Say Soulless and then Sold Us out loud. They sound remarkably, the same.
One of my more recent Heroines is Stephanie McCurry, on account of Her scholarly work “Confederate Reckoning: power and politics in the civil war south” (2010, Harvard University Press). Utilizing copious official records and documents, Her said work aptly demonstrates that the CSA ideal of White Supremacy and Patriarchy, as represented by Jefferson Davis, in Congress, and otherwise, was based on the idea that Thomas Jefferson did not include Blacks and Women in the Declaration of Independence and that consequently they are not included within the Body Politic of this society, only White males are.
This same idea serves as the foundation of Conservatism as it exists today. This fact is so obvious that no reasonable person of average sensibilities requires any further proof of it, because it is, veritably, “self evident”.
Now I mentioned towards the end of my previous blog entry that people had incorporated their real estates into municipalities. But contrary to what Conservatives would have you believe, this did not result in a heavenly Elysium, there were still the unpropertied, the Libertines, the social deviants, however you prefer to refer to US see Cohens v. Virginia 19 U.S. 264 (1821) @ US 269 citing and quoting “An Act to incorporate the inhabitants of the City of Washington, in the District of Columbia”ff @274,
” Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That the City Council shall provide for the support of the poor, infirm and diseased of the City.”;
And @ 284:
“[T]o cause all vagrants, idle or disorderly persons, all persons of evil life or ill fame, and all such as have no visible means of support, or are likely to become chargeable to the City as paupers, or are found begging or drunk in or about the streets, or loitering in or about tippling houses, or who can show no reasonable cause of business or employment in the City; and all suspicious persons, and all who have no fixed place of residence, or cannot give a good account of themselves, all eves-droppers and night walkers, all who [19 U. S. 285] are guilty of open profanity, or grossly indecent language or behaviour publicly in the streets, all public prostitutes, and such as lead a notoriously lewd or lascivious course of life, and all such as keep public gaming tables, or gaming houses, to give security for their good behaviour for a reasonable time,
and to indemnify the City against any charge for their support, and in case of their refusal or inability to give such security, to cause them to be confined to labour for a limited time, not exceeding one year at a time, unless such security should be sooner given. But if they shall afterwards be found again offending, such security may be again required, and for want thereof, the like proceedings may again be had, from time to time, as often as may be necessary; to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which free negroes and mulattoes, and others who can show no visible means of support, may reside in the City; to cause the avenues, streets, lanes and alleys to be kept clean, and to appoint officers for that purpose”.
It is fair to conclude that these foregoing ‘types’ were excluded -e.g., , “to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which free negroes and mulattoes, and others who can show no visible means of support, may reside in the City” or unless they could “give security for their good behaviour for a reasonable time”.
What is interesting to me is the way in which the governed persons or types are described, for example a fair reading of this provision would allow a person: to live a “lewd or lascivious course of life” as long as they weren’t “notorious”; or use “indecent language” as long as it wasn’t “grossly” indecent; in fact there is a clear pattern of distinction between the public and private, spheres of existence, even in the case of prostitution.
Various aspects regarding the foregoing ‘types’ were eventually denounced by the Courts. Free speech and expression was extended: in FCC v Pacifica “indecent speech” (under the “safe harbor” condition in re public broadcasting) was ruled as “protected speech”. Profane speech is also protected. The public/private distinction still applies, but to varying degrees, because of the innovations in the 1870s with Anthony Comstock. It is undeniable that statues enacted in pursuance of Constitutional Amendment can and have been used to successfully further Liberation as long as the will exists to do so at the US Supreme Court cf. Cohens @US 284
“[T]o restrain and prohibit the nightly and other disorderly meetings of slaves, free negroes and mulattoes, and to punish such slaves by whipping, not exceeding forty stripes*, or by imprisonment not exceeding six calendar months”.
Obviously, similar provisions occurred in the various States; and in many instances we have the Courts eventually telling the Conservatives, you can’t do this, it violates Liberty or as applied against the States by incorporating the Bill of Rights against the States, by the US Const 14th Amendment ; but this was not allowed at the Federal level until the 14th Amendment became a part of the US Constitution, and that only happened after a Civil War.
If was between that time that majoritarian politics in conjunction with conditions imposed by the US Supreme Court, worked hand and glove to undermine and weaken the progress made by “the Civil War” amendments and Federal law, by the utilization of various jurisdictional pretensions and new found ‘technicalities’.
