Thursday, October 6, 2011

Speaking of conspiracy theories...

The one that seems to be popping up left and right today is the question of whether or not there is any gold still stored in the vaults at Fort Knox.

I've read the books and seen the shows... no public audits of the vaults since 1974, and absolutely no access to anyone (public or private) is allowed by the US Army onto the vault complex. National security is the official line, and perhaps there is some kernel of truth in the opinion that the public has a right to know whether that gold is there, and if it is... how much it is worth. I find it curious that, given the current value of gold and the nature of its value on the global commodities market at any given time over the last 40 years, the "value" of those hundreds of tons of bullion hasn't changed more than $0.45 an ounce since 1971. However...

I just don't see how it is pertinent to discussions about our current financial crisis.

The dollar hasn't been "backed" by gold since 1971, when Nixon removed the convertible nature of the US dollar into gold... so what is the problem? We have been a confidence currency ever since. The strength of our currency lies in the strength of our national economy, and when that economy slips, the value of the dollar slips accordingly.

Beck and other pundits love talking about how FDR and the other "progressives" in the White House destroyed the American financial system by making it "illegal" for citizens to own gold bullion (constantly referencing the New Deal policy of removing gold coins from circulation). This was NOT a seizure of private assets as it is so often described by Congressman Ron Paul... it was a means of buying the coins back from private ownership by the Fed at an established rate and building a stockpile of bullion (at Fort Knox) to have on reserve for the US Government. Period. Were this NOT the case, Glenn Beck would not be making hourly claims to "owning" such a precious and protecting commodity as gold in his own portfolio, would he?

Let us, for a moment, imagine that there is no gold in Fort Knox. Would the fact that the Fed has used, spent, traded or stored the gold somewhere else (roughly $300,000,000,000 worth of the stuff) really crash our financial system completely? Would banks fail? Would interest rates go through the roof? Would major companies go down the toilet?

How much does gold really effect the financial and industrial heart of America? How much does your daily life revolve around gold? What portion of your day is directly and measurably impacted by the fact that gold has now reached an all-time high in commodity pricing? Chances are, the answer to all these questions is very, very little.

But...

What if the price of a barrel of oil doubled tomorrow? Or tripled? Or increased by an order of magnitude over the course of a single decade? How different would your life be in ten years if THAT were to happen? How different would the national landscape be?

In 1971, the price for an ounce of gold was $40.62 (un-adjusted). In less than 40 years, that price has gone to over $2,000 an ounce... and most of THAT climb was in only the last 10 years. How different, and I mean fundamentally different, has our daily life been from before 1971 to beyond 2011? Different yes, but not fundamentally so.

The same timeline and increase in cost applied to the average barrel of light, sweet crude oil would mean an average price in 2011 of $890.00 per barrel. That would give us a price for gasoline (at the same tax rates as we have now) of just about $38 per gallon.

Which commodity do YOU think has the bigger impact on American and global financial matters?

A couple of questions...

Does it matter that Kenya was never a "royal colony"? How does the definition provided for the term relate to the essay itself?

Are we suggesting that Obama hates "the white man"? Or is the historical relationship between Obama and the Mau Mau rebellion somehow responsible for his fascination with collectivism and anti-capitalism?

In regards to Obama's ancestors being the root of his "pinko-commie" ways, does that mean the sins of the father ALWAYS taint the son? Why, then, did Washington not carry the "taint" of his loyalist forefathers? Or Lincoln the "taint" of his slave-owning ancestors and in-laws?

This sort of rant smacks of far-right conspiracy like that spewed out by Beck and Savage on a daily basis... and it does nothing to solve the problems facing the nation. You can cry that we need to understand the root of the problem before we can fix it, but that simply is not true.

The question facing the American people right now is NOT whether or not Obama has radical elements in his family's past, or in his own associations. Rather, it is a question of whether or not we, as a people, WANT all our "problems" solved by the government rather than by ourselves. We (the Bund) may NOT want that, but it is undeniable that many in America right now do want that... because they see it is free and easy relief from the daily troubles that plague all of us.

Find yourself into a mortgage you can't afford? Why not vote for a leader that promises "fair and equitable" housing allowances? But you won't get a new house for free... you get your name on a waiting list for a tenement like those found in Obama's own Chicago-land, Cabrini-Green. Find yourself unemployed and unable to find work? No worries, the Fed will send you a UEC check for 99 weeks (or more) until you can find a job... but you shouldn't take a job that pays less than you were making, because that simply wouldn't make sense, would it?

