April 17, 2008: revision of "election prediction" blog
Now that I see the following will likely never come to be I can see another worse outcome. Last night in the Pennsylvania debate between Obama and Clinton, the moderator asked Clinton "When Bill Richardson called you to tell you he was endorsing Obama you told him 'Obama cant win'. Mrs Clinton what did you mean ..." Her response was to question Obamas patriotism and past relations which he has already over-justified... repeatedly.
At the time of this phone call she was, and still is, nearly mathematically impossible to win the nomination. Further Obama is polling better than Mrs Clinton against their Republican opponent. Why would she say this if she knows the facts?
Maybe she 'knows' something we dont. Like he will not be allowed to win. That is if she does not get the nomination and it looks like he will beat the Republican, he will be killed. Bush would postpone the election and continue to wage his Iran/q war and may even declare martial law. He has spent 7 years preparing for it.
He has created are over 600 fully staffed, mostly under FEMA jurisdiction, holding facilities for 'evacuation.' They are estimated to be capable of holding between 8 to 12 million citizens in total. But from what I have seen, at least some are for keeping folks in and they appear to be prisons, by design. At the risk of sounding like Nazi Germany... they also seem to be isolated in geography and linked to the railroads.
The bright side is... at least the troops would start to come home. After all they will need to use their new skills learned in the Iraq occupation to fight the American revolution that may happen when we the people get fed up. But history shows the mass of Americans will roll over to whatever Bush does.
The rest can be easily put away as 'security risks' due to the brand new "homegrown terrorist prevention act".
I also suspect the tax rebates are a means to acquire names and addresses of as many tax avoiders as possible. Many of which know the constitution (a document that is liken to kriptonite to the Bush administration) and their rights and thus, dont pay taxes. These citizens could be the leaders of anti-fascist rebellion.
I got this suspicion when I saw Bush say " ...even if you have not filed in years, just write your name and address on a tax form and we will send you your rebate."
I guess I am truly suspicious of everything this man says... my fault.
But what we the people need is a president that makes politics a daily concern of the common man. A man thats words inspire us to action and participation in our governing. Obama could potentially change the face of America for ever, and this can not be allowed by those in power.
They rely on the masses not participating and not educating themselves on issues. They thrive on dividing us on countless pointless issues that effect nothing globally while they take control of the world.
Obama would put the 30+ years of of Regan created economy (borrowing rather than taxing) into doubt. For thisI think he has a bullseye on his head. This is why Clinton said "He cant win."
This is not a prediction like the below 'election blog'. But is just a notice that all the dominoes are in place for the United States to put down a rebellion of its own citizens or declare a state of martial law. And Bush and Cheney are scary people that may do this.
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Balance of Power
I dont claim to be anything more than self educated on the US Constitution. But by reading it, and the history of the folks that wrote it, I came to realize its 'spirit' and the myriad of law it has spawned have little to do with one another. The simple fact that the entire document is absolutely dependent on all of its parts.
For example, the right to bear arms is only needed if we dont have an army but for 2 year stints when needed and approved by congress, as the constitution states. The powers of the branches balancing each others. And perhaps the most important part, the 10th amendment:
...
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
...
The reason it is not a complex document that has voluminous explanations for each article is clear if you dont look at each article as a separate entity, but an interconnected web of perfect balance. But there was a fundamental flaw in the logic of the founding fathers.
They wrote it assuming the states and individuals in the different branches would fight tooth and nail not to loose any of their powers derived from the constitution. They did not count on the current trend of humanity of safe absolution reflected in the consolidation of states powers to the Federal Government and the federal branches yielding powers to the Executive branch. Modern political figures are more concerned with their position and not the powers of governing it infers.
In recent decades we have seen the power to declare wars, regulate the presidents appointments and executive power acquisition and even stop a/any war being given away by the congress, the power to regulate our own economy by giving it to the Federal Reserve Bank, the power to investigate any member of the executive branch and the judicial branch is unchecked by the Attorney General (presidential appointment, congress approves... because they fear the alternatives and dont wanna stay in session to prevent the president from appointing one in their absence) are just a few of the easier to grasp and more recent constitutional "over-sites".
