I just caught a news report that Obama is asking the Pentagon for a 10% cut in their budget.
Open suggestion to Mr. Obama:
The Pentagon’s core budget for fiscal 2009 is about $512 billion. A $51 billion cut is chump change considering the trillions being thrown about for bailouts, stimulus and liabilities in the financial sector.
Missing in action from the debate on the economic crisis is the wars and extreme military spending to maintain the empire.
Bring all the troops home. Close down all overseas bases. It’s all a fraud anyway. Our homeland security scams are bleeding us dry. Nothing we are told is true.
A 10% cut in the military budget is a joke.
Ask Rumsfeld about the missing trillions from the Pentagon that he announced on Sept. 10, 2001.
Ask yourself about your lying anti-war rhetoric to gain votes.
Don’t ask us to sacrifice anymore in wars only for profit and theft.
According to these reports, President Obama’s plan to destroy the Federal Reserve System involves the creation of a new National Bank of the United States that would be completely owned by the US Government and would begin its new role by acquiring the home mortgages of American citizens, now called ‘toxic assets’, from the corrupt European Banking Empire run by the Rothschild Family after which it would then Nationalize all US Banks.
Leaked reports from Davos are further confirming this astounding news, and as we can read as reported by the CNBC News Service in their report titled “All Big US Banks Must Go to Fix Crisis”, and as we can read:
But, to the most shocking revelations made in this report about the new Obama Regime was Ms. Jarrett’s directly stating to Putin that the new American President was ‘going after all of the Zionists’ in his country, a reference to the most radical element of the Jewish peoples many hold responsible for the destruction of the morals, educational and family structures, and the economy of the United States for their own corrupt gain.
The number of unemployed is increasing in every state. The ‘government’ reports the national average is 7.2%. The rate is being under reported. Factor in the underemployed which includes a vast number of those in business for themselves and it’s anybody’s guess how many people are idle at any given moment. Most of the figures are based upon those receiving unemployment benefits, some 6.5 million, which is at an all time high since records have been kept.
My state of Tennessee is now using its 22 career centers as places to file for unemployment since the normal ways to process the claims are overwhelmed.
When will we hit the bottom in this jobless boom? We may not have seen anything yet.
Obama’s economic stimulus plan includes aid to the poor and unemployed — $43 billion to provide extended unemployment benefits through Dec. 31, increase them by $25 a week and provide job training; $20 billion to increase food stamp benefits by 13 percent; $4 billion to provide a one-time additional Supplemental Security Income payment; $2.5 billion in temporary welfare payments; $1 billion for home heating subsidies; and $1 billion for community action agencies.
At the rate we’re going, the rest of the stimulus plan may be needed for the poor.
The stimulus package numbers are being thrown around:
The House Democrats’ bill provides enough spending – $825 billion – to give every man, woman, and child in America $2,700.
$825 billion is enough to give every person living in poverty in the U.S. $22,000.
President-elect Obama has said that his proposed stimulus legislation will create or save three million jobs. This means that this legislation will spend about $275,000 per job. The average household income in the U.S. is $50,000 a year. more
Of course the administration and the majority in Congress keep telling us they know more than we do and to just shut up and let them ‘fix’ things.
Just like they have fixed the corruption of the financial markets.
Just like they will fix our military spending by moving troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan.
Just like they have fixed our enormous foreign aid out flow. How much do we actually give to Israel each year?
Just like we’re going to take back the control of our money from the Federal Reserve. Good Luck Dennis. Watch your back.
We finally got rid of the criminal Bush administration only to usher in another.
We allow it to happen. “We the Sheep.” Everyone talks about it but we’re still led around and sheared of our assets until we’re too old or useless. Slaughter comes next.
The implication of sheeple is that as a collective, people believe whatever they are told, especially if told so by authority figures, without processing it to be sure that it is an accurate representation of the real world around them.
The Black Sheep tries to warn its friends with the truth it has seen, unfortunately herd mentality kicks in for the Sheeple, and they run in fear from the black sheep and keep to the safety of their flock.
Having tried to no avail to awaken his peers, the Black Sheep have no other choice but to unite with each other and escape the impending doom.
From my own and other peoples experiments, I have seen that planting by the ‘signs’ does have significant positive results. Not noticeable in every single case, I do think it’s worth the effort to try. No superstitious belief, it’s one way that nature works.
“To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.
A time to be born, and a time to die. A time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted.” Ecclesiastes 3:1
I sometimes get questions about “planting by the signs”.
On occasion I’ve been asked whether or not I pay attention to the “moon signs”? Does it work? Do I think moon sign gardening or farming is superstitious, witchcraft or evil?
The short answers are: yes, I think so and no.
The term “planting by the signs” is a colloquial expression or folk term for the ancient practice of timing certain agricultural tasks by the moon’s astrological position in the zodiac.
It’s my opinion that there does seem to be some advantage in timing gardening, livestock, medical, construction and day to day tasks according to the moon’s natural monthly cycle and by it’s position as it passes through the belt of constellations that we call the zodiac.
For our agrarian ancestors, the understanding and application of natural cycles and rhythms to their lives was a matter of life and death.
It’s the reason why almanacs were so wide spread and heavily used.
Agricultural astrology is a very involved subject and it’s impossible to do it justice in a short blog post.
The purpose of this post is to present a brief peak at agricultural astrology.
