Friday, December 24, 2010

That Bah Humbug Spirit?


This holiday season seems a little different, doesn’t it? A little less jubilant, perhaps? Maybe a bit more stoic than it has been in previous years. Many of us have had to scale back on the festivities, cut short our travel, and especially reign in the spending when compared to holidays of just a few years ago. For the most part, even among those considered to be “poor”, Americans are not very good at not doing at least fairly well. We have come to expect it as a birthright, our due prosperity to be very merry at this time of the year.  While there is much that we have lost over the last few years, this is no time for self pity or despondence that leads to resignation. We have been beat down, but we are far from beat.

We have a purpose to remember who we are and those who gave liberty, security, comfort, and life to hand us the prosperity of yesterday. Most important among them was a man who did not have in this life the luxury to fix His mistakes because He lived and died for the mistakes of others. He gave His life so that each of us could live, and live with passion and purpose. Put aside your financial concerns for the moment. Accept that you may never again earn what you once did. However you can make a point to make His Life, His Agony, His Fear, His Sacrifice worth it …earn this.  The dividends are certain, the growth potential limitless, and no one can take this investment from you as the only legal tender acceptable for this account was paid in His blood… earn it.

Monday, November 22, 2010

What can us little people do about the Fed (Part I)


"Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders."

– The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s

Dr. Ron Paul a Congressman from the State of Texas (and personal hero of mine) authored legislation with 114 co-sponsors to audit the Federal Reserve recently. Had the legislation passed there would be many, many people in our current and past administrations going jail or worse.


Ron Paul at his best…


If you look at the sub-prime credit crises, the housing bubble, the formerly frothy liquidity in our monetary system, and who ended up owning all the real properties in the end one need only follow the money. It began and ended with the PRIVATELY OWNED1 Federal Reserve Bank.

  1. Creates all our Money
  2. Directly or indirectly sets nearly all our interest rates
  3. Directly Regulates and Controls all our Banking
  4. Regulates and Controls all our Lending

That’s a lot of power, so what do we get out of it?

The Federal Reserve absorbed all of the "Toxic Assets" from the Credit Crisis!

Those so called "Toxic Assets” were really the largest transfer of property since the Louisiana Purchase and how much did the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank pay for the property... NOTHING!

They printed the MONEY to buy all of the real property! Except in this case they just made an couple accounting journal entries and robbed the nation of a trillion plus dollars in real tangible (not toxic!) property in exchange for accounting wizardry, and people think Harry Potter is amazing! But wait there is more, we’ll call these the bonus powers of the Federal Reserve…

  1. The Federal Reserve directly or indirectly controls the stock market
  2. The Federal Reserve directly or indirectly controls the Bond market
  3. The Federal Reserve directly controls the Inflation
  4. The Federal Reserve directly or indirectly controls our entire economy
  5. They are exempt from Federal Taxes
  6. The owners of this institution are completely anonymous


The Federal Reserve (or Fed) has assumed sweeping new powers in the last year. In an unprecedented move in March 2008, the New York Fed advanced the funds for JPMorgan Chase Bank to buy investment bank Bear Stearns for pennies on the dollar. The deal was particularly controversial because Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, sits on the board of the New York Fed and participated in the secret weekend negotiations.1 In September 2008, the Federal Reserve did something even more unprecedented, when it bought the world’s largest insurance company. The Fed announced on September 16 that it was giving an $85 billion loan to American International Group (AIG) for a nearly 80% stake in the mega-insurer. The Associated Press called it a "government takeover," but this was no ordinary nationalization. Unlike the U.S. Treasury, which took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the week before, the Fed is not a government-owned agency. Also unprecedented was the way the deal was funded. The Associated Press reported:

"The Treasury Department, for the first time in its history, said it would begin selling bonds for the Federal Reserve in an effort to help the central bank deal with its unprecedented borrowing needs."2

This is extraordinary. Why is the Treasury issuing U.S. government bonds (or debt) to fund the Fed, which is itself supposedly "the lender of last resort" created to fund the banks and the federal government? Yahoo Finance reported on September 17:

"The Treasury is setting up a temporary financing program at the Fed’s request. The program will auction Treasury bills to raise cash for the Fed’s use. The initiative aims to help the Fed manage its balance sheet following its efforts to enhance its liquidity facilities over the previous few quarters."

Normally, the Fed swaps green pieces of paper called Federal Reserve Notes for pink pieces of paper called U.S. bonds (the federal government’s I.O.U.s), in order to provide Congress with the dollars it cannot raise through taxes. Now, it seems, the government is issuing bonds, not for its own use, but for the use of the Fed! Perhaps the plan is to swap them with the banks’ dodgy derivatives collateral directly, without actually putting them up for sale to outside buyers. According to Wikipedia (which translates Fedspeak into somewhat clearer terms than the Fed’s own website):

"The Term Securities Lending Facility is a 28-day facility that will offer Treasury general collateral to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s primary dealers in exchange for other program-eligible collateral. It is intended to promote liquidity in the financing markets for Treasury and other collateral and thus to foster the functioning of financial markets more generally. . . . The resource allows dealers to switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable."

