Still Using Federal Reserve Notes – How to Beat Inflation

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”

Hosea 4:6

This short article will address the topic of

inflation, its causes, the effects thereof, and

how to safeguard against it.

Do not fall victim to inflation, i.e., the

government manipulation of your money. Let me


I. What Causes Inflation

Have you ever heard of the Federal Reserve? Well

then you know what causes inflation. The “Fed” is

the engine of inflation, by self-admission. But

how can that be?, you ask. The “Fed” is a branch

of the federal government, no?

It is not. It is neither federal, nor are there

any reserves – anywhere – to speak of. Time was,

when the American dollar was indeed as good as

gold, for it was actually backed by gold. These

days, the dollar is no more than a three cent

piece of paper(the three cents includes the price

of ink), worth anything only because our

government says it is. This is to say, that the

dollar has value due only to government’s faith in

the people’s ignorance, or, more accurately, the

people’s ignorance of their government’s lack of


The story of the Federal Reserve exemplefies this

infidelity, the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on

the American people. Even the most cursory

investigation will reveal that the “Fed” is a

private corporation, a “cabal” of bankers, if you

will. As with most corporations, it has

shareholders – mostly foreign, in this case. This

bears repeating: the controlling interest in the

company known as the Federal Reserve is European.

And I thought we won the Revolutionary War(!)

Let us pause here. My dear reader will agree

that the aforementioned facts are cause for

concern: of much import and gravitas, for you

academic types. For the rest of us, it is a matter

of everyday life, indeed, one of survival. Truth

be told, and at the risk of sounding like a

Democrat, it is getting harder. Let’s clear the

air, and get down to brass tacks. Does your salary

double every ten years? It had better, because the

average price of a new car does. Clearly we are

dealing with inflation here, and clearly

government-given figures regarding inflation are,

well, underinflated. What is not as obvious is

that there need not be inflation.

But first, a question: What is in your pocket at

this moment? Is it a one dollar bill?

Congratulations! You are one dollar in debt! Do

you perhaps have a twenty? Then you are twenty

dollars in debt. For this is all that the dollar

is, no more than an instrument of debt. It is

simply the federal government’s obligation to the

Federal Reserve, with you – the American people –

pledged as collateral.

Observe the back of a cancelled check from the

IRS: it will often state, “Pay any Federal Reserve

Bank, for debts incurred by the US Gov’t.”

It works like this: a)government needs money to

operate; b)government borrows money from private

bank(Federal Reserve); c)private bank prints money

“out of thin air”!(This is known as fractional

reserve banking, the discussion of which is beyond

the scope of this article. But I urge the reader

to conduct his own investigation.); d)since

government gets its money from the people,

government issues legal tender(“dollar”), in

effect, “passing the buck”; e)ignorant American is

now forever enslaved by debt, owing Federal

Reserve what he thought was his own money.

How’s that for representative government?

“The one aim of these financiers is world control

by the creation of inextinguishable debts.”

–Henry Ford

Now you know what the dollar is.

This brings us to the underlying causes of

inflation. Let us remember that the dollar is an

instrument of debt, i.e., a loan. As such, it must

be repaid, and with interest. Where will the money

to the pay the interest come from,however, if the

principal itself never existed? Why, it must be

printed. The bankers are a clever lot, admittedly.

The most important factor causing inflation then,

is the interest charged by banks(the shareholders

of the “Fed”), the costs of which are then passed

along to consumers in the form of higher prices.

Inflation is, purely speaking, an inflation of the

money supply, as required simply to pay this

interest. The money supply, or number of dollars,

is inflated, or expanded, thereby reducing the

value of each and every individual dollar.

Know that it is not, generally speaking, that

commodities are rising in price, but rather that

the dollar is losing value. With every new dollar

that is printed, each pre-existing dollar loses

corresponding value. And when you have a dollar

that is worth less, naturally, it will take more

of them to make your purchase.

Worse yet, because all our “dollars” are debts

loaned into circulation, and with interest due,

the more of them there are, the greater the impact

on inflation. In other words, inflation is not

only here to stay, it must, by definition, only

get worse.

Thusly, and seemingly, prices rise. In reality,

you are wanting more of the devalued dollars for

the same amount of goods. In the absence of a gold

standard, this is not only entirely possible, but


“In the absence of a gold standard, there is no

way to protect savings from confiscation through

inflation. There is no safe store of value. If

there were, the government would have to make its

holding illegal, as was done in the case of

gold… The financial policy of the welfare state

require that there be now way for the owners of

wealth to protect themselves.

“This is the shabby secret of the welfare

statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending

is simply a scheme for the ‘hidden’ confiscation

of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this

insidious process. It stands as a protector of

property rights.”

–(a younger and much more honest)AlanGreenspan:

Gold and Economic Freedom

As we can see, inflation is a hidden tax, and

like the income tax itself, is the interest we are

paying to the Federal Reserve. It is no

coincidence that both the “Fed” and the IRS were

created in the same year, just as it is no secret

that prior to that year, 1913, the income

tax(along with property taxes, incidentally) were

nonexistant. The constitution, in fact, strictly

prohibits such a direct tax on income.(Where is

the ACLU on this?) The inescapable conclusion is

that the more government spends, the more the

Federal Reserve profits. It is for this reason

that we have the welfare state we find ourselves

oppressed by.

Did I mention that Alan Greenspan(titular head of

the private company known as the Federal Reserve)

visits the White House on a weekly basis?

Can you say conflict of interest?

II. The Effects

Meet John Public. John graduated from college in

1970, eager, prepared, ready and willing to enter

the workforce. John did so, worked hard, and

prospered. In accounting for his retirement, John

figured that 40 years hence, he would need

$100,000 in the bank. $100,000 in the bank, at %5

interest, John thinks to himself, will net me

$5,000 a year, a modest, yes, yet comfortable,

living. Fast-forward, if you will. It is now 2004.

