Lack of Consistancey or Just Plain Lying

Paul Krugman says: Bush deficit - bad. Obama deficit - good.

How to understand it all?

see von Mises Institute's recent article http://mises.org/story/3691

The Wanderings of Careless Thought or It's My Blog and I Can Say Whatever I Want

With regard to the last post, it occurs to me that just as St. Thomas subordinates authority and even reason to the traditions of the Catholic church; so too does the elitist environmentalist cabal subordinate reason and tradition to their all encompassing faith in their cause. For this reason, environmentalism has been called a religion. However, like the character of Daedalus in Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, when asked, as he refused to serve the Church, had he become a Protestant; we must ask, why would environmentalist refuse to serve one system of beliefs to adopt another that makes no sense?

That is to say that although James Joyce's character abandoned the Church, he believed that, unlike Protestantism, it's teachings formed an internally consistent and logical set of beliefs. Why would he abandon that for the irrational? (His abandonment, I guess goes deeper, the exploration of which is partly what the book is about and a little deep for me) The organization of a free human society naturally forms a means of exchanging goods and services that is logically consistent in its basic tenants and practices. Because our system with division of labor and private property, allows more saving (non-consumption), which becomes the capital goods for further advancement, we call it capitalism (although Marx coined this as a term of derision). So-called revolutionaries have always opposed this system because of the unequal distribution of those goods and services that inevitably results. The second reason that some revolutionaries of today want the downfall of capitalism is that they see it as the root cause of changes for the worse in the flora, fauna, and other endowments of planet earth. However, I assert that neither of these two objections have ever passed the muster of rigorous evaluation. (Which you won't get here either; only musings.)

Revolution is a temporary redistribution followed either by return to the status quo or chaos. Until capitalism is reestablished, the material standard of living of most people suffers. The environmentalist objection seem to imply an ultimate return to a natural state as hunter gatherers. There probably never existed an idyllic natural state as some envision and the proponents only conjure it up because they don't believe that it would actually ever come to pass. For my part, I wouldn't mind a life of hunting and gathering, although it would require an approximately 99% global population reduction. I believe that in the final analysis, the second revolutionary objection collapses into the first. i.e. redistribution of prosperity favoring some particular group of which they consider themselves a part. With their newfound ill-gotten goods, they might build a park or two. Taken to the logical conclusion, the destruction of capitalism could lead to my idyllic hunter gatherer condition. They might need their parks to pitch a tent; they couldn't hack it.

Biggest Fools to Ever Hit the Big Time

St. Thomas Aquinas stated that knowledge comes from three sources: authority, tradition, and reason; with authority being the least reliable. Today, Paul Krugman writing in the New York Times, states that, "Al Gore was right: We can't put climate-change on the back burner." Paul Krugman, based upon what he has written, knows little or nothing about atmospheric science. He repeats the Al Gore and global warming lobby's line. This is different that economics, which he does know something about, but most of what he knows is wrong. About global warming and natural science in general, from the arguments he advances, he knows next to nothing. He merely accepts various conclusions of impending doom on authority. This can never be wise. Personally, I have tried to follow the arguments of the proponents of man-made global warming but those arguments lead nowhere. When it gets to the point of calculating the magnitudes, even estimates to within an order of magnitude, there is nothing but a statement of their conclusions. They claim this comes from their mathematical models that others, possibly even they, do not understand. This is complete and blind acceptance of authority. Moreover, authorities whose motives have been called into question. (See 'emotionalizing', i.e. lying, to save the planet. footnote (1)

Claims like this go on and on until it gets to the point that there is no reason to even read articles like the instant one of Mr. Krugman. It offers no new insight and, other than for reasons of piling on, it seems pointless. It bears repeating the quotation from Bastiat: "This is the way an opinion gains acceptance in France. Fifty ignoramuses repeat in chorus some absurd libel that has been thought up by an even bigger ignoramus; and, if only it happens to coincide to some slight degree with prevailing attitudes and passions, it becomes a self-evident truth."
Before I read the article, I wrote a comment on the NY Times website (slightly revised): To Comment in the vein of what passes for deliberative thought today, I will first of all, not read the article, secondly, I will run it through my new and improved 97.265% accurate scientific model, my conclusion:
1) Chickenshit
2) The only fool bigger than Mr. Krugman is Mr. Gore.