"To switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable" means that the government gets the banks’ toxic derivative debt, and the banks get the government’s triple-A securities. Unlike the risky derivative debt, federal securities are considered "risk-free" for purposes of determining capital requirements, allowing the banks to improve their capital position so they can make new loans. (See E. Brown, "Bailout Bedlam,", October 2, 2008.)

In its latest power play, on October 3, 2008, the Fed acquired the ability to pay interest to its member banks on the reserves the banks maintain at the Fed. Reuters reported on October 3:

"The U.S. Federal Reserve gained a key tactical tool from the $700 billion financial rescue package signed into law on Friday that will help it channel funds into parched credit markets. Tucked into the 451-page bill is a provision that lets the Fed pay interest on the reserves banks are required to hold at the central bank."3

If the Fed’s money comes ultimately from the taxpayers, that means we the taxpayers are paying interest to the banks on the banks’ own reserves – reserves maintained for their own private profit. These increasingly controversial encroachments on the public purse warrant a closer look at the central banking scheme itself. Who owns the Federal Reserve, who actually controls it, where does it get its money, and whose interests is it serving?

Not Private and Not for Profit?

The Fed’s website insists that it is not a private corporation, is not operated for profit, and is not funded by Congress. But is that true? The Federal Reserve was set up in 1913 as a "lender of last resort" to backstop bank runs, following a particularly bad bank panic in 1907. The Fed’s mandate was then and continues to be to keep the private banking system intact; and that means keeping intact the system’s most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. Except for coins, every dollar in circulation is now created privately as a debt to the Federal Reserve or the banking system it heads.4 The Fed’s website attempts to gloss over its role as chief defender and protector of this private banking club, but let’s take a closer look. The website states:

* "The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized much like private corporations – possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."

* "[The Federal Reserve] is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms."

* "The Federal Reserve’s income is derived primarily from the interest on U.S. government securities that it has acquired through open market operations. . . . After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury."5

So let’s review:

1. The Fed is privately owned.

Its shareholders are private banks. In fact, 100% of its shareholders are private banks. None of its stock is owned by the government.

2. The fact that the Fed does not get "appropriations" from Congress basically means that it gets its money from Congress without congressional approval, by engaging in "open market operations."

Here is how it works: When the government is short of funds, the Treasury issues bonds and delivers them to bond dealers, which auction them off. When the Fed wants to "expand the money supply" (create money), it steps in and buys bonds from these dealers with newly-issued dollars acquired by the Fed for the cost of writing them into an account on a computer screen. These maneuvers are called "open market operations" because the Fed buys the bonds on the "open market" from the bond dealers. The bonds then become the "reserves" that the banking establishment uses to back its loans. In another bit of sleight of hand known as "fractional reserve" lending, the same reserves are lent many times over, further expanding the money supply, generating interest for the banks with each loan. It was this money-creating process that prompted Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1960s, to call the Federal Reserve "a total money-making machine." He wrote:

"When the Federal Reserve writes a check for a government bond it does exactly what any bank does, it creates money, it created money purely and simply by writing a check."

3. The Fed generates profits for its shareholders.

The interest on bonds acquired with its newly-issued Federal Reserve Notes pays the Fed’s operating expenses plus a guaranteed 6% return to its banker shareholders. A mere 6% a year may not be considered a profit in the world of Wall Street high finance, but most businesses that manage to cover all their expenses and give their shareholders a guaranteed 6% return are considered "for profit" corporations.

In addition to this guaranteed 6%, the banks will now be getting interest from the taxpayers on their "reserves." The basic reserve requirement set by the Federal Reserve is 10%. The website of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York explains that as money is redeposited and relent throughout the banking system, this 10% held in "reserve" can be fanned into ten times that sum in loans; that is, $10,000 in reserves becomes $100,000 in loans. Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.8 puts the total "loans and leases in bank credit" as of September 24, 2008 at $7,049 billion. Ten percent of that is $700 billion. That means we the taxpayers will be paying interest to the banks on at least $700 billion annually – this so that the banks can retain the reserves to accumulate interest on ten times that sum in loans.

The banks earn these returns from the taxpayers for the privilege of having the banks’ interests protected by an all-powerful independent private central bank, even when those interests may be opposed to the taxpayers’ -- for example, when the banks use their special status as private money creators to fund speculative derivative schemes that threaten to collapse the U.S. economy. Among other special benefits, banks and other financial institutions (but not other corporations) can borrow at the low Fed funds rate of about 2%. They can then turn around and put this money into 30-year Treasury bonds at 4.5%, earning an immediate 2.5% from the taxpayers, just by virtue of their position as favored banks. A long list of banks (but not other corporations) is also now protected from the short selling that can crash the price of other stocks.

Time to Change the Statute?

According to the Fed’s website, the control Congress has over the Federal Reserve is limited to this:

"[T]he Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute."

