You may be aware that the U.S. abdicated its Constitutional duty for maintaining the money supply when it passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, relinquishing the authority to issue currency and print money to a private banking cartel. Official documents will tell you that the Federal Reserve System (“the Fed”) is a quasi-governmental organization accountable to ‘the people’ (whatever that means), but history has demonstrated the Fed is accountable to no one but itself. 

What you may not know is that the Fed is a Ponzi scheme. Simplified, it works like this: The Fed creates $200 and lends $100 to Bob who then owes the Fed $110 with interest.

Read more ...

After the reported 'surprising' GOP victory in Virginia’s gubernatorial race, some Democrat personalities have suggested that the party needs to be ‘more progressive’. Aside from being dismissive of observed reality, this statement belies an ignorance of two-party electoral theory.

Winning an election is a simple formula – but difficult to execute: Mobilize the base (get them out to vote) and appeal to moderates and independents. This is the ultimate paradox, because any platform that appeals to one usually alienates the other.

It also illuminates the insidious power of the disenfranchised minority in a two-party system. The base never, ever, votes for the other guy. The base might stay home, but it does not cross party lines. Therefore, when a candidate wins 51% of the vote, they did not “win a majority”. They won a one-percent minority – just enough to squeak over the finish line. The other votes were already in the bag (one way or another ???? ).

As a rule in a two-party system, the winner is determined by the 5-10% of voters who disavow rigid ideology or structural affinity. This may ultimately be better than putting elections in the hands of zealots, but it is an unacknowledged antagonist of the general notion of democracy.

Some people think of democracy as oppression of the minority by the majority, but I say democracy is oppression of the majority by the minority.

It would seem that Joe is not wrong insisting that he was simply executing the agreement settled by Trump: an agreement that we can now infer included Taliban control of Afghanistan as well as diplomatic recognition (that's coming).

Obviously, the powers-that-be thought this was a good idea regardless of the person sitting in the Oval Office. The real question is why? Why surrender a key piece of real estate within striking distance of Iran and China (and of interest to Russia for pipelines)?

Read more ...

Americans are genuinely surprised that the Taliban conquered Afghanistan in six weeks. Perhaps that is because they believed the stream of evasion emanating from the government for an entire generation that the war against the Taliban had been won (or close to it) and the U.S. was simply taking its time leaving the country.

It would be easy to blame Joe Biden for condemning thirty-eight million Afghanis to a tyrannical future under Sharia law enforced by genocidal maniacs, but Biden simply played the last move that remained on the board. The game was started four presidents ago and each of them played moves toward the disastrous endgame for which Biden will take the blame.

Read more ...

 There is a pervasive belief among government skeptics that the United States has been formed into a corporation and is not subject to the will and laws of the people, but to external parties such as international banks and the Vatican. It is difficult to determine the origins of this belief, but I would place the genesis during the McCarthy Era when society bifurcated into the philosophically modern left and right factions that we know and hate today.

Who Could Blame Them?

As the federal government increased its powers over the states in the interest of national security during the burgeoning of the Cold War (sound familiar?), people began to be wary of the government’s intentions and actions – justifiably. The military was fighting pseudo-secret wars around the world, the CIA was performing unsanctioned drug trials on unsuspecting college students and trying – and failing – to subvert governments around the world they determined to be subversive (confused yet?). The CIA coined the term Conspiracy Theorist to discredit anyone who disagreed with the findings of the Warren Commission Report as a passive-aggressive way of establishing hegemony over information and public opinion (is a familiar theme emerging?)

Read more ...