The following is an example of why this knowledge was and is so important.
Instead of giving the routine explanation for the best time to plant above ground crops, set fence posts or mow fields, I thought instead, I’d show the application of agricultural astrology in livestock management.
The Castration of Animals: Picking the Best Day
Our agrarian ancestors lived closer to the earth than most people do today.
They understood and faithfully applied the ancient principles that had been passed to them by every preceding generation.
It wasn’t important for them to understand the science of why something worked. Just that it did work.
Before the days of bloodless banding, cutting was the only method of castration for male animals.
In fact in many ways cutting is still today the superior method.
But even today with good veterinary hygiene infection is a risk with surgical castration.
Never mind the risks that were involved to animals before the days of antibiotics.
Losing an animal to bleeding or infection was a serous economic loss to our forbears and was to be avoided at all costs.
Good animal husbandry would have required that a farmer chose a day for castration that would carry less risk for his animals.
Using The Moon’s Natural Cycle Every month the moon goes through a 4 stage natural cycle.
The lunar cycle goes from darkness – New Moon To increasing light – Waxing Moon To full light – Full Moon To decreasing light – Waning Moon And then completes the cycle to full darkness again.
Through observation, it appears that bleeding and other natural functions are increased during the waxing phase of the lunar cycle. Conversely bleeding is decreased during the waning phase of the lunar cycle.
Our ancestors were well familiar with this phenomena. As was the ancient Greek physician and Father of Medicine – Hippocrates.
To lessen the bleeding associated with castration the most favorable time to cut the scrotum and remove testicles would be when the moon is in it’s extreme waning phase.
What is even more interesting, is that routine livestock or animal welfare practices seem to have less complications and more favorable outcomes when carried out under certain zodiac “signs” that the moon is passing through.
Here’s the reason why:
Every month the moon passes through all 12 signs of the zodiac; spending just under 2 1/2 days in each sign.
Each of the 12 zodiac signs is associated with a different part of the body. The zodiac begins in Aries which governs the head and ends in Pisces which governs the feet. Each sign “rules” a part of the body.
What’s more, is that each of the zodiac signs or group of signs has certain qualities or characteristics associated with them.
The Water Signs:
Cancer – Breast & Stomach Scorpio – Reproductive system & lower bowels Pisces – Feet
Water signs are said to be feminine, wet, nutritive or fruitful. The Fire Signs:
Aries – Head Leo – Heart Sagittarius -Thighs
Fire signs are said to be masculine, barren and dry.
Libra – Veins & kidneys Aquarius -Lower legs Gemini – Arms & respiratory system
Air signs are said to be masculine and airy.
As the moon is passing through each position of the zodiac, the part of the body that is “ruled” by that sign becomes very sensitive.
Procedures done to benefit the particular part of the body that the sign “rules” seem to be of more lasting benefit. Quicker results are noted.
Conversely anything that is to the detriment of that part of the body is compounded.
As the moon passes through each of the 12 signs of the zodiac energy is “pulled” through the body. From the head to the feet.
Back to our castration example:
A date must be picked so that bleeding and infection is minimized.
By applying the understanding that bleeding is lessened during the waning phase of the moon, a time should be picked towards the end of the lunar cycle.
The qualities air and dryness seems to control the spread of infection in open wounds.
The knowledge that Aquarius is a dry, airy and barren sign is helpful in determining what the best day is to lessen possible infection.
What’s more, Aquarius is a zodiac sign that is moving away from the reproductive organs and towards the feet.
So the best day for the castration of animals would be when the moon is waning and passing through the sign of Aquarius.
To help me find that day I would need to consult an almanac.
The principles of moon sign agriculture are inclusive of all agricultural activities not just animal health and welfare.
Information for the best times to plant, weed, prune, breed animals, wean animals & children, castrate, harvest crops, set fence posts, logging, grafting and many other agricultural practices can be found in John Baer’s Almanac, The Old Farmer’s Almanac or any other reliable agricultural almanac.
For those who may believe that “planting by the signs” is pure superstition I would encourage you to suspend judgment, experiment for yourself and engage in a closer scrutiny of the natural world.
Why not get an almanac, 6 tomato plants and try planting them on favorable days and on unfavorable days and see what happens?
For those who may consider agricultural astrology to be witchcraft or evil; well, at one time people thought that about electricity and epilepsy too.
“Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and for years.” -Genesis 1:14
America, ready to see you sons and daughters come home in “transfer tubes”–coffins–from another ME war fought for Israel? This one will be against Iran and the booga-booga is getting extra loud since Obama’s inauguration. Whether it’s bogus reports coming from Israel about some IDF Storm Trooper killed while planting some booby-traps or Iranians setting up some kind of terror network in South America, they both have the same goal: To get America involved in fighting another war for Israel.
While our kids are fighting and dying in wars for Israel in Pakistan and Iran, back home, the parents of those brave kids will be fighting another war, a war against Zionist run banks and the Zionist controlled Federal Reserve, who are systematically looting this country blind.
1.7 million American homes were foreclosed on in 2007, 2.5 million in 2008 and another 10 million or so will be foreclosed on in the next couple of years, thanks to an out of control Wall Street only interested in one thing, Money.
