The Race that Apparently Wasn’t Won: the US is Taking the Cold War Off Ice

After a fifty-year arm-race that was filled with battles and insurgencies filled via proxy there inevitably could only be one winner. That was the country who held the world’s reserve currency. As the US continued to flex its muscles throughout the world and especially in the oil rich middle east after the Soviet collapse, something started to change.

Russia recovered sooner than we anticipated. They wanted their seat at the table back. It now appears the US has only a table for one. 

“WE COULD DO WITH HAVING A USIA ON STEROIDS TO FIGHT THIS INFORMATION WAR [WITH RUSSIA] A LOT MORE AGGRESSIVELY THAN WE’RE DOING RIGHT NOW,”

Those were the words from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as he sat before the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee last week and had the courage that so many other have been lacking and finally tell the truth.

To finally place the blame on who’s responsible for our breach of security and confidence in elections. Someone finally nailed it and highlighted our lack of manpower and resources to fend off the evil Ruskies, led by Vladimir the Impaler (Putin).

The man, if you can call him such, who ghoulishly rubs his hands in a heated frenzy at the idea of our destruction, like the bloodthirsty- cannibal – commie he is, hell bent on the destabilization of the entire west.

That’s the script anyway, right? Weird how that works. It’s a strange time we live in. A time where the government decides what questions to ask and just who to ask them to. It’s not new of course but it doesn’t make it any easier to swallow.

The audacity of Mr. Clapper is astonishing. First of all, for us, as Americans to collectively point the finger at another country for meddling and sabotage is laughable if it wasn’t so reprehensible and unequivocally ironic. Sadly, so much of our geopolitical makeup and stances are just this.

• Ban other countries, sovereign states from nuclear programs; while we enhance or polish our own.
• Publicly demand other nations to stop escalating proxy wars of aggression or support hostile nations or terror groups while we conduct and support our own of our choosing
• Rail at other nations (and this is my favorite) to stop their currency manipulation while we fund the largest theft of wealth the world has ever seen 100 x’s over via the petrodollar fiat monopoly scheme
• Condemn the justice or lack thereof of other nations why we operate black sites across the globe without oversight or even public record or knowledge

I could go on. And on. And on. But for the sake of clarity, structure and respect for a sensible word count – let’s get to the point. We demand another country to pay the piper for infiltrating our election while we run the largest covert and clandestine operations of anyone in the world on friends and foes alike.

Disrupt elections. Support coups. Assassinate or help aide the assassination of democratically elected leaders. Let’s say for the sake of the argument that Russia did do what they are accused of. Then I say… so what?

Business as usual. Par for the course. When in Rome… you get the idea. Russia wouldn’t have done anything we haven’t done or will continue to do to our enemies and allies alike on a year – year, day to day & minute by minute basis.

EVEN if this was true what would have happened?  They would never have changed a vote. All they would have done was expose the dirty laundry of the DNC and its quarterback, one Hillary Clinton. And that would have been the point. She was itching for a war with Russia. And has been pushing so for years at her time as Secretary of State. She made it perfectly clear to the US populace during the debates:

“I’M GOING TO CONTINUE TO PUSH FOR A NO-FLY ZONE AND SAFE HAVENS WITHIN SYRIA, NOT ONLY TO HELP PROTECT THE SYRIANS AND PREVENT THE CONSTANT OUTFLOW OF REFUGEES BUT TO, FRANKLY, GAIN SOME LEVERAGE ON BOTH THE SYRIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE RUSSIANS.”

A no-fly zone initiated over another sovereign nation that you never declared war on? Where have we seen this before? Seems legitimate.

I have the direct opposite take from that of our intelligence community. One that is quite simply this, knowing what we know about Mrs Clinton if Russia didn’t intervene in some capacity to influence the election

I would assume they were either severely incompetent or awaiting a mutual destruction endgame. Why would they want a presidential candidate who is openly hostile to their standing in the world, in power of the most deadly armed forces the globe has ever seen? So, whether they hacked the emails is of insignificance to me.

Staying with this alternate reality (like the one our intelligence community and administration likes to play ie a reality without evidence) if there was any hacking shouldn’t the onus fall on the DNC? For being quite frankly, lazy, incompetent and just unappealable to the undecided voter? Seems plausible enough.

I mean it’s THEIR security that was hacked after all. If not the bumbling DNC, then who? You can’t blame another nation for doing what we (and every other nation mind you) do on a day to day basis and that is mine for data to use to said nation(s) advantage.

So then, I turn my attention to the real culprit here and that lies at the feet of our national security. Because no matter what; shouldn’t the role of national security involve ummm…. SECURITY? And if the security is breached shouldn’t we look at our security in place or lack thereof?

