Highlights from Populist Party Commentary and the Populist Party Blog

Hobson's Choice
by Steve Osborn

by Stephen Lendman

Walter "John" Williams thinks out of the box. He makes disquieting reading, but you won't find him in the mainstream. At least not often. He runs a "Shadow Government Statistics" site with an electronic by-subscription newsletter. Anyone can access some of his data and occasional special reports. They can also assess his reasoning. In his judgment, government data are manipulated, corrupted and unreliable. He's not alone thinking that.

First, through technical changes over time in how data are collected and/or interpreted. The intent is to portray a more rosy scenario and ignore real world experiences of ordinary people. Calculating the CPI is an example:

-- in the 1980s, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) switched from using house prices to their rental equivalent;

-- then a decade ago, BLS made a spurious assumption for reasons other than it stated; it was that consumers substitute cheaper products for ones that have risen in price - such as hamburger for steak or chicken for meat; the idea wasn't to reflect their buying habits; it was to artificially lower inflation and distort its calculation; and

-- BLS has long adjusted prices for quality improvements; it's called "hedonic adjustment" that, in fact, cooks the books; so if computer speed increases, its cost is lowered proportionally even if its price rises; the same is true for autos with better brakes or other assorted innovations; again the result is distortion, and it affects all sorts of products; as a result, inflation is artificially and fraudulently lowered.

Another example is how federal deficits are calculated. Beginning with Nixon in 1969, a "unified budget" was adopted to artificially lower them by offsetting expenditures with "off-budget" Social Security revenues. The idea was to hide government's true cost at a time wartime and Great Society spending was high and would later factor into the 1970s and 1980s inflation. If deficits were calculated then and now by GAAP methodology (required of all publicly-traded corporations), they'd be much higher than annually reported - since the 1970s, in multiple trillions of dollars; fiscal alchemy sweeps them under the rug.

A further example was Nixon's "core inflation" idea. More artificial rigging - to exclude volatile food and energy prices to produce a lower figure. No matter that these items account for a large portion of consumer spending, especially for lower income households.

Others like this are numerous. They all amount to manipulative rigging for political or financial market purposes, and the practice goes back decades. A recent Bush administration one is switching to monthly instead of semi-annual jobs data seasonal adjustments to make the number friendlier. Later on (too late for markets to react) they're matched against payroll figures for a once a year adjustment and more accurate jobs created or lost reading.

The Clinton administration was also manipulative. In calculating employment, it lowered its monthly household sample from 60,000 to 50,000, reducing it mainly in inner cities. The effect is to artificially lower jobless numbers among blacks, Latinos and the poor overall. The calculation is also rigged by keeping out the 2.3 million prison population. The overall effect is illusion, not reality - to erase "free market" capitalism's defects and make it look wondrous and beneficial to mankind.

Williams reverse-engineers the GDP, employment and inflation data for more accurate readings. He backs out manipulative changes to produce more valid figures. Take the 5.5% May unemployment rate for example. BLS calculates it on persons who looked for work in the last 30 days. Williams adds those who want to work but gave up in frustration plus people working part-time who want (but can't find) full-time jobs. Result: real unemployment of over 12%.

The same methodology works for economic growth. The real value of all goods and services produced is lower than official GDP numbers when adjusted for higher inflation. More of it means higher prices, not increased output. It's how Williams makes his calculation, and he's worried. He sees inflation rising and a threat of hyperinflation ahead. He highlighted his concern in a recent April 2008 report called "Hyperinflation Special Report" with three dramatic sub-headings:

-- "Inflationary Recession Is in Place;

-- Banking Solvency Crisis Has Opened First Phase Monetary Inflation;" and

-- "Hyperinflationary Depression Remains Likely As Early as 2010."

Time alone will prove him right or wrong. But given current economic conditions, the financial malpractice that precipitated them, continued mismanagement since then, and resultant dangers they created, it pays to examine his analysis. It's not for the faint-hearted and hopefully won't bear out. But it's happened before at other times in other countries, and when it hits it ruins lives and savings. Is America now headed for that type future? Williams thinks so, and here's his argument.

He sees the US economy in an "intensifying inflationary recession" heading for "a hyperinflationary great depression." He expects it as soon as 2010, maybe sooner, and "likely" no later than in a decade. Blame it on reckless monetary and fiscal policy - creating torrents of money, borrowing outsized amounts, and spending ourselves into bankruptcy by supporting short-term "big-monied special interests."