But maybe the most important problem we have is this standing, volunteer, professional army that mitigates the effect of war on the populace. The constitution states in article I, section 8:
...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
...
If you think this would leave the whole of America open to invasion you would be correct, if you dont observer the second amendment: The Right to Bear Arms.
...
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Rome had a professional army and a vast nation to spread it into. The cost became prohibited and ultimately left them militarily and economically weak and helped in no small way in its destruction. The US has a far greater empire. We use this standing army to occupy bases in over 130 nations and wage wars while insulating the public at home to the severity of the event by acting without a draft (mandated by the constitution to raise an army).
If we needed to have a draft to have a war we would not have attacked Iraq and we would not be getting ready for Iran now (I say we attack before July 10, 2008.) The congress would have a reason to insist on voting for or against a declaration of war issued by the executive branch. This power is fundamental to balancing the branches of the government.
Unfortunately it has become painfully apparent to me that congress is not acting on our behalf but on their own desire to maintain position. Given at this time the congress is split too closely to get anything done, this should not have stopped Democrats from stopping all the financing of the Bush, Cheney plan of empire.
Here is what it comes down to in my view. The Democrats and the Republicans are different faces to the same monster. They dont want to give us more freedoms or liberties. They dont have any real goals except feeding us the illusion of choice. They work together to consolidate power into a bigger government. The Republicans claim "small government" is their goal... but this leads to monopolies and then often price gouging.
When you throw Insurance companies into the mix, then the services they cover quickly become unavailable to any without the insurance due to the amount the insured industries can get from the insurance companies. Then we elect a Democrat and they tend to take over or regulate (bad for small business) the insured and/or over-costly private industry and call them 'the commons'.
The escalating cost of security and military budgets are quickly overshadowing all industries they come in contact with. But the government is right there to bail out airlines and banks and thus gain regulatory powers over them.
But now cost is no object to us due to our Federal Reserve Bank. When this private bank makes a loan to our government (charging interest) it doesnt just devalue the dollar in your pocket, but changes the balance of wealth from the citizens to the government and/or military. This is not sustainable. But in an effort to sustain our economic viability, our government gave regulatory powers over our economy to the Federal Reserve... once again A PRIVATE BANK.
I feel kinda off while writing this (scatterbraind) so I will edit and finish it!
For example, the right to bear arms is only needed if we dont have an army but for 2 year stints when needed and approved by congress, as the constitution states. The powers of the branches balancing each others. And perhaps the most important part, the 10th amendment:
...
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
...
The reason it is not a complex document that has voluminous explanations for each article is clear if you dont look at each article as a separate entity, but an interconnected web of perfect balance. But there was a fundamental flaw in the logic of the founding fathers.
They wrote it assuming the states and individuals in the different branches would fight tooth and nail not to loose any of their powers derived from the constitution. They did not count on the current trend of humanity of safe absolution reflected in the consolidation of states powers to the Federal Government and the federal branches yielding powers to the Executive branch. Modern political figures are more concerned with their position and not the powers of governing it infers.
In recent decades we have seen the power to declare wars, regulate the presidents appointments and executive power acquisition and even stop a/any war being given away by the congress, the power to regulate our own economy by giving it to the Federal Reserve Bank, the power to investigate any member of the executive branch and the judicial branch is unchecked by the Attorney General (presidential appointment, congress approves... because they fear the alternatives and dont wanna stay in session to prevent the president from appointing one in their absence) are just a few of the easier to grasp and more recent constitutional "over-sites".
But maybe the most important problem we have is this standing, volunteer, professional army that mitigates the effect of war on the populace. The constitution states in article I, section 8:
...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
...
If you think this would leave the whole of America open to invasion you would be correct, if you dont observer the second amendment: The Right to Bear Arms.
...
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
...
Rome had a professional army and a vast nation to spread it into. The cost became prohibited and ultimately left them militarily and economically weak and helped in no small way in its destruction. The US has a far greater empire. We use this standing army to occupy bases in over 130 nations and wage wars while insulating the public at home to the severity of the event by acting without a draft (mandated by the constitution to raise an army).
If we needed to have a draft to have a war we would not have attacked Iraq and we would not be getting ready for Iran now (I say we attack before July 10, 2008.) The congress would have a reason to insist on voting for or against a declaration of war issued by the executive branch. This power is fundamental to balancing the branches of the government.
