"It Could Be Anyone Of Us Who Dares To Speak Out"

"The Right to Ignore the State"

§1. As a corollary to the proposition that all institutions must be subordinated to the law of equal freedom, we cannot choose but admit the right of the citizen to adopt a condition of voluntary outlawry. If every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, then he is free to drop connection with the State,—to relinquish its protection and to refuse paying towards its support. It is self-evident that in so behaving he in no way trenches upon the liberty of others; for his position is a passive one, and, whilst passive, he cannot become an aggressor. It is equally self-evident that he cannot be compelled to continue one of a political corporation without a breach of the moral law, seeing that citizenship involves payment of taxes; and the taking away of a man's property against his will is an infringement of his rights. Government being simply an agent employed in common by a number of individuals to secure to them certain advantages, the very nature of the connection implies that it is for each to say whether he will employ such an agent or not. If any one of them determines to ignore this mutual-safety confederation, nothing can be said, except that he loses all claim to its good offices, and exposes himself to the danger of maltreatment,—a thing he is quite at liberty to do if he likes. He cannot be coerced into political combination without a breach of the law of equal freedom; he can withdraw from it without committing any such breach; and he has therefore a right so to withdraw.

§2. "No human laws are of any validity if contrary to the law of nature: and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority mediately or immediately from this original." Thus writes Blackstone, to whom let all honour be given for having so far outseen the ideas of his time,—and, indeed, we may say of our time. A good antidote, this, for those political superstitions which so widely prevail. A good check upon that sentiment of power-worship which still misleads us by magnifying the prerogatives of constitutional governments as it once did those of monarchs. Let men learn that a legislature is not "our God upon earth," though, by the authority they ascribe to it and the things they expect from it, they would seem to think it is. Let them learn rather that it is an institution serving a purely temporary purpose, whose power, when not stolen, is, at the best, borrowed.
 Nay, indeed, have we not seen that government is essentially immoral? Is it not the offspring of evil, bearing about it all the marks of its parentage? Does it not exist because crime exists? Is it not strong, or, as we say, despotic, when crime is great? Is there not more liberty—that is, less government—as crime diminishes? And must not government cease when crime ceases, for very lack of objects on which to perform its function? Not only does magisterial power exist because of evil, but it exists by evil. Violence is employed to maintain it; and all violence involves criminality. Soldiers, policemen, and gaolers; swords, batons, and fetters,—are instruments for inflicting pain; and all infliction of pain is, in the abstract, wrong. The State employs evil weapons to subjugate evil, and is alike contaminated by the objects with which it deals and the means by which it works. Morality cannot recognise it; for morality, being simply a statement of the perfect law, can give no countenance to anything growing out of, and living by, breaches of that law. Wherefore legislative authority can never be ethical—must always be conventional merely.
 Hence there is a certain inconsistency in the attempt to determine the right position, structure, and conduct of a government by appeal to the first principles of rectitude. For, as just pointed out, the acts of an institution which is, in both nature and origin, imperfect cannot be made to square with the perfect law. All that we can do is to ascertain, firstly, in what attitude a legislature must stand to the community to avoid being by its mere existence an embodied wrong; secondly, in what manner it must be constituted so as to exhibit the least incongruity with the moral law; and, thirdly, to what sphere its actions must be limited to prevent it from multiplying those breaches of equity it is set up to prevent.
The first condition to be conformed to before a legislature can be established without violating the law of equal freedom is the acknowledgment of the right now under discussion—the right to ignore the State.

§3. Upholders of pure despotism may fitly believe State-control to be unlimited and unconditional. They who assert that men are made for governments and not governments for men may consistently hold that no one can remove himself beyond the pale of political organisation. But they who maintain that the people are the only legitimate source of power—that legislative authority is not original, but deputed—cannot deny the right to ignore the State without entangling themselves in an absurdity.
For, if legislative authority is deputed, it follows that those from whom it proceeds are the masters of those on whom it is conferred: it follows further that as masters they confer the said authority voluntarily: and this implies that they may give or withhold it as they please. To call that deputed which is wrenched from men whether they will or not is nonsense. But what is here true of all collectively is equally true of each separately. As a government can rightly act for the people only when empowered by them, so also can it rightly act for the individual only when empowered by him. If A, B, and C debate whether they shall employ an agent to perform for them a certain service, and if, whilst A and B agree to do so, C dissents, C cannot equitably be made a party to the agreement in spite of himself. And this must be equally true of thirty as of three: and, if of thirty, why not of three hundred, or three thousand, or three millions?

§4. Of the political superstitions lately alluded to, none is so universally diffused as the notion that majorities are omnipotent. Under the impression that the preservation of order will ever require power to be wielded by some party, the moral sense of our time feels that such power cannot rightly be conferred on any but the largest moiety of society. It interprets literally the saying that "the voice of the people is the voice of God," and, transferring to the one the sacredness attached to the other, it concludes that from the will of the people—that is, of the majority—there can be no appeal. Yet is this belief entirely erroneous.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that, struck by some Malthusian panic, a legislature duly representing public opinion were to enact that all children born during the next ten years should be drowned. Does any one think such an enactment would be warrantable? If not, there is evidently a limit to the power of a majority. Suppose, again, that of two races living together—Celts and Saxons, for example—the most numerous determined to make the others their slaves. Would the authority of the greatest number be in such case valid? If not, there is something to which its authority must be subordinate. Suppose, once more, that all men having incomes under £50 a year were to resolve upon reducing every income above that amount to their own standard, and appropriating the excess for public purposes. Could their resolution be justified? If not, it must be a third time confessed that there is a law to which the popular voice must defer. What, then, is that law, if not the law of pure equity—the law of equal freedom? These restraints, which all would put to the will of the majority, are exactly the restraints set up by that law. We deny the right of a majority to murder, to enslave, or to rob, simply because murder, enslaving, and robbery are violations of that law—violations too gross to be overlooked. But, if great violations of it are wrong, so also are smaller ones. If the will of the many cannot supersede the first principle of morality in these cases, neither can it in any. So that, however insignificant the minority, and however trifling the proposed trespass against their rights, no such trespass is permissible.

