One objective of this blog is to encourage productive discussion and debate within the "comments" forum. Leaving comments has been made easier. No registration is required. Comments can be left anonymously. A Hassle free and easy forum to leave a comment. However, any inappropriate comments will be deleted by blog administrators. Thank you for commenting so your voice can be heard.

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Would Jesus Say NYC Mayor's Plan To Help Poor Pre-K Kids Is Offensive?

Mayor de Blasio with his beautiful family - the loving picture of a new America.
The newly elected New York City mayor, Bill de Blasio, says he’s sticking to his plan to fund universal pre-K educational programs with a tax on city residents making more than $500,000, while the governor gives out a competing message at a separate event, proposing wide-ranging tax breaks for businesses.  When New York mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio first proposed taxing the rich so every child in the city could attend all-day preschool, it was October and he had support from fewer than 10 percent of Democrats in polls.
Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, endorsed the idea in a July 2012 speech, saying: “Economically speaking, early childhood programs are a good investment, with inflation-adjusted annual rates of return on the funds dedicated to these programs estimated to reach 10 percent or higher. Very few alternative investments can promise that kind of return.”
But not everyone agrees, as many wealthy New Yorkers call de Blasio’s tax plan offensive.  Some New Yorkers have complained that his first agenda is to tax the rich to help poor children.
Doesn't look like Buzzy misses a meal. 
E.E. “Buzzy” Geduld, who runs the hedge fund Cougar Capital LLC in the city and is a trustee of Manhattan’s Dalton School (The Dalton School is an independent, co-educational day school (K-12), where annual tuition tops $40,000), said de Blasio’s plan “is the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard” and “not a smart thing to do.”  [According to the US Census Bureau, the 2011 Median Income of US households was $50,054 per annum. Table H-9 Race of Head of Household by Median and Mean Income, US Census Bureau, retrieved 2013-05-29].  Ironic that the average American could never afford to send even a single child to such a school; yet, those that easily afford it would deny education to the poor.
Convent of the Sacred Heart - Where's the heart moms?
And what of those good Christian schools?  The Convent of the Sacred Heart is a Roman Catholic all-girl school in the Manhattan borough of New York City. Teaching grades from pre-kindergarten through twelve, it is located on Manhattan's Upper East Side at East 91st Street and Fifth Avenue.  Tuition and Payment for the 2011-2012 School Year: Pre-Kindergarten: $19,290; Junior Kindergarten: $25,390; Kindergarten: $36,760; and Grades 1 – 12 : $37,395.  Certainly the parents of the privileged at The Convent of the Sacred Heart support de Blasio’s plan??
Perhaps we should review Luke 6:20-26:
And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. “Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied. “Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets. “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.”
But what of the less fortunate?  De Blasio speaks of a New York as a “Tale of Two Cities,” where almost half of New York residents are poor or struggling.  About 46 percent of four-person New York families had incomes of no more than about $46,000, or roughly 150 percent of the city’s poverty level in 2011, according to an April report from the Center for Economic Opportunity, an agency Mayor Michael Bloomberg created in 2006 to measure and develop programs for the poor. It said 21 percent lived below the poverty line of about $31,000 for a family of four in 2011.
From 2000 to 2010, the median income of the city’s eight wealthiest neighborhoods jumped 55 percent, according to the Fiscal Policy Institute. During the same period, median income fell 3 percent in middle-income areas and 0.2 percent in the poorest neighborhoods, according to U.S. Census data.  So pity the rich.  It must be so hard.  The city's richest 1 percent took home 39 percent of all earnings in 2012, up from 12 percent in 1980, according to the Fiscal Policy Institute, a nonprofit research group in New York.
So de Blasio has called upon some of the city’s wealthiest individuals, to provide about $532 million for universal all-day pre-kindergarten and after-hours middle-school programs.  According to a study conducted by WealthInsight, New York City is home to 70 billionaires, the most in the world; including former Mayor Bloomberg.  New York is also home to 389,000 multi-millionaires, defined as individuals with over $30m each.
De Blasio’s plan would raise the marginal tax rate on incomes above $500,000 to 4.4 percent from almost 3.9 percent. For the 27,300 city taxpayers earning $500,000 to $1 million, the average increase would be $973 a year, according to the Independent Budget Office, a municipal agency.
In New York City I’ve spent more than that on a bottle of wine at dinner.  Perhaps it’s disgusting I can indulge so, but I support this tax 100%.
For those making $1 million to $5 million, the average extra bite would rise to $7,793, the budget office said.  At incomes of $5 million to $10 million, it would climb to $33,518, and for those earning more than $10 million, it would mean paying $182,893 more.
Sounds like a lot?  Let’s compare.  The Gulfstream G650, the favorite of the New York’s wealthy, costs a cool $64.5 million (2013).  But like everything else, you have to maintain that toy.  According to Daniel Kearns, Aircraft Broker, the annual fixed costs of this toy are: Pilots - $231,750.00; Crew Training - $69,380.80; Hangar - $80,000.00; Insurance - $60,000.00; Aircraft Miscellaneous - $28,500.00; for a “modest” total of $444,630.80 per year.  Then you have to add the variable costs (these are hourly) of about $3,263.51 per hour (i.e., fuel, maintenance).  All for a modest cost ranging from $770,981.80 (100 Hours flying) to $3,708,140.80 (1000 Hours flying).
And then a must for any New Yorker of wealth is a summer home in New York’s Hamptons, the resort towns on the Long Island coast; which according to Douglas Elliman Real Estate the average price has reached a neat $2.13 million. (That of course only buys in the slums of Hampton adjacent areas.  The median price for all luxury transactions, the top 10 percent of all sales by price, climbed 17 percent from a year earlier to $7 million, Miller Samuel and Douglas Elliman said.
Then you have to have a car.  The must have for the “socially” conscience elite is the Mercedes-Benz G-Class Wagon.  The 2013 G63 AMG 4dr 4x4 has a base price of $134,300.  Add a few options and you’re just under $200,000. Then you have to park it.  The scarcity of parking has made it a must-have for wealthy apartment buyers, who view a space much as they do a fireplace or a walk-in closet. A spot can cost well over $200,000, or, if rented, more than $2,000 a month for one space. That is just the first car.
And of course one needs nannies for the children.  Luckily, they come relatively cheaply.  Live-in nannies, make an average of $713 a week, which comes to $37,076 a year. Even in posh Park Slope, home of high-priced strollers and children’s clothes that cost more than your average businessman’s suit, earn $16.41 an hour. For those working 50 hours a week, that comes to just $42,666 a year.
Wider Opportunities for Women has calculated how much it takes a family to meet its basic needs without relying on government subsidies, finding that it takes a single parent of a preschooler $41,872 a year to just hit the low mark. Add in another adult and another child and the number jumps up to $59,027.
Remember, about 46 percent of four-person New York families had incomes of no more than about $46,000 and 21 percent lived below the poverty line of about $31,000 for a family of four in 2011.
So exactly what is offensive?
Since the 1970s, the gap between the rich and the poor has never been more severe. Wealth disparity is at its highest level in a century. This ever increasing divide of the haves and have-nothings is cause for concern in that America was built upon a healthy middle class.  More disturbing is that I see a growth of a more shameful divide.  More and more privileged people I know are lacking ability to see oneself in a less advantaged person’s shoes. Reducing the economic gap may be nearly impossible; but I think there is still hope for addressing the divide in empathy.

