tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28250773334275090902024-03-14T03:00:47.430-07:00Veritas RealpolitikVeritas Realpolitikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848756736105920592noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2825077333427509090.post-20893655739943707502014-03-10T09:00:00.001-07:002014-03-31T08:25:15.036-07:00<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><u>Welcome to the Crossroads of Misfortune and Oblivion.</u></strong></div>
<br />
When the United States was funding and training the Mujahadeen back in the 80s it was done with short-term goals in mind, and in the long-term the United States has come to regret that decision, for the Mujahadeen went on to become the Taliban and the people who were behind the 911 attacks. That bit of blowback has changed our entire society, and we now are told that we must accept the increased level of government and government intrusion into our lives. Few connect our current situation with the decisions of Reagan, but the links are easy to find.<br />
<br />
We now find ourselves in another situation where our decisions will have long-felt ramifications. Russia has invaded the Ukraine, a nation that gave up its nuclear weapons in return for security guarantees. Those guarantees are not being met, and Russia is consolidating its hold over the Crimea. If we fail to act, and act soon, we will see the rebirth of the nuclear age. It will become painfully clear that the only true security to a nations sovereignty is their ability to completely annihilate the enemy...and nukes allow small nations that ability. <br />
<br />
So this is the crossroads that find ourselves at, though the media seems to largely be ignoring this issue. Our choices are unpleasant but clear. We either stand with the Ukraine as we promised them we would, and risk a hot war with Russia, or we allow Russia to take Crimea, with no guarantee that they will stop there (there are other European nations with ethnic Russian minorities in them), and the understanding that getting rid of the existing nukes in this world stops now, and nations that dont have it will start to seriously consider whether developing nuclear weapons will be in their best interest. <br />
<br />
No one wants to fight a war against Russia. They have a lot of people and historically have shown no aversion to losing millions in battle. No one wants a return to the nuclear arms race. It only increased the likelihood that unstable leaders (and they do exist) will start something that we will all come to regret. Yet those are the choices that face us. Inaction rarely wins the day...it just delays things until the other side is ready to make their move. Veritas Realpolitikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848756736105920592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2825077333427509090.post-27590587945213100102013-12-10T08:11:00.002-08:002013-12-10T08:14:35.026-08:00<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="margin: 1em 0px; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">How the American People
Have Lost Sovereignty Part Three</span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">This is the final article in the series
on how the sovereignty of the American people has been stripped from them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the first article I discussed how the
Supreme Court has altered the original intent of the Founding Fathers by
changing corporations from Charters, which can be undone by the government, to
beings superiour to people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the
second article I discussed how the creation of the Federal Reserve was both
unconstitutional (and this has never been dealt with) and stripped the
government of the ability to regulate money.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The result has been a decimation of the value of the American
dollar.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this final article I will
discuss how the National Security Agency (NSA) has usurped the power to deal
with foreign nations, and often has an agenda that is at odds with the elected
government, as well as how NSA activities have been in violation of the
Constitution.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Edward Snowden, the NSA whistle-blower
who was forced into exile in Russia, continues to release bombshells, the likes
of which have been devastating to the confidence of the American people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It has become painfully clear to even the
most Patriotic American that their government has been lying to them and blatantly
ignoring the Constitution, which limits the powers of government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The NSA routinely monitors phone calls and
online traffic, without warrants, and it does so throughout the world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The NSA has no official place in the
Constitution; it was created in 1952, when many other changes were made to
American society that went against the Constitution (adding In God We Trust to
the currency in ’56, and adding Under God to the pledge of allegiance in ’54).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As such, the NSA should be merely an arm of
the security apparatus, but the reality is that the NSA operates independently,
with no true oversight.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">As such the NSA has its own agenda, and
there is nothing that says that their agenda must coincide with the elected governments’
agenda.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, the Snowden files show
that, quite frequently, the NSA decides that the elected government has taken
an incorrect position, and take actions to counter-act what the elected
government is doing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While this does not
clearly strip sovereignty from the people, since the NSA is not in control, but
sometimes works against the government, it does severely limit it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">When a foreign leader learns that the
NSA has been reading their personal email, it causes a rift between that nation
and the USA.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When a foreign corporation
learns that the NSA has been reading their private business correspondence they
must wonder if that is the reason why they lost that last bid to an American
company.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The rift grows wider.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sometimes this is just blowback (unintended
consequences) from activities that the government would sanction, but others
are purposeful in their attempt to create a rift.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The word treason is thrown around a little
too casually, but it is clear that the NSA has absolutely engaged in treason
every single time it decided to work against the policies of the elected
government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Part of the problem is that
the Patriot Act gave the NSA carte blanche.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The consequences of what the NSA has
been caught doing are still ongoing, but they are devastating to the USA.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is estimated that the cost of the NSA
scandal to American private companies will be in the billions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Foreign customers might decide to do business
with other nations, and some might not trust the products that they receive
from the USA.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.zdnet.com/us-tech-firms-to-see-china-business-dip-amid-nsa-scandal-7000023250/"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.zdnet.com/us-tech-firms-to-see-china-business-dip-amid-nsa-scandal-7000023250/</span></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You never know who is allowing the NSA to do
their surveillance, tacitly endorsing that activity by turning a blind
eye.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://business.time.com/2013/12/10/nsa-spying-scandal-could-cost-u-s-tech-giants-billions/"><span style="color: blue;">http://business.time.com/2013/12/10/nsa-spying-scandal-could-cost-u-s-tech-giants-billions/</span></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The Guardian discusses how Australia is
reacting to the scandal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their formerly
warm attitude towards the USA has chilled a great deal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They, legitimately, are finding it difficult
to trust the Americans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If they are