We don't need to see Obama's birth certificate... or to study and understand his Mau-Mau ancestors (if any were) and their hatred of all things Caucasian... we need to know that government is not the solution to our problems. It is the cause of most of them, and a roadblock to solving even those that aren't caused by government.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Occupy Wall Street

The CIA has warned that a domestic terrorist group named Anonymous, primarily computer hackers, have vowed to crash the NYSE on October 10th. To quote one intelligence source: "They don't make threats, they make promises." It is one of the creepiest pieces of audio I've ever heard. You can listen to the 2 minute, 4 second clip HERE. Particularly creepy in this cryptic message is the self identifying claim "we are legion." If you are at all familiar with the Bible you know (as does Anonymous) what that portends.

Now I mention this because Anonymous feels the Occupy Wall Street crowd is being thwarted, and they intend to take the "protests" to another level - declaring war on the NYSE.

And just a word on these protesters. They try and liken themselves to the Tea Party. They are not. These are thousands of wanna-be 60's radicals; socialists; communist; hard core wealth redistributionists; and revolutionaries. Why do I say that? Because of the Al Sharpton MSNBC interview (yes, he has a show now), and the countless other signs, statements and speeches in which the protesters and their chosen orators claim to be radicals, socialists, communists, wealth redistributionists, and revolutionaries. Said one man when asked by Sharpton what reforms he'd like to see, "We don't want reforms. We're not trying to fix this system, we're trying to end it."

And just to further demonstrate the difference between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street: over 3 years and some 301 gatherings the Tea Party produced a grand total of ZERO arrests. We've seen two weeks of OWS, and well over 700 arrests.

This is NOT the same movement. They want to, "burn the mutha down." And those in the Tea Party should not fall prey to seeing a kindred spirit in these people.

Decoding The Royal Colonist

Royal Colony (noun) - a colony ruled or administered by officials appointed by and responsible to the reigning sovereign of the parent state.

It was an unusual move, to say the least. Having done my own research during the 2008 campaign I was very aware that the man about to assume the Oval Office was “hostile” to the traditional sense of Americanism: capitalism, the free market, even the Constitution itself which he described as “inadequate” in a 2000 interview with Chicago NPR; but even knowing all that I was caught off guard. I mean, send back a bust of Winston Churchill? And not send it back as in “take this gift from Tony Blair, given to George W. Bush in the wake of 9/11, and put it in the basement,” or the Smithsonian, or simply another White House room. But rather he sent it back, back… To England.

Those of us in the know, those of us whom make it their business to follow the events of our nation, should have asked why. Now you may believe we did, for there was much discussion about this on talk radio and online. However, the general consensus, in which I partook, was that this was yet another example of the President’s opposition towards all things George W. Bush in specific, and his hostility towards all things “traditional” in general. We didn’t ask “why” on a more intimate level, and we should have.

Have you ever heard of the Mau Mau Rebellion? And no, this is not the rebellion so nice they named it twice. Not ringing a bell? Nothing? I’m not surprised. Few historians can discuss it with any authority, let alone the average American. Yet it affects every American’s life to this to this day, and has since 2008.

The year is 1949. Rumblings of revolution fill the air and the distinct odor of weakness permeates the British Empire. Post WWII they are a shadow of their former selves. And the colonized throughout the Near East can sense the opportunity to throw off their rulers. In Kenya they begin to meet, to talk, to consider the unthinkable - defeating an empire. By 1951 information is filtering back to London about secret meetings being held in the forests outside Nairobi. A secret society called the Mau Mau, believed to have been started in the previous year, requires its members to take an oath to drive the white man from Kenya. The movement grows.

By August of 1952 the British ruled Kenyan government imposes a curfew in three districts on the outskirts of Nairobi where gangs of arsonists, believed to be members of the Mau Mau, have been setting fire to homes of Africans who refuse to take the Mau Mau oath.

In early October of the same year a senior chief named Waruhui is assassinated in Kenya. He is speared to death in public, on a main road outside of Nairobi. Recently he had spoken out against increasing Mau Mau aggression towards colonial rule. The rebels, intent on ejecting the colonists, are starting with the easiest targets - fellow Africans sympathetic to the UK.