So how does society address this lack of appreciation and understanding for those less fortunate?  Many people look to their religion and church for guidance.  For example, in Christianity one only need look to the Scriptures for guidance. 
The Scriptures say that governmental authority is to protect the poor in particular. The biblical prophets are consistent and adamant in their condemnation of injustice to the poor, and frequently follow their statements by requiring the king (the government) to act justly. That prophetic expectation did not apply only to the kings of Israel but was also extended to the kings of neighboring lands and peoples.  Psalm 72 begins with a prayer for kings or political leaders: "Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king's son. May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice? May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness. May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor."

Big Surprise - A Pope in his G-Wagon
So Christians should be wholly supportive of this plan.  Right???  But based upon the comments of so may privileged New Yorkers, it doesn't appear that Church or Temple is working. 

The government should be there to support the poor.  And woe to the rich who say this is “offensive.”  Luke 18:25 : “I'd say it's easier to thread a camel through a needle's eye than get a rich person into God's kingdom."
What would Jesus say if he walked in our society today?
I’m an atheist, but my guess is the Jesus written about in the bible would tell these hypocrites they will be burning in hell for eternity based on that vengeful father of Jesus that some call God.  And even though I don't believe in a deity, I do believe in helping the less fortunate.  The best of societies are the ones where those who have the most reach out and help those that are struggling and in need. 

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Give Me Control Of A Nation's Money And I Care Not Who Makes The Laws.

Have banks grown too big? Are there banking institutions which are too big to fail (TBTK)? Many would say yes. But what does that mean?
According to Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone it means:
“Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever.” Matt says that the Illuminati were but mere amateurs. The second huge financial scandal of the year reveals the real international conspiracy: There's no price the big banks can't fix.
Conspiracy theorists of the world, believers in the hidden hands of the Rothschilds and the Masons and the Illuminati, we skeptics owe you an apology. You were right. The players may be a little different, but your basic premise is correct: The world is a rigged game. We found this out in recent months, when a series of related corruption stories spilled out of the financial sector, suggesting the world's largest banks may be fixing the prices of, well, just about everything.
So is the world a rigged game, controlled by banking institutions?
"I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
For the record, that was not Matt Taibbi in 2013, but Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor in 1816. So the fear of banking is not only new but part of the American History. But is it a reasonable fear?

Breaking Inequality is a documentary film about the corruption between Washington and Wall Street which according to the filmmakers has resulted in the largest inequality gap in the history of America. The inequality gap is presently the worst that it has ever been and there seems to be no solution in place to repair this crippling problem.
"No country in the history of the world has ever remained a super power without a middle class and the road we are currently traveling doesn't include this all-important segment of the population. The old saying "As goes the middle class... so goes the nation" holds true even more today than ever."
We live in a world where governments can create as much money as they want in order to fund all kinds of wasteful projects, wars, handouts, and banker bailouts. The current system by design has transferred the wealth from average everyday Americans to an elite few who care not about the majority.

