Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Is Revolution Possible in the United States?

Perhaps not. After all, the U.S. is composed of a vastly more diverse population than that which existed approximately two hundred and thirty five years ago. At the same time, we may be, despite our diversity, less robust, physically and mentally, than our forefathers. If that is true, this may be due to the numerous and spectacular Enlightenment and Industrial Age driven achievements of the last one hundred and fifty odd years, achievements which have driven our collective quality of life relatively sky high, and equally, substantially raised our collective expectations of the future. In short, we Americans have become soft and riddled with a sense of entitlement that may work against finding the necessary fortitude to vigorously defend our fast receding Constitutional rights.

And if that weren't enough, how on earth is a diverse and shockingly ignorant population of over three hundred million people supposed to find enough common ground amongst itself to inspire the sort of effort that brings about a revolution? For example, I would very much like to see much less central government, and yet, for the most part, I abhor those who describe themselves as Republicans since they tend to hew to the idea that much of the Federal government's functioning should be turned over to a minimally regulated "Private Sector." And those not in slavish devotion to a corporate master operating in lieu of Federal Government, are, too often, in thrall to religious doctrine that invariably envisions government operating as a theocracy. Finally, it almost goes without saying that the typical "starve the beast" conservative has no interest in environmental conservation except, perhaps, in the abstract, via the application of such know nothing nostrums as "A Thousand Points of Light."

On the other side of the aisle, those who describe themselves as Democrats, and possibly liberals, though they are by no means one and the same, seem entirely content to have the state support a veritable bazaar of programs that, when closely examined, seldom add value to society except as a great grift mill from which a select number of public and private operators may pluck their living. In a sense, there is less to rail against where this is concerned, since Clinton long ago killed the social welfare state as we knew it. But, despite (wolf in sheep's clothing) Clinton's mostly successful efforts to co-opt and water down his Republican rival's agenda, the ethos of Federal Government maddeningly sticking its craw anywhere and everywhere (in the service of addressing a seemingly endless and sometimes arbitrary litany of perceived wrongs) still seems very much a part of the Democrat's modus operandi.

More disturbingly is the tendency both political parties have of displaying, at best, benign neglect towards the Constitution as suits their purposes. In truth, there have been too many egregious acts by both sides against the Constitution to mention, but, as infuriating as is the Democrat's systematic refusal to accept The Second Amendment's prescription in favor of the individual's right to bear arms, and as deplorable as is the Republican's attitude towards the separation of church and state (which proscribes religion from public affairs) perhaps the greater problem is that both parties are essentially bought and paid for servants of corporate power, which itself is an abomination, since no corporation should ever, under any circumstances, have the same rights and privileges as a living breathing person.

At the risk of going on something of a Marxist rant, corporate power has seemingly turned "We The People" into consumers first and citizens a distant second such that our every activity, whether we are conscious of it or not, is, in some way, in the service of some corporation's bottom line. I hasten to add that corporate imperatives diverge in many respects from those ideals enshrined in the Constitution, though certainly one could argue that successfully running a business (of any size) may equate with the idea of the pursuit of happiness for many people. Fair enough, and the point here is not to attack corporatism per se, though there is plenty to attack, but to outline the obstruction that corporatism poses to the very idea of revolution, let alone revolutionary activity itself.

As we can see, there exist, in our time, a wide range of conditions that are antithetical to the drive towards revolutionary change, which I define, in this time and place, not as a movement towards something new, as was the case in the eighteenth century, but as the reclamation of something already in existence, yet buried. So the original question, loaded as it is at this point, remains. Is revolution possible? In trying to answer it, we would do well to remember that the Constitution though great, is frail, and has, in the end, only one true advocate, "We The People."


Gold guru Jim Sinclair has dubbed the, by now, ubiquitous attempts to call a spade a pitchfork, at least where the economy is concerned, M.O.P.E., which stands for Management of Perspective Economics. Today's piece at yahoo is a wonderful example of M.O.P.E. in action.