As a result, Conservative propaganda successfully creates the illusion that all of these severe conditions imposed upon Liberty are part of an essential tradition or national religion which has to be imposed upon those “originally excluded” all for the good of White Christian Male society, while the 14th Amendment in conjunction with 42 USC 1983 now requires those acting under color of State law - to show a compelling reason for the imposition of such conditions or deprivations. The problem in this regard is that the Court can only act if a person is injured in derogation of a protected right and they’re willing to allow such person to be heard.
While it is true that Congress can make it easier for injuries to be recognized by the courts as injuries; and easier for persons to bring their cause to the courts for vindication: this is something that Conservatives aren’t keen to allow and it doesn’t seem to me, 1st hand, that any of the Democratics are keen to challenge them, either.
So these chronic conditions persist and fester and have only received attention when Conservatives did not have a controlling majority of the Judiciary.
Exclusion was exacerbated after uber importations of cheap immigrant labor, for the purposes of domestic manufacturing; and as these groups organized and demanded inclusion a division occurred and became further exacerbated by political and social action.
There were those that considered themselves “true Americans” and then there were ‘these others’.
One of the material points regarding this division are the means employed with the design to achieve inclusion.
What degree of necessity would require the “originally excluded” to organize, according to the cause of their exclusion - viz., their “special interest”, in order to move the masses to Amend the US Constitution to authorize and accommodate, their inclusion? But to that extent, this has already been effectuated, except for age. Some will aptly note that the end itself has not been effectuated. The irony, here, is that all this form of inclusion assures is a right to vote - which may only be vindicated in the courts - and the privileges and immunities afforded to all other citizens, which also, may only be vindicated in the courts.
So as long as such division persists, the only available means to resolve the matter is through the courts or else by civil and/or private war.
And I can tell you 1st hand, that Democratic-republicans truly hate and despise pro se litigants (a person representing themselves in court) possibly more than any other being on the planet. As this ethos exists today, it is presumed that if you are pro se, then you are incarcerated. So what this situation amounts to is that you have to hire a lawyer in order to attempt the vindication of any such right, in a court of law. If you can’t afford one, which most people can’t, then your demise, the same as your “original exclusion” is in the hands of those that can.
This is a consequence of plutocracy that is never addressed by anyone - William O. Douglas was one of a very few that did; and consequently, with their demise, the abuse of pro se litigants by Conservatives occupying the courts, has flourished.
Now even if the Democratic-republicans miraculously progressed in this regard and afforded any protections to pro se litigants, the reality remains, that no matter what you do in terms of Amending the US Const or in terms of legislation in pursuance thereof, it means absolutely nothing and is of no value whatsoever unless
(1) The will to allow your cause to be seriously heard and considered is present at the courts and
(2) You have enough money to hire a lawyer whom the courts are willing to respect and listen to.
Your chances of doing either before any Conservative “jurist” is zero. Lawyers will even demand that you change your cause in order to “please” the court.
So if you think Congress and the executive are fucked up you don’t even want to know what the Conservatives did to the Judiciary but you should, because this is something that has to be fixed, far more than deficits and debts, because the courts are the sole alternative to private and civil war.
This ethos of exclusion, under present circumstances, makes Liberty for the masses, apparently hopeless, which is precisely what the Conservatives seek to conserve. At the same time this is something that equal protection may be used to correct, if the will to do so exists at Congress; but as it stands the Democratic-republicans only allow inclusion in terms of voting, not in terms of any other Liberties, unless they directly affect the outcome of elections.
This, like flat taxes, allows the plutocrats to determine your fate in almost any situation, simply because they have no issues, they are never excluded from anything and everything is always available to them.
The Democratic-republicans force you to live by the plutocratic standard which is a standard that does not comport with your own financial situation. Progressive taxation fixes that, but that’s another story.
So there is the “all persons of evil life or ill fame” group (see Cohens, supra), which is not only excluded, but severely punished for nonconformity; and the “slaves, free negroes and mulattoes” group. Add to these, male and female immigrants and women already present. Under the Scalia/Davis “original intent” idea these are the “original exclusions” and this is what you saw played out by the republicans in the last election.
