Archive for the ‘USA’ Category

Maduro caled for peace in Venezuela? Really? Maduro?

April 6, 2014

This is an open letter to Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation, in reaction to his article of April 5, 2014, at http://www.lewrockwell.com. I am copying it to my blog at http://www.trutherator.wordpress.com.

His article is found here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/jacob-hornberger/us-out-of-venezuela/

Mr. Hornberger,

I’m an anarcho-capitalist that found out with Ron Paul’s campaign in 2008 that my 40-year-old views had lined up with what are called “libertarian”, and as a former missionary that lived since early 1970s in Latin America or in Hispanic-dominated Miami-Dade Count. My ex-wife is from the Dominican Republic and my wife is from Honduras. I plan on retiring in Honduras. I hope it will not be overwhelmed by a socialist regime such as Maduro’s. What they have today would be better, but I hope to add to the libertarian conversation in Honduras.

I have a personal interest against USG and UN interventions around the world. Foreign aid and drug wars are killing men in great numbers in my wife’s country -and killing their economy. Maybe the new special economic regions, designed artfully with the help of some libertarian economists from the US and from the Mises-associated institute in Guatemala will help them. I hope.

No doubt the CIA is around somewhere doing whatever they do, and let us be honest here: Neither of us knows what they are really doing, except in general terms. I used to think we could presume they consistently support American capitalist interests. After Honduras, Libya, Syria, with the evidence from these episodes of the USG helping socialist dictators and its purported Number One enemy to gain power in these places, I’m not so sure. Honduras I know best; and they did not hide their efforts to support the socialist dictator there.

I am surprised and a bit irritated at the reaction to regimes like Maduros’. Especially since I read it on http://www.lewrockwell.com.

Before I get to why, I totally agree with your concluding paragraph:

Leave Venezuela to the Venezuelans. If private Americans wish to involve themselves in the controversy, that’s fine. But the U.S. government should butt out entirely. What happens in Venezuela is none of the U.S. government’s business. Unfortunately, given the secret nature of the U.S. national-security state, the American people will never know the extent of U.S. involvement in the Venezuelan crisis until the CIA’s files on the matter are opened several decades from now.

Maybe they’ll open the files, maybe not, but I doubt that any files that will be available either now or later will reveal anything on the subject worthwhile, and more likely misleading.

But it is an amazing spectacle to see all the well-deserved condemnation of probable USG involvement, and absolutely nothing about what the Venezuelans might actually want in reality independently of both the American government and their own dictatorship.

I don’t remember any such outrage over Obama’s demands and Hillary Clinton’s interventions in Honduras to try to force them to put the socialist dictator Manuel Zelaya.

The American ambassador to Honduras at the time, Hugo Llorens, made an appearance in a commercial aired by the Zelaya regime, propaganda to get public support for his very unpopular effort for his so-called “referendum” (later relabeled “survey”).

Hillary Clinton made a personal call to Roberto Micheletti to resign, which would of course make it easier to force Honduras to take Zelaya back as the dictator he already was.

This “referendum” horrified Hondurans, because they knew three things for sure. (1) One, the thing would be fraudulent. They know their politicians. (2) Two, Zelaya had already advocated presidential re-election (already defined as “treason” by the Honduras constitution because of earlier attempts at lifetime presidencies. (3) Three, and worst of all, it would open up for more fraudulent “elections” to create an irrevocable socialist dictatorship, Chavez style, in Honduras.

There was one piece that circulated on the Internet at the time, how Zelaya “brought the country together”. Every group of any significance at all in those days demanded first his resignation and then supported his removal and the constitutional successor government of Micheletti. Half the population filled the plazas of the biggest and the smallest cities and villages to say so. The Chambers of Commerce, BOTH major political parties, ALL the Congress (elected by the same people that voted for president), the Catholic Church (Zelaya’s mob had to import a priest), all the Protestant churches, all the unions (except the hopeless teachers’ union, that had them on strike more than in the classroom literally by count of days– for the previous three years), and EVERY ex-pat in a forum where I was member.

What’s the CIA going to do there? What can they do? Why would they waste a dime getting the country to get rid of somebody they did not want?

Oh, yeah, because Soros wants power. But no doubt HIS dirty hands were in the pot FOR Zelaya. Keynote speaker at the regional summit the November previous.

Hondurans got panicked at the prospect of fixed elections creating another Cuba or Venezuela in their country. They vote with their feet by getting to the States at the first opportunity.

Why is it so hard to understand that so many Hondurans, or even Venezuelans, hate the serfdom of socialism, along with the miserable poverty it brings?

Maduro bragged in his op-ed in the New York Times about universal health care? Oh get out! The poor have to bring their own sheets into hospitals and sleep on the floor there! We’re already getting our own taste of that bitter poisonous “medicine” in the States!

That was the attitude of most of the Hondurans. Fortunately for them, apparently many or most of the richest and most powerful interests were inclined their way. BUT not all; one zillionaire and perennial presidential candidate was fingered in newspapers and “on the street” as the one who smuggled Zelaya back in to the Brazilian embassy (Surprise, Brazilia!)