When we have made our constitution purely democratic, thinks to himself the earnest reformer, we shall have brought government into harmony with absolute justice. Such a faith, though perhaps needful for the age, is a very erroneous one. By no process can coercion be made equitable. The freest form of government is only the least objectionable form. The rule of the many by the few we call tyranny: the rule of the few by the many is tyranny also, only of a less intense kind. "You shall do as we will, and not as you will," is in either case the declaration; and, if the hundred make it to ninety-nine, instead of the ninety-nine to the hundred, it is only a fraction less immoral. Of two such parties, whichever fulfils this declaration necessarily breaks the law of equal freedom: the only difference being that by the one it is broken in the persons of ninety-nine, whilst by the other it is broken in the persons of a hundred. And the merit of the democratic form of government consists solely in this,—that it trespasses against the smallest number.
The very existence of majorities and minorities is indicative of an immoral state. The man whose character harmonises with the moral law, we found to be one who can obtain complete happiness without diminishing the happiness of his fellows. But the enactment of public arrangements by vote implies a society consisting of men otherwise constituted—implies that the desires of some cannot be satisfied without sacrificing the desires of others—implies that in the pursuit of their happiness the majority inflict a certain amount of unhappiness on the minority—implies, therefore, organic immorality. Thus, from another point of view, we again perceive that even in its most equitable form it is impossible for government to dissociate itself from evil; and further, that, unless the right to ignore the State is recognised, its acts must be essentially criminal.

§5. That a man is free to abandon the benefits and throw off the burdens of citizenship, may indeed be inferred from the admissions of existing authorities and of current opinion. Unprepared as they probably are for so extreme a doctrine as the one here maintained, the Radicals of our day yet unwittingly profess their belief in a maxim which obviously embodies this doctrine. Do we not continually hear them quote Blackstone's assertion that "no subject of England can be constrained to pay any aids or taxes even for the defence of the realm or the support of government, but such as are imposed by his own consent, or that of his representative in Parliament"? And what does this mean? It means, say they, that every man should have a vote. True: but it means much more. If there is any sense in words, it is a distinct enunciation of the very right now contended for. In affirming that a man may not be taxed unless he has directly or indirectly given his consent, it affirms that he may refuse to be so taxed; and to refuse to be taxed is to cut all connection with the State. Perhaps it will be said that this consent is not a specific, but a general, one, and that the citizen is understood to have assented to every thing his representative may do, when he voted for him. But suppose he did not vote for him; and on the contrary did all in his power to get elected some one holding opposite views—what then? The reply will probably be that by taking part in such an election, he tacitly agreed to abide by the decision of the majority. And how if he did not vote at all? Why then he cannot justly complain of any tax, seeing that he made no protest against its imposition. So, curiously enough, it seems that he gave his consent in whatever way he acted—whether he said "Yes," whether he said "No," or whether he remained neuter! A rather awkward doctrine, this. Here stands an unfortunate citizen who is asked if he will pay money for a certain proffered advantage; and, whether he employs the only means of expressing his refusal or does not employ it, we are told that he practically agrees, if only the number of others who agree is greater than the number of those who dissent. And thus we are introduced to the novel principle that A's consent to a thing is not determined by what A says, but by what B may happen to say!
It is for those who quote Blackstone to choose between this absurdity and the doctrine above set forth. Either his maxim implies the right to ignore the State, or it is sheer nonsense.

§6. There is a strange heterogeneity in our political faiths. Systems that have had their day, and are beginning here and there to let the daylight through, are patched with modern notions utterly unlike in quality and colour; and men gravely display these systems, wear them, and walk about in them, quite unconscious of their grotesqueness. This transition state of ours, partaking as it does equally of the past and the future, breeds hybrid theories exhibiting the oddest union of bygone despotism and coming freedom. Here are types of the old organisation curiously disguised by germs of the new—peculiarities showing adaptation to a preceding state modified by rudiments that prophesy of something to come—making altogether so chaotic a mixture of relationships that there is no saying to what class these births of the age should be referred.
As ideas must of necessity bear the stamp of the time, it is useless to lament the contentment with which these incongruous beliefs are held. Otherwise it would seem unfortunate that men do not pursue to the end the trains of reasoning which have led to these partial modifications. In the present case, for example, consistency would force them to admit that, on other points besides the one just noticed, they hold opinions and use arguments in which the right to ignore the State is involved.
For what is the meaning of Dissent? The time was when a man's faith and his mode of worship were as much determinable by law as his secular acts; and, according to provisions extant in our statute-book, are so still. Thanks to the growth of a Protestant spirit, however, we have ignored the State in this matter—wholly in theory, and partly in practice. But how have we done so? By assuming an attitude which, if consistently maintained, implies a right to ignore the State entirely. Observe the positions of the two parties. "This is your creed," says the legislator; "you must believe and openly profess what is here set down for you." "I shall not do anything of the kind," answers the Nonconformist; "I will go to prison rather." "Your religious ordinances," pursues the legislator, "shall be such as we have prescribed. You shall attend the churches we have endowed, and adopt the ceremonies used in them." "Nothing shall induce me to do so," is the reply; "I altogether deny your power to dictate to me in such matters, and mean to resist to the uttermost." "Lastly," adds the legislator, "we shall require you to pay such sums of money toward the support of these religious institutions as we may see fit to ask." "Not a farthing will you have from me," exclaims our sturdy Independent; "even did I believe in the doctrines of your church (which I do not), I should still rebel against your interference; and, if you take my property, it shall be by force and under protest."
What now does this proceeding amount to when regarded in the abstract? It amounts to an assertion by the individual of the right to exercise one of his faculties—the religious sentiment—without let or hindrance, and with no limit save that set up by the equal claims of others. And what is meant by ignoring the State? Simply an assertion of the right similarly to exercise all the faculties. The one is just an expansion of the other—rests on the same footing with the other—must stand or fall with the other. Men do indeed speak of civil and religious liberty as different things: but the distinction is quite arbitrary. They are parts of the same whole, and cannot philosophically be separated.
"Yes they can," interposes an objector; "assertion of the one is imperative as being a religious duty. The liberty to worship God in the way that seems to him right, is a liberty without which a man cannot fulfil what he believes to be divine commands, and therefore conscience requires him to maintain it." True enough; but how if the same can be asserted of all other liberty? How if maintenance of this also turns out to be a matter of conscience? Have we not seen that human happiness is the divine will—that only by exercising our faculties is this happiness obtainable—and that it is impossible to exercise them without freedom? And, if this freedom for the exercise of faculties is a condition without which the divine will cannot be fulfilled, the preservation of it is, by our objector's own showing, a duty. Or, in other words, it appears not only that the maintenance of liberty of action may be a point of conscience, but that it ought to be one. And thus we are clearly shown that the claims to ignore the State in religious and in secular matters are in essence identical.
The other reason commonly assigned for nonconformity admits of similar treatment. Besides resisting State dictation in the abstract, the Dissenter resists it from disapprobation of the doctrines taught. No legislative injunction will make him adopt what he considers an erroneous belief; and, bearing in mind his duty toward his fellow-men, he refuses to help through the medium of his purse in disseminating this erroneous belief. The position is perfectly intelligible. But it is one which either commits its adherents to civil nonconformity also, or leaves them in a dilemma. For why do they refuse to be instrumental in spreading error? Because error is adverse to human happiness. And on what ground is any piece of secular legislation disapproved? For the same reason—because thought adverse to human happiness. How then can it be shown that the State ought to be resisted in the one case and not in the other? Will any one deliberately assert that, if a government demands money from us to aid in teaching what we think ill produce evil, we ought to refuse it, but that, if the money is for the purpose of doing what we think will produce evil, we ought not to refuse it? Yet such is the hopeful proposition which those have to maintain who recognise the right to ignore the State in religious matters, but deny it in civil matters.

