Wednesday, May 7. 2008Money, Banking, and LendingMoney, Banking, and Lending Part One: The Situation We’re In Today I’ve never been a fan of Alexander Hamilton (which I’ll elaborate on some in the next paragraph). In fact on occasion I have had an impulse to start an article, maybe even a story, portraying Aaron Burr as the hero he really was. (Burr did have an impressive background and potential, but I’ll resist that digression at this time.) The point I wanted to make is that we can thank Hamilton for our national debt, the Fed, the non-government issue and control of money despite the Constitution, banks bleeding the public with usury, the ever-growing cost of a standing army, and most forms of federal spending…among other irksome institutions. They were all his idea originally. In fact I’ve seen the HBO series John Adams and am pleased to see they have portrayed In the beginning we actually did that. As Benjamin Franklin put it when asked by the Brits how there could be no poor and no unemployed in the Colonies, he replied: "It is because, in the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. We call it Colonial Script, and we issue only enough to move all goods freely from the producers to the Consumers; and as we create our money, we control the purchasing power of money, and have no interest to pay." Now we have the Federal Reserve, which issues money, sets interest rates, and operates through privately owned banks. Our money is not our money. It is not issued by Congress as the Constitution demands. Today the almighty dollar is becoming worthless. Some call that inflation. I call it losing value. Gold was $35 an ounce at one time (which is a story in itself, which I’ll skip at this point); not long ago oil was going at ten or twelve bucks a barrow. Today oil is about a hundred and twenty bucks, and gold is up around a thousand bucks an ounce. At the pumps gas is $4 a gallon and rising; and asparagus is $4 dollars a pound. The dollar is tanking. Oil producers around the world are beginning to prefer the euro. That didn’t just happen to us by chance. It is the product of greed, corruption in very high places, and just plain ignorance on the part of everyone from the lowliest voter to all those economists and other experts who couldn’t see it coming, and when it did, made all the wrong choices. Wherever you find yourself, it is a matter of choices you made along the way—that includes voting. Of all the bullshit going down in this current political campaign, there was only one candidate who tried to make the right call. Those who supported him were quite earnest while it lasted, but the media and others thought he was foolish. In my opinion his supporters were also a bit more intelligent than your average voter, which may have been his real downfall. This candidate wanted to get rid of the Federal Reserve. That was Ron Paul. Had he accomplished that goal, he would have been in some pretty good company when it comes to wanting to get private banks out of the people’s business of issuing their own money. By that I mean presidents like Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. There were others along the way too, but those are pretty vivid examples for most people; and the facts of the matter are a matter of history, specifically the “greenback” and the “silver certificate,” respectively. Also they were both assassinated, an unfortunate “coincidence”…if you believe in coincidence. (Don’t be surprised if I mention that a few more times.) First of all there is Jefferson, our third President, who tried to warn us.
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations which grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.--Thomas Jefferson Somehow that seems rather timely today, particularly the part about ending up homeless when we have all these big corporate lenders foreclosing on people’s homes all over the country. The big question is, I suppose, where did these lenders come from and how did we allow this situation to happen? The answer is probably disputable, but I do have my own take on it all. It’s a long story, as I see it, with several elements to it, but a big factor is the gross misinterpretation of the Constitution wherein the Supreme Court found in the Fourteenth Amendment “personhood” for corporations, with all the rights of human individuals. I have written considerably on the subject, particularly in Part One of my Blog, most specifically in an article on the interpretation of original intent in the Constitution. I’m not going into detail on that aspect here, but this is a good coverage of its history: http://wm-monje.com/blognew/main.php?file=article14.htm . That much is only one factor in the whole of the problem, however. The element approached in this writing is money itself, how it became a commodity, meaning the product in the business of lending, and how money can create more money, who controls it and how and why. I also hope to review as best I can where it came from and how it developed over time. In that endeavor I’ll also try to work in a bit of American history as it relates to the issuance of money. "I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt." -- Thomas Jefferson There are two major areas of indebtedness: One is our national debt; the other is our own personal and private debt. Unless you have a mortgage to pay, credit cards are probably the nation’s greatest personal indebtedness. Some have both, and most people are making some kind of car payment. Keep in mind I am not talking so much about what may be owed to keep a body alive these days, I am addressing the extremes of the added cost of interest payments…and frequently late payments as well. It is the money people don’t actually count as what they still owe. If you make minimum payments on a thousand bucks, you owe a hell of a lot more than a thousand bucks—you owe thousands, depending on the interest rate. Up until about 1970 we actually had well-written laws against usury. In most cases, being state laws, the limit was ten percent or less. If you go back a few decades, say to the forties or fifties, ten percent would have been outrageous. Interest rates in most states today are virtually unlimited. Getting rid of usury laws was a change in state laws to accommodate credit card companies, an enterprise which the soon-to-be-up-to-their-ass-in-debt-for-life public was eager to embrace. No one objected to the end of usury laws if they