| Author | Message | | Guest | | Posted: Sat Dec 28, 2002 11:00 pm Post subject: Billions to Israel with US going Bankrupt... |
| Time to Secede?
Breaking Away From a Bankrupt State
By John Stanton and Isa F. Atkins
05 December 2002
Homelessness and unemployment have reached levels in the US unseen in a decade. Consumer confidence, having been shattered by corporate malfeasance and the hyper-greed of the Bush regime, recently hit rock bottom.
According to the National Governors' Association, the 50 States that make up the collective known as the United States of America experienced the worst revenue shortfall since World War II. The Economic Policy Institute reports that American families are working longer and harder on the average of "20 more weeks a year [...] the equivalent of five months."
It's not the nation's central government that is the socioeconomic caregiver for the bulk of these illnesses; rather, it is the American States who are left to cope with the casualties resulting from the ignominious policies and programs of the Bush central government in Washington, DC. Of course, the Jellyfish Party (sometimes referred to as the Democratic Party) in the central government's rubber-stamping body, the US Congress, shares a hefty helping of the blame for the wretched state of the States and their localities in America.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities the "states have cut services for those most in need of assistance during an economic downturn. Eligibility has been restricted for health insurance, childcare, and income support services that benefit low-income families. Medicaid benefits have been reduced, job training programs for people trying to move from welfare to work have been cut, and the cost of child care for low- and moderate-income families has been significantly increased. Cuts in funding for public universities have resulted in higher college tuition, shifting the cost of balancing state budgets to students and their parents. Reductions in state aid for public schools and local governments have resulted in school program cutbacks and have to some degree shifted a greater share of the burden of funding schools to local property tax payers. Other reductions in funding have been implemented for state parks, museums, libraries, public health, and public safety."
Rubber Chickens and Chicken Hawks
War propagandists and central government apologists at CNN, FOX, CBS, ABC and NBC -and the genteel opportunists at the New York Times and Washington Post- gloss over the fact that the American States are footing the bill and carrying the load for the bulk of the central government's programs, to include Homeland Security initiatives. This is contrary to what Bush and other con-men/women in the central government proclaim over the airwaves and in print. According to the National Governor's Association, State budget problems are exacerbated by the "billions of dollars in homeland security costs, predominantly borne by state and local governments." So, while the States and their localities approach the black hole of debt and collapsing infrastructures, all that the Bush central government can offer as corrective action, or rather as a temporary distraction, is a trumped up war against a tin-pan dictator in Iraq.
Wealth that otherwise should be targeted to the States and localities, is literally being stolen from the money supply to pay for the many ludicrous schemes of the Bush central government, ranging from National Missile Defense to the Economic Growth and the Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (tax cut). The latter is a program destined to benefit the one percent of Americans who own over 50 percent of the wealth in the United States. The Bush central government, along with the Democratic Rubber-Chickens in Congress -as opposed to the Republican Chicken Hawks- have anted up close to a trillion dollars to play the Great Game in Central Asia. The purpose of this is, first and foremost, to dominate that region's resources and, secondly, to create markets for the business interests that the Bush central government represents.
It has thus become the business of the central governing body known as the US Congress to take care of corporate business interests and beg for photo opportunities with a non-elected president. Only a handful of "representatives" in that central government apparatus, like Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, have the will to consistently challenge the intellectual sewage gushing from the minds of the Bushites and militarists in and out of the central government. The US Congress is now little more than a shopping mall for corporate interests. The "representatives" wait behind the counter to dicker with the lobbyists and the generals.
Perhaps it is better that the veil of democracy has been torn asunder exposing the lurid nature of the entire American central governing process. The vast number of the central government's politicians and bureaucrats are groveling con artists of low intellect, engaged with corporate interests in an orgy of self-interest. The orgasm for these folks comes in the form of profit pocketed and domination over those who are working those extra five months a year to pay for food and shelter. It's a battle just to raise the minimum wage one US dollar. Conversely, politicians and bureaucrats from the central government never leave office poorer than when they were elected or appointed.
