especially if unarmed), to stymie the tide.

The declaration of martial law is a distinct possibility in America.  But it is also something that has to be carefully planned and thought about.  One problem that the military has is that we have a civilian police force, but the military has already been working on that.  The bridge to control the police forces of America is Homeland Security, and through close cooperation between Homeland Security and police departments all over America, there has been created a symbiotic relationship between the two.  This is critical, because it is that civilian police force which will initially give our Department of Defense "boots on the ground" in every significant city.  The government is also actively promoting its agenda of taking back Americans' right to arms, and specifically the arms themselves.  They will do anything to take back those armaments from the wrong civilians, including simply buying the arms back at any price.  Taking those arms back is an important step, not absolutely mandatory, but highly desirable.  If the government is not successful in their actions they will make it their business to know precisely where the arms are located and when the time comes they will move in a military like precision to neutralize those people and to seize control.

It can't happen here.  It can and it will.  The government wants to believe that it knows best and prefers not to argue about it.  The more power that we cede to the government and to the military-industrial complex, the tighter the rope is around our collective necks.  Great USA military leaders who understood their responsibilities and had integrity and restraint of power appear to be a thing of the past.  If General Washington was to come back to life today, he would be marginalized, compromised, or assassinated.

The Last best Hope on Earth

On December, 1, 1862, over 150 years ago, President Lincoln delivered a message to Congress in which he impressed the importance that in giving freedom to the slave, we would assure freedom for all, and concluded that "We hall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope on earth." Is the last best hope on earth, alive and true to its principles or has our freedom become compromised, corrupted, and a thing of the past?  Is America truly free?

Many people are confused about the meaning and significance of freedom in which they believe that freedom is simply the right or desire to do whatever you want, whenever that you want.  That isn't freedom at all; instead it is a form of chaos.   True freedom is far more limiting than not having the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.  We are not free to do whatever we like, or to behave any way that we desire, that would be a childish world with only cries of "mine, mine.".  Our individuality in a community implies a responsibility to that community and to a universal moral code that applies to all.   That is not to say that we as individuals give up our freedom in order to be part of the community, the choices are still our own to make, but within those choices there are consequences to man, to man's law, and to moral law.    

However, in America our real freedom is being compromised every day.  When you are walking in New York City, for example, and you are stopped and frisked for no other reason than that you fit some predetermined profile that sure isn't equal freedom, equally applied.  When you go to the airport and are randomly screened, even though you are old, crippled, disabled, and you are subjected to an intensive and invasive body pat-down, that isn't freedom properly administered, in which a rational person would not administer such a degradation and humiliation to a citizen of your stature as a needless necessary precaution before boarding an airplane.

The government butts its head into all sorts of things which are not legitimately government business.  Who we talk to, who we message, who we visit, where we go, what we do, is really our own individual business and not the governments'.  The government in conjunction with large mega-corporations wants to track and monitor all of its subjects, in the guise of safety.  This is a smokescreen, the real purpose, is to exploit us, to manipulate us, to control us, to utilize us, to make money off of us and/or to compromise us.  Our freedom to just be ourselves is now being tracked and monitored through massive databases that are controlled by entities that we have no power over.

The freedom and last best hope of earth that Lincoln referred to, was the freedom to do the things that we ought to do, to live up to that high standard of seeing that every man is a brother, and therefore should be treated as such, and further that we are all sons and daughters of God.   The government should be our servant, and our ally, it should be a fortress to protect us from those that would destroy us from the outside, and a bulwark in defending morals, and right choices within.

Should Police Ticket You for Driving Infractions?

Let's face it; the main reason that Police officers ticket you for various traffic offenses is for revenue, and not for the infraction itself being some sort of public menace to the citizen's safety.  For instance, it's late at night, there isn't a car around, and you make an illegal u-turn, I mean, what's the point of the ticket, right then, cause really it's real purpose is for ticketing people that make that illegal u-turn during heavily trafficked times of the day in which a u-turn at that intersection, for example, interferes with other cars turning right at the intersection.