spying on all Australians, are they stealing industrial secrets?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Are they providing American companies with
strategic information gathered by the NSA?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/19/the-nsa-scandal-has-detonated-in-australia-we-can-no-longer-look-away"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/19/the-nsa-scandal-has-detonated-in-australia-we-can-no-longer-look-away</span></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Google actually considered moving its
operations outside of the USA, but ultimately decided it was not worth it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let’s face it, the NSA is spying on the whole
world, so just moving offshore won’t make you safe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/101222237"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.cnbc.com/id/101222237</span></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Europe is seriously displeased, and are
considering options on how to deal with the NSA spying.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One option on the table is to deny the USA
from global financial data, which is gathered by a Belgian company called
Swift.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6f4bf1a8-470b-11e3-9c1b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2n5VpAMYu"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6f4bf1a8-470b-11e3-9c1b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2n5VpAMYu</span></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At the very least the USA can expect data
protection to be part of the trade deal talks with Europe.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The NSA has become a shadow government,
unaccountable to the elected government, independent in action, and at times
working against the stated policies of the elected government (aka representatives
of the people).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Private American
businesses will lose revenue because of the revelations, but the sovereignty
was lost the moment the NSA was allowed to operate independently.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Organizations such as the NSA attract certain
people, and certain other people are excluded from even being considered by
those already entrenched.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In other
words, the NSA represents a tiny sliver of the American population, and should
be kept under tight scrutiny.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The very
nature of such an organization works at odds with the idea of a free and open
society.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Veritas Realpolitikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848756736105920592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2825077333427509090.post-86155985263334585592013-11-20T13:52:00.003-08:002013-11-20T13:55:05.176-08:00<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: black;">How the American People
Have Lost Sovereignty, Part Two<o:p></o:p></span></span></u></b></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: black;">In the first article the gradual rise of
the Corporate Personhood was detailed, showing how there is a correlation
between the rights that corporations have gained over the years through Supreme
Court rulings and limitations placed upon legislators when trying to create
laws for the benefit of society, for fear of lawsuits by corporations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this article the Federal Reserve will be
analyzed, showing that the federal government gave up sovereignty over money
policy in a completely unconstitutional way.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpLast" style="margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: black;">The Federal Reserve was created in 1913
by Congress, and signed by Woodrow Wilson, as a way to centralize the banking
system, which the Democrats had promised to do if elected.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The problem is that the Constitution puts
that responsibility on Congress; <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: 115%;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="1.8"></a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">“<b>Section. 8.</b></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: 115%;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="1.8.1"></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: black;">The Congress shall have Power To lay and
collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: 115%; margin-left: 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="1.8.5"></a><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign
Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: black;">The Constitution was never amended to transfer
this responsibility, let alone to a private corporation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In all likelihood this is because there would
be far too much opposition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was a
shameful abrogation of the sovereign power of the people by those who were
merely holding the reigns for a brief time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Wilson and his Democrats decided to ignore the Constitutional
implications, since they did not even attempt to amend the Constitution, and
the Supreme Court has again proven to be stewards of the people in the way that
a wolf is a steward of sheep.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: black;">The first thing that needs to be
understood, for its importance cannot be understated, is that the Federal
Reserve is a privately owned corporation that pays dividends to stockholders.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In order to be a bank in the United States,
the bank must purchase stock in the Federal Reserve.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Federal Reserve stocks are not available to
people, though many of the banks who own stock in the Federal Reserve are
publicly traded corporations, and those stocks can be owned by people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although the Federal Reserve is a private
corporation, it also has to deal with the government in certain ways.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The President chooses who the Federal Reserve
Chairman is, though he must pick from choices provided by the Federal Reserve,
and the Chairman must report to Congress and the Government Accountability
Office.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Congress can advise the Chairman
of the Federal Reserve, but he can ignore that advice without repercussions. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: black;">The Chairman of the Federal Reserve gets
to set monetary policy, and he does this in two basic ways.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One, he sets the rate which banks must hold
depositors money on hand.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In other
words, if the rate is set at 10%, then a bank can lend out 90% of the money
that is deposited in the bank, but must keep 10% on hand, in case depositors
wish to withdraw money. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this way
banks only have to keep a percentage of their customers’ money, and the rest
can be leant out for interest, which creates the illusion that there is more
money in the system than there really is, because the money that is lent out
eventually makes its way back into a bank, which then lends out 90%, repeating
the process over and over again.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is
called fractal reserve lending, and it is, at the logical heart of it, a
pyramid scheme.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It works so long as
people believe it will work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Once people
lose faith it falls apart rapidly.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: black;">The second way the Federal Reserve
controls monetary policy is by setting the federal funds rate, which is the
rate of interest that banks who are part of the Federal Reserve can borrow
money from the Federal Reserve.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When a
bank needs money, it borrows it from the Federal Reserve.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The interest rate is normally ridiculously
low (.25% for 2013).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Banks turn around
and lend this money out to people at a much higher rate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The money that the Federal Reserve lends to
the banks is created when the banks ask for it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>When this is done the Federal Reserve tacks on a fee for the transaction
