Has there ever been a better time to be a Conservative?

Being four years shy of forty, I never experienced the Reagan Revolution. I have only read about the particulars. I understand the financial stagflation that preceded the Gipper's emergence. I know about Paul Volcker's interest rate policies that helped fuel the record-breaking growth in the 80’s. The tax breaks and even the tax hikes. You can read all you want, hear second-hand accounts from respected and loved ones, year after year but to truly live it, to really feel the atmosphere… to taste the zeitgeist; it has to be indescribable or I'm just not qualified enough to suggest otherwise. But I am qualified. So, let me ask this mostly rhetorical question but still honest enough to punctuate it with a question mark… has there ever been a better time to be a Conservative?

I don't have to recap all the #Winning. You know the score. Even yesterday's Super Bowl was politicized. Props to Lady Gaga for not adding to it. Just like Trump, the Patriots won because they had the better ideas. They had the better coaching staff. Atlanta became complacent and made no adjustments before the momentum was too much. Even to a Steeler fan in Western Pennsylvania writing this, yesterday felt like the November 8th. But this analogy isn't the purpose of my point here.

The purpose of my point isnt about all the winning President Trump promised either. It's about the Zeitgeist of our present day. Where in 2017, in present day America you can be beaten for wearing a Trump hat. A political slogan and color can actually do this. Even the Swastika doesn't generate that resistance from the left (imagine that). Where embracing the rule of law over collectivists of racial rantings that are not backed by facts or logic. Police are not the Black man's problem. The Black man's problem is the Black man. Where feminism embraces Islam ... over the West? Where feminists now claim to be Muslims. HAHAHA. LOLZ.

This is a time where free speech is actually under siege by ironically enough, the same people who are said to be opposed to it. Those people who call themselves “AntiFas” or Anti-Fascists as they are called.Fascist demanding people to abandon their 1st amendment rights? That irony is about as good as it gets. And when these protests eventually fall flat on their face like they always do so begins the violence. I mean how DARE you someone of opposite opinion exercise your right to free speech at my public university. Mind you, we are talking about the FIRST AMENDMENT. Not the 2nd or 4th or 9th or 17th. There is a reason it was the first.  

This is what happens when you have the logical high ground. This is what happens when people of sound mind put together their differences and unite for a bigger cause. The Republican party and Conservative movement were in tatters eight years ago. I was vocal about it. I am a Libertarian. I loathed the Evangelical voters. Probably the establishment even more. But I also would rather win. I didn't want WW3 with Russia. I didn't want a globalist agenda running my country.

When the media slants the narrative. When these young protesters abandon their liberal positions and embrace the very fascism so many are against it shows us and eventually, it will show them just what happens when you run a party or a movement engaged in politics based on emotions over logic. When you base your ideology on feelings and “fairness” over ideas and practical judgment.

These are the same Democrats who came out in record numbers for their anointed one but sat by cluelessly as their local and state legislators were engulfed in a sea of red under Obama's watch. What was the carnage under Obama? 980+ seats total? They don't understand they are impacted much more the closer levels get to you than the Executive branch but you can't blame them. They're ignorant willful idiots. And that's ok for now. They don't know what it's like to lose because even though they lost all those seats they had the White House… and now they don't and for the first time for most of them its a shock. They want a participation trophy but its adult time now. Kids get spanked and go to their rooms.

These Democrats are rioting and protesting everything from Black Lives Matter to Women's rights when they have all the rights men have to Transgender transitions transitional triathlon exclusion from the Olympics to the Groundhog day festivities a few days ago. We get it. You're sheep. You would rather be accepted than be logically sound. It makes sense. It's fact that logic doesn't fully develop until around the age of 25. (Editor's note: can't remember if that was a meme or did they really boycott and protest groundhogs day and quite frankly it would be more of a surprise if they didn't, so I'm not checking)

These positions and ideas seem stupid to us because they are. These ideas are from people who dont even pay their own cell phone bills fostered by professors and teachers who much like Hollywood; don't have to live in the real world.

And that leads me to this quote that we are all familiar with to a degree from a Frenchman named: Anselme Polycarpe Batbie (1875):

“He who is not a républicain at twenty compels one to doubt the generosity of his heart; but he who, after thirty, persists, compels one to doubt the soundness of his mind.”

This says it all because logic takes precedence over generosity (couldn't hurt the French to dust off this quote) no matter the age. But age obviously dictates logic. Just like the revolutionary sixties where many people tripped for days fornicating on strawberry patches and raging against the machine in between every bong hit and at every sit in, across every Vietnam protest spitting and throwing rocks at their contemporaries. Those people all grew up. They became board members. They became doctors and lawyers. Republicans Neoconservatives and Reagan Democrats. So will these kids today once they escape academia and have to live in the real world.