Remember John? John has worked hard, has played by

the rules, has done all the right things. Our

not-so-fictitious friend has married, and raised

children. Six years ’til retirement, John thinks

to himself. And John continues working. John

retires, proud of the $100,000 he’s saved. And

John is all set.

I will stop here. I wish to use this momentary

pause to enlist the help of the reader. Email me,

if you would, if you are receiving %5 interest on

any of your accounts. Likewise, email me please,

if you are subsisting on $5,000 a year. This would

be of the greatest interest to me, and my readers

alike, and I thank you in advance.

John Public… what happened here? J.P. worked

hard, did all the right things, and is now…

living below the poverty line?

Is it possible? How did this happen? Liberty and

justice for all?

What happened was that John was robbed. Inflation

is counterfitting, and counterfitting is cheating,

and it is the Federal Reserve itself that is

cheating, under the guise of a duly-elected


Harry Browne defines inflation as, “an increase in

money substitutes above the stored stock of real

money; the counterfiting of money receipts.”(p.

372, You Can Profit From a Monetary Crisis, and

How You Can Profit From the Coming Devaluation).

III. What You Can Do

“Give me control over a nation’s currency and I

care not who makes its laws.” –Baron M.A.


“Whoever controls the money in any country is

master of all its legislation and commerce.”

–President James Garfield

Seems hopeless, I know.

What can you do?

When the people own the money, they control the

government. When the government owns the money, it

controls the people. Bernard’s Law.

There was a time in this, God’s country, when you

could visit your banker and exchange a 20 dollar

bill for a 20 dollar gold piece,a coin containing

nearly an ounce of gold.

When was the last time you saw a 20 dollar gold


Happily, the solution is simple, and as

American as apple pie. The answer is: good

old-fashioned competition. A nonprofit

orginization has introduced a competing currency,

%100 backed and redeemable in gold and silver, as

mandated by the Constitution. Below is their

Declaration of Monetary Liberty.

Sometimes in the course of events it becomes

necessary for men and women of strong moral

character to cast off the invisible economic

chains of debt and taxation which bind them, and

to form a more just monetary system. It is this

common situation which inspired the National

Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve

Act and the Internal Revenue Code(Norfed). We hold

these truths as evident:

-The Federal Reserve and the Income Tax were both

created in the same year 1913. Neither are


-The Federal Reserve, by its own admission, is not

“federal” nor has any “reserves”. It is actually a

private bank cartel that profits from enslaving

the people with debt.

-“A heavy preogressive or graduated income tax” is

the Second Plank in the Communist Manifesto.

-“Centralization of credit in the hands of the

State, by means of a national bank with State

capital and an exclusive monopoly” is the Sixth

Plank of the Communist Manifesto.

-The American Revolution was not fought about

taxes, but due to the oppressive British control

over the money supply. The colonies propsered

prior to losing that control.

-According to John M. Keynes, inflation is a

hidden tax that “only one man in a million is able

to diagnose.” $1.00 today buys what four cents did

in 1913!

-According to Lenin, “There is no surer way of

overturning a society than to debauch the

currency.” He was referring to unlimited,

un-backed government paper “money”.

-According to our government’s own Grace

Commission Report in 1984, “not one dime of your

income taxes goes to run the government or fund

any program.”

-According to researcher and author G. Edwards

Griffin in his 1997 study of the Federal Reserve,

48% of our income taxes pays the interest on the

national debt.

-According to researcher and Peter Kershaw, the

day is coming when 100% taxation will not even

cover the interest payments. Beyond bankruptcy!

-Federal Reserve “Notes” are IOU’s that can not be

nor ever will be paid.

From the beginning of time, some have always

sought to control others. Now “they” strive to

control us with their valueless fiat currency.

NORFED turns the tables on their modus operandi by

putting people at the head of the line, where

money is worth the most. Now we can privatize our

money and profit by inroducing the Liberty Dollar.

Now we can miraculously decentralize the monetary

system with the simple Norfed solution which

returns the ownership of the money to the people.

There is no fiat currency, such as our dollar,

that has ever survived, and not one that has not

collapsed. Please understand what eliminating the

“Fed” would accomplish:

a)The elimination of the national debt…


b)The elimination of the income tax… there would

no longer be a need for it.

c)An end to inflation.

“I believe that if the people of this nation fully

understood what Congress has done to them over the

past 49 years, they would move on Washington, they

would not wait for an election. It adds up to a

preconceived plan to destroy the economic and

social independence of the United States.” —

Senator George W. Malone, speaking before Congress

about the Federal Reserve Bank(1962)


Functions and Powers of the Prime Minister


In the Parliamentary system Prime Minister is the head of the government and the whole system of the state revolves round him. He is the leader of majority party in the parliament and he is the source of power. He is more power full than the president.

Relevant provisions

Article 46,91,95 of the constitution of Pakistan.

The office of the Prime Minister according to the constitution of 1973

The Prime Minister under the constitution of 1973 is the real executive and head of the Govt. The president is merely a constitutional figurehead who acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. Infact he is the real ruler of Pakistan.

Qualifications/characteristics for the office of Prime Minister (P.M)

Citizen of Pakistan

He should be the citizen of Pakistan.
Member of National Assembly

He should be the member of National Assembly.
Should not hold any office of profit

He should not hold any office of profit in the service of Pakistan.
Ideology of Pakistan

He should believe on ideology of Pakistan.
Mentally and physically fit

He should be mentally and physically fit.

Nomination of the P.M.

The president in his discretion appoints from amongst the members of National Assembly who has command the majority of members in the house.

Election of the P.M

The members of the National Assembly elect PM, the leader of the majority party. Assembly in its first session elects speaker and Deputy Speaker and then the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister shall be elected by the majority vote of the total membership of the National Assembly.

Oath of the P.M

After election the P.M takes the oath in the presence of the president. He declares to be Muslim and the belief in the finality of Prophet (S.A.W.W) promises to act upon the Islamic ideology, to give presence to national interest, protect the constitution and be loyal with the country.