Things are so out of hand, Williams sees "no way of avoiding a financial Armageddon." We're nearly or already bankrupt; are creating money to cover our obligations; the more we print, the more we need; it's fiat currency unbacked by gold; and every new dollar created dilutes the value of all others in circulation. Double the money supply, and presto - every dollar is worth 50 cents. Double it again, and you get the point. We've been doing it for decades, especially since Nixon closed the gold window in 1971.

At some point, the music stops, the dollar collapses, it becomes worthless paper, and related dollar-demoninated paper assets go down with it. Williams quotes a law professor who experienced Weimar Germany's hyperinflation first hand. It was the worst by far ever recorded. "It was horrible. Horrible! Like lightening it struck. No one was prepared." Shelves in grocery stores emptied. "You could buy nothing with your paper money." At the trough in 1923, the mark plunged to an astonishing 4,200,000,000,000 to the dollar.

Can it happen here? It might, and rising world inflation is worrisome. Analyst Bob Chapman's International Forecaster reports current US inflation at 12.5%; China's 8.5%; Russia's 14%; Gulf oil producers on average 12%; India 8%; Indonesia 12%; Brazil 5%; Chile 8.3%; Venezuela 29.3% and Argentina 23%. This likely plays into the European Central Bank's (ECB) reluctance to cut rates and the Bank of England's holding off on further ones. It's also a factor affecting dollar weakness and rising gold prices that hedge against depreciating currencies and geopolitical uncertainties.

Williams is justifiably concerned as inflationary pressures build. First some definitions. Inflation results from a money supply increase that causes prices to rise. Williams refers only to goods and services, not financial assets like stocks and bonds. He also leaves out speculation and market manipulation that's key to understanding high oil and food prices. Markets don't move randomly. Big-monied speculators move them, but that's a separate topic from what Williams addresses.

He mentions various types of hyperinflation. They range from the double or triple-digit kind, several-fold that level, to what happened in Weimar Germany when it went to infinity. Once the genie is unleashed, there's no telling how bad things may get. Williams sees them getting pretty bad. So much so that dollars get dumped, holders flee to safety, and a downward spiral intensifies with no idea of a bottom.

In his view and others, the culprit is fiat currency, without gold backing. Its worth depends solely on the full faith and credit of the issuing government. Absent that and currencies crash. Print too much of it, and that's its future. Examine Fed policy under Greenspan and Bernanke, and draw your own conclusions.

They've been virtual money-creation machines unmindful of the history they should know. By issuing too much of a good thing for too many years, they fueled asset bubbles. When they burst, they made things worse and may now have headed the economy for collapse. In Williams judgment, America today is no different from other nations in other eras that followed similar policies. They all met the same fate, and today this country has already "obligated itself to liabilities well beyond its ability ever to pay off." Not a cheery assessment, and he's not alone believing it.

More definitions:

-- Deflation - a decrease in goods and services prices, generally from a money supply contraction;

-- Inflation - the reverse of the above;

-- Hyperinflation - extreme inflation, as explained above, to a level where money becomes worthless or nearly so; according to Williams, the coming hyperinflation is because of a "lack of monetary discipline formerly imposed....by the gold standard, and a (Fed) dedicated to preventing a collapse in the money supply (and preventing) the implosion of the (ongoing) extremely over-leveraged domestic financial system;"

-- Recession - officially defined as two or more consecutive (inflation-adjusted) GDP contracting quarters; many economists don't agree on this, and some gauge conditions by the relative strength or weakness of industrial production, payroll employment, retail sales, and so forth; add it up and clearly the US is in recession; how bad and for how long will only be known in time;

-- Depression - a recession "where (inflation-adjusted) peak-to-trough contraction exceeds 10%; and a

-- Great depression - one where the peak-to-trough exceeds 25%. It happened only once so far in US history in the 1930s.

Williams believes the current US contraction is about halfway to becoming a "depression," but before it ends it may become "Great Depression II" to distinguish it from the earlier one. We're now in an "inflationary recession," and available data confirm it - soaring food and oil prices, a weakened dollar, true unemployment over 12%, real inflation nearly as high, weak industrial production, and more. In his judgment, expect worse ahead when added "inflationary effects of soaring broad money growth....start" surfacing later in the year. In his judgment, by year-end 2008, "official CPI" figures should begin showing it.

Excerpted. Find the Full Article at the Following Link:
http://www.populistamerica.com/potential_future_hyperinflation

by James Rothenberg

DIGG This

The rational course is not so clear because what is deemed rational is a product of who is doing the rationalizing. It depends on their worldview. For instance, a one-world view leads to dramatically different conclusions than a parochial view.

