America: From Colonies To Nations To Colonies

January 23, 2011

Time to become nations again.

By Russell D. Longcore

From the 1600s until 1776, Great Britain had colonies in North America. The first colony was Jamestown, established in 1607 by a private English company to look for gold. Over the next 150 years, another twelve colonies were formed by various groups for various reasons.


The three forms of colonial government in 1776 were provincial, proprietary, and charter. These governments were all subordinate to the king in London, with no explicit relationship with the British Parliament.

New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia were provincial colonies, and they were governed by commissions created at pleasure by the monarch.

Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, and Maryland were proprietary colonies. They were governed much as royal colonies except that lords proprietors, rather than the king, appointed the governor.

Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantation, and Connecticut were charter colonies. Charter governments were political corporations created by letters patent, giving the grantees control of the land and the powers of legislative government.

But remember that the people in the colonies were considered free Englishmen and were subjects of the King. By 1776, the monarchy had sufficiently taxed and regulated the colonies to the point that they did not consider themselves free men any longer. The Declaration of Independence was written and signed by the members of the Continental Congress, and the War for Independence ensued.

The colonies won. You remember…it was in all the papers.

In the Treaty of Paris, signed in 1783, King George acknowledged that the Thirteen Colonies were free, sovereign and independent nations, of equal stature with Great Britain, France or Spain in Europe.

Again from Wikipedia:

The nation/state is a state that self-identifies as deriving its political legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a country as a sovereign territorial unit. The state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. The term “nation-state” implies that the two geographically coincide, and this distinguishes the nation state from the other types of state, which historically preceded it.

The American nation/states formed an alliance in 1777 under the Articles of Confederation, establishing a loose government with very limited powers, protecting the sovereignty of each nation/state.

Unfortunately, that Confederation only lasted until 1789 when the US Constitution was ratified and supplanted the Articles. How sad that the men who defeated the world’s greatest military power in battle could not defeat the forces that longed for a strong central government.

Twelve years of sovereignty. Not much to show for the Herculean effort to be free.

Since the Constitution was ratified, the new American government has been chipping away at state sovereignty in favor of that strong central government. Central banks were established, then dissolved, then re-established to stay. An Amendment was passed to cause senators to be elected by popular vote, not appointed by State legislatures (17th Amendment). An income tax was enacted. Nation/states abandoned the power of the purse and the power of the sword in favor of Washington holding both purses. But the general tendency over the last 230-plus years is toward more and more government power, and toward less and less liberty for the very people the government was supposed to serve and protect. At this point, Washington has become so power-hungry that it even ignores the very Constitution that provided so much power to be a strong central government. DC now recognizes no limit to its power to tax, regulate and destroy.

The sovereign nation/states of old have willingly given away their sovereignty, and have become colony/states once again. I’m not sure of an exact date that it occurred. Some would say at the end of Lincoln’s War. Some would say sovereignty died when the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified. But that hard-won sovereignty has been dead lo these many years.

It’s time once again to take the words of the Declaration of Independence seriously. Jefferson said that when government becomes destructive, it is the DUTY of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government that once again secures their Creator-endowed unalienable rights.

“Alter” can mean nullification. But nullification cannot prevail when colony/states are no longer sovereign nation/states. They no longer possess the very things that define sovereign nation/states…the power of the purse and the power of the sword.

“Abolish” can only mean one thing in the present day. It can only mean to secede. To abolish the government can only mean that the colony/state asserts its independence once again, and ceases to acknowledge that the US Federal government has any legal jurisdiction over it and the individuals living inside its borders. The people of the colony/state “throw off such government and provide new guards for their future security.” It is not possible to disband the Washington Federal government. It is only possible to opt out of it and leave the Union.

Seceding colony/states can once again become sovereign nation/states…if they want liberty once again. But as Jefferson said in 1796, “timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.”

Secession is the Hope For Mankind. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2011, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

A Destructive Crossroads

January 10, 2011

by Dylan Ratigan

(Editor’s Note: Ratigan is writing about the Arizona murders over the weekend. This article at once has NOTHING to do with secession, and has EVERYTHING to do with secession. In a departure from the norm, I’m going to pepper this article with comments in bold print.)

We find ourselves at a violent crossroads. Whether you are a national voice or an individual without a voice — there are simple questions we all must ask ourselves today. As individuals wrestle with either a modest or an extreme sense of unfairness in the American political system, the question we have to ask ourselves is “What are we going to do with that energy?

The logical solution is secession.

Whatever is to be said about the state of the gunman today, whether he had psychological issues or not, he was angry. Across America today, people are angry. They may choose to channel that anger in a number of either self-destructive or destructive ways. But whatever any of our feelings are, our challenge and our obligation is to channel that energy into a path based on resolution. For a path based on destruction is just that, destruction.

But resolution doesn’t necessarily mean trying to fix the unfixable American political system and the Washington criminal class.

There are two categories of people. The first category is those in the powerful elite — whether you are an active serving political leader in the legislature, a former political leader, governor or president, a leader of a non-profit group, or the leader of a political organization ranging from the NRA, and the Sierra Club, or whether you are a national or local broadcaster focusing on political issues or some form of political strategist or advisor. This is the power class: The group that has a clear avenue of expression and power inside the political process, inside the political media, and inside politically organized institutions. Very well said, Dylan. You are in the power class. Remember the article written last year by Angelo Codevilla entitled America’s Ruling Class and the Perils of Revolution.

Or you may find yourself as the vast majority of Americans do, as a passive observer with little sense beyond your ability to vote — without having an avenue to express your beliefs and ideas when it comes to the national conversation.

Both the power class and the passive class are experiencing this sense of frustration and unfairness to one degree or another. Bullshit! The power class controls the national conversation entirely and sways the sheep however they wish. As the internalization of that energy is self-destructive, it begs the question…How do we as a nation, both as the power class and the passive class, express and ultimately resolve the ongoing unfairness that exists in this country to this day? Though we may not like to believe it, grave unfairness has existed since this country’s founding. OK, Dylan…who defines the word “unfairness? I promise the power class defines it differently than the passive class.

Yet, the beauty of the idea that is America is the principle of a government beholden to all of its citizens. As frustrating as the unfairness may appear to be, it is imperative we understand the context that this country has always represented: the ideals of quality and freedom. But our country has always fallen short — it has always been an ongoing process of trying to close the gap between that unfairness and our ideals.