could buy now and pay through the nose later. Twenty-six states have no limit at all on what credit card companies can charge in interest. Even if your home state has usury protection laws, only the laws of the state the card issuer is in apply, and they will be doing business in a no-protection state for sure. More recently Congress has bent over for the administration and its cronies and big political campaign contributors by changing bankruptcy laws to protect the big credit card companies, not the citizens who are victims of these vultures. That’s another story too, but you can find it online if it means anything to you. Regarding beginnings, it was in 1970 that the state of It’s easy to see why money lending is biblically immoral. And some people get uptight about homosexuality or masturbation. They should read the Bible again and give the priority of these moral considerations some serious thought. As for the mortgage business, what seems to look like a reasonable interest rate, at present down to six percent or less in some cases, still amounts to one hell of a lot of money every month. The interest on a home loan of $300,000, which is relatively low in present When people fall for an “optional payment plan,” meaning, among other options, they can pay interest only, they are merely giving the lender a lot of money but still owe the same amount. If the plan has a “minimum payment,” meaning less than the interest alone, they are literally going deeper in debt, not paying off a loan, which should be the objective of making payments. If it is an “adjustable interest,” that means the interest rate could go up, which means when the payments go up, even less is coming off the principle. That is the most basic cause of the current mortgage crisis, which is coming back to bite the lenders. They got a low rate to begin with, but it kept going up. At the heart of it all is greed, and mindless greed at that—ignorant, illogical and not thought through because the lenders themselves didn’t seem to realize they would have their own day of reckoning. When a lender breaks a home-loan borrower and has to repossess the house, he is stuck with a property that will probably never get the overvalued price of what he loaned in the first place. The borrower goes bankrupt, then the lender. Everybody loses. Another part of the greater picture, besides the lending institutions themselves going broke, is the whole so-called “money market” ploy. I always figured the term was an advertising gimmick promising sudden and lavish wealth, kind of like fabulous bodies and splendorous romance through “weight-loss programs” or “exercise machines,” but maybe it’s more like plastic surgery. It wasn’t just individuals that were dragged into risky speculations that seemed to promise fabulous returns on their investments. Without getting into all the in and outs of derivatives, junk bonds, interest rate swaps and other investment enticements, there were also, and continue to be, whole municipalities and counties on the verge of bankruptcy because of the whole “money market” hyperbole, which actually started with S and Ls, one of the fed’s (taxpayers) all-time biggest bailouts. To sum things up in the middle of this writing, I would say it all boils down to greed, avarice, materialism, self-indulgence, a kind of financial insatiability, particular with those who have the most to start with, and a total disregard for, if not ignorance of, any and all consequences. It’s almost like someone who looks at the person on the top of a pyramid scheme and convinces himself he can get there too. No one, not even the Fed itself, seems to give a thought to where all that money is going to come from. I would say when you can no longer find enough losers to satisfy all this greed, everyone has lost. It all had to start at some point in history, where, we will probably never know for sure. Historically, however, there is a development there, and there have been warnings from some rather wise individuals. "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance". -- James Madison, our fourth President. Regarding our present state of affairs, and in particular a president who has trashed the Constitution, which, I believe, is a product of corruption in high places and a general ignorance and uneducated indifference among the voting public: "It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising their sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin." James Madison, our fifth President. I don’t pretend to be a historian but I do research that which interests me enough to write about it. There is a history and record of the origins of money and banking. Some of it, as it has been presented by some, may or may not be, at least in part, conspiracy theory, which means some of it may be disputable. There are known facts, however, the problem being what some may make of those facts. It’s a fact, for instance, that The big discussion, not to mention a review of history itself, is whether or not the government should be the entity issuing money, otherwise known as currency or the coin of the realm. In our country it is the government, the Congress of the United States of America, as spelled out clearly in our Constitution, Article One; Section 8, fifth paragraph: “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” In all its simplicity—“To coin Money”—it is, nevertheless, quite distinctive. Only Congress, our government, can create our money. We were never meant to job it out to interests that did not represent the people themselves. So what the hell is the Federal Reserve? It isn’t the government, certainly not Congress. But I’ll get back to that. There is a history of where money came from, and that includes the ongoing discussion of who gets to create and control it. Part Two: Where Money and Banking Came From Anyone ever heard of “tally sticks,” originated by Henry the First, which served as money for seven hundred and twenty-six years? That’s a very long time when you compare it to other historical durations, such as empires or all that has taken place since 1282 or 726 years ago. Chances are you’ve never heard of tally sticks. It's an item the bankers would have us all forget, particularly the Bank of England, but you can still find it online. Check it out. The truth is out there. The historical fact is that the system worked very well for On the other hand, in little over two hundred years the