In contrast to what Conservatives pejoratively refer to as “Judicial Activism”, what has this ‘ballot box bias’ produced? Amongst other things:
(A) NYS Governor Andrew Cuomo, while he was NYS AG ordered Federal District Court Judge Thomas McAvoy to dismiss my 1st Amendment case against SUNY Binghamton, their Public Broadcasting radio station and various State employees acting under an unconstitutional express programming policy which imposes a 24 hour ban against indecent speech and profanity. I was forcefully removed from a live on air broadcast by State employees on order of the Station manager, also a State employee for allegedly airing a Sound Recording at 4am containing the word “shit”. Within the last several days Andrew Cuomo, now as NYS Governor, ruined an otherwise excellent Press Conference by bragging about language he used against various utility companies “which his daughter can’t hear”. His patronizing and pandering remark in this regard was totally unnecessary and merely corroborates his willingness and possibly other Democratics of his ‘type’ to piss away the 1st Amendment of the US Const in exchange for, in this case, a supplemental appropriation for 100% FEMA relief rather than the 75% already guaranteed, because “Tropical Storm Sandy” allegedly doubled his deficit. The Reagan/Moynihan appointee dutifully complied relinquishing Federal power to a State Officer and at the same time plugging his own decision in wilful and intentional derogation of the US Supreme Court precedent in West v Atkins 487 U.S. 42.
(B) So what do they want in the State of California, County of Los Angeles? Measure B which is also in flagrant violation of the 1st Amendment US Const and to the extent that it attempts to impose criminal sanctions against something which was previously legal is in violation of the “California Constitution”, Article 1 Declaration of Rights, section 9:
“A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed”
Cf., US Const Art 1, sec 9, cl 3 and Article 1, sec. 10, cl 1.
So in the case of NYS, with Andy “the Juice” Cuomo and the full coercive force of the Federal Democratics in their unconditional support of him, there’s little New Yorkers can do about the exclusion of 1st Amendment protections especially to a penniless undesirable like me. So in that regard “equal protection” aside from how it effects the outcome of elections is irrelevant too; but in the case of California and the multi billion $ “porn” industry, what will you do? Spend millions of dollars on a lawyer the courts are willing to hear and respect; or pursue the route of Wisconsinites in their unsuccessful recall of Scott Walker?
So I heard today that the US Supreme Court will hear a Constitutional challenge against the voting rights act by the State of Alabama. They’ll uphold it, as long as all it appertains to, is voting.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
* cf. The Judiciary Act of 1789 section 9.
Is an issue created by jealousy, within the Democratic faction
I.e., republicans have more “large contributors” than the Democratics do, so the Democratics
want to limit the amount of money these persons can “contribute” and thereby attempt to secure some sort of advantage.
But, what advantage? “what are they protesting about? no one seems to know” - i.e., so the advantage is never indicated; instead we get the old - if you
were educated you’d know.
But, no matter
Their chief method, at present, is the mutilation and annihilation of the 14th A. (which was written and championed by the Republican Party, mostly by
Republicans from NYS who were known as “The Radical Republicans”) and the remainder of the US Const, by making States Rights thee US Constitution.
Why do you think that no person in the present day republican faction or in any manner associated with it, opposes this?
Because it has no affect on them and gives them practically speaking, everything they could ever want - viz., the annihilation of the Federal government and
the return to the confederacy limited to “defence” of the various “spreading American Democracy Around the globe” businesses that barely anyone in the media
dares speak of at all.
Every State becomes Wisconsin or Michigan
The 1st thing that you will know if you read my blog, which is absolutely free as long as you have internet access, is this - Sovereignty cannot exist
without you, the individual, being sovereign. So called “States Rights” is based on the idea of State Sovereignty. Sovereignty, as it applies to a State or
Nation is an extension of sovereignty as it exists with the individual - i.e., I have the right to drink water, eat food, have shelter and socialize with
people; otherwise what is the point of living? This is uncontroversial and is agreed upon by all authorities regarding Natural Law and the Law of Nations,
which the GOPstapo’s famed “Declaration of Independence” is based on. State sovereignty is an extension of individual sovereignty by assembly of the people.
Take away “corporations are people” and you immediately lose your citizenship and become a subject of the Despotism wherein you reside - i.e., not only could you
not sue the State in the Federal Court, because of the 11th Amendment to the US Const, but you will no longer be able to sue any municipality in Federal Court because your
present right to sue a muncipality for the deprivation of your rights protected under the US Const is based solely on the principle of law that a municipal
corporation is a person. See “Owens v Independence Missouri”, US Supreme Court, Brennan for the majority.
