CONTROLLED AND DIVIDED BY THE LIES OF THESE MEN

by H.SkipRobinson © 11/2019

There’s an old joke in politics, “how do you tell if a politician is lying? Their lips are moving. Sadly, the lies are often catastrophic for the majority and surely for the huge numbers of people affect by the social policies they put into place.

I am only going to go back, except for a couple of Presidents, for those in my life to show you how badly they lie and how badly they affect the majority.

Lyndon Baines Johnson; In 1964, two U.S. ships were “allegedly” attacked in Vietnam’s Gulf of Tonkin. President Lyndon B. Johnson got on the air that night to tell the American people about “the unprovoked attack and that he was orchestrating an aggressive response”. In reality, Johnson had already planned to attack North Vietnam. There was no unprovoked attack by the North Vietnamese. In 1965 he said, “For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there”. The infamous Pentagon Paper leaked by Daniel Ellsberg to the Washington Post, New York Times and other periodicals, revealed that both the President and high-ranking Military Officials at the Pentagon lied to the American people to justify escalating the war in Vietnam. The government tried to unsuccessfully prosecute Ellsberg for treason and unsuccessfully sued the Post and Times. Johnson’s escalation of the Vietnam War causing the death of some 400,000 young American men. However, even some of my father’s fellow Navy pilots from the 1950s when he flew, men in the late 40’s, were shot down and died in the Vietnam War; escalated on a lie by Lyndon Baines Johnson.  

Richard Nixon; He was a lawyer who campaigned for the White House promising to end the Vietnam War. It later emerged, however, that he had secretly tried to sabotage peace talks in order to improve his electoral chances. “You don’t know how to lie. If you can’t lie, you’ll never go anywhere.” – President Richard Nixon, giving advice to a political associate. I think that sums up the character of Richard Nixon. The infamous Watergate scandal, which forced him to resign before he was impeached was just another part of his corrupt and deceptive nature. Of course, his Republican predecessor Gerald Ford pardoned him from any criminal prosecutions. The military-industrial complex has been one of the major contributors to the campaigns of Presidential front runners throughout our history which is perhaps much of the underlying problem. It is as much a conflict of interest as there can ever be with government contractors able to, directly and indirectly, contribute to both candidates and the two major parties through the RNC and DNC.             

 

Ronald Reagan; “I’m going to Cut the Federal Budget”. He, of course, signed bills that raised the Federal Budget almost every single year during his two, four-year terms in office. This was an important time in our economic history. We could have and should have cut the Federal budget as he promised to do during his campaign and why he won the election. This would have allowed us to balance the budget and not go any further into debt. We are now $23 Trillion in just Federally-issued Debt and over 10% of our $4.2 trillion annual Federal budget today is just interest payments of $479 billion on that debt. Of course, Modern Monetary Theorists, (MMTs) believe erroneously that continually borrowing and printing more debt-based fiat currency is sustainable despite the lack of “any” historically evidence. Not one country in world history has been able to survive such poor monetary and fiscal policies.    

In 1985, Iran offered to free the several hostages they’d taken in exchange for missiles. “We did not, I repeat, did not trade weapons or anything else [to Iran] for hostages, nor will we,” Ronald Reagan told the American people when suspicions started to rise. Though, a few months later, he admitted to doing just that: “A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not.”

It has always been the policy of the U.S. Government to “not” negotiate for the release of hostages which Jimmy Carter followed, very likely causing him the election against the self-admitted “liar” Ronald Reagan. 

William Jefferson Clinton; On Jan. 19, 1992 Bill Clinton said, “I want to make it very clear that this middle-class tax cut, in my view, is central to any attempt we’re going to make to have a short-term economic strategy.”

But on Jan. 14, 1993 at a press conference, Bill Clinton said, “From New Hampshire forward, for reasons that absolutely mystified me, the press thought the most important issue in the race was the middle-class tax cut. “I never did meet any voter who thought that.”

On Sept. 8,1992, Bill Clinton said, “The only people who will pay more income taxes are the wealthiest 2 percent, those living in households making over $200,000 a year.”

In response to a Bush-Quayle ad that people with incomes of as little as $36,000 would pay more taxes under the Clinton plan, Bill Clinton said on Oct. 1, 1992, “It’s a disgrace to the American people that the president (Bush) of the United States would make a claim that is so baseless, that is so without foundation, so shameless in its attempt to get votes under false pretenses.”