Soon after the British government fears things are getting out of control, and they pledge to send British troops to Kenya in order to subdue the situation.

On October 21st, 1951, and with the immanent arrival of British troops, the Kenyan government declares a state of emergency. Nearly fifty people have been murdered in Nairobi within four weeks and the Mau Mau, officially declared terrorists, have acquired firearms. As part of the overall clamp down Jomo Kenyatta, president of the Kenya African Union (the British proxy government), is himself arrested for alleged Mau Mau involvement.

On October 30th British troops initiate a round-up of at least five-hundred suspected Mau Mau rebels.

By November 1952 The Mau Mau declare open rebellion against British rule in Kenya. British forces respond by arresting over two-thousand suspected of Mau Mau membership. Suspicion is everywhere. Neighbor informing on neighbor. White land owners become suspicious of their servants, and their servant’s children. The volatility of the country is on a razor’s edge, they are falling into open civil war.

Amidst the chaos of round ups and skirmishes was a cook. A black African named Onyango whom served dutifully in WWII on behalf of the British in the “Luo’ regiment. At the time of insurrection he happened to be the primary chef for a well-to-do British Army officer living in Nairobi. Onyango was outspoken, politically oriented, and soon gained the suspicions of his employer.

Mr. Onyango was eventually arrested, detained, and interrogated. As a servant for a British Officer it was feared that he was in prime position to relay Intel to the Mau Mau Rebels. I warn you, the following account, offered by Mr. Onyango’s third wife Sarah, is not for the faint of heart:

He said they would sometimes squeeze his testicles with parallel metallic rods. They also pierced his nails and buttocks with a sharp pin, with his hands and legs tied together with his head facing down… The African warders were instructed by the white soldiers to whip him every morning and evening till he confessed.

“There was torture in Kenya during the Mau Mau emergency, institutional and systematic, and also casual and haphazard,” Professor Anderson writes in Histories of the Hanged: Britain’s Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire (2005). “Violence . . . was intrinsic to the system, and the use of force to compel obedience was sanctioned at the highest level.”

Mrs. Sarah Onyango went on.

This was like a death camp because some detainees died while being tortured… We were not allowed to see him, not even taking him food. [He] was told that he would be killed or maimed if he refused to reveal what he knew of the insurgency, and was beaten repeatedly until he promised never to rejoin any groupings opposed to the white man’s rule.

Even after he confessed, and renounced the insurgency, the physical abuse allegedly continued. An estimated 71,000 Kenyans were eventually held in prison camps on suspicions of Mau Mau affiliation. The vast majority were never convicted. Letters smuggled out of the camps complained of systematic brutality by warders and guards. And there were reports of sexual violence and mutilation, including the use of a device known as “castration pliers.”

Kenya would go through nearly another decade of on again off again war with the British Empire until finally gaining its’ independence in 1964. The total of Mau Mau activists killed is placed well above ten-thousand. During the same time period thirty-two Africans of European descent were reported murdered.

Mr. Onyango would eventually be released and returned to his family… The Obamas. Mr. Onyango’s full name was Hussein Onyango Obama. He is President Barak Obama’s paternal grandfather.

The woman, the third wife of Mr. Onyango Obama whom so vividly recalls the details of her husband’s ordeal, is referred to as “Granny Sarah” in President Obama’s book Dreams from My Father. In that book President Obama recalls another of Granny Sarah’s stories about his grandfather‘s return home:

When he returned to Alego he was very thin and dirty. He had difficulty walking, and his head was full of lice. For some time he was too traumatized to speak about his experiences. From that day on, I saw that he was now an old man.

It should be noted here that the Prime Minister responsible for quelling the rebellion, initiating the original round ups, and the man responsible for sending the first waves of British troops to Kenya was none other than Sir Winston Churchill.

It should also be noted that another man was arrested and imprisoned for a short time during this ten years of war, for attending a meeting in Nairobi of the Kenya African National Union (Kanu), the organization spearheading the independence movement. That man’s name was Barak Obama Sr. - son of Mr. Onyango, father to our president. Barak Obama Sr. would later take advantage of a scholarship program initiated by JFK to enable Kenyan’s to self-govern their emerging country. That scholarship was taken at the University of Hawaii.

