Another one bites the Dust: Australia turns nose up at the dollar

It appears the jig is up America, your chickens are coming home to roost. Australia is the latest nation to opt out of the dollar in trade and now will conduct trade in the yuan. This is just another nail in the coffin for the dollar as we know it.

Brazil, South Africa, even Japan are getting out of trading exclusively in dollars. But what do we do about it? How do we keep these latest traitors, these damn barbequing Aussies from going through with this? Do we convince the American people kangaroos are secretly hiding dirty bombs in their pouches and are training to enter the US and set them off?

The problem is more and more nations are trading amongst themselves without the dollar. We can’t just attack the entire world. OR, maybe this (sic) IS THE PLAN? Why else are we spending the same amount in military expenditures as the rest of the world combined and refusing to make any cuts to it?  

And here all along you thought these wars over the last 30 years were for freedom, fighting terrorism, nukes and/or WMD’s. Wars are a win-win for America. It keeps the population always at war, thus easier to manipulate. It promotes growth for so many sectors in private enterprise (especially banking) and above all it protects American hegemony. From the end of the cold war to Kuwait to Iraq and soon to be Iran it’s all been single pieces in a larger puzzle – the petrodollar. From the Federal Reserve Bank of New York:

 The recycling of petrodollars into the U.S. financial markets has supported activity here by allowing for higher consumption and investment spending than otherwise would have occurred. The concomitant cost has been a further expansion of the U.S. economy’s already sizable net international liabilities.

As we enter the golden age of globalization, we must accept the old proverb to be true; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

American companies wanted to establish markets and dominate the globe with its dollar and to a large degree it has; OPEC still uses the dollar but the rest of the world isn’t down with it anymore. In doing so, American business and its government have built and educated the world in finance and trade. Now they are turning around to see who has been dangling the strings. And they don’t like it.

As we turn each page of history we see empires rising and falling. Nobody has stood the test of time. It’s been a good run America but the grip we’ve had on the world is loosening. When the dollar starts to tumble it will trigger a REAL economic catastrophe and the rest of the world knows it; 2008 wasn’t that long ago in the history books.

This will have a direct impact on our debt, trade deficit, standard of living… basically EVERYTHING and ANYTHING “uniquely American”.  

‘Now is the Time’

This is the the President's "plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun violence”. This "plan" is what spawned the 23 executive orders on Jan 16, 2013. This has also been called the most comprehensive gun control legislation passed since 1968, eclipsing the "assault weapon ban" so often referred to now that was signed into law in the 1994 under Bill Clinton.

If we remember anything politically speaking about 1968 it would have to be the assassinations of Dr Martin Luther King & Robert Kennedy. The tightest gun control ever to that point was introduced before the deaths of both men but was quickly fast-tracked and passed after their murders. Reading a piece written about 1968 this week in regards to gun control reminded me of something I read in 2008 from then chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel who was “advising” the newly elected President on crisis management:

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."

As the President walked up on the stage this week and signed his executive orders into place all I could think about was at what ends will this lead to? Actually, it wasn’t soon after that initial thought before I came to the conclusion of not “what” ends, but “when” those ends will come. When will we see the end of the legal ownership of any firearm?

The right to own guns keeps man free. Free from the state or free from foreign invaders. It says so right in the 2^nd Amendment. I would find this humorous if it wasn’t so damn offensive.

The state piles up guns and then turns them on you and forces you to do as they say or they punish you with the threat of taking away your freedom which infringes on your liberty and pursuit of happiness. Seems like a conflict of interest regarding rights, no? Then, the state, despite all the guns and all the money, also does a piss poor job of keeping foreign invaders out of the country. From “terrorists” to illegal aliens the borders remain wide open.

If that wasn’t enough of a kick in the groin, the state also looks down upon militias, essentially blowing the 2^nd amendment out of the water on those grounds alone. The part about “a well regulated militia” isn’t time sensitive, regardless what anyone wants to say otherwise. There is no expiration on the meaning of the amendment, constitutional scholars be damned. These examples and the latest push executive order(s) are all attacks on not only our right to own firearms but it’s also an affront on our collective common sense.

 

When it comes to bureaucrats and the 2^nd amendment there seems to be a major disconnect. The 2^nd amendment is pretty direct, it’s pretty plain English. Thus, there is no reason to “read into” anything. Yet the federal government shows no respect for something so straightforward. Is this a coincidence? Not a chance.  
 

Semantics, are some of the firsts arrow pulled out of the quiver of control. Using wordplay and rearranging definitions to justify the means to an end – that is the ultimate goal of those in power. They also use situations and crisis to manipulate the public trading in freedom for security. Hitler did it, Stalin did it, Bush did it, Clinton before him etc etc… this isn’t something new but I find it pretty interesting for a president who promised "transparency". Who ran on "change". It is what it is. Call it Machiavellian or call it just being a politician. Whatever the definition you  come up, see it for what it is.