(about 6%), and that accounts for the profits of the Federal Reserve.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At the end of the year all of the profits are
sent back to the Treasury…except for 6%, which is paid out as dividends to the
stockholders (aka the banks).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The same
banks that borrowed the money from the Federal Reserve own the Federal
Reserve.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So they borrowed from
themselves; in reality adding more US dollars to the system, thereby lessening
the value of all the dollars that were already in existence…and making six
percent on the deal on top of everything else.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: black;">If this analysis were true, we should
expect that the US dollar would have lost value continuously since the creation
of the Federal Reserve, as that six percent tacked on at the creation of
currency slowly erodes the value of that currency.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is indeed the case. The US dollar has
lost over 60% of its value compared to the British pound since the creation of
the Federal Reserve one hundred years ago.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: black;">Unfortunately corruption is the mortar
that holds the Federal Reserve System together.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Banks have manipulated their positions on the boards of the Federal
Reserve to funnel money into their corporate coffers, at the expense of the
American economy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jamie Diamond was the
CEO of JP Morgan-Chase at the same time that he was on the Federal Reserve
board, and while on the board of the Federal Reserve he orchestrated a bailout
of JP Morgan-Chase.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There can be no
clearer indication that there is a conflict of interest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the same time period Lehman Brothers was
allowed to file chapter 11.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course,
the CEO of Lehman Brothers, Joe Gregory, did not sit on the Federal Reserve
board.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The Constitution clearly assigns
responsibility for monetary policy to Congress.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Constitution has clearly not been amended to allow that
responsibility to be transferred, in all likelihood because the American people
would not stand for it if they understood what was being done.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Federal Reserve constantly erodes the
value of US currency with the six percent profit that is sent to Federal
Reserve stockholders (banks), and is not bound by policy expectations of the
elected government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If Congress and the
President decide on one course of action, but the Federal Reserve disagrees
with that course, it can work against the intent of the elected
government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The President can remove the
sitting Chairman and choose a new one…but the Federal Reserve selects the
people that the President gets to choose from.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: black;">What is interesting is that no one has
challenged the legitimacy of the Federal Reserve at the Supreme Court
level.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It seems highly unlikely that it
could survive such a challenge…though the history of the United States Supreme
Court is one of a long list of awful decisions that have eroded the power of
the American democracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The reality is
that a small cadre of insiders is calling the shots for America’s financial
system.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They disguise their actions out
in the open, using byzantine logic and industry-specific jargon to confuse
people, all the while eroding the foundation of American society.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p><span style="color: #463e3e; font-size: x-small;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
Veritas Realpolitikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848756736105920592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2825077333427509090.post-3846146302812303462013-11-05T09:48:00.000-08:002013-11-05T09:48:18.438-08:00How the American People Have Lost Sovereignty, Part One
<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">This is the first in a series of three
articles discussing how the American people have lost a great deal of
their sovereignty, and thus their freedoms, since the creation of the Constitution.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Sovereignty is defined as having supreme
authority or jurisdiction over a geographical or judicial area.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The American people, slowly over hundreds of
years and three major incursions, have lost a great deal of the sovereignty
that protected their freedoms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As their
areas of sovereignty have been eroded, so too have their civil rights, often
without them even realizing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This has
directly correlated with a decline in the standard of living for the average
American, and a widening of the wealth disparities that have caused a great
deal of social chaos.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The three major areas that the American
people have essentially lost control over are; their monetary system, their
security apparatus, and corporations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The monetary system was taken from the people when the Federal Reserve
became the de facto authority on currency creation, thereby giving control over
monetary policy to a privately owned corporation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Recent revelations that the NSA keeps secrets
from the elected government show that the NSA is autonomous and
unaccountable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This has resulted in a
loss of diplomatic and foreign policy sovereignty.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Finally corporations have gained many of the
rights of people, allowing them to sue governments for creating laws that
reduce profits, including future profits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This has resulted in local and state governments fearful to legislate in
the best in interests of their people, for fear of lawsuits from affected
corporations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This loss of judicial
power is debilitating to governments, preventing them from reacting to changing
situations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Working chronologically it makes sense
to start with the gradual rise of the Corporate Personhood.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 1819 the United States Supreme Court
(USSC) ruled in Dartmouth College versus Woodward that a charter was a
contract.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This was exactly the opposite
of the original intent of the Founding Fathers, who had conceived them as
charters only, not contracts, and certainly not protected by the same
constitutional protections that guaranteed the freedoms of the people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The early corporations were typically
municipalities, not businesses, because the Revolution was fought not only
against Britain, but against the British East India Company, the Hudson Bay
Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Company.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Large corporate businesses were not seen to be compatible with freedom
by the Founding Fathers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">In 1886 the USSC case of Santa Clara
County versus Southern Pacific Railroad, it was established that corporations have
14<sup>th</sup> amendment constitutional protections, which gave the right to
due process and equal protection under the law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Thus corporations could now sue other corporations, people, and
governments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was cited as a precedent
for the Citizens United ruling.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The next
year the USSC ruled in Mugler versus Kansas against Mugler, who claimed that
the outlawing of the sale of alcohol by the state of Kansas had destroyed the
value of the brewery that he had built only a few years earlier, at
considerable expense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He wanted
compensation for the lost value of the brewery (which could not easily be
