VENTING: THE MISSING VOICE IN THE DEBT DEBATE APOCALYPSE THEATER
OK...like you, I'm only human, and every now and then I have to blow off steam, to vent, otherwise, I, like you, would explode. It's been a little more than a week since the "debt debate" between the Dummycrooks in the Senate and White House, and the Republithugs in the House, and their shills on CNN, FOX, ABC, &c, all interviewing each other on what they thought about it. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty much still disgusted by it. Of course it was the usual finger-pointing: your party set record spending levels, no your party did. Our credit rating will drop from triple A status by the ratings houses (the same ratings houses, incidentally, that gave triple A ratings to the derivatives that led to this mess in the first place, and which they promoted). And of course, all the while, in this financial apocalypse theater, while the "two" parties were pointing fingers at each other, financial confidence itself took a few hits, not to mention the jarred and jittered nerves of the American people.
No one seemed to have noticed that this whole mess they all knew was looming in the first place, and did nothing. So much for leadership from the White House, from the Senate, from the House. At the last minute, a deal was worked out, and legislation - which no one seems to know the deals of (shades of Nancy "Midnight Gunner" Pelosi) - has been "crafted." Dummycrooks want higher taxes on corporations making record profits, a stupid idea in the NAFTA-GATT free-market disaster that they and their Republithug counterparts have placed the country under in the last few decades, since that would only drive even more dwindling jobs overseas, and the Republithugs are chafing under the cuts in the defense budget for all the wars they've gotten us into (add Libya to that in the Dummycrook column), and it all adds up to a colossal bi-partisan mess.
The debt ceiling will be raised, and raised again, and raised again, so that the banksters can sit in their manors and continue to clip coupons, while the rest of us pay for Midnight Gunner Pelosi's "health care" and G.W. Bush's "War on Terror" and our smart meters.
During the whole debate, there was one voice notably absent from the interviewing panels of CNN, FOX, ABC &c, and that was Congressman and former presidential candidate Ron Paul. One can only guess at what he might have said - being a supporter of the idea of the abolition or nationalization of the Federal Reserve (you remember that? that was the wonderful institution given to us by the "party of the people" under Woodrow Wilson back in 1913 - but we can guess. In the whole structured "debate" paraded for us by the shills of the American media, and the sock puppets in the White House and Congress, no fundamental issue was really raised. And already we hear the jockeying for the elections of 2012: if only our party (insert Dummycrook or Republithug here) had control of all the branches of government, then we could accomplish something.
Well, I for one am not buying either product.
10 Comments
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.
The United States, once a nation of small businesses and farms, became dominated by monopolies and cartels in nearly every industry. Now, the international monopolies have much of the power of old, without the noblesse.
The governments only proper role is a check on private power, never as an aid to it.
Unfortunately, since Americansrequire the illusion of self-government, we have “elections”.
They won’t say in Chicago, but, “The fix is in”.
I think Jesse Ventura summed it up nicely in two statements he made about politics:
Politics is like Monday Night Wrestling – people make a big scene of being bitter enemies on camera, but when the cameras are off, they are drinking buddies.
Politics is show business for ugly people.
And, as the old saying goes; “I know they’re lying – their lips are moving.”
I am for one very dubious about Ron Paul. Remember those “money bombs” he did a while back? Lots of money raised and what did anyone have to show for it?? Zilch. Also if you dig through youtube you can find a wee video of him shaking hands with a chat show host (masonic one of course) … and … he also wrote a book called “The Case For Gold” with a guy called Lewis Lehrman. Lehrman was one of those lovely PNAC boys. The ones who called for a New Pearl Harbor. Remember them??? And five minutes later, voila … a New Pearl Harbor (!!). Wow what a coincidence!!
Anyway, forget Ron Paul, guys, he ain’t going to save you. I mean he has been in Washington for how many years now(??) … and still nothing really to show for it. And he “believes” in the US government’s own 911 conspiracy theory . He must be a great guy then, surely??
Best wishes all
HPrice
Also, if you ask Ron Paul (or any of his staff) to define what a right is, something Dr. Paul alleges to be a champion of, he will NOT tell you what he thinks a right is. Don’t take my word for it. Ask him yourself just like I did.
I find this very discomforting.
The whole debate over “raising the debt limit,” which is turning into an annual event kind of like the annual runs “commemorating” 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing, was nothing but a charade and I am proud to say that I did NOT watch a millisecond of it.
When it comes to American politics, I like to go back to the basics:
“…All experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
So I ask YOU who read this:
Are the evils “sufferable?” Will a time come or a tempo be reached where they are NOT?
What say YOU?
A few thoughts for everyone.
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.”
– Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope
“The Rhodes Scholarships, established by the terms of Cecil Rhode’s seventh will, are known to everyone. What is not so widely known is that Rhodes in five previous wills left his fortune to form a secret society, which was to devote itself to the preservation and expansion of the British Empire. And what does not seem to be known to anyone is that this secret society … continues to exist to this day. … This group is, as I shall show, one of the most important historical facts of the twentieth century.” 354 pages, softcover.
Carroll Quigley, The Anglo American Establishment.
“There is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocking, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” (Woodrow Wilson, 1913, quoted in Dr. Dennis Cuddy’s book, “Secret Records Revealed”, p. 24)
Benjamin Disraeli, “the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes”
Season of Treason
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LxY_H5V0Kw
A little George Washington from his farewell address.
(I might not agree with everything said, but Washington seemed quite astute about some current woes)
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
“….
All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
…”
“…
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume. …..”
“…
As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate. …”
Of course, Washington didn’t have to deal with a Federal Reserve and control of our resources by an entity put in place, IHMO, to siphon off money from the country. Is it a coincidence that war after war followed?
Cool, hot post Joe! Well said.
Ron Paul was making statements about it through the whole thing, you just had to seek him out to find it.
Like Charles is saying though, this isn’t about politicians, they’re at the beck and whim of coporations which is what the gov really is anyway.
You’ve delved into the shadow power so you’ve had to have looked deeper at the council of 300, 12, MJ12 and all the other ones right?
If not, well its time. The plan is in effect, divine and terrestrial so just sit back and enjoy the show. its all a show man, this life is a cosmic joke, a cosmic trip for your higher self to have an experience in the densest reality know to exist!
~Adonai
I’m unsure why you are drawn into blaming politicans Joseph. The point is to bomb the system with too much stress. And frankly I agree with that. The sideshow in Congress is to make it look like there’s a choice. There isn’t.