However, until then… beat their asses. Rub their nose in their insufferable ignorance. Enjoy the #Winning. Daddy said we would be sick of it. What's happening is an initiation so to speak.  So while we snicker as they cry and brag about their sad participation trophy that they sadly cling to THE POPULAR VOTE, remember who we are. Its week 3, 2017, and we are the Patriots at home vs the Dolphins and we are laying 13.5. RUN IT UP.

Useful idiots bound by no borders: the front lines are everywhere.

I remember watching a youtube video some time ago when I first heard the term: “Useful Idiot” to describe the Marxist leftists both here and abroad. It was Yuri Bezmenov who spoke those words of truth, a former journalist and propagandist for the KGB who had direct knowledge of psychological warfare practiced by the USSR in the Cold War. Mr. Bezemenov defected to the West and wrote and lectured in a pro-West manner until his death in 1993.

In todays world, Bezemenov today would be rich. His speaking engagements would rival the Clintons in terms of monetary command (except for not being able to deliver State department approved favors for it). He predicted our societal cucking via the neoliberals and the hypersensitive liberal left that seems to not only permeate our culture but dominate it across so many various levels from government to media and everywhere in between. His accuracy and precision of society in a present day United States is in such a detailed manner he would make Nostradamus just another failed Myan forecaster. A Y2K truth-er.  He was that damn good. It was this video that came to my mind after watching what unfolded after the dust settled and the smoke cleared in Aleppo, Syria.

We have an overabundance of “useful idiots” here in the states. We have the media. We have the aforementioned neoliberal agenda. What you don't see at first glance is what has become the most useful idiot in the arsenal. Its there in plain sight; you just have to squint a bit to see it.

Don't turn on your TV to see the idiots in plain view. That revelation won't be televised. The reality is “terrorism” has become the most easily exploited geopolitical hot potato of modern times. Kick em when you're up; sick em them when you're down. Or flip it around; it all works the same.

It didn't have to be all the #FakeNews pouring out of eastern Aleppo BEFORE it was taken by Assad and Syrian army as the city celebrated Christmas for the first time in four years. Funny that wasn't on CNN. Must have missed it. It didn't take Syrian special forces to capture and officially name Western operatives last month facilitating the likes of ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, for us to know who we were betting on. How we aided and funded Wahhabist and neo-Wahhabist extremists in their attempts to implement an Islamic theocracy at the expense of a democratically elected secular nation. Let that soak in. Let that hit your palate. Got a taste for it now? Do you taste the notes of hypocrisy, deception and a hint of callousness in it? A democratic republic, the self-described beacon of light on the hill in the darkness of the world.

A benevolent nation (thank you ScottL) government who traded its sensibilities and soul in for more geopolitical power and less freedom. At least DADDY gets it...

As CNN and the like reported the civilians running away from the encircling Assad armies aided by Russian airstrikes in Aleppo last month they flipped the script. It was the civilians fleeing from 4 years of control by Islamic extremists, running from “moderate rebels” held in east Aleppo. But just where were they running to? The report never had that destination outcome. Interestingly enough, that report did tell us how the media are unable to cross the front-line into northern/western Syria. Funny way to gather info and intel to build a story, no? Journalism through 2nd and 3rd channels isn't journalism anymore. Its at the mercy of whoever can control said sources. This often leads to propaganda. A simply connection of the dots can tell you where they were running and fleeing to. It was none other than the Syrian government, who held a peaceful western Aleppo just a few miles away. Consider this TV report on the fleeing civilians from CNN via Fred Pleitgen:

CIVILIANS FLEE AS SYRIAN ARMY POUNDS ALEPPO

That headline is totally misleading for a myriad of reasons. Strange it is, the narrative here at home is not reporting the truth. People are fleeing a place being bombed to the people responsible for the bombing? They want you to believe the east, where our “moderates” are aided and backed by the US and its allies are fighting for freedom in favor of the citizens of Aleppo; when it could not be further from the truth. East Aleppo, the place where a kid is surrounded and beheaded by “moderates”. Those “moderates” known as the Nour al-Din al-Zinki Movement were given arms and support by our State Department headed by the infamous and nefarious demon of death herself, one Hillary Clinton. This is in a place where:

hundreds of east Aleppo militiamen prevented at rifle-point thousands of civilians from fleeing their enclave over the past two weeks, how they shot dead six people, including a pregnant woman.