BTW, where is all that money that has disappeared from Wall and Main Street? It just doesn’t go POOF! So where are all of those trillions of dollars? more – Greg Bacon
Here is just a sample of the latest pack of lies about Israel’s enemies published these last few days by “the world’s largest and most trusted source of independent news and information.”
Here’s a lie you will see in every AP report about Israel’s invasion and carpet-bombing of Gaza — a supremely criminal aggression which was meant to terrorize the population and help remove the democratically-elected government of Hamas from power:
Israel launched its 22-day offensive to try to halt Hamas rocket fire on southern Israel. (”Israel vows to back soldiers accused of war crimes,” 1∙25∙9)
The Secretary of “Defense” at the end of the Vietnam War was Donald Rumsfeld. This is the same Donald Rumsfeld that was relieved of that office by Bush, but who remained in the Pentagon until “the Change,” which could mean that he might still be there as a carry over from the last administration. Think about that while you read this please.
From the Vietnam War all the way to Israel’s most recent attack on Gaza; the policies of the US Department of War have never varied. Tactics have changed because government can no longer ‘depend’ on the loyalty of an informed American public; so a huge private army of mercenaries was hired to do what GI’s might no longer do, since they saw the light in Vietnam. There’s a film called SIR! NO SIR, that spells this out: It’s needed now, because the history and the facts of Vietnam, that could have stopped the War on Iraq- have been nearly annihilated since the Vietnam War ended in our surrender on June 30, 1975.
The war in Vietnam was a Lie. By 1968 the US had over a half million men in South Vietnam when the North Vietnamese launched their TET Offensive that overran the entire country, before being pushed back. This was the turning-point at which it became clear that the people of Vietnam were clearly on the side of the North Vietnamese. ‘It was also clear that the USA was mired in a war that we could not win.’
US troops began to go AWOL or refused to fight, and that’s where the Anti-War movement really began to become visible on the global stage.
As previously noted in Pawns of the Global Elite, Barack Obama was groomed for the presidency by key members of the Trilateral Commission. Most notably, it was Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller in 1973, who was Obama’s principal foreign policy advisor.
The pre-election attention is reminiscent of Brzezinski’s tutoring of Jimmy Carter prior to Carter’s landslide election in 1976.
For anyone who doubts the Commission’s continuing influence on Obama, consider that he has already appointed no less than nine members of the Commission to top-level and key positions in his Administration.
According to official Trilateral Commission membership lists, there are only 87 members from the United States (the other 337 members are from other regions). Thus, in less than two weeks since his inauguration, Obama’s appointments encompass more than 10% of Commission’s entire U.S. membership.
1- Secretary of Treasury, Tim Geithner 2- Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice 3- National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon 4- Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee, Paul Volker 5- Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis C. Blair 6- Assistant Secretary of State, Asia & Pacific, Kurt M. Campbell 7- Deputy Secretary of State, James Steinberg 8- State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Haass 9- State Department, Special Envoy, Dennis Ross 10- State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Holbrooke
There are many other incidental links to the Trilateral 12- 12- Commission, for instance,
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is married to Commission member William Jefferson Clinton.
Geithner’s informal group of advisors include E. Gerald Corrigan, Paul Volker, Alan Greenspan and Peter G. Peterson, among others. His first job after college was with Henry Kissinger at Kissinger Associates.
Brent Scowcroft has been an unofficial advisor to Obama and was mentor to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Robert Zoelick is currently president of the World Bank
Laurence Summers, White House Economic Advisor, was mentored by former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin during the Clinton administration.
There are many other such links, but these are enough for you to get the idea of what’s going on here.
Imagine: You turn on your television and see on the news that Canada has laid claim to the state of Maine and New Hampshire, which they call the New Hampshire Strip, due to divine right. England is giving the Canadians billions of dollars worth of deadly high tech military equipment and weapons which they are using right now to shell, bomb and rocket the people in Maine and the New Hampshire Strip. Canada feels it has a divine right to all current US territory that made up the original 13 colonies and/or that was under British control dating back to the 18th Century because the American rebels had no right to wage war against the divine British monarchy. Once the fighting is over, the British Queen will once again be head of state over the ungodly former rebel colonies as she is over Canada.
As you look at the images on your television, you see horribly burned children who are victims of the British-made white phosphorous grenades and bombs the Canadians are using. You see a British-built fighter jet attacking an ambulance as paramedics are vainly attempting to load more terribly wounded civilians into the ambulance for a life-or-death trip to the hospital. As you helplessly watch this mayhem unfold, you feel the righteous hatred rise inside you for both the Canadians who’re actually pulling the triggers and the British who are supplying them with the deadly and destructive weapons that are slaughtering your people.
You can’t believe what happens next. The newly elected British Prime Minister appears on your screen and tells an interviewer that the British are not the enemies of Americans! How can he say this with a straight face as British rockets and bombs are killing Americans?
This is exactly the lie that United States President Barack Obama told Muslims and the world when he gave his first interview on Arab television. Being a politician at his core, he told an obvious lie. He told the Islamic people that America is their friend as the hospitals in Gaza are overflowing with Palestinian men, women and children who are the painful victims of American white phosphorous, bombs and rockets detonated on them by the Jewish state of Israel. more – Robert L. Johnson at Strike the Root
You can start to have an inkling of where the idea of the ‘blood libel’ came from (my emphasis in red):
“When the leader of Israel’s religious-Zionist Meimad Party recently addressed a meeting of 800 high-school students in a Tel Aviv suburb, his words on the virtue of Israeli democracy for all its citizens were drowned out by student chants of ‘Death to the Arabs.'”