Allowances and salary of the P,M.

Prime Minister is given different allowances and salary of Rs. 56 thousands.
Term of the office

The tenure of the post of the P.M is five years.

Powers and functions of the P.M

The powers and functions of the Prime Minister are as under:-

Chief Advisor of the President

The P.M is the chief advisor of the president. The president performs his duties with the consultation of the P.M.

Formation of Cabinet

The Prime Minister after taking oath select his cabinet. Every Minister, individually and cabinet as whole are responsible for their acts to the parliament.

National Leader

The P.M is a national leader. He leads the nation and organizes the public opinion in favour of his party.

Leader of the cabinet

The PM is the leader of the cabinet. All the minister work under the supervision of the PM.

Leader of the House

The PM is the leader of the National Assembly. His proposals are honoured in the house. He expresses his views in the Assembly.

Power to confer titles and awards

The PM has power to confer titles and awards to those who show excellent performance in different field of life.

Power of appointments.

The PM has power to appoint the high ranking officials with the approval of the president of Islamic republic of Pakistan. He appoints diplomas, ministerial staff and judges of the Supreme Courts and the High Courts. He also appoints the members of National Finance Commission etc.

Financial Powers

The PM also performs finance matters. The budget is prepared under his supervision.

Public welfare

The PM works for the public welfare. He takes every possible step to improve the life style of the people of his country.

Foreign Relation

The foreign policy is prepared under his guidelines. The diplomats are appointed by the president on the recommendations of the PM.

Power of Legislation

The PM takes part in legislation. All proceedings are conducted with the consent of the PM. He plays a vital role in law making.

Administrative Duties.

The PM performs the administrative function. He is responsible for the smooth running of the affairs of the country. He maintains law and order in the country.

Defence of the country

The PM is responsible for the defence of the country. He can take step to improve the defence system of the country.

Power to Dissolve the National Assembly

The PM can ask the president to dissolve the national assembly.

Party head

The PM is the party head. He belongs to party who has majority in the house. He has his political significance.

Power to terminate ministers

The PM if not satisfied with the function of his minister he can terminate them.

Bridge between president and Cabinet

The PM is a link between president and cabinet. The PM is duty bound to inform the president about work of cabinet.

Representative of the Nation

The PM is representative of the nation in international level.
Resign of Prime Minister

The PM may tender his resignation to the president as and when he desires so. After PM has resigned all the minister shall seased to hold offices.

Termination/ Vote of no confidence against Prime Minister

Under the present procedure, a resolution for a vote of no confidence can be moved by not less than twenty percent of the total membership of the National Assembly. The resolution shall not be voted upon before the expiration of three days, from the day on which such resolution is moved in the national assembly.

Acting Prime Minister

On the death, sickness leave, resignation or foreign tour of the PM the senior minister look after the work.

Ending Remarks

While summing up it can be said that the PM is the real executive of the country. He has strong constitutional position. The PM is the Chief Advisor of president. He is the leader of the house and elected for the term of 5 years. He can be removed from his office be passing a resolution of vote of no confidence against him.
For more visit

Immigration Reform 2010 – Stop Draining American Jobs

Illegal immigration is a controversial issue in our country. However, Obama hopes Congress is able to draft legislation to deal with immigration reform before the end of 2010. In June 2009, Obama asked Homeland Security Secretary, June Napolitano, to work with Congress to speed up immigration reform. In 2006 and 2007. Congress failed to pass immigration reform bills even though President Bush was pushing for them.

One of Obama’s campaign pledges was to deal with illegal immigration, yet it has not happened yet. One of the major problems our country faces is how to handle the 12 million illegal immigrants and how to prevent future illegal immigration. Some of Obama’s opponents are resistant to his ideas since they believe he is an illegal immigrant himself since he had a Kenyan father and an American mother.

There are several problems. First, the health care reform bill, H.R. 3590, has several problems regarding illegal immigration. The current law requires legal aliens to wait five years before they can access certain taxpayer-funded health benefits. Secondly, verification loopholes allow illegal aliens access to these benefits. Third, the language of the bill does not prevent illegal aliens accessing these benefits.

In addition to the ability to access taxpayer benefits they don’t contribute to, illegal immigration affects jobs for Americans. With the unemployment rate at 10% for November 2009, we are now facing the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. Consequently, Americans need jobs! Unfortunately, many Americans have become hopeless about finding a job and are no longer even looking for work. For others, many are either working a part-time job when they would rather be working full-time, or they are working two jobs just to make ends meet. Even though the job situation is desperate for many, our country’s leaders are considering passing amnesty legislation to enable the illegal immigrants to stay here.

At the 2000 census, there were approximately 8 million illegal immigrants in this country. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that illegal aliens in this country will increase by 700,000 to 900,000 annually during the next 20 years. If we care about our economic health and future, we cannot allow this exodus into our country to continue. Not only do they take jobs away from Americans, but they have an effect on the depression of wages, too. Today, we have 15.4 million unemployed Americans, yet we have at least 8+ million illegal aliens competing for available jobs. Furthermore, while the effect of illegal immigration does not depress wages on all jobs, it does depress wages for low paying entry-level jobs. In 2000, the average illegal immigrant either had no reported profession or no job at all. Furthermore, more than 1/3 were not even high school graduates. According to FAIR, “High immigration cities have twice as much unemployment as low immigration cities, and wage increases in low immigration cities have been 48% higher than in high immigration cities.”

It’s not that I am not sympathetic for the plight of illegal aliens, but I strongly believe it is our country’s resposibility to take care of their own people first. If you’re concerned about this problem, please contact you elected officials, and let your voice be heard.

Obama Isn’t Concerned About the Very Poor

The media have been aghast over GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney’s remark in an interview with CNN’s Soledad O’Brien last week that the very poor in this country can go to hell. The comment supposedly reinforces Romney’s image as a cold, heartless country club Republican who eats orphans for breakfast.