converted to another use), but the court ruled that the state had the right to
create laws that sought to protect the health, welfare, safety or morals of the
people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">In 1919 Dodge versus Ford Motor Company
the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the purpose of a corporation was to
maximize profits for its shareholders, rather than serve in the best interests
of society, as businesses had been viewed previously.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The case involved the inventor of the
assembly line, Henry Ford, who was sued by the Dodge brothers, who together
owned 10% of the company.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ford wanted to
provide excellent salaries and expand the business with new factories in lieu
of giving out dividends, and the Dodge brothers were unhappy with his
charitable nature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The courts ruled with
greed over social well-being, and corporations grew immensely because of it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">In 1922 Pennsylvania Coal Company versus
Mahon the USSC gave corporations the right to sue governments for compensation
for lost profits (called takings) that resulted from new laws, including future
profits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mugler vs Kansas had settled
the issue about whether the government could be sued for takings, ruling that
they could only be sued if the state physically seized property, and that any
regulations regarding the land was seen as the responsibility of government to
protect the health, safety, welfare and morals of the people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This new ruling completely contradicted the
ruling made thirty-five years earlier.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It not only gave the green light to businesses that they could ignore
the public interest, but it also put pressure on legislators to ignore the
public good for fear of deep pocketed lawsuits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">In 1976 Buckley versus Valeo rules that
the right to donate to political causes is the same as speech, and therefore
protected under the first amendment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
also protected the idea of limits to donations given, but not on how much a
campaign can spend, or whether there are limits to how much an individual can
spend in support of a candidate (no limits).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This brings us to Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commision
in 2010, the case that ruled that money is speech, for all intents and
purposes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does that make bribery
conversation?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Each of these cases has slowly eroded
the sovereignty of the American people, whose representatives fear to act in
the interest of their constituents because powerful corporate interests
threaten them with lawsuits for doing anything that hurts their bottom line, be
it laws intent on reducing pollution, tougher immigration enforcement,
improving worker standards as new data comes in, tightening restrictions on gun
sales, and a host of other issues that governments seem paralyzed in dealing
with.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Veritas Realpolitikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848756736105920592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2825077333427509090.post-53628796021846772202011-12-01T06:48:00.000-08:002011-12-01T06:57:32.984-08:00Learning to Understand the Language of Politics<div>Frank Lutz is a major strategist for the Republicans, and he recently met with supporters to discuss the dangers of the occupy wall street movement. To quote Frank "I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death." It warms my heart, I have to admit. The point of his statement was that conservatives need to alter the language they use in order to neutralize the effects of OWS, which are, and I quote again, "They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism." Apparently it is not that popular anymore.</div><div> </div><div>So in the coming weeks people should pay particular attention to how Republicans are speaking, which words they are avoiding and which they are using instead. Here are some specific ones to watch out for. Such a fun game!</div><div> </div><div>1) Capitalism is out. Economic Freedom is in!</div><div>2) The middle class are now hardworking taxpayers.</div><div>3) Few people want jobs. Most people want CAREERS.</div><div>4) Government spending = waste (though I assume this does not include the military)</div><div>5) Real men don't compromise. They cooperate.</div><div>6) We no longer have innovators or entrepeneurs. We have small businesses and job creators.</div><div>7) Forget taxing the rich, everyone is for that. Government is taking from the rich. Ah, it's a longshot.</div><div>8) And if approached by an occupier, say "I get it." That will shut them up.</div><div> </div><div>That ends this lesson on Orwellian Doublespeak. Until next time.</div>Veritas Realpolitikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848756736105920592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2825077333427509090.post-35594574765510290172011-06-28T06:08:00.000-07:002011-06-28T06:18:34.860-07:00Extremism is Taking OverNo matter where I go it seems I am assaulted by extremism. Just the other day I was at the grocery store, and when I went to get some hamburger buns, the only choices I had were Mega-Burgers or Sliders. I went to get some basic, standard Cheerios, but all I could choose from were Chocolate Cheerios or Apple & Cinnamon Cheerios. I tried to find a standard crust pizza, but all they had to offer were Deep Dish or Thin Crust. There were plenty of different types of thin crust and deep dish, just no regular pizza. No regular Cheerios. No regular hamburger buns.<br /><br />What has happened to the world? Like it or not we are getting fewer and fewer choices to pick from, though the opposite appears to be true. In the past I could pick from about four or five flavours of pizza, but only in the regular crust option. Today I can pick from over a dozen flavours in either thin crust or deep dish, but the regular crust seems to have vanished. The choice is still binary, though it has been disguised as versions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc... Moderation is being squeezed out so that we can all feel like we are actually choosing.<br /><br />The problem is that moderates are moderate, and it is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. In the United States it is the Tea Party that seems to get the most media attention, even though they only represent a relatively small percentage of the American people. The art of compromise is dead, and we are all being pressured to take a side, side A or side B...and that is it! I think it is time we all saw through the false dichotemy and stopped falling for the two choice fallacy. <br /><br />I say take the third path. The one you can barely see, but just feels right.Veritas Realpolitikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848756736105920592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2825077333427509090.post-75610297935776803402009-12-16T06:56:00.000-08:002009-12-16T07:10:04.218-08:00Toadying to the Rich Caused Obama to Drop the BallEither the realities are more complex than I realize, or the people in charge of the government and big business are there because of nepotism and not merit. At the time that it was happening I railed against the idea of giving the banks money, no strings attached but hoping they would start lending again. Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars (well, new debt actually) given at 0% interest to the banks, the same banks that are charging most credit card holders near 30% interest. Or perhaps it is the American people who are the stupid ones to put up with this criminal behaviour.<br /><br />I think the government should have skipped the middle man entirely. The government should have opened up loan offices, charging somewhere around 5% interest. People would flock to pay such low interest, and the big banks would have to lower their rates or lose business. Clearly none of these banks were in any serious danger of going out of business if they are all declaring record profits a year later. Those that do and will fail probably should fail.