1. The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.”
Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/19/ice-capades-greenpeace-recants-polar-ice-claim/

BHO Underground Organizations Revealed

Glenn Beck appeared on major network TV interviewed by Katie Couric. Ms. Couric made her name when she interviewed Sarah Palin before the election. Sarah Palin didn't come across too well, especially according to her opponents. On Couric's TV show Glenn Beck made the statement that John McCain would have been worse for the country that Barack Obama. Was he suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome?

Glenn has long claimed to be independent from any political party. He has stated many times that both the Republicans and the Democrats are part of the problem. That's why Mark Levin seldom has much good to say about him. Mr. Levin is definitely of the opinion that the only chance of salvation from BHO is the Republican Party. There is no time for a third party or any similar movement. Mr. Levin does aspire to a 'new' Republican Party, in exactly the same context that Ronald Reagan called for just that.

I hope that Glenn's remarks to Katie Couric will have the affect of attracting attention to his radio and TV program. There are some horrific aspects of the BHO administration that Glenn is bringing to light. His explanations may lack completeness but he is in the process of figuring it out himself. Who really can sort out the ACORN, Apollo Alliance, TIDE, HUD, SEIU, etc. connections when those connections were intentionally hidden. There apparently are dozens of semi-secret, underground organizations that have seemingly legitimate front groups. The front groups receive government funds and non-profit status while furthering the aims of their underground controllers. George Soros, according to Glenn (and a lot of others) is behind most of it. The aims of these underground orginizations is unadultarated communism.

By the way, we do not want communism and all that it implies. If you do not know what it implies, there is much written on the subject. You should find out before we give it a try. It took the USSR 70 years to unwind so far and they still have a ways to go. (It took tens of millions dead too in case you hadn't heard.)

I certainly don't get it but I know I don't like it. I hope people with the time and resources will dig deep in this manure pile. People who understand the politics, history, and methods of communism could have fun with this. Mostly, they need to keep talking. The BHO organization will of course not sit still but will counter attack. The alternative press is bound to be the next target number one.

See the following:

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/09/video_glenn_bec_3.php

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/09/video_glenn_bec_3.php

George Was Right

My mom told me that her dad, George, used to read about the New Deal every morning in the newspaper. After reading the headlines, his comment was always similar: "Look what that son of a bitch is doing now!" My mom said she was twelve before she knew that the president's name was not 'that son of a bitch.' With the Internet and talk radio, George would really be upset today. Just think of all the news about FDR's new deal he didn't know because it was not printed in the newspaper. However, compared to the newspapers of today, I am sure that the news medial of the 1930's was honest and helpful. Thank God we have alternative outlets for the truth today. We would all be in Obama Squads (or the gulags) by now if the Government controlled Press [GCP] was the only non-governmental bulwark of the republic.

Pay Now and Pay Later for Gov Helathcare

Any bill that passes will require insurance companies to cover more and not deny applicants with existing coverage. Won't that mean that the cost of health insurance will go up? There will also be government subsidized insurance for those who cannot afford it. Doesn't that mean that taxes will go up?
Currently, I and most others have clanged to insurance policies that offer less coverage (as little as current State law allows) and high deductibles. Currently, those who cannot afford coverage qualify for means tested Medicaid (as congress gave us to solve this problem the last time around). Anyone who really needs medical care can receive it. If they do not pay the bill, providers can collect in the usual ways. If they go bankrupt, then they must have assets that they needed to protect, so why couldn't they have used their assets to purchase insurance?
Sounds to me like another government program to:
1) give us some benefit that is available on the free market but that is not what we choose to spend our money on. That is, higher levels of coverage or any insurance at all for some.
2) provide for those we cannot afford care -- which we already have.
There are thousands of "Free Market" improvements in the system that can be made, which mostly involve undoing what we have already done.
I was going to list links, but you can Google "Free market health care" as well as I can.

Post Office Says It Can't Compete

The US Postal Services asks congress for another 1.4 Billion to pay retirement pensions that they owe. By the way, social security also says that they will be spending more that they take in by next year.

Obama says that his healthcare system will compete like the post office with the private companies. His hero F. D. Roosevelt brought us Social security knowing full well that it was a ponzie scheme. But who really cares, so long as the government keeps giving us stuff, that's the important thing: Vote Democrat to keep it coming!

Biden not Dead Yet

Vice President Biden stated a while back that if the stimulus program that he oversees failed, he would be [politically?] dead. He reported today that it has succeeded 'beyond his wildest dreams.'