Of course Romney said no such thing; what he said was, “I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor-we have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich-they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90 to 95% of Americans who right now are struggling.”

Only a party with a very dull, tiresome axe to grind would willfully misunderstand the obvious meaning of Romney’s response. (Then again, this is the party that heard “I like being able to fire people… If someone doesn’t give me a good service… I want to say, ‘I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me'” as proof of a sadistic streak.)

Romney’s message was that he was using his campaign to focus on how Obama’s policies have hurt the vast middle class, the bulk of whom don’t receive federal assistance. As he clarified, “Of course I’m concerned about all Americans-poor, wealthy, middle class, but the focus of my effort will be on middle income families who I think have been most hurt by the Obama economy.” Call it the Goldilocks campaign: He won’t dwell on the upper 5%, he won’t dwell on the lower 5%-he’ll focus on the 90% in between.

Being offended over Romney’s innocuous remark is like being offended because a university offers financial aid to only its poorest students, but enacts structural reforms to save the rest of its students tuition money.

Don’t we have enough politicians endlessly lamenting the plight of the poor-most of whom, by the way, eventually escape poverty, usually when they grow out of their twenties? I’m not holding my breath for politicians to defend hardworking, job-creating billionaire software engineers or hedge fund managers, but is it so wrong for a politician to empathize with the middle class every now and then?

Conservatives who argue that Romney should have encouraged the poor to prosper on their own instead of promising them more handouts are missing the point. Romney wasn’t offering a policy prescription for low-income Americans; he was trying to get a pesky liberal journalist off his back by assuring her he wasn’t about to slash the left’s cherished social programs.

The same commentators who claim Romney will say anything to get elected are the ones who complain he’s perpetually screwing up by being too honest.

Since the media is so interested in divining presidential candidates’ degree of empathy for the poor, how about we dig into the vast trove of encomiums Obama has piled up for the middle class:

“I’m a warrior for the middle class.”

“We can’t have special interests sitting shotgun. We’ve got to have middle class families up in front.”

“Responsible businesses are forced to compete against unscrupulous and underhanded businesses who… take advantage of middle-class families.”

“In an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class.”

“I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans.”

Where’s your love for the “very poor,” Obama? Don’t they need a warrior, too? Shouldn’t they be allowed to sit up front? Aren’t they harmed by unscrupulous and underhanded businesses? Don’t they pay taxes? (Well, no, actually, they don’t. I’ll give you that one.)

Obama gives a shout out to the middle class every five seconds, yet the media never accuse him of pandering for votes the way they do Romney.

Meanwhile, Romney reaffirms his commitment to the social safety net and promises he’ll make it bigger if whiny Democrats insist, and he’s blithely accused of tossing bags of kittens in the river.

(Let’s not forget Obama’s luxurious three years of parading around on the taxpayers’ dime in the middle of a brutal recession: his endless expensive vacations, tony outings, golf games, and lavish White House bashes-celebrity concerts, conga lines, Alice in Wonderland recreations-to which I’m sure few of the “very poor” were invited.)

More important than rhetoric is the effect candidates’ policies have on the poor.

As The New York Times reported in September, the number of households living below the poverty line has increased to its highest level since the Census Bureau began reporting the statistic 52 years ago.

The Times also noted that median household income declined more in the two years since the recession supposedly ended than it had during the recession. Declines have been greatest for African Americans and those without high school diplomas, groups historically overrepresented among the “very poor.”

As a result of Obama’s growth-stalling, business-strangling, debt-accumulating policies, one in seven Americans is on food stamps, and Medicaid enrollment has surpassed 50 million recipients-both record highs. One out of six households relies on some form of government assistance.

But it’s all good for Obama, so long as he can hobble the economy and slow the rate at which the “rich get richer,” even if it means hurting the poor. As Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once noted of her opposition in the House of Commons, the socialist left “would rather have the poor poorer, provided that the rich were less rich.”

Cynics will claim Democrats are merely fostering a permanent underclass to ensure a solid voting bloc-a damning enough accusation. But for Obama, who is more redistributionist at his core than any Democratic president since FDR, there is a darker motive behind his policies:

Obama would rather be less concerned about the poor if it means he can demonstrate even greater contempt for the rich.

Save the World! Get Rid of Lawyers?

I would like to say I’m not lazy, but that would take too much energy, and it wouldn’t be true. As we all know, lawyers are sticklers for the truth. I don’t mind expending effort. In fact, there are some things, like rescuing my dinner from my golden retriever, that I do with enthusiasm. There are many more things I do without complaint, if not with pleasure. Okay, maybe I’m exaggerating about the “without complaint” bit. Still, I think I’ve come up with a way to end global warming. Yes, Al Gore, I bet this never occurred to you, and I said it first!

Attorneys do a lot of unnecessary traveling. there are courts 30 miles from here that like to schedule “hearings to schedule hearings”. I wish I could say this was unusual, but it isn’t. I have traveled many miles just to find out that the only thing the court has scheduled is a “status hearing”. If the regular judge can’t be present for a hearing, he can assign the case to a “judge pro temp”, i. e. a substitute judge, who has the power to make any decisions that need to be made on the case. The problem is that these judges are afraid to make decisions that are different from those the regular judge would have made. This isn’t such a bad thing, but they never mention their preferences until everyone on the case has already spent the gas and time to come to court. The bottom line is that our courts, and other aspects of my profession could be a lot less wasteful.

Paper is another commodity that the legal profession wastes. Lawyers routinely ask for discovery that isn’t the least bit useful to their clients just because they can. Whole forests are cut down just so some idiot in a suit can demand 5000 pages of bank records he won’t read, and wouldn’t understand even if he did. If you think you’ll need to introduce something into evidence, you have to provide complete copies for everyone on the case before court begins. You may end up not requiring, say Aunt Sadie’s 20 page letter to Uncle George, or the 50 page contract between Jack and Jill. Regardless, you still have to give everyone a copy of the whole document, and if you haven’t done this in advance, and you do need to refer to something, you are going to REALLY honk off the judge. He will either stop the proceedings so opposing counsel can read the whole document in court, or send his court reporter to make copies for everyone while you wait.