“Israeli soccer matches were suspended during the assault on Gaza. When the games resumed last week, the fans had come up with a new chant: ‘Why have the schools in Gaza been shut down?’ sang the crowd. ‘Because all the children were gunned down!’ came the answer.”
These are the young people, the future of Israel. Things are only going to become much worse. It is time to put an end to it, to stop the killing. xymphora
While invariably described in the media as a “stimulus” bill, the legislation actually does relatively little to create new jobs and launches no new social programs. It provides only $40 billion for new spending on infrastructure, and much of this will not actually be expended until 2010 or even later.
Most of the spending provisions in the bill relate to extending unemployment benefits and health insurance coverage for the unemployed—including the millions more expected to be laid off in the coming months—or authorize direct subsidies to state and city governments that would otherwise face bankruptcy.
From a purely economic standpoint, the bill’s function is to prevent an immediate and catastrophic collapse of consumer spending and public services, not to produce an economic revival. It was for that reason that most big business lobbies, like the US Chamber of Commerce, endorsed the legislation.
One purpose of the bill is to provide a measure of political cover as the Obama administration prepares a new taxpayer bailout of the banks and financial firms, in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and proceeds beyond that to pare down the resulting record budget deficit by imposing deep cuts in basic social programs such as Social Security and Medicare more – Patrick Martin at wsws.org
The report, released Wednesday by the group Peace Now, found that settlement construction in 2008 increased by almost 60 percent, including new construction both inside and outside of the security barrier and within illegal settlement outposts.
Nearly 40 percent of the new structures were built east of the security barrier, many of them extending deep into the West Bank.
And despite the Israeli government’s pledge to crack down on the illegal outposts, the study found that “not a single real outpost was evacuated.”
I’ve been getting a lot of e-mails lately, all of them complaining about how I’m not telling the truth about what happened in Gaza. Hey, just because no news media was allowed into Gaza during the slaughter (even Israeli solders weren’t allowed to take their cell phones into Gaza because Olmert didn’t want anybody taking pictures, didn’t want any proof), that doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.
But then dead children tell no tales.
All this pressure on me lately to simply “Shut up!” about Gaza reminds me of the times back in the bad old days when I thought there was something fishy about 9-11. “Bush knew!” I cried. “How could he not?” And if he didn’t know, then the man should have been jailed for criminal stupidity. The documents telling him that something was up were right there on his desk.
And remember back in 2003, when if you even hinted that the War on Iraq was based on a lie, you were called unpatriotic — and even a traitor? And we all know what happened there. Bush lied through his teeth.
I feel that same pressure on me now, pressure to toe the party line, to keep my mouth shut about the slaughter in Gaza, to only talk about how horrible the Qassam rockets are and to say nothing about 500 dead children in Gaza. 500 dead children in Gaza? So what. What’s wrong with that?
If you don’t know by now, I’m not going to tell you.
And remember how cruelly us liberals were made fun of and derided when we talked about stolen elections in Ohio and Florida, Halliburton fraud, outsourcing our jobs, large corporations that paid no taxes, Wall Street greed, the dangers of deregulation, etc. “The economy is gonna crash!” I cried. And people then accused me of being, er, nuts.
Okay. Let’s face it. I’ve been right about all of this stuff so far. Yet now I’m not allowed to be right about the terrible massacres in Gaza?
Within days of taking power, the Obama administration has made clear that it will escalate the war to subjugate the Afghan people, intensify US military strikes on targets inside Pakistan and continue the occupation of Iraq indefinitely. What is being prepared is a brutal escalation of US military violence in Afghanistan and a widening of the conflagration in the region.
Obama left a two-hour meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff yesterday pledging to ensure that the military received the “resources and the support” to wage the wars being conducted by the United States. He told journalists he would soon be announcing “some difficult decisions that we’re going to have to make surrounding Iraq and Afghanistan.”
The essence of those decisions was indicated on Tuesday in the testimony of Defense Secretary Robert Gates before the Senate and House armed services committees. Obama’s appointment of Gates marked the new president’s unambiguous repudiation of the campaign rhetoric that appealed to broad antiwar sentiment among the American people. Gates served the Bush administration in the same post for the past two years and directed the escalation of the Iraq war from early 2007 to early 2008.
Gates told the senators: “There is little doubt that our greatest military challenge right now is Afghanistan. As you know, the United States has focused more on Central Asia in recent months. President Obama has made it clear that the Afghanistan theatre should be our top overseas military priority.”
The war in Afghanistan, he added, would be “long and difficult.” The short-term time frame he placed on the conflict was “five years”—at least until 2014. He said an increase in US casualties was “likely” as operations are stepped-up against the anti-occupation insurgency being waged by loyalists of the former Taliban regime and other Afghan Islamist movements.
the rank and file stupid who don’t know any better;
the evil bastards up top who know better and don’t give a crap!
Senate goppers oppose what may be a last chance to save the US from the Bush/Reagan legacy of idiocy. GOP opposition to Obama’s stimulus bill has lambasted a ‘debt’ that they say will be inherited by future generations.
