Where has John Young Been?

It’s good to be able to post again!

My regular job had an extended emergency that kept me working as much as 36 hours at a pop without rest.

Then, and this is predictable, I got sick. What started as a cold ended up as pneumonia.

But meanwhile, I have been researching a podcast that will be posted this weekend that I’m sure you’ll find very illuminating! This one has sixty-eight citations — so I hope you’ll find what I didn’t accomplish in terms of frequency will be more than balanced by quality and thoroughness.

Now the crisis at work has finally passed, the illness as been beaten with antibiotics and I’m catching up. Soon, you’ll be hearing from me just like usual!

June 18, 2009 at 1:49 pm Leave a comment

Who is John Young?

Someone has asked me about these mysterious signs that just keep popping up along highways and byways throughout the country. The illustration shows one of them.

With all due respect to Ayn Rand, this seems to be derived from the famous “Who is John Galt?” from her novel, Atlas Shrugged. The novel depicts a world in which the goose that lays the golden egg finally has enough and goes on strike. What our government and corporations have lost sight of is the fact that European-Americans are the goose that lays the golden egg in this country, and by displacing us and denying us civil rights and protections afforded to other ethnic groups, they are ultimately creating a strike in numerous spheres. This country will not survive that strike.

Located in Vermont

Located in Vermont

But, to answer the question — I’m John Young. I’m a member of EAU. I’m a husband, father, scientist, engineer, farmer, musician and a philosopher. I bring a multidisciplinary approach to the analysis of contemporary issues facing our Folk.
The obvious intent of these signs is to get people familiar with European Americans United, and perhaps even with my body of thought in that arena.
Well — I encourage you to do so. I don’t bite!

June 18, 2009 at 12:51 am 11 comments

The Taxman Cometh

by John Young

April 15th has come and gone. Every year, I spend money on proper tax software and file a tax return somewhere between twenty-five and thirty pages long. It’s usually a pretty depressing exercise because I get to add up just how much of my hard-earned money goes to a government that hates me.

Fundamentally, I don’t have an issue with paying taxes in order to keep my borders safe and keep criminals in check. Certainly, I dislike a number of details of the income tax that I’ll be discussing in a moment; but I believe that as a citizen I’m obligated to pay for the men and women who stand ready to do violence on my behalf so I can sleep safely in my bed at night.

The trouble is, I’m obviously paying a lot more than should reasonably be required; and I’m furthermore paying it through a set of tax regulations that is so ridiculously complex that I sometimes experience doubt as to their meaning.

And that doubt can be quite fatal because our IRS has the charitable impulses of Genghis Kahn combined with the sense of humor of an atomic bomb and the sensitivity of Torquemada. So whenever in doubt, I make the decision that yields the highest tax payment. If you call the IRS for help, you usually get someone who is barely literate and whose advice, if you follow it, cannot be used in their own special court system to establish that you were acting in good faith.

A few years back, Money Magazine had 50 CPAs independently do the taxes for a hypothetical family of four. Although all 50 CPAs had the same data, they came back with 49 different answers as to the total tax due. Only one of these trained professionals who had years of training plus objective testing under their belt achieved what the IRS considered to be the “correct” answer.

If 49 out of 50 trained professionals can’t get the right answer — what are the odds that an ordinary person will? For all practical purposes, the odds of getting it right are pretty close to zero; no matter how hard you try. That’s why I use professional software and buy audit defense every year. Sometimes, if something out of the ordinary has occurred, I pay a professional. Even at that, odds are that there are probably a few errors in the software or the professional is one of the 49 out of 50 who will mess up, though I have no way of knowing whether those errors affect my particular circumstances or not.

And this is my single largest indictment of the income tax: it turns every taxpayer into a “not yet charged” criminal. Every taxpayer in the United States, at some point, has a fear in the back of his mind regarding the income tax; because pretty much every taxpayer has no choice but to get something wrong on his income tax forms. The IRS has its own courts for trying cases, and on top of that all of the wages of the entire judicial branch of government depend on the income tax so the conflict of interest is quite intense, and always stacked against the taxpayer unless he has special pull or connections. (A certain Secretary of the Treasury comes to mind.) So at any moment in time, any taxpayer’s name can be pulled out of a hat as the subject of an audit or other extraordinary treatment.