In a one-world view a single part may not act in a manner injurious to the whole, whereas in a parochial view some are to be favored. Small town or local parochialisms are usually seen for what they are and are disdained. Few are able to step outside certain bounds, however, and see, for what it is, a larger form of parochialism - patriotism - or what it currently amounts to in our country, nationalism.

Prejudice of the sexual, religious, and racial varieties is regarded differently from prejudice of the national variety, that is when it is our own nation under consideration. We are not slow in picking out the nastiness in a designated enemy's patriotic-nationalism.

It is not a difficult matter for the government to command the allegiance of the people. Besides the threat of force there exists, in each of us, the primitive urge to run with the herd for its survival benefit. Convince people that theirs is the good side and the force seldom has to be used.

The innate goodness of our patriotic-nationalism is the dominant belief in our country, but most Americans do not feel that their patriotic-nationalism comes at the expense of others (the decked out automobiles with yellow and red-white-blue stickers ignoring that expense). It is not taught that way in our schools nor inscribed on the walls of our institutions. It is not revealed by authority because to dwell on the deficiencies of the nation is to expose it to the wrath of an awakened people.

Kurt Tucholsky wrote, "A government is not the expression of the will of the people, but rather the expression of what the people will tolerate." This was aimed at his erstwhile homeland, Germany, while under the throes of National Socialism.

What do we tolerate in America today? Torture, for one thing. The administration claims (and does not meet serious, really serious, opposition) that domestic and international laws and social norms do not apply in special cases. This means that all the fuss about torture being a despicable practice only applies to people we don't feel a compelling need to torture. So why the pretense of the legal protection?

Targeting of Muslims, for another, and for the historically astute, this alone should be sufficient tip-off. Retaliation against whistleblowers. Intimidation of critics. Censorship of competing ideas. Paid propaganda posing as impartial opinion.

Big Brother is watching us and his corporate cousins are creating the surveillance boon. We're tolerating mail and email snooping, financial snooping, telephone wiretapping, physical checkpoints (Don't worry about the airport imagery undressing - isn't revealing your penis and breast shapes worth the increased feeling of security you gain?), fingerprinting, and various other forms of ID tech-mania.

And then there are the cameras - the ever present cameras. Ever notice how the stores inform you that the cameras are for your protection? Wouldn't you like to have them in the bathrooms, where predators are likely to be lurking?

Or this. An individual sprays gunfire on a group of strangers. We regard such an individual as crazed. The highest political officials in the land spray fire upon an entire country of strangers. Some individuals call for the arrest of the criminal perpetrators. We regard such individuals as crazed.

The longer the Afghanistan and Iraq occupations go on, the less attention paid to the original motivation for the invasions. That would be, at the least, the establishment of a force presence in the heart of the Caspian Sea/Persian Gulf resource-rich regions, an area of "national interest". But we're not supposed to know this, even though we know this. It's an open secret, one of the marks of which is it can only be referred to obliquely by officialdom.

The longer the occupations go on, the more we will seem to be "past" the point of our motivation's original relevance. All the really "serious" talk now is restricted to the narrow confines of today's "responsibilities" toward these countries. But how one even defines responsibility in this case is determined by one's worldview. It can be put in the form of a simple question. Do we have a right to be in these countries?

If we answer yes, responsibilities will take the form of providing security and stability, fostering reconciliation, and protection of the central government. Talk will then be about troop strength levels necessary to achieve these aims. Then there is the cynical responsibility to insist that the put-upon victims in these countries take more of the responsibility upon themselves.

It is difficult to answer yes without also claiming that our presence is desired by these central governments. This, however, is a self-invitation because only those politicians submissive to the U.S. could make it into the central government.

If we answer no, that we do not have a right to be there, different responsibilities will surface. Resettling refugees numbering in the millions, withdrawing all troops, granting the military bases to those countries to be converted for civilian use including shelter and airports, forsaking all claims to resources, paying reparations for lives, limbs, and property, and foremost, apologizing (it will take a subsequent administration to apologize).

Two different worldviews. In one we are at the zenith of our position as the dominant world force with the responsibility of shaping that world in our own best interest, with it naturally following that it is in the best interest of the rest of the world.

In another view we are at the zenith of a shameful period in our brief history.

If you enjoyed this post, please make a donation to help keep this website active:

Click Here for the Free Populist Party Newsletter

James Rothenberg [send him email] was born in 1939 and made his living as a professional golfer. His trade articles have appeared in USGA Golf Journal and PGA Magazine, as well as authoring the book, The Skeptical Golfer. In more recent years this skepticism led him into the field of social and political criticism, exchanging "making a living" for "living for making", that is, making the slightest dent in establishment hypocrisy and double standards.