I did not hear those arguments when Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt and doubled the Federal Bureaucracy. I did not hear those arguments when Reagan’s tax cut was followed quickly by a depression of some two years –the worst, longest and deepest since Herbert Hoover’s Great Depression of 1929. I did not hear a peep of protest from gops when, more recently, George W. Bush cut taxes for his increasingly tiny elite of support even as he ran up the deficits like a binge drinker, leaving even Ronald Reagan in the shade. Oh…I get it! It’s bone headed if Democrats do it! But it is ‘sound fiscal policy’ if the GOP does it.
The GOP fails –as a party –because GOP policies never put money into the hands of those who will really spend it and, thus, create jobs. That wealth trickles up –never, ever down –is a demonstrable fact. A working persons tax cut will find its way back into the economy with purchase. Give aways to the rich never have and never will!
Meanwhile, in a bid to regain her plummeting popularity ahead of the elections, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told a gathering of the New York-based World Jewish Congress in occupied Jerusalem on Tuesday that Israel would no longer show restraint against Palestinian attacks from the Gaza Strip.
“Israel is going to act according to a new equation. Wearenotgoingtoshowrestraint anymore,” Livni said. “We need to change the rules of the game until they learn that the rules have changed and the equation has changed.”
All that WP, targeting civilians, shooting people waving white flags, collective punishment, preventing humanitarian aid, rounding people up and bombing them inside their houses, killing over 1,300 people, 90% of them civilians….that was Israel showing “restraint.” But an Israeli soldier was killed on Tuesday, so all bets are off now. more – A. Peasant at Twelfth Bough
If Netanyahu wins the 2/10 Israeli elections, as seems likely, we can expect him to aggressively push forward the current (psychopathic) Israeli strategy of putting Iran in the crosshairs while systematically murdering the Palestinians and stealing more and more of their land. Now the question is: Will that work?
The Real Lewinsky Tapes British investigative journalist Kevin Dowling has released an article for publication to a variety of British and American news organizations, charging that the Israeli Mossad was bugging the Watergate apartment telephone of Monica Lewinsky, and was able to obtain material used to blackmail the Clinton administration into shutting down a probe of widespread Israeli espionage in Washington.
So all this brouhaha took place because Israel, under Netanyahu, wanted to sabotage the peace process, the same as today. And very strangely, it looks like we will have another confrontation coming up with many of the same players in a matter of weeks. Do Hillary and Bill, currently under extreme duress due to the financial corruption being exposed and liable to throw Bush Sr. et. al. under the bus to save their own skins, despise Netanyahu for setting them up? If that’s true, the upcoming clash between Israel and the Obama Administration could have a very high popcorn factor. Hillary Clinton, in particular, would have ample motivation to go for Bibi’s jugular. And should her courage fail her for some reason, the unraveling financial corruption scandal dangles the threat of jail over her head.
Barring divine intervention by a team of heavenly economists, President Barack Obama’s massive spending spree … err … stimulus package, will pass into law. That probably can’t be stopped. But the money to be spent isn’t yet in government hands; it will almost certainly have to be borrowed — probably from overseas. That threatens to bind generations to come to paying off the bills run up today. Unless, that is, enough Americans dissuade lenders by announcing ahead of time that they plan to repudiate the debt the government intends to incur.
To be successful, such repudiation will have to be open and massive. And it will be most convincing if it’s voiced loudest by young Americans — those who have the potential to assume political power in the future. Millions of twenty-somethings saying, when they’re in Congress 20 or 30 years from now, they won’t honor hundreds of billions of dollars of treasury securities issued by today’s profligate politicians, just may raise serious doubts among the world’s lenders.
Just like Gore and Oprah, they can sit around with Obama and discuss the Health Care Crisis, Global Warming, and School Shootings over some happy meat at their fancy balls with their silver forks. And it is not like he doesn’t know.
“All ancient philosophy was oriented toward the simplicity of life and taught a certain kind of modesty in one’s need. In light of this, the few philosophic vegetarians have done more for mankind than all new philosophers, and as long as philosophers do not take courage to seek out a totally changed way of life and to demonstrate it by their example, they are worth nothing.” Nietzsche
Michael Schmidt, a raw milk farmer, owner and operator of Glencolton Farms in Durham, Ontario, Canada is facing over 20 charges from the Canadian government for the distribution of raw milk under his cowshare program which serves over 150 families. The charges have been laid by the Ministry of Natural Resources based on the Health Protection and Promotion Act and the Milk Act. Having commenced yesterday, the trial is currently ongoing.
It is a crime to sell raw milk in Canada but it is legal to offer a cowshare program which involves consumers buying a certain share of the cow`s milk, called a cowshare, and receiving their portions on usually a weekly or semi-weekly basis. This program makes cowshare owners part owners of the cattle. In this respect, Schmidt is not selling raw milk, but rather, he is offering the service of providing raw milk for the cowshare holders. He has also never had anyone become ill from the consumption of his raw milk products. So why is he being charged?
Canadian health officials believe that raw milk is dangerous since it can contain harmful pathogens that can cause severe health problems, including serious illness and even death. It is their belief that all milk should be pasteurized to nullify all possible pathogens. What they don`t mention is that Schmidt does not raise his cows in such conditions so as to cause the proliferation of such harmful pathogens, but rather, he uses traditional methods of raising livestock, allowing the cows access to pasture and natural feed, something foreign to most conventional farmers who have their milk pasteurized.