Yet the NY TIMES in the analysis of Clinton’s budget wrote, “There are tax increases for every family making more than $20,000 a year!”

“While Clinton continued to defend his middle-class tax cut publicly, he privately expressed the view to his advisers that it was intellectually dishonest.” (The Agenda, by Bob Woodward, p. 31)

In 1993, President Clinton ushered through Congress a large package of tax increases, which included the following:[2]

  • An increase in the individual income tax rate to 36 percent and a 10 percent surcharge for the highest earners, thereby effectively creating a top rate of 39.6 percent.
  • Repeal of the income cap on Medicare taxes. This provision made the 2.9 percent Medicare payroll tax apply to all wage income. Like the Social Security payroll tax base today, the Medicare tax base was capped at a certain level of wage income prior to 1993.
  • A 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes.
  • An increase in the taxable portion of Social Security benefits.
  • A permanent extension of the phase-out of personal exemptions and the phase-down of the deduction for itemized expenses.
  • Raising the corporate income tax rate to 35 percent.

As you can see these tax increases and phase-out and phase-down of allowable deductions did financially impact the middle-class wage earner, negatively. Clinton continued the tax on Social Security benefits to the elderly at a rate of 50%, which the Republican Ronald Reagan has first signed into law. The law is still in effect today negatively impacting middle and lower wage-earning seniors. I expect such actions from a Democrat but aren’t we told  Republicans like Reagan are fiscal conservatives. The idea of social security was to create a pension fund than they turn around an tax the benefits of the elderly 50% if you make more than a whopping $17,000 a year. It’s forcing especially the poorer seniors into poverty.        

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”The fact that it is against the law for members of Congress or the President to have sexual relations with interns should have provided him a little more impetuous for restraint. The fact that he then went on to say in defense of his actions, “having oral sex is not having sex.” just makes me think much less of Rhoads Scholars and attorneys. Getting caught with your pants down is one thing, lying and trying to weasel out of it is another.

The Whitewater scandal, or simply Whitewater, was a political controversy of the 1990s. It began with an investigation into the real estate investments of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates, Jim McDougal and Susan McDougal, in the Whitewater Development Corporation. This failed business venture was incorporated in 1979 with the purpose of developing vacation properties on land along the White River near Flippin, Arkansas.

A March 1992 New York Times article published during the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign reported that the Clintons, then governor and first lady of Arkansas, had invested and lost money in the Whitewater Development Corporation.[1] The article stimulated the interest of L. Jean Lewis, a Resolution Trust Corporation investigator who was looking into the failure of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, also owned by Jim and Susan McDougal.

Lewis looked for connections between the savings and loan company and the Clintons, and on September 2, 1992, she submitted a criminal referral to the FBI naming Bill and Hillary Clinton as witnesses in the Madison Guaranty case. Little Rock U.S. Attorney Charles A. Banks and the FBI determined that the referral lacked merit, but Lewis continued to pursue the case. From 1992 to 1994, Lewis issued several additional referrals against the Clintons and repeatedly called the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Little Rock and the Justice Department regarding the case.[2] Her referrals eventually became public knowledge, and she testified before the Senate Whitewater Committee in 1995.

David Hale, the source of criminal allegations against the Clintons, claimed in November 1993 that Bill Clinton had pressured him into providing an illegal $300,000 loan to Susan McDougal, the Clintons’ partner in the Whitewater land deal.[3] The allegations were regarded as questionable because Hale had not mentioned Clinton in reference to this loan during the original FBI investigation of Madison Guaranty in 1989; only after coming under indictment himself in 1993, did Hale make allegations against the Clintons.[4] A U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation resulted in convictions against the McDougals for their role in the Whitewater project. Jim Guy Tucker, Bill Clinton’s successor as governor, was convicted of fraud and sentenced to four years of probation for his role in the matter.[5] Susan McDougal served 18 months in prison for contempt of court for refusing to answer questions relating to Whitewater.

Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton was ever prosecuted after three separate inquiries found insufficient evidence linking them with the criminal conduct of others related to the land deal. The matter was handled by the Whitewater Independent CounselKenneth Starr. The last of these inquiries came from the final Independent Counsel, Robert Ray (who replaced Starr) in 2000.[6] Susan McDougal was granted a pardon by President Clinton.

On Jan. 19, 2001, the day before he left office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license and his paying of a $25,000 fine to the Arkansas Bar Association. In exchange, Kenneth Starr’s successor, Robert Ray, agreed to close the Whitewater probe, ending the threat of criminal liability for Mr. Clinton after he left office.

Bill Clinton lied on such important matters, it needs probably another page. Here’s one in line with the Ronald Reagans of cutting the budget. President Clinton said on March 23, 1993, at a press conference: “My economic package will cut $500 billion from the deficit in five years.”

Bill Clinton has been praised as the only President since Eisenhour to have balanced the Federal budget. However, it was not his policies but the policies of the previous Congress that caused the budget to be balanced for just really one year. They had previously decided to close a large number of military bases around the Country and sell most of the land and assets causing the increased revenue in conjunction with his tax increases. We really needed to cut the budget, like Ronald Reagan had promised and failed to do. Clinton added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase from the $4.4 trillion debt at the end of George H.W. Bush’s last budget, FY 1993.

This is the Debt added to the deficit during the Clinton years: FY 2001 – $133 billion, FY 2000 – $18 billion, FY 1999 – $130 billion, FY 1998 – $113 billion, FY 1997 – $188 billion, FY 1996 – $251 billion, FY 1995 – $281 billion, FY 1994 – $281 billion.

Understand that we can still add debt through government borrowing and run a surplus on the books as Clinton did. The closing and sale of the military bases was a part of the surplus.        

George Herbert Walker Bush (Father); “read my lips no new taxes”.  is a phrase spoken by the then-presidential candidate at the 1988 Republican National Convention as he accepted the nomination on August 18. Written by speechwriter Peggy Noonan, the line was the most prominent sound bite from the speech. The pledge not to tax the American people further had been a consistent part of Bush’s 1988 election platform, and its prominent inclusion in his speech cemented it in the public consciousness. The impact of the election promise was considerable, and many supporters of Bush believe it helped Bush win the 1988 presidential election.

The line later hurt Bush politically. Although he did oppose the creation of new taxes as president, the Democratic-controlled Congress proposed increases of existing taxes as a way to reduce the national budget deficit. Bush agreed to a compromise, which increased several existing taxes as part of a 1990 budget agreement. This is one of the easiest lies to coverup. Promise something you know is unlikely to be passed because the other Party has control of either the House, the Senate or both. This is classic campaign rhetoric 101.

In the 1992 presidential election campaignPat Buchanan repeatedly cited the pledge as an example of a broken promise in his unsuccessful challenge to Bush in the Republican primaries. In the general election, However Democratic nominee Bill Clinton, running as a moderate, also cited the quotation and questioned Bush’s trustworthiness. Bush lost his bid for re-election to Clinton, prompting many to suggest his failure to keep the pledge as a reason for his defeat.

George W. Bush (son); “We have discovered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” Of course, when the US Military invaded Iraq, they found nothing but some old saran and mustard gas which incidentally the U.S. has sold them years before. But we already knew that. Our own U.S. weapons inspectors had been in Iraq for years and had found nothing either. G.W. Bush and company thus relied on false intel provided by a known con man and foreign as a provocation to go to war with Iraq. Remember Lyndon Johnson.  

I’m only going to give you the lies of a couple of pre-WWII Presidents to show that this is nothing new. As Nixon alluded to, lying is a necessity in politics if you want to get elected.     

William McKinley; told another war-causing lie. He told Congress that Spain blew up the U.S.S. Maine in Cuba, which started the Spanish-American War of 1898. However, thanks to an investigation in 1976, it was discovered that Spain, in fact, did not blow up the U.S.S. Maine. A fire on the ship reached the boat’s ammunition stock and caused an explosion.