Today, we find ourselves at a violent crossroads in American history as a result of our inability, or unwillingness to find a healthy outlet to resolve these problems. We now have two options. Internalize the energy into a sea of bile and resentment that will cause you to become less effective, productive and beneficial to those in your life. Internalizing this energy without finding a positive recourse is a recipe for personal disaster. I speak from experience. Internalizing that energy of unfairness, that frustration and that anger is a recipe for self-destruction from a personal to a national level.

We now find ourselves with a desperate need for an outlet for that energy, a need for an outlet that solves our problems rather than destroying ourselves or those around us. There is no better solution than S-E-C-E-S-S-I-O-N. It actually solves our problems peacefully, non-violently and sanely. Unfortunately, in both instances where secession was sought in America it devolved into violence. Perhaps this time we could avoid that, but power never seems to give up power without a fight.

So I pose two questions: For the power class, how are you using the energy of frustration and anger that revolves around the unfairness of this country? Are you using it as a tool to manipulate your environment in order to accumulate power, wealth, fame, or some other self-serving manifestation? The obvious answer…YES! Why would anyone think that the power class would not constantly try to grow their power base? Obama advisor Rahm Emanuel said, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”

For the passive class, have you chosen to deal with your knowledge of this unfairness either through denial of its existence, or through a logical apathy founded upon the belief that nothing you do will matter? Continued participation in the voting process is both a denial of the existence of the unfairness and the apathy of the American voter, compounded by the credulity of the voters who still think that voting for party-approved candidates makes any difference. Two heads of the same coin.

It goes without saying that the events of today are a wake-up call for every American, regardless of their position in this society. And as we stand as a group at this violent fork in the road, will those within the power class take this wakeup call to acknowledge the responsibility they have to utilize their influence to serve the interests of increased fairness in America — even if that requires the suffering of personal losses or losses among your powerbase ? Of course they will not!! But let’s first reject the premise that the power class needs to serve “fairness.” The power class revolves around government, and those elected into the government take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The non-governmental members of the power class are directly influenced by the adherence to…or ignoring of the Constitution by the office-holders. That makes everyone in the power class either a criminal or an accessory after the fact. The violence in Arizona changes nothing substantively, but gives the power class another reason to attack individual liberty and property rights.

Understand that whether we like it or not, the personal indulgence of this exploitation by some in order to accumulate wealth and power is done so at a mortal danger to all Americans — each likely as concerned for the wellbeing of this country as you, the passive class, may believe yourself to be. Really, Dylan? You think that the bankers and Washington criminal class are concerned for the wellbeing of this country? What evidence would you offer to prove your belief?

America is in a desperate need of engagement by all of its citizens, and we all must understand that the luxury of denial and logical apathy among the passive can no longer be afforded. What we witnessed today is the worst expression of human nature. The unresolved frustration that led to today’s events not only took the lives of at least five people, but also destroyed the life of the shooter himself in the ultimate act of self-destruction. Shockwaves will be sent through the legislative body of America for months to come. Why? Will legislators begin to fear that their legislative actions might have physical consequences? Will the prospect of assassination cause lawmakers to pause and consider how they vote? That would also be the wrong conclusion to glean from this tragedy.

The path of destruction of ourselves, or of others, is an easy path. The path of resolution, shared sacrifice, and the brutal honesty necessary for those who are benefitting the most from the culture of unfairness that plagues this country today must be addressed. Dylan, you’re spot on. Shared sacrifice and brutal honesty are requirements for the secessionist camp. Because secession will be a very difficult process, as it should be.

It is easy for someone like myself or anybody else to get up on a soapbox and point fingers as to who may be a given bad guy, or where a given failure, may exist. But, setting a path to resolve the unfairness that plagues this country will originate not by looking outward at those whom we believe are perpetrating a given unfairness, but through a period of brutally honest inward reflection into the values that each of us apply to the ways we make the decisions in our days, from one minute to the next.

It is through investment in internal reflection that we can open the door to the knowledge that only our own happiness and fulfillment can manifest a peaceful path to resolving the problems that we face as a nation. Calling Bullshit again. What kind of lah-lah crap is Dylan trying to sell here? You will not experience “happiness and fulfillment” in an environment of 24/7 tyranny, regulation and subjugation. But you could be happy and fulfilled in a state that seceded from the Union and became a new nation.

Through that reflection, those in power can ask themselves whether they can muster the necessary courage to reject the forces of their own ego and their own paycheck to make what they know is the right decision. BS again…secessionists do not want to have the power class change themselves in any way. Secessionists do not want to destroy the United States. Secessionists simply want to LEAVE PEACEABLY.

Through that reflection, the passive class can muster the strength to shed the protections of denial and apathy. Reflection, my arse. The passive class must wake from their bad dream and come together to seek smaller governments and entirely forsake the nation called the United States of America.

While your voice may feel hollow by itself, the possibility of becoming part of a national chorus of awakened can serve as a deeper foundation for the compassion and wisdom to accept our own shortfalls and those of our leadership as we continue the national trip toward a more fair and free America. America is over. Washington is destroying America. The economy will collapse because of what Washington has done and continues to do. Washington cannot fix this. The ONLY logical recourse…the ONLY logical solution…is secession.

Dylan Ratigan is the Host of MSNBC’s “The Dylan Ratigan Show.”

Copyright © 2011, Inc.

Wikileaks: a Big Dangerous US Government Con Job?

December 26, 2010

by F. William Engdahl

The story on the surface makes for a script for a new Oliver Stone Hollywood thriller. However, a closer look at the details of what has so far been carefully leaked by the most ultra-establishment of international media such as the New York Times reveals a clear agenda. That agenda coincidentally serves to buttress the agenda of US geopolitics around the world from Iran to North Korea. The Wikileaks is a big and dangerous US intelligence Con Job which will likely be used to police the Internet.

It is almost too perfectly scripted to be true. A discontented 22-year old US Army soldier on duty in Baghdad, Bradley Manning, a low-grade US Army intelligence analyst, described as a loner, a gay in the military, a disgruntled “computer geek,” sifts through classified information at Forward Operating Base Hammer. He decides to secretly download US State Department email communications from the entire world over a period of eight months for hours a day, onto his blank CDs while pretending to be listening to Lady Gaga. In addition to diplomatic cables, Manning is believed to have provided WikiLeaks with helicopter gun camera video of an errant US attack in Baghdad on unarmed journalists, and with war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Manning then is supposed to have tracked down a notorious former US computer hacker to get his 250,000 pages of classified US State Department cables out in the Internet for the whole world to see. He allegedly told the US hacker that the documents he had contained “incredible, awful things that belonged in the public domain and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington, DC.” The hacker turned him in to US authorities so the story goes. Manning is now incommunicado since months in US military confinement so we cannot ask him, conveniently. The Pentagon routinely hires the best hackers to design their security systems.