Let me ask you my fellow Americans, why is this story not widely known? Why has the media intentionally chosen to ignore, perhaps even cover up, information so vital to understanding what informs our Commander-in-Chief’s persona, his prejudices, to this day? Armed with this information is there any doubt as to why the bust of Churchill was returned? Is there any wonder why our President self imposes the role of “warrior” on behalf of those he sees as “colonized?”

This is a man weaned from birth on stories of the oppressive white man. Not theoretical dissertations, but personal family stories. He openly describes befriending Marxists, and purposely falling in with radicals while attending college. He insults our closest European ally on behalf of his family lineage. He routinely sides and sympathizes with the “colonized” Palestinian over the “colonizing” Israeli. His first call, literally his first phone call in his capacity as President of the United States, was to Abas, leader of the Palestinian Authority, whom is not even the head of a recognized state. In his first public appearance after the attack the President saluted the American Indian and their plight prior to addressing the mass murder of US soldiers on US soil by Major Nadal Hassan .

Now pause for a moment. Such a build up, as I have laid it out, may be stirring a resentment for the President within you, at this very moment - this is not my intent. My intent is to understand what informs his decision making process. Consider your own reaction. Your family, your people, your history. What if it were full of not general, not theoretical, but specific, real and measurable instances of intense brutality, of torture, or racism? Could the perpetrators, their descendants, their nation, ever find forgiveness in your heart?

So abandon the resentment and simply understand, it is our best strategy. Unlocking the president’s motives is the key to stopping the “change” he is attempting to bring this nation. This is a man dedicated - and this is vital to remember - a man dedicated to undoing the aggression of the traditional colonial powers, including America - their land, their status, their wealth, their power. In his mind it is all ill-gotten That is the “fundamental transformation” of America, “and the world” that he promised in 2008. He is orchestrating the bottom up reformation of our world as shaped by the 18th - 20th century powers, via their collapse.

Ironically if he is to be successful he must in the end become what he despises. He must “colonize” our traditions, our history, even our “inadequate” founding document. And replace it with “officials appointed by and responsible to the reigning sovereign.” Such push and nudge Czars are the only path to his collective salvation - the only way to cleanse us of our collective historic sins. In other words, he must become the governor of a royal colony in order to save us from our colonial past.

This family lineage has all along been made up of fighters. Senator Barack Obama is fighting using his brain, like his father, while his grandfather fought physically with the white man.
-Granny Sarah


*Sources:
Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya (2005); Histories of the Hanged: Britain’s Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire (2005); UK Times Online; African History/About.

Friday, September 30, 2011

Its good to see you back...

... but so little has changed.

You are right, we are all familiar with the disdain and contempt that you continually show any concern anyone might have over any environmental or conservation issue. I am also familiar with the propensity you tend to show in assuming anything associated with "Earth" equals an environmental issue.

Regarding you last, I have to assume you are speaking of the Earth Charter that Gorby supports. The Earth Charter does contain conservation topics and agendas, but it is primarily an economic model designed to counter what Gorby (and many others) have determined to be the failed Washington Consensus... which is a model designed to show what guidelines and standards the US will support in developing countries.

Understand, I'm no fan of the Earth Charter. It smacks of centralized control of national and regional resource development and utilization... and that is a bad thing. In my opinion, it is utterly unsustainable, solely because of its grand scope. A country of a billion people (China or India) has less say about the use and development of resources than a country like Costa Rica, based only on the scale of consumption. I'm sure it fits nicely into what a former Communist would feel used to and comfortable with... but it can't ever work, for the same reasons communism can't ever work.

I'm also no fan of the Washington Consensus. Having a policy (stated or unstated) that says we support this sort of reform and organization, and then picking and choosing where and when such support will be applied is worse than meaningless... its a waste of time and money. The US will hold these standards and guidelines to the domestic agendas of states like Honduras, Mexico, Uganda, Liberia, and Ceylon... but will utterly ignore the violations of the same policies by nations like Pakistan, South Korea, South Africa and Brazil.

Supporters of the Earth Charter have no more right to dictate when, where or how a nation can use its own resources (fiscal, natural, environmental or otherwise... and that includes populations and demographics) than the US does to nations held to the yardstick of the Washington Consensus.

Both are meaningless and arbitrarily applied... so both are bad. However, the fact that it is a movement embraced by "green" supporters should be the LAST indicator of what is wrong with Earth Charter.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Comrade Greenie

This is priceless...