James K. Polk; was the 11th president of the United States, and he set his sights on expanding America’s territories. Specifically, he had his eye on California and New Mexico — Mexican territories at the time. When Mexico wouldn’t agree to sell him the territories, Polk sent troops “into Texas to cross the Nueces and guard the Rio Grande.” Mexico, of course, fired at the troops in response. Polk went to Congress and told them Mexico had “invaded our territory and shed the blood of our fellow-citizens on our own soil.” So began the Mexican-American War

Donald Trump; “I love Wikileaks” and “Don’t you love Wikileaks” were one of his favorite campaign slogans, every time to huge applause before being elected. A sealed indictment by the Trump Administration against Julian Assange was “accidentally” unsealed in another unrelated lawsuit. Since Assange, Edward Snowden and Bradley now Chelsea Manning’s incarcerations and/or necessity to seek political asylum in other countries, whistleblowing has come to a severe halt, unless protected by the RNC or DNC for political purposes.

Barrack Obama; partially won the Nobel Peace Prize for his participation in passing the Whistleblowers Protection Act, campaigned on open and transparent government and partially because he promised to stop the American participation in various wars around the world. Of course, he tried to prosecute more whistleblowers than any President in history. Now the Deep State, politicians and military-industrial complex can go about their corrupt work deceiving and ripping off the American people without fear of someone blowing the whistle on them. And of course, the wars still rage on, despite Trump also during his campaign, promising to bring the Troops home. Are you starting to notice a pattern?

As President Barack Obama entered office after campaigning on greater transparency, he promised, on his first day in the White House, to launch “a new era of open government.” Of course, his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and most likely others, would begin to conducting government business on private email servers “to be more transparent”? 

As for Obama’s record, here’s what history will show: In his eight years in office, the Obama Justice Department spearheaded eight Espionage Act prosecutions, more than all US administrations combined. Journalists were also caught in the crosshairs: Investigators sought phone records for Associated Press journalists, threatened to jail an investigative reporter for The New York Times, and named a Fox News reporter a co-conspirator in a leak case. In Texas, a journalist investigating private defense contractors became the focus of federal prosecution and was initially charged for sharing a hyperlink containing hacked information that had already been made public.

Those Espionage Act cases included the trial of Chelsea Manning, who was held in solitary confinement for nearly one year prior to her military trial, prompting a condemnation from the UN special rapporteur on torture. “The absolute twisted passion with which the administration under Obama’s leadership has pursued whistleblowers is just appalling,” says Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy and co-founder of RootsAction.org. “And as far as I can tell, the administration is unrepentant in that process. There’s just no other administration that comes close.”

Journalists’ concerns about their threatened rights became such a hot-button issue that Obama’s first US Attorney General Eric Holder had to publicly affirm that they would be spared from the confines of a metal cell under his watch. “As long as I’m attorney general, no reporter who is doing his job is going to go to jail,” Holder said.

The frequency of Espionage Act cases under Obama has earned him the reputation of waging a “war on whistleblowers.” New York Times reporter James Risen has called Obama “the greatest enemy to press freedom in a generation.” Damning words, indeed.

In 2015, the United States was about to drop out of the top 50 countries in the Reporter Without Borders’ annual press freedom index, sliding 29 spots since 2009 when Obama took office. In the international watchdog organization’s report, RWB cited the ongoing conflict with whistleblowers for the decline. The United States regained eight spots in 2016, but the home of the Bill of Rights finds itself in the same company as the nations, Burkina Faso and Botswana, and Slovenia—where, RWB notes, “anyone who feels offended or insulted by a newspaper article can demand the publication of a ‘correction’ in the same position in the newspaper.”

And last but not least, the Donald

Donald Trump; He has said so many lies, it’s really hard to know where to start. So, let’s start where Obama left off, with the prosecution of whistleblowers and one of Trump’s famous campaign slogans “I love Wikileaks” and “Don’t you just love Wikileaks” to huge ovations every time he said them. Wikileaks, of course, is headed by the now world-famous Julian Assange held captive, more like a hostage in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London before the U.S. made a deal with the newly elected President of Ecuador to kick Assange, out even those he was there under political asylum. This is where the deep state gets involved with the manipulation of other governments and their heads of state. We back monetarily using taxpayer dollars, those people who are willing to do what the deep state asks, completely outside the purview of the rule of law. Our Constitution does not authorize our government to interfere in the political affairs of other governments, yet this has been the status quo for decades and Trump has no intention of stopping it. It’s his Administration that had Assange arrested by the British and now in Prison. A U.S.  Arrest Warrant for Assange was accidentally unsealed in an unrelated court case, so Trump is following in Obama’s footsteps by continuing to suppress whistleblowers and the free press, whatever little there is out there, mostly alternative media sources with limited or no funding big business.