One aspect is clear. Regardless of whom is in control, the “Global Leaders” (be it Banks, Central Bankers, or Merchant Banking Families) are printing money at an alarming rate and the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
"Our public credit is good, but the abundance of paper has produced a spirit of gambling in the funds, which has laid up our ships at the wharves as too slow instruments of profit, and has even disarmed the hand of the tailor of his needle and thimble. They say the evil will cure itself. I wish it may; but I have rarely seen a gamester cured, even by the disasters of his vocation." --Thomas Jefferson to Gouverneur Morris, 1791.
The pricing of 'safe' assets reflects the ongoing uncertainty in a world that is in the grip of the lunacy of policymakers who have seemingly lost all sense of perspective and are engaged in a huge gamble. This essential fundamental backdrop has not changed for the better lately, but for the worse. What this once again demonstrates is that intervention by Central Banks is creating incentives for many institutional investors to take inordinate risks in the name of preserving the purchasing power of the savings that have been entrusted to them. The problem is that the gains of today are absolutely certain to become the losses of tomorrow for investors taking the bait, as the echo bubble created by loose monetary policy is fated to turn into a major bust once the boom has played out. When the tide is going out, a great many naked swimmers will be revealed.

So fiat, paper money is nothing more than gambling at the expense of the people. Thomas Jefferson spoke often and frequently of the dangers of the banking system.
"Everything predicted by the enemies of banks, in the beginning, is now coming to pass. We are to be ruined now by the deluge of bank paper. It is cruel that such revolutions in private fortunes should be at the mercy of avaricious adventurers, who, instead of employing their capital, if any they have, in manufactures, commerce, and other useful pursuits, make it an instrument to burden all the interchanges of property with their swindling profits, profits which are the price of no useful industry of theirs."
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Perhaps we should have better headed Jefferson's warnings. Jefferson was not alone in his view that private banks (the Federal Reserve is a private bank) are dangerous. In one of the most sage statements ever issued as to money was that made by Mayer Amschel Rothschild: “Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws.”
Mayer Amschel Rothschild was a German banker and the founder of the Rothschild family international banking dynasty that became one of the most successful business families in history. His descendants furthered the family fortune across Europe, the "five arrows" of banking. Eldest son Amschel Mayer took over the Frankfurt bank and Salomon moved to Vienna. Nathan turned the London branch into one of Europe's most powerful banking institutions (N. M. Rothschild & Sons), Calmann (gentrified to "Carl") set up a branch in Naples and Jacob ("James") became a giant of finance in Paris.
The Rothschild Family, and their five arrows of banking, has become the center of conspiracy theorist, as well as one of the “founding families” of the Illuminati. Is there some secret society or group of people who are out to control us all? Many would say yes.
Neil Macdonald claims that the world's central banks have printed unimaginable amounts of money in recent years - "these guys are really more powerful than the government." According to Macdonald, "can you imagine if the American public knew there was this 'club' that met secretly in Switzerland and made decisions that dramatically affected their lives, but we're not going to tell you about it because it's too complicated." The club to which he refers is that of the most influential Central Bankers in the world. In this view, the “Swiss Gnomes”, Central Bankers, are the real puppet masters of the World. But is that really plausible? Or is there another master? Many say the Central Bankers are mere puppets. Many argue that the "power of money" constitute the Machiavellian Oz "behind the curtain," and that Central Bankers are their hand maidens and nothing more.
Carroll Quigley, presidential mentor to President Clinton remarked:
"It must not be felt that these heads of the world's chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called "international" or "merchant" bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks. This dominance of investment bankers was based on their control over the flows of credit and investment funds in their own countries and throughout the world. They could dominate the financial and industrial systems of their own countries by their influence over the flow of current funds through bank loans, the discount rate, and the re-discounting of commercial debts; they could dominate governments by their control over current government loans and the play of the international exchanges. Almost all of this power was exercised by the personal influence and prestige of men who had demonstrated their ability in the past to bring off successful financial coupe, to keep their word, to remain cool in a crisis, and to share their winning opportunities with their associates. In this system the Rothschilds had been preeminent during much of the nineteenth century, but, at the end of that century, they were being replaced by J. P. Morgan whose central office was in New York, although it was always operated as if it were in London (where it had, indeed, originated as George Peabody and Company in 1838)."