§7. The substance of this chapter once more reminds us of the incongruity between a perfect law and an imperfect State. The practicability of the principle here laid down varies directly as social morality. In a thoroughly vicious community its admission would be productive of anarchy.[1] In a completely virtuous one its admission will be both innocuous and inevitable. Progress toward a condition of social health—a condition, that is, in which the remedial measures of legislation will no longer be needed—is progress toward a condition in which those remedial measures will be cast aside, and the authority prescribing them disregarded. The two changes are of necessity co-ordinate. That moral sense whose supremacy will make society harmonious and government unnecessary is the same moral sense which will then make each man assert his freedom even to the extent of ignoring the State—is the same moral sense which, by deterring the majority from coercing the minority, will eventually render government impossible. And, as what are merely different manifestations of the same sentiment must bear a constant ratio to each other, the tendency to repudiate governments will increase only at the same rate that governments become needless.
Let not any be alarmed, therefore, at the promulgation of the foregoing doctrine. There are many changes yet to be passed through before it can begin to exercise much influence. Probably a long time will elapse before the right to ignore the State will be generally admitted, even in theory. It will be still longer before it receives legislative recognition. And even then there will be plenty of checks upon the premature exercise of it. A sharp experience will sufficiently instruct those who may too soon abandon legal protection. Whilst, in the majority of men, there is such a love of tried arrangements, and so great a dread of experiments, that they will probably not act upon this right until long after it is safe to do so.

"Our Freedom Threatened"

Espionage Act: How the Government Can Engage in Serious Aggression Against the People of the United States
By Naomi Wolf


Huffington Post, December 11, 2010

  This week, Senators Joe Lieberman and Dianne Feinstein engaged in acts of serious aggression against their own constituents, and the American people in general. They both invoked the 1917 Espionage Act and urged its use in going after Julian Assange. For good measure, Lieberman extended his invocation of the Espionage Act to include a call to use it to investigate the New York Times, which published WikiLeaks' diplomatic cables. Reports yesterday suggest that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder may seek to invoke the Espionage Act against Assange.

  These two Senators, and the rest of the Congressional and White House leadership who are coming forward in support of this appalling development, are cynically counting on Americans' ignorance of their own history -- an ignorance that is stoked and manipulated by those who wish to strip rights and freedoms from the American people. They are manipulatively counting on Americans to have no knowledge or memory of the dark history of the Espionage Act -- a history that should alert us all at once to the fact that this Act has only ever been used -- was designed deliberately to be used -- specifically and viciously to silence people like you and me.

  The Espionage Act was crafted in 1917 -- because President Woodrow Wilson wanted a war and, faced with the troublesome First Amendment, wished to criminalize speech critical of his war. In the run-up to World War One, there were many ordinary citizens -- educators, journalists, publishers, civil rights leaders, union activists -- who were speaking out against US involvement in the war. The Espionage Act was used to round these citizens by the thousands for the newly minted 'crime' of their exercising their First Amendment Rights. A movie producer who showed British cruelty in a film about the Revolutionary War (since the British were our allies in World War I) got a ten-year sentence under the Espionage act in 1917, and the film was seized; poet E.E. Cummings spent three and a half months in a military detention camp under the Espionage Act for the 'crime' of saying that he did not hate Germans. Esteemed Judge Learned Hand wrote that the wording of the Espionage Act was so vague that it would threaten the American tradition of freedom itself. Many were held in prison for weeks in brutal conditions without due process; some, in Connecticut -- Lieberman's home state -- were severely beaten while they were held in prison. The arrests and beatings were widely publicized and had a profound effect, terrorizing those who would otherwise speak out.

  Presidential candidate Eugene Debs received a ten-year prison sentence in 1918 under the Espionage Act for daring to read the First Amendment in public. The roundup of ordinary citizens -- charged with the Espionage Act -- who were jailed for daring to criticize the government was so effective in deterring others from speaking up that the Act silenced dissent in this country for a decade. In the wake of this traumatic history, it was left untouched -- until those who wish the same outcome began to try to reanimate it again starting five years ago, and once again, now. Seeing the Espionage Act rise up again is, for anyone who knows a thing about it, like seeing the end of a horror movie in which the zombie that has enslaved the village just won't die.