US dollar has had and continues to have a shaky history. Today it not holding up well against either the euro or the yen. .Most of all, it simply doesn’t purchase much anymore. That would seem to indicate it has lost considerable value, although economists don’t really see it that way. There was a period, however, when we did have government-issue money that did, in fact, work quite well. It was state issued script in what were our original colonies. It served the purpose of exchange, with only enough to keep markets fluid. No one was making money on money during that period. Remember, as Benjamin Franklin put it when asked by the Brits how there could be no poor and no unemployed in the Colonies, he replied: "It is because, in the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. We call it Colonial Script, and we issue only enough to move all goods freely from the producers to the Consumers; and as we create our money, we control the purchasing power of money, and have no interest to pay."<< Money as we know it has no real value, only trust. And trust in whom? Bankers. There’s a lot of history involved, but keeping it simple you could say banking started with goldsmiths, mostly just because they had good safes, back around the years 1000 to 1100. Actually, banking more or less dropped into their laps. At one time people used gold and silver, and many people had various amounts of it. But it wasn't really very secure. They did not have the facilities to secure it. So—and it must have seemed like a good idea at the time—they left it with goldsmiths. Why? Goldsmiths had really good safes—that’s all. Of course, when they put precious metal in a goldsmith's safe, the goldsmith would give them a receipt. So, all was well. No problem. But then, because a receipt was good for gold or silver, people, just because all that paper was simply handier than metal, started to use the receipts for exchange—like paper money. Well, it didn't take long for the goldsmiths to discover what their receipts were worth. So, what did they do? They started issuing receipts for gold and silver they did not have in their safes. No one cared. It was as good as gold and silver. And that, essentially, is how bankers came into existence. They printed money, loaned it out at interest, and because of the interest, they had to print more to cover the interest. They issued IOUs, and the whole world spends their markers as if it were gold, quite literally…even if the gold wasn’t really there. If this were a debate board I am sure someone would say, “It is not as simple as that,” at least in reference to banking today, and then give us some doubletalk learned from an economics and/or history professor who couldn’t balance his or her own checkbook, but if someone did present such a debate, I would have to say, “Yeah, it really is as simple as that.” It’s all that doubletalk by experts—and you see it daily on TV or in the newspapers—that keeps us in the dark. God forbid someone make it simple to understand. Money issued with interest by private parties is a racket, and that is why the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. The issuing of money in contemporary times has never been a government enterprise, at least not for long; it has always been privately issued and controlled by bankers. In our country it ended up as the Federal Reserve. Today we have the World Bank internationally calling all the shots; they decide who gets how much and what will it cost them in the long run. That’s whole nations we’re talking about. We have lenders who will end up owning whole nations, or at least whatever collateral they may have, such as natural resources, like oil, rice or water. Water, incidentally is the big target of international corporations, meaning the complete rights to all water in a country, and the right to sell it at their own price, probably as a recommendation and financing from the World Bank. Look out for the World Bank. They aren’t doing anyone any favors. Demanding interest is in fact demanding payment of money that doesn’t yet exist. The Fed has led us to believe that high interest will control inflation, but I will argue it is what created inflation in the first place. The only way to control inflation is by not issuing more than is necessary to support what should be a growing economy. Only the government issuing the money supply, serving the public and commerce only, not for profit in monies that don’t yet exist, is the only way to get a handle on the economy. That would be in the interest of everyone and a product of the work and economy they will generate. Governments would only issue enough to service an expanding commerce. Money, otherwise, is created by charging interest, which is only of benefit to bankers who get to print it like those goldsmiths issued receipts for gold they did not have. Consider this (one more time): People used to keep their gold and silver safe by leaving it with goldsmiths because they had secure safes. They got receipts from the goldsmiths. The receipts were as good as gold but easier to carry around, so they used them for exchange, meaning money. Then the goldsmiths printed receipts for gold they didn't have and loaned it out. They called it “fractional reserve banking,” which sounded good. In fact, it sounded so good, they still practice it. It means they can lend money they don’t have (not to mention none of it is backed up with gold anymore). And it is as simple as that. Award winning economists still write books on what a great idea fractional reserve banking is, despite the obvious lack of logic going in. (I never though logic and economics had much in common.) That means a bank today only needs one tenth in reserve of what they loan out. That’s one tenth in paper money, forget gold or silver. That was set by the Federal Reserve. That means that if they loan money to ten people at ten percent interest, based on reserves, they are making one hundred percent interest on the return of actual reserves because they don't have the nine tenths. That is the same as goldsmiths when they started issuing receipts for gold they never received, which in my book is just plain crooked. What a racket, huh? But who notices? Who cares? It's just the way it is. They don't ask: “Well, where are the other nine tenths of the money they loan out?” The answer is, they just have to print receipts…more money. Once it's in circulation, despite the lack of any