They also believe that raw milk is particularly dangerous for children. All around the world, including other advanced nations such as those in Europe, children consume raw milk as part of their daily diet, and they do not suffer any serious health consequences. But in Canada, experts still believe that this practice is dangerous. more – Michael Latisa at Natural News
What if the doomsayers are right … what if society, as we know it, really is about to collapse? Do you have what it takes to make it in a world without electricity and running water? Tanya Gold offers an essential survival guide
His name isn’t Barton, but he is certainly a Fink: Newly installed economic dictator Timothy Geithner.
Perhaps the only commendable thing newly installed Economic Dictator (and Barton Fink lookalike) Tim Geithner has done in a public career otherwise devoted to serving the Power Elite was to “cheat” on his taxes.
Given that taxation is theft, “cheating” the taxman is bit like refusing to disclose every hidden pocket of household wealth to an armed robber.
Unless they’re sick unto death with some form of collectivist psychosis, Americans submit to government taxation for the same reason they would pay off any other irresistibly powerful extortionist.
At some point in any conversation about taxes someone, acting with smugly misplaced confidence in the power of cliche, will deploy Justice Holmes’ dictum about taxes being “the price we pay for civilization.”
Actually, taxes are the price extracted from us by those determined to undermine civilization, which is built on the peaceful, mutually enriching exchange of knowledge, goods, services, sound traditions, and culture among people of goodwill.
As Justice Holmes would have understood, had he not been a blinkered positivist and deranged militarist, taxation is what fuels the forces of barbarism — the Warmakers, empire-builders, and practitioners of public plunder in all of its malignant varieties.
The “civilizing” deeds of such people are measured by the graveyards they have filled, the prisons and gallows they have built, and the number of names listed in the obscene war memorials they erect in their own honor, if that word applies. All of these depredations are made possible by taxation.
By way of contrast, all of the genuinely civilized functions of life — those that take place in families, churches, the marketplace, and private associations of shared interest — require not a farthing in taxes.
Tacitus famously lamented the work of imperialists who make a desert and call it “peace.” In the same fashion, tax-fed Kleptocrats impose systems of official plunder, corruption, and violence and call it “civilization.”
As a young man at Kissinger Associates (KA), Geithner was deeply involved in brokering the kind of “civilized” deals the Power Elite thrives on. Among other things, Kissinger’s influence-peddling operation helped arrange the Iraq War: It promoted the U.S. taxpayer-subsidized Iraqi arms build-up while simultaneously representing the state-owned Kuwaiti Petroleum Corporation.
Kleptocrat as Imperial Proconsul: L. Paul “Jerry” Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in occupied Iraq, makes his rounds under the watchful eyes of his Blackwater Praetorian Guard.
One of Geithner’s associates at that enigmatic firm was L. Paul Bremer, who went on to become the imperial proconsul in “liberated” Iraq following the second Gulf War. Bremer has followed a pretty conventional Kleptocratic career arc: He ended up presiding over the “reconstruction” of a country whose demolition he and his KA comrades had helped to arrange.
This proved to be immensely profitable to Geithner’s kleptocratic cronies, who were in a position to benefit from no-bid, “cost-plus” contracts and the other lucrative scams that proliferated during the festive orgy of official corruption called the “reconstruction” of Iraq. Oh, sure: Iraq itself was left — and remains today — a wrecked and ruined land. But at least the Lords of Plunder made out pretty well.
Geithner is pursuing a career trajectory similar to Bremer’s, albeit in a slightly different field. In the years leading up to his coronation as Treasury Secretary, Geither was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. This means he was a member in good standing in the world’s most important criminal syndicate, the Federal Reserve System. It also means he spent a good part of his public career abetting the destruction of the economy he now has been given dictatorial powers to “save.”
The Fed’s loose money and credit policies created the inflationary boom and led to the ongoing economic bust. Since the bust began, Geithner’s chief priority has been to pillage the earnings of poor and middle-class Americans on behalf of the super-wealthy and politically connected. His first service of that kind came early last summer, when he helped devise a $29 billion taxpayer-backed bailout of the mortally wounded Bear Stearns investment house.
At the time, both Geithner and the Capo of his criminal order, Ben Bernanke, insisted that with that bailout the investment markets had been stabilized, and the economic downturn had been arrested. That was seven months and at least $3 trillion (and probably as much as $8 trillion) in taxpayer-backed bailouts ago.
During that time, Congress enacteda measure giving the Treasury Secretary — acting in collusion with the Fed Chairman — unlimited and unaccountable power to appropriate “bailout” funds, and disburse them as he sees fit, without congressional review or accountability of any kind.
The power of economic “reconstruction” has thus been vested in two of the chief demolitionists of the world economy, one of whom, Mr. Geithner, belongs to an uber-secret clique of central bankers and Keynesian socialists called the Group of 30. Not to put too fine a point on the matter, this group isn’t composed of the kind of people whose sleep is troubled by concerns about the impact of their machinations on the civilized affairs of Main Street.
Given his vita and associations, there’s every reason to believe that Geithner will use the means at his disposal to siphon the wealth that remains in our economy into the hands of the international Plunderbund. Perhaps the only genuinely interesting question left is this: What will parasites of his kind do once they have killed their host?