The 2nd thing is that the legal principle that corporations are people is merely another way of stating the foregoing - i.e., a State is a corporation. A
State is a person. If a State is not a person then it does not provide a republican form of government see Article IV section 4 US Const and is devoid of sovereignty unless sovereignty becomes vested in some other person or thing. The US Supreme Court has expressly stated that States are corporations and thus people but as Brennan also ruled, that for
jurisdictional purposes of 11th A. US Const., issues, the State is not considered a person.
The Democratic faction used to use the expression “no man is an island”. This expression can assume different connotations depending on how you view
sovereignty. Under the law of nations an empty uninhabited island is not sovereign it is in a State of Nature. Now you can go out sailing, come across it,
explore it and claim it, but in order for it to be recognized, as sovereign, you have to be able to defend it along with several other things under the law
that you can also now find in the law of nations cf. the Preamble to the US Const.
This is all that State Sovereignty means cf US Const. Art. I, sec 10 and 10th Amendment - e.g., the States don’t have to have prior permission to enact local
legislation (within it’s fixed boundaries) subject to Art VI, clause 2. Now look at Article IV, section 4 (ibid)
What the republicans want - who are essentially a gaggle of White Christian Heterosexial Patriarchs whom decided that the democratic faction didn’t honor
them enough - is the power to buy State elections - e.g., Wisconsin - and then exert the full coercive power of the State majority against various
individuals - e.g., Nigger, get back in your cage, woman, spread your thighs and have my white baby; get cleaned up cut your hair, don’t use various
naturally occurring substances, you can’t read this, see that, hear this; but look nice and neat, go to church and don’t say fuck. And then tell whatever
remains of the Federal government don’t you come into our independent sovereign state and be telling us what to do. Which is why troops were sent to Little
Rock - it’s called en force ment. And nowadays they deploy things like Ron Paul - o sure vote for this and we’ll let you smoke pot - (small print) if the
majority allows; because the common law categories and principles regarding them - viz., life, liberty and property under the 5th and 14th A. US Const are subject to
abrogation under the law of the States - e.g., NYS Const. Art. 1, sec 14. This is one of the most favorite of the Great Compromises offered up by the
Democratics in their apparently irresistible atavistic ways - we’ll leave that up to the States - e.g., people that have less effective means of “delivering the
vote” or raising money, O we just leave them as “subjects of the State in which they reside or pass through”.
Like women being forced to endure these various tortures and indignities in the GOPstapo controlled States if they attempt to have a safe abortion; but rest assured the
Democratics will be there to say that you still have a right to an abortion no matter how much State majorities, abuse, torment and degrade you. Just keep the money flowing and we’ll “get the message out”. Yep, the
good old Thomas Jeffersons, they did the same with broadsides, hee fucking haw.
A few years back - because here in the US we consider decades a few years under the, “with all deliberate speed” rule - the State Rights Confederates used the United
Nations as the Federal government surrogate. An educational instructional tool. So many of the same people doing OWS were essentially protesting on behalf of Ronald RayGun and the Bush family
to destroy the United Nations !! they’re robbing us (e.g., Brown and Root ) of our
(Ralph) sovereignty (Nader).
Ironic, isn’t it.
The distinction is in which way the power goes and what it’s for. It goes into the States if or when they arbitrarily deprive a person or person(s) of some aspect regarding Life, Liberty and property or the deprivation of some other privilege or immunity without due process and equal protection; as opposed to a majority in the State claiming the right to do so. One is to vindicate cherished rights the other is to abrogate them.
I’ve explained this dozens of times in my blog, in letters to Congress going back to the 1980s but no one with juice ever pays or paid any attention to me or
more importantly, these incontrovertible principles of law. So it’s nice when I read William Brennan or William O Douglas or anyone for that matter reaching the same conclusions having met none of them. And many of these decisions were 5-4 or 6-3. Why? Because both factions don’t like the law, they want to change it and believe they can by
purchasing majorities. The Democratic-republicans is one Party and they all want the same thing.