reserve of real value, it is, literally, as good as gold…we seem to think. What's more, everybody wants those receipts for reserves that don't exist yet, and will even mortgage their house on a repayment plan of interest only, meaning they aren't paying back a dime of what they borrowed, are not paying down the balance on their house one cent, but are making monthly payments of hundreds, even thousands of dollars, that don't exist and never did so the bankers—Federal Reserve—will I have to print it. Imagine I were a multibillionaire and everyone knew it, if I were to play poker and I lost a pot but owed five thousand dollars because I didn't have it on me, I could take out a notepad and write, “IOU five thousand dollars,” and sign my name. It would, literally, be as good as gold just about anywhere. I might never see that marker again because the whole world doesn't doubt I could redeem it. In fact, I could probably buy anything with an IOU and never have to redeem a dollar of it. Well, that's what the Fed does. A Federal Reserve note is a marker, an IOU. For what? For another IOU, and that's all it's good for. They just keep writing—or printing, as the case may be—IOUs That's all they do.
Part Three: A Bit of American History There were Jefferson and Madison who opposed bankers issuing money and believed only Congress could do so as stated in the Constitution. Then there was Andrew Jackson. “If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system there would be a revolution before morning.” Andrew Jackson Nicolas Biddle was, no doubt, a genius. He could have graduated from the The Bank lost its federal charter in 1836. Andrew Jackson was president at the time, and was the first, last and only president to every pay off the national debt. Under Biddle’s control, before the vote to renew the charter, the bank withdrew its money supply. The economic crisis that did follow gave In my opinion Biddle probably set the die for bankers in general. It is very doubtful that those getting extremely rich at this time of economic despair in this country give a damn about anyone but themselves. And when their greed catches up with them, they have an administration they put in place to bail them out. The rest of us be damned. There was also an assassination attempt against Then there was Abraham Lincoln. The banking business in Europe was fearful of a prosperous and “united” "Then there was Kennedy. Ever hear of a bill called a “silver certificate”? I personally remember them. It was the intention of Kennedy to strip the Federal Reserve of its ability to loan money to the federal government. He did that by executive order--EO 11110, to be exact. It meant the Treasury backed up a total of four-point-three billion in silver bullion, either with paper silver certificates, which resembled present money, or in actual silver dollar coin. Some people still have a few Kennedy silver dollars in their collection. Immediately after his assassination, the certificates were recalled and destroyed and replaced by “Federal Reserve Notes,” which is simply a marker, an IOU against nothing at all. And once again, we have a crazed, lone gunman who put an end to him and all his endeavors. In 1964, Lynden B. Johnson, then president, said, "Silver has become too valuable to be used as money." You can’t much blame him for going along with the Fed. Then he gave us a war that demanded the printing of more money, which, of course, caused considerable inflation. What a sweetheart. But hey, nobody blew his brains out. He may not have been our wisest president, but he wasn’t stupid. Sunday, April 20. 2008Reviewing the Intellect of George W. BushDespite the hype and blathering excitement of a deliriously giddy news media, the real war of consequence is not a senseless and petty game of non-relevant matters between the Democratic candidates, it’s in Iraq where American blood and treasure are flowing daily. The real war, which should still be the pertinent news, has nothing to do with much of anyone but George W. Bush, the war profiteers such as Halliburton, Chaney’s company, and those neoconservatives at the Project for a New American Century, the people who wanted Iraq, probably for its oil, but were obviously ignorant or mindless or maybe didn’t give a damn about the consequences of such a war. These were the people, such as William Kristol, a co-founder of the Project for a New American Century and conservative writer for publisher Rupert Murdock who owns Fox News among other ultra conservative outlets, who claimed that the oil in Iraq would pay for the war. Speaking of which, if this war was about oil, and it probably was, how come gasoline is now pushing four bucks a gallon? Was that an intended consequence, and if so, why? Or did the powers-that-be get it all wrong? But that’s not the big issue here…not that it isn’t a big issue. At present I am simply amazed that the American public continues to put up with a moron who would be king…well, dictator, anyway. A few years ago I wrote rather extensively on why the hell we went into Iraq and how incredibly stupid our president is, two more or less related items of interest. The stupidity of our president is, of course, directly related to the intelligence of our voting public; we did elect him twice. Was that what one might call “democracy in action”? Or would mindless, frightened sheep be a better term? It was fear and fear alone that made the president’s case for a second term. Falling for that ploy is not, in my opinion, very bright. It is one reason I can find it easy to relate what we like to think of as “democracy” to mob rule. If we are a government of the people, electing a stupid leader is a good indicator of the general intelligence of those who elected him. And I do realize that is not a popular sort of thing to say. No one wants to take that much responsibility for our so-called government of the people…it could make them look as stupid as their leaders obviously are. We’d rather just think the president and all his men and ladies are the stupid ones. The realization of our glorious leader’s intelligence should have become obvious when he declared war on the sovereign country of Iraq, which represented no threat to us. Most of all, as we found out quite some time back and have since forgotten, there were no weapons of mass destruction. That is why we went into Iraq. It was a lie, of course, one of the first big ones, but the stupid part