And this “extraordinary treatment” to which I refer is my second indictment of the income tax. The IRS is one of the most casually evil branches of our government in that it is staffed with people who have almost unlimited power to make a taxpayer’s life miserable. While not all IRS employees take delight in the torture they are permitted to inflict; far too many gain a thrill from the absolute corruption they embrace as a result of their absolute power. The IRS has the power to do things that no other branch of government is allowed to do. They can seize your paycheck and your bank accounts with minimal notice and without a warrant or even due process in a court of law. If you owe them $3,000 and can’t pay it immediately, within just a few months they will add penalties and interest that turn the original debt into $15,000 or more. If your house gets foreclosed or your business is destroyed and (like too many) you commit suicide just to escape them — they can seize the proceeds of your life insurance and leave your widow penniless. And, in fact, they routinely do ALL of these things, and more. Their harassment extends even beyond the grave. Even worse, if an IRS agent with a conscience decides to blow the whistle on this outrageous activity, his career will be destroyed. In essence, for owing a few hundred dollars in taxes a taxpayer can receive treatment at the hands of the IRS that would make even a death row inmate blanch.

These two factors, in and of themselves, would be sufficient cause to repeal the income tax and abolish the IRS in its entirety even if the amount of taxes we owed was only $1/year. But, of course, we owe much more.

When I say “we” I am making a big assumption. I’m assuming that you, the reader, pay taxes too. Not too long ago, that was a fairly safe assumption; but today it is pretty much an even bet. By the time the latest Obama outrage has passed through Congress and taken effect, fully 50% of wage earners will effectively owe NO income tax whatsoever, leaving the remaining 50% of us to shoulder the burden not just for ourselves, but for the non-taxpaying wage earners along with the usual free-riders in government hack jobs, non-governmental agencies and the welfare industry. In essence, this means that over 50% of the adults in this country will have no direct stake in the cost of government since someone else will be paying the freight. I’m betting that if you are reading this, odds are that you’ll be joining me in paying the freight for everyone else.

And what amazing freight it is! Adding up my property tax, state income tax, federal income tax, FICA and Medicare alone — the lovely government has taken roughly 40% of my income. When you add the gas and sales taxes (I drive a lot), it comes to 43% of my income. And that’s not counting all of the hidden taxes. Amazing, though, isn’t it, that I have to pay so much of my income?

If the numb-skulls in Washington want the most impressive stimulus package ever seen; all they have to do is shut themselves down and leave my paycheck alone. Because by doing that, they would nearly double my disposable income overnight – and not just mine; but the income of millions of Americans as well. But, I digress.

What am I getting in exchange for all of this money? Well, let’s see.

1. I am getting borders that are so completely unsecured that as many as 5,000 illegal aliens a day pass over the border into Arizona alone. I also get, as head of homeland security, the woman who oversaw the security disaster in Arizona: Janet Napolitano. Now, it seems, due to our lax border security with Mexico, my fellow Americans may experience death from swine flue.

2. While I have to scrimp and save in order to afford payments for dental bills; I get the pleasure of providing unlimited free medical care to our own native crop of welfare layabouts (and this includes most of the bureaucrats in Washington) but also for illegal aliens and every dusky featherless biped who happens to have the good fortune of not speaking English.

3. After paying $650/year in gas taxes, $190/year in vehicle registrations and $800/year in tolls for my tiny 40mpg car; I get the privilege of driving on roads that are so poorly maintained that I have to ALSO pay for a new four-wheel alignment twice a year.

4. I get to pay for “Fusion Centers” and the Department of Homeland Security to label me a “likely terrorist” because I have an honorable DD-214.

5. I get to pay for multi billionaires to jet all over the world on my dime because their global Ponzi schemes are “too big to fail.”

6. And more, and more, and more — virtually NONE of it pertaining to the actual functions government is empowered to provide under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, and virtually all of it misdirected to assist a globalist oligarchy or harm America’s founding peoples.

Don’t get me wrong — I have disagreements with “our” government all year long. But right around tax time, when I see how much they are shaking me down, those disagreements take on a special tinge of disgust.