Another real good reason to eliminate police officers from ticketing you for traffic offenses is the perceived threat that you feel to your liberty and to your safety when you see those blue lights flashing behind you.  An officer is supposed to uphold the law, and many do most of the time, but some do not, some of the time.  When you are pulled over by an officer, you are at the mercy of someone that has handcuffs, a firearm, and other weapons, and the law that can be arbitrarily applied against you.  All this you have to suffer for some minor traffic offense and for simply driving on a public road or just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This though could gradually change with switching the responsibility of ticketing drivers for infractions from police officers who are highly paid and replacing them with by-law enforcement officers, who are paid considerably less.  A by-law enforcement officer is a civilian working as an adjunct to a police force but is not a police officer (e.g. parking meter officer).  Because a by-law enforcement officer carries no firearm and has no direct arresting power, you as a civilian can feel more relaxed that a traffic offense will simply be treated as a traffic ticket and not be escalated to something far more drastic.

I don't believe that it's any real stretch of the imagination to take someone that is capable of slapping a parking violation ticket on your car to someone that is capable of ticketing you for running a stoplight or for not yielding or various other traffic offenses.    These by-law enforcement officers could work with a sophisticated video camera attached to their dashboard to first record the infraction and then in situations in which the offender tries to outrun the by-law enforcement officer this information could be transmitted to a nearby police officer for further action.

Utilizing by-law enforcement officers for traffic offenses, would free up more time for police officers to perform their primary duties within their communityThe budget for overtime in police departments should also decline considerably along with police officer personnel reduction due to attrition or non-hiring.    Because by-law enforcement officers will specifically work traffic offenses they will be motivated to do a good job because that is their specific job.  Since most traffic violations are minor and are not criminally prosecuted, but are simply treated as fines, this seems like a practical transition to make.

Military loves football

Football is the most popular sport in America.  It's popular in high school, it's popular in college, and it's the #1 grossing sport in America at the professional level with revenues of $9.5 billion for fiscal year 2012.  There isn't any question that football is big business and that it is beloved by many Americans.  Professional football is also the premier sport in holding its own in ratings on primetime TV week after week, and the Super bowl is the most watched event in America year after year.

There also isn't any doubt that football is the military's favorite and simpatico sport.  The military teaches unity and the necessity of individuals becoming subservient to orders commanded from superior officers without hesitation.  The military is not a democracy it is an autocracy.  The military makes the rules and creates the orders; it is therefore your job as a solider to obey these orders, not to debate the merits of them.  A good solider is a soldier that is loyal, courageous, selfless, and decisive, who works well together with a team of soldiers to carry out their specific duties or missions with precision and purpose.

A lot of the above could be used to describe what makes up a good football player on a given team, subject to the actual position that he plays.  For the offense, the quarterback would be considered its general, and for the defense, most likely the middle line backer would be its general.  In the NFL, there are no spontaneous plays, like you might have had on your school playground, with so-and-so just trying to wing it past his defender and some other player heading in the general direction of some signpost.  Every play in the NFL is in the playbook which is itself the bible that the coaches refer to again and again and again.  It is repetition, it is precise execution, and it is consistency and courage under duress that they demand from their players.  The plays must be executed "as is", sure they are contingencies that players must adjust to, but that is the nature of battle.

There are plenty of military terms used in football, such as when a quarterback is "sacked", which equates to what a military does to a city that it conquers. Also, "blitz" which is probably a shorter form of blitzkrieg; when the offensive and defensive lines meet in the middle of the field that is "trench warfare" and "field general" which stands for the quarterback directing his team on the field of action. 

The military and football go together.  Their similarities are so striking, it's no wonder that the military isn't delighted to see that football is not only popular to play but popular to watch.  Consequently, football can also be seen as a form of propaganda for the population as a whole.  Propaganda that helps to indoctrinate the population that service for your team is the same as service to your country.  Further, that the individual is swallowed up by the whole, that there is an elite head coach or president that will train you and direct your movements for the betterment of the team and its end result.

"Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country."  That is one sentiment, apropos to football, but there is a better one: " …and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."  That is democracy and true unity.

Meet the new subprime

The housing subprime crisis had a humongous rise up and a massive meltdown.  One sincerely doubts that the thinking that created the subprime crisis and the repackaging of those loans into credit derivatives markets could ever really go away.  I mean, greed just doesn't simply disappear and evaporate.  So, no doubt, the sharpest minds in the room, said to themselves, that there had to be another area that could be exploited just as well and they came up with it: our vehicles.

