Archive for June, 2012

Our $100 Trillion National Debt by Bill Walker

June 30, 2012

Lew Rockwell seems to dig up a lot of very important numbers I don’t see elsewhere.

And go read more…

The “official” debt of the United States is only around $10 trillion dollars as of August 6, 2008. This is a manageable number; we could pay it off in a few decades if we quit buying luxuries like food and clothing, and take a few other minor economy measures. Unfortunately, the “$10 trillion” number was produced by government accounting, which among other things allows one to ignore Social Security, Medicare, and the new prescription drug benefit. This is like ignoring rent, food, and utilities in your household budget… it will lead to a few bounced checks. Our real debt is about ten times higher.

Who says so? The President of the Dallas Federal Reserve, Richard W. Fisher. In a May speech at the Commonwealth Club of California, he states that the US national debt is close to $100 trillion. You can read his whole speech at the Federal Reserve web site.

The Real Debt

Here is what he said regarding the actual US debt:

“Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon. Traditional Medicare composes about 69 percent, the new drug benefit roughly 17 percent and Social Security the remaining 14 percent.”

Interested readers will notice that the new prescription drug benefit is projected to be more fiscally crushing than all of Social Security.

Mr. Fisher points out that this $99.2 trillion will be a bit of a burden to pay off:

“Let’s say you and I and Bruce Ericson and every U.S. citizen who is alive today decided to fully address this unfunded liability through lump-sum payments from our own pocketbooks, so that all of us and all future generations could be secure in the knowledge that we and they would receive promised benefits in perpetuity. How much would we have to pay if we split the tab? Again, the math is painful. With a total population of 304 million, from infants to the elderly, the per-person payment to the federal treasury would come to $330,000. This comes to $1.3 million per family of four—over 25 times the average household’s income.”

You do have $1.3 million in your pocket, right? What, are you some kind of deadbeat?

Speaking of deadbeats, the “$99.2 trillion” estimate does not include the subprime bailout. So for those who like large round numbers, by the end of 2008 the real National Debt should be large, round, and about $100 trillion.

…Read more… Like Other Unfunded Liabilities


Another small business shut down by “bipartisan” regulation

June 29, 2012

That’s right.

The owner sells tobacco and papers and rents a machine for customers to roll their own. Now they’ve ordered the Powers that Be to call him a “manufacturer”. A summertime Christmas gift for Great Big Tobacco.

BBCW: Transportation Bill Attacks RYO Cigarette Small Businesses: Billy Long’s Vote Helps Close a Branson Business:

John Cullen Hagerty won’t be waving his American flag this Fourth of July. His American Dream just got regulated out of business thanks to an interesting provision in the new transportation bill Congress just passed today to be on the fast track to law going into effect on July 1, 2012.

Hagerty owns the Liberty Smoke Shop, Freedom Smoke Shop, and the Independence Smoke Shop in Branson, Missouri. Think of it as the Build-a-Bear for tobacco enthusiasts. Hagerty’s customers buy various tobaccos and papers, void of all the addictive chemicals and preservatives big tobacco places in their cigarettes which have led big tobacco in court defending their products. Then his customers rent a high-speed rolling machine that makes their own custom cigarettes.

The regulations hurt small businesses, and make the biggest corporations a monopolistic cartel.

Regulations hurt the little guy most. Taxes hurt the little guy most. Nanny governmnent hurts the poor the most. Robbing the poor with compulsory government-run schools hurts the poor the most.

John Roberts: It was NOT a tax, before it WAS a tax, right in the same opinion

June 29, 2012

Tax (Photo credit: 401K 2012)

So in 2010 Obama and Pelosi pushed through the biggest tax increase on the poor in the history of the United States, that hits the pocketbook of the poor at a much bigger percentage than it does the rich, and for the middle class raises the price for all insurance plans across the board.

Did you hear that? This is biggest “non-tax” tax (wink wink) on the poor, and it hits people who earn less than $250,000 MUCH harder than it does the millionaire. In percentage terms, and directly. All taxes hit the poor the hardest and the middle class next but this one is straight to the poor.

That’s why Obama had to tell Stephanopolous emphatically that it was NOT a tax, because it hits hardest on the poor and the middle class.

Gomert, on the House floor the day the Unaffordable Obamacare Act was ruled constitutional by the Court, parsed out some important parts of John Roberts‘ “majority opinion” document.