April 25, 2009 at 1:52 am 1 comment

How Much is a Quadrillion, and Why Should You Care?

by John Young

As a scientist and engineer, I’m one of a relatively small percentage of the population that regularly works with numbers of this magnitude. When I heard that the Obama administration’s latest budgets could leave us indebted to the tune of 1.25 QUADRILLION dollars, I knew two things. First, I knew this was very very very bad news. Second, I knew that the number was so incomprehensible as to be practically unreal to most folks.

I’d like to make this number somewhat comprehensible in concrete terms.

Across the country, given the so-called “housing crisis,” the average price of a single family home is $204,000. Obviously, it is more in some places and less in others; but that’s the average. There are currently 6.7 billion people on the planet if you count even newborn babies.  1.25 quadrillion dollars is enough to give every single person, including the infants, their own America-style single-family home.

In the United States, there are 53 million students enrolled in public schools from grades K-12.  With 1.25 quadrillion dollars, we could write each of them a check for $23,000,000. With that much money, deposited and earning only 5% interest, each of these students could individually employ 10 teachers each earning $100,000/year in perpetuity. When they are done their K-12 schooling, they could all go to Harvard, stay at the Ritz while attending, buy a brand-new Mercedes every month and still have plenty of spending money without ever touching their principle.

There are roughly 306 million people in the United States if you count illegal aliens and their offspring. With 1.25 quadrillion dollars, we could write every person a check for over 4 million dollars. Since everyone would be a multi-millionaire; there would no longer be issues related to poverty, education, welfare or most forms of criminality.

The thickness of a $100 Federal Reserve Note .0043″.  1.25 quadrillion dollars composed of compressed and stacked $100 bills  would be 848,327 miles high. To put that in perspective, the moon’s average distance from the earth is only 250,000 miles. The circumference of the earth is roughtly 24,000 miles, so that’s enough $100 bills to circle the earth 10 times. And, remember — that’s not laid end-to-end, but tightly stacked one on top of the other.

If we were to use ordinary $1 bills, the stack would reach from here to Venus three times.

On an astronomical scale, 1.25 quadrillion miles is approximately how far light from a star would travel in 212 years.  To put that into perspective, it only takes light about 4.5 years to reach our nearest stellar neighbor, alpha centuri.

In other words, 1.25 quadrillion dollars is a truly staggering amount of money.

Unfortunately, while I’ve been describing what one could do with that much money as an asset — all of that money is going to be a DEBT. And as a debt, it will take away from our future generations — with interest — everything and more that it could have provided as an asset.

So instead of giving America’s people a check for $4 million; it will be $4 million plus interest extracted from them during their working lifetimes.

A little bit more math should let you see how untenable this is.

The average person works at a primary occupation for 40 years. Usually, wages start low, rise slowly for 10 years, stay at a plateau for about 20 years (called the peak earning years) and then slowly fall  for the last 10 years until retirement.

The Median Wage for Nuclear Engineers in the United States, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is $90,000/year. Assuming that a miraculous engineer earned this much money for all 40 years of his work history, his total lifetime income would be $3.6 million dollars; though, in reality, it would likely be closer to $2.5 million.

Well — if you subtract the $4 million that he owed in taxes from his $3.6 million in earnings; that would leave him having to pay more than he earned. He’d have nothing left over from which he could pay rent, get back and forth to work, put clothes on his back and food on his table. In other words, for all practical purposes he would be unable to survive.

So it is impossible to collect enough taxes to repay that debt; even if every person in America earned $90,000/year.

This is the legacy that Obamunism and the “buy now/pay later” nitwits in Congress are leaving for our children.

But YOU have the power to change that. The only question is whether or not you have the WILL. If you don’t, a $1.25 quadrillion national debt will destroy our civilization. And that is why you should care about what a number that large means.

April 14, 2009 at 6:08 pm 16 comments

Mexican Drug Crisis and Gun Laws

Mexican drug cartels have been funneling dope into this country for decades. Using violent gangs such as MS-13 as street troops, the Mexican Mafia has expanded its reach into over 200 U.S. cities. Some areas in this country are so overrun, and the police are so overwhelmed, that the police have signed “truces” with these gangs and abandoned whole regions to their rule.