• As of last year, we had over 100k people working on our behalf in the US intelligence community.
• Just two years ago taxpayers funded and completed the NSA’s Data Center, the 1.5 billion dollar/1 million square foot facility in Utah whose sole purpose is spying and data collection.
• In 2003 we see the creation of Homeland Security whose budget often lies anywhere in the 40-80 billion dollar range annually.
• Let us not forget about the FBI and of course, where would we be without the CIA and its black budget. A virtual blank check from the Department of Defense for the Central Intelligence Agency and its brother and sister agencies working in the intelligence community. A budget which has been reported to be in the 50 billion dollar range

That seems like quite the defense. It would seem we have all we need to stop or thwart any mass scale, state-sponsored hacking program. Yet, James Clapper is asking for more? An INCREASE? That begs the question, could our national security really be incompetent? And this is where things go off the rails in opposite directions.

It would seem, a regional strategy to support the mujahideen in Afghanistan to defeat Russia was an end justify the means approach despite the blowback that occurred with Al Qaeda and subsequently 9-11. An unforeseen error I would surmise.

What about a strategy that has seen us embrace regime change in Iraq. A nation that was secular in an Islamic theocracy dominated middle east? To then promote nation building then abandon said nation while creating vacuums that foster groups like ISIS? Do those ends justify the means too? Was Iraq such a threat?

Or what about Libya? We participated in air support and a no-fly zone (ah there it is) in the overthrow and the removal of another secular leader in Gaddafi who grew Libya into the richest nation on the continent of Africa. To only see it fall into the hands of rebels and a climate of total deprivation and chaos.

How about secular Syria who has seen us wave the sword at for decades? Always right there to punish them by sanctions and or by proxy as the US backs the same terrorist ties that the US pinned 9-11 on. Does this seem like a sound strategy?

And then there is Iran.

If radicalization and theocracies don’t share our values then why are our intelligence community and the nation following a script that has us doing the exact opposite shaping our geopolitical landscape? That leads to only one logical answer because that is the objective. We want to destabilize the region.

We want to protect the petrodollar hegemony (as Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya have all left or tried to leave the US dollar as a reserve currency). We want to control the energy in the region via pipeline deals and the players who sit in an area where ⅔’s of the world’s oil supply is derived from. All of these are true. All of these are objectives.

If Russia infiltrated the election to merely expose the neocons and hawks of the left (Clinton) they do so at the behest of the entire free world. The world that would rather not end.

So the witch hunt that’s taking place regarding Russia via our intelligence community and our mainstream “media” is the US trying to reshape the narrative. A narrative where they are back trying to dupe the public into another hail mary from the cold war playbook. However, the cold war has ended and we have the internets. We won’t be fooled again.

Thou not lead us to temptation

When I was working on my last entry concerning FEMA and Ron Paul, I started to get into a bit of a tirade concerning the debt. This, in this writers opinion, is the United States greatest threat, not some foreign enemy. With most people showing no interest or regard for it, its up to those of us who do hold these truths to be evident, to keep putting that word out there... and that word is debt (specifically insurmountable debt) is slavery and nothing more then a transfer of wealth; from the many to the few. 

In this article I want to tackle two situations that I see problematic and the key cogs to insurmountable debt. First, there is the federal government and our elected "leaders" role in this failure to be reasponsible. Secondly, is the Federal Reserve and its banks, that have been culpable in allowing (through the manipulation of interest rates) this economy to take a path that will see it fall off a cliff. What the recoil will be from QE 2,3,4,5,6,7 bailouts and stimulus remains to be seen, but there can be only one thing we know for sure. 

 (Sodahead.com)

That is, we are accumulating debt. And vast amounts of it. The implication of compound interest makes these actions basically treasonous by our elected leaders and criminal by the FED. How can Congress and the executive branch both complicity push the cost of running the government so far out of the realm of practicality? How is it legal for the FED to lend huge sums at what amounts to no interest to those banks that were all considered "too big to fail" who then take that liquidity and invest in T-Bills that will actually yield a 2-3% interest? These practices destroy existing savings and the incentive to save; thus creating only one desired effect - consumption. 

Because, without people borrowing and spending the whole thing blows up. Money = debt, debt = money.  The biggest problem is that the American population are over saturated in debt thus why the sub-prime in housing was needed. Like its population, the US government, is over saturated as well. They, unlike you and I, have no limits and that defies logic. Lets look at the executive's role.

The Interest payment is the only debt payment required by the Constitution that must be accounted for in the budget each year to be paid.