  I predicted in 2006 that the forces that wish to strip American citizens of their freedoms, so as to benefit from a profitable and endless state of war -- forces that are still powerful in the Obama years, and even more powerful now that the Supreme Court decision striking down limits on corporate contributions to our leaders has taken effect -- would pressure Congress and the White House to try to breathe new life yet again into the terrifying Espionage Act in order to silence dissent. In 2005, Bush tried this when the New York Times ran its exposé of Bush's illegal surveillance of banking records -- the SWIFT program. This report was based, as is the WikiLeaks publication, on classified information. Then, as now, White House officials tried to invoke the Espionage Act against the New York Times. Talking heads on the right used language such as 'espioinage' and 'treason' to describe the Times' release of the story, and urged that Bill Keller be tried for treason and, if found guilty, executed. It didn't stick the first time; but, as I warned, since this tactic is such a standard part of the tool-kit for closing an open society -- 'Step Ten' of the 'Ten Steps' to a closed society: 'Rename Dissent 'Espionage' and Criticism of Government, 'Treason' -- I knew, based on my study of closing societies, that this tactic would resurface.

  Let me explain clearly why activating -- rather than abolishing -- the Espionage Act is an act of profound aggression against the American people. We are all Julian Assange. Serious reporters discuss classified information every day -- go to any Washington or New York dinner party where real journalists are present, and you will hear discussion of leaked or classified information. That is journalists' job in a free society. The White House, too, is continually classifying and declassifying information.

  As I noted in The End of America, if you prosecute journalists -- and Assange, let us remember, is the New York Times in the parallel case of the Pentagon Papers, not Daniel Ellsberg; he is the publisher, not the one who revealed the classified information -- then any outlet, any citizen, who discusses or addresses 'classified' information can be arrested on 'national security' grounds. If Assange can be prosecuted under the Espionage Act, then so can the New York Times; and the producers of Parker Spitzer, who discussed the WikiLeaks material two nights ago; and the people who posted a mirror WikiLeaks site on my Facebook 'fan' page; and Fox News producers, who addressed the leak and summarized the content of the classified information; and every one of you who may have downloaded information about it; and so on. That is why prosecution via the Espionage Act is so dangerous -- not for Assange alone, but for every one of us, regardless of our political views.

  This is far from a feverish projection: if you study the history of closing societies, as I have, you see that every closing society creates a kind of 'third rail' of material, with legislation that proliferates around it. The goal of the legislation is to call those who criticize the government 'spies', 'traitors', enemies of the state' and so on. Always the issue of national security is invoked as the reason for this proliferating legislation. The outcome? A hydra that breeds fear. Under similar laws in Germany in the early thirties, it became a form of 'espionage' and 'treason' to criticize the Nazi party, to listen to British radio programs, to joke about the fuhrer, or to read cartoons that mocked the government. Communist Russia in the 30's, East Germany in the 50's, and China today all use parallel legislation to call criticism of the government -- or whistleblowing -- 'espionage' and 'treason', and 'legally' imprison or even execute journalists, editors, and human rights activists accordingly.

  I call on all American citizens to rise up and insist on repeal of the Espionage Act immediately. We have little time to waste. The Assange assault is theater of a particularly deadly kind, and America will not recover from the use of the Espionage Act as a cudgel to threaten journalists, editors and news outlets with. I call on major funders of Feinstein's and Lieberman;s campaigns to put their donations in escrow accounts and notify the staffers of those Senators that the funds will only be released if they drop their traitorous invocation of the Espionage Act. I call on all Americans to understand once for all: this is not about Julian Assange. This, my fellow citizens, is about you.

Those calling for Julian Assange's criminalization include:

1. Rep. Candice Miller
2. Jonah Goldberg, Journalist
3. Christian Whiton, Journalist
4. Bill O'Reilly, Fox News Journalist
5. Sarah Palin, Member of the Republican Party, former candidate
6. Mike Huckabee, Politician
8. Prof. Tom Flanagan
9. Rep. Peter King
10. Tony Shaffer
11. Rick Santorum
12. Rep. Dan Lugren
13. Jeffrey T. Kuhner, Journalist The Washington Times
14. Rep. Virginia Foxx
15. Sen. Kit Bond, Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee
16. Sen. Joe Liberman
17. Sen. Charles Schumer
18. Marc Thiessen, Columnist

" And You Think You Matter? You Don't"

"AN INTERESTING E-MAIL"

To: Wall Street chief executives

From: Your man in Washington

Re: Embracing the status quo


Our earnings are robust, our compensation has returned to its naturally high levels and, as a result, we have very nearly regained our grip on the imaginations of the most ambitious students at the finest universities — and from that single fact many desirable outcomes follow.

Thus, we have almost fully recovered from what we have agreed to call The Great Misfortune. In the next few weeks, however, ill-informed senators will meet with ill-paid representatives to reconcile their ill-conceived financial reform bills. This process cannot and should not be stopped. The American people require at least the illusion of change. But it can be rendered harmless to our interests.

AMAZING SPEECH BY WAR VETERAN

  


"BEHOLD A TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOT"

"Happy Mother"s Day---Not"

           "FOR THE MONEY AND THE POWER"

"Only those who are dead know the end of war" -Plato

"Big Bother Comes Knocking In Pennsylvania"

TerrorPatriot say's "Fuck Pennsylvania And The Horse They Rode In On"  "Lock And Load...Rock And Roll" Everybody gotta die sometime Tom.

Campaign for Liberty - Audit the Fed

Campaign for Liberty - Audit the Fed: "'Audit the Federal Reserve'
Petition to my U.S. Senators

Whereas: The Federal Reserve refuses to give a public accounting of the TRILLIONS in recent taxpayer-backed loans; and


Whereas: Congress has the responsibility to force a public audit of the Federal Reserve, and the American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent; and


Whereas: Allowing the Fed to remain out of control and shrouded in secrecy clearly allows for abuse and the continued stealing of our tax dollars through inflation and unaccounted electronic bank 'loans'; and


Whereas: The Federal Reserve's abuses lead to constant economic crises like the current housing crisis, international banking crisis and the resulting chaos; and


Whereas: The Federal Reserve System forces fuel, food, housing, medical care and education costs upward, meaning that everyone who is NOT on the government dole is forced to make do with less as the value of money slowly decreases; and


Whereas: History shows us that riots, violence and full-scale police states can result when people finally realize fiat money isn't worth the paper it's printed on and REFUSE to accept it;


Therefore: I urge you to cosponsor and make every effort to seek roll call votes on the Audit the Fed Bill, S 604."