Lawyers aren’t the only wasters of trees and oil, and enemies to precious resources. Think of our government. If all of the state assemblies and congress were to give up unnecessary travel and paper waste, we could restore the world’s rain forests to full capacity, probably in one month. Pollution would be a thing of the past, as would “CNN”, “Fox News”. I’m having a hard time finding a down side to this.

Here’s what we can do. In this day of computers, email and real time communication, why don’t we all meet in a secured chat room to do our business? We can email each other copies of any documents we want to present, and talk to each other without even leaving our offices, or living rooms for that matter. Think of the gas we’d save, both fossil fuel based and regular old hot air. Think of the trees that would survive to delight future generations. Think of the … TJ, get back here with my pork chop!

Copyright (c) 2009 Lucille Uttermohlen

Is America Ready For Ron Paul?

Many people want to judge candidates in the 2008 Presidential Election on things like abortion. It really does not matter how any candidate feels about abortion, it is a non-issue at this point. Immigration, the Iraq war, the corporate takeover of America and what we do about each of these things, could determine the direction and even the future existence of our country.

Our founding fathers believed that we should not get involved in foreign issues that are not of vital national interest. Right now we have soldiers stationed in over 130 countries around the world. We need to bring those soldiers home and ensure that we have strong national defense. Part of a strong national defense is securing our borders. Any country that has 12 million people crossing its borders illegally, would realize an invasion is going on. The citizens of the United States realize we are being invaded and are coming to understand that our politicians simply do not care. One of the biggest opponents of border security and proponents of amnesty is the United States Chamber of Commerce. The United States Chamber of Commerce represents all the major corporation of our country and they could care less what the average American citizen wants. Now I am all for capitalism, but a capitalism without patriotism will be the end of our great Republic.

Civilizations have come and gone throughout history. What Rome took with the sword, Corporations now take with a pen, a huge bankroll, influence of corrupt politicians and the might of the United States Military Machine. The elite corporations of our world move jobs, people, equipment and merchandise across borders with their only loyalty to the corporation and corporate profit. United States manufacturers claim they can not turn a profit without cheap foreign labor. Yet Japanese manufacturers have moved their manufacturing facilities here, are paying good wages, and are doing even better than our American Corporations. The same corporations that have virtually all manufacturing conducted outside of the United States, in third world countries.

Many corporations that do not move out of the United States, try to circumvent paying a decent wage to Americans by hiring illegal aliens. I know of a property management company in Denver that has over 1,000 illegal aliens on its cleaning payroll. These corporations would like us to believe that the illegals are doing jobs Americans will not. That is simply not true. They are doing jobs at wages Americans can not afford. Americans don’t live in small apartments with 3 or more families, with everyone sleeping in shifts. We will do their work, but only at a decent wage.

So, is America ready for Ron Paul? My opinion, America was ready for Ron Paul the day President Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA agreement with the full support of President Reagan and President Bush. The saying in my circle of friends is “the Democrats and Republicans are both taking us to the same place, they just take different roads.”

Ron Paul believes in the Constitution of the United States and does not vote on anything that would contradict what our Constitution says. With Ron Paul as President we would not be going into a war unless Congress declared war. Besides being the legal way to declare war, that eliminates the flakes in Congress from playing the blame game at election time. Ron Paul does not believe in treaties with foreign countries and would work to pull us out of all the foreign entanglements we are currently in. No more United Nations, no more NAFTA, CAFTA or NATO, etc. The truth is, we don’t need these countries as much as they need us and being in these treaties is costing us a fortune.

Ron Paul believes in low taxes, a small government and generally, the government staying out of your business. Just think what kind of budget the United States would have if we did not have to finance an overseas military and the IRS, among others.

So will Americans vote for Ron Paul? Well, the extreme left will not. They are to stuck on feel good politics. For the extreme left, it feels great to take money out of a hardworking Americans pocket and give it to a pet charity. Besides Ron Paul believes in a right to life. So even if the country was in decimation and ruin, the extreme left would be afraid of losing the right to an abortion. The hard working blue collar American whether on the left or right should be ready for Ron Paul’s message. After all, what hard working blue collar worker likes to see their children die in a war for oil, wants to pay more in taxes so corporations can get tax breaks for sending their jobs overseas, or enjoys watching illegal aliens cross the border nightly on the news?

People come from various backgrounds in support for Ron Paul. Supporters of Ron Paul may not all agree with each other, but we can agree on his message. Bill Clinton was virtually unknown to most Americans when he started his race for the presidency. Ron Paul has a great start at the grass roots level, if he comes in at least third place in the Iowa Straw poll he has a chance to be a real contender for the presidency. by Mike Warner American Freedom

The Case For Legal Immigration

The Democrats would have us believe that we need to give amnesty to every illegal immigrant in the United States. Isn’t it past time for the Congress to debate the case for legal immigration.

Instead, they have once again begun the drum beat for comprehensive immigration reform. Seven Democrat Senators have joined together to reintroduce the reform bill that failed back in 2007. This appears to be an attempt by the Democrats to prop up their fading support in the Hispanic-American community.

Meanwhile a variation of the Dream Act was passed and signed by Governor Jerry Brown of California. Republicans in near-bankrupt California have complained that after cutting millions in state aid to higher education the state has mysteriously come up with an estimated $40 million in privately funding for the education of illegal immigrants. A similar bill failed in the U.S. Congress in 2010 and there is little chance for its success in 2011 since the Republican-controlled House will vote against it.

This post is not going to rehash the old arguments for various Democrat attempts to create wedge issues for the 2012 election. We’ve heard all of the sob stories before. Let’s be clear: illegal immigration is illegal, even if it’s done for the best or most innocent reasons. Crossing the borders of the United States illegally is at the least a misdemeanor and repeated crossings escalate to felonies. Stealing an identity is also a felony.