The same occured in Mexico going way back. In essence, entire Mexican states are in the hands of Mexican drug cartels and the only “rule of law” that applies is whatever the drug cartels allow.

It is true that the cartels and Mexican Mafia have our police out-gunned with “assault-style” weapons — but this is not the whole story.

The whole story, albeit abbreviated, goes like this:

The United States armed, equipped and trained an anti-drug force in Mexico and provided them with everything from machine guns to military helicopters. The anti-drug force then got a better deal from the drug cartels, and defected wholesale.

The same has occured with Mexican military units. These units are corrupted wholesale, and defect en masse to the cartels; bringing their military weaponry with them. Meanwhile, the cartels control many ports of entry so they can get an unlimited supply of weapons from whatever country they wish. It turns out they have imported as many as 20 million select-fire full-auto-capable AK-47 machine guns from China.

These AK-47s are not the same thing you can buy from your local gun shop in some states. The AK-47s that you can buy over the counter are specifically designed so that they cannot be converted to fire full-auto. They are semi-automatic only, like the popular Remington 7400 hunting rifle; only much less powerful.

The AK-47s being brought into Mexico from China, on the other hand, are fully automatic weapons. They are capable of laying down suppression fire and similar techniques typically used in modern military tactics. Such rifles, if manufactured after 1986 (which these certainly are), are completely illegal for any civilian in the United States to own under any circumstances. Period.

Either way, due to defections from U.S.-equipped forces, defections from their own police and military forces, and unlimited access to military weaponry from China … the drug cartels are better equipped and better trained than Mexican law enforcement, and certainly better equipped and trained than civilian law enforcement in the United States. After all, how many police departments can field a helicopter gunship?

Even though police officers are fond of referring to us non-police as “civilians,” the simple fact of the matter is that they are civilians as well. Despite their militarization, they are neither trained nor equipped to go head-to-head against a military force.

That’s not their fault, because that was never intended to be their purpose. The purpose of civilian law enforcement is to preserve peace within a community, and serve and protect the community at large. And for this purpose, most police are equipped in spades.

When dealing with a military force that is invading our country and killing our citizens, our Congress and President have both the power AND the obligation to deploy a force that is entirely trained and equipped to deal with such threats: The United States Army.

The situation in Mexico has killed thousands upon thousands of Americans in aggregate — far more than Saddam Houssein would ever dream of killing in his wildest imagination.

Clearly the incompetence, corruption and instability of the Mexican government — combined with the side-effect of thousands of dead American citizens — makes Mexico a worthy candidate for “regime change.” Let’s drop the 101st Airborne division — The Screaming Eagles — onto these cartels.

The Mexican cartels are used to corrupting local politicians, machine-gunning innocent people and outgunning police. If faced with a genuine military force the first thing they would do is scream and the second thing they would do is DIE. Problem solved.

The Mexican cartels provide the top-level brains and funding for the expansion of the Mexican Mafia and the various street gangs (such as MS-13) working under its umbrella. Without the cartels, you have a snake with its head cut off. Something that our civilian law enforcment can address.

So the problem we are seeing with violence from the Mexican cartels is entirely solvable if we apply an appropriate solution to the problem. That is, you fight a military force WITH a military force.

Instead, Hillary Clinton proposes that we fight the problem by restricting Americans’ right of self defense.

Huh? Come again?

Never forget that our government no longer represents us. In fact, it fears and hates us. It fears us more than it fears an armed military force that is, quite literally BEHEADING our citizens! Our government sees us as an impediment rather than an asset.

A logical response to the knowledge that our citizens are being killed in cross-border incursions would be to deploy our military. A second response might be to arm our citizens who are proximate to the border.

But such responses assume a government that actually serves our citizens — which is something we haven’t had since our first dictator — Abraham Lincoln — decided to squash the South in their peaceful bid for independence.

Instead we have a government that will capitalize on any excuse or any source of confusion to justify disarming our citizens and thus leaving them even MORE vulberable to assaults.

Recall that there is a major difference between the AK-47s that the Mexican drug cartels are importing from China and the AK-47s that a civilian can buy in America. Although the carbines appear similar, the tactical differences are night and day.