The New Your Times which is obviously a democratic socialist rage did an interesting story on the Trump lies so far. It’s obviously biased but some of it is sadly true. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html Here, however, is a sample of the authors at the New York Times lying. They wrote that Trump said “on “ JAN. 23 “Between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused me to lose the popular vote.” There are always illegal votes found but the New York Times wrote: (There’s no evidence of illegal voting.) However, I found another New York Times article that contradicts their own authors, on the Trump Lies Story. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/noncitizen-illegal-vote-number-higher-than-estimat/ This article said Trump Didn’t lie in this particular case.

So let’s see if we can find a lie in the above 1st New York Times hit piece because we know for sure we cannot trust this newspaper. One of the stories has to be false.FEB. 28 “We have begun to drain the swamp of government corruption by imposing a five-year ban on lobbying by executive branch officials.” The NYT is correct (They can’t lobby their former agency but can still become lobbyists.) Sadly, Trump has hired many people in his Cabinet that have been in the government bureaucracy for years. He is not draining the Swamp nor is his ban effective at stopping the individual from working with others to lobby their former agency, they just can’t do it directly themselves so it’s unenforceable. https://www.truthdig.com/articles/a-staggering-number-of-lobbyists-have-worked-in-the-trump-administration/  He even hiring lobbyist himself.

Restraining the Size and Scope of Political power

Apparently, it is impossible to place mortal humans in positions of political power by any means, election, appointment or by their own overt actions that can effectively vote themselves the ability to restrain their own powers and influences. It may be a slow expansion of powers but none the less in total a significant one.

In 8,000 years of recorded history, do we know of any culture that has been able to place enough people with integrity into positions of political power that have successfully protected the inalienable rights and property of their fellow Citizens?

Representative government is, thus far, an elusion that has always placed money and power ahead of the majorities best interest. How quickly a portion of the electorate will attempt to overthrow the majority once they realize they can indirectly vote themselves greater benefits through their representatives, at the expense of their own Citizens, often determines the long term economic fate of their society.

It appears to me we have reached this phase in U.S. history. As many countries have found, it is easy to destroy free-market capitalism with enough taxation, regulation, and bureaucracy. It however thus far alludes us in finding a better replacement.

Do You believe in the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)?

For those that have never heard of it, you’ll see later why it’s “not” something the two major political parties and mainstream media want us to talk about or discuss its merits.   

The NAP, as it is often referred to, is a philosophical legal concept which precludes individuals from harming other individuals or their justly acquired property, with the exception of protecting themselves and/or others and their justly acquired property from someone else who is breaking the NAP.  Simply, you’re not supposed to harm others or their property and if you do, they have the legal right of self-defense to stop you.

This is actually the underlying basis of most modern-day legal systems in our world. So of course, you believe in it, right?  Most laws are based on this ethical principle of not harming one another called “mala in se” laws and when people do break one of the laws we classify them as a criminal.    

From Wikipedia: Malum in se (plural Mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited by political mandate.   

A judicial citation: An innately immoral act, regardless of whether it is forbidden by law. Examples include adultery, theft, and murder. See, e.g. United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998).

Now here is the problem or really a dilemma with the NAP.  It doesn’t necessarily apply to those individuals who represent and/or work for the nation-state, i.e. the government.  The nation-state can simply enact mala in se and mala prohibitum laws and use force and coercion to enforce them.  All your drug laws, vices such as prostitution, gambling, and alcohol, DUI, licensure laws such as driver and real estate licensing, permits, income taxes, public education, property taxes, etc. are all laws that break the NAP. They must use the force of coercion to enforce them or the Citizens would simply ignore them. Of course, the government will fine or incarcerate those that break the various laws, hence the use of force or coercion as the physical means of enforcement.  I think it is pretty evident that everyone agrees that malum in se laws should be rigorously enforced but malum prohibitum laws is where the debates and differences of opinion really become apparent. 

Their enforcement requires the use of force or coercion by those in the nation-state to carry out the politically derived mandates. They must physical steal or coerce people into giving them the money it requires to fulfil the governments social policies.  