So if it is not the Central Bankers, who is it that controls the world? Is there some Illuminati or new world order?
Those that believe in the “New World Order” suggest that the Custodial Framework or Network for this new order is:
  • United Nations - Global Police
  • World Bank - Global Lender
  • International Monetary Fund - Global Debt Collector
  • Intelligence - Custodial Eyes & Ears (Mi6, Mi5, CIA, MSS, Mossad, FSB {KGB}, SIS, CSIS, ASIS, DCRI, BND etc)
  • Power & Control Centres - US Council on Foreign Relations, European Council on Foreign Relations, Club of Rome, Bilderberg Group, Royal Institute for International Affairs, Trilateral Commission etc.
  • Main Stream Media - Global Propaganda
  • Hollywood - Global Propaganda and epicentre for Alternative/Pagan/Kabbalic/Ancient Mystery Religious interests.
  • Bank for International Settlements - Global Banking Computer Network for the movement and transfer of Global Currencies (the Back Bone)
  • London Bullion Market Association - Physical distribution and controlling agency of Gold (real wealth)
  • Central banking Network - Physical distribution and controlling agency of Global Currencies (medium of exchange for services, goods and labour)
  • Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries – Global distributor and controlling agency of Global Oil (consumable real wealth).
Sounds like a great Hollywood movie. Jason Bourne perhaps?
So in this New World Order, shall we have a Charlemagne or Alexander the Great, who controls all? The whole thing strikes me as rather Old World centric in that it ignores the superpower struggle for primacy and the old/new developed/emerging schisms which simultaneously exist within and without that framework and which may operate at any given time in tandem or against it.
Then there's the major detail that this all transpires in alpha male land; there are the routine pissing matches and longer term struggles within individual organizations and larger club of clubs to dominate. So is it one Global leader or just a Gentlemen's Club of a select few (who still fight amongst themselves)?
One only need look to the European Union to see how contentious it all is. In the beginning there were a handful of core nations equal in partnership and full of the excitement of a new venture.
But as the events in Cyprus have demonstrated, we find the EU headquarters no longer staffed by equals but a useful front for Berlin which resides in another country. In the EU now there is Germany and then there is everyone else and whatever motives you may ascribe to the Germans and whatever political position you may wish to embrace; Germany has gained control of most of Europe. (Much more pleasant to use Euros than tanks. Charlemagne was actually German.)
So while it is still called the European Union, the Emperor is German and the rest of the Court dances to the Prussian anthem.

Sprechen sie deutsch?
How does this impact Americans?  Well, all investors should take note. the market may be hitting new highs thanks to traders’ games, but the real economy is contracting sharply. This is precisely what happened during the market peaks before the Tech Crash and the 2008 Collapse. Over a period of time wealth declines as the bonds markets hold five times the assets of the equity markets and so the lack of yield, of income, begins to take its toll on consumer spending, on corporate revenues and then on profits and on the ability of those dependent of savings to maintain their standard of living. The continual flow of money has helped the banks and helped corporate borrowers but it has not filtered down to the savers and, in fact, their position has been lessened by what the Fed has done.

The prospective P/E on both US and non-US equities are now at the top of the post crash range. Multiple-expansion has driven the rally in large part on the basis that Central Banks have removed the downside tail to investing but at these valuations (and with the expectations that are still priced in for H2 2013 earnings - up 14% vs up 4% in H1) surely caution is warranted.
In a speech from last week's Milken Institute, Leon Black (Apollo Group) says his firm has been a net seller for the last 15 months, and that they "are selling everything that is not nailed down." Critically lost in the mainstream media's diatribe is his point that as the markets push higher, juiced by the Fed's policies, his firm will be selling more and more into that and harvesting gains (realizing profits) as opposed to watching unrealized gains (and the mirage of a wealth effect). Apollo has had $13bn of 'realizations' in the last 15 months - the most ever - as he sees "the market is pricey... in our view, priced for perfection."

Is Leon Black part of the Illuminati/New World Order? Perhaps. But more importantly, he offers FREE and important advice to us all. Sell assets and prepare for the tide to wash out. Don’t be caught naked.
Food, guns and ammunition (and perhaps Gold and Silver) may be all that is left!

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Reptoids - Rothschilds - Masons - Illuminati

Reptoid - Rothschilds - Masons - Illuminati

What might they have in common?

Matt says that the Illuminati were amateurs. The second huge financial scandal of the year reveals the real international conspiracy: There's no price the big banks can't fix.
Conspiracy theorists of the world, believers in the hidden hands of the Rothschilds and the Masons and the Illuminati, we skeptics owe you an apology. You were right. The players may be a little different, but your basic premise is correct: The world is a rigged game. We found this out in recent months, when a series of related corruption stories spilled out of the financial sector, suggesting the world's largest banks may be fixing the prices of, well, just about everything.
He didn’t mention reptoids, but if you are curious check here.
If what Matt suggests is true:
that would leave us living in an era of undisguised, real-world conspiracy, in which the prices of currencies, commodities like gold and silver, even interest rates and the value of money itself, can be and may already have been dictated from above. And those who are doing it can get away with it. Forget the Illuminati – this is the real thing, and it's no secret. You can stare right at it, anytime you want.
You may have heard of the Libor scandal, in which at least three – and perhaps as many as 16 – of the name-brand too-big-to-fail banks have been manipulating global interest rates, in the process messing around with the prices of upward of $500 trillion (that's trillion, with a "t") worth of financial instruments. When that sprawling con burst into public view last year, it was easily the biggest financial scandal in history – MIT professor Andrew Lo even said it "dwarfs by orders of magnitude any financial scam in the history of markets."
$500 Trillion - almost as much as Donald Trump likes to think he is worth. But turns out that is not all that the Too Big To Fail Banks (otherwise known as the Reptoids - Rothschilds - Masons - Illuminati) have been up to. The evil twin has arrived!
That was bad enough, but now Libor may have a twin brother. Word has leaked out that the London-based firm ICAP, the world's largest broker of interest-rate swaps, is being investigated by American authorities for behavior that sounds eerily reminiscent of the Libor mess. Regulators are looking into whether or not a small group of brokers at ICAP may have worked with up to 15 of the world's largest banks to manipulate ISDAfix, a benchmark number used around the world to calculate the prices of interest-rate swaps.
But we have the FBI and CIA and the Justice Department to stop them, right? Apparently not. The banks mostly skated. Barclays got off with a relatively minor fine in the $450 million range, UBS was stuck with $1.5 billion in penalties, and RBS was forced to give up $615 million. Apart from a few low-level flunkies overseas, no individual involved in this scam that impacted nearly everyone in the industrialized world was even threatened with criminal prosecution.
Two of America's top law-enforcement officials, Attorney General Eric Holder and former Justice Department Criminal Division chief Lanny Breuer, confessed that it's dangerous to prosecute offending banks because they are simply too big. Making arrests, they say, might lead to "collateral consequences" in the economy.