Then the plot thickens. The 250,000 pages end up at the desk of Julian Assange, the 39-year-old Australian founder of a supposedly anti-establishment website with the cute name Wikileaks. Assange decides to selectively choose several of the world’s most ultra-establishment news media to exclusively handle the leaking job for him as he seems to be on the run from Interpol, not for leaking classified information, but for allegedly having consensual sex with two Swedish women who later decided it was rape.

He selects as exclusive newspapers to decide what is to be leaked the New York Times which did such service in promoting faked propaganda against Saddam that led to the Iraqi war, the London Guardian and Der Spiegel. Assange claims he had no time to sift through so many pages so handed them to the trusted editors of the establishment media for them to decide what should be released. Very “anti-establishment” that.

The New York Times even assigned one of its top people, David E. Sanger, to control the release of the Wikileaks material. Sanger is no establishment outsider. He sits as a member of the elite Council on Foreign Relations as well as the Aspen Institute Strategy Group together with the likes of Condi Rice, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former CIA head John Deutch, former State Department Deputy Secretary and now World Bank head Robert Zoellick among others.

Indeed a strange choice of media for a person who claims to be anti-establishment. But then Assange also says he believes the US Government version of 9/11 and calls the Bilderberg Group a normal meeting of people, a very establishment view.

Not so secret cables…

The latest sensational Wikileaks documents allegedly from the US State Department embassies around the world to Washington are definitely not as Hillary Clinton claimed “an attack on America’s foreign policy interests that have endangered innocent people.” And they do not amount to what the Italian foreign minister, called the “September 11 of world diplomacy.” The British government calls them a threat to national security and an aide to Canada’s Prime Minister calls on the CIA to assassinate Assange, as does kooky would-be US Presidential hopeful Sarah Palin.

Most important, the 250,000 cables are not “top secret” as we might have thought. Between two and three million US Government employees are cleared to see this level of “secret” document, [1] and some 500,000 people around the world have access to the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRnet) where the cables were stored. SIPRnet is not recommended for distribution of top-secret information. Only 6% or 15,000 pages of the documents have been classified as even secret, a level below top-secret. Another 40% were the lowest level, “confidential”, while the rest were unclassified. In brief, it was not all that secret. [2]

Most of the revelations so far have been unspectacular. In Germany the revelations led to the removal of a prominent young FDP politician close to Guido Westerwelle who apparently liked to talk too much to his counterpart at the US Embassy. The revelations about Russian politics, that a US Embassy official refers to Putin and Medvedev as “Batman and Robin,” tells more about the cultural level of current US State Department personnel than it does about internal Russian politics.

But for anyone who has studied the craft of intelligence and of disinformation, a clear pattern emerges in the Wikileaks drama. The focus is put on select US geopolitical targets, appearing as Hillary Clinton put it “to justify US sanctions against Iran.” They claim North Korea with China’s granting of free passage to Korean ships despite US State Department pleas, send dangerous missiles to Iran. Saudi Arabia’s ailing King Abdullah reportedly called Iran’s President a Hitler.

Excuse to police the Internet?

What is emerging from all the sound and Wikileaks fury in Washington is that the entire scandal is serving to advance a long-standing Obama and Bush agenda of policing the until-now free Internet. Already the US Government has shut the Wikileaks server in the United States though no identifiable US law has been broken.

What is emerging from all the sound and Wikileaks fury in Washington is that the entire scandal is serving to advance a long-standing Obama and Bush agenda of policing the until-now free Internet. Already the US Government has shut the Wikileaks server in the United States though no identifiable US law has been broken.

The process of policing the Web was well underway before the current leaks scandal. In 2009 Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller and Republican Olympia Snowe introduced the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (S.773). IIt would give the President unlimited power to disconnect private-sector computers from the internet. The bill “would allow the president to ’declare a cyber-security emergency’ relating to ’non-governmental’ computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat.” We can expect that now this controversial piece of legislation will get top priority when a new Republican House and the Senate convene in January.

The US Department of Homeland Security, an agency created in the political hysteria following 9/11 2001 that has been compared to the Gestapo, has already begun policing the Internet. They are quietly seizing and shutting down internet websites (web domains) without due process or a proper trial. DHS simply seizes web domains that it wants to and posts an ominous “Department of Justice” logo on the web site. See an example at Over 75 websites were seized and shut in a recent week. Right now, their focus is websites that they claim “violate copyrights,” yet the website that was seized by DHS contained no copyrighted content whatsoever. It was merely a search engine website that linked to destinations where people could access copyrighted content. Step by careful step freedom of speech can be taken away. Then what?

[1] BBC News, “Siprnet: Where the leaked cables came from”, 29 November, 2010.

[2] Ken Dilanian, “Inside job: Stolen diplomatic cables show U.S. challenge of stopping authorized users”, Los Angeles Times, November 29, 2010.

F. William Engdahl is Author of Gods of Money: Wall Street and the Death of the American Century and Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order. His other books include Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation and A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order.

Copyright 2010

The Fix Is In: Expect Democrats to Buckle

December 13, 2010

by Stephen Lendman

(Editor’s note: You’ll see that author Mr. Lendman doesn’t like millionaires as you read. But if you ever doubted that DC is a one-party town, watch what happens over this “Bush tax cuts” issue. Rather than an up-down vote on this one issue, both parties in Congress will load up this bill with porky earmarks as extortion for votes. The sellout of America continues. The more spending bills DC enacts, the faster the economy will collapse, and the quicker Secession can proceed to once again regain liberty in North America.)

The criminal class in Washington is bipartisan. On core issues, Democrats are no different from Republicans. Expect more bluster before caving like Obama, enacting his deal with the devil worth up to $1 trillion dollars. The lion’s share goes to corporations and America’s wealthy, middle and low income workers getting crumbs. The fix is in. It’ll happen, promoted as stimulus to create jobs and revive economic growth. Not so. More on that below.

Given the makeup of both Houses, their voting records aren’t surprising. Getting reelected counts most. Under a corrupted electoral system, generous funding is needed, but wealthy and corporate donors expect lavish favors in return. They get them and much more.

As a result, Congress capitulates on virtually everything big money wants. Expect it again. Besides more handouts, preserving their tax breaks are key. Most congressional members, in fact, want their own kept. Otherwise, they’ll face big increases they don’t want and can avoid by benefiting from what they give millionaires, their own class. Read on.