It says:

The recession faded in the spring with economic activity shrinking at a pace of just 0.7 percent, a better-than-expected showing that buttressed beliefs the economy is growing now.

This report seems to have been printed directly from a government agency, since only an idiot or a propagandist would equate a slowing in the rate of decline in economic activity with a fading recession. What we have, and have had since spring, is the economy unconvincingly trying to find its footing after falling from a great height. The only thing that is fading presently is hope that the next major move of consequence isn't precipitously down.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Now That's What I Call Kicking The Can Down The Road!

Watch the video at the link (you may have to cut and paste it as there seems to be an issue with link connections on this blog) after reading this post and see if you come to the same conclusions as I have.

Here is the thesis in a very nutty shell. The United States, acting as the global engine of growth for the past half century, has indebted itself to the point of bankruptcy. The U.S. Government, in order to meet what are estimated to be 60 trillion dollars worth of obligations going forward, needs a controlled inflation averaging 4% over the next seventeen years. Why would that work? (Inflation is the ally of those in debt, and the U.S. is up to its eyes in debt) The aforesaid rate of inflation over seventeen years would, in effect, cut the purchasing power of the dollar in half, thereby enabling (or so the thesis goes) the U.S. Government to meet its, by then, only 30 trillion dollars of obligations. This assumes, of course, a certain modest level of growth in the U.S. economy during that time.

Interesting, and I say, good luck with this gambit since, markets, which are notoriously unstable, aren't likely to go along with the gradualist strategy of ushering the dollar to a further 50% decline in purchasing power over seventeen years. Ah, but apparently there is a contingency plan for this as well. Should the ultimate nemesis of fiat, that would be gold, get out of control on the upside, (bank on it, I say) the authorities will simply jack rates up to levels that will keep the rest of the world's worthless paper from getting more worthless versus gold. Of course, there is the slight problem of what that will do to our GDP, but perhaps "they" have some contingency plan for that as well. I will not hold my breath.

Now, for my money, literally and figuratively speaking, here's where the greatest madness of this "plan" lies: The IMF will replace the U.S. as the great global debtor, keeping the planet's economic engine humming along. And how will they do this? They'll do it the old fashioned way, just like Uncle Sam has, issuing their own fiat debt instruments. I guess the very idea of allowing debt to be honestly and effectively cleared from the system is impermissible. But what, pray tell, will happen when the IMF inevitably reaches the point of bankruptcy. I don't suppose it will matter, since, by then, every one that gets behind this unannounced scheme will likely be long gone from the scene.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

First Principles and Basic Precepts.

From the blog American Revolution Today:

What does the prospect of Revolution mean today in The United States? Well, the very fact that today we are a nation, whereas in the late eighteenth century our forefathers were simply a collection of subject farmers and tradesmen inhabiting a colonial outpost of The British Empire, puts us in a very different set of circumstances than our predecessors. And yet some of the very same intolerable conditions that impelled our colonial ancestors to revolt against an arbitrary and unresponsive British crown exist today.

In fact, if anything, the tax burden you and I face now is greater by a substantial sum than what existed at the outset of The American Revolution when the cry "Taxation Without Representation" was the clarion call for defiance against The British Crown. More troubling perhaps is that those individuals that stand today at the head of our leading institutions of public life, whether they be the Treasury Secretary, Federal Reserve Bank Chairman, Senior Congressmen and women, and even The President, seem every bit as disinterested in honestly addressing our legitimate concerns, and in answering our probing questions, as any eighteenth century British Parliamentarian or exhalted royal head of state were in addressing the complaints of the colonialists.

