The World Economic Collapse Explained In Under 3 Minutes!

Believe it or not, the world economic crisis actually does encompass more than just your immediate household income. Unfortunately, your personal economic crisis is the only one you can do anything about... and there's really nothing you can do about it. So, how did we get into this mess, and exactly what is the "mess" that we are in?

Okay, there's nothing up my sleeves, and I have here in front of you three walnut shells and one pea. Your job is to keep your eye on the pea... and here we go!

Did I just see one of those cartoon light bulbs above your head... or are you totally confused now? Does the procedure they explained sound familiar to you? The International Monetary Fund is nothing more than a clearing house for meaningless paper. The entire world seems to have entered into an informal, unstated agreement to accept IOU's as negotiable currency.

What is the main cause of Europe's financial crisis? The single currency called the "euro". Yes, it was convenient to be able to travel though out most of Europe without having to worry about exchange rates, without having to deal with multiple unfamiliar currencies or having to do currency conversions in your head to insure you weren't being ripped off. The euro was initially used for non-cash transactions between banks. Personally, I was surprised the euro stayed strong for as long as it did. It was a good thing there were a few fairly healthy economies involved from the outset, or the euro wouldn't have survived my 18 month expectation. In fact, in September of 2000, the European Central Bank (ECB) had to intervene to prop up the failing euro, which had lost 30% of it's value in less than 20 months. In January of 2002 the first euro banknotes and coins were released to the 12 participating European Union nations for use as currency, and by March 1st, 2002 the euro was the only legal tender in those 12 countries. The EU has since increased to a total of 15 member nations.

What do those nations have in common - other than financial hard times? They are socialist countries. As laughable as the comedy routine above may be, it is an accurate representation of just how the world is responding to this financial crisis. And, as long as the banks of the world are in agreement on the process, it can continue - and possibly even be successful. Why? Because "currency" is what "we" determine it to be. Currency has only the value which we assign to it, whether it has intrinsic value or not. One society used rocks with holes drilled in them as currency, another used woodpecker scalps, and another used porpoise teeth as their medium of exchange for goods and services.

For some strange reason, our current one-term President seems to admire the way the Europeans do things, and desires to remake the United States in their image - the type of governance against which our forefathers and founders fought in order to to extricate themselves from under the rule of tyranny. Our Constitution was designed in such a way as to insure our sovereignty and our God-given rights and freedoms were protected.

As the poet Dylan Thomas once wrote:

"Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

In our case, the light that is dying is from the lamp of freedom, and those that would extinguish it are among us!
The freedoms that are worth fighting for are the same freedoms that make it easy for those who would do our nation harm.

INSURRECTION 101 - HOW TO PROVOKE AN INSURRECTION

Insurrection has been defined as:
"The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.", and as synonymous with "rebellion", which is defined thus:
"rebellion: a rebellion against the government or rulers of a country, often involving armed conflict."

Insurrection has been described as not only necessary, but as a virtual obligation - "When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensible of duties." -- Marquis de Lafayette
(For those of you who may not remember the finer details of our early-American history, the Marquis de Lafayette was a French noble who served in the Continental Army, as a Major General, during the American Revolution, 1777-1779 .)

"The late rebellion in Massachusetts has given more alarm than I think it should have done. Calculate that one rebellion in thirteen states in the course of eleven years, is but one for each state in a century and a half. No country should be so long without one. Nor will any degree of power in the hands of government prevent insurrections." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.

How did we reach a point in these United States, 145 years after the "Civil War", that the word insurrection would be mentioned in any sentence relating to our internal affairs? The Civil War as also known as the War Between The States, which is more accurate, inasmuch as there is no record of any of the combatants requesting permission from an opponent to shoot at him, or apologizing after the fact for his termination. The war wasn't the least bit "civil".

Perhaps the Marquis de Lafayette and Jefferson were correct. The will of a free people can only be ignored by their elected government for so long, before there are grumblings of anger and resentment against that government. But, as they say, "talk is cheap" (unless it's a 60 second Super Bowl commercial on TV). Actually, according to our Constitution, talk costs nothing as it falls under the First Amendment's "freedom of speech". Of course we know that it means we are free to say that which is on our mind, but nobody has any obligation to provide us with a free venue for presenting those thoughts. But, I digress...