Both the House and Senate are infested with millionaires. For some, their net worth exceeds $100 million. House examples include:

— Rep. Darrell Issa (R. CA), his maximum net worth estimated at $451 million;

— Rep. Jane Harman (D. CA), hers is $435 million;

— Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) up to $124 million; and

— Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D. CT), the House’s 25th richest member with nearly $27 million.

Senate ones include:

— John Kerry (D. MA) – heir through his wife to the HJ Heinz fortune; among their possessions, they own five homes with values well over $1 million each, the most expensive worth more than $9 million; he can afford them with a maximum net worth of $295 million;

— Mark Warner (D. VA), his at $283 million;

— Herb Kohl (D. WI), up to $231 million;

— Jay Rockefeller (D. WVA) at $136 million;

— Diane Feinstein (D. CA) $108 million;

— Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R. KY) a meager $33 million; and

— the Senate’s 25th richest member – Ron Wyden (D-OR) a paltry $7 million.

No wonder the body is called a millionaires club. In fact, a multimillionaire’s one, hardly anyone not rich gets in.

On November 25, 2009, The New York Times Economix section headlined, “Your Senator Is (Probably) a Millionaire,” saying:

In 2008, about “two-thirds of United States senators were millionaires,” according to a Center for Responsive Politics (Open analysis. In 2009, over half of House and Senate members reported net worth wealth at more than $1 million, 55 $10 million or more, and eight over $100 million.

In 2009, the median net worth of House members was $765,010, up from $645,503 in 2008. In the Senate, it was $2.38 million, compared to $2.27 million the previous year.

Most have considerable wealth. They want it preserved and increased, including by paying no more taxes than necessary, and in some cases, less if they can get away with it. One of Rep. Charles Rangel’s transgressions was not reporting rental income from a Dominican Republic vacation property as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income and assets on his financial disclosure statements. Perhaps also to the IRS, thinking he was too important to audit.

Open Secrets estimates Obama’s 2009 net worth at up to $7.7 million. Expect that figure to grow substantially, especially after leaving office. Estimates put Bill Clinton’s wealth at $200 million, his wife Hillary another $35 million. Who said public service doesn’t pay well?

Obama’s Full Court Press for Passage

Calling Obama an embattled president, Washington Post writer Dan Balz headlined, “Bill Clinton takes the White House stage, again,” saying:

To sell his tax deal, he got center stage, first together, “then solo in the White House briefing room, as Obama slipped away to a holiday party.” On a Friday afternoon, it “was certainly a head-turner,” Clinton “look(ing) like he might never leave, as he fielded questions” from an eager press corp.

His message:

“The agreement taken as a whole is, I believe, the best bipartisan agreement we can reach to help the largest number of Americans and to maximize the chances that the economic recovery will accelerate and create more jobs and to minimize the chance that it will slip back.”

Prodding Democrats, he urging setting aside disagreements for the sake of the country and economy. Save your fights for later, he said, when Republicans try repealing other legislation they oppose.

On December 10, it was all Clinton, “still the center of attention and doing what he likes to do best,” trying to get Obama’s deal passed.

The Wall Street Journal was nonplussed, an editorial headlined, “Clinton and Obama for Bush,” saying:

“We thought we’d seen everything in politics, but yesterday was truly miraculous: There in the White House press room was none other than former Democratic President Bill Clinton (with Obama) endors(ing) the Bush era tax cuts, trying to mobilize reluctant Democrats and the party’s base for support.

On December 11, Wall Street Journal writer Jonathan Weisman called it “back to the future in the West Wing,” the “original practictioner of ‘triangulation.’ ” He called it compromise, saying “People do not see principled compromise as weakness. (It’s) an ethical thing to do.”

In fact, it’s a sellout. He won’t say it, nor Obama or supportive Democrats, even Bernie Sanders for eight hours on the Senate floor, performing rhetorically at best. Real filibusters don’t quit without succeeding. According to Senate historian Donald Ritchie, they occur “to prevent the majority from casting a vote.” Sanders spoke on Friday. A Monday vote is scheduled. Doing it then is what counts with others holding the floor nonstop.

Instead, after what he called “a long speech,” he concluded saying:

If “the American people are prepared to stand – and we’re prepared to follow them – I think we can defeat this proposal. I think we can come up with a better (one) which better reflects the needs of the middle class and working families of our country and, to me, most importantly, the children of our country. And with that, Madam President, I would yield the floor.”

No assertion he’ll be back on Monday, staying there with others uncompromisingly to kill the deal for a better one American families deserve. Instead, rhetorical bluster substitutes for resolute action, assuring wealth again defeats popular need. Democrats are as culpable as Republicans, showing not a dime’s worth of difference between them at voting time when it counts.

Another Big Gun for the Deal – David Broder

An earlier article exposed him as a symbol of major media depravity, accessed through the following link:
Broder article

Called the “dean” of political journalists, he’s distinguished more for supporting power and privilege than delivering real journalism, his December 8 column the most recent example headlined, “Obama takes his case to the independent center,” saying:

“In opting to accommodate reality by acceding to the Republican demand for maintaining all the Bush tax cuts (ones benefitting Broder greatly) and obtaining a better price than many expected for his concessions, Obama (did) almost all that is possible to create a favorable economic environment for the 2012 campaign. (That’s) a winning posture for a president seeking a second term, (placing himself) in the center of the American political spectrum.”

In fact, he’s far to the right of center, even further by his latest deal, proposing more wealth to those already with too much. He’s offering most to fat cats and corporate favorites, chump change by comparison to working Americans.

Broder, however, wants more – “tough love budgetary changes outlined by the presidential commission on deficits,” hitting ordinary American hard while lavishing more benefits on the rich and corporate America. He called it comparable to Clinton signing welfare reform in 1996, stiff-arming the nation’s poor, including many single mothers with children sacrificed to win votes for a second term. “This was (Obama’s) best showing….in many months,” selling out to power and privilege for the same thing.

Broder, so-called pundits, other corporate media writers, and some progressive ones won’t explain it, including Nation magazine editor Katrina vanden Heuvel. She’s an establishment figure, a regular on corporate TV, a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member, and unabashed Obama supporter, even when criticizing as she did in her December 7 Washington Post op-ed headlined, “Obama’s disastrous path,” reciting a checklist of objectionable policies, including, saying he’s:

“on the verge of kowtowing to Republican bluster and cutting a deal to extend (Bush era) tax cuts for the rich in exchange (one hopes) for extending unemployment insurance,” implying giving up lots for a little is OK.