And it is relevant that Maduro is the heir of the Chavista regime that has meddled in its neighbor’s internal political affairs and tried its best to save the imposition by external Force of a dictatorship that had no regard for anything but seizing power.

The phony pro-Zelaya demonstrations had some genuine bodies, but it was mostly marching-for-hire. They poured so much money into the country that the lempira went up a full 10 percent against the dollar for those several months!

Zelaya admitted in a Univision interview that he had won the election by fraud by saying that all elections have fraud.

After 2009, I have followed events in Venezuela.

Please note an unsung development in Latin America. It’s hard to see its long-term effect, but it has been noticed by some statesmen “down south”.

Honduras changed history in Latin America with its reassertion of some constitutional order inside its borders, such as it is. Don’t get a smug face about it; they did better in 2009 than the US has done in recent years. Will Obama in 2016 declare a federal election nationwide to vote for a new constitution? That momentum is building, from both the phony “right wing” and the phony “left wing”.

After the 2009 elections in Honduras, the president of El Salvador of the former “leftist” guerrilla party, declared dead the move to join Venezuela’s petro association. The mayor of Caracas demanded the importation of “cojones” from Honduras. Freedom-minded Latins were inspired all over. Honduran ex-pat communities felt relief unspeakable. Brazilian Congressmen went back to Brazil with the news that the entire Brazilian community living in Honduras were engraged at Zelaya’s refuge in their embassy.

No doubt Paraguay had Honduras in the back of their minds when they impeached and dethroned their own dictator aspirant for his dictatorial acts. Venezuela’s caudillo government whined about another CIA-backed coup.

It’s a political safe bet down south (and apparently among some libertarian circles in the US today too) to blame the CIA and the US for all their troubles.

Maybe the CIA is trying for a coup in Caracas, given the atmosphere in Latin America today. Soros has his fingers everywhere. He would love to have a dictatorship to deal with, to give him good deals, good power, after all…

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

P.S. There are videos of the police shooting at protestors there. There is video on youtube of Chavistas shooting into the million-person march (literally) in cold blood that resulted in twelve people dead. A false flag coup distracted the world’s attention from this slaughter of civilians and a de-facto socialist coup ensued thereupon by outing anti-Chavez military to purge them. These “CIA lackeys” and “coup plotters” got no punishment at all, they were cleared by the *Chavista* Supreme Court of all charges, with military pensions and all honors retained. And it was a “CIA” coup?

Can people be more gullible?

 

Left-fascists riot in Honduras Congress, democracy, and individual freedom

February 1, 2014

Herein read my reaction to comments in La Gringa’s “blogicito”, found at the following link:

http://tinyurl.com/m7wyh7m

This episode of changing rules in Honduras just shows the general peril of ANY government. Democracy is NOT any “better” than any other form of government. Power corrupts. Taxation is extortion by definition, no matter how many of the majority vote for it. Follow the law or go to jail. By the way, though, I read various articles on the proceedings, and they are not the end of the democracy as depicted, so much as a lot of noise and riot by a party founded by people who in power did much worse, of course.

The United States’ long history is the best attempt maybe along those lines, and look where it is now. The “strong media” of the 19th century is now a sycophantic mouthpiece for more control over every piece of your life by government. The best example of this is their treatment of the champion of individual freedom in the United States in his presidential campaign, Ron Paul.

But college kids loved him. He was different, and showed character by shutting down lobbyists, like Larry Abrammoff said in a Q&A on CSpan once, he was one that you could not get anything from him with offers of money. Otherwise, he said they’re more or less all for sale.

Centralization of power in the United States began with the Constitution, had a false start with Alexander Hamilton’s central bank baby, which Andrew Jackson killed off, got a second wind with Abraham Lincoln, and then accelerated after the Federal Reserve Bank was created and populated with the bankers they were supposedly going to regulate for the people’s interest, and it was created after a campaign that pretended it was to stop their abuses. The Income Tax was another abuse enacted the same year. It’s an abuse because I don’t have the right to tell you how much you get to keep of the fruits of your labor and how much you have to pay me for “protection”. Even if you vote for me. Theft is theft. Or call it extortion if you must, because it depends also on how “stable” such thieves are in office.

At least by a vote they have to got through pretense.

Allende was voted a plurality in Chile, and when he began ruling as an economic and political tyrant, the Congress had no constitutional remedy, so they passed a resolution DEMANDING that the military stop him. Allende did not yield to diplomatic pressure, either, and a lot of that saw the (again) sycophantic controlled “strong” media cheering Allende for cutting down Anaconda copper.

The media (outside Honduras) did not report the abused Allende perpetrated any more than they did Zelaya’s. But in 2009 we already had the Internet. So the only mainstream reporting during both abusive regimes was condemnatory of the moves against leftist-fascism.

Think not; more centralized control is their game plan. At least that’s what they do. Some as zombies, true, but nonetheless.

That’s why hope for Honduras, in my opinion, has two grounds for optimism.

ONE, the fact that one of the poorest country in Latin America, and that was already saturated by violent gangs and the same demagaguery as Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, and even Argentina and Brazil, nonetheless pushed back against the tyranny.