As we know from watching the business news, "oversight" basically means that Congress gets to see the results when it’s over. The Fed periodically reports to Congress, but the Fed doesn’t ask; it tells. The only real leverage Congress has over the Fed is that it "can alter its responsibilities by statute." It is time for Congress to exercise that leverage and make the Federal Reserve a truly federal agency, acting by and for the people through their elected representatives. If the Fed can demand AIG’s stock in return for an $85 billion loan to the mega-insurer, we can demand the Fed’s stock in return for the trillion-or-so dollars we’ll be advancing to bail out the private banking system from its follies.

If the Fed were actually a federal agency, the government could issue U.S. legal tender directly, avoiding an unnecessary interest-bearing debt to private middlemen who create the money out of thin air themselves. Among other benefits to the taxpayers. a truly "federal" Federal Reserve could lend the full faith and credit of the United States to state and local governments interest-free, cutting the cost of infrastructure in half, restoring the thriving local economies of earlier decades.

The international financiers love war because they can loan money to both sides and ultimately decide who wins by controlling the purse strings, and there is nothing that a nation will willingly dive into deeply into debt for than its own survival.
This is a huge topic which would better be understood by all if they take the time to do the research, double, triple, quadruped check their facts, sift out the anti-Semitic1 garbage that is mixed in to taint the truth, and put the pieces of the puzzle together for themselves because frankly they will have a hard time believing anyone else. It is too outlandish, too preposterous, too monstrous, and too... evil for the average decent human being to imagine, let alone to be true!
I'll warn you though along the way you will find things that you really wish you could un-know, so don't head down this path lightly. It will change your perspective on everything you ever thought you knew to be true, and that ultimately and irrevocably will change you. If it hasn't then you haven't done the research.
1 You will find a lot of anti-Semitic propaganda as you delve into this, keep in mind that it was the Christians who forced Jews into banking because no Christian could lend money for interest in the Middle Ages being called the sin of "Usury". It was not a Jewish conspiracy to control the banks, but there is REAL conspiracy nearby that you’re not supposed to notice. Also keep in mind that Christ was and still is to my knowledge a Jew.

To answer your next question: No, I am not Jewish. Read the rest of my blog and it should become apparent to you.




1 The Federal Reserve is not part of the Federal Government in the same way Federal Express is not part of the Government. If this seems preposterous to you that a private bank that is owned by persons unknown to even the highest level officials of our “Republic” should wield so much power and be entirely unaccountable to anyone, try to imagine that this same Central Bank system failed 3 times previously in our republics history each time ending with grim consequences for the American people.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

What can we little people do about the Federal Reserve? Pt. II


(Yes, Part 1 has not been posted yet, I will post it soon.)

Learn out lesson? Understand what the Constitution says and demand it of our government? While the Fed is "Independent" which means it is accountable to no one, we on the other hand are dependent upon the Fed as our source of money, credit, and ultimately our very survival.

Well first any Central Bank must be put under the direct authority of Congress. The US Constitution under Article 1, Sec 8 reads...

"The Congress shall have power...To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin..."

What is important to understand is that this is an AUTHORIZATION (giving permission or authority) AND a RESPONSIBILITY (a legal obligation or duty) that is ONLY allowed to the Congress just as it is to provide and maintain a navy, define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and borrow money on the credit of the United States. These are exclusive powers and responsibilities of Congress and Congress only which are NOT transferable to any other institution within the federal government, let alone a private cadre of bankers outside the government, and seemingly above the law.

Had this clause of the Constitution read…

“The Congress shall appoint…”, “The Congress shall determine…”, “The Congress shall designate…”, “The Congress shall provide a system by which…”, or anything similar they would be authorized to delegate the authority (and authority only, while retaining in full the responsibility) to whom they preferred.

Moreover, and this is THE REAL CRIME OF CONGRESS the abrogation of this authority and responsibility to an institution that is autonomous, secretive, and unaccountable to the authority of Congress is an anathema to both the text and spirit of the clause.

Whether the Supreme Court wishes to acknowledge this or not makes no difference to the fact that no reasonable mind can deny, the Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional entity and the Courts failure to find it as such only implicates their corruption and collusion.

Never the less, at this point the Fed is a kind of parasitic “symbiot” where the cure may be as bad as the disease. I can find no parallel to our situation in history that does not end badly. Some like the Weimar Republic end “less badly” than others like the fall of Rome which had other serious issues to complicate matters beyond bankruptcy and a broken banking system. However we too have some serious issues of our own with which to contend. One might even look at our illegal immigration problem as being parallel to the Visigoths being allowed within the borders of the Roman Empire prior to its collapse. In short I have no easy answer, and hence my appeal to the Lord God as our only real hope in this life as in the next.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Amusing Ourselves to Death


Aldous Huxley and George Orwell envisioned the future of mankind in strikingly dissimilar ways, yet resulting in very near the same effect on humanity.








Sunday, October 17, 2010

Why so many Divorces?



Why so many Divorces?