Insurrection could be very loosely interpreted as any expressed disagreement with the government or other ruling body. However, the word "insurrection" has historically been used to describe an armed and violent expression of such disagreement. Are we on the verge of such an expression? I still slightly doubt that we are. Are the dangerous TEA Party participants ready to usurp authority of their government? The question itself is ludicrous. The only acts of violence involving TEA Parties have been brought to the party by outside influences - such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) egging vehicles at the recent Searchlight, NV TEA Party. SEIU members have also been filmed invading the "personal space" (the space between colleagues during a normal conversation, is usually about 20 to 36 inches. If the person is not well known to us,we will stand from 2 to 4 feet away during a conversation.) of others and "getting in their face" in an attempt to provoke a physical reaction. So far these tactics have been unsuccessful, but... sooner or later the liberal, government-sponsored union thugs will get just what they want from somebody. And when they do, it will be plastered all over the media for days! Who are the people threatening violence and name-calling in Arizona over their new immigration law? Is it the conservative right (who are supporting their Governor's efforts to enhance their safety) or the liberal socialist left (who believe that anybody should be allowed into our country at any time without any documentation)? And which side has the President's support? Those who would like to see the federal government live up to it's Constitutional obligation to secure our borders, or those would would like "open borders" - which is the equivalent of NO BORDERS at all?

Here's the bottom line - governments provoke an insurrection by thumbing their nose at the expressed will of the people, and/or instigating confrontations between government agents (official registered agents, like law enforcement - or unofficial government sponsored thugs, like the SEIU) and normally non-confrontational groups (like the TEA Party participants).

The worst abuse of government power thus far within our borders was undoubtedly the use of the United States Army against the "Bonus Army". In 1924, a grateful Congress voted to give a bonus to World War I veterans - $1.25 for each day served overseas, $1.00 for each day served in the States. The catch was that payment would not be made until 1945 (the obvious hope being that many of those veterans would die before they could receive that which they had been promised). However, by 1932 the nation had slipped into the dark days of the Depression and the unemployed veterans wanted their money immediately.

The Bonus Army was composed of 10,000-15,000 American veterans of World War 1, most of whom were conscripted (drafted) into service. Their cause during the summer of 1932 was to pressure the government into living up to its promise of "adjusted compensation" for their lost earnings during their service. These men did nothing violent - they were simply an embarrassment to the government. Insurrection at a more controlled level. But violence was brought upon them by the Hoover administration (see accompanying video).

The big surprise for me was the name of the Army officer who led the cavalry charges into those veterans... Major George S. Patton Jr. The lesson to be learned from this encounter is that our government is not above using our military to control civilian dissent.

An insurrection is provoked in the same manner as a barroom brawl. Somebody pushes somebody else, either physically or emotionally, until the "pushee" responds in some manner. The response could be verbal: "You #$@!&**#!", but it provides the pusher with enough justification to retaliate and not immediately be seen as the jerk he is by onlookers. A response of physical force ameliorates the pushers culpability even further: "He swung first, so he deserved to be crippled when I hit him with that bar stool!"

In an ideological insurrection it becomes more difficult to determine which party is the provocateur. To my way of thinking though, the responsibility should always lay upon the shoulders of the provocateur. The provocateur is the one doing the "baiting"... similar in most respects to what the law now refers to as "entrapment" by law enforcement personnel. If you don't call a black man by the feared and awesome "N" word, he probably won't beat the hell out of you with the first handy object he finds. And if you do use the feared and awesome "N" word, when he does beat the hell out of you, he - and most witnesses to the event - will feel he was completely justified in doing so. (Whatever happened to the legal concept of "sticks and stones"?)

So, if you are ever faced with legitimate opposition, and you feel motivated to squelch that opposition:
First - make sure you label the aggrieved party(ies) as "right-wing nuts", "loonies", "Nazis" and/or "racists". That makes you the "good guy"... and you get to wear the white hat. Your opponents immediately get to wear the fools cap and the idiot mittens.
Second - insure that your mirrors are all polished to a high luster and that your smoke machines are fully loaded.
Justify, justify, justify - No matter how idiotic your position might be, justify it! There are copious numbers of dullards in the world who will believe you if you are charismatic! (Almost three decades ago an unusual series of events led to the deaths of more than 900 people, led by the Rev. Jim Jones of "Jonestown" infamy, in the middle of a South American jungle. After relocating to California in 1965, the church continued to grow in membership and began advocating their left-wing political ideals more actively. In November 1978, California Congressman Leo Ryan arrived in Guyana to survey Jonestown and interview its inhabitants. After reportedly having his life threatened by a Temple member during the first day of his visit, Ryan decided to cut his trip short and return to the U.S. with some Jonestown residents who wished to leave. As they boarded their plane, a group of Jones's guards opened fire on them, killing Ryan and four others. Jones told his followers that Ryan's murder would make it impossible for their commune to continue functioning. Rather than return to the United States, the People's Temple would preserve their church by making the ultimate sacrifice: their own lives. Jones's 912 followers were given a deadly concoction of a purple drink mixed with cyanide, sedatives, and tranquilizers. Jones apparently shot himself in the head.)