Distant Lands
Far removed from the rich and powerful in the central government, in the jungles of South America and the arid lands of Central Asia, young American soldiers hailing from the States and their localities in the American union, whether Special Forces or regular "GI's", find themselves guarding oil company pipelines and, in the case of Afghanistan, serving as little more than bar-room bouncers for the likes of Hameed Karazai, a former oil man for Unocal. These dedicated teen- and twenty-somethings chase the phantasms of the psychotic Bushites and their elderly generals and admirals. Already, a new "Axis of Evil" is being created by the mouthpiece of the Republican Party, that being Reverend Moon's Washington Times. The Times has warned its readers that Brazil and Venezuela are part of the South American Axis of Evil. Popularly elected officials are not part of the Bush "in" crowd.
And far removed from the lofty heights occupied by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell -and "elites" both Republican and Democrat- in the distant lands of New York City, Boston, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Southeast Washington, DC, men, women and children go hungry, homeless, uninsured, unemployed. Nurses, doctors, policemen and women, firefighters and rescue workers do not have the funds they need to get the tools to do the most basic public safety functions. Schools are overcrowded. Prisons are overcrowded. Urban sprawl and traffic congestion blights the land. Pollution fills the air on warm summer evenings. Prices are on the rise. Unions are being busted. Illicit drugs are easily obtainable. Corporations pay no taxes.
And the central government's solution to all this? Use "terror" to create profit-making opportunities for corporations. Then create a central governing department that those corporations can lobby for business. "Terror is nought but prompt, severe, inflexible justice; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is less a particular principle than a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to the most pressing needs of the fatherland." So said Rumsfeld's idol, France's Robespierre in 1794. Here it is 2002 and his rumination is as relevant now as it was over 200 years ago. The similarities between the 1789 and 2002 are a wee bit unsettling.
Storm the Bastille?
Interesting how history rewinds throughout time. In 1789, Louis XVI of France was presiding over an impending disaster. Draconian policies and programs by his decree in combination with penalties that stifled dissent, outmoded feudal practices -and the shining example of the American Revolution- converged to ignite the French Revolution of 1789. Universities and the intellectual elite were fed up with censorship. The rich stayed very rich and comfortable while the emerging middle class bourgeois, urban workers and farmers-peasants were being crushed by high taxes, inflating prices and stagnant wages. Protests and demonstrations began. Violence and mayhem ensued.
So it would seem that the central government of Bush II of America, in conjunction with the US Congress, has placed the States and localities -the people- in a mood to contemplate alternatives. Already, massive protests against Globalization, US policy in Israel-Palestine, and the impending War in Iraq have taken place echoing Robert Byrd's sentiment that only the American people can stop the madness of Bush II and excite the US Congress to action. And if the Rubber Chicken Democrats take control of the US Congress, will not big business, big defense still rule the roost? Will not the US continue its romp around the world in search of terrorists and oil? Is it worth opting for the status quo with a sprinkle of change?
With the central government clearly out-of-sync with many States and localities, perhaps its time for "the people" that occupy them to think about building a different united States, one that excludes the federal government.
A future movement toward secession must not be viewed as a distant possibility. In fact, large-scale secession has been historically the primary defensive response to centralized bankruptcy in the form of economic meltdown. Should the current road to economic destruction persist, the mythology of the 'divine' and 'eternal' US of A is likely to give way to a rush by the 50 states to abandon what will in essence be a sinking ship.
As has happened elsewhere in the past, local governments will regard, or will be forced by citizens to regard, a breakaway transition as a means of reasserting the fiscal, sociopolitical, and perhaps even military control that central governing structures have proven unable to attain.
Such a transition need not be violent. One of the models to follow is the relatively peaceful process of breakup used by the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics -the USSR. In that recent case, the strong leadership of the breakaway republics fractionalized the Soviet military according to ethnic lines, thus preventing pro-Russian military leaders from assuming complete control over Soviet troops.