In a place, where cowards shouting "Allahu akbar" used civilians and their residences as shields from bombings. What a great God they have. And the Western media was along for the ride if you just exclude the fact they didn't have the balls to get in the car and be there in person. There might not a better recap and list of media lies and propaganda on east Aleppo, Syria than the piece written by Rania Khalek of Fair.org.

We have seen this play out in Libya as well. Defined by the West on its watch lists as “extremists” but used by the West openly as useful idiots in the pursuit of regime change against a secular middle eastern nation.

If we are to engage and our goal is to eradicate these extremist groups then lets do so. What we can't have is this posture where we allow ourselves to arm these extremists over democratically elected leaders. It sends a mixed message and is ineffective. 

All of this is lies at the feet and the blood on the hands of the prince of peace himself, the neoliberals anointed one, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. Mr. Nobel Peace Prize. A President of the United States who won the Nobel Peace Prize before he even stepped into office. The same man who burst onto the scene under the guise of transparency. Who ran a campaign against nation building and regime changes. The same man who would come to execute more drone strikes than his predecessor. A man who would choose to arm radical Islam over nations with democratically elected governments. What happened? Did he do an 180 because he wanted to or was he just doing what he was told?

He was the man who once said back in ‘08;

"one important thing is that we not get mission creep"

There was no congressional authorization for launching air raids in Syria. There was no authorization in Libya either you know what started out as a “humanitarian effort” to only become another “Moderate” extremist-backed “resistance” that ended up with the Muslim brotherhood filling the vacuum. I think mission creep has all but been executed at 100% capacity, Mr. Obama.

This leads me to my questions:

How do we get to a point where we are supporting the elimination of democracy at the hands of extreme Muslim terror?

All of a sudden an extreme Sunni/Wahhabism hybrid decides to enter Aleppo as liberators? Despite every conquest by these actors has been extreme and violent to the natives they confront.

Why would Al-Assad enter Aleppo to butcher citizens (as some reported) while it was being held by these “terrorists” in a city of mixed ethnicities and religions who before the uprising lived side by side in peace under Assad?

Why do we support a nation like Saudi Arabia? A nation led by Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul-Aziz ibn Abdullah Al ash-Sheikh whom has declared Sunni Islam as enemies and wants to purify the Sunni sect or you could also say 80% of Islam. All this despite the fact Wahhabism is the overwhelming majority of “terrorists”?

Why do all of our end results in the middle east we engage in result in destabilization?

There are plenty of options for answers but the conclusions to be drawn from these options are about as fuzzy as the reasoning for these actions I laid out in my questioning. I have written about the petrodollar many many times but that might be just part of the story. If there is one thing we do know, Mr. Obama your legacy is clear: we want our award back. See, I know YOU think you deserved the award without merit DESPITE the fact that you were the polar opposite of peace. And its this entitlement that makes you the poster boy for the infamous cultural suicide we embrace today; the participation trophy. Nevertheless, Nobel committee secretary Geir Lundestad finally sees it like I see it (sort of). As he wrote in his memoir: "Secretary of Peace. 25 years with the Nobel Prize" ...

"thought it would strengthen Obama and it didn't have this effect."
"In hindsight, we could say that the argument of giving Obama a helping hand was only partially correct,"
"Even many of Obama's supporters believed that the prize was a mistake,"
"In that sense, the committee didn't achieve what it had hoped for"

Better late than never , Geir. 

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.

Connecting the dots from Washington to Damascus takes a degree in circular logic.

With the cowardly bombing of the Boston Marathon still only being measured in hours removed from the attack, on Wednesday, April 17, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel informed Congress of a new deployment of US troops to Jordan. I don't know whats more curious, the timing of this new venture during a week where both the American press and public's attention was focused squarely in and around Boston or the official, on record justification for this move.

According to Jordan Information Minister Mohammad Momani:

"The deployment of the troops is part of US-Jordanian military cooperation to boost the Jordanian armed forces in light of the deteriorating situation in Syria,"

Mr Hagel on the other hand was a bit more in-depth with his comments to Congress on Wednesday in this report by ABC's Luis Martinez:

“We have an obligation and responsibility to think through the consequences of direct U.S. military action in Syria,” said Hagel.  He added that “military intervention at this point could hinder humanitarian relief operations.  It could embroil the United States in a significant, lengthy, and uncertain military commitment.”

More importantly he warned that it could have “the unintended  consequence of bringing the United States into a broader regional conflict or proxy war. ” He stressed that “the best outcome for Syria – and the region – is a negotiated, political transition to a post-Assad Syria.”