A question that needs answering. However, isn’t it obvious that we are too selfish and self centered to have a relationship that is about anything but ourselves. We are fed ridiculous expectations that we will get married and live happily ever after in bliss without interruption, when those expectations are not met, we turn to psychologists and lawyers rather than to each other.

After 40 years of seeding mistrust and divisiveness between the genders it is a wonder there is anyone willing to marry besides the gays, and they are so out of touch with the reality of marriage that they are calling it a RIGHT? How could anyone be called into account in a relationship for abuse or adultery when they were exercising their RIGHT to a marriage, hence self-interested and designing attorneys ensured there were quick and easy no-fault divorce...

Divorce on demand, no reasonable reason necessary, no money down, it's not you it's your spouse, we have the solution call the law firm of Screwup, Yourkids, & Howe, so we can liquidate our share of your dreams!

How foolish is our concept of a "RIGHT" when it takes the consent of another?

How asinine is our concept of marriage when we use it like a disposable lighter?

Is the flame gone, throw it away and get a new one?

Or when adultery is considered to be no ones fault? (Fault a noun meaning - a defect, flaw, blemish, imperfection, deficiency, shortcoming, weak point, weakness, failing, foible, demerit, vice)

How childish is our perspective on relationships when we imagine that Jerry Springer's four sentence monologues at the end of his show offer some deep wisdom or insight?

How twisted is our sense of reality when we call the most unrealistic, perverse, and insane mutations relationships aired on MTV "Reality Shows"?

Like so much of our modern culture, we have accepted the lies as truth because were too afraid to be called intolerant to speak up for principles, to voice objections, or to realize the unbearable damage to the fabric of a society when weaving suspicion between the societies cornerstone, the lifelong commitment between a man and a woman. Reinforcing idiotic notions of what it takes to have a marriage, rewarding an entire profession lucratively for profiting from their Sad* demise, afflicting the children with lifelong emotional scars that will render them unlikely to fair better, and then deluding ourselves that it was "for the best" and consoling the damaged adults "that they can move on to new relationships" (to spread the devastation having learned nothing of their failures in the first).



* Sad – The proper emotion for the experience of divorce. However our society is so twisted we see it as a time to celebrate.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

American Moment or Airhead Moment?

SOSClinton"We are advancing America's interests and making progress on some of our most pressing challenges,"  Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in her September 8th speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.

She failed to site any specifics to bolster her proclamation, which was a wise decision by her speechwriters, namely because there is nothing tangible to substantiate the claim.  

The Secretary added, "Today we can say with confidence that this model of American leadership works, and that it offers our best hope in a dangerous world."

 Just another nebulous edict supported by air. What “model of American leadership” is the Secretary speaking about? Democracy? An overbearing executive branch? Obama’s brain trust? A black man in the White House? What?

While the Secretary of State boldly proclaims, “We will seize this new moment of opportunity this new American Moment.”

I think Madam Secretary should take a moment and do a reality check…
  1. The haphazard and half-hearted “withdrawal” from Iraq has left many questioning the President’s judgment. Although claiming that combat operations for the US are over, there remains 50,000 (evidently “non-combat”) troops in Iraq.
  2. The aimless war in Afghanistan drags on with no foreseeable end or even concrete objectives in sight.
  3. While the American people demonstrated their willingness to go to war over fictitious weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the administration has overtly failed when it comes to real weapons of mass destruction right next door in Iran.
  4. The administration foreign policy has had no discernable impact on the really scary North Korean program to develop nuclear weapons.
  5. The endless stand-off in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains deadlocked.
In true Obama Administration style, she speaks a substantial amount with no substance of which to speak.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Maybe They Are Just Hairless Descendants of Apes…



I often encounter a significant quantity of disapprobation from intellectuals, academics, and even one highly respected bus mechanic about my belief in Creationism. Invariably, these disciples of Darwinian’s theory on origin of species will explain to me, in the manner one would speak to a severely mentally challenged child, that Darwinian evolution is the only educated, enlightened, credible, and most importantly “scientific” principle available. Their eyes filled with compassion for the poor boy who has been misguided by fairy tales of God sitting on a mountain, or in the clouds, or someplace, somewhere, out there.

It’s not that I don’t recognize a back-handed insult when I have been slapped with one, but this is when I start smirking in a nearly futile attempt to hold back hysterical laughter. I do this out of respect, because I know that they have spent a great deal of time, money, and effort in the accumulation of knowledge, however erroneous it may be, and I do not wish to offend their fragile sensibilities. My silent reaction are often misinterpreted as an open door through which the concerned evolutionist can begin shoveling more of their erudite concepts. Perhaps the will assume the worst of me and begin with something like,

“You do realize that there are more than four basic elements of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, right?”

“Well, of course I do! There are your solids, liquids, and gases which make up the seven food groups! I can read the sides of the cereal boxes too as I ‘m drooling back into my bowl of Captain Crunch”.

My tactic of ignorant indignation cannot hold up and I give myself away here every time.While I am relieved that they did not begin with,

“Do you believe in Zeus, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Clause as well?”