So you get that, your money is just "collateral consequences" to the TBTF.
Michael Hausfeld of Hausfeld LLP, one of the lead lawyers for the plaintiffs in this Libor suit, declined to comment specifically on the dismissal. But he did talk about the significance of the Libor case and other manipulation cases now in the pipeline. "It's now evident that there is a ubiquitous culture among the banks to collude and cheat their customers as many times as they can in as many forms as they can conceive," he said. "And that's not just surmising. This is just based upon what they've been caught at."
All of these stories collectively pointed to the same thing: These banks, which already possess enormous power just by virtue of their financial holdings – in the United States, the top six banks, many of them the same names you see on the Libor and ISDAfix panels, own assets equivalent to 60 percent of the nation's GDP – are beginning to realize the awesome possibilities for increased profit and political might that would come with colluding instead of competing. Moreover, it's increasingly clear that both the criminal justice system and the civil courts may be impotent to stop them, even when they do get caught working together to game the system.
So Banks, the TBTF banks, own assets equal to 60% of the United States' GDP. Lord Acton would point out:
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Enemy Combatant = Police State!

Republican lawmakers issued a statement Saturday urging President Barack Obama to treat Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, as an "enemy combatant."
Historically, the term “enemy combatant” referred to members of the armed forces of one Country with which another Country is at war.
In the United States the phrase "enemy combatant" was used after the September 11 attacks by the George W. Bush administration to include an alleged member of al Qaeda or the Taliban; and, was expanded to include all of those individuals that the “U.S.” believes it is able to hold under the laws of war until the war comes to an end (which could be a long time off in the case of the so-called "war on terror").
So, should 19 year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (who is a naturalized United States citizen, who is alleged to have committed a crime within the United States) be treated as an enemy combatant and questioned by interrogators without any right to due process? Or should the government read Tsarnaev his Miranda rights, notifying him of his right to remain silent as a criminal defendant, among other prerogatives? And, PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANTLY, SHOULD ANY UNITED STATES CITIZEN, WHO IS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME ON THE SOIL OF THE UNITED STATES, EVER BE DENIED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND BE TREATED AS AN “ENEMY COMBATANT?
The very core of American history, law and culture condemns the ideas of punishment before trial, denial of due process and secret government by fiat. The U.S. Supreme Court has held countless times that all persons confined by the government are presumed innocent until proven guilty, must be told the reasons for their confinement and are entitled to challenge those reasons promptly in a court.
The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, prohibits all levels of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1791, asserts that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (§ 1).
The concept of due process originated in English Common Law. The rule that individuals shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without notice and an opportunity to defend themselves predates written constitutions and was widely accepted in England and, was codified by the Magna Charta, an agreement signed in 1215.
Another Constitutional question which arises is why should a US citizen, who is alleged to have committed a crime on US soil, not be treated under the Constitution as a traitor who has committed Treason?
The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. It was noted by lawyer William J. Olson in an Amicus curiae in the case of Hedges v. Obama that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trial by military commission. Further Madison noted, the Treason Clause also was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “adhering to [the United States’s] enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is alleged to have committed a horrendous and brutal act which shocks the conscience; however, should he, OR ANY OTHER AMERICAN CITIZEN, then be declared an enemy combatant and denied rights followed under English common law for centuries and followed here in the United States for over 200 years? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Abandoning legal protections and provisions fundamental to the Constitution and which protect each of us from unwarranted Governmental control and powers is a slippery slope. What is some future President deems speaking out against the Government or the President deems a U.S. citizen and enemy combatant? (Ask those in Germany if such things cannot happen.)
Simply because the alleged actions of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are so heinous, does not mean we should abandon fundamental Constitutional rights and liberties. Republican lawmakers should watch what they wish for!