Hillary Clinton seizes upon the ignorance of the public on this issue to describe the problem as one in which American gun owners, having access to “assault weapons” are somehow funneling them to cartels in Mexico. And so she is calling for a ban on so-called “assault weapons” in America as a solution to the problem.

Of course, it won’t solve the problem. It will simply disarm the people she fears and hates the most: American citizens.

March 27, 2009 at 4:55 pm 1 comment

AIG Reaction Provides a Teachable Moment

by John Young

The surreal situation surrounding the AIG bonuses provides an opportunity to discuss the importance of principles and ideas, as well as an opportunity to discuss an important aspect of ethics.

For those who haven’t been following the news, let’s set the stage.

AIG is a huge multinational insurance company that provides various types of insurance throughout the world. One aspect of its business is the provision of insurance to banks so that they are made whole in the event that a debtor defaults on a loan. Like practically all insurance companies, AIG works on two principles. First, it wants to collect more in premiums than it pays out in claims; and second it invests available funds in order to grow them against the day when a large number of claims may come due.

It turns out that AIG made a number of bad decisions in insuring certain loan packages for banks, combined with bad decisions regarding where to invest their own money. This put AIG in eminent danger of going out of business. Because of the pivotal role that AIG plays in the banking industry, if AIG went out of business, the effects would have been devastating. Therefore, the Federal government opted to provide AIG with taxpayer funds sufficient to take an 80% ownership stake in the company and keep it from going under.

Meanwhile, now that AIG is solvent from the cash infusions, AIG management opted to fulfill its pre-existing contractual obligations to its employees by providing them with fairly substantion bonuses amounting to, on average, $1M apiece within the very division largely responsible for AIG finding itself en extremis.

Democrats in Congress have responded by putting forth a tax law intended to deprive these employees of fully 90% of their bonuses

The brokers at AIG make poor sympathetic figures. After all, they are involved in a pretty sleazy industry to start with, and intimately intertwined with an upside-down system in which people who place bets on stocks make factors more income than the people whose hard work actually gives those stocks their value. In short, to the average person, it appears as though the brokers at AIG probably haven’t done an honest day of real productive work in their lives.

As a result, it is very easy for the Obamunists to seize upon these brokers as poster children for the application of outright communistic interference. This is no different than when Ted Kennedy points to the one out a million legal gun owners who kills an innocent person as justification for draconian restrictions on our right of self-defense while completely ignoring the millions of times every year that legally owned guns are successfully used for self-defense without ever harming anyone. (In fact, legally armed citizens with carry permits kill fewer innocent people by accident than police.)

The technique used by the Obamunists of the world is to capitalize on the revulsion we may feel for a particularly unsympathetic example in order to create laws and set precedents that apply to an entire group of people, the overwhelming preponderance of whom should be left alone.

It is here that it is important for us to separate, in our minds, the actual people involved in a situation from the underlying principles at issue.

The underlying principles at issue are the terms of employment between an employee and an employer. While there are reasonable rules applied to these agreements; particularly when it comes to compensation beyond the minimum legal wage and payment for overtime, government has very little to say.

There are a wide array of fields in which objective performance of an employee is so important to an employer’s bottom line that performance and compensation are intimately tied together. One example is food service in a restaurant. In this case, a waitress works for a minimal hourly wage, counting on her performance in that task to provide her with additional compensation in the form of tips.

The same applies to a sales-woman. Usually, sales professionals are provided with a minimal “base” salary, but receive additional compensation based upon a formula that gives them a percentage of the money they made for their employer. This works to the benefit of both the employer and the employee. For the employer, it minimizes the risk of shelling out money for an unproductive employee. For the employee, it means that the more effectively she works, the more money she takes home. When a sales-woman enters into an employment contract of this type, she is counting upon her commissions and bonuses to make up the difference of a salary that would otherwise be insufficient.

This same principle applies to traders on Wall Street or working in the derivatives department at AIG. Employees take a calculated risk that through sheer performance, they will make up the difference in an otherwise insufficient salary. Their performance bonuses are usually based upon measurable and objective criteria that are spelled out in a contract.

If the AIG personnel had known, in advance, that they would not be receiving performance bonuses they would have either gone to work for another company or they would have demanded higher salaries.