TWO, they worked quickly to find a way to bring Honduras out of the vicious poverty swamp. They scoured the world and brought people from Chile to share how they became the first Latin American developed country. They investigated the examples of South Korea (contrast with North Korea) and Hong Kong and China’s special economic zones (that copy the HK model), Singapore, that became prosperous while their neighbors sank in the mire.

The politics is noisy in Honduras right now, and the dirty laundry is now public, but it was always thus. It’s just that after 2009, they have to stay clean, at least until the sons of the Chavez-Zelaya-Castro marriage grab a majority or plurality.

It was always much WORSE in fact. I have certain knowledge that many of the Congress years past were into the kinds of business that would make Al Capone blush. And that includes some of those now demanding “democracy” from the controlling coalition.

Fighting over the spoils of conquest is what this is, and people must push back against any government having any power at all to loot anybody.

Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the  blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised…

Matthew 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

//

//

What is really behind the Chamber of Commerce hate for the “Tea Party” people, Really?

January 11, 2014

Conservatives question US Chamber’s plan to spend millions to defeat Tea Party style candidates in 2014 | Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/11/conservatives-question-us-chamber-plan-to-spend-millions-to-defeat-tea-party/

The article says that it’s their reaction to the so-called “tea party” shutdown of government over Obamacare last year (2013).

Really? Or is it –just maybe– because the “Tea Party” identifying Congressmen are hanging out shingles on their doors that say “No Sale”?

Sure, a few really big corporations lost some government money during that shutdown. Mr. Unofficial Fabian Socialist of the left-fascist faction made sure of that, as anyone who paid attention to the details knows.

But then they kept on going.

Maybe it’s the tea-party’s major issue that has them scared: That fedgov has gotten way too big, and handles way too much money.

To me, it was a fascinating turn of events. I never thought the Chamber of Commerce, that claims to be the voice of business and –so we thought– free enterprise, would be so blatant and public about advocating against freedom of enterprise and relief for the “Taxed Enough Already”. But there they go, they are.

I thought they might grumble silently, because the businesses that have survived the Fed, the income tax, regulation, the New Deal, the War on Poverty, the wars in Europe, the welfare-warfare state, and the lead-up to the rollout of the Unaffordable Sick Act (aka Obamacare; or )

Of course it’s the small businesses that cannot afford the deep-pocket lobbyists who really are sick and tired of fedgov burdens and chains on their economic freedoms. The last thing they want to do is to kill their business by endangering their customers. But government-protected businesses have to be big, for the kind of results demanded and for the influence they get.

So, there you go. America’s biggest corporations have declared themselves full supporters of left-fascist government. I warned conservatives in the Bush years that the totalitarian surveillance state would be turned on them with a changing to the Hustler-in-Chief. I warned the “liberals” and the “Democrats” that there was no difference.

Sure, Obama would accelerate Bush’s push to expand the welfare state, but then he would also continue and expand the warfare state. This is a big-business unspoken understanding, but know this: the biggest among them would rather lose the medical industry to Obama’s”care” than to give up their now full-blown partnership with fedgov’s force-enforced domination of the economy.

Obama’s cabinet picks, and especially his “czars” (short for little Caesars) demonstrated this clearly. He had people from Wall Street, Big Bankers including Goldman Sachs, Big Industry, leftists from Academia, including open Communists, the environmentally religious, all thrown into the same mix and working together.

Really big business marries Big Brother, a trade made in hell. Big Business sells its wares to fedgov, and fedgov operatives sell favors to Big Business.

Yep. Congress has about a 9% approval rate and a general 90-95 percent re-election rate, where it jumped to after passage of the McCain Feingold Incumbent Protection-Racket Campaign Finance Reform. Before that act it was already hard enough to unseat one of this most despised political club in the country at an 80 percent re-election rate.

GALATIANS 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

// <!–[CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById("cosymantecnisbfw"); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById("cosymantecnisbfw"); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById("cosymantecnisbfw"); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById("cosymantecnisbfw"); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>

//

Maryland moves back in the right direction, but true paper ballots are better

November 29, 2013
English: Fractional Cumulative Voting ballot s...

English: Fractional Cumulative Voting ballot sample Created for Wikipedia, by Tom Ruen, May 2004 with MSPaint (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Maryland Will Return To Paper Ballots In 2016 – found at Liberty Crier
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/11/20/maryland-will-return-to-paper-ballots-in-2016/

 

Paper receipts for a vote are not enough. Make the ballot to be THE OFFICIAL ballot, and then the electronic count is just a count that is verifiable by going back to the hard copy.

 

Going back and re-reading an electronic store of a vote tally and calling that a “recount” is an outrageous scam. Whenever the elections officials talk about these changes, they say that they have increase the “confidence” of the voters in the elections “results”, which just means they have to fool enough people with the announced figures to get away with it.

 

But people are learning..

 

Check out the work done by Black Box Voting, and read founder Bev Harris‘ book “Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century: Bev Harris”:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Box-Voting-Tampering-Century/dp/1890916900

 

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

 

 

 

Related articles

 

 

 

Ex-Mayor Sorry (Obamacare): “I Have Now Learned That I Was Wrong. Very Wrong.” — 11 mass murders stopped by guns

November 3, 2013

Former Mayor Laments Defending Obamacare: “I Have Now Learned That I Was Wrong. Very Wrong.