This brings us to the case for legal immigration into the United States. This country was founded and nurtured by immigrants. Even the native Americans are not really natives. Their ancestors walked across the Bering land bridge from Asia. Whether your ancestors came by boat or plane, they all made the conscious decision to come to America. Most had no intention of returning to their former homelands.

I grew up in Brooklyn, New York. As a young boy all of the candy stores, diners, pizza parlors and soda shoppes were owned by either Jewish or Italian immigrants. Many of the Jews had numbered tattoos on their forearms marking them as survivors of the worst travesty of World War II, the Nazi death camps. All of these people came here for two things: freedom and the opportunity for a better life. Their children mainly went to college and prospered, living the American dream.

In my twenties, many of the same establishments were owned by Greeks. They came for many of the same reasons and prospered in America. South Asians came to America and started buying gas stations and convenience stores. Many of their children moved on to a better life. Today, in central Virginia we have South Koreans owning the very same stores. Their children are engineers and medical students. (I actually know a family whose two children are just that.)

My paternal 2nd great grandfather was an Irish immigrant named Michael Patrick Murphy. He came to this country with his younger brother, Patrick in late 1862 because there was no future for them in their home country. Ten years later he was a defender of his country at Antietam and his brother was a cavalryman in the same Federal army. He later became a successful real estate broker and First Justice of the Peace in Westchester County, New York.

On the same side of the family my great grandfather, Antonino Bisecchia, arrived here from central Sicily with some tools and a dream. He was a boot maker and apparently a good one because by the 1910 census he owned his own shop. By 1916 his entire family Anglicized their names. My grandfather and one of his younger brothers went as far as changing their surnames to Billies. Three of Antonino grandson’s served proudly in the United States armed forces. One actually participated in the liberation of his family’s homeland, Sicily.

Instead of looking for political gotchas and electoral advantages, isn’t it time to discuss the case for legal immigration. America is a big country. We have many economic problems that require solutions. Here are some suggestions.

Stop arguing about the border fence and finish it already. Guard it like we’re guarding our own homes because we are.

Create a national identity card and implement it. Enough with the so-called privacy issues. We have Social Security cards, drivers’ licences and other forms of identity.

Create tough penalties for companies and their mangers who knowingly hire illegals.

Make sure that our border patrol and the troops that we station have the authority and force to seal the border. Let the rest of the world know that we will no longer countenance illegal crossings.

Beef up the foreign workers program to allow an easier flow back and forth across our borders.

Rework the current quota system to better reflect the current reality.

And finally, here’s the big one: gradually encourage illegals currently in the United States to return to their home countries with the promise that they can return when their number is called.

The time has arrived for the politicians in Washington to resolve this vexing national issue and make the case for legal immigration.

In the Workplace – Choose Your Confidants Carefully

By nature, some of us are open and trusting. We share information too freely, and expect that others will guard our personal information. This isn’t always the case, and perhaps more often than not, confidential information is shared either inadvertently or intentionally.


During World War II the military became concerned that our enemies would gather useful strategic information from the casual conversations, and letters sent home, by soldiers overseas. A government policy was established that prohibited the discussion of certain subjects either verbally, or in writing (“Loose Lips Sink Ships,” EyeWitness to History,” [1997]). The government’s concerns were warranted and the stakes were high. The risk to life and military assets could not be tolerated.

While the stakes might not be as high in the workplace, certainly YOUR SHIP could be figuratively SUNK! By this, I mean that you could suffer loss or damage through loose conversation. Your “secrets” could be revealed and your reputation and prestige could suffer.

Similar to the wartime effort, companies are often engaged in a form of “economic warfare.” They have “trade secrets,” strategic directions, products or programs about to be unveiled, etc. You could also sink your company’s “ship,” inflict some damage, or cause opportunity or economic loss.


One of the more common violations is to voice your opinions, particularly negative ones, about your organization, your boss, the leadership, the established programs or policies, the competence or character of other employees, etc. This is tempting and normal, after all “free speech” is one of the Constitutional foundations of our democracy. However, if you engage in this type of conversation, do so with the realization that it could “come back to bite you.” Your co-workers or superiors could overhear your remarks or be told of them. They may be irritated or offended by your comments, or consider them a breech of “confidentiality.”


People have bonds, friendships, associations, etc. The informal organization is often as powerful and influential as the formal one. We’re social beings, and this implies a need to connect. We confide in our friends, and most of us have friends at work. Often the subjective information is equally as valid in forming judgments and assessments. That being said, be cautious in whom you choose to confide. Don’t be indiscriminate – be selective!  We’ve all had experiences with people sharing information we specifically asked them not to.


– If you talk about subjective work matters, be careful

– Avoid gossip

– Go through your boss: keep him, or her, informed

– Pick your confidants carefully

– Respect confidences, and do not repeat them

– Recognize your reasons for sharing information with others (is it friendship, power, being in the know, frustration, discontent, a desire to help, etc.?)

– Advice should be private

– Be ethical

– Practice loyalty; don’t betray

– Exercise discretion

– Protect yourself, and others

– Remember some confidential information is protected by law (e.g., employment, health insurance, credit, etc.)

Feminist Are People Too, My Friends

I guess I missed the memo that says it’s popular or courageous to hate on Hillary Clinton. I can’t figure out why this is an effective strategy to improve our economy, inequality, abortion rights, stopping wars, reducing unjust incarcerations, and raising the minimum wage to fifteen dollars–federally. If I did get the memo would it say something like this: “To the women of the United States. It’s a mistake to take the position which Hillary Clinton takes. It is unpopular and demeaning to support women who have been raped that might need an abortion as a result. It might be unhealthy to take that position because Hillary Clinton is a rich white woman, who wants to police our language; when we absolutely want to be able to say what we want against and about–“the others”.