Revolution's Progress

Many items in the news lately regarding issues important to Americans.

1) President Barack Obama: Naive-in-Chief, stunning clulessness, and insults to America-- London Times
Today another BHO speech to UN: Nuclear disarmament and lecturing. (I didn't actually hear the speech but I am sure it contained lecturing.) Some nuclear enforcement ideas are good if directed at the problem areas but goal of world without nuclear weapons is deceivingly idiotic, like gun control.
In the 1930's there was a multilateral international agreement to ban war. WWII followed soon after.
Gordon Brown, PM was good, Sarcosie, French President, was great. Great Britain says they will scrap one of their four nuclear armed subs. Who cares, but a bad symbolic statement.

BHO foreign policy abandons Poland, Checz Republic, Israel, UK, and Honduras
Supports Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela, and Russia

2) Glen Beck v. Republican party. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, says Glenn. Yes, the R's we supported were a disappointment in the recent past. They not only reached across the isle, but they ran over and sat on the Demo's laps and gave em a big kiss on the cheek. But there are degrees of insanity. Creating a third party or similar movements have always been very disastrous in the past. The left has a circus of clowns. We need one too and there is room in the Republican tent for Glen.

3) Ongoing press difficulties. Freedom v. the G.C.P. (Government Controlled Press). Why are the primary news media having financial trouble? The market for drivel is saturated and only outlets for truth are in low supply.

4) Pending hazardous legislation: Health care (for yet another free market solution, see: http://mises.org/3699 Is Emergency Care a Failed Market: by Eric M. Staib; 9/24/09), Wall Street regulation/take over (back burner now but just wait; RINO please say no to this), Global Warming still the worst of the worst. The unwitting and otherwise compliance of the press and environmental groups is the only way this monstrous idea could survive. We really need some light on this to expose it for what it is. Speaking of exposing, what about ACORN and allied groups: an interlocking spider web of corruption, crime, and communism. As such, congress should cut back their government funding to only a few hundred million: honor among thieves.

Lying to Save the Planet

Lying to save the planet has obviously been a tactic of environmentalist and one of them fessed up. On the Peter Weisback radio show out of Seattle today an environmentalist leader was interviewed by a fellow with a British accent. Actually it was more of a cross examination; he didn't let up until the witness admitted that he did not believe that the Arctic would really be ice free by 2030 as he had stated science had revealed. The interviewer pointed out that the Greenland Icecap was about 1.5 million square miles and three miles thick. After trying to dodge five or six questions, the environmentalist stated that it was sometimes a good idea to emotionalize the issue. The interviewer stated that these were scare tactics. Weisback said that what he meant by 'emotionalizing' was he sometimes lied to advance the policy agenda of global warming. This has been rather obvious for a long time but the press, according to Mr. Weisback, continues to regurgitate what the environmentalists feed them. That has also been obvious for a long time.

New Target for Hate and Takeover: Wall Street

A method of the revolutionary left seems to be to accuse conservatives and Republicans of some imaginary wrong, then some time later, they actually do what they had accused the conservatives of doing. Then when they are confronted, their defence essentially is: Bush did it first. Aside from being intellectually repugnant on several levels, this is generally a lie. Is it that we are so jaded by hearing the fraudulent complaints of the left, that like Pontus Pilot, we ask, "what is Truth?"

We have heard for the last eight years all kinds of bizarre accusations directed against the Republicans of how they are attempting to control the population by imposing their Farwellian, fundamentalist morality. Aside from the fact that Christianity has retreated so far, that we are at last putting up a feeble defense of the last two or three percent of our former territory, I would say, "who cares?" I do not see our freedoms currently under any serious threat from the Christian right. On the other hand, anyone with eyes to see and with the slightest sense should realize that the left, under President Barack Husein Obama [BHO] with the aid of the leftest congress and liberal press, are currently a great threat to our liberties.

BHO's attack on Wall Street is the latest attempt to gain more power over the institution of this nation. It should be clear, based upon recent similar tactics, that the anti-Wall Street propaganda coming directly from BHO is the harbinger of another take-over attempt. I hope he is stopped. Unfortunately, the public hears only one side. They know about the excesses of Wall Street executives and they have heard over and over that they are the sole culprits responsible for the present and all other economic downturns. On the contrary, government economic intervention itself has been and remains the main culprit. Capitalism, the free market, and our complicated financial system has been responsible for the greatest advances in the history of humanity. Its abundant shortfalls, as aforesaid, are chiefly the fault of government intervention.