They do what they believe in. Money in politics allows them to get out their message because they don’t believe in using the government to do the same thing. I Love CSPAN. So the only difference between the democratics and republicans is that they have their guys and the others have theirs and want their guys to win and figure everything’s
for sale - “it’s the economy stupid” - and most especially who you will vote for. In order to think that Money in Politics has any other significance is to believe that your vote is for sale - viz, you will believe whoever has spent the most money on getting their message out will win the election
Paradoxically, the real election, is, for their guys.
The 3rd thing is that if you’ve made it, this far, and understand it enough to argue down these people - that is to the point of them being tired of
interrupting you and not knowing what else to say in response - they will then “appeal to pity”. White men from down south, like Bill Clinton, are really good at
this and lots of women just can’t resist - did you get that Karl? Their story is this - if you “get money out of politics” then your Democratic-republican
representative will be more responsive to what you want and need (small print) within the menu provided.
Vegetables: potato. would you like that baked, french fried or potato salad.
No where on earth or at any other time has the following had greater significance than it has now: in newspapers, magazines, radio and television - “MONEY
TALKS” - and it does so through the News and through advertising; the latter of the two is what pays for the whole thing. So if you “take money out of
politcs” money still controls, what is reported, as news, and what information, you receive, regarding what it is that you “want” to buy.
It’s as if those that report the news are saying ‘we can’t help ourselves, we have to say what we’re paid to say’ which actually exposes the whole canard - viz., which is it? the money buys your vote or buys news reporters who can’t help themselves and have to instruct you to vote for whomsoever spends the most money or they get fired and blacklisted? What a crock of shit. If there is any truth to this then the money is ordering the news to tell you who to vote for depending on who spends the most money. So turn off the fucking news and don’t read the broadsides and then what happens? They send you money in the mail with instructions on who to vote for? They burn a cross in your front yard and follow you in behind the curtain with their pointy hat on? O yeah sure send more money I’ll vote for him and then you vote for someone else. Well the original story is that this money corrupts members of Congress and makes them do things against their actual beliefs. Well if you believe that then the 1st thing you can do is tell Congress and the media to instruct the people and members of Congress to end all tax deductions for all advertising. Or John McCain is a big daddy on all this right? Regulate advertising under the interstate commerce clause and see if Scalia & co says that the 1st Amendment renders the interstate commerce clause unconstitutional.
What all of this presumes and supposes is that “money corrupts” and therefore both factions ought to have “a level playing field” and “equal opportunity” to
corrupt people with their guys’ money. Unfortunately, for people that believe in this shit, like Thom Hartmann, Robert Reich and possibly a few others, who
are members of/work in the mainstream media: “level playing field” and “equal opportunity” are Democratic “talking points”. In contrast, the republican
faction believes in “the winners” and “success” for the determination of who can have the greater opportunity to corrupt voters: but, primarily, people that
report the news, who are, afterall, the chief progenitors of this peculiar ideology - viz.,
Corruption for the sake of “democracy”
Are the prime targets, See the little red light?
~~~~~~~
“MONEY TALKS” really ought to replace E Pluribus Unum or whatever the government presumes the US Motto is or what ever it presumes to project to the rest of
the world because “MONEY TALKS” sums it up succinctly and accurately and consequently this is the true religion of the Democratic-republicans - i.e., it’s what
they worship and adore. As Mittney explains - don’t punish us for our success. Which is getting the most money for their campaigns. So when one faction of the only allowed two, under present US law, feel that one faction has an advantage over the other: then the factions
merely have different talking point, for the Democratics it’s “level playing field” or that “we all play by the same rules”; with the republicans it’s “get big
government off our backs” we want to be free to “unleash the power of free enterprise”.
Sounds like commerce to me - see Article 1, section 8, clause 3 of the US Const. Amendment not required. But Will is, and 4th - it’s not there.
In conclusion “Money in Politics” is probably the biggest “distraction” of all. It’s like a real nice guy in a business suit jerking off to porn while saying geez I’m sorry I really am. My position on that is take off your clothes and make yourself comfortable. Quit being such a hypocrit
Things really haven’t changed much since I was born except: everything costs 10 to 40 or 50 times as much as it did - but the democratic-republicans consider that
success, want it to grow and spread it all over the globe; rich people pay less taxes; we need more picture IDs based on more private information and we’re stopped from entering courts and other
buildings unless we have some and still have to go through magnetometers pat downs, &c are stopped while driving and walking; but !! Black people and LGBT people can now participate under the very same repressions; women can have abortions if
they can afford one and survive State torment and abuse; and so far we get to see bare assed women and people fucking for money on the internet. So where do
the democratics and repblicans differ on these things? It’s only a matter of importance: the GOPstapo believes that criminalizing abortions, mandatory IDs disclosing your social security number and other private information
for as many things as possible, stopping and harassing people spying on them via the internet or any other means are very very important while the Democratics go along with all of these things but feel that jobs are
more important. Can we get any more vague and amorphous?