Then despite criticizing his current course, while stopping short of condemning and exposing it as hard right, she inflated him unjustly, saying he “has a historic mandate” like Lincoln to end slavery or Roosevelt during the Great Depression. Otherwise, he “risks a failed presidency.” She’s, in fact, clueless how corrupted, lawless, and failed he’s been for nearly two years, a record of shame, assuring his status as one of America’s worst ever leaders, serving power, not loyal constituents who elected him, the same ones again being betrayed.

Vanden Heuvel, other Nation writers, and more from the progressive left think Obama is one of them. Their level of intellectual dishonesty is shocking. Calling it blindness is too kind, including Christopher Hayes in the Nation’s December 27 issue headlined, “Tax Cuts Forever,” criticizing the deal, but saying:

“They know the economy needs more stimulus, and that Republicans are loath to allow them to deliver it. Through this deal they were able to secure some stimulative tax cuts….At this point, the White House will take what it can get,” or in other words bad deals are OK to get something.

“Obama didn’t create this system, but he is making it stronger before our eyes,” for capital, not working Americans, suckered into a bad deal Hayes won’t admit or maybe understand. Economist David Rosenberg does, calling it “a neutral for the economy,” not stimulus to create jobs and revive growth.

Progressive writers, not Obama, have “a historic mandate” to expose a failed president, a servant of wealth and power, an elitist, a corporatist betraying his base. He’s beyond rehabilitation. He and the entire Congress needs replacing for of, by and for the people governance. Try reading that in the Nation or most other left of center publications.

Democrats like Republicans are shameless. Their record belies their rhetoric. They’ll display it again next week, capitulating like always to wealth and power, calling it the best deal for Americans they could get. For themselves, other rich folks, and their corporate allies for sure.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at Also visit his blog site at and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

Copyright 2010

The Question Is

December 12, 2010

by Eric Peters

The question isn’t whether you’re a liberal or conservative.

Who can say what either of those labels means anymore? Like “Christian,” a liberal (or a conservative) can be anything he wants to be and still claim the label.

The question, I think, is whether you’re an authoritarian.

It is a question that neatly cleaves one group of people from another. There’s no hedging, no getting around the central thing – which is: Do you – or don’t you – support using force to compel other people to do what you want them to do? If you do, then you are an authoritarian. It does not matter whether your desire to control others is based on “liberal” goals or “conservative” ones.

To your victims, the defining thing is force.

Modern “conservative” authoritarianism most typically expresses itself in literal blood lust. They are eager to go to war, as the first resort. (Our turgid ex-Decider’s fight fer freedom in Iraq being the obvious recent example.) They are remarkably untroubled by the indiscriminate death and destruction that result, taking the attitude that one must break eggs to make an omelette.

“Liberal” authoritarians on the other hand, like to believe they are helping people – by forcing them to do X or Y (or making X pay so that Y may have). The typical liberal authoritarian is (unlike the “conservative authoritarian) personally mild-mannered and gentle-seeming. He, personally, would never resort to violence. But he is enthusiastic to see the government use force to achieve aims he deems worthy. (A recent example is heff cayuh reform. The liberal authoritarian delights in seeing the government force people to buy a product he thinks they should have – even though they may disagree with him- and hugs the very strange idea that heff cayuh – that is, medical supplies and the time/talent of doctors, etc. – is a right to which everyone is entitled.)

The common denominator is – force. We demand that you do This or That and if you do not comply, we shall literally assault you.

It is never put quite that plainly, but it is the bottom line.

Refuse to be drafted to kill and maim strangers in another country who have done you no harm (or fund the system that does it in your name) and the “conservative” authoritarian will insist that you be imprisoned. Fail to “purchase” the heff cayuh insurance that the “liberal” authoritarian demands you “purchase” and he will be pleased to first fine you and, should you decline to pay the fine, eventually, seize your assets or (failing that) seize you.

The “conservative” authoritarian assuages any misgivings his stunted humanity might still cling to by telling himself that security, or The National Interest (or even worse, “protecting our freedoms”) justifies the open-ended, never-to-be-questioned sacrificial offerings to the arms merchants and war profiteers.

The “liberal” authoritarian tells himself that he is working for equality – or toward a just society.

Neither takes the time to ask himself: Would I put my next-door neighbor in prison (or threaten him with violence) if he declined to do as I wish and asked that I leave him in peace?

Because probably 90 percent of the population has never even thought to ask themselves this crucible of a question, we find ourselves living in what amounts to a (somewhat) controlled orgy of reciprocal looting and assault lacquered over with euphemisms about “democracy.” It pulls one way or the other, but in the end, the result is always the same.

“Liberal” authoritarians win a legislative victory one year – and millions are forced to buy the product of a private, for-profit business (heff cayuh insurance). “Conservative” authoritarians seize control and, suddenly, we are literally assaulted by government agents before being allowed to get on a commercial airplane.

From the Macro at the federal level to the Micro at the local/county level, this is the nature of the process – and the system.

The question that is never asked is: Do I have any right to impose my will on my neighbor, who is doing me no harm? For to ask that simple but penetrating question – and to come to grips with the moral implications of the answer – would cause the “conservative” and “liberal” authoritarian alike to suddenly see the blood each have on their hands.

So, the question is never asked.

It is not unlike the attitude of the ordinary German villagers in the towns near the Camps. Look away; don’t ask what’s going on.

No – it’s worse than that.

The German villagers were caught up in events beyond their control. Self-preservation strongly encouraged silence – even complicity. To raise one’s voice meant risking finding oneself on the other side of the barbed wire. But to their credit as human beings, they were not egging on the guards and urging them to round up more victims.

And this is precisely what both the “liberal” and “conservative” American Authoritarian do. And they do it lustily, basking in the Rightness of their cause.

You can sometimes literally see the delicious malice in their eyes. (Watch The Chimp’s press conferences and interviews – or those of his likely successor, The Alaskan Autocrat – to remind yourself).

Lenin – one of the Philosopher Kings of authoritarianism – defined politics as “who does what to whom.”

It is a definition that both “liberals” and “conservatives” agree on.

Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities and Road Hogs (2011). Visit his website.

Copyright © 2010 Eric Peters

Wave Goodbye To Internet Freedom

December 4, 2010

Courtesy The Washington Times

(Editor’s Note: The longer we stay with Washington, the more intrusion into our lives we can expect. There is no surprise here. Washington cannot abide the concept of any human activity outside their power to regulate and tax. And they will move to subsume any human activity to their rule.)

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is poised to add the Internet to its portfolio of regulated industries. The agency’s chairman, Julius Genachowski, announced Wednesday that he circulated draft rules he says will “preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet.” No statement could better reflect the gulf between the rhetoric and the reality of Obama administration policies.