is that we have forgotten why we went into Iraq, which also means we have forgotten we were lied to. That was never the real reason, of course, but it was the one we seemed to believe at the time. We should also be aware that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the events of September 11, nor was Iraq a “breeding ground for terrorists,” at least not until we took out its legitimate government, sent it into chaos and anarchy, which ended up an invitation for real terrorists who then did, in fact, join in the fray and keep the whole thing going in a virtually non-winnable and endless conflict. All that sort of makes you wonder why we really invaded Iraq in the first place. Inasmuch as we can write off all the official reasons as outright lies, and the “oil” thing, which seemed like a good guess at the time, isn’t paying off—at least for the American public—I’d say we need to look for another reason. And where to start on that search? Who is benefiting the most? Who benefits from the cost of the war? Well, Dick Chaney’s old company of Halliburton is one. But who benefits from the big oil game, which is now selling at over one hundred bucks a barrow? Dare we say the Saudis? Now consider this: George Bush, as a would-be business man—the oil business in Texas—has run a couple of small-time oil businesses into the ground. And who financed those losing businesses of his? The Saudis. Michael Moore’s documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 (available on DVD) covers the whole story much better than I could even hint at it, but it does question—and answer—why an oil-rich country like Saudi Arabia would back a small-time loser like George W. Bush. Look at current events, and gas prices, to realize that one. The sad news is that George W. Bush, who ran a couple of small-time businesses into the ground, is now the president of the United States. Those are a couple of things you really don’t want to have to say in the same sentence, but damn, look where we stand economically after two terms. As I said, I did post considerably about George W. Bush a few years ago, and in particularly about his obvious lack of intellect. A nice guy to have a beer with? Maybe. Someone to lead the country? Give me a break. How did that happen? Anyway, here is one of my commentaries from three years ago, which, unfortunately, is still timely: http://wm-monje.com/politicalblog/archives/38-The-Idiot-King.html The preceding link is to one article only. I would like to remind readers that they can access the whole blog with this link: http://wm-monje.com/politicalblog/index.php?frontpage The link to political commentary only is here: http://wm-monje.com/politicalblog/categories/2-Political-Writings And the link to movie commentaries only is here: http://wm-monje.com/politicalblog/categories/1-Movies Friday, March 14. 2008My Theory On Conspiracy TheoriesMy Theory On Conspiracy Theories Please note I did not entitle this “my conspiracy theory.” This is a commentary on conspiracy theories in general. Those I’ll quote have their only significance, as far as I’m concerned, in how well-known and popular they are, and to a great extend on how questionable the official story is. Whether or not I adhere to any theory in particular is beside the point of this writing, although my opinion is apt to be apparent anyway. I will say this, however: Where there are conspiracy theories, I do not totally buy the official statement or debunking. That is because, whether right or wrong, those theories are usually there for good cause, meaning the official explanations are highly questionable. Likewise, there are no conspiracy theories I totally believe. The problem with such theories I’ll get into in more detail. In any case, it is the totality of believing or not believing that I would say is foolish either way. If one side of the story is questionable, you can be sure the other side is also. That generally means we’ll probably never know the truth, whichever way it leans. And that means we should make our own best judgment of such things based on known facts as long as the facts themselves, as published, are true and honest. First of all I do believe conspiracies happen. I do believe there are conspiracies of a wide range of magnitude and consequence in private business and public offices at all levels and in very high places every damn day of the week. Conspiracies are, in fact, incredibly common. Aside from all those little conspiracies that happen all day every day in the workplace, schoolyards, neighborhoods, and within families, the more socially significant ones range from the local school board to Congress and the federal administration, from a building contractor who pays off an inspector, to big corporations paying off or extorting congressmen, and to the assassination of a president. Secret deals are made and money is made and power is embellished and enhanced by people already in positions of power and influence, and it is almost always at the expense of and to the detriment of the public without the public ever knowing. In most cases these conspiracies probably involve someone making some big bucks they don’t rightfully deserve or can’t come by honestly, or the installation of someone unqualified in a high office of serious responsibility. In too many instances it may ultimately involve the loss of civil liberties through some pretense, usually fear mongering and the passage of some law the people are led to believe will make them safe from the fear du jour. Sometimes those secret deals have some light thrown on them that threatens to expose those parties involved, in which case those parties attempt to hide or “cover up” what they did. That is generally the point at which the whole incident becomes questionable and is, in fact, questioned, sometimes under the pretense of officially. The existence of conspiracies and intrigues in high places has been known down through history. Someone could dispute that, of course, but frankly, they’d look pretty naïve, if not stupid, doing so. There are, however, bunches of people that naïve and that stupid. The problem is that if it happened during the reign of Henry II of Imagine this sequence of events and “official explanation” that seemingly goes officially unquestioned by most: An airplane hits a very tall building, one hundred and ten stories high. A while later another airplane hits an equally tall building right next to it. A