<br /><br />So what we have is hundreds of billions of dollars lent to the banks at 0%, which they then refused to lend to people. My solution would have made the taxpayers 5%, opened up credit, and forced the big banks to also lower their rates (or lose business). It seems pretty simple to me, but of course the biggest difference in the two scenarios is WHO benefits. In the current system the big banks got free money to do what they wanted with, to be paid back at some point in the uncertain future, and the American people got deeper in debt as a nation (12 million is the current tally...imagine how much those interest payments are, and how they could be better spent on THE PEOPLE). In my scenario the American people make money and liquidity opens up.<br /><br />Obama is part of the problem, because he is a much better talker than a doer. He compromises too much and too soon. He telegraphs how the opposition can manipulate his priorities until there is only a muddied mess. But a bigger problem than Obama is clearly the Senate. The very nature of the Senate is conservative in nature. It takes 60% to get legislation passed. That is a very conservative requirement. On top of that the nature of the Senate is disproportionate, so that smaller states have a greater say than their population would warrant. An analysis of the smaller states in the Union shows that they are, generally speaking, conservative in nature.<br /><br />My conclusion is that progressives have no place in the United States. The system is designed to slow down all efforts at change to the point where the system in place is generations behind where the people are at. Personally, I'd scrap the system, but I am Canadian so it is not my place to do so.Veritas Realpolitikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848756736105920592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2825077333427509090.post-43380239935734314242009-12-04T05:51:00.000-08:002009-12-04T06:02:53.437-08:00Big Bonuses for "The Best"One of the many ridiculous things that the American people are supposed to swallow these days is that, if the likes of Goldman-Sachs and the other financial terrorists that have helped destroy the middle class are not paid huge bonuses (enough to finance entire communities), then the "best and brightest" will go elsewhere and the recovery will not happen. This is STUPID on so many levels it is difficult to know just where to start.<br /><br />One, these losers are the ones that screwed the pooch to begin with. They over-leveraged their companies (it is hard to call them banks anymore, that is just one element of what they do) in order to make greater short-term profits. As a result the odds finally fell against them, as they would over time, and the house of cards is crashing down. How are these people the best and brightest? They clearly know how to play the system, and the nation along with it, but best and brightest? Hardly the best, and I do not even believe they are particularly bright. Excellent at the limited facet of humanity that they have chosen to corrupt, absolutely! Brilliant? Perhaps some, but only a few of the many I have personally met. Frat boy seems a more appropriate term for the majority of them.<br /><br />Two, where are these best and brightest going to go? People who want to restrict the huge bonuses (not the least of which, the investors, from whose pocket these bonuses come) are not saying that a single investment company should be regulated, but that all of them should. So where are they going to run to? Do they think that foreign companies really want to hire them? These losers are to finance what Arthur Anderson came to represent in accounting...failure. A relative handful of people orchestrated this economic meltdown, and now they expect to be enriched to help fix the mess that they caused. I think they should be held accountable, and forced to work for minmum wage until the economy is back on track. You want big bucks for good work, then except crap money for the shoddy work you have been turning out.<br /><br />Three, what makes anyone believe that these losers are even capable of fixing the problems? They weren't bright enough to prevent this from happening, and they were the ones closest to the levers of control. They had to have seen this coming long before the majority, or at least they should have, but they seemed just as surprised as many people. Harvard University, the people who produce the "finest business minds in the country" lost BILLIONS of dollars in the past year. I think these people are wresting on laurels earned generations ago. These people do NOT know what they are doing...at least I pray that they do not. If they do, then this entire economic meltdown was planned. That sounds like a conspiracy theory, and it is probably nothing more than that. But the options are A) these people do not know what they are doing, or B) they do, and this was their goal, or at least a step towards their goal, all along.<br /><br />Which answer makes you more comfortable?Veritas Realpolitikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848756736105920592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2825077333427509090.post-56385984529840492342009-11-12T09:29:00.000-08:002009-11-12T09:38:51.771-08:00Are You Sick Yet?Run for the hills, the Pandemic of SARS-Avian-West Nile-Swine Flu is coming and NOTHING can stop it! Didn't you hear, almost four thousand people have died from it. Of course nine times as many people have died from normal seasonal flu, but this is a PANDEMIC people. I know, I heard it on TV. I'm not exactly sure how bad a pandemic is, but it sounds an awful lot like epidemic, and I KNOW that is not good. <br /><br />I think it is time we all turned off our TVs, throw away that rag called a newspaper, turn the dial from Rush to white noise, and get some distance from the insanity that has taken over the media, and apparently, the government and medical community. Every year it is a new disease that is coming to wipe us out. I suppose this is merely an extension of the "Fear Everything" society that developed post-911, but I am bored of it. <br /><br />I am sorry but Swine flu lacks the sex appeal that something like an Ebola or Flesh-Eating disease. If the contaminated do not bleed out of their eyes or become rabid psychopaths, how am I supposed to get all worked up about it? What is the death rate on this thing? 1 in 100 000 or something so abstract I find it hard to take seriously. I am sure that those affected by this do not agree with me, but that does not change anything. Somewhere along the line people lost any rational link to risk management. Long odds are played as the apocolypse while very real and dire problems are downplayed.<br /><br />This would make an interesting book were it not true.Veritas Realpolitikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848756736105920592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2825077333427509090.post-60808031459158148082009-11-03T08:41:00.001-08:002009-11-03T08:50:58.185-08:00A Supermajority of WimpsDespite controlling the Executive and Legislative branches of government, the Democrats are incapable of doing what they promised. The blame can be spread around, but it is clear that there is a problem in the Democrat party. <br /><br />President Obama can, and should, be blamed for engaging in the Health Reform campaign in an ass-backwards fashion. He should have started with an information campaign, to educate the populace on how wasteful the current system is, and how much more expensive it is projected to get in the near and long term. Educate people on the myriad examples of people who were denied coverage because of the most inane reasons. Those stories are coming out now, but they should have been part of the information campaign. It would have made it much more difficult for the Republicans to use the line "Do you want government bureaucrats making your healthcare decisions for you?", which they have been able to effectively do so far. The worst thing Obama did was to start the negotiations from a position of moderation. You start with everything you want under the sun, knowing that you will not get most of it. If you start with the bare minimum you are willing to accept you are guaranteed to get next to nothing.