Throughout the Ethos of Bund lore I have clearly, from the beginning, opposed the "green movement." In brief (very brief in fact), I'll recap the 3 primary reasons why: 1.) The science didn't add up to me on a very basic level. 7 or so ice ages, millions of years of volcanoes, continent fragmentation, bodies of water drying up & reforming, & I am to believe that in the sliver of time human beings have been residents on earth that Model T's are going to effect let alone upset such a ferociously powerful force as planet wide climate, especially when 97% of Co2 occurs as water evaporation? Please (& this was well before recent scandals involving faked data). 2.) It seemed a secular religion. Beat your wife, abandon your kids, & snort cocaine but as long as you recycle, well hell, Susan Surandon will show up on " earth day" & call you a saint. 3.) and most importantly, it appeared to me to be an all too convenient movement for those predisposed to opposing capitalism. Call it socialism, communism, statism,whatever you like, the bottom line is the tenants of the green movement are nearly indistinguishable from top down state controlled economic theory. And I have always suspected these "watermelons" - green on the outside, red on the inside - were merely packaging their preferred economic theories into a presentation more palatable to the American people - "we're saving the planet, and seals, baby seals in fact!"

Well ...

Forget .org or .com, .net or even .gov - there is a new web domain available for those wanting to prove their dedication to the environment. Presenting ".eco"!

Al Gore, who owns the "Green Channel", dedicated exclusively to his propaganda, has been fighting furiously to purchase & own this new domain. Alas, it was not to be. He ultimately dropped his bid for control. He lost to the man quickly becoming known as the "Al Gore of Europe."

Who won? You ready for this?

Mikael Gorbachev.

Ha! Ya greenies around the world, nothing says "we're environmentalists not socialists" like having the former premier of the UNION of SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS (and hard core commie I might add) as your helmsman.

You can't make this stuff up.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Who are you again?

Just kidding...

Funny, this subject was on my mind recently too.

I'm sure we all recall the hubbub raised by Wright back in '08, and that hubbub focused a lot on his position as a pastor of a church that held a tax exempt status in IL. The unjust nature of the law in question is clear to me... but it was my understanding that a portion of the reasoning behind NOT doing away with it entirely was that it afforded the US, and specifically the Department of Homeland Security, its only foothold into investigating these sorts of pastors and religious leaders who advocate hate and/or violence against Americans.

Now, I don't know nor can I say just how much of the failure to follow up on this troublesome piece of legislation is because someone in executive authority feels it is better left alone than dealt with in the Supreme Court... but the prospect is interesting, is it not?

Radical Islamic leaders preaching hate and violence within American mosques... or rabid racists and ethnic supremacy-advocates lecturing on the evils of skin color and national origin, all are open to investigation via this law... which is a tax issue rather than a criminal investigation, and might make the process just a little easier to follow through.

My point? Is knowing that the purely "political" speech that is happening from the pulpit (be it about abortion, health care, welfare, et al) is utterly and completely ignored by the investigating agency (the IRS) time and time again enough to justify leaving it "on the books" to help combat the evils that stem from the more radical elements that also use the pulpit against American interests and policies?

For example:

You used the abolitionist movement as an example of pulpit politics, and it is an excellent one. I agree 100% with your thoughts on the important nature of keeping the abolitionist movement alive and kicking from 1776 all the way through 1865 via this venue. I just want to point out that there was a down-side to this, too... and one example of that down-side was John Brown.

John Brown was a failed and bankrupt preacher who, due to huge debt and massive amounts of mental instability, used the pulpit to advocate and justify rebellion and murder in the cause of ending slavery. Ultimately hanging for his crimes, he was found responsible for the murder of no fewer than seven men (one of whom was a freed slave) and the destruction of several pieces of private and government property in his radical efforts. Brown, too, used the pulpit... just as the more peaceful and non-violent anti-slavery elements did that we now know as the Underground Railroad.

You also made the example of the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s... another excellent example (probably the best), but the advocates of segregation and racism that fought MLK and the rest used the churches they frequented on Sunday mornings just as often and just as efficiently as the integrationists. KKK recruiters often used churches as their primary means of finding new members and (more importantly) finding new money... and not only in the deep South.

I recognize and agree with your thoughts about the unjust nature of this law... seriously, I do. I think it should be struck from the books immediately. It is a clear violation of free speech, no question. I just want to make sure that you understand that there are those that defend it who hold a political view very similar to yours in regards to defending American from radicals who would cause her harm.