It’s not OK for an individual to break the NAP, but those who form the largest or most powerful political party and their employees can and do. I’m not here to try to determine right and wrong at this point or what laws we should or shouldn’t have, I’m here is help people understand the principle and how it affects our lives. Later I share what a few of our founding fathers said.   

Every tax, fine or regulatory fee is a breach of the NAP because it takes money or property from those who justly earned it and thus it “Rightfully” belongs to and gives it those that didn’t justly earn it and thus it does NOT rightfully belong to. This is the ethical foundation of our “Inalienable Rights” and why the Citizens required a Bill of Rights be created before they would ratify the U.S. Constitution.  These rights were specifically to stop those in government from taking the Citizens money and enacting malum prohibitum laws. 

Of course, those in government have twisted the very words in the Bill of Rights and Constitution where today government just about goes unstrained in both size and scope of powers. Instead of check and balances between the three branches, they are either rubber-stamping one another’s decisions and actions or suing one another when they breach or overstep their constitutionally mandated scope of powers. The various branches of our government and those individuals in the bureaucracy are in constant legal battles. The Federal government alone cost taxpayers over $4 trillion “annually” and requires over 110 different taxes and regulatory fees to pay for it all. 

To give you an idea of what our founding fathers set out to establish with our founding documents, all one must do is to read a few of the quotes of the first three Presidents.  

Thomas Jefferson, the Third President “A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.

George Washington, the First President “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

John Adams, the Second President “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.

One of the most important rights is that of “property” protected by our Constitution as well as the NAP.   How have we gone from a society set up to protect our property and money from being confiscated by criminals and the government, to one where the government is now the greatest confiscator? The greater questions are 1. can government be restrained from confiscating to much of the majority’s wealth and if so 2. how do we do it when it starts to cause such great problems for the majority and our society as a whole?

Bankruptcy or Prosperity

As the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) on Wednesday the 31st of July, 2019 lowered the discount rate to 2% to 2.25%, 1/4 point lower from 2.25% to 2.50% I couldn’t help but think of the real underlying cause. The lowering of this rate even a 1/4 point indicates the greatest economy in U.S. history as President Trump and no one else is claiming, because it’s simply far from the truth. This has been one of the worst financial recoveries in U.S. history and we are really really far from being out of the proverbial hot water.

First, if the economy was booming as Trump triumphantly decries, the FRB would still be trying to normalize rates by continuing to raise them. Nor would they have recently stopped selling the over $4 trillion in Treasuries and MBS’s on their balance sheet as they were doing. This is the actions of an FRB trying to preempt a recession, also understanding major components within the Treasury Yield Curve remains inverted, another reliable indicator of a coming recession.

The concept and legislative enactments of allowing Government to both print and borrow money is a “really” horrible idea, that will eventually bankrupt our society. The fact that no society in history has been able to curtain their government from bankrupting their society is surely evidence of how horrible an idea this has been.

If it were a unique situation, it would be one thing, but the fact it is one of the more common occurrences prompting both long term depressions and total social failures should give us a clue to their devastating effects. Almost every major industrialized government in the world today has experienced this. In 1989, the United Soviet Socialists Republic became the largest government to have done this to their people, so big and mighty does not equate to Prosperity. You may not know it but the Roman Empire even bankrupted its government and society.     

With government printing and or borrowing the fact that a generation or two may escape the catastrophic results does not limit the pain for many, as the resultant periods of inflation ravish especial the young and old with low and fixed incomes. Thinking that a group of people are any more responsible than an individual is obviously foolish and one could argue just the opposite.     

Understand that government is supposed to be a projection of our own humanity as a community. An individual surely cannot print their own money nor borrow without limits, yet we have allowed our politicos to do both on our behalf.  

Because of the long-term catastrophic results, there is no justifiable reason, not even to fund a war or increased military defense.  Matter of fact, a bankrupted society becomes an easier target than does an underdefended society especially from being overthrown from within. The fact that there are now many underdefended countries that have survived over long periods also negates this rationale. 