<br /><br />The real culprits, though, are clearly the Democrat Senators and Representatives who will not vote for this much-needed (and popular) reform if it is anything close to real reform. These Senators and Representatives need to be singled out and the spotlight shone upon them. Come the next election the Democrat party should put large resources towards removing these people in the Primaries. Hurt them in the only way that makes sense; politically. Find good people who will run against them, and then provide huge funds from the party coffers (or whatever mechanism is legal), and have popular Democrats campaign for the challengers. Democrats like Joe Lieberman have proven that they are really Republicans in Democrat clothing. It is time to chase the conservatives out of the party, because they are creating a situation where a large percentage of the population has no voice at all, and the big-mouthed minority seems to get their way whether they win or lose an election.Veritas Realpolitikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848756736105920592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2825077333427509090.post-41764777604249876882009-09-25T11:57:00.000-07:002009-09-25T12:13:40.023-07:00Is it time for a third party?It does not take a rocket scientist to see that a third party does not make much sense in the American electoral system. At least, this is true by conventional wisdom. The logic is simple, a third party would take votes away from the party most closely aligned (politically speaking), and ensure that the party that is least aligned with the new party would win. Therefore the worst possible scenario is created if a third party enters the picture. Ross Perot did it, and to a lesser degree, Ralph Nader did it. It is difficult to even argue against this, but I will attempt to do so here.<br /><br />The problem that a lot of people have with the Republican party is the meddling in social policy. I think most people under the age of 60 are pretty liberal minded, on the social level. Each successive generation is more liberal than the previous one, so clearly society is moving in that direction, at least in the near future. It has been moving in this direction for some time.<br /><br />Now when it comes to fiscal policy, most people would prefer a small government that focused on a few key issues, and handled them efficiently. Common sense regulation is called for, but no undue interference in the economy. The reaction to the bailout of banks, insurance companies, and car makers, is evidence that people do not want the government getting involved in these areas, and rightly so. <br /><br />It is time for a third party to emerge, one that has a fiscally conservative nature, but is also socially liberal. I think the Libertarian party comes closest to the mark on this, and I hope to see a serious influx of cash going into the Libertarian coffers, as well as some legitimate candidates running under that banner. I can think of no time better than now for a legitimate and viable third party to emerge as a serious contender, but that party would need to be well organized.<br /><br />People are tired of the Elephants and Jackasses that are the current choices out there.Veritas Realpolitikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848756736105920592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2825077333427509090.post-88491381450419571302009-09-23T06:19:00.000-07:002009-09-23T06:34:31.262-07:00How can they blow it, let me count the ways.I knew that passing effective common-sense healthcare reform was going to be difficult. I least of all expected the Democrats, even with total control of the government, to be able to pass the kind of legislation that the USA needs. Even my low expectations are unlikely to be met. The Democrats are buffoons, and the "Blue Dogs" are clearly conservatives in Democrat clothing. It would be wise to purge them from the party by throwing lots of money and talented candidates at the Blue-Dog seats during primary season.<br /><br />So far the ridiculous Baccus, I mean Baucus bill, creates a government requirement that everyone who does not have health insurance will have to purchase it or be fined up to $3800. I am not sure what percentage of these people cannot afford insurance versus those who choose not to purchase it (people in their twenties, for instance), but it sounds excessively cruel, even for the United States. Even car insurance is not a requirement, unless you own a car. Those who cannot afford it do not buy cars. Those who cannot afford health insurance get fined money they cannot afford, and their standard of living sinks further still. This is at a time when 80% of the population has actually seen their income level drop in real dollars.<br /><br />I did not expect the healthcare reform to go anywhere near where I think it needs to go, but I did think people would finally be open to Regulation again. It is clear that the nation is entering into a Depression BECAUSE of the financial industry, an industry that has been deregulated over the past 20 years, courtesy of conservatives (Republicans mostly, but the Blue Dogs sure helped out). Instead of that Presidents Bush and Obama decides to give the wealth of nations to banks and insurance companies, no strings attached. It is now being reported that Obama is planning to borrow money from the banks we saved, at interest I am sure, to bail out other failing banks. Here is a wacky idea, let the failing banks fail or be bought out. That is how capitalism works. <br /><br />Capitalism is not about unending and constantly growing profits as far as the eye can see. Industries fail. Companies fail. If you truly believe in Capitalism (which I do NOT), then you have to let things play out. If you believe that the government has to intervene now and then to correct the market, you are not a Capitalist, you are a Socialist (not a Communist). If you believe in using the taxpayers dollars to correct the market, you should also believe in using taxpayer dollars to help absorb the corrections of the marketplace. At least, you should if you believe in a Just Society.<br /><br />I have come up with a great solution to the failing banks problem. Let the banks that we have saved from destruction lend the money to the failing banks to save them. Keep the taxpayers out of it. We certainly aren't given part of the profits when these guys succeed, so why should we have to pay for their failures. Let the chips fall where they may, or the coming fall will be FAR FAR worse.Veritas Realpolitikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848756736105920592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2825077333427509090.post-29911748118520759382009-09-21T06:24:00.000-07:002009-09-21T06:25:17.641-07:00BEWARE GREEN AVThere is a new virus that is posing as virus protection software. It is called Green AV, and here is how it works.<br /><br />A message is sent that appears to come from your own computer, warning you that a virus has infected the computer. If you click their OK button you are giving a company called Green AV access to your computer. Files are installed that allow them to take over a small section of your internet explorer window, the size of a pop-up blocker warning. The only thing you can do to remove this button is either A) buy the recommended internet security software that Green AV sells, or B) uninstall the program that you never realized they had installed to begin with.<br /><br />I went to the Green AV website, found their Contact Us section, and sent them an email threatening them with legal action if they did not remove the virus they installed from my computer. No sooner had I hit the "send" button but a reply came back with a link to quickly uninstall the virus. Clearly they had anticipated people demanding that they remove the virus.<br /><br />The really funny thing is that, while writing this post, perhaps five minutes after doing a google on "Green AV", and coming up with their website in the first five results, this time there is no sign of the Green AV website, but plenty of security warnings about this new type of virul marketing. I sure hope the government gets involved, because this clearly fits the definition of a virus, and they should be fined for each and every computer that has been infected. Create a site for people to add their names to the list of infected, and I imagine that would be the end of this egregious of a disregard for both the letter and intent of the law.Veritas Realpolitikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848756736105920592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2825077333427509090.post-44723518049905066212009-09-18T11:32:00.001-07:002009-09-18T11:37:19.039-07:00Status Quo, Disappointed with the Dems AgainEven when I was getting excited about an Obama Presidency, in my heart I knew that the Dems were going to get in the way and prevent a solution that I could stand behind from succeeding. Baucus proved my point. I think it is absurd, in the extreme, to financially penalize people who cannot afford healthcare. True, some are choosing not to purchase health insurance, but many just cannot afford it. Robbing them further by fining them for not having health insurance is cold, even for government.