To which my only recourse is to act out wildly tearing at my clothes and screaming, “Blasphemy! Blasphemy! Blasphemy!” Needless to say, I’m a lot of fun at symposiums after a couple cocktails, or at least was until they took my name off the guest lists in 11 states and Canada. The scientific community is  highly educated to the point of elitist, this vast intellectual burden makes relating to those of us who possess merely average comprehension a tedious bunch with which to communicate. Imagine the frustration of trying to instill the concept of equality in a pack of sled dogs whose every instinct runs counter to an egalitarian system. The scientist would avoid such a foolishness endeavor, while I might give it a try. After several hours of aggravation and disgruntlement the dogs will lose patience with my baffling antics allowing me the respite to delude myself into the illusion of having made progress.

Speaking of progress, the theory of Darwinian evolution is based on the twin pillar hypotheses of universal common ancestry and natural selection. Darwin describes the his hypothesis of universal common ancestry, the theory that all life on the planet originated from a single or very few primordial life forms in his On the Origin of Species in this way,

"There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one" [1]

Personally, I see no conflict what so ever between and great harmony within much of Darwin’s assertion and that of the Genesis account aside from the mater of quantities. I would go so far as to say that Moses, assuming that Moses is in fact the author of Genesis, could not have described Creation better in a single sentence other than the one the author used,

“And Jehovah Elohim formed Man, dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul.” [2]

Darwin never addresses the existence or absence of a deity which, “…originally breathed into a few forms or into one.” Darwin is describing the process to the best of his understanding at the time, which is no more advanced, educated, enlightened, credible, or scientific than the description found in the Genesis account. Now, who is acting out wildly tearing at their clothes and screaming, “Blasphemy! Blasphemy! Blasphemy!”


fossil record

Darwin was a credit to science in that he was far more open to reason than most of the scientific community and other religious zealots, who cannot for a moment entertain that there theory on Creation of life on this planet may not be complete or even remotely correct. Several times over he presents his theory being incomplete and at points leaves open critical flaws that would discount his theory all together. One such point is his addressing the question posed by the sudden (rather than evolutionary) appearance of life in the Cambrian,

The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. To show that it may hereafter receive some explanation, I will give the following hypothesis. From the nature of the organic remains which do not appear to have inhabited profound depths, in the several formations of Europe and of the United States; and from the amount of sediment, miles in thickness, of which the formations are composed, we may infer that from first to last large islands or tracts of land, whence the sediment was derived, occurred in the neighbourhood of the now existing continents of Europe and North America. The same view has since been maintained by Agassiz and others. But we do not know what was the state of things in the intervals between the several successive formations; whether Europe and the United States during these intervals existed as dry land, or as a submarine surface near land, on which sediment was not deposited, or as the bed on an open and unfathomable sea.”  [3] 

There has yet to be a satisfactory answer to the inexplicable case life suddenly appearing in wide diversity and without evidence of the simpler progenitors required by natural selection or the interim species . However, the ability to present a valid argument against the evolution, universal common ancestry, or the process of natural selection has been silenced as blasphemy. The hypothesis of evolution called a theory is taught as a law of science and all else is discounted as primitive mythos. However science works by some very specific definitions and anything that does not conform to these definitions is NOT science…

Fundamental Definitions Used in Science [4]

A hypothesis - A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation

A theory - A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained

Law - A statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present: the second law of thermodynamics.


HereBeDragonsTrue science is the endless asymptotic pursuit of the truth. True science does not summarily dismiss a theory or hypothesis because a scientist does not wish it to be true, or disapproves of the implications incumbent with the theory or hypothesis. True science does not  promote that which is theory or hypothesis as being more than theoretical or hypothetical.

A few hundred years ago the unexplored edges of mariners maps were marked with a stark warning “Here Be Dragons and Sea Monsters” along with a graphic illustration to impress upon the imprudent or illiterate sailor the dreadful disemboweling he was in for should he continue on his ill advised course.[5] It is the purview of science to boldly venture on course in spite of the warnings, fears, and inherent disemboweling no matter how dreadful. When the scientific community acts to stifle the diligent and unbiased exploration of the unknown, the constituent members cease to be scientists and become dogmatic zealots.   

When science acts on consensus, collusion, and conspiracy as tools to curtail the full realm of possibilities rather than explore them, it ceases to be science and becomes unreasoning fanaticism based on irrational fears. This is the antithesis of science.  One need only look to the very recent history in the educated, enlightened, credible, and most importantly “scientific” principle of global warming being driven by CO2 emissions to illustrate the potential for abuse. So many distinguished academics and researchers holding impeccable credentials agreeing on a thoroughly examined and exhaustively documented theory were invariably wrong in their initial premise. In the past CO2 has never been a determining factor in temperature change, and there is no evidence to support that it is now. [6]

The Vice-President and former Presidential candidate Al Gore was, and probably still is, convinced that the “Dragons and Sea Serpents” of global warming were just ahead when he said,

“Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming.” [7]

We must compile our understanding of the Universe from ALL the evidence at our disposal without prejudice. We must remember that science is not THE TRUTH, but the endless pursuit of it. History, is filled with well established scientific principles found to be without basis. Aristotle and Ptolemy (scientists and academics by any definition) were the proponents of the theory that the Earth was the center of the solar system, yes, even the universe and provided a myriad of calculations and circumstantial evidence to prove their assertions. The Catholic church later adopted the theory widely endorsed by the most learned minds of the day. Head he lived in Aristotle’s and Ptolemy’s time rather than ours, Mr. Gore would conclude “…they have produced long-since a consensus that the Earth is the center of the solar system.”