     
                      
             Just Add Hyperinflation: Its Armageddon


As I stand upon the mountain top, over looking the huddling masses of the peasants of humanity. My long beard and shanks rippling in the wind, my grizzled staff raised high, pointing at the dark mass of rolling darkness, darkness broken only rarely by the crackle of lightening. It is a darkness like no other, a mass of despair, a malice that is palatable and pungent in its hostility. My voice booms like the thunder of that storm, pummeling the gathered, clutching masses of frightened humanity: rich and poor, high and low, man and woman."Behold! Your Lord High Economist, the godling Keynes, through his priests the Interventionist Central Bankers have declared!" I pause for dramatic effect, fear and mysticism in the eyes of the masses. Mysticism at the mention of the shadowy man, nah godling John Maynard Keynes, fear at the coming of his Central Bankers. "Thou, sinners, thou thrifters, thou who have questioned his eternal Wisdom...now fear the fires of Inflation! Thou wilest be purged of your doubt and your consumer debt through the fires of Inflation! And since you voiced your doubt! Since you questioned the Will! It will be no simple inflation BUT...(more dramatic pause)...DEPRESSIONARY-HYPERINFLATION! You will eat grass and choke on weeds as you fondly remember steak dinners and red wine!"Gasps come from the huddle masses. Women cry out in shock and dismay. Babies wale, their cries mixing with the howling of the wind that brings the storm of Depressionary-Hyperinflation. The gnashing of teeth is heard over all. The End is neigh, thy punishment severe. I laugh the laughter of the mad, my eyes sparkling in the coming darkness."But how will this be worse then just Hyperinflation or a Great Depression?" comes a brave voice from the masses and suddenly the people's fear is abetted. Hope once more arises in their eyes that maybe, just maybe, this all is not as bad as they had but moments before feared. Even the storm seems to pause, rolling and pulsing but some how less menacing and stationary."Hmmm, this will not do, not do at all!" I think. "I will have to explain myself so that these fools will once more tremble." I pull up my robes around my knees and settle down upon the rock, perching over the masses, a wicked wisdom covering my face."To find this answer, let us examine, oh huddled masses, the difference between Hyperinflation and Depression and how both would normally effect your lives." They listen attentively."In a hyperinflationary situation, one usually created by a hyper expansionary government, a debt loaded economy or some catastrophe such as a major war, the money supply is rapidly expanded. The economy continues to roll along, jobs continue to exist as demand also continues to exist. At first, the workers are freed from their debts, as the amounts owned literally melt away in the face of larger and larger pay checks. Of course, as is usual, salaries rarely stay up to date with prices, which are much more agile and elastic. Soon the worker finds that while debt free, he can afford less and less to buy with his ever more worthless money, but at least, ground under the heel of hyperinflation, he is still employed and remains fed, even if on bread and processed meat rather then on croissants and steak."They bob their heads in understanding. Many of these peoples of the world have lived all their lives with inflations of one level or another and quite a few with hyperinflation. It is, after all, the order of the century, as the godling Keynes dictated to the interventionist fiat monetary systems. I go on."Then there is depression, something that most of you know little about. First spending falls, then output falls to match the new lower demand levels. Of course excess employees are laid off. These in turn spend little if anything and their employed brethren also spend much less, in fear of losing their jobs. Less spent means less produced and the cycle repeats. Debt become overwhelming and crushing, as the value of the dollar becomes greater, again, adding to the cycle. Of course, for those tens of millions unemployed, at least what few savings they have and what little money they get from their governments, will now buy them more then it did before.The pricing levels of the system are reset and will be kinder to future generations, but like most such things, it is painful and a nasty, if not necessary a long, process.""But how does this link back to Depressionary-Hyperinflation?" again that doubting Thomas. Enough of this, time to learn fear."Well," I begin, in an quite, almost gentle voice, "you see, the people fear this painful process of depression and they call upon their betters, their masters to do something, anything about it. Of course the Monetary Interventionists know only one thing to do: lower interest rates and print money. At first, this makes the pain less so and easier to bare. The problem is, especially for you millions and millions of unemployed, it is rather hard to propagate. Each easing requires more and more cash, sorta like a drug addiction. But once the cash hits the system it propagates inflation. This of course takes time to appear, so it is rather hard to guess when to much is to much and out of fear of not being enough, that gut feeling is ignored. Then comes the Hyperinflation!" I feel satisfied in my explanation, but still there is hope in their eyes!"So..." again that voice, though this time a bit more hesitantly."So!" I begin, "for those 15 to 30% of you without jobs, on meager fixed government monies, on pensions and savings...hahahaa....it's over, in days and weeks, your money buys nothing as the fires of Depressionary-Hyperinflation burn it all away! You will beg, you will steal, you will burn in rage and hunger and as the living dead, you will fall upon those who still have jobs but are to poor themselves to help you and you will consume them to! Fire and flame, hunger and despair! Then you will, in your orgy of despair and destruction, turn to the saviors who will come to you, the demagogues who will enslave you! Then and only then, will you truly know suffering!" My voice rings in stark laughter. I am on my feet again, waving my staff...the dark clouds booming and rolling forth.Now they understand, now they know, there is no hope, no salvation, not from this one. Some throw themselves at my feet, begging for salvation, others throw themselves from the nearby cliffs...but there is no salvation, no...only the Fires of Depressionary-Hyperinflation.My laughter is swallowed by the rolls of thunder.

"Concerning Finance Reform"

           

           "Play The Damn Race Card"


"I urge the President to play the race card--the human race card. The Founding Fathers sought to protect the Republic from this tyranny of private interests. This was meant to be a place where all members of the human race have a fair opportunity to thrive."

Obama Continues To Fight Against "The Coalition Of The Ignorant" The Republican Party And The Uninformed Who Support Them.

NOT IN MY NAME. NO TORTURE. PROSECUTE NOW.