More Articles from James Rothenberg

Philip A Farruggio

I sat and attempted to view the Senate hearings this week concerning Iraq. They had the general and the ambassador back after a 7 month  'extended tour of duty.' This visit marks the passage of the 5th year of a US occupation of Iraq. Notice how this writer refuses to state what even the left leaning pundits foolishly echo: the Iraq War. There is no Iraq War! There is no War with Iraq!

Our 'war' with that nation was over the minute their soldiers laid down their arms and went home. From that moment on it became the Iraq Occupation, which is now in its 6th year. Yet, the Democratic Party, supposedly the 'party of opposition,' is once again compliant and complacent .

Senator Levin, Democrat from Michigan, gave his opening salvo to the general and the ambassador, and to the White House.... and finally to we the people. What did he say? Did he challenge the legality and the morality of the invasion of Iraq and its subsequent occupation? Did he call for substantive hearings on the run-up to this mess? Did he echo what the majority of Americans are asking: " What in the hell are we doing in Iraq, and get those kids out of there.... now!"

No, he played the tried and true blame game. Levin railed about "benchmarks to be met by the Iraqis " and " when is it time for the Iraqis to take over leadership of their own country and deal with its security?"

Funny, Senator Levin, what if?

What if the DEA or ATF falsely barged into your home, guns firing, on information that proved to be a ..... pack of lies? What if , Senator Levin, these guys murdered.... yes... murdered your child and wounded your wife and destroyed your home and its belongings?

Destroyed!

Then they took over your home and stayed there, pending further information and instructions. Finally, after you are forced to share your destroyed home with ATF or DEA agents, some joker tells you "Hey Levin, when in the hell are you going to control your home? Your other kid is outside throwing darts at my men! Control him Levin.... before we do!"

I stand on a street corner in my town with other dedicated patriotic neighbors for 42 months straight! We hold signs demanding no funds for this occupation, our troops home now, and congressional hearings of investigation and possible impeachment (and indictments) for the Bush/Cheney gang and all those who lied us into Iraq.

Few people ever stop and park to join us. Why?

Well, many still hold faith in those Democrats like Senator Levin. Then, when a true patriot like a Clint Curtis dares to stand tall and run against a right wing Republican incumbent like Tom Feeney, his own Democratic party attempts to push him aside. They would rather run someone more in line with Senator Levin, and most of the other ' middle of the road make no waves' Democrats- the ones who continually voted to fund this occupation, while refusing to seek hearings of inquiry into the invasion.

You remember, the hearings that Rep. John Conyers promised us on national television over 18 months ago.

Benchmarks! Accountability! Horse manure!

The only benchmarks should be how many from the Bush White House should be indicted for treason. There are four thousand plus American families that would bear fabulous witness to it. Factor in another half a million plus Iraqi families to echo the same indictment.

So sad, how many from our street corner still have hope in the Democratic party. When will they learn? When will Americans learn that this two party system is a scam and a con?

"Fool me once.... shame on you! Fool me twice....shame on me!"

If you enjoyed this post, please make a donation to help keep this website active:

Click Here for the Free Populist Party Newsletter

Philip A Farruggio [send him email] is a free lance columnist, small businessman and activist. Since the 2000 elections, he has written over 80 op ed columns- few if any get published or posted. to review some which have been shown, just google his name.

More Articles from Phil Faruggio

by James Rothenberg

The US military says 4,000 US soldiers have now died in Iraq. The White House regards all these deaths as "tragic", and the enormously greater number of Iraqi civilian deaths as "regrettable". Any other reckoning might make us seem heartless.

The White House prepares for annoying milestones such as this with equanimity. Deep in the bowels there may even be a pencil pusher noting that given the domestic death rate of 8.26 per 1,000 population (CIA figures, 2007 est.), they wouldn’t all be alive if they had stayed home. Good taste prevents such flak retardant measures from being used. That and a keen political acumen.      

Changes in our hyper-militaristic posture might be slow in coming as the antiwar candidates in the two reigning parties have been swept aside. The trio of presidential favorites have picked up the beat in this so-called War on Terror/Islamo-Fascism/Extremism. McCain wants to fight it harder. Clinton and Obama want to fight it better.

Unless heroism is a uniquely American trait, those who were tortured in Bagram, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and other rendition holes deserve to be considered war heroes, like John McCain. Unlike McCain, though, they lack a clear "side" to designate such honor for them.