Some might offer that the answer to such a lamentable state of affairs is to simply replace, via the ballot box, recalcitrant and unresponsive leaders. Regrettably, it is the opinion of American Revolution Today that the mechanisms of government are now so deeply flawed, so intractably corrupt, that no such simple remedy is possible were it even allowed. In truth, it is the view of American Revolution Today that:

1.) The United States Federal Government, functioning primarily on behalf of monied interests, particularly big banking and Wall Street, has become a nemesis of "We The People."

2.) The entrenched two party system comprised of Democrats and Republicans is, in the main, obstructive of reform, and, by definition, utterly opposed to anything resembling revolutionary change.

3.) At this juncture, traditional means of political self determination may not be the way forward, but in any case, we at American Revolution Today are convinced that no candidate from either the Democratic or Republican parties should receive support; any affiliation with the two party system almost assures that such a candidacy would ultimately be antithetical to government benefiting "We The People."

Following on from that, no candidate who runs for Federal public office that does not feature the following planks in their campaign platform will be deemed suitable for election.

A.) Term limits
B.) Campaign Finance Reform
C.) Shortened Election Cycles
D.) Cessation of "Redistricting"
E.) Full Audit of The Federal Reserve
F.) The restoration of constitutional mandate for Congressional control of U.S. currency.
G.) An end to further raising of the debt ceiling
H.) Immediate removal of all troops, personnel, and material from Iran and Afghanistan
I.) Replacement of income tax and estate taxes with new levies on consumption, and amended levies on capital gains by individuals and corporations.
J.) Health care reform that is first and foremost free market based with no governmental bias towards "Big Pharma" or the insurance industry.
K.) A multi-generational program designed to return some "reasonable sum" of manufacture back to the United States
L.) The complete overhaul of such government agencies as the SEC, The Bureau of Labor and Statistics, and Homeland Security, to name but a few.
M.) Full investigations of those individuals in and out of government who are alleged to have engaged in criminal activity associated with the collapse of various large banking concerns and quasi government agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
N.) An end to the entire "alphabet soup" of programs funneling money to too big to be allowed to exist parasitic institutions such as AIG, BOA, GS, Citicorp, and JPM.
O.) A restoration of mark to market accounting standards, and the cessation of the writing of any more "standard performance contracts" aka OTC derivatives, until such time as a regulated exchange is instituted for their trade.
P.) A complete rollback of all cap and trade legislation.

If you are in agreement with the ideas and political initiatives expressed here, and feel as we do, join us in making the Second American Revolution a reality. Join us in reestablishing a nation where The Constitution is fully respected, and where good government is defined as one that governs least and always on behalf of the greater good.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Whore of Babylon Watch.

It seems The Impalinator is killing several birds with one pebble by using her (just issued in 2007) passport for the first time, traveling overseas for the first time, visiting China and The Far East for the first time, all while collecting money for a speaking engagement. I'm pretty sure this isn't a first, but TWOB has probably never received so much money for one (allegedly) boring speech. We're sorry to see anyone giving such an unworthy character the time of day, much less cash to hear it prattle on about things it knows nothing about, and we can only hope that the air headed, bat shit crazy former governor of Alaska gets doesn't get very far with her fundraising tour.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Extortion Racket

The United States' Military Industrial Complex continues to do it's shakedown thing in the form of a very high ranking U.S. Military Commander threatening failure in Afghanistan if more forces are not deployed. Since our mission there-what is it exactly besides lining the pockets of military related concerns?- seems as questionable (and attainable) as trying to find a grain of rice in a wheat silo, I suggest that instead of allowing ourselves to be extorted yet again, that we pack up our troubles in our old kit bag and leave, leave, leave.

Thursday, September 17, 2009


I'd like to take a moment to invite you to a new website with a rather lofty aim. I hope you will take some time to visit American Revolution Today at

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Acorn Falls

It seems that a self styled "conservative" activist film maker has managed to catch on film a number of ACORN employees at offices in three different east coast cities openly offering assistance that not only is NOT part of ACORN's remit, but which is plainly illegal. The so called conservative activist and his female sidekick, he posing as a pimp and she as his whore, presented to ACORN staffers their intention to import underage female labor from Central America for the purposes of setting up a brothel. The two would be flesh merchants were subsequently advised by ACORN employees to engage in various dishonest and deceitful measures in order to attain low income housing loans.

