From Day 1, 1776, we have violated the 1st Amendment prohibition of laws respecting an establishment of religion in several ways. One of them is freedom from the taxation other establishments must pay, even if doing the same thing, like publishing and broadcasting to generate revenue. A mistake then, worse now, as one extremist religious sect's marketers have created an industry rich enough to play the game of Senators and Presidents, in the hope of waging world war on the unsaved.
Another is the power to issue sex licenses... that is, legal marriage as defined by that establishment of religion's dogma, where all sex without that license is not just sin, but statutory crime.
Also the "blue laws" which regulate business and property use to conform to religious practice, when and what you can buy and sell vs Holy Day schedule, when you can drink, where you can put your business with respect to that church's premises, what books are not in your public libraries, what you can't teach in your schools, etcetc...
The Neo-Conservative Christian American Taliban (NEOCATs) believe their monopoly on the blessing of The One And Only Real God whose image is graven in occult symbols in their ancient scrolls like a mummified idol wrapped in papyrus entitles them to exemption from that Constitutional restriction, as they believe they serve "A Higher Authority" than the mere secular Constitution they would be sworn to defend... ergo, caveat.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Friday, July 29, 2011
What If We Did Make Gold Dollars?
If we ever again issued money with real Constitutional value, what would we do about the fact we are $11T in FRN debt to a private bank with global power? We smartly say, "Tell them to write it off," but can we actually do that? Can any debtor "repeal" the bank to which he is indebted? What would we tell the world when they come to cash in the trillions of FRNs they are holding as oil reserve accounts, bonds, investments in US corporations, and other such instruments of the arcane world of global finance? What would the Treasury tell them, and what would the Fed say?
What about all of us non-corporate non-capitalized just regular ol' peckerwoods? Apart from a few coin-collection curiosities worth many times more FRNs than their face value, who among us has any real Constitutional dollars? Nobody. Mostly, we don't even have FRNs, we only have numbers in some bank's computerized account somewhere, and most of us are upside-down mortgaged, credit-card maxed, and have no real property of any value whatsoever. If we take our digital FRNs to the new treasury, how many will we need to buy one real gold dollar? 2000/1? 20,000? How many Euros will it take to buy one gold dollar, when a million old FRNs won't buy one Euro?
Just who actually owns America's gold now, the Treasury?... or the Fed which issued trillions more in FRNs than the Constitutional value of the "reserves" on which our gold-certificate money was first printed, and replaced by fiat trade paper? Can the Fed "repossess" that gold collateral for non-payment of FRN debt... or has it done that already?
Would we spend our new real money to buy the rare-earth metals and other non-US natural resources we need to defend ourselves if we shook our pretty high-tech sabres (using Japanese chips made in China) and told the rest of the world to eat their losses?
Do you suppose at some point the world-ignorant, provincial-minded, isolationist, bigoted, consumer-obese, doctor-addicted, mortgaged, and nationally indebted American people will have to be taught that our country, like all the rest, is simply a big self-defined club with rules and dues, in legal fact just a corporation with a bank account and an (overdue) credit line, and not the uniquely-blessed, exceptional, and immeasurably-superior ordained and entitled National Creation of Abraham's God Himself we have let the teachers, preachers, politicians, and pundits tell us it is?
What about all of us non-corporate non-capitalized just regular ol' peckerwoods? Apart from a few coin-collection curiosities worth many times more FRNs than their face value, who among us has any real Constitutional dollars? Nobody. Mostly, we don't even have FRNs, we only have numbers in some bank's computerized account somewhere, and most of us are upside-down mortgaged, credit-card maxed, and have no real property of any value whatsoever. If we take our digital FRNs to the new treasury, how many will we need to buy one real gold dollar? 2000/1? 20,000? How many Euros will it take to buy one gold dollar, when a million old FRNs won't buy one Euro?
Just who actually owns America's gold now, the Treasury?... or the Fed which issued trillions more in FRNs than the Constitutional value of the "reserves" on which our gold-certificate money was first printed, and replaced by fiat trade paper? Can the Fed "repossess" that gold collateral for non-payment of FRN debt... or has it done that already?
Would we spend our new real money to buy the rare-earth metals and other non-US natural resources we need to defend ourselves if we shook our pretty high-tech sabres (using Japanese chips made in China) and told the rest of the world to eat their losses?
Do you suppose at some point the world-ignorant, provincial-minded, isolationist, bigoted, consumer-obese, doctor-addicted, mortgaged, and nationally indebted American people will have to be taught that our country, like all the rest, is simply a big self-defined club with rules and dues, in legal fact just a corporation with a bank account and an (overdue) credit line, and not the uniquely-blessed, exceptional, and immeasurably-superior ordained and entitled National Creation of Abraham's God Himself we have let the teachers, preachers, politicians, and pundits tell us it is?
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Self-Evident Tax Facts?