As Commander Bush puts it, it’s us or them. You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists! Upon which a sober person may reflect...Well, I’m certainly not with you!

The "duty, honor, country" mentality occupies but a small portion of the human sphere. True, there are some who are always eager to be led from above, as long as they get to lead some from below. But no matter your place on this ladder all are led in the direction of the ladder. There are some who see no place for themselves here but seek their own direction.

Excerpted. Read the Full Article at the following link:
http://www.populistamerica.com/who_are_we_fighting_for

DIGG this

It was reported on October 18 that the army will continue to utilize the stop-loss policy in order to provide sufficient human cannon fodder for President Bush's immoral and unnecessary wars.

The stop-loss policy is defined as a 'short-term policy that stabilizes military personnel in their current assignment by preventing them from leaving at the end of their service.'

The U.S. government is famous for its cumbersome semantics, and the so-called 'stop-loss' policy must have won some bureaucrat a major award.

It may be helpful to put this statement in common English, rather than in bureaucratic lingo: the stop-loss policy is 'the forced labor of U.S. citizens in conditions of mortal danger.'

Soldiers enlist for a wide variety of reasons, and either knowingly or unknowingly accept certain risks as a result. For example, each man or woman who joins the military knows, even in those rare periods when the U.S. is not at war, that his or her life is potentially at risk; a war could begin at any time. The soldier knows that the period of his or her enlistment will mean separation from family and friends, and possible relocation anywhere in the world.

What many soldiers don't know is that once they enlist, they cease to have the rights that other American citizens up until very recently took for granted. Their right to free speech is curtailed, as is their right to assembly, and to make the common decisions most people feel free to make.

But, one might say, the soldier has enlisted for a specific period of time, usually two years. Whatever unexpected deprivations he or she may experience will end; a contract has been signed and will expire on a specified, mutually-agreed upon date.

Not so: the stop-loss policy nullifies that expectation. In Iraq, for instance, soldiers who have been in line waiting to board a helicopter for the first leg of their trip out of Mr. Bush's hell have been pulled from the line and told that their 'tours' of duty were being extended. Family members at home - spouses, sibling, parents and children - who thought that their long nightmare was finally coming to a close, are hastily called by their tearful soldier and told not to go to the airport: he or she will not be coming home as planned and promised. The long hours of anxiety will continue, because the U.S. government is not obligated to keep its side of the enlistment contract.

One might think that if one party in a contract can freely violate it, so could the other. This, however, is not how the powerful U.S. government sees things. Soldiers who attempt to leave prior to the end of their enlistment period are arrested, prosecuted, and usually given prison sentences and less-than-honorable discharges. With the stop-loss policy the government goes even a step further: soldiers who attempt to leave the military after fulfilling their obligation as agreed upon at enlistment are also be arrested, prosecuted, and given prison sentences and less-than-honorable discharges.

It is no coincidence that 'stop-loss' has been utilized more since Mr. Bush's much-vaunted 'augmentation' (one must recall that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explained most eloquently that the addition of 30,000 troops to the war zone was not an 'escalation,' but an 'augmentation.' Please refer to the above comment about the government's cumbersome semantics). About 9,000 soldiers have been victimized by this policy since Mr. Bush announced his 'new way forward' (cumbersome semantics, once again) in Iraq. That is an increase of about 2,000.

Lt. Gen. Michael Rochelle, deputy chief of staff for personnel said that "until there is some reduction in the demand, we're going to have to rely, unfortunately ... on stop-loss."

What, one might ask, would constitute a 'reduction in the demand?' There appear to be four possible scenarios:

1) The U.S. decides it made a huge mistake by invading Iraq, and departs. When pigs fly.

2) Sufficient men and women flock to their local recruiting stations to enlist. This seems unlikely, since Mr. Rochelle stated that current recruitment goals would remain the same for 2008 and 2009, reflecting the "realistic view on how challenging it is at this point in time" to increase the size of the military.

And why, one wonders, might it be so challenging right now to do so? Would an unnecessary war, in which the brave soldiers forced to fight it aren't even provided with the armor required to protect themselves, perhaps factor in somehow? Would the realization that an enlistment agreement is open-ended have anything to do with this difficulty?

And there is really no reason to increase recruitment goals, since the soldiers currently enlisted will have to remain in the military at the pleasure of Mr. Bush and his war-mongering cohorts.