From my own study, especially in the more modern times it appears to me governments are now taking positions with groups of other countries working together to overthrow heads or State and destabilize various countries who they have economic or social conflicts with, so mankind is really not doing the mass evasion strategy that requires massive expenditures any more.  WWII was supposed to be the war to end all wars as also told to us about WWI. Then you have the ill effects of the guns or butter principle as the U.S. and other big defense spenders are experiencing today. Will we ever learn?    

I could only think of one potential cause to allow a government to expand the money supply via borrowing or printing. If someone were to invent a low-cost energy source requiring an initial high capital investment that just could not be funded by the private sector, that would be a reasonable use of the funds because it would be a one-time investment and it would lower the costs of energy making the payback of the investment plausible. Most economists today understand both U.S. and world debt today will never be paid back and as such, and thus more printing and borrowing is only differing eventual default.

So, if you wonder why the U.S. is now the largest debtor nation in world history with approximately 1/3 of our society living at or near the poverty line, simply ask a member of Congress and wait for the proverbial baloney and nonsense to come spewing out of their mouths. They have always been very good at coming up with a rationale for both printing and borrowing money and their pensions and personal growth in wealth are the real proof of why they do it. The numbers do not lie though that prove printing and borrowing money by the government are bad for the majority.

This article gives some of the economic facts on the U.S. as it relates to borrowing and or printing money. https://www.faithandfreedom.com/the-path-to-prosperity-or-bankruptcy-staggering-facts-on-americas-rising-debt/

The Importance of the Treasury Yield Curve

During the latter part of 2018 the Treasury yield curve started to invert as economists call it. The shorter term maturities, 1 month (1M), 3 month (3M), and 1 year (1Y) yields were all higher than the 2Y, 3Y, 4Y, 5Y, 7Y and 10Y Treasury yields. Only the 20Y and 30Y maturities remain higher. As you can see, with the two prior years, the yields of the various maturities were normal in that the short term Treasury yields were lower then the longer term Treasury yields, which is the way they should be in a good and/or normal market.

So what is the significance and importance of the partial inversion of the Treasury yield curve? 1. It means the Federal Government is having to pay more interest to investors who buy the Treasuries that fund the $1 trillion+ annual deficits the U.S. is now consistently having to borrow to fund our government. 2. Historically, in every single occasion this has occurred, the U.S. was soon in a recession. Today now only is the U.S. economy slowing, so is most of the rest of the world, according to numerous indicators and high profile sources.

It is important to understand, that the debts of both the private and public sector are much higher today indicating that the recesssion will most likely be deeper or longer than the great recession of 2008, potentially even another great Depression.

Equality and Equal Justice Under the Law

Men don’t treat women as equals and women don’t treat men as equals because we’re not.  If two male engineers are not equal in their abilities and motivations, neither are any two women. Whether right or wrong, men and women discriminate against one another and women in various situations even discriminate against other women. Why because we’re different. Scientifically there are at least 50 differences between men and women and a lot of it is genetic. We know the obvious ones. Women can multitask, take fewer risks, verbally communicate better and are often more focused than men and men are generally physically stronger, take more risks and can create and build just about anything. We’ve developed defined roles between men and women but that’s where our differences often create conflict, especially in leadership roles. Of course, everyone wants to be the boss because they generally make more money, have more power and control and are granted more privileges and accolades. You are not likely to see a woman beat Tiger Woods in a round of golf and you are not likely to ever find many men who can care for a young child like a woman can. Women like pictures of kitty cats and babies of every species and men like trucks and weapons. These are the roles we have been forced to take, in part, by nature itself.

We surely do not like to see the repressive discrimination and sexual predation by either gender. Women use their sexuality if they can to manipulate their world just like men use their money and strengths. I think it’s the unethical practices by both genders that is most disheartening. Men using their money and power to manipulate women and women using their sexuality or psychological manipulations such as making false accusations against men they are trying to harm socially or in their relationships. We all know how unethical both genders can be so let’s stop pretending there are saints among us. 

I often write that humans are not as ethical as our rule of law requires and until we can improve upon both our institutions and integrity, I’m afraid our human weaknesses seem to have causes perhaps even a digression in our evolution. It appears as if we are stuck on a plateau with some points in time better than others and some worse. We made a huge leap in the development of mankind late in the 1700s when we overthrew the Monarchs of Europe and much of the world and abolished slavery within 75 years later, both of which had been going on for millenniums.