Nevertheless, escalating ethnic animosities and exchanges of populations was a feature that marked the experience of Soviet secessions. It would thus be naive to assume that in a country such as the US, where racial tensions and segragationist traditions are so deeply rooted, a large-scale secession of states will not be accompanied by attempts to map new national borders in accordance to racial and ethnic parameters. Additionally, it cannot be assumed that overzealous pro-federal military officials will not attempt to direct federal military might toward the preservation of centralized governing structures at all costs.
Ultimately, the realization of the secessionist option will undoubtedly include a host of violent changes -some symbolic and some substantial. Violence will depend on the degree of determination of the federal apparatus to retain control over the crumbling nation, while the depth of actual change will depend on the political credentials of the secessionists. If their aspirations are limited to a gradual increase of their consumer rights in a free market context, then the independent fragments of the former USA will not look much different than today's bloc of former Soviet republics. If, on the other hand, their aspirations depart from the confines of existing capitalist doctrine, then who knows what might spring out. Perhaps a new era of dynamic progressive victories, enlightened by a new American Revolution? A time of experimentation and non-conformist social polemic? The answer may emerge much sooner than most of us expect.
© The News Insider 2002
John Stanton is a Virginia-based writer on national security matters. Dr Isa F. Atkins is a domestic intelligence specialist and deputy editor of the News Insider. | |  | | Guest | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 9:27 am Post subject: |
| AIPAC (Jewish lobbying group composed of American Zionist Jews who for for pro-Israeli US policies) is the forth most influential lobby in the US, yet the ones above it are irrelevent as far as foreign policy goes:
http://www.fortune.com/lists/power25/index.html
Let us see AIPAC's work:
http://www.wrmea.com/html/aipac.htm
Let us look at the resultant support the US gives to Israel:
http://www.sustaincampaign.org/aidchart.html
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html
http://www.sustaincampaign.org/FASchart.html
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/010201/0101015.html
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/israel050602.html
Of course this is the premise accepted by many Muslims and open-minded people:
http://www.ummah.com/waragainstislam/question.htm
So after all this, see the results in an article by Richard Curtiss as to the cost of Israel to the American people:
http://www.ummah.com/waragainstislam/cost.htm
The real fifth column who brought this mess upon the US are all the organisations under AIPAC and it's supporters who follow it's ideology, you should be blaming them, not Arabs/Muslims who acted as a natural conduit for the naturally expected retaliation which followed, i.e. 9-11 (if Muslims did it).
When you look at those pictures of the collapsing towers, and the people jumping out before they collapsed, think first about the US' biased support for this most unjust of states which was created violating the rights of the natives and which stole the people's lands. Then think about exactly who drives the US to gives it's support for this, as shown above. You shall see that they are amongst you, not the much demonised Arabs or Muslims but the Zionists who work against your national interests.
http://www.ummah.com/waragainstislam/reap.htm
Question: Before the US support of the Jewish state which started in 1947 when the US arm-twisted nations like Greece to support the creation of Israel, was the USA hated by Arabs and Muslims?
This is why the USA did what it did when it supported Israel in 1947 when it's President was Truman:
"I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.” - President Harry Truman, quoted in “Anti-Zionism”
Think about those Jewish-Zionist organisations all around the USA conspiring to help support and maintain US foreign policy which invites terrorism on the US civilians.
how israel corrupts and controls the us congress and media:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/06/01/how-israel-corrupts-and-controls-the-us-congress-and-media.php
WAKE UP AMERICA: YOUR GOVERNMENT IS HIJACKED BY ZIONISM
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/09/29/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism.php
Zionists Influencing USA (Britain) to Invade Iraq for Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/30/zionists-influencing-usa-britain-to-invade-iraq-for-israel.php | | | | *Mutt American | | Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 2:19 pm Post subject: |
| | American taxpayers/voters don't get AIPAC money. They get one vote per person. And they just voted last month in support of the Bush administration and the Republicans. | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