In the aftermath of ACORN staffers being, as it were, caught in the act, legal threats have been made against the filmmaker and FOX News for a variety of alleged infractions such as illegally obtaining the scandalous footage, and in the case of FOX, for running it. ACORN has vociferously defended what was caught on tape as the work of a few rotten apples. They further claim that footage of the two employees, employees that ACORN has subsequently released, was doctored to make the aforesaid staffers look bad. Finally, ACORN asserts that other attempts by the activist film maker to capture similar misconduct at other ACORN offices were unsuccessful, but, as yet, ACORN has not offered where those alleged failures occurred.

I regret that, at this time, I can't find a link to the footage in, for example, Baltimore. However, I have seen what took place at the ACORN office there and nothing struck me as either doctored or taken out of context. On the contrary, the footage appears, in that regard, immaculate. What one sees are two ACORN employees, apparently without any sort of prompting, interacting with pimp and whore in as nonchalant a manner as one can imagine, utterly unaffected by the stated illegal aims of the two who are seeking assistance. Furthermore, one gets the distinct feeling as if the outrageous advice the ACORN staffers offer is routine.

Apparently the U.S. Census Bureau feels the same way about the footage, since they have now severed ties with ACORN and will not be using the organization to obtain data for the 2010 census. Congress is next in line where ACORN opprobrium is concerned, and one will have to wait and see just how much funding that ACORN was slated to receive will be withheld, and what investigation, if any, will be conducted.

From where I sit, this scandal amounts to something of an embarrassment for President Obama, even if only at a remove. As a one time community organizer, he has a history of being supported by and supporting ACORN. So far, Mr. Obama has shown zero spine in dealing with the many areas of corruption in and around government. It will be interesting to see if he remains true to form in responding to this latest case of wayward behavior. Given his already falling popularity ratings, the consequences for sidestepping this issue may be considerable.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Cognitive Dissonance.

Some time ago I compared the state of the U.S. Economy to that of the European powers in 1939 immediately after war was declared. At the outset of what became World War II, a period of peace persisted for many months. This interval of relative calm became known as "the phony war" since little in the way of hostilities occurred. In truth, the period of quiescence may just as easily have been said to have marked a phony peace since it soon gave way to years of unprecedented carnage.

Here in our own time, if we are to believe the MSM, government, and, of course, Wall Street, the worst economic contraction since The Great Depression has been effectively vanquished and replaced by a new cycle of growth and recovery, albeit muted. I would like to offer that what we have been in since late winter/early spring of this year has been a phony recovery. It is bogus for the following three primary reasons:

1.) Whatever tepid growth has occurred over the last six months has been stimulated by temporary government spending, and such growth as has occurred has only been in relation to earlier quarters when the economy was, in effect, falling off a cliff.

2.) The consumer, who we all know makes up more than two thirds of the U.S. Economy, can not and will not be spending in anything like the patterns exhibited before 2007. Without the consumer in full health-and they are far from such a condition- there can be no recovery.

3.) The balance sheets of the great credit intermediaries remain deeply impaired even after massive transfusions of taxpayers dollars. However, none of the "toxic assets" have been removed from the system. Instead they have been rendered into a kind of suspended state. All the while the toxic assets have acted as collateral backing trillions of dollars of "loans" to the banks that have subsequently either hoarded their fresh funds, recycled them into government paper, or deployed them into yet more gamed security speculation.

In the meantime, the powers that be are going to great pains to make the case (generally with such weak evidence as "look at the rising stock market") that the economy is coming back to life. Attempts to dig beneath the surface-and not much digging is required-of the economic data to reveal what is actually happening are assiduously avoided. Witness the putative housing market strength, which, like so many other seemingly rosy data points, is easily refuted as being the result of accounting and reporting trickery, and of course, and once again, more government prestidigitation.