“Obamacare jacks up her insurance – Chicago Sun-Times
http://www.suntimes.com/news/marin/23352031-452/obamacare-jacks-up-her-insurance.html

Florida sheriff arrested after complying with the Second Amendment
http://www.wjhg.com/news/headlines/Suspended-Sherif-Nick-Finch-Not-Guilty-230066351.html

BRISTOL - The jury finds suspended Liberty County Sheriff Nick Finch not guilty on both counts.

Finch was accused of releasing a man who was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit and then destroying the arrest records.

It took the jury less than 90 minutes to reach the verdict.

Moments after the verdict was read, Finch spoke to Governor Rick Scott by phone. He was reinstated a couple of hours later.

“Sheriff Nick Finch will be reinstated immediately,” said Governor ick Scott in a written statement. “I would like to thank the members of the jury in Liberty County for their service in this trial. I would also like to thank Interim Sheriff Buddy Money for his service to the state of Florida.”

+++++

Gun Watch has a list of mass killings that were stopped or thwarted by armed citizens here:

  1. The Pearl, Mississippi school shooting was stopped by the vice principal Joel Myrick with a Colt .45, The Appalachian School shooting was stopped by two students with handguns. Both of the above incidents were stopped by the armed citizens threatening the shooter without firing.
  2. Plans to slay everyone in a Muskegon, Michigan store and steal enough cash and jewelry to feed their “gnawing hunger for crack cocaine” fell apart for a band of would-be killers after one of their victims fought back.
  3. The mass church shooting in Colorado Springs was stopped by the shooter being shot by a church member with a CCW permit.
  4. The Santa Clara gunshop shooting in 1999 was stopped by an armed citizen after the shooter declared that he was going to kill everyone. Police found a list of intended victims in his car. Only the perpetrator, Richard Gable Stevens was shot.
  5. The December, 1991, Aniston, Alabama defense where a CCW holder stopped armed robbers who were herding employees, customers, and his wife into a cooler. He shot both robbers, killing one.
  6. July 13, 2009, in Virginia at the Golden Food Market: The gunman tried to shoot several people, was stopped by a CCW carrier.
  7. Just recently, in Early Texas, armed citizen Vic Stacy shot and stopped a deranged man who had just murdered two neighbors and was firing at police with a rifle.
  8. Abraham Dickman had a history of anger against employees of the AT&T store in New York Mills, New York. On May 27th, 2010, he walked into the store with a .357 and a list of six employees. He shot the first employee, but was stopped from further attacks when Donald J. Moore, an off duty police officer who was allowed to carry his own handgun when not on duty, drew and fired his .40 caliber, killing Mr. Dickman before he could fire any more shots.
  9. Another off duty police officer stopped the Trolley Square shooting with his personal handgun. He stopped the killing and contained the shooter until police reinforcements arrived and ended the situation.
  10. Ernesto Villagomez entered the Players Bar and Grill and killed two people. He reloaded and was continuing to shoot when a citizen with a concealed carry permit shot him and stopped the killing.
  11. Kiarron Parker rammed his car into another in the church parking lot, got out and attempted to kill multiple church members. He was only able to kill one before a member of the congregation, the nephew of the lady killed, and an off duty police officer, drew his handgun and shot Parker, stopping the killing.

Whenever a mass shooting is stopped by a gun owner there are going to be fewer victims so these stories are often under reported or not reported at all by major news outlets. And of course since self defensive gun uses do not help the agenda of gun control activists these stories will continue to be ignored.

Gun Watch has a list of mass killings that were stopped or thwarted by armed citizens here:

  1. The Pearl, Mississippi school shooting was stopped by the vice principal Joel Myrick with a Colt .45, The Appalachian School shooting was stopped by two students with handguns. Both of the above incidents were stopped by the armed citizens threatening the shooter without firing.
  2. Plans to slay everyone in a Muskegon, Michigan store and steal enough cash and jewelry to feed their “gnawing hunger for crack cocaine” fell apart for a band of would-be killers after one of their victims fought back.
  3. The mass church shooting in Colorado Springs was stopped by the shooter being shot by a church member with a CCW permit.
  4. The Santa Clara gunshop shooting in 1999 was stopped by an armed citizen after the shooter declared that he was going to kill everyone. Police found a list of intended victims in his car. Only the perpetrator, Richard Gable Stevens was shot.
  5. The December, 1991, Aniston, Alabama defense where a CCW holder stopped armed robbers who were herding employees, customers, and his wife into a cooler. He shot both robbers, killing one.
  6. July 13, 2009, in Virginia at the Golden Food Market: The gunman tried to shoot several people, was stopped by a CCW carrier.
  7. Just recently, in Early Texas, armed citizen Vic Stacy shot and stopped a deranged man who had just murdered two neighbors and was firing at police with a rifle.
  8. Abraham Dickman had a history of anger against employees of the AT&T store in New York Mills, New York. On May 27th, 2010, he walked into the store with a .357 and a list of six employees. He shot the first employee, but was stopped from further attacks when Donald J. Moore, an off duty police officer who was allowed to carry his own handgun when not on duty, drew and fired his .40 caliber, killing Mr. Dickman before he could fire any more shots.
  9. Another off duty police officer stopped the Trolley Square shooting with his personal handgun. He stopped the killing and contained the shooter until police reinforcements arrived and ended the situation.
  10. Ernesto Villagomez entered the Players Bar and Grill and killed two people. He reloaded and was continuing to shoot when a citizen with a concealed carry permit shot him and stopped the killing.
  11. Kiarron Parker rammed his car into another in the church parking lot, got out and attempted to kill multiple church members. He was only able to kill one before a member of the congregation, the nephew of the lady killed, and an off duty police officer, drew his handgun and shot Parker, stopping the killing.