For Chuckie Schumer to come in after the fact and impose a special tax that effectively renders the terms of their compensation agreement null and void is manifestly unfair because it changes the rules in the middle of the game. It is no different, in principle, from taxing a waitress 90% on her tips because Congress deems them somehow “excessive” or taxing a sales-woman 90% on her commissions. The fact that this tactic is being applied — at the moment — to unsympathetic figures doesn’t make it right. It will have established a principle that will allow the Obamunists to run amock and eventually tax to death anyone whose business even remotely touches government and whose performance-based compensation is deemed somehow “excessive.”

Naturally, this is terribly disingenuous. If you really want an eye-opener just take a look at the MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR that former members of Congress usually earn after they leave Congress and join forces with the VERY INDUSTRIES THEY WERE ENTRUSTED TO REGULATE while in Congress. But I digress.

So the first problem is that effectively nullifying the terms of the AIG employment contract after the fact provides an open avenue to implement seriously destructive tax policies in the future that will destroy incentives for achievement. This is not acceptable.

The second problem lies in the effective nullification itself. While such nullification doesn’t violate the letter of the Cosntitution, it certainly nullifies the spirit. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states:

No State shall pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts …”

In fact, using a strict constructionist view of the Constitution as would be applied by James Madison, Article I Section 8 — which enumerates the powers of Congress and in so-doing limits them — gives Congress no power to pass such laws either.

Of course, the Congress-critters know this; so they are doing an end-run by using their powers under the 16th Amendment (income tax) to effectively render a private agreement null and void without declaring it to be so.

This is akin to a car-jacker arguing that he committed no crime because the victim of his behavior was driving a tractor-trailer rather than a car.

So this very dangerous tactic by our Congress puts the income of all Americans at risk (or, at least, the 50% of us who pay taxes), opens the gateway to communist policies that will suppress achievement and violates the Constitution.

On these basis alone, Congress shouldn’t even dream of passing a 90% tax on the bomuses of AIG executives, no matter how lowly we may regard them.

But now let me get to the real meat of the issue — the combination of Constitutionalism and Ethics.

At the time of our nation’s founding, it was thought that the greatest threat to the loyalty of our representatives would come from foreign states. Thus, Article I Section 9 states in part:

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

From the above, it is abundantly clear to anyone with an IQ above room temperature that it was the intention of our founding fathers to prevent the corruption of our legislators and other public servants. Naturally, the partisans of foreign states (such as China and Israel) who are also citizens of the United States get around this restriction and adversely affect the loyalty of our legislators; but the issue of corruption by large corporate entities is far more pervasive and insidious.

At the time of our nation’s founding almost any concentration of wealth of any consequence was in the hands of either governments or the aristocracy composing those governments, and nobody dreamt of the existence of behemoth corporations with greater monetary throughput than entire states. Some of the corporations in this country are financially larger than some first-world nations. But this outcome — and its next consequence — were not foreseen.

With great wealth comes the ability to share some of that wealth with others. And if the wealthy entity shares strategically with legislators, it can secure special privileges that allow it to quash competition and grow to a size beyond all sense and reason — to the point that it becomes so big that if it fails our entire economy will collapse. That’s exactly what happened with AIG.

A quick perusal of financial contributions by AIG yields stunning information not provided on the daily news. In all honesty, I don’t personally find it stunning at all, because I’ve been talking about this for a long time. Either way, it turns out that AIG contributed gargantuan gobs of money to political campaigns for decades under a wide variety of names. I count 23 obvious ones, ranging all the way from AIG Global Investment Corporation through AIG SunAmerica. Just since 1990, AIG has dumped nearly $10 million into Congress. This is just money for campaigns, and doesn’t count the bribes that come in the form of special so-called “consulting assignments” that members of Congress receive after leaving.

Certainly, AIG got their money’s worth. But let me cut to the chase.

The only reason that AIG became “too big to fail” in the first place is simple corruption. Because it became so big, when it reached the point of failure, our Congress violated our Constitution wholesale by giving them hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money and even taking an ownership stake in what was supposed to be a private enterprise. Then, when the company sought to provide employee retention bonuses, all hell broke loose in Congress with Chuckie Schumer and the other Obamunists vowing to levy a 90% tax on the recipients.