3) The U.S., utilizing the stop-loss policy and possibly an actual draft, finally kills enough Iraqis to declare victory, somehow avoiding engulfing the entire region in a disastrous war. As Iran and Turkey now appear to be increasing their involvement in Iraq, this too is unlikely to occur, regardless of the U.S. military manpower Mr. Bush and his successor, along with an all-to-willing Congress, decide to send to this Middle East meat grinder.

4) After years, and possibly decades, the people of Iraq are able to defeat their American oppressors, and the U.S. finally concedes defeat, following the Vietnam model. As the peace movement in the U.S. grows, this becomes the most likely scenario. Before this milestone is reached, it is likely that hundreds of thousands of U.S. men, and possibly women, will have been conscripted (the polite word for 'forced into slavery'), tens of thousands will have died, and the death toll for Iraqis will be too staggering to contemplate.

Not a pretty picture, regardless of which scenario one selects (with the exception of number one, which is a fairy tale that even the most gullible of children would not believe).

So what can one expect? The stop-loss program will continue to be utilized, and the desertion rate will grow correspondingly. Soldiers who enlisted to defend the country against terrorism will serve courageously in Iraq and there learn the truth, and then return home and courageously speak out against Mr. Bush's imperial atrocity in that nation. Recruitment levels will drop and more soldiers will be forced to remain past their enlistment periods. Eventually Mr. Bush, or possibly his successor, will convince Congress that with dwindling numbers of troops to 'support' by having a war for them, a draft is necessary so they have someone to support. The peace movement will grow, along with the death toll in Iraq, and this travesty will continue for years.

One cannot help being pessimistic about the future of U.S. involvement in Iraq, especially when the U.S. government provides itself with the means to continue that involvement indefinitely. One looks for a leading presidential candidate who speaks forthrightly about ending the war, but they are all too busy trying to balance between ending U.S. involvement in Iraq, and continuing the bizarre charade of equating supporting the troops with funding the war.

A study of the Vietnam War and its eventual conclusion indicates that once the people of the U.S. finally decided that that tragic endeavor could not continue, it still took years for the government 'of the people' to act. The faster a major groundswell of opposition to the Iraq war occurs, the faster Congress, and possibly some future president, will be forced to act. Such a groundswell is already too late for the nearly 4,000 U.S. soldiers and at least 1,000,000 Iraqis who have died since Mr. Bush's 'shock and awe' invasion and subsequent occupation of that country. For the sake of those still alive, that groundswell of opposition cannot happen soon enough.

by Robert Fantina [click here for more articles], who is a long-time activist for peace and social justice. He has worked with the Coalition for Peace Action in New Jersey. Following the 2004 presidential election, he moved to Canada, where he now resides. Robert is the author of Desertion and the American Solder: 1776-2006.

Sources:
[1] "Congressman Paul Supports Moratorium on Internet Taxation" Ron Paul's Press Release, October 17, 2007
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2007/pr101707.htm

[2] "1937 Marihuana Tax Act" from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Marihuana_Tax_Act

[3] "Living in a Tax Free Internet Zone" Keisha Lamothe, CNN Money, October 17, 2007.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/16/pf/internet_tax/?postversion=2007101716

[4] "The Internet vs. the State" Eric Garris, LewRockwell, November 22, 2005.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/garris3.html

DIGG THIS

After 115 years without an image of an American President on a circulating American coin, President Teddy Roosevelt in 1909 suggested the image of Abraham Lincoln be stamped on one side of the new penny.  The images chosen to appear on circulating American coins was, up until then, a politically correct statement of difference between America and the Old World. 

Extending back to the beginning of coinage, the Old World ruler's image always appeared on one side.  America rejected tyranny of the one or few, and the images placed on a coin were never to include an American political personality, just as honors or titles were never given to individuals.  Since Lincoln, we now have Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Ben Franklin and others, many of whom would have objected to their images on our money, except, perhaps, Alexander Hamilton.

The image of an eagle, or a Phoenix rising from the ashes of the past, would have been the more appropriate image, as each signifies more the destiny of America as seen by those who helped establish her independence from the Old World.  Today, a coin with the image of a president, as an elected version of "ruler," with an eagle on the obverse, may suggest a way to look at the two major political differences existing on this planet. 

The side with the image of a ruler, such as a king or queen from the Old World, demonstrates the rule of the one or few over the many.  It claims the interests of the nation or community is more important than the interests of any individual.  That is the kind of governance the world is most familiar.  The tyranny of the few, ruling the many, is the politically correct kind of system most everyone has experienced and been conditioned to accept.