Remember, if the Government can deem any one Citizen of the United States an "enemy combatant" and take away their Constitutional rights and liberties, then the Government may take them away from any of us for any reason that the Government may deem appropriate (WITH NO RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW).
Benjamin Franklin summed it up best:
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Wednesday, April 17, 2013


Beg your pardon to certain women of the Senate, and FOUR republicans, and no disrespect to decent Eunuchs.
A eunuch (pron.: /ˈjuːnək/; Greek: Ευνούχος) is a man who (by the common definition of the term) may have been castrated, typically early enough in his life for this change to have major hormonal consequences. Eunuchs would probably be servants or slaves who, because of their function, had been castrated, usually in order to make them reliable servants of a royal court where physical access to the ruler could wield great influence (NRA, gun manufactures, lobbyist, etc.).  
With shouts of "Shame on you!" echoing in the chamber, the U.S. Senate failed to muster sufficient support Wednesday for a gun-buyer background check bill crafted by the bipartisan duo of Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and which is supported by nearly 90 percent of Americans.
Senate Republicans, backed by rural-state Democrats, blocked legislation Wednesday to tighten restrictions on the sale of firearms. The background check measure commanded a majority of senators, 54-46, but that was well short of the 60 votes needed to advance. Forty-one Republicans and five Democrats sided together to scuttle the plan.
Meet the "Nos" who support needless murder and death.
Four Democrats broke with their party and voted against the amendment, assuring that the measure would come up short of the 60 votes needed for passage. Three of those lawmakers — Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Max Baucus of Montana, and Mark Begich of Alaska — face competitive re-election races in deep-red states next year. The fourth, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, was elected to her first Senate term in 2012.
Among Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois, John McCain of Arizona and Pat Toomey, sided with Democrats. THEY SHOULD ALL BE AWARDED “PRESIDENTIAL MEDALS OF FREEDOM” FOR THAT. And John McCain you proved you are a “big-swinging” maverick!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a supporter of the plan, switched his vote to the prevailing "no" side to “permit him to call for a revote in the future” (cough, cough).
I ask each of the 41 Republican's and 5 Democrat's who voted against this plan, how they would have voted had it been their children or grandchildren who were killed mercilessly at the Sandy Hook travesty? I also say that the blood of future Americans who are killed senselessly are on YOUR hands. It is as if wish death on the innocent.
Senators meet those whose blood you have on your hands.
Would gun background checks solve all of the problems.....obviously not; but it would be a step in the right direction. Doing nothing makes no sense and says that the lives of the dead are meaningless.
As for assault-style rifles and high capacity ammunition, it makes no sense why anyone but our military needs them. Also gun manufactures make a lot of money by selling fear and weapons of mass destruction.
So today, the “noble” club of 100 Senators proved that they have no self-worth; that they are but mere puppets to their masters; and, that, sadly they lack “the balls” to do anything meaningful and worthwhile. Our founding fathers are crying in their graves (along with the innocent victims for which the Senators showed no remorse or care).
Obama's anger was apparent during his remarks, which were given as families of shooting victims and former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) -- a shooting survivor -- stood behind him. "All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington," Obama said.
Obama spoke on the failed measure Wednesday evening in the White House rose garden. He took to the podium after Mark Barden, the father of a Newtown victim. Obama placed blame on the gun lobby during his remarks. "The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill," Obama said. The president said the failure of the background check bill "came down to politics;" Republican Eunuchs doing as they are told by their masters.
One of the bolder eunuch, Paul Rand, had the temerity to say that Obama was using the Sandy Hook parents as “props; “although he seemed to have no issue with using the children as target practice. President Obama called out Paul on his tasteless comment about the parents being used as props and said to Paul, " really ? Really you believe I would do that ?" As Paul Rand has no problem with children dying, I assume he thinks everyone is as crass as he.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Jesus Packs An Uzi and Teflon Bullets In High Capacity Magazines