Very few today recall that Aristotle’s and Ptolemy’s geocentric solar system was all but universally accepted by the scientific community of that time. However, many recall that the Catholic Church’s inhumane treatment of those who did not agree with the accepted, yet fatally flawed, astronomy laid down by the Ancient Greek philosophers. Many forget that the at the time the Catholic Church acted far more as a government and political entity than a Christian denomination. In a hauntingly familiar way that government agencies, environmental groups, and the mainstream media across many countries for over a decade issued reports and documents stating that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming. Opponents who disagreed, were ridiculed, censured, had their funding cut, or were dismissed from their positions. This is the modern academic equivalent of an old fashioned witch burnings. We think ourselves so technologically advanced, so enlightened, but even today we certainly behave like the hairless descendants of apes that a consensus of science would have us believe.

References, Notations, and Other Accoutrements

  1. Darwin, C., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life", London, John Murrary, (1859) p. 490
  2. Darby Bible Translation, Gen. 2:7
  3. Darwin, C., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life", London, John Murrary, (1859) p. 361
  4. New Oxford English Dictionary © Oxford University Press 2005,2009
  5. The sea serpents thoughts are conjecture based solely on my own wild speculation
  6. Climate chaos? Don't believe it”, Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph, 05 Nov 2006
  7. Al Gore, speech at National Sierra Club Convention, Sept. 9, 2005



Saturday, July 31, 2010

WikiLeaks, The Last Free Press


What is WikiLeaks?

WikiLeaks is a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public. Since July 2007, we have worked across the globe to obtain, publish and defend such materials, and, also, to fight in the legal and political spheres for the broader principles on which our work is based: the integrity of our common historical record and the rights of all peoples to create new history.


Freedom of the Press now considered an Act of Treason?


While the mainstream media in the United States and throughout much of the world has abandoned journalism in favor of some form of Jerry Springeresque entertainment format and become little more than the propaganda department of the national statists and globalists agendas. Some may claim that their journalism is unbiased and pulls no punches when it comes to reporting the facts, however the arena in which they are throwing the punches is maintained within the narrow confines that the White House draws for them. There is a well defined “appropriate” avenue of news where the main stream media presents their grand theater for the American publics consumption, entertainment, and endless bickering over marginal or even fabricated issues.

As a litmus test of how the main stream media has become the governments lap dog, we need only ask yourself “When was the last time U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS, or MSNBC?” None to my knowledge, however WikiLeaks has been targeted just a few months ago. How odd, the “Home of the Free” and “Land of the Brave” using its military might to silence the Free Press. Well, I suppose the Constitution only says,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

Gee, the Founding Fathers could not possibly have foreseen the depraved, debased, corrupt individuals that we have elected to “represent” us since the Founders neglected to specifically preclude dropping laser guided bombs it or a Tomahawk missile strike.

Narrow Road of Perception

In my daily interaction with people I come into contact with no less than 25-30 people every day and I have yet to find one who is even aware of the United States being implicated in war crimes in Afghanistan. This is not a Bush thing or a Cheney thing this is Our Thing!  We are a nation with a government “For and by the People” supposedly, and as such the world sees any actions taken by Our government as actions condoned by the American People.

To complicate matters We have allowed Our government to control us through the propaganda network previously described to blind us to the actions Our government is taking in Our names. This is an outrage, it is criminal, and We must put a stop to it NOW!


US Accused of War Crimes in Afghanistan


Thomas Jefferson on the importance of Freedom the Press…

"To preserve the freedom of the human mind... and freedom of the press, every spirit should be ready to devote itself to martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will and speak as we think, the condition of man will proceed in improvement."

- Thomas Jefferson to William Green Munford, 1799.

"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them."

- Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:57







Tuesday, July 27, 2010

The Zeitgeist Movement

The Zeitgeist Movement

I have been asked by one of my acquaintances to render my opinion on the Zeitgeist Movement. Pursuant to their request I offer the following.

I will not berate anyone who believes in the lofty ideals that this group claims to promote, I question their pragmatism in attaining their idealistic goals. If I had a magic wand that could make things happen as they present them in their videos and literature, I would be inclined to wave it right now. I am no fan of the status quo, but massive, radical universal changes in society seldom if ever results in positive results. I am bereft of even one example in history where a populist Utopian group, which is what the Zeitgeist Movement is, has ever delivered a net positive benefit once their theories are implemented. To the contrary history is rife with examples of  horrificshameful, and grotesque abominations from those who promised heaven on earth.