He later used blunter language in describing how all factors should be weighed in considering a U.S. military option in Syria. “You better be damn sure, as sure as you can be, before you get into something, because once you’re into it, there isn’t any backing out, whether it’s a no-fly zone, safe zone, protect these — whatever it is. Once you’re in, you can’t unwind it. You can’t just say, well, it’s not going as well as I thought it would go, so we’re going to get out."

Lets put Hagel's own words into action. Its obvious the Department of Defense is "damn sure" of what they are getting into or why go into details of it? Its also obvious the DOD is contemplating military intervention that will not only hinder humanitarian efforts but at the same time, could result in "significant, lengthy, and uncertain military commitment." The best alternative to negate this? A negotiated political transition with Syria? Does this photo-op on Syrians Independence day on April, 17th (how ironic) look like a regime that wants to hand over or "transition power"?

 

A picture released by SANA on April 17, 2013, shows members the Syrian Army parading on Syria's Independence Day (SANA/AFP)

So, when these boots hit the ground, what will be the mission? To hold the hand of Jordan to control humanitarian efforts? Isn't this a job that is earmarked for the international community as a whole? I would assume the UN or Red Cross would be more than capable of handling this. But alas, the US is taking this bull by the horns. 

Then there was this analysis by Washington think tank Foreign Policy in Focus's Conn Hallinan: 

 “since a major job for these troops will be logistical, it does appear as if they are preparing the groundwork like they did for the invasion of Iraq by going into Saudi Arabia and preparing there... It’s a serious escalation and a disturbing one."

We want the Syrian regime to concede control. If not we are setting the stages for some type of invasion. In the meantime we will continue to indirectly back the uprising which consists of a variety of players including militants from al Qaeda and the al-Nusra Front, both of whom are on the US terror list. Does this sound familiar? Didn't Hollywood of all places, recently make a movie about this type of thing starring Tom Hanks called 'Charlie Wilson's War'?  

Apparently this irony has not gone unnoticed by Syrain President Bashar Assad:

 "The West paid heavily for funding al-Qaida in its early stages in Afghanistan. Today it is supporting it in Syria, Libya and other places, and will pay a heavy price later in the heart of Europe and the United States"

And to make matters worse, this is no longer just a mixed bag, a hodgepodge if you will, of revolutionaries. These rebels, according to Assad (in the very same article in the Jerusalem Post) these are: "mainly" "extremist forces".

Last week Nusra Front released this audio statement pledging allegiance to al Qaeda:

"The sons of Nusra Front renew their pledge (of allegiance) to the Sheikh of Jihad Ayman al-Zawahri and declare obedience,"  

Now, there seems to be a coalition forming of Islamic extremists in Syria, with many of these extremists part of the group that was driven out of Al Anbar Province in 2007 by US forces and local tribes because of their alleged "extreme interpretation of Islam". Anbar, located on the borders of both Syria and Jordan provide an eerie backdrop to this story, and by story, I mean another movie that comes to mind; 'Groundhogs day'.   

And whats even more eerie about this connection is we are just five days removed from the affects of terrorism playing out in our very own streets. Yet here we are, putting boots on the ground on the border of a civil war, where we are backing terrorist outfits. THE SAME terrorist outfits we have sworn to defeat in our never ending 'War on Terror'.

I understand the pecking order here. I understand Syria is an easy target, isolated in the middle east outside of Iran. I understand its easier to overthrow a rag tag group of terrorists than it is a nation with armies and chemical weapons (unless your Iraq and you have none of either despite the world saying otherwise). What I dont understand is two fold. 

First, I don't understand, how surprised we are here in the states when terrorists decide to strike here. I mean if you sleep with a porcupine, can you really be surprised about getting pricked? This 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' approach needs to be better to the general public. Because the consequences of this philosophy puts them in harms way.

Lastly, if the Nobel Peace Prize was a prize awarded to promoting peace, would it not be out of the question for the committee who awards said prize to demand its prize back for some type of breach? Or does this make the Nobel, nothing more than a participation award, like a 1980s/90's book it pin, which promoted kids reading. Or, is this just a natural development? Someone receives a peace prize who has never done anything to promote peace in the first place, then all of sudden becomes a war hawk is not that surprising.

Either way, Mr Obama, your legacy might be healthcare "reform" to many but others it will be simply contradiction. Whether i agree with what you ran on or not is not my point, my point is you haven't made good on many of the important issues you yourself highlighted in '08. You've been a whore for big business and you have failed miserably on bringing peace and instead have expanded the previous administrations warring. Back in a debate in 2008 you said: "one important thing is that we not get mission creep". 