while later the first building totally collapses straight down at the speed of gravity. A while later the second building does exactly the same thing. Six hours later a third building, forty-seven stories high, which didn’t get hit by an airplane but is near by, collapses in the exact same manner. The explanation is that fuel from the jet airplane ignited and melted the steel structure bringing the first building straight down at the speed of gravity, which film of the event demonstrates, and it collapsed neatly onto its own footprint, never drifting the slightest in any direction. Had it been a professional demolition job, a good number of professional demolition experts have said, it would have been rated as the best of the best…couldn’t do any better professionally demolishing a building, particularly of that size. A while later, not long, exactly the same thing, without the slightest variation, as neat as can be, happens to the second building, and we are told that too is jet fuel melting the metal structure presumably in the exact same manner. Six hours later exactly the same thing, without the slightest variation, as neat as can be, happens to the third building, which didn’t get hit by an airplane, and we are told it was caused by “fires,” presumable a little spill over or whatever from the nearby two other buildings that have been on the ground for almost six hours. This explanation also implies that it is to be assumed that this burning jet fuel melted the metal structure on all four sides of each building in exactly the same amount of time and at exactly the same rate of speed…in all three cases. If not, at least one of them would have leaned a bit in some direction and not gone straight down. At the speed of gravity, by the way, means that the explanation of the weight of the top floors collapsing each floor under it, all the way down, would have taken notably longer. It is also interesting to note that all the evidence was removed immediately and disposed of, particularly all that “melted” steel. Then, a couple of years later, along comes the “official investigation,” which did not question the firemen and paramedics who claim to have heard and seen explosions on the lower floors in the second building, nor did this committee ask one question or otherwise look into or even mention the third tower. I would say the third tower presents too many questions that can’t really be answered. To this day it is hardly ever mentioned, and, I suspect, a lot of people don’t even know about it. The thing is you don’t want to question those events as officially explained or you will be branded as a “conspiracy freak” and laughed at, and people will think you are not normal and rational. That has been established in the minds of people in general and is thus the greatest protection real conspirators have going for them regardless of how many of them may be involved. It’s how they get away with their damn conspiracy. The argument that it would take too many people involved in most of these conspiracies and that with that many people sooner or later someone is going to come forward and tell all is not likely. First of all they know they won’t be believed as long as all those other conspirators keep denying the conspiracy, and beyond that they don’t want to be accused of being less than normal or rational. If one or two come forward with the truth, it is their word against all the others and the “official investigative report,” which always pops up sooner or later, usually as a way to “put it all to rest.” That it was at unrest to start with says a lot, I think. Having said all I’ve said so far, I am not going to draw any conclusions on any particular conspiracy theory. That is the first great mistake because it goes beyond known, recorded, or demonstrable facts. At the same time, what I’ve stated is factual, on the record in some medium, much of it on film, and in my opinion defies all the damn official explanations. Simply put, something is fishy, at least in the case described above. That should go without saying, but there is one typical response you can count on: “There has yet to be any evidence to show anything other then what rational people believe.” What rational people believe is the ultimate qualifier (which is why I use “normal” and “rational” redundantly), but what exactly does it mean? Essentially, it means those multitudes of people who believe everything the authorities tell them because they do not want to stand out as questioning that authority or, worse yet, as not “rational.” Just the use of the word “rational” in that context gives it the illusion of being an absolute truth. That is simply not so but it sounds good. Then there’s “The story that will not go away.” That is the tagline for Oliver Stone’s 1991 movie JFK. That same year, this is what Time Magazine said of JFK: “So, you want to know, who killed the President and connived in the cover-up? Everybody! High officials in the CIA, the FBI, the Online there are several sites that debunk both the movie and any actually conspiracy (not to mention a bunch of conspiracy theories on the other side as well). One site, which I won’t mention by name or address, goes to great length to fault the movie for its inaccuracies…wouldn’t quite call it “debunking” inasmuch as it’s a scripted movie done with a highly professional cast and crew. For the most part it is a laundry list of movie gimmicks used in handling real persons and events, meaning some of the facts are fictionalized for dramatic reasons or time considerations but do not necessarily substantially change the real story itself. In this particular instance the poster cited such things as “there were three witnesses, not one, and everyone knows they weren’t credible.” That may be a fair critique of the accuracy of the movie script, but it certainly doesn’t debunk any conspiracy. If anything, calling a witness or witnesses “not credible,” simply expressed the poster’s opinion, which is fine, but proves nothing. And the term “everybody knows” is simply fraudulent, but so common no one notices it is meaningless. In 1994 Martin Sheen made a movie for TV entitled At the end of this movie, as best I recall it (I have not found the exact quotes yet), Sheen, playing the part to an Army officer involved in the cover-up, apparently reveals the truth to a single person who is trying to uncover the truth. I have found in online discussion groups (who presumably