Whenever a mass shooting is stopped by a gun owner there are going to be fewer victims so these stories are often under reported or not reported at all by major news outlets. And of course since self defensive gun uses do not help the agenda of gun control activists these stories will continue to be ignored.

>>>>>

// <![CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById("cosymantecnisbfw"); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById("cosymantecnisbfw"); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById("cosymantecnisbfw"); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById("cosymantecnisbfw"); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>

Stop blaming the CIA for every Latin American nation that stops socialist dictators!

October 23, 2013

Sheesh! Like the below whowhatwhy posting. Most of it is true in my opinion, but it seems liberty-minded writers in the US are good at discerning factors on domestic policy but are just starting to keep up with the changes in foreign lands:

http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/10/21/monday-morning-skeptic-ny-times-buries-cia-facts-re-latin-american-deaths/

I agree with most of the article at the link, but there is a VERY important new development in Latin America especially with respect to US meddling and undercover operations around the world. That is, nobody noticed, but now, instead of supporting so-called misnomered “right-wing” coups, and never-ending re-”election” of anti-Communists, their intelligence apparatus has begun, together with the diplomatic corps, to prop up leftist caudillos like Hugo Chavez and his fellow fascists.

In Honduras, they supported the left-wing coup by Manuel Zelaya, who became dictator while the world was ignoring the country. Even though the Congress was elected by the same electorate as himself. It started much worse when he came back from the Caribbean-Central American presidential summit in Santo Domingo in November 2008 where George Soros was keynote speaker! Kid you not.

Not only did Zelaya refuse to obey anything legislated by Congress, he also disobeyed a long series of Supreme Court orders, and lots more. That’s a coup. That’s what they called it in Peru –an auto-coup– when President Fujimoro dissolved the Congress, after it was paralyzed by the terror from the Sendero Luminoso, so-called.

The American Ambassador was in the presidential mansion the night before Zelaya planned his phony “survey” that he was going to use to justify dissolving Congress. He was helping plan this auto-coup consolidation, why else was he there, and he lent his name and office in support to this another leftist coup by phony “election”.

This is one case that I know about. Accusations that the CIA supported ousting Zelaya are a laugh riot. Hondurans wanted to get rid of him so bad, they were marching in the streets regularly, protesting him and especially his plans to consolidate his dictatorship.

Nobody needed to convince the Hondurans over this at any level. And through it all, the military forces stayed strictly obedient to the civil authorities.

Meantime, CHAVEZ was the meddling imperialist in Honduras. He’s gone now, and his successor is trying to be another one. You can blame the CIA for a lot of things around the world, but not that one.

And also adding to the international intrigue, Jose Insulza, head guy at the OAS, used their resources to order support for Zelaya’s illegal and unconstitutional “survey”, a cover for fraud and the propaganda to justify his dictatorship.

Insulza pounded at Honduras to put the coup-running president back in. And remember, as a young political adviser to Openly Marxist Salvador Allende’s regime in Chile he played a part in wreaking havoc on that attempt to install a leftist dictatorship in the continent.

And in Chile, never mind that the Cubans were meddling and intervening, pouring agents in, and helping coordinate the importation of leftists from the entire continent, no doubt with logistical and other support from the tyrants in the Soviet Union. Government embeds in the Communist government also were stockpiling large warehouses full of weapons, preparing for confrontation, no doubt. They started calling for troops to mutiny.

But Congress and their people saw the economy in the pits. Nationalizing the copper mines only provided payout opportunities for political cronies. Accidents skyrocketed over Anaconda’s record, the mines began losing money instead of paying taxes, and the nationalization was like shooting yourself in the foot to spite your leg!

So the CIA may have been involved, but the military did not intervene until their Congress passed a resolution finally, demanding that the military brass do something to stop the runaway Communist dictator!

The USA is the biggest bully and interventionist in the world, for sure. But let us remember that socialism and fascism tends to  shoot itself in the foot by its nature, and that there is a significant and numerous part of the people in Latin America who want NOTHING to do with socialism.

Does “Fiscal” conservatism need “social” conservatism? What is the >real< diffference?

October 6, 2013
Ron Paul at the 2007 National Right to Life Co...

Ron Paul at the 2007 National Right to Life Convention, held at Crown Center Hyatt Regency in Kansas City, MO; June 15, 2007, (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have a comment on this article, “Fiscal Conservatism Needs ‘Social’ Conservatism”. I’m sending this commentary to his email as well as posting it on my blog:
http://jewishworldreview.com/0113/prager012213.php3#.UlFduCTMos4

Dennis Prager deserves attention from those who disagree with him, because he makes his arguments, as he says it, from the head and not from the heart.