Apparently, when you are not running for office, "important things" go out the window. And oh yea, Liberal-peace loving "democrats" (as if there is a difference between parties) you can take off that peace sign bumper sticker, along with your "coexist" magnet and shove 'em up your asses. Hopefully, that will lead to  your heads being forced to come crawling out of it.

The sky IS FALLING (in graphs)

The NCAA tournament isn’t over yet but we know its coming to an end in exactly 16 days. If I was to tell you it’s not over yet, I would be correct. But does change the fact that is will end? Of course it doesn’t. For many people, because we haven’t seen bread lines or riots in the streets the “sky isn’t falling” yet. Does that change the reality that our economy is on the downside of the bell curve?

When the FED dropped interest rates back in ’07 the idea was that it would incur borrowing from the public & private business; therefore creating new/bigger business and in the process creating jobs or at least not hemorrhaging more than the economy was already in the process of doing. Then the rates kept dropping and dropping and wont go up until the very least 2014 and then what? Go up? The debt will explode in a hyperbolic fashion.

This graph shows we paid MORE in interest on our debt in 2008 (10,024,724,896,912.49) then we did in 2012 (16,066,241,407,385.89). How do you pay LESS interest on six trillion more in principal? There is only one solution; you pay substantial less interest. 

As we know, unemployment has dropped from its high of 10.0% back in ’09 to 7.7% as of last month but at what cost?

GDP has only seen moderate gains during the last five years and in fact, as you can see below, the last quarter actually seen our GDP in decline; despite the fact that private GDP rose in the same period. 

Some people will point to the cuts in defense spending as the main culprit and they would be correct (as defense have seen a 22% drop in spending) but if running nothing short of an empire and that is how we are keeping afloat in the first place, well… 

Mortgage rates are now at their lowest rate in recorded history and this has been a yearly trend these last few years. Only now in March of 2013, are we beginning to see signs of the real estate market coming back to life; despite a plummet in interest rates the last six years that were supposed to (as said in my opening) entice borrowers. Was it worth it?

Was it worth it and at what cost are the two questions I pose to you today. At what cost and is it worth it to live for today at the expense of tomorrow?

The CBO estimates of this nation’s debt keep getting worse, study after study. This is a quite simple process: the interest rates remain low, the debt piles up and the economy barley moves. These projections below are based on current conditions. Remember, zero is the end game; there isn’t much that can be done after that. We are basically at zero interest rates now.  

These examples I gave are just the tip of the iceberg and they are all interconnected. And that iceberg is the general public of this nation being so inundated in debt, so much so that we are getting to the point where offers of basically free money can’t move the needle any longer. These last four years of record low interest rates with barley a crawl until four, five sometimes six years later illustrates this quite luminously.

With wages not keeping up with real inflation (not the phony government statistics) and the globalization of the market, incomes for the average American (an overwhelming majority of) are stagnated; if not in decline. Is there any way that changes? Of course not, this is the new reality.

So to keep up, for most Americans, debt is the only logical solution. Afterall, we know saving via the conventional bank route is futile with rates being under 1%. And as we know debt = money, so when the economy can’t jump start and the FED’s QE programs don’t jump start growth; what else can the FED do? It’s been said by Bernanke that the quick death of deflation will not occur, so that only leaves one alternative; go to zero and close its eyes. Then hold on for limb and life as the decent to a slow death via hyperinflation begins.

The political process here has become a joke. A crooked game ran by self-serving lawyers and career politicians hell bent on seeing who can kick the can down the road the furthest. What was once a calling of statesmen has been replace by a bloodthirsty pack of statists. Republicans blame Democrats for not cutting spending despite having no solution themselves and god-damn you if you want to cut a bloated defense budget! Democrats want to actually ADD to the problem with a monstrosity addition to healthcare. While both “sides” will tell you it’s the other guys fault. Then all the puppets and zombies watching/reading the propaganda will parrot it. You think this is going to change?

At this moment, under these terms we are watching the beginning of the end finally become visible before our very eyes. Americans and their distractions have reached the crescendo. They can no longer afford them. The sky isn’t falling, but our economy is. It’s circling the drain, not as fast as Greece or Spain but its circling nonetheless. So move over American Idol, the freak show isn’t just in your living room its right outside your window. Get ya’ popcorn ready.

The chequeing scheme, where micro meets macro

This is about as a rounded and admittedly loose connection as one can make but a connection nonetheless. Let me get straight to the back story.