With that said, every President hopeful on the Republican side and President Obama have all released a budget or a proposed budget.

Not one of them have a plan to balance the budget next year, neither will any one of them do so in four years either (with the exception of Ron Paul). We will without a doubt have continuous mounting deficits that will probably be in the 1-2 Trillion mark annually regardless of who is in office (with the exception of Ron Paul). Starting to notice a trend here?

We have seen Obama’s appetite for destruction already regarding deficit spending; so let’s take a peek at the eventual Republican nominee’s (Mitt Romney) insanity.

Mitt Romney wants to increase defense spending by putting 100k more troops on the ground and rebuild parts of the Navy and Air Force. He would not have left Iraq, appears to have an itch to scratch in Iran and will not leave Afghanistan until its won (the forever war) or at least until his generals say to leave??? His budget has the wealthiest Americans (who pay the most income taxes) getting a significant tax cut on top of the existing tax cuts that are already in place.

Romney has no plans to offset the lost revenue that will surly happen when these cuts take place, nor does he have any plans to make any significant cuts in existing outlays to recoup the ramped up defense spending. This defines logic. Mitt Romney's plans are contrary to anything sane in regards to the federal government living within its means. He’s fiscal policy’s will be train-wreck like.

That however, is not how Romney sees it. He thinks if he cuts taxes the gains in receipts will pay for this increase in spending. The problem with that is that the FED doesn’t think the economy is going to grow by all that much… and they control the money supply. This leads us into the second part of the equation: the insurmountable tag team.

 The FED’s long term forecast is a relatively weak one going forward with long term GDP growth outlook being in the 2.3 to 2.6 percent ranges. The FED has also said it will not look to raise interest rates until, at the earliest, 2014. Here you have the economy just barley keeping its head above water for the foreseeable future, the FED continuing its non-stop intravenous liquidity therapy into bank’s reserves creating a soon to be inflation tsunami all the while our elected representatives continue to show no regard for the situation.

I want to take a look at two charts that really speak volumes for what is going on and what we will being seeing soon enough in our own backyards. Lets start at 2006, when the FED stopped tracking M3. As you can see below, when Shadowstats picked up the tab of tracking M3, the growth in money supply was steadily rising until early 2008. As the recession came, the Fed lowered interest rates to avoid the fire of deflation but banks weren’t loaning, so the money supply dropped with it.  

(shadowstats.com)

A curious situation started occurring by the middle of 2010. M3 started to rise and its rising still as of now. Meanwhile, Interest rates from 2009 on have stayed basically at zero and as we’ve already heard from the FED, they will remain that way for years. This does not bode well for the dollar or anything equity wise going forward in my opinion. If the economy continues its "recovery” like so many in the media says it is, the eventual outcome will be a pretty substantial increase in inflation. This would, by default, put relatively the majority of commodities into buy, buy and buy more mode. Most specifically gold and silver.

Equally alarming will be the federal governments penchant for debt as we have also seen, they will not live within our means, thus piling more debt on to the insurmountable existing amount. What happens when the FED has to raise interest rates? If we are seeing 450 Billion interest payments already (Intragovernmental and Public) imagine what will happen to those when interest rates go up? They could look something like this:

Just for a little perspective. In 1988, the national Debt was 2.6 Trillion. The interest payment on that in the budget was 214 Billion. The interest payment in 2011 was 450 Billion, roughly double. The principal, as we know, was 14+ Trillion.

The US government will not cut spending and we will continue to finance the welfare/warfare system. What happens in 10 years from now will be interesting thou. Can the FED really raise rates, without completely tanking the economy? And if they did, what would happen to the interest payment on the debt outstanding (besides sky rocketing into the trillion dollar mark). If the FED does not raise rates out of the fear of deflation, isn’t massive inflation the only alternative?

George Carlin said it best:

When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America, you get a front row seat.

Get 'ya Popcorn ready!

Lesser of two evils come November? I cant see it.

 

Is there a difference between Romney and Obama? I have been critical of both Mr Romney and President Obama for various reasons but both being so different in terms of background, surly they cant be that similar, right? When the subject comes up of differentiating between the two I find myself scratching my head. The same head scratching can be said for those folks who ask me my support for either two, and when I reveal my support of Ron Paul regardless if he’s third party or not, it’s often met with the same rebuttal: “it’s a waste of a vote, its better to pick the lesser of two evils”. However, I just can’t seem to grasp the difference between the two men as far as policy is concerned.  