I am no economist. I have always been a low-income person, unsuccessfully self-employed, and have never had savings or owned a share of stock. I did have credit cards once, and I learned some things that seem obvious, but which appear to elude the economists and most Americans.
#1. It is not possible to reduce debt merely by reducing the rate at which one goes deeper into debt. That is what “reducing the deficit” means. To reduce the debt, at some point someone must actually pay it.
#2. Unlike business, government sells neither product nor service, and earns no profits. Government has only two sources of revenue: borrow from the bank on the people’s credit card, or collect taxes. Borrowing does not reduce the debt, it increases it. Only by taxing somebody can government pay down the debt.
#3. Those who have nothing cannot be taxed. There are only two groups of Americans who can be taxed: the capitalists who own the money, and the workers they pay for their labor. If the voters can be persuaded to free the capitalists from taxes, then clearly the only way to pay the debt is to tax the workers.
To propagate the illusion that neither the capitalist nor the worker gets taxed, the Repos claim to ease the debt by taking away the little bit the government gives to those who already have the least, and the Demos “reluctantly” let them. Then the government borrows more money from the banks, gives it to the capitalists who (we hope) employ more workers, who can then be taxed to pay the debt. The capitalist gets the money, and charges interest you must pay, and gets the hours of your life and the fruits of your labor… and you pay for it with tax on your income. Why?
The answer is tragic. The Repubs cater openly to the capitalists, in ideology and action; the Demos to the “middle class” -- that is, the well-employed and well-mortgaged workers. Neither will mention, or even give a name to that huge stratum of us below the middle class. There are two groups of these: the working poor, less-than-$10/hr folks, and those who have no working income at all, and live on government support or petty crime. The Repos get the workers to vote against their own interest by inciting fear that the Demos will tax away their jobs and give the money to that lowest stratum, often as not by pointing out they no speakee English, are not real Christians, and have more children than white people do. It is a shame they do it, and it is a shame that it so often works.
Is it true that if government provides a service to all of its people, that is “socialism” and should be avoided? If democratic government does not actually provide some real and tangible service to the people, all the people, then of what good is it? Do we really believe the best government should be a propaganda machine of power and law enforcement by which the capitalists are enabled to control, indebt, and exploit the people as a worker- soldier- consumer- taxpayer mass? If enough of the anthro-livestock are living fat, dumb, and happy lives, and the rest of us varmints are kept under tight enough control, is that really the American dream come true?
James Post
Mr. President, Have You Lied To Get My Money?
#1. It is not possible to reduce debt merely by reducing the rate at which one goes deeper into debt. That is what “reducing the deficit” means. To reduce the debt, at some point someone must actually pay it.
#2. Unlike business, government sells neither product nor service, and earns no profits. Government has only two sources of revenue: borrow from the bank on the people’s credit card, or collect taxes. Borrowing does not reduce the debt, it increases it. Only by taxing somebody can government pay down the debt.
#3. Those who have nothing cannot be taxed. There are only two groups of Americans who can be taxed: the capitalists who own the money, and the workers they pay for their labor. If the voters can be persuaded to free the capitalists from taxes, then clearly the only way to pay the debt is to tax the workers.
To propagate the illusion that neither the capitalist nor the worker gets taxed, the Repos claim to ease the debt by taking away the little bit the government gives to those who already have the least, and the Demos “reluctantly” let them. Then the government borrows more money from the banks, gives it to the capitalists who (we hope) employ more workers, who can then be taxed to pay the debt. The capitalist gets the money, and charges interest you must pay, and gets the hours of your life and the fruits of your labor… and you pay for it with tax on your income. Why?
The answer is tragic. The Repubs cater openly to the capitalists, in ideology and action; the Demos to the “middle class” -- that is, the well-employed and well-mortgaged workers. Neither will mention, or even give a name to that huge stratum of us below the middle class. There are two groups of these: the working poor, less-than-$10/hr folks, and those who have no working income at all, and live on government support or petty crime. The Repos get the workers to vote against their own interest by inciting fear that the Demos will tax away their jobs and give the money to that lowest stratum, often as not by pointing out they no speakee English, are not real Christians, and have more children than white people do. It is a shame they do it, and it is a shame that it so often works.
Is it true that if government provides a service to all of its people, that is “socialism” and should be avoided? If democratic government does not actually provide some real and tangible service to the people, all the people, then of what good is it? Do we really believe the best government should be a propaganda machine of power and law enforcement by which the capitalists are enabled to control, indebt, and exploit the people as a worker- soldier- consumer- taxpayer mass? If enough of the anthro-livestock are living fat, dumb, and happy lives, and the rest of us varmints are kept under tight enough control, is that really the American dream come true?
James Post
Mr. President, Have You Lied To Get My Money?
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Who Do You Expect To Have To Shoot?
For the problem of deciding just what “arms” we ought to take steps to obtain for ourselves, whether covered by the 2nd Amendment or not, I’d say the answer depends on first getting a clear picture of just whom you expect to have to shoot.