In the first part of the document, Gomert said, John Roberts makes the strong point that Congress knew what it was doing when it used the word “penalty” for the fine they will impose on everybody that does not buy insurance.

Roberts first agreed with Congress and Obama that it was a “penalty” because if it had been called a “tax”, then by legislation and precedent the Supreme Court cannot decide anything until the first “tax” actually is levied and somebody sues.

Having allowed himself to rule on the “penalty”, and after declaring that Congress knows the difference between a penalty and a tax, and therefore the Court has jurisdiction now, not later over this decision, he then goes on to declare by court fiat that the whole thing is constitutional because, he says, it’s really a tax.

That smells like maybe some under-the-table was done, to me. If Congress had called it a “tax” they would not have been able to rule on it till 2014, after the first of us get hit with that part of it. But in 2010 when they passed it they did not dare call it a tax, for it would not have passed.

Fascism and National and International Socialism: 19th Century Feudalism

June 29, 2012

What’s “rather 19th century”? The debt is accelerating in its own mad rush toward the $16 trillion –that’s sixteen trillions!–. Nixon axed the last link of the dollar to reality and loosed the dogs of war financing, because if our military-industrial complex had been chained to getting its war money the “19th century” way, we would not have had such a steady boom-boom, boom-boom of war drums ever since World War 2. Instead they got it the easy way, stealing it right out of our dollars, all the dollars in the economy, by stealing its value by printing more of them.

This is not such a new idea. It has kept kings restrained throughout the ages. War was always horrendous, but it got to major modern proportions only when bankers like the Rothschilds got the nobles and the merchants and the peasants accustomed to fractional banking, and started using it to finance wars all over the place, playing off one power against another. Then some mysterious shadow-covered “League of Just Men” financed Karl Marx’s Das Kapital with a $20,000 check, and his Communist Manifesto, and England’s nobles began dallying in seances and hocus-pocus with the likes of Alice Bailey.

Not for nothing these lords and nobles and bankers and snotty-nosed princelings love socialism and its re-branded fascism. Like two brands of soap powder, fascism and socialism are siblings, hatched from the same factory.

Nobody has it as good as the lord and king of North Korea, or a king of a shattered British Empire held together.

Not for nothing these aspirant tyrants mega-tycoons love to regulate the petit bourgeouis to annilihation, not for nothing the Rockefeller Center pours millions and even billions out to socialist/fascist causes everywhere.

Not for nothing this band of spiritual comrades love obliterating the middle-class and those of the other rich that live and breathe outside their command, whittling away at any economic base of opposition. If everyone, corporate or individual, depends on government subsidies and tax breaks, they soon get angry at anyone who threatens that source. They are bought by the value robbed right out of their pockets as if by magic.

It’s not the future generations that are robbed by so much debt, it is all of us today, right now, right here.

The “progressives” are really in truth have bought into regressing, degenerating, fast forward into tyranny.

Compromise is NOT a virtue in politics for the good guys

June 27, 2012

If the dollar were not the de facto and even treaty-based international trade currency, we would have been way past the Greece-stage decades ago.

The deficits that came about from (1) the compromise between Reagan and Congressional Dems, and (2) then the mad-dog rabid condemnation of Republicans for stalling on raising the debt ceiling during Clinton years, and (3) more recently the so-called “compromise” that caved to Obama’s debt acceleration plans, and (4) the meek and Fed-subservient automatic quiet raising of the debt ceiling in between all that, have not helped.

The resulting dollar crash is coming. Ron Paul’s successful education campaigns have changed the dialogue, and even a lot of middle America “left-leaning” folks have been awakened to the Fed, the common enemy of prosperity and guardian of Big Money interests.

Italian Court Reignites MMR Vaccine Debate: Damages for post-MMR autism

June 26, 2012

Italian Court Reignites MMR Vaccine Debate

Sea treaties? Rather dump the United Nations! It is a burden on all nations!

June 24, 2012

When George Will gets off the neocon kick, sometimes he makes real sense and clarifies other issues. And that’s why even his arguments for bad positions deserve attention, because his writing shows a sharp mind for their analysis.

So even though the last paragraph suggests a big-stick approach rather than the UN Treaty approach for influencing other nations, it’s perfect:

If the Navy supports LOST because the civilian leadership does, fine. But if the Navy thinks it cannot operate well without LOST, we need better admirals, not better treaties. Here is an alternative proposal for enhancing the lawfulness of the seas: Keep the money LOST would transfer to ISA, and use it to enlarge the Navy.