Unfortunately it has become painfully apparent to me that congress is not acting on our behalf but on their own desire to maintain position. Given at this time the congress is split too closely to get anything done, this should not have stopped Democrats from stopping all the financing of the Bush, Cheney plan of empire.
Here is what it comes down to in my view. The Democrats and the Republicans are different faces to the same monster. They dont want to give us more freedoms or liberties. They dont have any real goals except feeding us the illusion of choice. They work together to consolidate power into a bigger government. The Republicans claim "small government" is their goal... but this leads to monopolies and then often price gouging.
When you throw Insurance companies into the mix, then the services they cover quickly become unavailable to any without the insurance due to the amount the insured industries can get from the insurance companies. Then we elect a Democrat and they tend to take over or regulate (bad for small business) the insured and/or over-costly private industry and call them 'the commons'.
The escalating cost of security and military budgets are quickly overshadowing all industries they come in contact with. But the government is right there to bail out airlines and banks and thus gain regulatory powers over them.
But now cost is no object to us due to our Federal Reserve Bank. When this private bank makes a loan to our government (charging interest) it doesnt just devalue the dollar in your pocket, but changes the balance of wealth from the citizens to the government and/or military. This is not sustainable. But in an effort to sustain our economic viability, our government gave regulatory powers over our economy to the Federal Reserve... once again A PRIVATE BANK.
I feel kinda off while writing this (scatterbraind) so I will edit and finish it!
Monday, July 23, 2007
2008 Election Strategy Warning
As an American I feel misrepresented by my government at current. It is not that I am a democrat or independent and the executive is neo-con/republican-ish, but that I feel the last two elections were literally stolen from the American people.
The current administration are masters of election year spin politics. They also have computerised our voting process and thus ended the chance of a recount changing an election outcome due to no paper trail and no proof of votes.
At this time it looks as if the republicans (not neo-cons like Giuliani) will not win the 2008 election. Or will they?
The democratic candidates for president are basing their campaigns, for the most part, on the war in Iraq. I believe the republicans are playing election politics with our sons and daughters lives. That is that after the democratic candidate is chosen, in the middle of 2008 Bush will "end the war in Iraq" and "bring the boys back home" just in time for one ticker tape parade (in NY) just before the presidential election. Effectively cutting the campaign out from under the democrats.
If our democratic candidates run a campaign based on the war... this will hurt them bad. More so it will allow a bit of doubt in the American mind that "maybe a republicans can win" and that is all they need to avoid an 'election fraud' investigation. (Like in the last 2 presidential elections)
Further I see this election (2008) as being the first in a long time where an independent candidate will have a major roll. Not due to the public, but due to the profiteers of the current administration stand to gain by supporting not only the neo-cons/republicans, but by hamstringing the democratic vote by promoting the independent candidate.
This leads to a 'more of the same,' corporate owned, government.
As citizens of the most powerful military on Earth we need to take more responsibility for what our government does. We must get informed and vote. If not, as current events prove, we can harm people around the world. It isn't wholly Bush or Cheney it is YOU and ME that started a global conflict that we are powerless to end.
AS AMERICANS... WE MUST GET MORE INVOLVED IN OUR GOVERNMENTS POLICIES.
If we don't do this soon our nations position in the world will be compromised and in 100 years it wont matter what we want due to we will be isolated and economically weak.
The current administration are masters of election year spin politics. They also have computerised our voting process and thus ended the chance of a recount changing an election outcome due to no paper trail and no proof of votes.
At this time it looks as if the republicans (not neo-cons like Giuliani) will not win the 2008 election. Or will they?
The democratic candidates for president are basing their campaigns, for the most part, on the war in Iraq. I believe the republicans are playing election politics with our sons and daughters lives. That is that after the democratic candidate is chosen, in the middle of 2008 Bush will "end the war in Iraq" and "bring the boys back home" just in time for one ticker tape parade (in NY) just before the presidential election. Effectively cutting the campaign out from under the democrats.