All that these people really care about is how the news reports what they’re doing.
They created this situation themselves; but to be fair most of it happened under RayGun. At that time, the GOPstapo guys weren’t doing as well as WCHP
“workers”, in terms of income growth, so Paul Volcker &co changed all that by raising interest rates in some cases to 20%. So if you had a million dollars
and weren’t making enough in interest to support your habit(s) now you could make 20% - ie., $100k per annum for the next 30 years.
So meanwhile, as these people were filling up on free money from the US government left for someone else to pay 30 years hence - i.e., 2010 or there abouts
and more likely rolled over to a later time when interest rates are lower - Sam Nunn started the all volunteer military - no job? - join the military, “Be
All that you Can Be”. Safe bet, no wars (small print) not yet. And the media was O dear God when will this awful recession end O O O O and RayGun happy as a
clam called them “the doom and gloom Liberals” and eventually the Democratic-republicans abolished tariffs (that’s easy just tell them it’s a tradfitional
Democratic Party Policy have the media say it is and they’ll do it) and also lowered tax rates on the millionaires lounging about with their $100k per annum
mainline whoa suddenly juiced with less taxes; but O dear God interest rates are being lowered, we can’t get in anymore !!
But look at the retail stocks; and now people are allowed to have computers in their homes !! it’s “morning in america” and the media was like O we like this
O so so very much; RayGun is President and Mary Tilotson via CNN announced that “God is a Republican”.
But the transition wasn’t smooth, there was that no good filthy rotten bastard Dan Rather and his kind that didn’t seem to be cooperating as we’d like, so
we’re going to have to go after CBS and get ‘our guys’ to come up with some different kind of media - most of which was based on “The Stock Market” ding ding
ding ding, it’s “The Closing Bell” and that part of the media is still with us to this day and that alone is what drives the ideology
“It’s the economy stupid”.
But all of this isn’t bullshit, because as Allan Greenspan, albeit rather slow, finally realized: many people that never participated in “the market” were
now participating, and all of the money that was in bonds, started flooding into the stock market. If you were a smart trader you could make 15 to 20% on
each trade. Plus interest rates were being lowered gradually, so people that relied on high interest rates, pension funds &c could get pretty decent returns for sometime while the stock market was booming too. Do a few trades skim some off buy some intermediate term bonds. Regular people themselves or through account managers were doing this as a means of augmenting their “disposable income” - i.e., their ability to make RayGun’s Growth, which the media
loved more than anything, “the new peace and prosperity”. Essentially buying cheap imports with “the strong dollar” while businesses that used to make these
very products were being bought up by Mittney’s Raiders, their assets were sold off, the capital gains distributed to his crew and then Look mawh no business.
You’re all free now you can go home and play the piano. Did you try the Army? So all of the things that were unaffordable were now affordable and everyone that had a job - even
if it was at Burger King of as Jim Wright used to say the “selling pizzas to one another” Reagan economy was in the bullish buy buy buy mode, just like a wildcat striking oil, a lumberjack finding the fmr Amazon Rain Forest. There’s just
no end this will go on forever and ever until the rumors spread that “when your mailman starts asking you what to buy it’s time to get out of the market”. No no no it’s
can’t be “Turn on those machines” !! people lost and wanted their money back. People gamble and want their money back. People have money and act like a big
shot, everyone likes them and then after all the money is paid out to people so that people will like them all their fans leave and go find someone else to like.
Neither of the factions do anything to change any of that because they both want it. That’s what they believe in, that’s what America is to them and if this is not what President Obama wants then he is not making that clear to
“the public” - i.e., people that report the news - or are they corrupted by advertising?
Personally, I think that this is a pretty shitty way to live and the only reason it happened is because Democratic-republicans don’t know anything else; but
if you think that it’s a groovy way to live and it’s what America and life is all about then you ought to be in favor of lowering the capital gains tax rate
- caveat - the time to do this is when interest rates are high but coming down because this makes it less costly for people at a higher tax rate to sell
their bonds and move into stocks; or if you’re into the tertiary parasitic land brigand trip like Mittney was/is, then it gives him and his crew more money to buy
companies, sell their assets, leaving people without a job and Mittney & crew to buy Cadillacs vacation homes in Europe, whatever.