With a straight face, Mr. Genachowski suggested that government red tape will increase the “freedom” of online services that have flourished because bureaucratic busybodies have been blocked from tinkering with the Web. Ordinarily, it would be appropriate at this point to supply an example from the proposed regulations illustrating the problem. Mr. Genachowski’s draft document has over 550 footnotes and is stamped “non-public, for internal use only” to ensure nobody outside the agency sees it until the rules are approved in a scheduled Dec. 21 vote. So much for “openness.”

The issue of “net neutrality” is nothing new, but the increasing popularity of online movie streaming services like Netflix have highlighted an area of potential concern. When someone watches a film over the Internet, especially in high definition, the maximum available capacity of the user’s connection is used. Think, for example, of the problems that would arise at the water works if everyone decided to turn on their faucets and take a shower simultaneously. Internet providers are beginning to see the same strain on their networks.

In some cases, heavy use of this sort slows the Web experience for everyone sharing the same lines. That has prompted some cable Internet providers to consider either charging the heavy users more or limiting access to the “problematic” services. Of course, if cinema buffs find themselves cut off from their favorite service, they’re going to be mad. If companies don’t act, they’re just as likely to find irate customers who don’t want their experience bogged down by others.

It’s not clear why the FCC thinks it needs to intervene in a situation with obvious market solutions. Companies that impose draconian tolls or block services will lose customers. Existing laws already offer a number of protections against anti-competitive behavior, but it’s not clear under what law Mr. Genachowski thinks he can stick his nose into the businesses that comprise the Internet. The FCC regulates broadcast television and radio because the government granted each station exclusive access to a slice of the airwaves. Likewise when Ma Bell accepted a monopoly deal from Uncle Sam, it came with regulatory strings attached.

No such rationale applies online, especially because bipartisan majorities in Congress have insisted on maintaining a hands-off policy. A federal appeals court confirmed this in April by striking down the FCC’s last attempt in this arena. “That was sort of like the quarterback being sacked for a 20-yard loss,” FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell told The Washington Times. “And now the team is about to run the exact same play. … In order for the FCC to do this, it needs for Congress to give it explicit statutory authority to do so.”

Freedom and openness should continue to be the governing principles of the Internet. That’s why Mr. Genachowski’s proposal should be rejected and Congress should make it even more clear that the FCC should stop trying to expand its regulatory empire.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC.

Wikileaks: Who Does The Truth Hurt?

December 3, 2010

We all know the answer to the headline question. The truth hurts a government dedicated to secrecy and criminal behavior. If you…no matter who you are…are doing honest things…moral things…ethical things…then most of the time, the truth will not hurt you.

Yeah, I understand that truth can be said at the wrong time, and can become uncomfortable for some. But aren’t we taught from the cradle to tell the truth? Why is it so hard for government to tell the truth about EVERYTHING? Further…why does the government lie about EVERYTHING, even when they don’t have to lie?

Wikileaks has become known as the home of the whistleblower. Daniel Ellsberg must be proud. Remember him? Ellsberg was a Harvard Ph.D., a former Marine officer and a military analyst at the Pentagon. He leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times in 1971, which helped bring the Vietnam War to a close.

Commenting about his time in government, Ellsberg said: “The public is lied to every day by the President, by his spokespeople, by his officers. If you can’t handle the thought that the President lies to the public for all kinds of reasons, you couldn’t stay in the government at that level…(for) a week. The fact is Presidents rarely say the whole truth…essentially, never say the whole truth…of what they expect and what they’re doing and what they believe and why they’re doing it and rarely refrain from lying, actually, about these matters.”[1]

You might not remember this, but The Federal Government had a moment of conscience back in 1989 when it enacted The Whistleblower Protection Act.

From Wikipedia:

The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers, or persons who work for the government who report agency misconduct. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if it takes or fails to take (or threatens to take or fail to take) a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant because of any disclosure of information by the employee or applicant that he or she reasonably believes evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

The law created the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), charged with investigating complaints from bureaucrats that they were punished after reporting to Congress about waste, fraud, or abuse in their agencies. The OSC has jurisdiction over allegations of whistleblower retaliation for made by employees of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

But then in 2006, Washington came back to its senses and gutted that law, this time using their Supreme Court to do the dirty work.

From Wikipedia again:

The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos, 04-473 (2006), ruled that government employees do not have protection from retaliation by their employers under the First Amendment of the Constitution when they speak pursuant to their official job duties.

The outcry among whistle-blower advocates and First Amendment advocates was particularly extensive. Whistleblower lawyer Stephen M. Kohn called the ruling “the single biggest setback for whistleblowers in the courts in the past 25 years.” Under the ruling, Kohn says, public employees—all 22 million of them—have no First Amendment rights when they are acting in an official capacity, and in many cases are not protected against retaliation. Kohn estimates that “no less than 90 percent of all whistleblowers will lose their cases on the basis of this decision.”

Washington, including all civilian and military functionaries, represent mendacity and criminality throughout the world. They deserve to be exposed for their deeds.

Also, don’t miss the lesson you can learn about the lapdog US Media as it spins out the lie making Wikileaks the bad guy in this story. I haven’t heard much from the talking heads that lends support to whistleblowers, and certainly not Wikileaks.

And another thing. Just like the 9-11-01 “attack” has resulted in draconian Federal intrusion into individual’s lives, massive over-regulation, and a breathtaking loss of individual liberty…these Wikileaks and other Internet websites and blogs railing against Washington tyranny will result in Chinese-style censorship of the Internet. You just wait…there may come a day when websites like are simply blocked permanently. All you’ll see when you click on the URL will be a blank white page…just like you get today when you go to Wikileaks.

I don’t know what possessed Julian Assange, the owner of Wikileaks, to begin releasing government documents. And Washington will likely make him pay a high price for doing so…either fines, imprisonment or he’ll conveniently “get suicided”. But we have been provided a peek behind the curtain, and what we see ain’t pretty. For a secessionist, it should only reinforce one’s resolve to separate from the USA and form a new nation. The dream of separation from the most corrupt government in human history to start afresh and anew on a new nation must be the driving force and ultimate goal for lovers of individual liberty and property rights.

Secession is the hope for humanity. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

[1]Presidential Decisions and Public Dissent

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Lessons Learned On A Weekend Trip

November 23, 2010

Over the weekend, I had occasion to fly round trip from Atlanta to Wichita, Kansas on business. Here are some of the random things I observed on the trip.