The Hillary Clinton memo might go on to say: “She has been a rebel without a cause ever since she was in college. She chose to marry a man who did not respect her views. Her judgment to stay with him deepens our mistrust. Former President Bill Clinton clearly was at work doing other things, while Hillary was hard at work on issues for children, women, handicapped, and African-Americans.” I think the memo might tell us also, “If I am a bleeding heart liberal–then my job and future is at risk.” The memo is clearly slanted, and it would make me a woman to be watched by a person like Donald J. Trump, who speaks about women in horrific terms as if they are sex objects. This kind of behavior, I thought is what feminism was supposed to fight against?

Senator Bernie Sanders, Vermont [D] showed a view which I felt was anti-feminism during his primary election in 2016 as well. I had the feeling he couldn’t bear to see a woman, who has put the hard work in for over 30-years or more, become a successful candidate for President of the United States. He called it a “radical idea.” It worked with the Millennials’ for a minute or two. But, Senator Sanders had no path of winning against a seasoned politician like former Secretary Hillary Clinton–with a long history and proven qualifications of getting down to basics and getting things accomplished. That matters to most of us.

The thing about hating Hillary is; she stands for everything I want to see work in this country. The United States of America has a very long road ahead to bring women into the mainstream. Women in this country still lack the respect in salary they deserve, lack the promotions, the recognition in board rooms and serving as CEO’s in major Fortune 500 companies as well. The Senate and the House lack the cultural diversity it needs to become effective for women overall. How can the House of Representatives become a voice for women, if they themselves are not diverse in any way shape of form? The last person of color elected was Senator Carol Moseley-Braun (D) 1996, who lost to Peter Fitzgerald a rich white guy–who only ran to beat her, and then moved on with his life.

In every article, I’ve read about feminism by-the-way, actress Susan Sarandon’s’ pivot against being labeled a feminist is deemed very hypocritical. She apparently gained success and recognition using her feminist card, then abandon the label when she wanted to support Bernie Sanders, a socialist democrat, running for President alleging to give away free college tuition.

The misogynistic memo that I will cast out of the window, doesn’t include women like me; who just see these views for women of America and international views as those of progressive human beings. We are people too. Feminism is very much alive. Gloria Steinem and women like her, (who the alt-right do not want to see in charge of this country) for obvious reasons; will in less than 30 days acquire a rude awakening–right here in the United States of America.

Perestroika and Democracy in Russia: Illusions and Reality

The problems touched upon in this article concern the logic of the development of socialism, the crisis of the Soviet society in the former USSR, the estimation of the developed socialism in the 1970s-1980s and Gorbachev’s perestroika, the problem of Stalinism.

At the turn between the 1970s and 1980s the situation for the USSR on the world arena changed for the worse. It was the time of cold war aggravation, taking the form of arms escalation and bitter ideological warfare. Whereas in the former part the Soviet Union was able to uphold parity, in the latter it was losing out and finally lost to the aggressive western propaganda. The terms used by the western political scientists to oppose socialism and capitalism were ‘totalitarianism’ and ‘democracy’. These terms, widely handled as a weapon to subvert the Soviet order, however, were used in the emasculated meaning; devoid of their initial scientific depth they obscured, rather than elucidated the real state of things. As history shows, they turned out to be nothing but propaganda ‘dummies’, stock phrases unsuitable for the serious analysis of reality.

The term ‘totalitarianism’ appeared in Italy in the 1920s; its scientific status was determined by the American professor P. Hayes in 1939, who characterized as ‘totalitarian’ certain fascism-related features in the political development of Italy and Germany, relating this phenomenon to one of the lines of development of bourgeois – free market society. However, in the 1950s as a response to the obtaining political situation (‘the cold war’) Carl Friedrich and Zbignev Bzhezinsky spread the term ‘totalitarianism’ to the Soviet society, thus effectively blending together such widely diverse and essentially opposite phenomena as communism and national-socialism (Stalinism and Hitlerism). The aim was to represent these social phenomena as the two variants of one social order.

In the late 1980s the ‘Soviet totalitarianism’ had marched its way to the USSR finding there quite a few adepts in the circles of individualistic intellectuals and liberal mass media – exactly around the time when serious scholars in the west began to discard the totalitarian explanatory model. What are the criteria of totalitarianism? Totalitarian control of state over society existed already in pharaohs’ Egypt, in China, the Roman Empire, the Inca State and many other civilizations. The totalitarian scheme comprising fundamentally different types of societies holds no water; it simply indicates one part common in them – the strong centralized power. In the cold war time it was a part of propaganda technology – a psychohistorical technique – to subvert collectivism as a principle and create a ‘guilt complex’ in the Soviet society.

It appears that the basic demarcation line between the above-mentioned societies is not totalitarianism-democracy, but socialism-capitalism. The Soviet society was anti-capitalist; its theory and practice rejected private property, civil society, free market, classes, the division of private and public sectors of economy (its old capitalist social structure had been broken) – it asserted a society based on equality, common property, centralized power. In the other case (the fascist Germany) we deal with the capitalist (bourgeois) society, based on the strict division of public and private property. Even the German nationalist party itself was, by the law of December 1 1933, ‘a public law corporation’, i.e. a regular public institution of the capitalist society. These societies were also widely different ideologically – let us remember that Communists with their humanistic and internationalist ideology were regarded as major enemies by the nationalist Nazis.

Now let us look at the term ‘democracy’ and its ideological correlatives – Karl Popper’s ‘open society’, and ‘pluralism’ – allegedly representing the social reality in the west. The democracy as the ‘rule of the people’ can be specified – antique, bourgeois, Soviet ‘democratic centralism’, etc. It is clear, that in each case we deal with different phenomena. Nevertheless, all of them have one point in common: in all cases we are presented with certain formal institutions, which are so constructed as to exercise the will of powerful political groups (or whole classes), representing them as the interests of the majority and creating an illusion of equal rights. Elections have become one of the tools for creating this illusion; their actual tasks are to make the impression of mass participation in the political process, to channel social discontent, camouflage the real, unelected power and monitor the relations between dominant political groups, punishing the culprits for mistakes, extreme conservatism or radicalism. As a rule, the most efficient ‘model’ democracies are those which fulfill the above-mentioned functions the best. We discover that democracy frequently cannot serve as a tool for scientific analysis, but an ideological label, substituting the reality and serving to manipulate the public mind.