FIRST CLARIFICATION

I am one of many Christian libertarians, but strongly Christian. There are more of these than you think, who very much believe in practicing our Christianity in private and in public, and for us there is no separation of economic and social values. Economic values are only a part of the social values, and every so-called “conservative” who makes that difference, especially for the sake of pragmatism, is a victim (or perpetrator) of the mistake of lifting up the love for things over the love of his fellow-man.

I do marvel at the fact that applying the principle of freedom to economic issues, though, is the absolutely best thing that can happen to the poor in any society, as a general principle. Stealing is a moral issue, in fact, and taxation is a form of theft, because it is the forcible expropriation of goods or services without even the formality of requesting it.

There is an overlap there. But Dennis, note that Israel in the time of the book of Judges, before the kings, they had no formal taxation. There was no taxation to support an army, or police force. Armies were raised from volunteers as an answer to prayer for deliverance from enemies.

In fact according to the jew it was actually a moment of moral weakness that drove the Israelites to demand a government. In their case, it was a king. God warned them through Samuel against what they were asking for: the king would require their sons to send them off to war, and he would require burdensome taxes, and their sons and daughters in future generations would be sorry.

I don’t think rabbis or pastors pay too much attention to this, and its implications.

SOCIAL CONSERVATISM AND LIBERTARIANISM

I absolutely agree that all principles are a package, and that the divide is a false one. I believe it is mostly engendered with the use of propaganda in the Establishment Media, and politicians who put position and power over principle.

I also would agree that it is wrong to deprecate the value of American history from even before 1776 as being an incubator of respect for the time-proven moral principles that have a substantial near-equivalence with what is known today as “conservatism”.

Where we differ is a result of the misunderstanding about libertarian morals, that unfortunately, I believe many libertarians also do not understand about the real world.

I’m not talking here about the small minority of libertarians that just want what they see as “benefits”. Many of the members of the namesake Libertarian Party are like that, but not all of them either.

RON PAUL VS. GARY JOHNSON

The difference between Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are significant in this respect. Gary Johnson points to the benefits of marijuana, whereas Ron Paul points to the moral difference between you deciding what is good for you, and some self-appointed smarter-than-thou committees so deciding. Ron Paul is the one who also points out that at least for Prohibition they realized they could not ban alcohol on a federal level without a constitutional amendment.

In the same way that it is immoral to arrest an Amish farmer for providing raw milk to his neighbors, in principle, the same principle has to be applied, as you say, to the extreme cases.

Another couple of examples would be what we call the “natural right” of atheists to speak as they will, and the right of the “gay gang” to say what they will. And we support this in spite of the enormous damage that the advocacy of both of them wreak upon the general society.

In other words, the moral imperative of allowing the free exchange of goods and services as the parties that engage in such activity may voluntarily do so, this is a moral principle that also applies to other moral and ethical contexts.

Take so-called “same-sex marriage”, for example. The only reason the propagandists have been able to make this an issue they can impose upon the rest of us is that the Christian and Jewish and other religious persuasions have allowed the state to usurp this cultural and social institution.

Before the Mormons appeared, historically, for example, monogamy was a universally accepted norm in the states where they originated and grew. But monogamy laws were passed specifically because many Mormons practiced polygamy. So they migrated to other states and the process repeated until they finally got to the Utah area, where the federal government passed their law and threatened to blow up their city. (A Mormon once told me their people were scattered across the countryside at that time).

Before that, marriage was more common-law, I would think, with some formal recognition in the respective religious institutions of each different religious faith.

But the de facto situation today is, that the state controls it. The USA has completed its evolution into a nation that thinks it has to tolerate a ruling regime that is actively hostile to all religious faith except the faith of materialism, with special hostility toward Christianity. Statist-power politicians regard Jews as little problem for secularization of the populace in the interest of a docile subject populace, because most Jews have adopted secularist-state views in the States.

(As a parenthesis, in my opinion, there are two reasons for this. One, many Jews have this big bugaboo about a Christian majority population, fed in the background by thousands of Hollywood productions that keep bringing back images of the Holocaust. One judge I heard about on a talk show once actually allowed certain prayers in some official activity, but banned the use of the name of “Jesus”.)

There are a great number of libertarians who are also Jews, of every “kind” of Jew there is, of course, and that includes even some Jewish settlers in “Samaria”.

At the core of libertarian thinking is the non-aggression principle. That principle is based in the very moral principle of non-aggression. This principle is a sort of dumbed-down version of the second greatest commandment: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”.

That commandment from the laws of Moses is akin to the Christian’s “Golden Rule”, which in a way restated it in terms of its application, its practice. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, is also a paraphrase of what Jesus said, but is an abbreviation of the same thing.

That of course includes avoiding aggression against your neighbor, meaning avoiding the use of force or threat of force or aggression by fraud to get something from that neighbor or to force him to do something.

There was no command to force the world to come to the morality embodied in the Ten Commandments, no divine order to go forth and convert the entire pagan world by force, and there is no way to interpret it as such, much as some less ethical atheists try to do. It’s easier to do that with the Koran, maybe, but even in the most brutal version possible you can extract from the laws of Moses it doesn’t work. At least not without some hilarity (if it were not so serious a subject).