support the cover-up conspiracy) that it is believed he actually does reveal the truth. Again, as best I recall the movie, he does reveal the truth…but that is not all. Having stated what seems to be the logical truth of the matter, pretty much validating what was first officially reported, that it was a UFO with an extraterrestrial occupant, he then begins to elaborate on the story until what could have been the simple basic truth began to sound totally absurd. And therein lies the real formula for debunking absolutely any story any real conspirators do not want believed. They, or more likely their agents, surreptitiously elaborate on the story and the theory until it really does become unbelievable to normal and rational people. In a word, it is a matter of the conspirators creating an absurdity, a conspiracy theory regarding themselves and suspected events, but making it so outlandish no one will believe it except those known crackpots who will then further the cause of turning the truth into nonsense. It is a simple matter of taking a number of demonstrable facts and adding to them one outrageous claim. A good example would be the “one-worlders” theorists who then say, “…and they are going to turn us all into devil worshippers.” That is where you really do lose those truly rational people in any debate on alleged conspiracies. It is the best way to destroy any debate on alleged conspiracies. That is essentially my theory on conspiracy theories.
Friday, March 7. 2008The Lies We Live WithThe Lies We Live With "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." That was one of the big lies George W. Bush didn’t quite get away with, at least not ultimately. It was known when he said it that the information was a forgery but he was trying to justify an invasion of Iraq at the time, which was no threat to us and which, ultimately, he did get away. He lied to us about our reasons for the invasion of a sovereign nation, and we, and Congress, believed him. If we and Congress did not believe him but went along with it anyway, then we were incredibly stupid as a self-governing people with elected representatives. One should also note the great number of senators and representatives today who regret their support of the war and plead their innocence by saying they believed Bush. If so, why do they not move to impeach him? Perhaps it is a given that politicians will lie, even when it destroys another nation…and possible ours as well. (His lies, incidentally, should not be confused with anything really stupid that might be misinterpreted, such as: “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” President Bush - August 5, 2004) Then he said: “Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida." From what I see on the news you would think we went into Iraq to fight Al Qaida and the very people who brought down the Twin Towers. What an illusion that has become. True, Iraq is full of terrorists today. The truth is, however, there were none there when we invaded. We went there to destroy the “weapons of mass destruction” that belonged to Saddam Hussein before he destroyed America with them. What a grand lie that was. The entire pretense of invading Iraq was a lie. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and there were no terrorists. We created that particular breeding ground for terrorists. We created that nightmare. Thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis have since died in that war. It never should have happened. Let’s just not forget it was based on a bunch of lies told to us by George W. Bush and associates. What is worse, he continues to lie. What is even worse, we continue to let him get away with it. That, of course, we could drop in the lap of Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, but we do not. We have our bread and circuses, so we stay fat and happy never dreaming of a day of reckoning, which is bound to come. Bush, it is predicted by many, is going to go down in history as the worst president yet, as well he should. But who put him there...twice? (If you want to blame the Supreme Court, then why did we the people let them get away with it?) And why the hell wasn't he impeached before it was too late? (We should ask the Madam Speaker that one.) Whatever happened to a government of a people? As for the cost of the war, constitutionally speaking, only Congress gets to write the checks...or declare war, for that matter. Theoretically speaking, we put those people there because they represent what we expect of government. Statistically, Congress is terribly unpopular at present, but with whom is it unpopular? With the people who sent them all to Congress. Who, ultimately, has to take the responsibility, or is people's government just a well-hyped delusion? Does this “people’s government” actually know its place in governing? With a government of the people, by the people and for the people, will they, as the real government, actually make the changes they expect of some damn sweet-talking politician? (And how come none of these candidates for President have said a word about our lost civil liberties, which is the worst of it?) Frankly, I don't think anyone's been paying attention let alone taking responsibility. Bush himself probably didn’t have a clue what the invasion of Iraq would cost and, obviously, didn’t give a damn. The Pentagon estimated $50 billion. Bush’s head of White House National Economic Council, Lawrence Lindsey, probably trying to be what he figured was honest, estimated it would run between $100 and $200 billion, and was fired by Bush for his apparent honesty. By the time of the invasion the Defense Department had raised the estimate to as high as $95 billion (strangely just under Lindsey’s low figure). Good ol’ unilateral, imperialistic, preemptive-military-invasion, Paul Wolfowitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine ) who uses spit to comb his hair and resigned in disgrace for ethics violations after a short term as President of the World Bank, coming straight from The Project for a New American Century (along with Chaney, Rumsfeld and a bunch of others) said not to worry because oil revenues would pay for the war. (Perhaps that was the intent, but it sure as hell didn’t go that way. Instead we have the taxpayers giving billion, maybe trillions, to no bid Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown and Root, and various other private contractors and