However, when you come down from the fuzzy emotional high of the Zeitgeist Movement Guide, the Where We Are Now, and the Where We Are Going videos you must soberly ask yourself, "What are the implications of this movement's ethos?" Let’s take a look at just the first four…

1. Conserving all the world's resources as the common heritage of all of the Earth’s people.
How do we define a “resource”? How do we define “conservation”? Who will establish these definitions? How will conflicts be resolved when someone disagrees with these very basic definitions? If I ask 10 people to define these things, I will get 10 different answers. Ants do hive mentality exceptionally well! Humans do not…so well.

2. Transcending all of the artificial boundaries that separate people.
Again the ideal sounds wonderful; it is the implementation that gets messy. Which are “artificial” boundaries and which are “real” boundaries? Are the walls of your home a real boundary? One might say “No, you built that boundary.” While others might argue, “Yes, that wall is the boundary of your privacy to which you are entitled.”

3. Evolving from a monetary-based economy to a resource-based world economy.
This appears to conflict with #1, people spend and waste money like mad even in the most resource destitute nations on earth. Take a look at the Saudi family, the Sultan of Brunei, or the Cali cartel in South America. How do we “conserve” the “common heritage of all the Earth’s people” when those who have ready access to the resources decide they want to “over utilize” the resource taking what belongs collectively to those who have little access to the resource? As an example, fresh water is not equally distributed around the planet. The Great Lakes are a vast wealth of fresh water, how do we ensure that people in sub-Saharan Africa are not cheated of their share?

4. Reclaiming and restoring the natural environment to the best of our ability.

First we must establish that humans are unnatural, otherwise anything that we do becomes by definition natural as well. I think termites are destructive and methodically wreck havoc on forests with machine like precision, but I would be hard pressed to convince anyone that they are unnatural. There is a vast and deep chasm between what constitutes ecologically responsible behavior and Neo-pagan Druidism.

It seems to me that any one of these first four ideals establish the grounds for global warfare more than anything resembling the placid, idyllic future the Zeitgeist Movement envisions. I don’t mean to sound pessimistic about the future of mankind, because I am not. It is said that the wise learn from their mistakes; however I believe that those we revere as brilliant remembered best the lessons of history and choose not to repeat them. The true genius learns from the mistakes of others.
I hear the Zeitgeist Movements’ visionary promises of efficiency, plenty, and equality. I see the Great Leap Forward and at a cost of 30 to 40 million lives.

I hear the Zeitgeist Movements’ call to promises of efficiency, plenty, and equality I see 
the killing fields of Khmer Rouge.
I hear them convincingly explain how they have finally figured out how we as a species can all work together in freedom, peace, and prosperity… after 4.3 million years but how many times have we heard that before? The Sumerian, Macedonia, Egyptians, Persians, Chinese all had, at least for a little while, 
civilizations that were unparalleled and seemed sure bets. Even an illiterate nomadic boy from the steeps of central Asia devised a simple and highly effective plan for making us all one happy family and nearly succeeded. He mounted his horse in the east and as he rode west he (and 200,000 of his best friends) killed the men and impregnate all the women.
One of our species long standing handicaps is that our greatest causes lose sight of their affect. Perhaps, it is hard wired in our genome, maybe it’s our left hemisphere seizing the reigns, or maybe it is easier to become a monster than to confront the suffering you have loosed upon those you only wanted to help.

I have all the respect for Zeitgeist’s ideals, and their bravery for speaking out in a time when so many are apathetic the suffering of their fellow man. I understand their wanting to somehow fix these hapless, hopeless, and sometimes horrific creatures…we…Humanity. We are beyond doubt irrevocably broken at our core, but before they put on the mask and surgical gloves to remove our afflictions… they should remember that far more important than the hope and promise of panacea is the duty to do no harm.
As for myself, I believe that there are other less radical more prudent paths to that bright future we all seek. My paths are not as glamorous as the photos depicting the Movements vision of an ultra-modern archeology society. However, I feel confident that by virtue of being less radical experimental, and theoretical pose a better chance of success and moreover pose less risk that in our tinkering we do not , as Peter Gabriel would say, shock the monkey. We are very fortune, in that we have the ability to change when our survival depends on it. We are cursed because we rarely recognize when extinction is looming at our door. We are fools because we jump to absurd action when Chicken Little shouts, “The sky is falling!” We are noble because as we have strived to lived boldly together on this unique pretty blue sphere, we envision a better place for those who will come after us, and then we will lay our burdens down, we return to the ground from once we rose. Therefore, since my time is short my efforts will focused on tangible returns that produce positive outcomes in the earthly realm of small judiciously chosen battles and leave the grandiose and potentially harmful to the Zeitgeist Movement. However, I wish them well in their bid to create the visionary world of The Jetsons.