There are also dishonest people. We should be protected from them by the police powers of the government. Fraud is an ever present danger, which in fact could probably be avoided by the unimpeded functioning of a free market better that is is by the government. BHO's covetousness of the productive forces of this nation far exceeds the mere policing of sharp business practices. Unfortunately, the results of government failings in detection of fraud along with problems created by intervention in financial markets by government, is not even an issue under discussion. Instead, big business and industry along with their needed financial system are blamed for all our ills and are currently under threat of destruction from BHO. This is madness and chickenshit of the highest order.

How to for Revolution - Some Tips to Try

"When it comes to revolution, one cannot mark time; one must always go forward -- or go back. He who now talks about the 'freedom of the press' goes backward, and halts our headlong course toward Socialism." -- V. I. Lenin

Representative Wilson Should Appologise Some More

It is important that members of the congress not interrupt speakers to point out that they are lying or none will ever get through a sentence.

One Debacle at a Time Please

While we have two of the worse legislative proposal before us in health care and energy, that is cap-and-trade, the Obama regime is now again talking about a proposal to 'regulate' the financial industry. Are they trying to finesse one or the other of these horrors past us if they cannot get them all? Is it a distraction move? A few things that we have learned from the recent history of this administration should prepare us to meet the coming onslaught.

The Federal Administration and its allies in congress will not offer a definitive proposal for a while, if ever. (Just as they do not offer a definitive health care plan and as the Man Made Global Warming Theory is never spelled out in total.) That will allow them to disavow and deny any accusation that some particularly repugnant scheme is part of their proposal, just as they do with health care. As with Global Warming, it will be hard to attack their proposals on grounds of economic theory, since they really won't have a proposal. It will morph depending upon the audience they are trying to persuade.

However, just because they do not tell their plans does not mean that they do not have any. Thanks to talk radio, we have heard several speeches given by Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress over the last few years to their close constituent organizations. They say that they want single government payer health care. They do not want any part of our current system. They told their friendly audiences that they may have to accept some employer provided insurance for a while, but eventually Party organizers can deliver full-blown socialized medicine. It is the same way with financial 'regulation'. What he really wants is to take control of the financial system.

At first he will say that he proposes a 'consumer protection agency' to save us from the abuses of Wall Street. The actual bill that they eventually produce when the time is ripe, will have been long in the works. Every socialistic central planning and control mechanism that has been discredited over the last two hundred years will be represented. It will be written by the likes of Van Jones communist activists, Noam Chomsky communist academics, Paul Krugman communist economists (this latter one is in disguise), and all kinds of just plain communists that we have not heard of yet. There are plenty of communist 'scholars' waiting in the wings and biting at the bit to get control of as much as they can. Wall Street would certainly be a big coup.

On the other side are the conservatives: economist, wall street businessmen, politicians, historians, and legitimate scholars who can be ignored because they have been so discredited by the press. They tells us that it is government regulation that causes economic downturn. They ask how regulation could have made any difference in the mortgage meltdown, when industry was doing just as government wanted it to do. Would the regulator have said to congress, "no Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, Mr. Franks, Mr. Dodd, if you make a law like that it will lead to risky loans and excess speculation. No Mr. Greenspan, Mr. Bernanke, you can't do that or it will lead to malinvestment of our precious limited resources in a bubble that will ultimately burst and destroy capital." Any such regulator would soon be out of a job. Banks were led by congress to make loans that they thought better of and fined if they refused. They attempted to protect themselves with 'insurance' (derivatives) but you can't protect yourself when everyone, even the 'insurers' go broke. (As they always do when the bubble bursts.) When things went wrong the banks were blamed.

That and a lot more is inconvenient history that the current administration is allowed to ignore. At the time they dismissed their own responsibility by saying, "there's plenty of blame to go around." I believe it was Rush Limbaugh who said, "when a Democrat says there is plenty of blame to go around, you can bet that their share was about 95%."