  

Sure, Romney has the business experience, that is unquestionable a difference and he has balanced the budget as Governor in Massachusetts. Both of those are very big props for Romney in my book… but other than that, I looked and I can’t find a difference between the eventual nominee for the Republicans (Mittens) and the incumbent, President Obama (at least not in the pivotal positions).

- Obama has maintained the foreign policy of an empire, just as Romney would do (although Romney said he would actually increase spending on defense) not to mention he chastised the President for pulling out of Iraq. No savings there.    

- Obama has continued to support even more of an assault on our personal liberty’s extending the Patriot Act and signing NDAA, wouldn’t you know it - Romney supports both. Liberty trampled on again.

- Obama passed Universal Healthcare as did Romney. Romney even is proud of his healthcare bill, (‘I’m very proud of my health-care plan and think it should be a model for other states to adopt’) or at least he was before he was against it again.

What do we have left? Taxes. Yes, taxes, death and Mittens oh boy! This is the same guy who didn’t release his taxes because he didn’t wantto show he paid at or under the 15 percentile reserved for Capital gains (between 13.9-15%) on over 40 Million dollars of income. That would show he is using loopholes (although legal) just like many of our corporations do.

Romney said recently that Obama passed 19 tax increases under his terms as POTUS. Most people on the right would believe that to be true, he is said to be the most polarizing president in our history isn’t he? Although the validity to those tax hikes in question has been shaky and even a few of the 19 suspected raises have been actually proved false, Mitt continues his assault. For the record, the Obama tax increases were minimal in nominal terms considering (the large deficit) and directed at very specific small targets; not wide wielding swaths of people and demographics as Romney would have you believe.

The truth of the matter is Obama has cut taxes too. He did so in his 700+ Billion dollar stimulus (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) he then cut taxes in the ‘December 2010 tax deal’ that extended the Bush tax cuts. Those tax cuts were worth $654 Billion and if you factor in the 250+ Billion from the ARRA cuts in his 2009 Stimulus act, we are talking 900 Billion in Tax cuts through his administration. I think its safe to say he has cut more taxes than he has increased taxes by a large sum.

Look at the revenue or receipts our government is pulling in. If we were seeing tax increases, wouldn’t we also being seeing soaring revenue? We aren’t. We are in a massive economic quagmire and tax cuts will not get us out of it. And if we continue to cut taxes and keep the budget as is or increase it, we will only cause even more damage down the road. And that seems like the message from Newt, Obama or Mitt.  

While I agree with the Republican field running for the oval office about the over-regulation that we are seeing under this administration; it’s not what ails us either. What we have is a political atmosphere where nobody wants to make the touch decision and cut major aspects off our budget or raise taxes to pay for the bills we have. Obama or Romney will never do it; they lack the thick skin and willingness to lead by example despite the consequences. responsible debt is one thing, what these kooks are proposing is simply not feasible long term. 

Romney has no plan to cut government just spend an equal amount or more and lower taxes for the richest Americans. Obama seems to have no plan at all and while he lowered taxes he increased regulation and didn't do anything to make cuts. Gingrich? He thinks we can save 500 Billion annually on modernization, he’s also the same guy who said Fannie and Freddie hired him as a historian... not a lobbyist. He won’t be the nominee but it further drives home the point. The 900 lb gorilla in the room remains Keynesian economics. Until we face the reality of the magnitude that beast has in terms of influence and destruction we will be here every four years with the same logical outcome: vote for a Paul (Ron or Rand).

The State of the Union? At least we are out of Iraq (sorta)

I got one paragraph into the State of the Union address before I literally laughed out loud and looked to the DVR and found Mondays episode of "The Bachelor". I figured if I'm going to watch some superficial, shallow empty suit lie to me about something; I prefer it be about how much in awe he is over some 20-year old bimbo's  on national TV looking for true love rather than the (sorry) state of our beloved nation. 

The President was at it again, trying to appeal to every segment of the population without offending none all the while detailing ideas that basically amounted to nothing more than, well... nothing. But for our commander in Chief to lead off with Iraq, sums up his tenure at President. Uninspiring.

For a President who promised and represented so much, especially in the name of transparency; his failures have been catastrophic. Iraq is no exception. This is what Mr Obama said from the very top.

Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought – and several thousand gave their lives.

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq.

It made me remember an article I read a month ago at Salon.com. Its surprising the President didnt mention the private contractors still stationed over there, all 3,000 - 5,000 of them. Names like Triple Canopy, Global, SOC Inc and Academi (formerly known as Blackwater) are private American security contractors that do not have to be held to the US Military rules of engagement, yet there they still remain just as the giant embassy and its 15,000 people to run it. How about those "fellow citizens"? But hey, we are out of there... I guess.