There is an important ethical principle here. Notice that when you do the wrong thing, it leads to crisis after crisis in which you must either undo what you previously did or commit further immoral acts. This is the way of the world, and there is no escaping this.

When our Congress was faced with a faltering AIG, it had three choices. It could allow it to fail — thus throwing us into an immediate global depression; it could bail it out — thus breaking the U.S. Constitution and guaranteeing our children a dismal future; or it could have undone the wrong it committed by allowing AIG special privileges that allowed it to grow so big by breaking it up into its 23 or so constituent parts so that the strong parts could be saved and just the weaker divisions would fail.

By failing to put right their initial mistake, Congress created yet another debacle — the image of a bunch of slimy derivatives traders receiving nearly $200M in bonuses where the money for paying those bonuses came from taxes being paid by people who can barely afford to put food on the table. Rather than taking the opportunity to right that wrong, they instead jumped to yet another outrage: a wholesale jump to embrace communist principles by taxing those whom they deem to make “too much money.”

This is no different, ethically, than the woman who has an affair on her husband only to discover that the one circumstance necessitates other wrongs just to sustain the first one until she discovers that she has wrapped herself in a cocoon of lies and deceptions that necessitate her destroying her children’s stability even though that was never her intention in the first place.

Many of our members of Congress are very bright individuals. But they have become so impressed with themselves that they believe they can evade the natural consequences of their behavior forever, when they cannot. The further they go without righting their multitude of wrongs, the more difficult making the right and honest choices will become until they have painted themselves into a corner and wrapped themselves in a straightjacket whose material is spun from their own deceptions.

The politicians are using this relatively small issue of a few bonuses at AIG to distract us from the big-picture issue of why our money had to go to AIG in the first place.

Very few of them, if any, have asked themselves what they are going to do about the wave of inflation that is bearing down upon the shore of our economy caused by the meteoric Deep Impact of incessant money printing to fund the stimulus. For smart people, they really are pretty stupid. But, then again, for anyone who has watched Congress for a while, this isn’t exactly shocking.

March 20, 2009 at 6:16 pm Leave a comment

Global Warming as a Proxy for Peak Oil

by John Young

I don’t envy President Obama. As much as I disagree with so much of his philosophy and so many of his initiatives, I can only imagine that his first weeks inhabiting the Oval Office have been sobering in the extreme. We have a quagmire in Southwest Asia from which a graceful exit is all but precluded by the special interests that helped him get elected, so he’s stymied there. We have an economic meltdown on our hands where his advisors give only bad solutions and his hands are tied from implementing workable ones by a powerful finance sector.

In essence, President Obama is caught by the classic “Hammer and Anvil” tactic.

In military terms, the Hammer and Anvil involves catching an enemy force either between two strong units, or between a strong unit and an impassable barrier. In practice, either the Hammer or Anvil is usually concealed from the enemy so the enemy is unaware of his predicament so it cannot be evaded. Peak Oil and structural limits to debt and taxation are the Anvil and entrenched special interests are the Hammer; with President Obama caught in between.

The Hammer of special interests surrounds President Obama, assuring that he does nothing contrary to their best interests — the American people be damned. Whether we are talking about Rahm Emmanuel, Robert Reich, Tim Geithner or Christina Romer, the President is surrounded by people who put him in a box from which escape is impossible, forcing his back against the concealed Anvil of looming energy shortages, impossible entitlement obligations and spiraling national debt.

President Obama is caught in the middle of the road with the Hammer on one side, the Anvil on the other side, and an 18-wheeler coming around the bend.

So, my considerable disagreements with the President notwithstanding, I can’t help feeling some sympathy for his position.

But not TOO much sympathy. After all, he wasn’t drafted. He went out of his way to make all sorts of unholy alliances with myriad special interests in order to secure his current position; and he is plenty smart enough to know that such alliances come at considerable cost in terms of freedom of action. So he willingly agreed to walk right in between the Hammer and Anvil.

Lately, President Obama — in concert with other world leaders — seems to have found a way out of the Peak Oil dilemma. The Peak Oil dilemma, simply stated, is that it is real, unavoidable, and will profoundly affect life on this planet. Meanwhile, our politicians are completely silent about the issue even though we are right on top of it. When it comes — if it hasn’t already — there are going to be serious challenges to civilization itself and certainly the legitimacy of the current political order. The dilemma is how to maintain legitimacy (and rulership) in the face of what could be catastrophic upheavals.