As you can see, even a lunatic can generate charisma. Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Nathan Bedford Forrest (founder of the KKK), George Lincoln Rockwell (founder of the American Nazi Party).. the list goes on and on. Charismatic leadership is nothing more than "a rare personal quality attributed to leaders who arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm." They do not have to be honorable, well-intentioned, or even particularly intelligent people to be charismatic. They can however, focus the wills of like-minded individuals on the accomplishment of a single goal... for example national health care, or government control over critical industries such as manufacturing and finance... or the elimination of Jews from the face of the Earth.

Charisma is no substitute for honor, but "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King."

OPEN YOUR EYES AMERICA!

DUTCH LAWMAKER TO BE TRIED FOR "HATE CRIMES" - You Be The Judge...

On August 10, 2009 I posted a profile of a Dutch parliamentarian named Geert Wilders. It seems that old Geert's outspokenness has since created a bit of a problem for him. Freedom of speech is apparently being attacked on a worldwide scale. There are very few places in the world that enjoy the level of freedom that we in the United States do, but, in the past, the Netherlands has roughly approximated our freedoms.

Geert Wilders is what we in the USA would call a "maverick". As the parliamentary "herd" moves along in lock-step, Geert tends to drift away from the main body and "do his own thing". This is not necessarily a bad thing. The world needs more mavericks to keep things in balance... especially in a socialist nation such as the Netherlands, where their "liberalism" is applicable only to those things with which they agree.

But then, that is true of any liberal, socialist government. Basically the philosophy is one of, "We will support your right to kill unborn children, but not the right of another to speak out against such acts." Then that philosophy is "broad-brushed" across the entire spectrum of political and social issues. The Dutch government has demonstrated an attitude such that it is acceptable to speak of Islam in glowing terms, but not to find fault with it. Wilders produced a video entitled "Fitna" (I found it for rent at my local video store) which means "strife", a 17-minute anti-Qur'an movie, which features quotations from the Qur'an interspersed with footage of terrorist atrocities and speeches by Muslim preachers.

The controversial MP has also been criticized for writing anti-Islamic articles and letters which were later published in a mainstream Dutch newspaper. As this case progresses through the Dutch court system we will see that it is more than one man that is on trial... it is the entire concept of FREEDOM OF SPEECH (and thought, and self-expression), and - when one loses that freedom - the other freedoms are in danger of perishing as well!

There is no nation on this planet which can, or does, guarantee it's residents the right to never be upset, disappointed, or offended by something somebody else may say or do. Life isn't easy, and human beings are not perfect, so we have to learn to just suck it up and get on with whatever we were doing.

The Qur'an, as with most religious texts, is subject to the interpretation of man. And there is much discussion over the seemingly conflicted instructions given to Muhammad by Allah. There are those verses that council conversion to Islam through beautiful preaching, persuasion, kindness, understanding and forgiveness. Then there are the "Sword Verses" (Qur'an 9:5-9:29), which are believed by the majority of non-Muslims to essentially say, kill the non-believer. These verses are probably the leaders among those sparking controversy. For example, three well-respected Islamic scholars (two Muslims, one western scholar) translate Qur'an 5:29 as:

1. "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

2. "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

3. "Do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam."

With the exception of the final thought in each translation, the interpretations are quite similar. I can see where the Muslim extremists could believe that acts of terrorism are, if not demanded, at least encouraged by 9:5. Which brings us to another problem - the Muslim extremists do not wear signs that allow the rest of the world to differentiate between them and the "moderate" Muslims. Instead they hide themselves among the populations of those (assumed to be) peaceful, moderate Muslims. Another Islamic scholar even said this - "The later verses, known as the “Sword Verses” (9:5 and 9:29), were considered by Muslim scholars to have canceled the previous verses mandating kindness and persuasion. Expansionist jihad became the explicit norm."

Personally, I agree with Wilders' evaluation of the Islamic threat. The goal of Islam is to rule the world. Islam brings with it the draconian Sharia "law" - made in the 7th century and has stayed in the 7th century. Sharia is the antithesis of our constitution and it is the enemy of freedom - especially for women. Sharia is the equivalent of a rules book for social lynch mobs.

Freedom and Independence - Intrinsic or Extrinsic Values?

The following are my own thoughts on the concepts of freedom and independence. I am not a philosopher (at least, not of any note), nor am I an "expert" on any particular subject. I am, however, a functioning, sentient, thinking being - as are most people who are capable of operating a computer. Today's question is: Are the values of freedom and independence intrinsic or extrinsic values? (Which brings up two adjunct questions: 1. if they are either - or both - are they equally valued by individuals around the world and 2. if they are not universal values how are they regionally divided?