Defending your ships against Somali pirates with quick action is a better solution that trusting the United Nations. Living in peace and doing commerce with all nations while refusing alliances is not isolationism, nor is it the radical pacifism we think of with the Amish. You mess with our traders, like in the Barbary Coast raids, we will protect them. If you are thinking about some kind of nuclear raid, we will remind you we have any number of submarines ready to balance things out, so don’t even think about it.

We do not consent!

If nobody asked us, we did not consent!

If elected representatives did not represent us, then WE DID NOT CONSENT!

Compromise, Constitution and Rights

June 23, 2012

Compromise has become a dirty word. Compromise has been the giveaway of government protection of our natural rights as recognized in the Constitution.

The rights NOT “granted” but enumerated and recognized in the Bill of Rights, are rights not “given” to us by our government, nor our Constitution, but they are the birthright of every human being in the world.

There is NO trade-off worth compromising them, and they are “unalienable”, meaning we cannot give them away. There is no “right” to vote ourselves into slavery or tyranny.

That means no amendment to the Constitution, no law passed by any legislative or parliamentary body, no person, has the “right” to violate any of them, and in fact those rights are stronger than even the Bill of Rights grants, for some of the things in the Constitution are illegitimate encroachments on some of those rights, and the stronger idea of rights.

(Some) Republicans turn their backs on black kids

June 23, 2012

English: Governor Bobby Jindal at the Republic...

English: Governor Bobby Jindal at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana. [Advocate of school choice] (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Republicans turn their backs on black kids:

..Joining the Democrats…

One area that awareness of the need for freedom from government control has penetrated black attitudes is in education.

The chronic failure of public schools to notably improve dismal test scores and high dropout rates of black children has made it clear to many black citizens of good will that there has got to be a better way.

Polls show black support for school choice. For example, in a poll done last year in New Jersey by the Rutgers-Eagleton Center at Rutgers University, 54 percent of blacks expressed support for school vouchers compared to 36 percent of whites.

What’s wrong with giving freedom to black parents (and white parents) to choose the education for their children? Do the lawmakers just think parents are too stupid?


In a genuine breakthrough, a black Democrat in the Illinois state Senate, Rev. James Meeks, who happens to also be the pastor of Chicago’s largest Baptist congregation, introduced a school voucher bill.

The bill passed the Illinois Senate and then died in the state House, with only 25 of 48 Republicans supporting it. It fell 12 votes short of the 60 it needed to pass.

This is not an across-the-board indictment of Republicans. Two Republican governors – Mitch Daniels in Indiana and Bobby Jindal in Louisiana – have spearheaded passage of school voucher programs in their states.

In a new Gallup poll, only 29 percent, an all time low, express “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in our public schools.

The Republican Party is supposed to be the party of freedom and limited government. Nowhere are these principles more needed than in education, and no community needs it more than blacks.

At a time when our country and our poor communities are hurting so badly, any failure of leadership by those in the party of Lincoln is inexcusable.

Well, not that Lincoln himself is any shining example of loving liberty himself. He did put the second kibosh of USA history on the central bankers though, the first being Andrew Jackson.

June 23, 2012


Check the second Jon Stewart video to see his clip of one junior Senator blasting the use of Executive Privilege.

2006? Whoever said Bush was interested in protecting Second Amendment rights any more than Obama?

Yeah, yeah, I know, trying to find anybody more interested in violating them than Obama is hard. Like finding a needle hidden somewhere at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.

So coverups are okay if Bush started the mess?

And if this is all Bush’s fault, like Colbert’s spiel says –and he sure fooled Dick it looks like, who said he “got it right”–, then why the refusal to obey the subpoena for the documents? Bush isn’t president anymore, and Ashcroft isn’t Attorney General. Why has Holder’s  Justice Department not only avoided the proper disciplinary action against the perpetrators of this massive gun-dealing operation that made sure the cartels got a bunch of guns from the U.S., but also:

Why has Holder’s Justice Department PROMOTED the bosses that told the field agents to STOP TRACKING those guns??

Let’s see Colbert make a joke out of that.

Not a so-called “partisan” issue. Natural unalienable rights are not negotiable, they are not “political” issues. Eisenhower the “Republican” invoked “Executive Privilege” 44 times.

Obama promised a transparent administration of course and blasted Bush for secrets.

Both parties have been colluding to whittle away at all protections for decades, starting with Eisenhower’s FIRST invoking of Executive Privilege to hide something.