Another example that is often heard is that the 'massive' banking deregulation of the Reagan and Bush administrations was obviously a mistake. When you ask just what deregulation they mean, one thing you often hear is the repeal of Glass Stiegal. This allowed financial firms to diversify: it allowed banks to underwrite securities as investment banks do and investment banks and brokers to accept deposits as regular banks do. However, in the mortgage meltdown, the banks got into trouble by acting as banks and the brokerages and investment firms by acting as such. The Glass Steigal Act was mostly irrelevant. The largest mortgage players, Fanny May and Freddie Mac behaved just as always, they were not affected by Glass Steigal. They were a creation of congress and did congress's bidding. They, along with the Fed, were the primary instigators of the meltdown. They were not regulated by government because, effectively, they were government. So who will regulate the regulators Mr. President? Another practice that they mention is short selling, which in fact is economically beneficial in that it warns investors of coming problems, which will help to remedy those problems in time. Other systematic problems in capital markets, too numerous and depressing to mention, all followed from the implementation of government plans.

The people who know the least about finance, (who manage the Post office, Social Security, Amtrack, Medicare Medicaid, government pension insurance, deposit insurance... all essentially bankrupt), now want to further regulate the financial industry. It is already regulated so much, there is not much more they can do except take it over. That is what they want to do, and may end up doing. They may not have their name on the deeds right away, but they will call the shots, which amounts to the same thing. On our side, we have an informed public, who will be hard to bamboozle, even though they will surely try. They will lie and most of the press will back them up. We have talk radio (one of their next targets) and we have Tea Parties and we had some great town meetings. We have the constitution still and we have the truth.

Can You Imagine?

…and so they stopped and rested on a rock conveniently low
And all the little oysters stood and waited in a row.

“The time has come,” the Walrus, said, “to talk of many things,
Of shoes and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and Kings
And why the sea is boiling hot and weather pigs have wings.”

-- Lewis Carol, Through the Looking Glass

Which is to say, time to get down to the nitty gritty. A socialist in name only, president Barack Obama, knows instinctively which side the bread is buttered on. He came out today with renewed attacks on special interests. Of course, he is referring to special special interests, that is, those not already in his camp. That would currently be the health care insurance companies. He is definitely not talking about General Electric, which is on the global warming gravy train. He is not talking about the United Steel Workers, whose boss he made a Commissar and which, along with other construction industries, are economic stimulus payees. Apparently he doesn't mean big drug makers or ARRP or the AMA. He is certainly not talking about auto, banking, political action groups, community organizers, or government unions who he are in his back pocket ( or his front pockets since the back ones are overflowing). There’s hardly anyone or anything left to threaten or pay off, except for us, the regular taxpayers of this country.

However, and unfortunately for him and most professional politicians, at the town halls and tea parties, the people have spoken. What they said is not necessarily what any one person or faction has said or would say. Nevertheless, what they said is clear. They want change but not BHO’s kind of change. They want actual accountability and openness, not the kind promised but never delivered by politicians of any party or any era. What they want most of all is the end of a corrupt system that they see as enriching the political and corporate participants at their expense.

What they complain about goes by many names: corruption and payoffs come to mind; but also executive bonuses, bail-outs, stimulus packages, campaign contributions, and earmarks are on their hit list. The later are openly the stock and trade of the professional politician. Governor Blaggovich was a prime example of the former: the corrupt politician par excellance. He made no excuses for selling office. Charlie Wrangle, currently under investigation by congress, is a current example of political corruption of the ‘look the other way, wink and a nod’ variety. That is, everyone knows it and ‘every one does it type’. He took it a little too far so he has to wear the scarlet ‘C’. If he isn't reelected, he probably has a lobbyist job waiting. However, maybe, just maybe, at long last and finally, the informed and sovereign voter is saying no more to the pervasive and systematic spoil system that is our political system from top to bottom.

This would be real change. The lobbyist and campaign contribution is the live blood of the current system. How to change without creating something worse has always been the difficulty. Can you imagine no lobbyists, non-millionaire congress members, citizen legislators?

It is hard to imagine a no lobbyists system because of the informational roll they play. Legislation regarding major segments of commerce is too complicated for anyone not in that segment of commerce to understand. What congress has been giving us are 1,000 plus page monstrosities that are written by corporate lobbyists or by the most partisan elements of the party in power.

(Foot note: Of course it seems to me that it is mostly the Democrat party that does this. See the stimulus package that was written by communist Van Jones and contains huge grants for radical Party activists. Compare that to the Patriot Act. The worse the Democrats seem to have found in that bill is powers to eavesdrop on terrorist communication, powers law enforcement already had regarding organized crime. By the way, it recently occurred to me that there probably was actual communication of domestic political groups that they definitely did not want heard. It wasn't just an intellectual exercise in free speech for some of the left.)