The executive orders signed into place this week are centered on ‘assault rifles’. Now, ask anyone for a definition of what an assault rifle is and you are sure to get something different from everyone. So, what happens when banning ‘assault rifles’ or reducing magazines doesn’t stop school violence or mall shootings or movie theater shootings? Well, naturally the handguns will be next, just like they came for them in NY and Chicago. Then maybe we will see the call to ban “assault weapons”. And the assault weapons definition is about as ambiguous as you can imagine.

Here is a list of “mass stabbings, hammer attacks, and cleaver attacks” in China from 2010-2012. China already has strict gun ownership laws, thus the truly dedicated to killing innocent will use any means necessary, as you can see. England (who else) has actually seen a push to eliminate “long pointed kitchen knives" to "reduce deaths from stabbing”. So again I ask: when does it end?

It ends when the anointed and "elected" say it ends. It ends when the calamities of life cease to exist. They won’t and that is the whole point. Let me leave you with this; and this will be the most important thing I will ever say on this topic.

The rush to get your gun, chipping away at your rights with one piece of legislation at a time is no accident. The state fears you. When it’s no longer able to control you with its debt mechanism and money manipulations… when it all comes tumbling down through hyperinflation or a spiral of irreversible deflation; the state will have to protect itself be any means necessary. The more the state can force dependency (SSI, welfare, food stamps, unemployment, low income housing, universal health care etc etc) the less important freedoms become or at least the dependency to live trumps freedom. The more divided we become, the easier it is to quell resistance. A people not divided and instead unified not to mention well armed is the ultimate threat to that power. 

The state fears you and me... and for good reason.

How policies perception and reality are often ambiguous

Part 2 of a 3 part story on the Department of Defense and its coming to the realization of its own shortcomings and the realities it faces; and the motivation for those that will not go down swinging.

As we continue our buildup to combat the dangers of the War on Terror, somewhere along the way; somebody failed to tell our elected leaders that the defense budget was becoming super sized. Wasn’t the Homeland security created to organize our communications and protect us here at home from terrorism? That budget this year was 57 Billion.

But the beat goes on and the defense budget keeps increasing. It was President Bush who was once labeled a war monger by many of us (and rightfully so) yet President Obama has not only kept up the same strategies, he has expanded upon them and increased spending along the way. So what exactly is the defense budget and how does it relate to other nations spending?

First, here is a little perspective:

In 2001 (in 2010 inflation adjusted dollars) the base budget (excludes Nuclear and War funding) for Defense was 390 Billion

In 2011 (in 2010 inflation adjusted dollars) the base budget (excludes Nuclear and War funding) for Defense was 540 Billion

That is a 38% increase in 10 years. Again, this isn’t including the Nuclear Weapons programs or the wars we are fighting throughout the Middle East. If it seems like a lot; it’s because it is. Now the cuts that will take place starting in 2013 are not actually from existing defense… it’s from proposed increases. According to Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky:

"This may surprise some people, but there will be no cuts in military spending because we’re only cutting proposed increases. If we do nothing, military spending goes up 23% over 10 years. If we [make these cuts], it will still go up 16%."

So, in reality this is just slightly blunting the momentum of the leviathan that is the DOD. The Department and its cozy relationship with Congress and Industry (queue the black and white Eisenhower farewell address) remain warm and fuzzy and most importantly to those three love birds: intact and thriving.

And that I believe is the point. It has to be. How can anyone, given the information and the trends not see defense as a bloated bureaucracy, one that should be first in-line on the chopping block? Our ever expanding Department of Defense is not in an arms race yet their budget and approach clearly says otherwise. Shouldn’t we be shaping our military to fight the battles of the 21^st Century; instead of preparing for an enemy of the twentieth that doesn’t exist?

In 2010 we spent almost six times the amount on defense than China does and eleven times more than Russia; yet many if not a majority of our elected leaders refuse to accept the notion of making cuts in defense. To me, it’s pretty clear… if we take the 18 nations that spend the most on defense; the US outspends all of her counterparts… ALL 17 of them COMBINED. So cuts are not only logical in our economic situation but they are a necessity; even if we were not drowning in debt.



Isn't it a bit silly for us to be even worried about a war with another super power in the first place? The idea of us engaging in war with a China or Russia is almost laughable because of how implausible it is. For one, it would be certain nuclear mutual devastation and then you have the reality of China and the US being so economically intertwined; it would be disruptive to both countries at so many levels.

In fact so much so that even the funding of a sustainable war would be impossible. Most people in this country see China as an economic threat and rightfully so, but it’s a threat only because we depend on them so much; as they do us. Our 1/4+ Trillion dollar trade deficit with a nation has a tendency to create a little codependency.

We are building a military prepared to wage a war not seen since the days of Hitler and we are outspending every nation at astronomical rates. Who is the war on terror about anyway? Stateless organizations whom hide in caves and target random civilians around the globe. Isnt that a threat to all nations? Why do they not allocate the resources that we do?

It just doesn’t seem to make sense. To fight such an enemy that is no more dangerous or powerful than a drug cartel using conventional warfare with cold war spending and tactics. How we cannot connect these dots is astounding if it wasn’t so downright intellectually offensive.