My lady friend of 18 years & counting refuses to use a debit card. She despises credit. She also prefers to not use cash either. She's still the mindset of 20 years ago when everything revolves around cheques. Now, in her defense there is a practical reason behind it. She feels if you really want to buy something that added step of writing it out reduces impulse buying and judging by her sterling accounting of our finances; I offer no debate.

A few weeks ago she unexpectedly ran out of cheques. Unfortunately this coincided with the long Martin Luther King Day weekend thus the banks were closed. So with no ability to access her money, she had two choices: use credit or dont buy what she needed until the next day. As we were just one day from our annual winter getaway to Florida... I enter with option three: me picking up the tab. And being the loving spouse I am, I chose to use my cheques. One part out of respect for her and partly because I just haven't written one in so long. At the same time, I felt it would make it an interesting exercise to practice my cursive. 

So a few transactions and a few chicken scratches later, we were on our way. When we got back home is when it got interesting. It seems due to inactivity and I moving my direct deposit out of that bank, my account was closed. Unbeknownst to me, I had written three cheques without having an account at all. I quickly made contact with the vendors and paid in cash the amount + fees. This suddenly made me remember why I stopped using cheques over a decade ago: overdrafts.

Now at this point It was behind us. One week later came the letters from collection agencies demanding the funds to cover said cheques. So, I called to explain to them the situation. A manager on duty of the collection service then hit me with this...

"Sir, if you dont have proof you made good on these cheques we require a payment to take care of that. We except two forms of payment. Western Union and Cheque by phone."

Cheque by phone, I asked? I told her I wrote a bad cheque, why would they accept another cheque? She then begins to tell me it happens all the time. That people knowingly write bad cheques and then make payments to the collection agencies with more bad cheques. If this process seems completely irrational and made up; its only the same exact thing that our government does (and gets away with) regarding the dollar.

Now I did say it was a loose connection and you made it this far so bare with me.

We effectively print dollars with no tangible backing whatsoever, just "confidence" that the dollar will not crash and that in turn will not lead to a run on the bank. Remember, due to the modern practice of fractional reserve banking, bank's tend to only keep a small fraction in liquid reserves. Thus any major fluctuation of withdrawals in a one day period can make things very interesting for a bank.

Now with that said, after the banks make these monopoly based dollars, they just sit back and operate the biggest shakedown modern civilization has ever seen.

By way of OPEC taking only US dollars for its oil (thank you President Nixon and King Faisal), it forces oil buying nations (read the entire world) to naturally obtain US dollars so they can obtain the OPEC oil (which holds about 2/3 of the worlds oil supply). OPEC then takes those US dollars and reinvests them into US banks further strengthening our place as the preferred empire of the world over.

So, like a guy armed with a closed chequing account and a fistful of cheques, you too can play the game of tangible assets/commodities for nothing too. Buy the goods and services with cheques that, like our dollar, are essentially worthless paper backed by nothing; THEN use the same cheques to pay off the creditors! You come out with goods and everyone else is stuck holding worthless paper. Then rinse & repeat.

The difference between the guy running that scheme with a closed chequing account is eventually the jig will be up. Unless you’re real slippery and willing to constantly move and change your name quite often; it will all come to an end. But what about the US petrol-dollar scheme? How long before that hustle is over? When you think about it, from the US point of view, it’s paramount that the US remains the reserve currency for oil. For if not, we can expect a lot of dollars coming back home and when I say a lot, I am talking the SHIT-TON of quantities.

If that happens our standard of living (even at a declining rate) will all but disappear. This will create instant hyperinflation and eventually a sell-off so large that the immigration issues on the borders wont be commonly known from Mexican people trying to get as they are today but instead it will be American citizens trying to get out.

Its pretty obvious the lengths our leaders will go to keep this asset bubble propped up. So, what happens if you don't agree with this petrodollar recycling scheme? What if you are in favor of, say a more "open competition" regarding how to pay for oil? As I stated last year in this piece; it usually doesn’t end well for you.

Now with Iraq and Afghanistan wrapping up, all the sabers are waving towards Iran and they are running out of time. Friday, President Obama put them on notice Friday saying:

"Right now, we think it would take over a year or so for Iran to actually develop a nuclear weapon"

Then eloquently added:  "but obviously we don’t want to cut it too close.”

The President then went on to call a nuclear Iran "a red line". You have less than a year Iran. Less then a year before you continue or end your nuclear program. But remember, the nuclear program is a guise. The real threat remains the precedent you are making with disrespect for the dollar. So, close your oil bourse and fall back in line or else.