<br /><br />Why is it that the United States spends more money, covers fewer people, and has a mediocre system to show for it? People need to wake up to what is in their best interest. Allowing corporations, whose only goal is increased profits, to determine health policy borders on lunacy. There is a place for a free-market economy, and there are places where the free-market has no business. Healthcare, adoptions, prisons, and regulatory systems are places where the free-market has no right to be.Veritas Realpolitikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848756736105920592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2825077333427509090.post-10546642602694411962009-09-14T11:05:00.001-07:002009-09-14T11:12:46.827-07:00The Eye of the StormI think we are currently in the eye of the economic storm that has ravaged not only the United States, but the global economy at large. Some of the top experts are saying it, and soon that will filter down into the general subconscious. The fundamental problems that lead to the crash of '08 are still there. If anything, they have gotten worse. The big banks and insurance giants have been told that they are too big to fail. That means they will be bailed out time and time again. Knowing that it is merely "good business" to ignore the risks to maximize the profits. After all, profits are privatized, but losses have been socialized.<br /><br />Now there seems to be a lot of chatter about the next wave of housing foreclosures, this time in the commercial sector. The fickle public, which had been lulled into thinking the worst was over, will once again run around like chickens with their heads cut off. It will take consumer spending, which accounts for 2/3 of the economy, to pull the economy out of the dung-heap it currently is, but with more and more people losing their jobs it seems unlikely that consumer spending will have the money to achieve this, and credit has dried up to a trickle, with rates far beyond what it makes sense to pay. More and more people are going to decide that bankruptcy makes more sense than paying the leeches 30% interest on a debt that will never disappear. Take the first shot like a man and begin the healing process.<br /><br />Tie down anything that is loose people, the winds are picking up again.Veritas Realpolitikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848756736105920592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2825077333427509090.post-15196315961607368402009-09-11T09:24:00.000-07:002009-09-11T09:30:37.611-07:00Finally, the Moral ArgumentIt took President Obama a while to make a case that strikes home, but I think he finally did it in his big speech, charges of lying notwithstanding. Instead of merely making this about good economic sense, which healthcare reform definately offers, President Obama turned it into a moral debate, which is something it has always been. <br /><br />There is something unappetizing about the wealthiest society the world has ever known letting millions risk bankruptcy because of bad health. The number one reason people go bankrupt in the United States is due to medical bills, and two-thirds of those people actually have health insurance. This is a cause that should have been dealt with decades ago, and it is troubling that so many are willing to stand in the way of progress merely to score political points. <br /><br />This should have been an easy sell...certainly easier than giving hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to the same people who are protected by golden parachutes. Let everyone hope that the American people start to realize what is in their best interest, instead of constantly cutting off their nose to spite their face.Veritas Realpolitikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848756736105920592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2825077333427509090.post-4019433615117724272008-02-08T06:57:00.000-08:002008-02-08T07:06:35.041-08:00John McCain: Flip-Flopper"The fundamental question is: What is the United States’ interest in Iraq? It is said we are there to keep the peace. I ask, what peace? It is said we are there to aid the government. I ask, what government? It is said we are there to stabilize the region. I ask, how can the U.S. presence stabilize the region?... The longer we stay in Iraq, the harder it will be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the first place.<br /><br />What can we expect if we withdraw from Iraq? The same as will happen if we stay. I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave. I regretfully acknowledge that many innocent civilians will be hurt. But I firmly believe this will happen in any event."<br /><br />Ok, so I made a few changes to the above speech by John McCain in 1983. I changed all of the references to Lebanon with references to Iraq. The thinking behind the speech is the same however. The US had nothing to gain by going into Iraq, and everything to lose. Why the sudden change? Why does John McCain suddenly support a war in the middle east, with no benefit to the USA and plenty of costs? I wish I could explain this about face, but I cannot. I think he was right the first time, and has completely lost his way. <br /><br />McCain talks about the US being in Iraq for the next hundred years. I highly doubt the USA will continue to be a nation for that long if it should choose to squander its' resources in such a foolish way. The economy is falling apart, and the reason for that is painfully clear. The US is spending too much capital, economic, diplomatic, and military, on a conflict with dubious goals. Even if Iraq were eventually to form into a democracy, is this the way to do it? Other areas of the middle east are already heading in that direction, without the need for violent conflict. <br /><br />Clearly John McCain is going to be the Republic nominee. Can he beat the Democratic nominee? It seems unlikely, since the hard-core conservatives seem to have decided he is not conservative enough. Some ask what their option is. Will conservatives vote for a Hillary or Obama? Not likely, but they might decide to just not vote. That seems very likely. I personally am happy to see that conservatism is dying in the USA. Unfortunately I do not see a resurgence of liberalism happening. I see a move towards the middle road, where no one stands for anything.Veritas Realpolitikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848756736105920592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2825077333427509090.post-69266500195918374762008-01-26T06:21:00.000-08:002008-01-26T06:29:57.885-08:00Wanting Their Cake and Eating it Too.From the CBC...<br /><br />"Demonstrators gathered outside the Canadian Embassy in Washington Friday to demand protection for U.S. soldiers who seek refuge north of the border to avoid deployment to Iraq.<br />A group of about 50 American veterans of the Iraq war and their supporters said they want the Canadian government to provide sanctuary to men and women trying to escape military commitments in the U.S."<br /><br />As a former soldier in the Canadian military I have to oppose this request. If you join the military you should be prepared to go wherever you are sent. The history of US military deployments should have been enough to prevent these people from joining in the first place. If you want to choose which conflicts you engage in, become a mercenary. It is not an a la carte situation. <br /><br />I am sure that the American soldiers are happy to be rid of these cowards. I would be. A soldier needs to be able to count on his fellow soldiers to watch his or her back. A soldier that is prepared to run away because he or she does not like the conflict they are sent to has no business being in the military in the first place.<br /><br />I am also not sure why these people think it is the job of Canada to offer sanctuary to soldiers who refuse their deployments. We might not support the invasion of Iraq, but that does not mean we are going to oppose the US government to protect people who are willing to abandon their oaths. I think some Americans have a misguided idea as to what Canada is all about. We do not want to become the dumping ground for people who do not like their home country.Veritas Realpolitikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848756736105920592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2825077333427509090.post-34545519223844861612008-01-25T07:03:00.000-08:002008-01-25T07:11:01.722-08:00Is This What We Are Fighting FOR?From the CBC...<br /><br />"An Afghan court on Tuesday sentenced a 23-year-old journalism student to death for distributing a paper he printed off the Internet that three judges said violated the tenets of Islam."<br /><br />Apparently freedom in Afghanistan, the freedom we are being killed to create, means those who insult Islam must die. That is not the freedom I support. I have no problem with Islam, but I do feel people, especially Muslims, should have the right to criticize how the religion is practiced. Has anything really changed in Afghanistan? Are the current rulers any better than the Taliban? Not from what I can see.