mercenaries.) It is costing half a trillion bucks already, but realistic estimates, all things considered, including the medical cost for veteran treatment and their ongoing compensation, and not including the cost to Iraq itself, set the figure at $3 trillion (a number most people do not begin to comprehend). It is said to be second only to WWII in cost, and second longest after Vietnam. But it isn’t over yet. I’ve only cited a couple of major lies of George W. Bush, broadly speaking, his reasons for invading Iraq and the cost thereof. His other lies are multitudinous and would take a couple of volumes just to mention. If someone has not been keeping track, just go to Google and type in “Bush lies.” It’s as easy as that. Here’s an interesting couple of sites, however: Bush Keeps War Cost Under Wraps is an article pointing out how Bush continues his deception on the cost of this war: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020808J.shtml Here’s an interesting chart on what Bush has done to our country in seven years if you doubt his presidency is leading to disaster: http://bp3.blogger.com/_akLbxNKanGc/R8khvE0MG2I/AAAAAAAABHk/05lB35cayog/s1600-h/rchart4.gif It certainly isn’t a matter of Bush being the only politician or even president to ever lie to us. Someone could write a book on the history of presidential lies in this country and the sometimes disastrous consequences. The point here is that Bush is upon us now and his lies are proving to bring about the most disastrous military, economic, civil liberties, human rights conditions we’ve ever had to deal with as a “free people.” At present the Department of Justice and the FBI are investigating Roger Clemens for perjury accusations, based on Congressional investigations and hearings. The way I see it is that Clemens is one of dozens of accused athletes standing his ground against that eternal busybody, do-gooder Congressman Henry A. Waxman and Senator George J. Mitchell and his “Report.” The real problem, as I further see it, is that Congress ought to be devoting all the hype and hoopla to exposing the lies this administration has told us—serious lies that affect the lives of all of us—and the impeachment of our fascist leaders, starting with Bush and Chaney, who are trashing our rights under the Constitution and selling us all lock, stock and barrow down the river to their cronies who run multinational, multibillion dollar corporations. But what is Congress doing in our name? They are seriously taking their time and keeping our attention on a bunch of ball players, American sports heroes, at a time when we need all the heroes we can get. Meanwhile the real villains not only remain in power but are using that power to trash a once great nation. And what are we the people doing about that? That is the real question. Tuesday, February 5. 2008The Sorry State of the UnionThe Sorry State of the Union To listen to Bush tell us about his fuzzy notion of the state of our union, you have to wonder where he’s been the last seven years, six of which, according to Romney, he has “kept us safe.” That overlooks the question where the hell was he when not only the twin towers were hit, but where the hell was he and everyone else (and where are they now) when the third tower, all sixty stories, which wasn’t hit, collapsed in an identical manner at the same time. But that’s another story—and one you’re never going to hear much about. The simple statement of “kept us safe,” is the real key to the whole state of the union. We are a people in fear. That fear has been played like an instrument to enchant us out of our natural rights as a self-declared free people. The real issue, at least at this time, is the very real state of our union, which, quite probably, has not been so bad off in quite some time. In our history of presidents, Bush is making Herbert Hoover look good. In fact, Hoover was more a victim of circumstances. Today, circumstances are a victim of Bush. Hoover, of course, resided over the great depression of 1929, the same year he took office, his term beginning a downward spiral from what had been pretty good times up till then. The fact that the depression began immediately after he took office pretty much says it wasn’t really his doing that caused it. In Bush’s case, however, considering times weren’t so bad when he took over, the fact that it took seven years to get us into this mess, likewise, pretty much proves it’s his fault. Of course, it’s not his fault alone—let’s not forget Congress. Presidents can’t really screw things up alone; they need Congress, at least in the beginning. By beginning, I mean they can’t just walk in and become a dictator; they need to have a Congress that will roll over for them and let it happen. After that, then we can start blaming the scoundrel at the top. But let’s not forget this Congress could have stopped him at many points along the way, even impeached him, tried and convicted him of high crimes and misdemeanors, and ultimately relieved the country of him, but Madam Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, ruled that out a long time ago. I personally hold her responsible for not only Bush’s failure to take action on behalf of the wellbeing of the American people, but for his more overt acts of selling out our interests to his crony’s in the corporate world. If nothing else, one has to ask: Where did all that money spent in Iraq go? (Later on we can ask why and how gas got to be over three bucks a gallon.) The War has cost us, as tax payers (which we tend to forget, even though it is always our money out of our pocket) in the hundreds of billions, and has virtually bankrupted the country and left us without the resources to finance more needed projects, such as maintaining a crumbling infrastructure, education and health care. What has not yet been calculated is the cost of benefits to veterans and other unforeseen consequences, not to mention the cost of a proposed rebuilding of Iraq…once we thoroughly destroy it. Among our ongoing problems, as citizens, is that we do not comprehend either high dollar amounts or the fact that the government is spending our money. We are talking about thousands of dollars that has come out of each and every household in the country. Wherever the money went, Congress, who constitutionally gets to write all the checks for expenditures, has “resolved” to let the president have his way and all that money to spend as he |