The Obama administration has decided that blood and iron, not hearts and minds, will be the new focus of the American military adventure in Afghanistan. Top Obama officials – anonymous, natch — used the front page of the New York Times as a conduit for conveying the imperial will to the rabble this week. The basic strategy, it seems, will be the same one that professional nudnik Glenn Reynolds once proposed for the recalcitrant tribes of the Middle East: “more rubble, less trouble.”
As we noted here the other day – drawing on a story in the Independent that the Times is just now catching up with – the Obama team is preparing to throw aside Hamid Karzai, the dapper if hapless Washington-picked Afghan president. The NYT uncritically – not to say hilariously – funnels the Obama line that Karzai is being sidelined “because corruption has become rampant in his government, contributing to a flourishing drug trade and the resurgence of the Taliban.”
This is pretty rich, even for Washington, where the comedy of hypocrisy never stops. Leaving aside the staggeringly vast corruption that is the meat and drink, the quintessence, the sine qua non, of the American government, when have our imperial overlords ever been troubled for even a single instant by the corruption – rampant or otherwise – of its various foreign clients? And what was the prime example of this Afghan corruption given by the Obama officials? Karzai’s failure to arrest his own half-brother, a powerful local politician, for drug trafficking. Can you even imagine such a thing? A well-connected public official not being prosecuted by the national government for serious crimes? Such a thing could never happen in Washington, could it?
And given the long-running, apparently eternal, thoroughly bipartisan commitment to the ever-ineffectual but highly profitable “war on drugs,” it seems a bit churlish — not to say ignorant — to blame Karzai for dirt-poor Afghan farmers resorting to such a rich cash crop. As for the gangsters who move the merchandise around the world — it is the illegality of these substances that makes them so lucrative on the street; legalize them, regularize them, tax them, and they would lose nine-tenths of their allure for the criminal syndicates. But then, what would our civilized governments do without all those juicy, draconian “anti-drug” powers. (For more on all this — and its connection to Afghanistan — see “Gainspotting: Terror War Meets Drug War.”)
In any case, the drug trade is “flourishing” in Afghanistan because the American-led “regime change” operation there removed a government that had practically eliminated the Afghan drug trade — the Taliban — and replaced with it a gaggle of drug-running warlords. Now Washington is shocked — shocked! — to find drug-running going on there. Comedy gold, I tell you.
But of course, Washington’s displeasure with Karzai has nothing to do with the corruption of his government or the Afghan drug trade. It stems from two main concerns: first, Karzai’s increasingly strident protests against the growing number of Afghan civilians being killed in American and NATO operations; and second, the need to find a scapegoat for “the resurgence of the Taliban.” Preferably, this scapegoat will be some local stooge, a fall guy to divert attention from the fact that the main reason for this resurgence is Washington’s witless, blunderbuss, blood-and-iron approach — the very same approach that Obama and his anonymous tough-guy leakers are proposing to escalate. And what better fall guy than some loudmouth who keeps going on about how destructive and counterproductive the American approach is?
But do let’s be fair to Team Obama, which, as we all know, is motivated solely by the most humane and progressive motives. The NYT story makes clear that if Karzai — supposedly the independent president of a sovereign nation — grovels sufficiently to his new masters in Washington, they might keep him on for a bit longer:
Mr. Holbrooke is preparing to travel to the region, and administration officials said he would ask more of Mr. Karzai, particularly on fighting corruption, aides said, as part of what they described as a “more for more” approach.
Mr. Karzai is facing re-election this year, and it is not clear whether Mr. Obama and his aides intend to support his candidacy. The administration will be watching, aides said, to see if Mr. Karzai responds to demands from the United States and its NATO allies…..
These demands include arresting not only his half-brother but various other Afghan officials — many if not most of them the same warlords, druglords, crimelords and religious extremists brought to power by the Americans themselves.
Meanwhile, our tough new “progressive hawks” are going to downplay all that sissy-mary “development” stuff — off-loading it onto the effete Europeans — while they concentrate on killing them a whole shitload of gooks — sorry, Talibans:
They said that the Obama administration…would leave economic development and nation-building increasingly to European allies, so that American forces could focus on the fight against insurgents.
“If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of Central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose,” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who served under Mr. Bush and is staying on under Mr. Obama, told Congress on Tuesday. He said there was not enough “time, patience or money” to pursue overly ambitious goals in Afghanistan, and he called the war there “our greatest military challenge.”
Mr. Gates said last week that previous American goals for Afghanistan had been “too broad and too far into the future,” language that differed from Mr. Bush’s policies.
Yes, that’s change we can believe in: being even more militaristic than George W. Bush! We look forward to some really, really positive results from this approach.
II. Then again, I guess we’ve got to do “whatever it takes” to win this thing — because this the “good war,” after all, isn’t it? The war that all “serious” progressives were quick to say that they wholeheartedly supported, even while voicing their opposition to the invasion of Iraq — which was “the wrong war at the wrong time.” Indeed, their main complaint about the murderous berserking in Iraq was that it “took our eye off the ball” from the “central front in the War on Terror” in Afghanistan. This was the line consistently peddled by Obama (who never once declared, or even hinted, that the Iraq operation was an inherently criminal operation — a horrendous moral abomination, a sickening mass atrocity — and not just an inconvenient or ill-timed or badly-conducted endeavour). No, the Afghan War is the war “we had to fight,” our progressive hawks all tell us, so we’ve got to see it through.