The other side of the coin, with an eagle on it, would signify the freedom of the solitary individual who pursues his, or her, legitimate self-interests.  It represents individual freedom, from which prosperity is achieved by the one, his family and community.  The two sides of the coin represent these two political differences.  In the New World, individual freedom was politically correct.  In the Old World, the representation of a ruler on the coin suggested that compliance with tyranny was politically correct.  The two sides of the coin would be in conflict, as neither is capable of coexisting in the same land with the other. 

It is, today, a choice Americans of the 21st century must make again, as was once the choice of Americans during colonial and civil war times.  In earlier years, Americans had a passion for liberty.  They would never tolerate rulers making decisions for them.  Today, we can assume almost half of those living in the United States would be quick to kneel to a new American ruler, and when voting in 2008 will pick tyranny.

The two sides of the coin make the choice visible.  The one side is the rule of the one or few over the many, where community interests, as defined by the few, are always of greater value than the whims, passions and interests of individuals.  The other side, found only in America, claims the legitimate self-interests of the individual are more important. 

From freedom for all individuals, in America, came prosperity never before realized in the world.  Freedom opened the path to prosperity for individuals, their families and communities.  Tyranny blocks that path, as it leaves to the minions and bureaucrats serving the few who rule, the choices that would otherwise be made by individuals

The success or failure of what George Washington himself said was "this great experiment," of America, depends on our ability to stay away from the trappings of dictatorship.  Stamping an image of, say Bill and Hillary Clinton on an American coin may honor them, but dishonors what our Founding Fathers gave us, going back to the 1620 Pilgrim landing, the separation from Britain, and our Civil War.  When it comes time to pull the levers and make your choices at the ballot box, take a coin with you and flip it a few times.  Call for heads or tails, tyranny or freedom, then vote.

by Clay Barham [click here for more articles], who has been a candidate for the California legislature and a stand-in talk show host for ABC.  He was educated in physical and behavioral sciences, with a Ph.D. in sociology.  He is the author of five books, with his latest being Foundations of Modern American Conservatism and Liberalism: The Roots of Freedom and Tyranny. 

"Yeah, but if your life depended on it, wouldn't you rather have those Blackwater guys by your side to make sure you stay safe?"

That seems to be the mother of all questions that usually ends up closing the conversation du jour: America's private armies.

As unsavory as it may be for many Americans to hear or read about the shameful and unforgiving acts at Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, Haditha, and countless other places - each and every account highly sanitized before being allowed to reach the current penumbra of public disclosure - a clear majority continues to shrug their shoulders to the realities happening in Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter; some, much-preferring to change the conversation to a different topic, others showing a total lack of humanity by remaining bent on defending the indefensible.

Defending so-called "American interests" has often been the barricade of last resort for scoundrels and downright criminals, en route to their highly fortified refuge of patriotism: scoundrels and criminals fighting under the cover and propriety of an honorable flag, or even the redesigned Jolly Roger sans the skull-and-bones. But it's an equally strident symbolism; representing a corporate logo together with a lofty mission. These are all byproducts of what we've become: a nation of PR-managed people. If only someone would tell us once and for all just what those interests are that we're so diligently and desperately trying to safeguard!

Is it economic interests that must be defended; and if so, exactly whose? Is it a military position of unrivaled strength that we must possess, and constantly show off; and if such is the case, is it to keep America safe from unprovoked harm, or is it in pursuit of what many feel is nothing but our leaders' "empire lust"? Is it terrorism, and its root causes, we are trying to eradicate; or could it be that it's in our leaders' best interest to make sure terrorism not only survives but metastasizes?

When anyone talks about "American interests" in such universal terms, are they talking about interests for the American many, most of us: the citizenry; the hoi polloi; the once hoped-for classless class? Or, are they the interests of an American client, employer, or even a menagerie of corporate entities; or an often suspected elite class? All of these questions require answers if the people of these United States are to survive as free citizens, and the country is to remain a free nation; freedom defined principally as lack of fear from reprisal, and not just from dangers coming from without but from within.

This recent stir-up involving Blackwater should serve as a wake-up call to a reality our self-censured corporate media won't dare touch, most politicians are unwilling to tackle, and our government feels helpless trying to investigate being itself the architect and builder of this house of horrors that they've made of the Middle East.

Whether America's contracted private armies serving in Iraq provide 20,000 or 30,000 or 40,000 mercenaries is not the issue. Numbers mean very little. But the sheer use of mercenary forces, call them peace keepers or body guards if that tones down these Rambo's to a measure of acceptability, says everything.