The biggest material asset that the typical person purchases in their lifetime is their home, and the second biggest material asset that people purchase is their vehicles.  However, there are a few important points to make: one is that a significant portion of the population will never purchase a home and therefore that means their most significant material possession of their lifetime will, in fact, be their vehicle.  Secondly, there are some people that actually spend more money on their vehicle than they do on their housing.  Thirdly, a vehicle is a very important component for most people that have a job.  If you take all of these attributes together, you will recognize that there is a huge underclass of people that need a car, that don't have good credit, and will pay whatever it takes to purchase a car.  That leads to innovation and/or exploitation.

What lenders like about cars as compared to homes is that cars are stable as compared to homes which are extremely illiquid, with home pricing that can crater a significant amount in a very short time period, so that when a home goes bad you are looking at the potential of a substantial banking loss, especially with a low down payment on that home.  Vehicles on the other hand are sold in the thousands throughout the entire United States, their historic pricing is consistent, their resale value is consistent, and with GPS being well-nigh universal, a car is very easy to find, retrieve, re-possess, store, or re-sale for reasonable fees.  The other important factors about vehicles are that they are fairly expensive and the volume that is sold each year is huge.   With all those factors taken together, cars are the prime place to be to work that subprime magic.

For General Motors Financial and its 2nd quarter of 2013, the credit worthiness of their customers was staggeringly poor, to wit, 97% of the loans were to people with credit scores of 659 or less.  While GM Financial is only about 10% of the GM loans in aggregate within its retail financial transactions,  the credit worthiness of these customers is pathetic, and the monies involved is not trivial.  In fact, according to Experian Automotive for the first half of 2013, 27 percent of loans for all new vehicles went to subprime borrowers, that is, people with credit scores of 670 or lower.  According to hotair.com, at the end of 2012, there were 6.6 million borrowers of subprime loans.  The total dollar amount of these loans for 2011 that was sold to investors was $11.7 billion, in 2012 it was $18.5 billion, and for 2013 it should rise even higher.

Greed hasn't gone away, it's only been repackaged.  It's a shell game, or perhaps a game of musical chairs, but it will too end poorly, the economy is sputtering along, and money is extremely tight in most households.  America lives and double-downs on borrowed money, unfortunately the fat lady is getting ready to sing.

Judges Overruling our Democratic Process

The democratic process should seldom be overturned by the judiciary, as that essentially leads to or creates a subversion of democracy and undermines the entire process and validity of democracy itself.  If the people are not in charge of their destiny, but in fact, are subservient to a certain judge or judges, then democracy effectively ceases to exist and are lives are no longer in our own hands, but in the hands of those who would believe that they know better, and often have agendas that are in conflict with the majority of the population.   If judges feel that they can indiscriminately work outside the rule of law, than law itself, has no effective meaning or stability.  No law, once firmly established, should be overruled without good and valid reasons to do so which must be not only enumerated but well reasoned.

On November 6, 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected to be the 16th President of the United States.  Despite Lincoln not being on the ballot in ten southern states, Lincoln received the most popular votes of any candidate and a majority of the electoral votes and thereby was elected as our President.  Before Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861, a total of seven southern states had seceded from the union.  Lincoln presciently stated in his Cooper Union Speech of February 27, 1860:  “Your purpose then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, in all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.”  The civil war was fought for many reasons, and certainly one of the primary reasons was that for those that are democratically defeated in a legitimate nationwide election, that they should never have recourse to take up arms against their own democratically and constitutionally elected government.    The people had spoken and in response the southern states on their own volition and without merit, arbitrarily overruled the democratic process.

In most cases it is very bad law, and very bad judgment, to overturn ballot results with a singular judge issuing a ruling that favors the defeated party.  Any judicial decision that overturns the people's democratic process, essentially creates a system in which it is the judicial branch itself that determines what the law is or isn't, what it should be or shouldn't be and therefore it is the judicial branch that determines what laws will be implemented, how they shall be implemented, and where they will be implemented.  This thereby becomes a very slippery slope and the more power that is put into the hands of the few, who are extremely difficult to remove from office, the easier it is for an elite judiciary to pass and execute laws that fulfill their particular vision to the possible detriment of the public as a whole.

Judges that create arbitrary law breed contempt of the law.  Additionally, rather than believing that this country needs more law, or changing law, or reversing law, or morphing law, or new law, what it does need, is less law, and more common sense for the common good.