So there is credible content to a moral and even religious objection to the imposition of moral law upon others by any individual or any group. The laws of Moses are full of admonitions to respect the stranger among you, the travelers that journey through the land round about, and so on.

And even Dennis Prager would have to admit that even though the USA may be a good nation and exemplary in morals, that it has no “right” or obligation to conquer North and South America to impose those ideals, even if it could somehow be made to work in some weird way.

GAY MARRIAGE

It is true also that many libertarians in the USA and elsewhere believe that state-sanctioned same-sex marriage is a matter of equal treatment or somehow an issue of more freedom somehow, whereas it is no such thing at all. One propagandist says there are 10,000 specific benefits from marriage that same-sex couples do not get because of the bans on same-sex marriage.

In my opinion, this is the only reason that any visible number of homosexuals support the idea. A tiny minority gets marriage licenses where it’s legalized, the rest don’t care for it but might vaguely support the activist stand on it. Another tiny minority of currently practicing homosexuals have called talk shows to express strong objections to the idea, I’ve heard them, one of them citing the same reasons Dennis Prager does.

WRAPPING UP

Mr. Prager asks some questions that

Do you really want to live in an America that is godless, where liberty derives from the state and where moral values derive from each individual’s heart? In an America that ignores genocides abroad? In an America that so radically redefines marriage — the union of anyone who loves anyone — that it no longer has a moral justification to prohibit polygamy or incest? In an America that has no moral opinion on abortion, even if performed solely, let us say, for reasons of the fetus’s gender? In an America that embraces multiculturalism rather than the melting pot ideal?

So libertarians do NOT want liberty to derive from the state. Moral values can never derive from an enforced monopoly on the use of force. But you have no right to decide moral values for anyone else, by the force of violence or the threat of violence (that’s exactly what laws are), whether you’re an imam, rabbi, or minister, or guru, or priest, except for the ban on aggression.

To say the contrary is to say whoever has the guns decides the morality. That has not worked out well for Jews, nor Christians, nor Muslims, or anybody else really. That’s why atheist-driven and secularist-driven bans on the free expression of religion by majorities is so hypocritical, and the censorship on the Creation science point of view in government schools. Or the censorship of any point of view in them.

Government has a slow-down, Wall Street rejoices

October 3, 2013

After all, can’t let the peasants find out that stopping runaway debt is a good thing!

In typical government-shill propaganda mode, ABC reporter said (or read) that “anger is growing across the nation” over the government slowdown. They then put on two sound bites from interviews supposedly with “the man on the street” (really?), that didn’t like it.

That was the morning. On the way home, there were so many callers on local talk shows that blasted the Obamacare law and cheered the cutting of funds that these local yokels (here on a couple of Miami, Florida stations) started begging people to call that actually liked it. Right after that, on the show where this gal who usually just reads the news, a guy called in who had lost his job because of Obamacare, along with nine other guys. Bet you everybody who isn’t a D.C. insider has a family member who’s been forced down to part-time jobs, too.

Of course there are lots more people who are mad about them forcing nationalized control of medicine against the will of the American people and who are angry at the ones who did it –and changed the rules to do it—and angry at what it’s doing. And THAT is the big news for two years now.

Lots of people are also mad at the Big Corporate news media for acting as government propaganda organs. And at local media guys who are saying they don’t like it either but “it’s the law” blah blah, as if the House has never defunded anything before.

Not for nothing the engineers of the US Constitution gave the House the responsibility of originating funding legislation. That’s because it most directly represents the people in local districts, and therefore are closest to the taxpayers.

The longer this goes on, the more that Americans will see that life goes on, and life goes on maybe even better, the world did not end, the economy did not crash.. And what’s better, Clapper is complaining that the NSA can’t spy on us like it wants to. Some IRS auditors have had to stop working (for the time being).

The big news of the day was that a bunch of WW2 veterans broke through a line of yellow tape to view their monument. So they don’t have enough money to keep this open-air monument “open”, but they have enough to send a bunch of cops to keep people out. Right.

By the way, the narrative that the Republicans are “holding the government hostage” is such a laugh riot. Anyway, they’re funding all kinds of stuff and sending the bills to the Senate, but IT IS HARRY REID who is refusing to let any of them through for a Senate vote. So who’s holding who hostage?

And Wall Street rejoiced with a rally! Hope that this train wreck might be stopped! People in the financial world maybe figure that this kibosh on runaway spending and this blocking move against dollar dilution is good! That this forcing on the emergency brake is good!

Maybe these RINO’s are just doing theater, though. The longer this slowdown keeps going, this time, Americans are going to blame the Democrat Party and Obamacare. It is an attack on the economy that al Qaeda could only dream of, that will do a million times more damage in infrastructure and lives than even crashing the towers.

No wonder Morsi and other dictators figure he’s on their side.

English: Crude drawing of the "No RINO&qu...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Next stop: End the Fed.