When I speak of legitimacy and rulership, I’m not really speaking about politicians. Politicians, even the President, are just proxies for the special interests that pay for their campaigns. What I am speaking of, instead, is those very special interests who tend to rule from behind the scenes. They are extremely worried about maintaining their grip and control through the Long Emergency described by Kunstler.

For some time I have struggled with understanding why the globalist cabal has been pushing the Global Warming scare so hard. I already suspected it was largely false or manufactured, and the near unanimous acceptance of the phenomenon by political leaders and media outlets made it clear that, like the lies about race, the promotion of Global Warming served the interests of the global cabal in some form or fashion. But I couldn’t figure out why. Thankfully, President Obama tipped his hand.

It turns out the President Obama has plans to reduce the United States’ “carbon footprint” by a whopping 80% by 2050.

Most people don’t really have any conception of what that means, so let me give you a comparison.

Pretend you got rid of your car, and took only public transportation wherever you went, doubled the insulation of your home, switched to compact fluorescent lighting, and turned down your thermostat to 58 degrees. Pretend that, in addition, you used all Energy Star rated appliances and you recycled anything that came into your life that could be recycled. Do you know how much you’d reduce your carbon footprint? By only 20%. That’s all. A mere 20%.

A logical question might be “where is the other 80% of my energy consumption?” It is in the food you eat, the clothes you wear, and in providing everything that goes into the house where you live.

Think about it this way. Pretend you make $1,000/month (after taxes) and you currently spend $400 on debt service, leaving you $600 from which you buy food, transportation, electricity, home heating, clothes, entertainment and whatnot. Is there a single thing that you will buy with your $600 that does NOT use energy in its production and in bringing it to you? No.

So this should start to answer that question about what is involved in cutting the country’s carbon footprint by 80%. Less food. Less clothing. Less electricity. Less entertainment. In fact, less of EVERYTHING. And not just a little bit less, but enough less that suburbs essentially disappear, people are living in cubicles, food is crap and practically every scrap of clothing is recycled. The good news is that our obesity problems will be solved.

That picture looks awfully bleak. But imagine, for a moment, the difference between Americans moving to such conditions gradually, in a controlled manner, in the interests of “saving the world from global warming” as opposed to dropping into them suddenly, without warning or control, and with a globalist cabal eating filet mignon in front of us laughing in our faces. Which approach is more likely to keep control of the globe within existing hands?

So now you know the true secret of Global Warming. Global Warming is one attempt by our ruling cabal to manage the resource scarcity that we will be seeing with Peak Oil in such a way as to preserve their own undeserved positions of dominance while consolidating their control. I say “one attempt” because they are undoubtedly working on other angles as well, such as reduction of population in areas where energy consumption is greatest per-capita. This might take place through wars or any number of means.

But the whole point is to have their cake and eat it too.

And they’ll have that IF we do not head them off at the pass, and we CAN head them off at the pass.

We are entering a time when the corrupt and unworthy globalist cabal that is running things is going to be as vulnerable as they have ever been and throwing off their yoke will be easier than at any point in the recent past or than it will be twenty years from now.

Secessionist and sovereignty movements are gaining ground and building a head of steam. The global cabal maintains control through leverage and consolidation, and any form of break-up threatens their ability to maintain control. As long as the Federal government is pre-eminent, they only need to corrupt maybe 1,000 people to rule the whole country. But how many would they have to corrupt in order to deal with 26 different sovereign states within this land mass?

Resource scarcity almost always creates resource competition, and in multiethnic regions, it leads to ethnic conflict. This means that separatist organizations ranging from the New Black Panthers to the Lakota Sioux will have a realistic bid to create autonomous break-away entities, as well as people like US.

Let me put it to you this way: you can be an ant on the global ant farm, or you can take control of your own destiny for yourself and future generations. The choice is yours.

February 23, 2009 at 8:16 pm 1 comment

Older Posts Newer Posts


Categories

  • European Americans United

  • Periodicals and Research

  • Re-localization of Agriculture

  • Feeds