<br /><br />I hope that the USA and its' allies use their newfound influence over that nation to push them to reconsider this punishment, and whether what was done is even a crime. Should they refuse I think we should pull all of our troops out of the region. Is this why 78 Canadian soldiers have died so far? To protect bigotry? <br /><br />I certainly do not believe that we should be dictating to the Afghans how to run their country, but at the same time I do not believe we should be over there protecting them just so that they can murder people who have different opinions than the government. And that is really what we are talking about here, an opinion, something someone wrote.<br /><br />Canada should especially take umbridge to this. Canada does not have a death penalty, and does not support a death penalty. Why are our soldiers dying to protect a government that is so opposed to our values? It is time for Canadians to call this one quits and come back home where they belong. We are peacekeepers, not defenders of evil.Veritas Realpolitikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848756736105920592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2825077333427509090.post-70172908859377046372008-01-22T15:13:00.000-08:002008-01-22T15:25:11.476-08:00Freedom of Religion, As Long as it is ChristianityThere is an email circulating the web these days which claims that Obama is Muslim, and this is reason enough as to why he should not be President. I personally think he should not be President because of his lack of experience. Being Muslim is NOT a reason. I find this sort of attack troubling, because at the heart of it is bigotry and hatred.<br /><br />When Al Qaeada claims that the USA is at war with all of Islam, emails like these only help their cause. I assume that AQ surfs the web looking for ammunition, and you can bet that they pass on this email and the many comments that are generated from it. This, in turn, helps their recruitment efforts. The USA is finding it difficult to meet their military recruitment goals, while AQ grows by leaps and bounds. I recall that shortly after 9/11 the US government said there were about twenty thousand AQ operatives around the world. The number of AQ operatives killed in Afghanistan and Iraq has surpassed this number a while ago, yet the killing continues. Clearly AQ has been gaining many new recruits while the US has difficulty keeping its' numbers up.<br /><br />Furthermore, the USA claims it has freedom of religion. Is this merely a code phrase for freedom to be Christian? Even being Christian is not good enough. Ask Mitt Romney, who has to defend his entire faith, which is frequently called a "cult" by the religious right (wing). Is Christianity a religion about dividing people? It sure seems to be if the evangelicals represent that religion. I do not believe they do, however. I think they are a radical fringe of Christianity, the same way that AQ and its' supporters are a radical fringe of Islam. Had these same people been born in an Islamic nation I am certain they would be part of AQ.<br /><br />There are nearly a billion Muslims in the world, the vast majority of them being moderates. If America cannot distinguish between the radical fringe and the moderate majority, it is a nation in dire trouble. Not only will it create more enemies than it can deal with, but turn off its' allies.<br /><br />Obama has come forward to say that he is not Muslim, but a Christian, and has attended the same church for 20 years. It is sad that he has to waste the little airtime he gets pointing this out. Even if he were Muslim, it should not matter. In fact, what better way to defeat AQ than by putting a Muslim in the White House. It would counteract their recruiting efforts. Instead the USA plays into the hands of AQ.<br /><br />It is time that the USA grew up and discredited those who think that being a Muslim is a bad thing. It is time to show the world that those with such bigotry are a tiny minority in the USA...unless of course they are the majority. If that is the case it is time the USA collapsed.Veritas Realpolitikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848756736105920592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2825077333427509090.post-59457295015280674932008-01-20T10:53:00.000-08:002008-01-20T11:12:45.780-08:00There is a Surge in my pants!It amazes me how short people's memories are. Every news source I turn to these days talks about how the "surge" in Iraq is working, how victory cannot be far away. Are these people daft? No one seems to remember what the purpose of the "surge" is. It certainly was not simply the reduction in levels of violence in Iraq from Beyond Imagination to Horrific. The reduction in violence, which is only temporary (and still quite high), was a prelude to the Iraqi government cooperating and working together to get Iraq back on track. That has not happened. The government still fails to work together to govern the country as a single entity. There are three distinct groups that refuse to work together, and are merely biding their time until the US pulls out and they can finally resolve their mutual dillema.<br /><br />Neither the Shiite nor the Sunni nor the Kurds trust each other. It took an iron-fisted dictator like Saddam Hussein to keep them in line. Neighbouring states have an incentive to keep Iraq in chaos. They do not fear that the violence will spill over their borders. They fear a unified Iraq. A unified Iraq took on a country three times its' size (Iran) for almost a decade, and was not defeated by that greater force. A unified Iraq took out Kuwait in as little time as it took the US to take out Iraqi government. These neighbours will continue to oppose (in their hearts) a unified Iraq, and will continue to be obstacles to that goal. Internal and external forces are operating against the US mission working, and the US has squandered its' resources in a pointless war. No longer is their talk of the US fighting two major wars at once. The US cannot even handle a tiny country like Iraq (with approximately 20 million people). Iraq is smaller than Canada in population.<br /><br />So to those who keep saying that the "surge" is working in Iraq, I say it is not and challenge them to show how the Iraqi government is finally working together. <br /><br />That was the original point of the "surge" after all.Veritas Realpolitikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848756736105920592noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2825077333427509090.post-87032082226588436332008-01-18T13:36:00.000-08:002008-01-18T13:51:42.102-08:00Welcome to Veritas RealpolitikMy wife tells me that my prose is liquid gold and that I should write a blog. I used to have one (before the term "blog" appeared), but then allowed it to disappear. I have decided to create a new blog, which will largely focus on geopolitics and the American system. Although I am Canadian, I have been living in the USA for over a decade now. I will always be a Canadian, and no amount of time in the USA could ever change that. I also lived in Japan for a year, a country with which I have an intense fascination.<br /><br />I should have started writing this before the US invasion of Iraq. Then my many predictions which have come true would have been dated and available for all the naysayers out there. As a good Canadian I am most definately a Liberal (not the party, the ideology), and as a history teacher I have a solid background from which to draw analogies. It is too late to predict a US failure in Iraq, which would lead to a general weakening of the USA. At this point people could honestly say it is nothing more than 20/20 hindsight.<br /><br />Let me begin my first blog entry with a few predictions;<br /><br />1) China will be the next Superpower by the year 2020.<br />2) In the year 2020 (or nearabout) the world's supply of oil will hit critical levels, and begin a downward spiral that will not stop until an alternate fuel source can be discovered.<br />3) The Democrats will win the 2008 election, but because Bush left them so many problems to deal with, which they will be incapable of resolving, the Republicans will win the 2012 election.<br />4) Iran will become a much stronger nation because of the US failure in Iraq.<br />5) The Kurds will fail to create a homeland because of their support of terrorism to achieve their objective.<br />6) European countries will break apart into smaller units in the next few decades, specifically Spain, Britain, and Belgium.<br />7) The USA will lose its Superpower title by 2030.<br />8) The US economy, fraught by corruption, will continue its' swing from recession to recovery every 5 years or so, until such a time as their government actually uses foresight to prevent the foreseeable corporate problems that it has thus far ignored.Veritas Realpolitikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13848756736105920592noreply@blogger.com0