Can we really say or prove that suffrage or any of the other political mandates after that have made our world better since the abolition of slavery?  Scientists have now proven that we are an oligarchy, providing the evidence our experiment as a democratic republic, which Benjamin Franklin questioned upon its ratification, has failed. The majority have little or no influence over the social policies being created and we are being ruled over by a relatively small group of people; that’s what an oligarchy is.

Yes, the power, controls and unethical activities within our society are subtle but increasingly blatant as the oligarchy keeps gaining more and more powerful. Sadly, the majority is stuck in the middle of two dominant warring factions fighting over political power and money. Suggesting that if either of these two factions prevails the world will be better off, is logically weak if not totally false. The problem is systemic. An oligarchy cannot possibly take us to the next level in any progressive evolutionary manner. How is it that a Constitution and Bill of Rights created to restrain the size and scope of government has failed and provided just the opposite? We can of course experiment with a direct democracy but the working mechanisms and problematic issues of that are perhaps even more difficult to overcome. I do not want my neighbor to be able to vote against my liberties any more than I do of elected representatives.

History tells us that our world progressed the most when governments had the least power and after the defeat of the European Monarchs and our founding fathers tried to politically institutionalize our newfound liberties with a Constitution and Bill of Rights as did many societies around the world.  It hasn’t worked very well though. The governments today are equally as powerful, with many of the same systemic problems the monarchies offered. We’re very close in many situations, considering the diminished individual liberties, as those defeated by our revolutionary forefathers, but it has been very subtle and took almost our entire history to come full circle; dominated by an oligarchy but now tiered even higher with international organizations such as the World Bank, INF and United Nations giving military and financial support to the many oligarchies ruling our world.

The English Tories were the primary adversaries of the founding fathers. Those entrenched in the political, religious and commercial interests of the church and crown. We thankfully eliminated the religious persecution by protecting religious liberties with the 1st Amendment. What we have failed to protect, are the economic liberties. As the government has gotten more powerful, so has the required revenue increased through a plethora of taxes and regulatory fees. We may have religious liberty, but the State (now an oligarchy) has taken all our economic liberties. Those who are well off, as were the Tories of old, under our current system vote for its maintenance, stifling any major changes as those who are not well off, are finding it increasingly difficult to survive.

If the 1st Great Revolutions failed to protect the individual liberties essential to the majorities prosperity, another revolution will over time result in the same losses of liberty and resultant problems. Another revolution is obviously not the solution until such time as we can come up with a superior way in which to protect our economic liberties. Does anyone with a brain really want to try socialism with eventual communism again? Look at all the problems all the social policies enacted just over the last 100+ years have caused. Right now, millions of people cannot earn enough money to even feed themselves and thus require government assistance. Our economic system is badly broken, and it is simply because we have allowed the government to tax our incomes, property, sale of goods and services, exports and a plethora of over 110 different taxes and regulatory schemes.

It’s a systemic problem; it’s the system itself. We need to create a system that truly protects the individual’s rights to property and our earnings. Who is going to build the roads? If the rights to property and income are protected from taxation the oligarchs will be forced to pay for them if they want us to travel to their businesses and to buy the good and services, they produce. Taxation is truly the power to destroy and it is destroying the middle class. So how do you force the oligarchs, those in power to pay for anything? They are greedy and they are going to pay for whatever it takes, including any infrastructure, to be able to get you to buy the goods and services they produce. There is more than enough money in society to pay for those things that are beneficial and necessary for the majority to prosper. If you take money and property from those that cannot afford it, it takes away their ability to survive. The oligarchs dangle the proverbial carrot in front of the majorities noses to motivate them, why not dangle the carrots in front of their noses. History tells us that when taxes were low or non-existent, the wealthy did, in fact, build much of the infrastructure of their day. Just think with all the technologies today, what could be, if the government did not tax and misallocate so much of our financial and material resources. So, I don’t want or really even care about equality. I know that there are going to be people who do better and worse in life than I do. I just want equal justice under the law and my rights to my justly earned property protected. If we kill this systemic problem, perhaps other systemic problems will also be alleviated. Power has the ability to corrupt and political power is the worst, because it is not earned; it is most often achieved by force, coercion, cronyism or fraud.