Now picture that guy again with the cheques and the false chequing account. Hes cashing cheques and receiving goods and when you want to collect or end the scheme he shows up at your place of business with an army and guns and tells you if you dont change your ad's or paint your store Tropicana yellow hes gonna shoot the place up and remove you. You like your job dont you? Your kids eat waffles dont they? You need money to buy waffles. The American hegemony alive and well; Tony Soprano don’t have nothin’ on us. 

The Droning of America

  

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”

This was a quote from a Department of Justice (DOJ) memo landed by NBC’s Michael Isikoff last month. In this white paper memo it’s clear the backdrop has been set; completely trampling over the 4^th, 5^th & 14^th amendments in one fell swoop. The Executive branch will wage its war on your freedoms under the guise of “terror” not just in your backyard in the Middle East but your front yard and everywhere in between.

Per the FAA’s website, they have granted over 1,400 licenses or better known as Certificates of Authorization (COA) to some corporations but mostly government agencies to allow unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to occupy US airspace. Congress, despite its miserable record of futility and utter failure managed to pass a bill that set a September 2015 deadline for “full integration” of UAS into the national airspace.

When the powers that be want to torture and cannot do so because it’s the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, they get “creative”. They just rename it. So "torture" becomes "enhanced interrogation techniques". That’s what these politicians think of your intellect. They just rename an act like your mom used to do when you were four; calling cabbage apple pie.  

When they want to take away your 1st amendment right of free speech and assembly they deem you a terrorist or an enemy combatant. 

The 2011 drone strike in Yemen that killed two alleged al-Qaida operatives Samir Khan and Anwar al-Awlaki were both U.S. citizens. Lest not forget al-Awlaki’s 16 year old son also an American who was also killed in the attack. Neither men (and of course neither was a minor) were indicted nor charged by the US Government for any crimes. Instead they were put onto a list without due process and executed by a remote control airplane in a desert thousands of miles away; the same remote control airplanes we will have patrolling our skies here in the states.  

Some of you might say, but both men were al-Qaida, but how do we know? How do we know what they did if there was no charges or trial? If they are American citizens they are guaranteed their rights by our constitution. The same constitution that each elected representative is sworn to uphold and protect. So how can these elected representatives by the people for the people have the audacity to kill American citizens without a trial or even charge? 

The answer is simple. Americans are too quick to trade freedom for security.

Isikoff also notes a speech from Attorney General Eric Holder in March of 2012 where he endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans. Just like seen in the recently discovered DOJ white paper, the narrative is consistent, as Holder states they (those on the kill list) could be legal and justified kills if government officials determine the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

There is that pesky phrase again: “an imminent threat of violent attack”. How do you go about deciding how imminent a threat is? This falls into the hands of a judge or a jury of ones peers, right? Normally, yes, but in today’s brave new world, it’s just not the case.

No, the President and his appointed Attorney General play both jury and judge. While they give the thumbs up or down on who is to be killed; the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) and an army of drones play executioner. This wording is very vague and ambiguous (i sense a trend here) thus the interpretation of these words and how they apply to citizens must be dealt with accordingly. Allowing this power to rest in one mans hands and his attorney general is the way of a monarch or dictatorship not a republic.

If this sounds like something out of communist Russia or Nazi German; it's only because it is.

This JSOC falls under the command of the President making in nothing more than a Gestapo. A force that's militarily superiority is only matched by its geo-political carte blanche. Bound not by borders, sovereignty, neither international nor domestic laws but simply the decision then subsequent command of one man. This is not democracy. This is why we have a constitution. Is it any wonder those in power go at lengths to undermine it?

So, when Rand Paul in epic fashion brings about a filibuster last week to protest the nomination of war monger & drone whore John Brennan, to head the CIA, you can bet he was met with considerable disdain. And this was not just from the usual suspects (namely the President and his minions) but from the likes of none other than neo-con hawks John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Two career politicians dressed up as republican senators who sold their soul long ago to K-Street and two mouth breathers who will do anything to defend their corporate masters in the military industrial complex.

Your rights via the constitution get in the way of those in power. War’s and chasing bogeymen in the sands of Arabia funnel obscene profits to those in power both at the elected and private level. Anyone and I mean ANYONE who defends drones strikes on American soil while promoting endless wars against an “enemy” that’s about as dangerous as street gang in Omaha… is the enemy. They are an enemy to our republic and they are an THE “imminent threat” to our natural born rights as American citizens. Know thy enemy.

‘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.

Stealing is legal, just ask those that got shoved off the cliff.