DEATH OF AMERICA. "The Good The Bad And The Ugly"

Apocalypse has always held a special fascination for me. Even as a small child I can remember being simultaneously compelled and repulsed by the idea of annihilation; formerly bustling cities gone empty and silent, bands of survivors moving through scorched barren landscapes towards a perilous future; nature in the absence of man’s relentless industry reclaiming what is hers.
As we witness the downward spiral and visceral gurgling of the greatest country/state the world has yet produced I am reminded that all things must and will end.
While death is sometimes quick and almost painless it is more often slow and agonizingly painful. My fear is the latter for the United States. The rest of the world have in the last few years become increasingly hostile to this country as more and more people have begun to realize that our "American Dream" was only made possible by others "Enduring Nightmare." Other age old factors are the many political ideologies and religious intolerance's of all the world. America is now crippled and weakened and the lions and hyenas are circling and moving in for the kill.
Perhaps now although to late to save our country a sufficient number of enlightened people will be able to unite in a common cause to fight back against the beast that approaches and to begin to roll back the darkness. This is always the prelude to any rebirth. Will noble ideas such as "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" OR "WE ARE ALL ENDOWED BY OUR MAKER WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS SUCH AS LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" ever be presented on the world stage again? Will these lofty beliefs ever produce a population sufficiently strong, honest, and resolute enough to fight and die for each others rights to these things? If we look to history for that answer it would be not likely if ever.The reason being is that these ideas have been as rare as fine jewels or gold in the lineage of mankind and once pondered or dreamed of they always would meet opposition from the powers that be at that time. So take a moment to reflect or whisper a silent prayer for that band of survivors because they are after all our children and grand children. GLENN NUNLEY. Sept. 20, 2008. Re-posted May 18, 2009.
YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME HERE. CLICK COMMENTS BELOW.

BARAK OBAMA'S DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

I find this article indicative of our condition in a reverse course of political events and our National direction as is always determined by whatever power cabal is at the controls in Washington. It serves to reinforce my convictions toward the complete necessity of "Secession,by a coalition of a majority, or at least , a determined minorty of the fifty states." as the means to correct the emperial nature of the Federal Government and it's over-reaching influence in all our lives.
The Central Government cannot by it's very nature effect fair and equitable laws or guidance to such a large and diversified population as now exist in our country.
The only corrective political device that is available to the states and thus to the people is an "Ultimatum Of Secession" from this most corrupt and "Nation Shattering" power yoke, "The United States Federal Government" A Government; "OF THE ELITE, BY THE ELITE, FOR THE ELITE. Glenn Nunley. North Florida.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one Messiah to dissolve the historic bonds that have connected his subjects with the fundamental beliefs of a bunch of dead white guys, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of Marx entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that I should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men, women, transgendered and questioning individuals deserve equal division of goods, that they are endowed by Me with certain unalienable rights, that among these are the right to abort life, servitude to the state, and the pursuit of taxpayer-supported benefits.

That to secure these rights, government is instituted in Me, deriving my just powers from the consent of a Democrat Congress, ACORN, and Universal Voluntary Public Service. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of Me to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Big Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing (with the help of the groups previously named) My powers in such form, as to Me shall seem most likely to effect My subjects' safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that My government short established should be changed for causes I deem appropriate; and accordingly all my inexperience hath shown that personkind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the oppressive regime instituted by dead white men to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce my subjects under absolute Evil Capitalism, it is My right, it is My duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future Social Security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these downtrodden victims of Evil Capitalists; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. This history of the present Representative Republic is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute freedom for these victims. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a slavering mainstream media.

This Representative Republic was founded on the principles of limited government, and does not allow Me to make all decisions without impunity.

This Representative Republic allows for too many States' rights.

This Representative Republic allows Me to serve only two terms in the highest office in the land.

This Representative Republic allows for too much personal freedom, assuming that individuals know best how to spend the money that they earn and how best to live their lives.

This Representative Republic allows for the free market, not all-knowing bureaucrats, to right any wrongs in the economy.

This Representative Republic expects judges to uphold, not enact, law.

This Representative Republic allows private citizens to own firearms, thus allowing them to protect themselves and their family from all intrusions (including those from government).

This Representative Republic does not guarantee electoral outcomes for any one particular party - namely, My party.

This Representative Republic guarantees citizens equality before the law - not social justice as defined by activist judges and legislators.

In every stage of these oppressions, I have petitioned for redress in the least humble terms: My repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Representative Republic, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define oppressive Evil Capitalism, is unfit to be the government of a people yearning for Hope and Change.
Nor have I been wanting in attention to my Global Citizen brethren. I have warned them from time to time of their attempts by their elected leaders to follow in the footsteps of the United States. I have reminded them of the circumstances of America's many mistakes. I have appealed to their systems of justice and social programs, which I hope to emulate. I have also appealed to our enemies, as I have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow the usurpations of America, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. I must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces America's sovereignty, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, superiors in war, in peace superiors.

I, therefore, the Messiah of the United States of America, acting of my own volition, appealing to Myself for the rectitude of my intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of Myself, solemnly publish and declare:

That the United States ought to be dependent states; that they are absolved from the Tenth Amendment, and that all political connection between them and the Federal Government, is and ought to be of a dependent nature; and that as subservient and dependent states and citizens thereof, they have no power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, or do any other acts and things without express permission from Federal Government thus represented by Me. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of the Nanny State, I pledge to oversee your lives, your fortunes, and what is left of your sacred honor.
Signed,
Barak Obama.
No other signatories needed.

Click on comments below to express your opinion.

GET THESE CHAINS OFF OF ME... BIG BRO!

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds... [we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our mis-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for [another ]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." Thomas Jefferson.