So what the clueless GOPstapo is doing, is trying to repeat the RayGun “it’s morning in America” scenario, under entirely different circumstances - i.e.,
interest rates now are already as low as they’re going to get.
RayGun lucked into the situation he lucked into with the Fed somewhat overreacting. The GOPstapo hasn’t a clue they never did. They think the universe
happened 6000 years ago
The important thing is that the Fed action did work but only as one component part of the equation. The other essential parts were the abolition of tariffs
and the eventual abolition of reserve rates and what is/was allowed as bona fide reserves - i.e., something you can do emergency borrowing on in a crisis
situation - i.e., one of the chief purposes and function of the Fed.
Because of the immense size and amount of international trade transactions ( I had proposes a modest tax on each transaction which almost everyone in government utterly ignored) there was talk of using foreign currency reserves as domestic reserves.
The derugulation of banking allowed for greater and more liberal amounts and terms for “consumer credit”. At one point almost anyone could get a credit card
and banks started requiring it for identification, check cashing and whatever else they could think of to induce you to get one from or through them for a
fee. So people could get credit cards while retail stores were springing up everywhere selling cheap imports.
That function, was possibly, the largest part of the “morning in america” economy. And it was another aspect that the D-rs see no end to even though the end
was/is self-evident - i.e., you run out of source countries to import from. There is no way around this unless you have a system of non discriminatory tariffs
to create an equilibrium between the currencies, which is easily doable but which the D-rs adamantly refuse to do. Consequently trade imbalances become
permanent trade losses and something is then required to sop up the too many dollars chasing too few goods and when there is no sponge that large money goes directly
into speculation - do not pass go do not collect $200.00.
The other part of this “morning in america” economy that has been 100% ignored by almost everyone is what David Stockman wrote about in the 1980s lQQk Stockman was RayGun’s budget director and quit. The States Rights, Goldwater Conservatives willfully and intentionally increased defense spending in order to destroy the ability of the Federal government to do any domestic spending at all. Pat Moynihan used to bitch about this all the time and people like Fritz Hollings used to make fun of him; but it is true and they’re still doing it now. I addressed this in another blog entry. I can remember when the GOPstapo were going apeshit over debt approaching $1 trillion under Carter. I think it was $976 bil; while Alyona reported on her RT show last night that the present day defense budget is $1 trillion, which Mittney and his crew wants to increase. I also remember under RayGun one defense budget of around $169 bil.
From the best I’m able to discern what the President and his crew wants to do is give people money to buy imports but also try to encourage people to start manufacturing businesses in the US so that the amount of imports is counterbalanced by domestic products and thus the greater number would have money from manufacturing jobs to buy domestic products as well as imports.
What Mittney wants to do is have the present GOPstapo members of Congress block any attempt to create demand through the government, get elected on Obama being unable to create demand and then cut taxes for millionaires and cut government spending and this he proclaims will entice foreigners to start businesses here because taxes will be lower for them.
I guess what voters find appealing with Mittney is his National vision of a Carvel Soft Vanilla White America - deport all immigrants unless they have enough money to start a business and that it’s ok if you feel uncomfortable having a Negro in the White House. Mitch n Mittney understand and aim to get rid of him. Rest assured take the kids out for some soft White Carvel
But the fact is neither of these guys have any intention of doing anything any different - not that I can see - but the only sure way to tell is to give the Democratics a clear majority in both Houses and re-elect Obama. Otherwise with Mittney you just get the same guys as under Bush, most of the RayGun guys are too feeble to do much of anything since they were the Nixon guys too.
So if you elect Mittney you’re going to get whatever is going to happen anyway except for Universal Heath care and you’ll have more threats about depriving you of your unGodly civil rights.
If you elect Obama you get whatever is going to happen anyway and you get Universal health care and at least lip service on civil rights. Now you can read this for free and pretty much know everything you need to know or you can glue yourself to the media read see and hear the same shit over and over again.
-
-
-
-
Gifs and Pics of Ebony Chicks giving a a mean Blowjob!!
-
Artsy Penises
-
-
-