First – Despite the existence of and my writings, I flew on a commercial aircraft. So, I know my name is not currently on the No-Fly List maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. Yippee!

Next – Hartsfield International Airport in Atlanta is the world’s busiest airport. They have perfected the movement of people and airplanes. Even flying on a Friday outbound from Atlanta, the security screening procedures moved very quickly. In the few minutes I was in the checkpoint area, I did not see anyone forced to walk through the radiation scanning machines. The security checkpoint procedures, while an annoyance, only added about five minutes to my walk from the front door to the trains that spirit passengers to their concourse.

But if you think that the TSA is doing passenger screening in America for national security reasons, you are crazy. This entire Homeland Security/TSA effort is about controlling the American populace and showing them who is boss. Common sense has been abandoned in favor of political correctness. Passenger “profiling”…is verboten. Yet Israelis do profiling at their airports, and they have not had an incident since 1968.

Here is an excerpt from an article at Renful Premier Technologies, a London-based company specializing in airport security training.

• If the operator is unsure about the contents of a bag, pausing the machine to apply image enhancement and/or selecting to hold it, adds seconds or minutes to processing just one passenger out of many hundreds queuing to be checked in. And what if a passenger, intent on martyrdom, is carrying half the weapon on their body? Surely, the only method currently available to prevent that passenger from boarding would be to apply profiling. When Israeli screeners use Profiling to flag a passenger for further scrutiny, a ‘smart call’ is made. This is a well established and consistently applied procedure. A judgment is made on a passenger, based on a variety of factors including: intelligence that may already be known, the passengers body language, ticket details, answers to initial brief questions and other signs which make that passenger stand out. Do the ‘other factors’ include their race, gender, age and ethnic appearance? Yes. Are these screeners trained to apply judgments that are politically sensitive? Absolutely. From the results can one claim this method is necessary? Definitely. Profiling can be used to tighten security for the greater volume of passengers whilst not drastically increasing the cost to airlines and airports. This can only be achieved by focusing resources where they will be of most use; on the select few passengers that may pose a risk.

While I was in the checkpoint area at the Wichita airport Sunday morning prior to my flight back to Atlanta, the TSA personnel detained a frail, 90-year-old woman in a wheelchair. They moved her to a curtained area in the corridor where they performed a full body search of the woman and her wheelchair. How did I know her age? She was traveling with her daughter, who told me her age while she waited for her mother outside the curtains.

As I said previously, common sense has been abandoned entirely. When TSA employees accost wheelchair-bound old women and young children, it’s not really about passenger safety. They cannot truly believe that people like these described constitute a potential threat to the aircraft in which they will be flying. This is entirely about the appearance of concern, and the absolute intention to control the American populace.

Next – When I was in the Wichita airport Sunday, preparing to fly home, I picked up a copy of Popular Mechanics. The front page headline story for the December 2010 issue is “China’s Secret War Plan.”

I guess China’s “secret” is not a secret anymore, is it? Leave it to Popular Mechanics to disclose Beijing’s intentions. Who would know better than PM Magazine?

This article is a fanciful scenario set in 2015, and involves China moving to retake Taiwan. The author, Eric Sofge, is certainly a pro-US writer. He writes that the invasion of Taiwan would begin with a missile barrage from the Chinese mainland onto the island of Taiwan. Then, China would rain missiles down on the US Kadena airbase at Okinawa from mainland locations and from Kilo-class Chinese subs. Then, the USA would respond by dispatching the Carrier Group led by the USS Nimitz to intervene. Then, China would attempt to sink the carrier with antiship ballistic missiles. And, in the end, China would win.

What the author does not discuss is how utterly unnecessary this war game is. China owns Washington. China is the number one holder of American Treasury securities on the planet. In the Oriental tradition, they allow Washington to bluff and bluster in a lame attempt to save face. But both Beijing and Washington know who is in charge, and it’s Beijing that holds all the advantages.

When…not if…China decides to repatriate Taiwan, it only need announce it in a press release. If Washington threatened any military response to honor its treaty obligations to Taiwan, China could dump a small percentage of its Treasury bonds on the worldwide bond market. This one move might not collapse the world bond market, but it would collapse Washington. China would likely tell Washington that any further military response would result in further sell-offs of Treasury debt. At some point, the world bond market would cease buying any US Treasuries for any price, and the game would be over. The entire world bond market would collapse, and soon thereafter, the US Dollar would be rejected worldwide as the world reserve currency.

Washington would have to notify the Taipei government that America would not be coming to their aid.

From this writer’s perspective, there is no real need for China to assert its sovereignty over Taiwan in the foreseeable future. Taiwan is self-sufficient and prosperous. And why would China want to initiate a military confrontation with America over Taiwan at this point? Leaving well-enough alone is the best strategy for Taiwan until after the collapse of the American dollar and the collapse of the American government. And that will likely happen before 2015.

The old Chinese saying, “May you live in interesting times” has never been as true as in our present time. Dear readers, don’t be chumps. Get out into the world and move around. Learn first-hand what is going on around you. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Homeland Security Trying To Shut Down Air Travel?

November 16, 2010

by Paul Joseph Watson

(Editor’s Note: Last week, I had to be in Fairfield, New Jersey to meet with a client. But I was not willing to either go through a radiation body scan or body grope. I knew that I couldn’t go through a body search without speaking up and getting in trouble with the TSA. So I drove to New Jersey. What is normally a two hour flight from Atlanta to Newark took me 15 hours in my car…both ways. So, the TSA’s criminal searches took me out of air travel. How about you?

State’s rights…mentioned in the article…or secession would stop this foolishness.)

Could there be another purpose behind invasive airport security measures that have caused national outrage and led to large numbers of Americans refusing to fly? By making air travel more and more uncomfortable, authorities are killing two birds with one stone – training people to submit to tyranny while also restricting air travel, something the climate change lobby is aggressively pushing for.

With a new Reuters poll showing that some 96 per cent of Americans are now less likely to fly because of full body scans and pat downs, the agenda to reduce living standards by restricting CO2 output in the name of global warming is being achieved through the back door.

Comments on the poll suggest that Americans are taking trains or choosing to drive thousands of miles in some cases in order to avoid naked body scanners and invasive groping techniques at airports which have caused a massive backlash against the TSA.

Others reveal how they have cancelled thousands of dollars worth of airline tickets and holidays as a response to the huge controversy generated by the new TSA measures over the last few weeks.

For the past few years there has been a creeping effort to create a system within which people will have their travel restricted by government decree. Indeed, as of last year Homeland Security bestowed upon the TSA the power to force Americans to obtain government permission before they could travel.