Wars are in most cases, by their essence, improbable to justify. and none can be afforded minimal legitimacy until every able-bodied person in a nation is ready to take up arms to defend their society, their nation. No armies-for-hire can ever be deemed an ethical undertaking by any society, and when it comes to bullies-for-hire, such undertaking is downright obscene.

But I'll tell you what I find the most incredible aspect of it all. And that is, these Rambo-luminary mercenaries with a capital M - for big money - not only have a staff chaplain, but a place of worship to boot! Now we shouldn't be shocked when we are told that even the devil has a guardian angel: a Blackwater peace enforcer to be sure!

Peace keeping, peace enforcing, private protection. Just a way, a name, a license which is issued to career bullies not just to unrestrainedly "kick ass" but to determine who is to live and who is to die. Soldiers of fortune, mercenaries, legionnaires, corsairs. They all seem to find common valor in one thing: death; whether it involves taking yours (life) or risking and losing theirs.

We, in the United States, are getting to the point where we are confronted with little differentiation in mission between those we call "our troops" and the private armies made up of "former troops." Have we already forgotten how America's military leveled a major Iraqi city, Fallujah, in angry response to the killing of four Blackwater military private contractors? Does anything else need to be said?

As to the question that was asked at the beginning of this piece - although I understand how thankful Gen. Edward Pietrzyk, Poland's ambassador to Iraq, must be to Billionaire Erik Prince's privateers for whisking him away to safety during an attempt on his life recently, I pass on the "opportunity" to ever have to thank these bullies for giving me "protection" against imminent danger.

No, thanks, I wouldn't care to have them by my side, and for that matter, nor would I welcome their chaplain.

by Ben Tanosborn [click here for more articles], who writes a weekly socio-political column, Behind the mirror. Write to Ben Tanosborn at P.O. Box 2324, Vancouver, WA 98668.

Well, let's see the news headlines:

"Halliburton/KBR get no-bid contracts for concentration camps"

"Dissenters rounded up and held on disused pier in New York"

"Congress gives Bush leave to increase spying on Americans"

"Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners and against torture and other abuses are quaint," says Gonzales.

Hundreds of thousands find themselves on no-fly lists and other restrictions. They cannot find out why (National Security) nor get off them.

"Federal Government wants REAL ID for Americans."

We are not far from having Blackwater Security "helping" the law enforcement agencies keep We the People in check. "Your papers, please?" was a phrase hated and feared across Europe and Asia during the last rise of fascism in the world. That continued for many more years in the CCCP.

Congress takes an oath at the beginning of each session, "To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic."

During the past seven years, Congress (Republican or Democrat, it makes no difference) has contributed more to the shredding and flushing of the Constitution than its protection and defense.

There is nothing in the Constitution that indicates that Americans and visitors must carry and show their "papers" to any official that asks for them. If you read the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments of said Constitution) you will find in fact that the government is forbidden to interfere in the freedoms guaranteed by that Constitution.

The idea behind the Constitution is that the government serves at the will of We the People, and it exists to do the bidding of We the People.

The government, as perceived by Cheney/Bush and their henchmen (apparently including all but a very few in the House and Senate), is to have absolute authority over every aspect of American life. That We the People exist only to serve and pay for the government.

Now listen carefully, for I shall say this only once. We the People fought a long and exhausting war to gain our independence and freedom from England and King George. We shed our blood and national treasure in huge amounts to rid the world of fascism in WWII.

If you refuse to actively and aggressively live up to your oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, you may well find out what Thomas Jefferson meant when he said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

If it should become necessary for We the People to rise up and cast out the tyrants that are suborning our nation, it shall come to pass. Our appeals to the alleged representatives that we have elected to office for the purpose of redressing these grievances have fallen on deaf ears. The real enemies of the Constitution are proving to be domestic, not foreign, and our alleged representatives are proving themselves daily to be amongst those enemies.

We the People of the United States do not want to be a part of an empire, striding with its jackboots over the wreckage of other sovereign nations that refused to do its bidding. If you are going to persist in trying to fit us into that mold, remember the Declaration of Independence from the last King George. It can hold for the new one as well, along with his corrupt and self serving ministers.

by Steve Osborn [click here for more articles], who is a freelance writer living on Camano Island in the Pacific Northwest. He is an "Atomic Vet." (Operation Redwing, Bikini Atoll 1956, ) who has been very active working and writing for nuclear disarmament and world peace. He is a retired Fire Battalion Chief, lifelong sailor, writer, poet, philosopher, historian and former newspaper columnist.