Democratic forms at the early stage of capitalism (e.g. the 17th c. England during the early Stuarts and the Commonwealth period, when the Commons in the Parliament were gaining political weight) were actually the forms of fight of the bourgeois minority against the absolute monarchy and ruling aristocracy. The democracies epitomized by the USA and the European states in the 19th-20th centuries are essentially the result of the concession of the ruling bourgeoisie to the oppressed social groups, the concession achieved through severe class struggle and much facilitated by the existence of the world socialist superpower – the USSR. That country, professing anti-capitalist principles, made the bourgeoisie camouflage its supremacy and concede to the working masses for fear of social turmoil and upsetting of the social order.

The doubters who prefer to defend western democracies may introduce themselves to a long list of western literature on the essence of democracy, among other sources – to the theoretical research on the discontinuation of the ‘1945-1975 brand’ democracy in the USA. For example, the 1975 report ‘The Crisis of Democracy’ by M. Crozier, S.P. Huntington and J. Watanuki (New York, 1975), made by the orders of the Trilateral Commission, asserts that certain problems of the USA government arise from excessive democracy. To function well the democratic system needs a certain degree of apathy and lack of interest in political life on the part of individuals and social groups. For the past 30 years this principle has been watchfully put into practice in the west – largely, by diverting the public attention from burning issues. The events of September 11, 2001 have worked right into the hands of the stunted democracy ideologists – the democracy in the west is on the wane.

Those who believe that in the 1990s Russia transferred to democracy may get the real picture by trying to answer the questions: what type of democracy, for whom and in whose interests? Was it in the interests of the people? No, it was not in the interests of the majority of population. As the initial stage of transition to the longed-for democracy the national property was denationalized (note again the confusion of the dichotomies ‘capitalism-socialism’ and ‘democracy-strong nation-state’). People were endowed with vouchers for the privatization of national property, but, being brought up in the society which glorified honest work for the benefit of the people, most of them were unable to evince enough speculative enterprise. Those who did profit from the privatization were actually speculators who bought up other people’s vouchers and then purchased the national wealth for a mere song. The Russian nation was split into two uneven parts overnight: some turned into rich exploiting minority, others – into paupers struggling for physical survival. Ever since the early 1990s the majority of Russian people (who have retained the egalitarian and collectivist mindset, at least subconsciously) have been languishing spiritually and morally and passing away at the rate of about a million persons each year.

Apologists of democracy understood as freedom from any constraints claim that there are some gains from Gorbachev’s perestroika: freedom of speech, the fall of the ‘iron curtain’, the ability to go and live abroad, etc. This appears to be a rather narrow-minded approach. Freedom understood as freedom of speech and dissent cannot overbalance the national disaster which ensued in Russia – the country’s disintegration, depopulation, criminalization, moral decay. The formulation ‘Does Russia’s transition to democracy (to read ‘capitalism’) have more pluses or minuses?’ sounds rather naive. The superpower fell – instead of it a minor power based on exploitation and deprivation was created by some former functionaries, aided by criminal structures and foreign capital.

Characteristic of the post-perestroika Russia has been alienation not only of the additional product, but the necessary product as well – dwelling, health, education – life itself. Russian population is tremendously polarized as to their social and economic status – the income concentration index shows a colossal gap between the rich and the poor. Statistics show that while in 1989 14 million people lived beyond the limits of poverty in Eastern Europe, including the USSR, in 1996 they already numbered 169 million. Gorbachev’s one-sided military concessions to the USA begun in 1987, so much illustrative of his laxity, led to further neglect of the army in Yeltsin’s times. The country is approaching the point when its army will be unable to defend it, let alone make it possible for Russia to assert its standpoints on the world arena. Russia has lost independence in politics, following in the wake of the USA and Western Europe. It has lost international prestige, primarily because its perestroika-time leaders showed weakness and treacherously walked out on the friends and allies of the Soviet Union, on the supporters of socialism in the world.

Why did the socialist ideology, which had been for 70 years instilled in people’s minds, crumple up at a stroke? Why, on the other hand, does such a great number of people still have firm socialist convictions? Director of the Institute of Russian History at Russian Liberal Arts State University Andrey Fursov maintains, that the ideology overturn had deeply hidden economic causes. The standards of life in the Soviet Union became higher, the new generation, whose fathers had suffered the hardships of wars, famine and intensive labor, became more materialistic and acquisitive. They became more individualistic, too. Their changing mentality proved to be a fertile field for pro-western manipulations.

At the same time a lot of top officials saw in Gorbachev’s laxity their chance to change their status privileges for class privileges. Objectively it demanded the creation of certain social and economic conditions: legalization of exploitation, creating the economic mechanism of product alienation, turning income into profit (this was achieved through joining the world market). Subjectively it demanded the propaganda of democratization, the fight against totalitarianism for a ‘normal society’, and eventually the recognition of the victory of western ideology and mass culture over the Soviet ideology and culture – the victory over the USSR in the western psychohistorical war.

All this was passed as a set of measures done in the interests of the society. However, in the socialist country of growing well-being of people – based on the principle of equality – this was not easy. (The late socialism well-being was still much less materialistic in nature than idealist, connected with aspirations of human spirit and confidence in the bright future. As to its material side, people’s life was rather austere, of course, less luxurious than in the west, but a far cry from the abject existence of working classes and peasants in czarist pre-revolutionary Russia.) To implement it, specific people were needed, capable of acting as a mouthpiece for the cause, and with a certain degree of sincerity (resulting from the amalgam of deceit, self-deceit, ambitions and complexes), talking people into new beliefs.