These massive omnibus bills generally provide specifically for preemption of state law. That means the laws passed by our state representatives and the common law developed over centuries by the give and take of our court system can be wiped out by the stroke of a pen in Washington. If a faction, whether a group with some political clout or an industry group represented by lobbyists, has their ambitions stymied by state law, they can resort to federal legislation. Of course it helps to have cooperative federal judges. This is in fact becoming the favored modus operandi of some political and industry groups. (i.e. environmentalists with just about everything they want; and yes, the insurance industry and medical lobbies as with the EISA and HIPAA.) Sometimes these laws impose massive regulation, sometimes they free some practices from federal and/or state regulation. Sometimes they put roadblocks in the way of redress of grievances. As stated elsewhere in this blog, this type of action is not necessarily what is meant by free market economic policies, although there are some who hide their sharp business practices behind that claim.

If there were no lobbyist for special interests, what would fill the power vacuum? Could we trust the press, the lawyers, and communistic Party Commissars of Barack Obama to give us a legitimate representative democracy? The founders of this nation could imagine a democracy and they embodied it into the framework and checks and balances of the constitution. (The Commissars probably do not fit in that framework, a free press does, and lawyers and our jury system will always be needed to fight against self serving bureaucratic regulation in government and industry.) The constitution has been called an imperfect document. Ben Franklin said that the constitution gave us a republic, if we could keep it. Thomas Jefferson said that every generation had to protect and earn their freedom or they would lose it. So I guess that is the best we can do. It has served us well so far; we had better busy ourselves with keeping it. What to do with the likes of ENRON, Van Jones, ACORN lobbyists, GE lobbyists, Oil lobbyists, Green Peace lobbyists... We must exercise discrimination, judgement, and common sense. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Lyndon LaRouche Youth Activists Have a Plan Too

I talked to one of them and received a DVD and two magazines for a contribution. The DVD stopped working after about an hour just when the narrative got up to the present and I was wondering what happens next. I do not know but will find out one way or the other.

This group does not like BHO policies, especially health care at the moment. I have to like that. They say that the HMO's were the beginning of the problems for health care. The bankers' main ploy apparently, is to entice us and government to spend beyond our means. That makes sense to me too, but I didn't know it was an organized conspiracy. They do not like England because the global elite bankers are mostly from there. I do not know about that and do not think I will ever find out; it's got to be quite secret. It appears that Kaiser Wilhelm caught on but too late. They tricked him into WWI to destroy the German competition. I agree that Germany had a good thing going at the time (although starting down the road to socialism since Bismark), too bad things went wrong. I liked the Czar too, and certainly even the Brits don't trust the Brits. Anyway, they put in Hitler and after many steps and missteps, they arrived at today where they are behind President Obama's plans (the elite bankers that is, not LaRouchites). LaRouche is definitely against those plans and draws a Hitler mustache on Obama's picture to show what he thinks of him. I guess I agree with most of that. By definition, BHO policies are fascist and getting worse.

However, Obama's policies also are communistic, and THAT the LaRouchites do not seem to mind. (I could be wrong.) They think that FDR's policies were putting the bankers in their place until Trueman came along and put them back in charge. (Actually, under this conspiracy model, wasn't FDR's spending spree creating more debt for the global bankers to finance?) Mr. LaRouche seems to be pro organized labor too. Going along with Mr. LaRouche sounds a little bit like out of the frying pan into the fire. After JFK, whose contribution to the plot was to get assassinated,which was such a bummer it put the 60's generation into a suicidal death spiral, came a lot of financial schemes that robbed us more and more. Nixon took our gold, then finally we collapsed, but we do not quite know it yet.


I guess what they say we get next is Weimar style hyperinflation. I guess I should take what is left of my IRA out of stock mutual funds and put it into gold. (There isn't much else that would escape, right?) Mr. LaRouche's current plan of survival is to grant bankruptcy like protection to banks (only "legitimate" banks, apparently not the international elite ones) and mortgage holders. We could stop paying our mortgage payments to the banks but the banks would be OK since they would not have to pay anyone either. If only I could call Glenn Beck, maybe he could explain all this.