The three top arguments which American gun advocates site for owning assault weapons are:
1. People need guns for self-protection in their homes.
[The ultimate in circular arguments. If we had fewer weapons on the street, like most every other industrialized country in the World, this would not be an issue! Australia got rid of guns and showed that it can be done.]
But no, the “bad People” will have guns even if we don’t. So let’s just set up armed camps surrounding our homes with heavily armed guards to stop all “those bad people” (I think some have called that situation as nothing more than living in a prison camp. Sounds pleasant.) While there is some comfort in having a gun to protect yourself against home-intruders, the number of practical issues and problems which you have to overcome in order to be able to adequately defend yourself are so great, it makes little to no sense to truly believe you will be able to defend yourself at all.
First, you need to make certain that you thoroughly train yourself on the use of your firearms and that you constantly keep up and maintain your training. It is not like riding a bike and when in the middle of a crisis even the best trained police say using a weapon is dangerous.
Second, where are you going to keep the gun and the bullets? With you in the shower? How about in the pool? Sunday dinners must be a blast while you carve the roast and check the scope on your surface to air missiles. What a treat to have Santa come down the chimney only to be blasted away by your grandson’s Colt AR-15 Sporter SP1 Carbine.
And if you have children, how are you going to lock the gun and lock away the bullets and still be in a position to use the weapon. Guess all kids should go to military school from kindergarten on so as to be properly trained. Forget swings, just set up Boot camp style training programs with razor wire and live shells in order to instill the values and physical endurance necessary for their patriotic service.
Statistics show time and time again, a person is much more likely to kill or maim a family member or have the weapon used against them than be in a position to use the weapon for self-defense. But slaughtering your family is a small price to pay to feel “safe and secure” on your lounge chair.
Keeping weapons for self-defense is like wearing a trench coat in a nuclear fallout and saying everything will be just fine.
2. Hunters need guns for “hunting” and sport.
[Hunting is no more a sport than killing fish in a barrel.]
So you need to hunt to feed your family? I get that, but do you need more than simply a rifle or shotgun? Last I checked there are few “big game animals (tigers, lions, and bears, oh my)” to hunt in the US.
And as to being a “sport,” what is the sport? The animals aren’t armed. Since the animals don’t carry assault rifles, why would you ever need one?
Is it that you need to prove your virility and importance by killing defenseless animals? Your money would be better spent on therapy and spending time with your wife and young children (or is it a way to avoid them?).
3. American citizens need guns to protect and defend themselves against a tyrannical government which seeks to oppress or kill them.
[The ultimate, grandiose, paranoid, delusional excuse used only by “true” patriots. (Samuel Johnson made this famous pronouncement that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel on the evening of April 7, 1775).]
The most ludicrous part of this idiotic argument is that suddenly, all your neighbors and friends will turn to you, yes you, to have you decide for them that the US Government is now tyrannical and needs to be overthrown (usually called Treason, but hey you are just being a “Patriot.”). But no, the “people” will rise up with you when you decide tyranny is afoot.
Question? What constitutes tyranny? Having to wait in line at the Post Office to me is tyranny, or at least a pain in the ass. But what about you? Maybe you find having stop signs and speed limits tyranny (I would agree on the speed limits). Little old ladies writing checks at the grocery store drives me crazy too.  Don’t they have debit cards?
So now that we see the grandiose delusional nature of these true patriots, let’s visit the stupidity of “taking arms against the tyrants.” The US Government is the best armed military in the world and in history. So you pull out your AK-47, and – HOLY SHIT – the government shows up with Stealth Fighters, Abraham Tanks, Apache Helicopters, and a few thousand troops. But you are not deterred; except, the Government also controls the supply of food, water, gas, etc.
But you are a survivalist. You are prepared. You have your cave all stocked up and ready to go. Please stay in the cave! By the way, the Government also has bunker buster bombs.
If a revolution is ever necessary, it will not be fought by armed citizens, but by all the populace saying enough is enough and demanding change through democracy.
It is time to stop playing GI Joe and grow up. Assault weapons are only designed to kill. Believing that you are “safe” by having them is simply fool’s gold. You have been duped by arms manufacturers (lead by their puppets the NRA) and the ruling oligarchy who wish You to believe You have any control at all of your life.
Gun violence in America is a moral crime. Where are the Churches and all those good Christians demanding a stop to apartide in the United States?
“Jesus” was described as a total pacifist who died on a cross to save his people. Would “Jesus” ever own or use a gun???
 Indoctrination - a satirical look at the insanity of American Gun culture. 

Monday, January 14, 2013


Jodie Foster - The 2013 Cecil B. DeMille Lifetime Achievement Award Recipient.

Jodie Foster's Emotional Speech at Golden Globe... by lpage2424

One of Hollywood’s most glamorous of events, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association’s Golden Globes, became the scene for something rather extraordinary and surprisingly, surprising. Last night, towards the end of the show, Jodie Foster received the Cecil B. DeMille Lifetime Achievement Award. Being only 50, but having worked in the industry for 47 years, Foster made for an interesting recipient. Yet, it was Foster’s acceptance speech which arguably “stole the show.”
In what might be called something of a rambling seven minute speech (or perhaps a well scripted highlight of a career spanning 47 years and fraught with her own personal trials and tribulations), Jodie said that “I want to be seen, to be understood deeply and to be not so very lonely.” She also thanked her extended family of people with whom she had worked for decades. And for many, it sounded as if Foster was announcing her retirement.

But then, in the coup de grâce, Foster came out to the world-wide audience as a lesbian; well almost, sort of. Foster coyly said, "While I’m here being all confessional, I just have the sudden urge to say something I’ve never been able to air in public. A declaration that I’m a little nervous about. Not quite as nervous as my publicist, huh, Jennifer? But uh, you know, I’m just going to put it out there. Loud and proud. I’m going to need your support. I am ………. single!"
Laughter ensued as everyone expected Foster to say she was a lesbian. The confession became comedy and the line between Foster’s true life and her acting became one and the same. Her seeming confession, her saying that she was nervous, her nervous gulp, and the perceived emotional and rawness of the confession were but an act; Foster revealing that she may have been acting and in an instant used her craft to deliver in perfect comedic timing the line “I am …. Single.”