 

Gridlock – The storm is almost upon us

September 25, 2013

“The grid” will go down, especially if they have to do a false flag, the question is when:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/09/daisy-luther/youve-been-warned/

The outgoing Homeland Security Secretary has a warning for her successor: A massive and “serious” cyber attack on the U.S. homeland is coming, and a natural disaster — the likes of which the nation has never seen — is also likely on its way

A book about it from former N. Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/us/imagining-a-cyberattack-on-the-power-grid.html?_r=0

Former Congressman Roscoe Bartlett has been preaching the dangers of EMP, whether deliberate or natural, for many years:
We could have events in the future where the power grid will go down and it’s not, in any reasonable time, coming back up. For instance, if when the power grid went down some of our large transformers were destroyed, damaged beyond use, we don’t make any of those in this country. They’re made overseas and you order one and 18 months to two years later they will deliver it. Our power grid is very vulnerable. It’s very much on edge. Our military knows that.
There are a number of events that could create a situation in the cities where civil unrest would be a very high probability.
I think that those who can, and those who understand, need to take advantage of the opportunity when these winds of strife are not blowing to move their families out of the city. (source)
Quote:
Don’t forget the veiled warnings implicit in predictive programming entertainment. One of last year’s biggest television hits was the show “Revolution“, which portrayed life 15 years after a deliberate take-down of the power grid.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oh yeah, and now also we got CENTCOM contracting with a California company to enable a soldier to create 50 identities around the world to engage in chat rooms, forums and the like, complete with false backgrounds.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/is-government-just-spying-like-a-passive-peeping-tom-or-is-it-mischievously-using-that-information.html

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/youre-68-times-more-likely-to-be-hit-and-killed-by-lightning-than-murdered-by-a-terrorist.html

The U.S. Department of State reports that only 17 U.S. citizens were killed worldwide as a result of terrorism in 2011. That figure includes deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq and all other theaters of war.
You are 35,079 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack
– You are 33,842 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This novel is going on my read-list queue, Gridlock:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/us/imagining-a-cyberattack-on-the-power-grid.html?_r=1&

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Contempt and satire for the No-Such-Agency

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/best-subhead-of-the-week/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/24/nsa_privacy_officer/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

One last note.

Spiritual preparation is more important than physical preparation.

Make sure you are have made your peace with God, through His Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is a BIG difference between “right to vote” and the “right to bear arms”

September 15, 2013
Patrick Henry, portrait by George Bagby Matthe...

Patrick Henry, portrait by George Bagby Matthews c. 1891 after an original by Thomas Sully (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The “right to vote” is only a corollary of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government. In fact, voter requirements are necessary to protect that right, and that includes taking reasonable measures to prevent a person from voting twice, making sure the person is eligible according to age, citizenship, and so on. If you cannot trust that these reasonable measures are taken, then you cannot trust that your vote counts as such.

The “Blessings of Liberty” were mentioned in the Preamble to the US Constitution as one of the purposes of said Constitution, but Patrick Henry and some of the other more astute among them did not regard them as enough, which is why they demanded the Bill of Rights, which explicitly declare a list of what they thought of as the most sacred natural individual rights.

The “right to vote” is is not a “right” in the sense of an individual’s liberty. You can respect all the natural rights of an individual –the right to the free exercise of one’s religion, the right to free speech, the right to free press, the right to peaceably assemble, to petition the government for a redress of grievances, the right to keep and bear arms, to BE secure (not “feel” secure) in their persons, papers, and property, and so on.

Those are an individual’s rights. The individual’s rights are a law higher than any particular government or tribe or nation, or any laws. The “rule of law” is the idea that any government, or the people entrusted with governing, should be subject to the same laws as everyone else.

The right of speech is absolute. If the SCOTUS had respected the right to bear arms with the same attitude they brought to the right of free speech, they would never approve “reasonable” restrictions on it.

What would be a “reasonable” restriction on the right of free speech? There is none.

But even there, we see the addiction of people in government (an institution that has a monopoly on the legal application of force). The laws that criminalize thought, also known as “hate speech” laws, are a case in point. Tax laws that make special rules and set up special privileges and restrictions and provide concessions of speech, these are another example. Why should a charity have a censorship muzzle, why should any group of private citizens (unions, corporations, hobby and professional associations) have any restrictions at all on their individual rights?

Jesus Christ’s lesson to his disciples, then and now, were in what he said about the tax collectors of the day. His apostles conceded that the tax collectors’ own children did not pay taxes, so he said, “Then are the children free”. He told his disciples to pay the tax, not because of some Romans 13 principle (–ARE YOU LISTENING, PREACHERS?–), but “lest we offend them” (Matthew 17).

Taxpayers pay for elections. They are not free.

People who do not help pay for their vote do not have the same stake in protecting individual rights as to those who have something to lose. They also do not have the same stake in the rule of law.

In the long run, historically, it is better materially to be beholden to a private business in a free market economy, than to be beholden to a government. Over the long run, if it did not buy loyalty, government would not protect the poor from poverty at all, or from anything else.

For example, when caring for the poor came in conflict with caring for the party hierarchies, it is not hard to guess who gets the care priorities, with all the rationalizations and justifications. Instead of going to the one who pays for it, it goes to the one that I told you to give it to. Which way is more “just”?

Again, a good guideline is always the Golden Rule, in dealings both with individuals, and it also works among nations.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 150 other followers