If our democratic candidates run a campaign based on the war... this will hurt them bad. More so it will allow a bit of doubt in the American mind that "maybe a republicans can win" and that is all they need to avoid an 'election fraud' investigation. (Like in the last 2 presidential elections)
Further I see this election (2008) as being the first in a long time where an independent candidate will have a major roll. Not due to the public, but due to the profiteers of the current administration stand to gain by supporting not only the neo-cons/republicans, but by hamstringing the democratic vote by promoting the independent candidate.
This leads to a 'more of the same,' corporate owned, government.
As citizens of the most powerful military on Earth we need to take more responsibility for what our government does. We must get informed and vote. If not, as current events prove, we can harm people around the world. It isn't wholly Bush or Cheney it is YOU and ME that started a global conflict that we are powerless to end.
AS AMERICANS... WE MUST GET MORE INVOLVED IN OUR GOVERNMENTS POLICIES.
If we don't do this soon our nations position in the world will be compromised and in 100 years it wont matter what we want due to we will be isolated and economically weak.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Democracy American Style
Supposing that Democracy is the most humanitarian form of government currently in practice, I must pose that the manner by which democracy works in the USA is antiquated and must change. As the emergent world military power we must impart stability and consistency in the use of our power. But America is built on a four year plan (8 at max). This is not good for global security.
Under Bush the US developed the "first strike doctrine" (Bush Doctrine), which states that the USA can attack anyone for any future plans to harm the USA. This is why Iraq happened. There was no reason to go to war with a nation that at current does nothing to effect the USA proper, just our economy.
Bush, and most of the USA populace, believe that a nations potential to destroy our economy is a matter of national security. That seems to make perfect sense. The question is, why have we put ourselves in a position where our national security is based on our economy, which is foreign controlled?
It is Greed.
We elect people to office that have no long term investment into the betterment of the United States. They don't have enough time to enact any complicated social changes before they get forced out of office. The most they can hope for is to not need to work anymore after they are out of office. Folks like the current admin. show the grossest side of what capitalism has become. The top officials in our government all stand to profit from the "War on Terror," which is a conflict of interests...or it should be. They have a finite amount of time in office, our military dominance, an apathetic public and greed.
Other nations cant depend on us because the potential that we will change the planets diplomatic structure with the election of a new president. One man, with so much power. Nobody can disagree with him or they are labeled unpatriotic or slandered for not supporting our troops. Indeed the public at large is being insulated from the global effects of this war by our nationalism (state approved bigotry), and media. And the people of America have no power except for a single day in Nov. every 4 years. Diplomatically speaking this is an impossible situation to allow any long term relations...unless economic.
Countries like China have a stable reactive government. We have a proactive government and a belligerent foreign policy of first strike. Instead of having the luxury of "wait and see" our officials are more apt, due to time constraints, to "go and get." This is why we are better allies with other democracies.
Any nation with a form of government based on having a lifetime leader has a hard relationship with the USA. They see the inconsistency of such a global power as a threat. I must agree. We could turn on any nation and justify it through well told lies.
What can we do? Isolation? Or just not be so casual about waging a war? We need to make some changes that is all I can see.
Under Bush the US developed the "first strike doctrine" (Bush Doctrine), which states that the USA can attack anyone for any future plans to harm the USA. This is why Iraq happened. There was no reason to go to war with a nation that at current does nothing to effect the USA proper, just our economy.
Bush, and most of the USA populace, believe that a nations potential to destroy our economy is a matter of national security. That seems to make perfect sense. The question is, why have we put ourselves in a position where our national security is based on our economy, which is foreign controlled?
It is Greed.
We elect people to office that have no long term investment into the betterment of the United States. They don't have enough time to enact any complicated social changes before they get forced out of office. The most they can hope for is to not need to work anymore after they are out of office. Folks like the current admin. show the grossest side of what capitalism has become. The top officials in our government all stand to profit from the "War on Terror," which is a conflict of interests...or it should be. They have a finite amount of time in office, our military dominance, an apathetic public and greed.
Other nations cant depend on us because the potential that we will change the planets diplomatic structure with the election of a new president. One man, with so much power. Nobody can disagree with him or they are labeled unpatriotic or slandered for not supporting our troops. Indeed the public at large is being insulated from the global effects of this war by our nationalism (state approved bigotry), and media. And the people of America have no power except for a single day in Nov. every 4 years. Diplomatically speaking this is an impossible situation to allow any long term relations...unless economic.