And then in a moment worthy of a true Hollywood twist, the NBC Broadcast sound cut out and went silent for seven seconds. Was there some conspiracy afoot? Had some revealing and poignant statement been deleted? Was it a pre-planned and highly orchestrated moment at the very instant Foster was to have made her grand announcement in order to grab the attention of every eye and ear watching and listening? The silence was deafeningly loud in its effect.
Following the seven seconds of silence, at which point everyone is now rapt with attention, the sound comes back and Foster says that “…. be a big coming-out speech tonight because I already did my coming out about a thousand years ago back in the Stone Age…” Was there any significance in the missed words? It appears not, except that the silence became itself a statement by Foster that she wanted to be heard and understood.

She continued by thanking her two sons, Charles and Christopher, and making reference to their “modern family” and the woman long rumored to be her partner.
“There's no way I could ever stand here without acknowledging one of the deepest loves of my life," said Foster. "My heroic co-parent, my ex-partner in love but righteous soul sister in life, my confessor, ski buddy, consigliere, most beloved BFF of 20 years, Cydney Bernard."

Social media quickly exploded with news of the "coming out," with comments ranging from “everyone already knew” to “what a courageous and wonderful moment.” Many audience members were moved to tears.
Some commentators took a much harsher stance, such as Gawker which posted an article “The Sheer Gall of Celebrities Demanding Privacy.”
"Last night, Jodie Foster, a famous actress who has been a famous actress for many decades, stood on stage at a glittery Hollywood awards show being broadcast around the world, and, in a lengthy, self-glorifying speech, in front of a crowd of the world's most famous people, asked for.... privacy. Is Jodie Foster clinically insane?"
But what exactly did Jodie’s speech mean? As can be seen by the millions of tweets, hundreds of articles and countless comments, the answer is largely in the eye of the beholder. For her part, Foster said the speech spoke “for itself” and represented what was “most in my heart.”

And there, regardless of all the speculation and comment by others as to what Foster meant, Foster’s speech was an intensely personal expression of gratitude; an acknowledgement that, as most everyone knew, she is a lesbian; and, a statement that she intends to continue pursuing a craft which she loves while doing so according to her owns terms, her own sense of privacy.
Much has been made of her call for some sense of privacy. Ironically, in calling out for privacy, Foster expressed some of the most personal and poignant aspects of her life.

"But seriously, if you had been a public figure from the time that you were a toddler, if you’d had to fight for a life that felt real and honest and normal against all odds, then maybe you too might value privacy above all else.”
Adding a bit of sardonic humor to her call for privacy, Foster says:
"But now I’m told, apparently that every celebrity is expected to honor the details of their private life with a press conference, a fragrance and a prime-time reality show."
Did Foster then turn her disdain of the reality television culture into an insider Hollywood joke? She said: "Please don’t cry because my reality show would be so boring. I would have to make out with Marion Cotillard or I’d have to spank Daniel Craig’s bottom just to stay on the air." Was this a veiled reference to rumors within the Hollywood, inner sanctum lexicon of Craig’s own sexuality, much as the rumors had followed Foster throughout her career?

I disagree with Gawker in that regardless of whether you are a Hollywood star, an outstanding athlete, or an internationally famous singer, you do have a right to some level of personal space and privacy. And Foster was not so much asking for privacy as simply stating that it's simply not relevant whether she is gay or straight and saying that she does not have to tell anyone or address it in any way.
Then, as she moved to the end of her speech, Foster let down that veil of privacy and revealed herself, in the most poignant part of her speech.
"There are a few secrets to keeping your psyche intact over such a long career. The first, love people and stay beside them.” ... “Lifers. My family and friends here tonight and at home, and of course, Mel Gibson. You know you save me too.”
At this point, the cameras cut to Gibson's face. They have been friends since the early days and she has remained beside him despite his homophobia, anti-Semitism, fanatical Christianity (Foster herself professing to being “an atheist”), misogyny and the fact that much of “Hollywood” now hates him. By including Mel Gibson not only at her table but by calling him out in the speech, Foster demonstrated that despite vast differences in ideology and despite public turmoil, that friendship should be cherished and not simply endured.

And finally, like an Oscar winning drama, Foster addressed perhaps one of the most intense and personal aspects of her life, that of her tumultuous life with her mother.
"This brings me to the greatest influence of my life, my amazing mother, Evelyn. Mom, I know you’re inside those blue eyes somewhere and that there are so many things that you won’t understand tonight. But this is the only important one to take in: I love you, I love you, I love you. And I hope that if I say this three times, it will magically and perfectly enter into your soul, fill you with grace and the joy of knowing that you did good in this life. You’re a great mom. Please take that with you when you’re finally OK to go.”

Her plea to her mother was a beautiful, heartfelt moment of unconditional love. Shots of the audience showed many in tears. It is reported that Foster’s mother has advanced stage Alzheimer’s; yet, given the complicated relationship which Foster has had with her mother, one cannot help but wonder if there were multiple meanings to Foster’s saying “Mom, I know you’re inside those blue eyes somewhere.”
But in the end it was forgiveness; the ultimate and last gift which she could give to a mother with whom she had suffered a difficult and painful coexistence. Remember only “love, love, love.” Foster echoed this in her tribute to her sons, telling them that "This whole song is for you!”

So while we may all speculate as to the nuances of Jodie’s speech, it may perhaps be best to simply agree with Foster that her speech represented what was “most in my heart.”