But is that true? Is it a war we “had to fight”? Even if one accepted as gospel the ever-shifting “official” versions of the origins of 9/11, was there perhaps another way, a road not taken? Scott Ritter, who knows a fair bit about Afghanistan and the higher machinations of Washington courtiers intent on war, thinks so. In a recent column — describing an encounter in October 2001 with Obama’s new special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke — Ritter outlines an approach that doubtless would have been far more effective:
Our fight, in any case, wasn’t against the people of Afghanistan. To a certain extent, it wasn’t even against the Taliban, since it was al-Qaida, not the Taliban, that had attacked us. Some, including leaders of the Bush administration, were making the case that the Taliban was directly implicated in the attacks since it had provided al-Qaida with a safe haven to plan the events of 9/11. It had yet to be proved that the Taliban was a witting host, however. As a student of the region, I believed that the United States would do well to use tribal concepts of honor to isolate and disenfranchise bin Laden and his Arab outsiders from their Taliban host. If the United States, working through the offices of the Pakistani intelligence services, could convince the Taliban that its hospitality had been abused by al-Qaida—in that the murder of innocents had been committed while under its protection—then Afghan tribal custom and honor and, even more important to the fundamentalist Taliban, Islamic law, dictated that the Taliban revoke the protections and privileges afforded bin Laden and al-Qaida.
I did not believe that the Taliban would impose justice itself, but rather could be convinced, through a combination of logic and economic incentive, to disperse al-Qaida and turn bin Laden and his senior leadership over to a third party, presumably an Islamic nation such as Pakistan or the United Arab Emirates. If a direct approach failed, then covert action, using proxy forces in Pakistan and Iran, would make contact with moderate elements of the Taliban, personified by its foreign minister, to remove the conservative Mullah Omar from power and achieve a more direct result against bin Laden and his cohorts. A new, moderate Taliban leadership would be more than capable of assembling the religious clerics necessary to convene a sharia, or Islamic, court, which would find the actions of al-Qaida to be violations of Islamic law. Also, a loya jirga, or tribal gathering, would revoke the protected status of “guest” enjoyed by bin Laden and his fellow terrorists. The least productive option America could pursue was that of direct military intervention, and I anticipated that the veteran diplomat [Holbrooke] would concur with that point of view.
In his suggestions for “covert action,” Ritter here indulges in the usual American predilection for arranging the internal affairs of other countries to suit Washington’s agenda. [Although it must be said that in the perverted moral scales of state action, a little proxy covert action would have been “better” than all-out war.] But for the most part, he is dead on. What’s more, the Taliban — under Mullah Omar — was already prepared to do exactly what Ritter was proposing in October 2001. The Taliban made clear to Washington that they would turn bin Laden over to a third-party Islamic country — if the United States would provide evidence of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks. And although Colin Powell famously declared at the time that he was compiling just such a dossier of evidence to prove al Qaeda’s guilt “to the world,” this dossier was never produced. In any event, Washington rejected the Taliban’s offer out of hand. They did not want to “get” bin Laden. They did not want to pursue legal justice for the attacks on 9/11. They wanted to invade Afghanistan. And by god, that’s just what they did.
As Ritter notes, this bloodthirsty exercise of power was fully embraced by Democratic paladins like Holbrooke:
What happened, however, was the exact opposite. The diplomat rejected out of hand any sort of diplomacy, arguing that there were only extremists within the ranks of the Taliban. There was, in his opinion, no such thing as a moderate Taliban, and as such the United States had no choice but to lump the Taliban and al-Qaida into a singular target set, and initiate direct military action designed to remove the Taliban from power and destroy al-Qaida in Afghanistan. I responded by noting that it would not be an easy thing to separate the Taliban from Afghan society, since the Taliban was a product of Afghan society, and that any military action against the Taliban would only strengthen the bonds between it and al-Qaida, which was of course the last result the United States should be seeking. The diplomat rejected my argument as simplistic and unrealistic. He argued for a military solution, and, of course, that was the result the Bush administration delivered.
Ritter also notes rightly that the “expertise” offered by Holbrooke in the situation will be worthless at best, and dangerous at worst:
It is highly doubtful that Holbrooke will bring anything more to the table than cheerleading. President Obama’s stated intention to increase the size of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and to more forcefully assert U.S.-imposed “security” through continued military action in the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan is a dangerous scheme, one Holbrooke will enthusiastically support. Reinforcing failure is never a sound solution. Take it from the veteran British military officers who have served in Afghanistan and now advise that there is no military solution to the Afghan problem. Listening to advice like that would go a long way toward developing stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan and neutralizing al-Qaida’s ability to organize and operate in those nations. The British recognize that the Taliban is not the problem, but rather part of the solution to what ails Afghanistan.
There will be no peace without a negotiated settlement that includes the Taliban. To accomplish this, leadership is required which recognizes the Taliban as a force of moderation, and not extremism. Holbrooke does not have a record which indicates he would be willing to consider direct negotiations with the Taliban. He tends to seek military solutions to difficult ethnic-based problems, and he is likely to argue for the deployment of even more U.S. troops to that war-ravaged nation. That would be a historic mistake.
Yes, but historic mistakes are what empires do; it’s what empires are. So it’s no surprise that the new managers of our empire — who have avidly sought and freely embraced the cruel, inhuman machinery of military domination — are careening headlong down another horrendous dead end. “Get some!”