Sunday, July 4, 2010

Hypocrisy is Contagious

“Liberty is the right of every man to be honest, to think and to speak without hypocrisy.”  – Jose Marti

Eight years ago we launched ourselves into two extraordinarily stupid wars with no clear objectives or exit strategies. Despite the best efforts of Congress, the White House, the Department of Defense, and the major media outlets to polish these (pardon my expression) “turds”, the wars continue to carry that signature aroma to which we have all become accustomed for far too long. These unpleasantries I expect as par for the quality of individual we elect to lurk about Washington D.C.,  but what has taken me completely by surprise is that everyone seems to have forgot that these things stunk to high heaven from the start. 
Many of us knew it but acted upon what we saw as our patriotic duty to support the troops, as misguided as it is.  Others, still reeling from the attacks of September 11, may have harbored misdirected frustration (coupled with a weak grasp of geography) and assumed the warsantiwar were just wars being retaliatory in nature. 
However, I also remember boisterous protests all over the world and in my own little corner of the globe, being Seattle. The suburb of Lake Forest Park had at  least weekly protest converge at the intersection of Bothell Way (Rte. 522) and Ballenger Way. Attended by 15 to 20 rambunctious idealists getting the message out that these were illegal wars, the machinations of Bush family insiders out to make a few bucks, or just plain old imperialism. Similar protests were fairly common in Seattle’s Pioneer Square or other neighborhood venues. 
However; there were no more protests anywhere the instant Bush left office and Obama moved into the White House. If the war was illegal before January 20, 2009, what made it less so the following morning? The conflict surely did not gain legality by virtue of who occupied a single public housing unit. Did Imperialism swing back into fashion? Did we make vital changes to ensure that the “correct people” were getting the loot from the military contracts now instead of Bush’s buddies? 
Defense Secretary Robert Gates was appointed by Bush after Donald Rumsfeld fell from favor in 2006, and is currently retained by Obama as head honcho of our armed forces occupying both Iraq and Afghanistan. What is the deal?
We are still in Iraq eight years after invading a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, harbored no weapons of mass destruction, and who’s people have had about as much of our Freedom that they can stomach. 
The good news is the “insurgents” are attacking with far less frequency due to our military's efficient efforts.  The bad news is we have worn out our welcome, assuming we had one in the first place, long ago. Our epic and colossal failure to provide nearly everything we promised the Iraqi people prior to the invasion (with the exception of getting rid if Saddam) thus far may have something to do with this souring relationship. Basic infrastructure such as transportation and utility conditions such as clean water in Baghdad, which are by far the best in the country, are nearly unlivable for the average Iraqi. Many roads are cut off by blast walls six meter tall that have transformed neighborhoods and thoroughfares into a maze tiny box canyons supposedly “protect the residents” from the adjacent prison yard communities. Is it any wonder that the Iraqi’s are handing us our hats, wishing us well, and holding the door open for us to leave? Is it any wonder that the opposition our forces are facing are increasingly the Iraqi people themselves? 
I can find no evidence that our overall policies in Iraq have changed with the new Administration, barring a significant decrease in the abuse of prisoners being detained by United States forces thanks to scandalous headlines more than good administration or oversight. As a veteran myself, I know that there were protocols and procedures to be followed like everything else in the military. If the impossible happened and the soldiers guarding the prisoners had neither theater specific protocols and procedures to guide their conduct, then the protocols of the Geneva Convention are the guide. Had these stalwart standards well known to every American soldier been applied with a modicum of common sense and maybe a shred or two of basic human decency, then the abuse never would have happened. 
At the risk of belaboring this point, wasn’t the abuse of prisoners by Saddam one of the primary “reasons” we cited to justify our invading Iraq in the first place? 

Still, not a single protest from anyone who was so ardently dedicated to saving lives by standing up, doing the right thing even if it was unpopular! I remember one of the protesters telling me that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” a couple years ago, so where is their patriotism meter hovering now? A better question might be, where the hell are they? 
Was the Anti-war movement wrapping itself in the flag and punctuated by quotes from the Founder Fathers just another ploy of party politics being played out on the public stage? It sure seems that way to me. However I think the real problem is that ”Hypocrisy is Contagious“ both parties are acutely infected by it perhaps in different ways but just as terminally contaminated and it’s time to put both of them under strict quarantine before they spread the infection any further.

Please watch the following video and ask yourself:
  1. What were our grounds for pursuing this conflict?
  2. Have those grounds been proven legitimate?
  3. What was our stated objectives in the beginning of this conflict?
  4. Have those objectives been achieved or within reach?
  5. Where are we now in the scale between benevolent liberator and malevolent invader?
  6. How did we get to this point? 

Happy Birthday America!

…now please try to remember who you are.

Blogger Labels: Hypocrisy,Contagious,White House,Seattle,Lake Forest Park,Bothell,Ballenger,Bush,
 Pioneer Square,Obama,virtue,Imperialism,,Iraq,Freedom,failure,Iraqi,invasion,Saddam,Baghdad,patriotism,