Many Americans make light of the fact that we now work half of each year to meet our tax burdens. But it is no laughing matter. Our local, state and federal governments now tax us so heavily that it takes two adults in each household working full-time to pay for necessities and taxes. Despite this heavy taxation, our federal government acquires ever-increasing debt, mortgaging our independence and our future. "We the People" now pay huge interest payments every year to Communist China. Most households are so burdened with debts and taxes that we have no energy or time to hold our representatives responsible - or as Jefferson phrased it - "calling our mis-managers to account." The solution is surprisingly simple - require our federal government to confine itself to taxing and spending only on those subjects that We the People delegated to it in our written Constitution. That is the form of government we established - a constitutional republic limited by our Constitution. Since our federal government has proven that it cannot confine itself, we also need to repeal the 16th Amendment. We should NOT replace it with another form of taxation. Our federal government, if it were acting within its legal bounds, could operate quite nicely on all the tariffs, excise taxes, import and export taxes that it presently collects.In addition to eliminating our currently oppressive tax burdens, many of our social ills would disappear as well. Since our federal government has no authority to "redistribute the wealth," our current problems with illegal immigration would end. If the federal government did not illegally offer food, housing, education and health care, only those who wanted to work in freedom would come to or stay in America. We should want those yearning to be free, not those wanting to be slaves of a State.
Let's roll, Patriots!

Click on comments below to express your opinion. TP.

HYPING TERROR FOR PROFIT AND POWER

For those who want to understand the truth about the state of political corruption in America. You will want to read this.

What if there really was no need for much - or even most - of the Cold War? What if, in fact, the Cold War had been kept alive for two decades based on phony WMD threats? What if, similarly, the War On Terror was largely a scam, and the administration was hyping it to seem larger-than-life? What if our "enemy" represented a real but relatively small threat posed by rogue and criminal groups well outside the mainstream of Islam? What if that hype was done largely to enhance the power, electability, and stature of George W. Bush and Tony Blair? And what if the world was to discover the most shocking dimensions of these twin deceits - that the same men promulgated them in the 1970s and today?

It happened.

The myth-shattering event took place in England the first three weeks of October, when the BBC aired a three-hour documentary written and produced by Adam Curtis, titled "The Power of Nightmares." If the emails and phone calls many of us in the US received from friends in the UK - and debate in the pages of publications like The Guardian are any indicator, this was a seismic event, one that may have even provoked a hasty meeting between Blair and Bush a few weeks later. According to this carefully researched and well-vetted BBC documentary, Richard Nixon, following in the steps of his mentor and former boss Dwight D. Eisenhower, believed it was possible to end the Cold War and eliminate fear from the national psyche. The nation need no longer be afraid of communism or the Soviet Union. Nixon worked out a truce with the Soviets, meeting their demands for safety as well as the US needs for security, and then announced to Americans that they need no longer be afraid. In 1972, President Richard Nixon returned from the Soviet Union with a treaty worked out by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the beginning of a process Kissinger called "détente." On June 1, 1972, Nixon gave a speech in which he said, "Last Friday, in Moscow, we witnessed the beginning of the end of that era which began in 1945. With this step, we have enhanced the security of both nations. We have begun to reduce the level of fear, by reducing the causes of fear—for our two peoples, and for all peoples in the world."
But Nixon left amid scandal and Ford came in, and Ford's Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) and Chief of Staff (Dick Cheney) believed it was intolerable that Americans might no longer be bound by fear. Without fear, how could Americans be manipulated? Rumsfeld and Cheney began a concerted effort - first secretly and then openly - to undermine Nixon's treaty for peace and to rebuild the state of fear and, thus, reinstate the Cold War. And these two men - 1974 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Ford Chief of Staff Dick Cheney - did this by claiming that the Soviets had secret weapons of mass destruction that the president didn't know about, that the CIA didn't know about, that nobody but them knew about. And, they said, because of those weapons, the US must redirect billions of dollars away from domestic programs and instead give the money to defense contractors for whom these two men would one day work. "The Soviet Union has been busy," Defense Secretary Rumsfeld explained to America in 1976. "They’ve been busy in terms of their level of effort; they’ve been busy in terms of the actual weapons they ’ve been producing; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding production rates; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding their institutional capability to produce additional weapons at additional rates; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding their capability to increasingly improve the sophistication of those weapons. Year after year after year, they’ve been demonstrating that they have steadiness of purpose. They’re purposeful about what they’re doing." The CIA strongly disagreed, calling Rumsfeld's position a "complete fiction" and pointing out that the Soviet Union was disintegrating from within, could barely afford to feed their own people, and would collapse within a decade or two if simply left alone. But Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted Americans to believe there was something nefarious going on, something we should be very afraid of. To this end, they convinced President Ford to appoint a commission including their old friend Paul Wolfowitz to prove that the Soviets were up to no good. According to Curtis' BBC documentary, Wolfowitz's group, known as "Team B," came to the conclusion that the Soviets had developed several terrifying new weapons of mass destruction, featuring a nuclear-armed submarine fleet that used a sonar system that didn't depend on sound and was, thus, undetectable with our current technology.
The BBC's documentarians asked Dr. Anne Cahn of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during that time, her thoughts on Rumsfeld's, Cheney's, and Wolfowitz's 1976 story of the secret Soviet WMDs. Here's a clip from a transcript of that BBC documentary:

Dr ANNE CAHN, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1977-80: They couldn't say that the Soviets had acoustic means of picking up American submarines, because they couldn't find it. So they said, well maybe they have a non-acoustic means of making our submarine fleet vulnerable. But there was no evidence that they had a non-acoustic system. They’re saying, 'we can’t find evidence that they’re doing it the way that everyone thinks they’re doing it, so they must be doing it a different way. We don’t know what that different way is, but they must be doing it.'

"INTERVIEWER (off-camera): Even though there was no evidence.
"CAHN: Even though there was no evidence.

"INTERVIEWER: So they’re saying there, that the fact that the weapon doesn’t exist…
"CAHN: Doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. It just means that we haven’t found it."

The moderator of the BBC documentary then notes: " What Team B accused the CIA of missing was a hidden and sinister reality in the Soviet Union. Not only were there many secret weapons the CIA hadn’t found, but they were wrong about many of those they could observe, such as the Soviet air defenses. The CIA were convinced that these were in a state of collapse, reflecting the growing economic chaos in the Soviet Union. Team B said that this was actually a cunning deception by the Soviet régime. The air-defense system worked perfectly. But the only evidence they produced to prove this was the official Soviet training manual, which proudly asserted that their air-defense system was fully integrated and functioned flawlessly. The CIA accused Team B of moving into a fantasy world." Nonetheless, as Melvin Goodman, head of the CIA's Office of Soviet Affairs, 1976-87, noted in the BBC documentary, " Rumsfeld won that very intense, intense political battle that was waged in Washington in 1975 and 1976. Now, as part of that battle, Rumsfeld and others, people such as Paul Wolfowitz, wanted to get into the CIA. And their mission was to create a much more severe view of the Soviet Union, Soviet intentions, Soviet views about fighting and winning a nuclear war."