What can I say, I’m flabbergasted. Are these crooks in Washington really going to assume the American public is that dumbed down to see through this guise? Uh… never mind.

Let’s call it what it is. This idea that Republicans failed in the “fiscal cliff standoff” is pure poppy-cock. This notion that the Democrats somehow “won” is equally a failure if we value logic and reason. For what we seen these last two days has been what the American people have wanted for years now… compromise.

The federal government finally compromised. Republicans and Democrats finally crossed the isle. With its legislative and executive branches all on board, despite all its fury, anger and alleged partisan indignation, the deal was struck. Just like the bailouts before it, along with every other hot potato-political topic involving money; the sides "somehow" came to an “agreement”. On the outside this looks like a victory for the people, and it would be if it wasn’t such an absolute charade.

This was nothing more then a WWE broadcast, the winners and losers were already predetermined. When push came to shove everyone got what they want: more for them and their sugar daddy's and you footing the bill. The fiscal cliff was likening to a pay per view event, where afterwards, backstage the heel and the face toasted champagne and laughed all the way to the bank in their stretch limos and learjet's. Meanwhile the poor bastards who bought tickets returned home in their minivans and via subways, still in awe and totally oblivious of exactly how the farce that was just performed before their very eyes. 

Here’s the impact:

Almost all of the Bush Tax Cuts are permanent, while this helps everyone who pay tax; it helps the wealthiest substantially more.

Wheres the cuts on defense spending?

The Payroll tax cut that saved everyone who works in our nation an average of anywhere between $500-$2,000 has ended (which is good for Social Security in the long run) thus acting as a tax increase from last year for everyone earning a paycheck. This will essentially raise the taxes for anyone making fewer than 100k by 2%.

Wheres the entitlement restructuring? 

We have also seen the definition of "rich" get a facelift, as “rich” is anyone making over 400k per year. They will see their taxes rise from 35% to 39.6%. This is hardly the 250k cap that Obama sought re-election on.

And last but not certainly least... the dreaded “Death Tax”.

From the Republican perspective, one of the biggest hold-ups in this “fiscal cliff deal” was the death tax or estate tax. It was 35% as of 2012 on Estates valued at five- million or more. The President wanted 45%. They reached a deal at 40%, splitting the difference. Now, in case you are wondering why you don’t know what this is or why you’ve never heard the particulars, its because it doesn’t affect you. That is unless you have an estate valued at $5 million or more.

As of 2010, courtesy of the Federal Reserve board, only 4.4% of American households had financial assets exceeding $1 million, much less $5 million. According to the IRS, the estate tax will only affect about 3k families. With the additional five percent of taxation of those that are required to pay, the liability may rise slightly, but with the exemptions staying the same, there will be no new cap, thus the limits stay the same.

What does it all mean? I’m not telling you anything you already don’t know. It is what it is. This idea that there is a real tangible difference between these two parties …is make believe. The only real differences are on the margins and that is by design. From abortion, death-taxes, tax-break for billionaires, tax-breaks for multinational conglomerates, gay-rights, funding public television, praying in schools, you name it. Basically, anything that doesn’t benefit the bulk of the populous & affects less then 10% of the population is a heated, highly-contested debate.

I don’t despise anyone for their success nor do I feel they should be punished because of it. As being of  Libertarian mindset, how could I?  However, the middle class has been exploited by the wealthy elite who then help run elite corporations that are gaming the system, all the way from General Electric to G.M and everyone in between. Meanwhile the small businesses, who make up the bulk of US employment, continue to be stifled with red tape, over regulation and are continuously outmaneuvered by big business lobbying efforts. And not to be outdone, it cuts both ways.

There are a growing number of people on the bottom of the pyramid, who are out to hustle every organization and opportunity they can. Look no further then - Supplemental Security Income (Social Security Retirement Survivors and Disabilities Income is for those who have paid into it) because they are “too depressed to work” or have kids that are born one day early (purposely) so they qualify for 18 years as a premature baby. I got story's for days on that topic.

Before you utter the words “class warfare”, read the writing on the wall. This fiscal cliff deal did nothing to hurt those at the top or the bottom, just everyone in between. The rich were not hit hard nor was those too poor to pay taxes, with their 6-10k tax refunds on $13,000 in income.

One of the paramount reasons Obama was elected in the first place was his promise of transparency. You can at least say that’s one campaign promise he lived up to. The middle & working class, the backbone of this country, is under siege and its right out in plain sight. So if you are looking for politics for an ally on either “side” you might need to look again because the only thing these two parties have compromised on is you. They say jump, you say how high.