FREEDOM
The dictionary defines freedom as: "1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another c : the capacity to exercise choice; free will". Freedom is an intrinsic value in that it does have worth in and of itself, and there can be no price tag upon a philosophical construct. I believe that - from infancy - human beings have a desire to exercise freedom. I also believe that from the moment of birth, our social environment does everything it can to prevent us from being truly free. We are "free" only so long as we function within certain, written and unwritten social guidelines, unless we live alone... on an otherwise deserted island. Living within a society requires that we learn the culture and customs of that society, and our indoctrination begins shortly after birth. Many of these customs have become rules, which our society calls laws. For breaking a written rule/law there are prescribed punishments which vary depending upon the socially perceived seriousness of the offense. How free do you feel?

INDEPENDENCE
Independence is defined as - "The state or quality of being independent; freedom from dependence; exemption from reliance on, or control by, others; self-subsistence or maintenance; direction of one's own affairs without interference." Once upon a time, Americans were highly independent, both individually and as a national body. There was a certain, limited amount of interdependence - from the time of the pilgrims until the mid-20th century. During colonial era, time were hard and resources were limited. Settlements were small and necessarily close-knit, and the need for interdependence was high in the areas of food production and settlement security. Neighbors helped neighbors... not because of some mandate from the King or some appointed Governor, but because they "were all in it together", and individual successes were the keystone to group successes, and there was safety in numbers. This social kinship continued through the American Revolution, the American Civil War (naturally restricted to being kept within the geographical boundaries of the land areas [North-South]occupied by the combatants). As the country expanded westward during the 1800's and western territories were populated by pioneers, the established eastern states were considered the production centers of the U.S.A., a distinction they maintained until the 20th century. Unfortunately, the latter half of the 20th century was when things began to change. For the most-part, through the 1950's neighbors still watched out for neighbors, although some deterioration of this cultural trait was beginning to be felt in the major metropolitan areas, like New York, Atlanta, Detroit Dallas and Chicago. If the Jones kid was being a little jerk, Mister or Missus Smith would "give him what for", and then insure that his parents were informed at the earliest possible time. People still went to town and left the windows of their home open in the summer, and didn't make a habit of locking their doors at any time of the day or night. Rarely would an automobile be found locked. Why? Because they knew that somebody in the neighborhood was paying attention to what went on, and that person wasn't the least worried about "getting involved". The moral and social decay within the US began in the 1960's with the "drug culture". Suddenly many people either didn't know their neighbors, or knew them too well and opted not to associate with them. The trust was lost - only to be replaced by suspicion and fear. And, with the loss of trust, the neighborly bond was also broken. What was good, and had worked so well for the neighborhood, was replaced by the "ME generation". The question went from "What can I do to help you?" to "What's in it for me if I help you?" Nonetheless, I still believe that human beings are born with a desire for independence, but in many cases that person is ridiculed by their peers - "Whatchoo mean you wanna J.O.B.? Fool, you can be supported by the gubmint and not have to hit a lick!". In many other
instances people are born into a "welfare family" and lose whatever ambitions they may have had to become independent. Today, the welfare community grows by leaps and bounds, as the tax base supported by those who are employed - and actually work for a living - shrinks. Can you understand how eventually we will wind up with many more "grasshoppers" than the "ants" can support? Yet our government continues to spend tax money supporting the indolent, thereby forcing us ever closer to becoming a socialist country. Socialism works... until you run out of other people's money. Are you truly independent... or are you a part of the problem?

We cannot call ourselves "independent" when we desire, request and expect the government to take care of all our needs.

Our freedoms and our independence are being leeched away, and the general population doesn't even seem to notice... or perhaps they just don't care. Either condition is deplorable.

(I shortened this posting substantially, so I could turn my attention to a more serious issue facing America. Don't touch your dial... )

Gimme A Large Order of FREEDOM, And A Side of INDPENDENCE... TO STAY!

I was checking my email this morning when I noticed somebody had sent me a link to a YouTube video. My curiosity bested me, and I clicked on the link. The production was made in 1948, but it is SO TODAY! I thought to myself, "Everybody in the country should see this!" It impressed me enough to post the link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3U_5lqKh4U (you will probably have to copy & paste the URL into your browser, since the link is not underlined or in blue)

There are some things in this world which appear to be timeless. This little video is one of those timeless things, and it's still appropriate 61 years later. Even more appropriate on our U.S. Memorial Day than most other days.