The title of this blog entry, cognitive dissonance, refers to a well known phenomenon where what one experiences and feels is at distinct odds with what one is being told is occurring. Of course it is generally a rare event to hear the unvarnished truth at anytime from anyone; it's just not really in mankind's nature to "tell it like it is." Sometimes this tendency is down to "good reasons" such as the inability of one to ascertain what's what. After all, it isn't always easy to parse the data. However, sometimes getting a clear handle on matters isn't all that difficult, and it is at such times that we must confront a darker explanation of why mounds of steaming bullshit have been substituted for a narrative that more or less comports with reality.

So, if we accept that the economic recovery narrative is, in fact, an easily dismissed fiction, we then must decide whether the fantasy "they" are attempting to sell us is the result of their inability to understand the data, or is instead the result of their having a vested interest in us not seeing things as they really are. In both instances, "We The People" are well and truly !%*ed, but the latter condition is, in my view, far more disturbing than the former.

Friday, September 4, 2009

The Ugly American

Dennis Kneale of CNBC has to be one of the silliest characters I've ever witnessed on contemporary television, and that is saying something when the MSM sports such wantonly grotesque imbeciles as Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter. A recent rant by Mr. Kneale-a rant of epic, moronic jingoism I might add- aimed at bloggers who've dared to suggest that the U.S. markets and economy are far from well, included the following question posed to us viewers.

"Do I Believe I live in the greatest nation on earth?"

There are so many responses to this (patriotic litmus test in the guise of a question) that I'm not sure where to begin, so let me plunge in by saying the question itself evidences such an embarrassingly narcissistic provincialism that it makes me cringe. As a singular thought, and putting aide the irrelevance of the U.S's putative greatest nation status, the question, posed as it was in a hectoring, if not bullying fashion, may be the best example of why the U.S. seems to have such difficulty existing peacefully and harmoniously amongst its fellow nations. But for the sake of discussion, I will, for the moment, humor this ridiculous question, though not without first hearing an essential qualification to it.

So, without further ado, define for us, Dennis, what "greatest" means in the context of the term, greatest nation.

You also ask, Dennis, if "I" believe that the U.S. has the most innovative and hard working people on the planet. Putting aside the question of what "belief" has to do with this, and also putting aside the crucial issue that such questions demand some serious refinement, my answer to you is a resounding HELL NO!

I am quite sure, for example, that the people of Nepal, or Tibet, or possibly Mozambique and Paraguay work far harder than the average denizen of the U.S. Think about what real work really is, Dennis. REAL WORK doesn't involve sitting for long periods of time in a comfortable, ergonomically constructed, reclining chair, inside a climate controlled building that has a water cooler, coffee maker, and microwave just down the hall from one's work space. REAL WORK doesn't generally take place in close proximity to eateries that provide abundant and cheap meals that one can have during one's long breaks. REAL WORK doesn't involve labor that confers any sort of status, or that is, at least by our standards, remunerative. In short, you and I, Dennis, HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT REAL WORK IS! But, for my own part, at least I know that, save for a job one summer washing dishes in a local restaurant, I don't really know what REAL WORK is.

As for us U.S. residents being the most innovative, well, how does one measure such a thing? What are the criteria for "most innovative?" Does my innovation need to be of a commercial nature, or can it be for my own personal use in the service of such unglamorous but essential areas like, oh, say, animal husbandry or horticulture? I have a feeling, Dennis, that your view of innovation is very much like your conception of work, just a tad narrow, a bit Amero-centric, shall we say, and more than likely, self serving. But please, by all means, disabuse me of that notion. After all, as a citizen of THE GREATEST NATION ON EARTH, (according to you) that ought to pose no difficulty.