1. Government troops. Fuggittaboutit! When we talk about our legal right to "arms" we are at the level of a semi-automatic rifle and a sidearm. As a gunship jock in the days before the stand-off satellite-aimed stuff, I have some sense of how small groups of men armed with rifles stand up against US military tech, even if they are well organized, and indomitably motivated to resist the power of Washington. As we proved in a few days in Iraq, even 100,000 men marching with rifles or dug in with 1000 tanks are only an inconvenience to modern US warfare and law enforcement. Resisting a Federal badge with your AR-15 is at best a suicidal gesture in which you might kill a few good American heroes in uniform, and do some collateral damage too. You'll make the News, and Tommy Lee Jones will play you in the movie.
As for discussing arms technology that might effectively resist US SEALs or SWATs (which discussion could arguably be considered an act of terrorist conspiracy), you should ask an Afghan vet... I mean, you know, one of them. Given a credit card at Home Depot and the weekend to do it, could you build an IED that will stop a tank... or even a Subaru?
2. Gangs. This one is tough too. When bourgeois order breaks down, especially under a militant security regime, the structure which survives best is gangism. Mexico is a perfect example. The pot-smuggling industry on which northern Mexico's sub-middle-class economy depended was well ordered, large old families with acreage, connections, a living for the peasant farmer, etc. We armed the Mexican DEA and turned them against that structure. Now the only structure ruthless enough to deal with the armed DEA and still serve the market is the gangs. They dropped most of the pot, abandoned the farmers, and switched to meth and guns. We pack them into prison and turn them into tightly organized utterly ruthless cadres of homicidal raiders... who hate you a lot more than you think you hate Borax Obonga or the Bible Nazis. Belonging to a tougher gang is your only hope, and you'd better have access to black market arms a LOT more powerful than the sports plinkers Massa Washington will give you permission to own, whether you vote Red Hat or Blue Hat.
3. Your neighbors. This is the most likely, and the easiest to take care of. You start now with a purse pistol, and classes to know how to use it. Learn. You recognize that it doesn't matter what armament the law says you may own, it only matters what you do own. You tell no one what you own. You keep it clean and out of sight. If you live in a place where you truly expect you are going to need it for self defense, you might consider the wisdom of a pre-emptive cleansing of your neighborhood before waiting to be placed in an untenable defensive position... and get away with it.
[Plug: I get into this idea pretty deep in my book KALISNACHT.
1. Government troops. Fuggittaboutit! When we talk about our legal right to "arms" we are at the level of a semi-automatic rifle and a sidearm. As a gunship jock in the days before the stand-off satellite-aimed stuff, I have some sense of how small groups of men armed with rifles stand up against US military tech, even if they are well organized, and indomitably motivated to resist the power of Washington. As we proved in a few days in Iraq, even 100,000 men marching with rifles or dug in with 1000 tanks are only an inconvenience to modern US warfare and law enforcement. Resisting a Federal badge with your AR-15 is at best a suicidal gesture in which you might kill a few good American heroes in uniform, and do some collateral damage too. You'll make the News, and Tommy Lee Jones will play you in the movie.
As for discussing arms technology that might effectively resist US SEALs or SWATs (which discussion could arguably be considered an act of terrorist conspiracy), you should ask an Afghan vet... I mean, you know, one of them. Given a credit card at Home Depot and the weekend to do it, could you build an IED that will stop a tank... or even a Subaru?
2. Gangs. This one is tough too. When bourgeois order breaks down, especially under a militant security regime, the structure which survives best is gangism. Mexico is a perfect example. The pot-smuggling industry on which northern Mexico's sub-middle-class economy depended was well ordered, large old families with acreage, connections, a living for the peasant farmer, etc. We armed the Mexican DEA and turned them against that structure. Now the only structure ruthless enough to deal with the armed DEA and still serve the market is the gangs. They dropped most of the pot, abandoned the farmers, and switched to meth and guns. We pack them into prison and turn them into tightly organized utterly ruthless cadres of homicidal raiders... who hate you a lot more than you think you hate Borax Obonga or the Bible Nazis. Belonging to a tougher gang is your only hope, and you'd better have access to black market arms a LOT more powerful than the sports plinkers Massa Washington will give you permission to own, whether you vote Red Hat or Blue Hat.
3. Your neighbors. This is the most likely, and the easiest to take care of. You start now with a purse pistol, and classes to know how to use it. Learn. You recognize that it doesn't matter what armament the law says you may own, it only matters what you do own. You tell no one what you own. You keep it clean and out of sight. If you live in a place where you truly expect you are going to need it for self defense, you might consider the wisdom of a pre-emptive cleansing of your neighborhood before waiting to be placed in an untenable defensive position... and get away with it.
[Plug: I get into this idea pretty deep in my book KALISNACHT.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)