Countries like China have a stable reactive government. We have a proactive government and a belligerent foreign policy of first strike. Instead of having the luxury of "wait and see" our officials are more apt, due to time constraints, to "go and get." This is why we are better allies with other democracies.
Any nation with a form of government based on having a lifetime leader has a hard relationship with the USA. They see the inconsistency of such a global power as a threat. I must agree. We could turn on any nation and justify it through well told lies.
What can we do? Isolation? Or just not be so casual about waging a war? We need to make some changes that is all I can see.
Is Bush Giving Billions to Terrorists?
I would like to first express that I am not familiar with the topic of Arabic life and structure. Thus if you happen to read this and find errors or have answers please comment.
The Muslim religion is divided into sects, much like the christian church. The two sects of current concern are the Sunni, the majority, and the Shiite, the minority. The Shiite have been ruled by the Sunni in Iraq and Iran....everywhere?
Al-Qaeda is a Sunni organisation that may or may not be actively supported by pro-American Sunni Governments. But I must think most nations in the extended middle east region, (pro-American Gov. or not) are attempting to secure their position in the future that does not include western influence. That means keeping Al-Qaeda off their backs through concession or outright bribery. At current the region is starting to polarise further than ever before.
This may be the plan, seems empirical nations are served by creating conflict and instability in areas they desire control over. We force instability through our promotion of nationalism while creating new divisions amongst those we subjugate. We seem to force historic enemies into conflict through our redistribution of their power structures and indeed their nations borders.
Now Shiites are ruled by Sunnis and a civil war in Iraq threatens to spread throughout the region. This would upset the power structure in the mid-east. While in the short term this would be tragic, nations in chaos, rioting in the streets, sectarian violence and the like. In the long term it would leave a middle east free from the west. The US wants to avoid this.
To this end the Bush administration has begun to pump BILLIONS of dollars into Sunni countries in order to fight the growing Shiite uprisings. We are asking for no accounting of this money and how it is spent because we are asking them to use it for a counter-insurgency effort. Therefore no records will be kept. But wait... isn't Al-Qaeda Sunni?
So the USA gets caught up in a 'War on Terror' against Al-Qaeda (Sunni). Then Bush causes a civil war (Sunni vs Shiite) by attacking Iraq. To stop the unrest from spreading Bush gives billions to the Sunni, asking them to give it to organisations like Al-Qaeda.
HUH?
The Muslim religion is divided into sects, much like the christian church. The two sects of current concern are the Sunni, the majority, and the Shiite, the minority. The Shiite have been ruled by the Sunni in Iraq and Iran....everywhere?
Al-Qaeda is a Sunni organisation that may or may not be actively supported by pro-American Sunni Governments. But I must think most nations in the extended middle east region, (pro-American Gov. or not) are attempting to secure their position in the future that does not include western influence. That means keeping Al-Qaeda off their backs through concession or outright bribery. At current the region is starting to polarise further than ever before.
This may be the plan, seems empirical nations are served by creating conflict and instability in areas they desire control over. We force instability through our promotion of nationalism while creating new divisions amongst those we subjugate. We seem to force historic enemies into conflict through our redistribution of their power structures and indeed their nations borders.
Now Shiites are ruled by Sunnis and a civil war in Iraq threatens to spread throughout the region. This would upset the power structure in the mid-east. While in the short term this would be tragic, nations in chaos, rioting in the streets, sectarian violence and the like. In the long term it would leave a middle east free from the west. The US wants to avoid this.
To this end the Bush administration has begun to pump BILLIONS of dollars into Sunni countries in order to fight the growing Shiite uprisings. We are asking for no accounting of this money and how it is spent because we are asking them to use it for a counter-insurgency effort. Therefore no records will be kept. But wait... isn't Al-Qaeda Sunni?
So the USA gets caught up in a 'War on Terror' against Al-Qaeda (Sunni). Then Bush causes a civil war (Sunni vs Shiite) by attacking Iraq. To stop the unrest from spreading Bush gives billions to the Sunni, asking them to give it to organisations like Al-Qaeda.
HUH?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