Under the Secure Flight program, the TSA demands that passengers submit personal information before being cleared to fly. While on the surface, this is justified by invoking the threat of terror, as we have seen from the MIAC report and others, the federal government now considers politically active Americans as potential terrorists, meaning that travelers could find themselves on a watch list and barred from flying.

Leading agitators in the global climate change lobby are pushing for carbon taxes to “constrain air travel demand,” by making flying more and more unaffordable.

By simultaneously discouraging people from traveling via degrading pat downs and dangerous radiation firing body scanners, the feds are creating a perfect storm that will restrict air travel and result in millions of lost dollars from the US economy. The country has already lost an estimated third of all tourists since 9/11 primarily as a result of unpopular and pointless security measures like forcing people to take off their shoes.

But for people like White House science czar John P. Holdren, killing the economy in the name of saving the planet, when in reality the man-made climate change movement has nothing to do with the environment and is about limiting personal freedom and lowering living standards, is a good thing.

Since the entire raison d’être of big government is about restricting personal choice and mobility, the feds won’t concern themselves about Americans who refuse to fly because of the TSA controversy.

What will keep them awake at night however is a potential states rights’ confrontation where local authorities take it upon themselves to abolish the TSA and make naked body scans and invasive pat downs illegal.

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison He is the author of “Order Out Of Chaos.” Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.

To the Tea Party: Go Screw Yourself

October 26, 2010

by Karl Denninger

Yes, I mean it.

Here’s a “replay” of my interview with Dylan Ratigan last night:

I, and FedUpUSA, ought to sue anyone using this moniker for their so-called “political affiliation” for defamation.

Yeah, that’s a joke.

But so are you.

All of you.

Especially Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, and douchebag groups such as the “Tea Party Patriots.”

Let’s look at their mission statement:

* Fiscal Responsibility
* Constitutionally Limited Government
* Free Markets

Really? That sounds pretty good. But did you read “Free Markets”?

Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government’s interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.

Oh, oppose government intervention eh? You mean, you oppose stringing up the people who break the law and steal people’s homes and wealth? Private business is only private up until it rips someone off.

Notice what’s missing from this mission statement and principles: Any mention of why I and others led people to mail tea bags to Congress and our President in the first place: rampant theft of taxpayer money propping up FAILED private businesses.

Then look at what’s over at TeaParty.Org: you’ll find the usual pablum. Guns, gays, God.

Hey, I like talking about Guns, Gays and God too. Let’s talk about all of them within the context of The Constitution, which is what the Tea Party was supposed to be about. In short:

* Guns. What part of “shall not be infringed” didn’t you bother to read? That one’s simple. And yes, this means that under The Bill of Rights there should be no Brady Law nor any bar on a convicted felon who has served his time buying or owning a weapon! I know what the current law says and I understand the reasoning behind it. But you can’t square it with the clear language in the Second Amendment. Our entire system of criminal justice rests on the premise that if you are convicted of a crime and serve the time for it, your debt to society is paid. If said convicted criminal is still dangerous to society (and thus shouldn’t have a right to self-defense) why are we letting him out so he can victimize other people? Sentences should reflect this; you should not be released until you are no longer a danger to society – period. Prison is often debated as to whether it’s about rehabilitation or punishment – I argue it is neither, it is and should be about removing those who harm others from society until they are no longer a threat to others.

* Gays. What part of “what you do in your bedroom is none of my damn business” didn’t you bother with? You can find that in the 4th Amendment as well as elsewhere. In terms of public space what is your private sexual preference and life doing in the public space in the first place? 200 years ago we called such people perverts and stuck them in the stocks. You want to address this problem? It’s simple: That’s a gay (or straight) person’s private life and its none of anyone else’s damn business what two or more consenting adults do behind a closed door on private property.

* God. What part of the Establishment Clause didn’t you bother to read? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” You want prayer in the schools? Not unless I can lead a prayer to Allah should I so choose; it is not Constitutional to favor one religion over another. Therefore, you either keep it all out or you keep none of it out, and my preference is to keep all of it out, although I’ll settle for none – either position is Constitutional. No other position is, and that’s the beginning and end of it. The same applies to any other publicly-run and funded space. What people do on their own private property with regard to how they worship is none of your damn business.

Now that we’ve dispensed with Guns, Gays and God in the context of what one of the founders of the Tea Party Movement believes, I’ll deal with the rest.

The Tea Party was initiated as a political protest against the unlawful and in fact unconstitutional usurpation of power from the Congress and The People in the form of extortion-led bailouts of enterprises that had engaged in acts that I, and many others, believe were at least civilly actionable and in many cases crossed the line into criminal activity.

This indictment is not limited to the nation’s large banks, although it certainly starts there. The corruption of our economic and monetary systems runs the gamut from Fannie and Freddie through their ties to Congress (including literal sexual encounters in some cases), banking interests selling trash securities to everyone from pension funds on down, judges who don’t judge but rather protect monied interests on Wall Street, The Federal Reserve intentionally debasing our currency and monetizing government debt, government spending that is running 40% above revenues and much more.

In short, The Tea Party was and is about the corruption of American Politics and the blatant and outrageous theft from all Americans that has resulted. It is about personal responsibility and enforcement of the law against those who have robbed, financially f****d and pillaged the nation.

Yet today we hear literally nothing about these issues among the so-called “Tea Party” candidates and their backers. Sarah Palin has not said one word about locking up the banksters that brought upon the housing bubble and economic collapse. Not one word about Bernanke’s out-of-control Fed and the arguably unlawful monetization of Fannie and Freddie paper, not to mention the monetization of the Federal Debt. Not one word about throwing judges such as this one – The Honorable Bruce Levine – in the dock – although that, ladies and gentlemen, is a statement of felony judicial corruption. If you as an investor run into trouble with a commodity or futures trade and sue you will not get your day in court – a literal “green light” to rob the people by the big banks with official judicial sanction. And you wonder how Hillary Clinton managed to “win” in her Cattle Futures trades eh? Wonder no more.

Tea Party my ass. This was nothing other than The Republican Party stealing the anger of a population that was fed up with The Republican Party’s own theft of their tax money at gunpoint to bail out the robbers of Wall Street and fraudulently redirecting it back toward electing the very people who stole all the f****ing money!

You want me to support The Tea Party as it is currently constituted?

Do all of the above, do it now, and apologize for attempting to perpetuate the financial f***ing of this nation.

Publicize the following as your LEAD:


And finally, one more:


They caused it, they pay for it. Period.

Until and unless you do?

©2010 Market Ticker