Although Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld's assertions of powerful new Soviet WMDs were unproven - they said the lack of proof proved that undetectable weapons existed - they nonetheless used their charges to push for dramatic escalations in military spending to selected defense contractors, a process that continued through the Reagan administration.
But, trillions of dollars and years later, it was proven that they had been wrong all along, and the CIA had been right. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz lied to America in the 1970s about Soviet WMDs.

Not only do we now know that the Soviets didn't have any new and impressive WMDs, but we also now know that they were, in fact, decaying from within, ripe for collapse any time, regardless of what the US did - just as the CIA (and anybody who visited Soviet states - as I had - during that time could easily predict). The Soviet economic and political system wasn't working, and their military was disintegrating. As arms-control expert Cahn noted in the documentary of those 1970s claims by Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld: "I would say that all of it was fantasy. I mean, they looked at radars out in Krasnoyarsk and said, 'This is a laser beam weapon,' when in fact it was nothing of the sort. ... And if you go through most of Team B’s specific allegations about weapons systems, and you just examine them one by one, they were all wrong."

"INTERVIEWER: All of them? "CAHN: All of them. "INTERVIEWER: Nothing true?
"CAHN: I don’t believe anything in [Wolfowitz's 1977] Team B was really true."

But the neocons said it was true, and organized a group - The Committee on the Present Danger - to promote their worldview. The Committee produced documentaries, publications, and provided guests for national talk shows and news reports. They worked hard to whip up fear and encourage increases in defense spending, particularly for sophisticated weapons systems offered by the defense contractors for whom neocons would later become lobbyists. And they succeeded in recreating an atmosphere of fear in the United States, and making themselves and their defense contractor friends richer than most of the kingdoms of the world.

The Cold War was good for business, and good for the political power of its advocates, from Rumsfeld to Reagan. Similarly, according to this documentary, the War On Terror is the same sort of scam, run for many of the same reasons, by the same people. And by hyping it - and then invading Iraq - we may well be bringing into reality terrors and forces that previously existed only on the margins and with very little power to harm us.

Curtis' documentary suggests that the War On Terror is just as much a fiction as were the super-WMDs this same group of neocons said the Soviets had in the 70s. He suggests we've done more to create terror than to fight it. That the risk was really quite minimal (at least until we invaded Iraq), and the terrorists are - like most terrorist groups - simply people on the fringes, rather easily dispatched by their own people. He even points out that Al Qaeda itself was a brand we invented, later adopted by bin Laden because we'd put so many millions into creating worldwide name recognition for it. Watching "The Terror of Nightmares" is like taking the Red Pill in the movie The Matrix. It's the story of idealism gone wrong, of ideologies promoted in the US by Leo Strauss and his followers (principally Wolfowitz, Feith, and Pearle), and in the Muslim world by bin Laden's mentor, Ayman Zawahiri. Both sought to create a utopian world through world domination; both believe that the ends justify the means; both are convinced that "the people" must be frightened into embracing religion and nationalism for the greater good of morality and a stable state. Each needs the other in order to hold power. Whatever your plans are for tonight or tomorrow, clip three hours out of them and take the Red Pill. Get a pair of headphones (the audio is faint), plug them into your computer, and visit an unofficial archive of the Curtis' BBC documentary at the Information Clearing House website. (The third hour of the program, in a more viewable format, is also available here.) For those who prefer to read things online, an unofficial but complete transcript is on this Belgian site. But be forewarned: You'll never see political reality - and certainly never hear the words of the Bush or Blair administrations - the same again. Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books are "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," "We The People: A Call To Take Back America," The Edison Gene, and "What Would Jefferson Do?: A Return To Democracy."

Your comments are appreciated. Click on comments below. TP.

SECESSION IS OUR RIGHT AND OUR DUTY.

FREEDOM FROM TYRANNY

Whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive to the collective will and well being of the people, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness (Thomas Jefferson)

As Americans, We the People are now extremely vulnerable.We need the basis of our well-being, the benefits of our work, returned to us.

Unless we take back the basis of our well-being, the work that we do and make sure that it once again serves us and not monopoly or cartels, we are slaves.

Here’s the key:

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes
necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,
a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

"This ultimatum must be backed up by the people's willingness to use force of arms if rejected
Another key is that we all have to act together. And soon.
Glenn Nunley. North Florida.

NO THANKS WASHINGTON I'D RATHER DO IT MYSELF.

If you’re waiting for Washington to save your home, income, savings, investments or retirement, you’re going to be waiting until Hell freezes over.

After all; Washington CREATED this crisis — the greatest debt bubble in history — with artificially low interest rates and lax regulation of bankers and brokers.

Now, for the past year, Washington has used nearly $3 TRILLION of our tax dollars to bail out guilty corporations and irresponsible borrowers, and this crisis is only growing worse.

And now, to add insult to injury, failed companies like AIG are using OUR MONEY to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to the very executives who pushed them to the brink of disaster.

Worse: Despite the facts that …

The Bush and Obama administrations’ bail-outs and hand-outs are creating a massive $1.7 TRILLION deficit in 2009 …

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just reported that President Obama’s new budget will add a staggering $9.3 to the National Debt over the next seven years, and … The U.S. Federal Reserve just announced it will ALSO print up to $1 TRILLION out of thin air to buy bad debt from dying banks …

The mortgage, credit card and auto loan defaults that caused this crisis are still skyrocketing, sending the clear signal that this great recession is about to become The Second Great Depression in less than 100 years.

This is worse than outrageous. It’s outright theft: A crime against future generations who will be handed the bill for bailing out guilty corporations and irresponsible borrowers.

More than that: It’s the greatest threat to our families’ financial survival in 80 years.

Glenn Nunley. North Florida.

DANGEROUS PROPAGANDA KILLS!!