Thousands of critics of capitalism meeting in Brazil called Sunday for a worldwide protest in June to press for concrete steps to tackle the global economic crisis.

The World Social Forum wrapped up a five-day meeting in this southern Brazilian city, urging citizens to “take to the streets on June 5″ for the global action, which would be in support of social and environmental justice.

The forum also announced a “peoples’ summit” of social movements to be held in parallel with the high-level UN conference on sustainable development scheduled next June 20-22 in Rio.

The Rio+20 summit, the fourth major gathering on sustainable development since 1972, will press world leaders to commit themselves to creating a social and “green economy,” with priority being given to eradicating hunger.

But World Social Forum participants, including representatives of the Arab Spring, Spain’s “Indignant” movement, Occupy Wall Street, and students from Chile, sharply criticized the concept of “a green economy” that would allow multinational corporations to reap the profit.

“The political and economic elites are the one percent who control the world and we are the one percent seeking to change it. Where are the (other) 98 percent?” said Chico Whitaker, one of the Forum’s founders.

“There are many who are happy because each time they get more consumer goods, but many are concerned and unsatisfied. The challenge for us is to speak with them.”

“If we do not raise the issue of inequality, we won’t solve the problems,” said Venezuelan sociologist Edgardo Lander.

“If the system is not capable of redistributing and deal with inequality, we have to do it ourselves,” agreed Sam Halvorsen, of the Occupy London movement.

The Forum is an alliance of social movements opposed to the World Economic Forum, the annual gathering of the world’s economic and political elites held at the same time in the Swiss resort of Davos.

Addressing the gathering Thursday, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff appealed for “a development model that articulates growth and job creation, battles poverty and decreases inequalities,” and advocates for the “sustainable use and preservation of natural resources.”

Candido Grzywoski, one of the founders and a coordinator of the Forum, said the urgency of the global economic crisis and the popular indignation around the world “gave us more unity in diversity.”

The Forum, which drew around 40,000 participants this year, has its roots in 1999 street protests in the US city of Seattle during a World Trade Organization meeting but it settled in Porto Alegre as its regular venue 12 years ago when it drew 20,000 activists from around the world.

Next year, it will be held in Cairo.

Source: Breitbart.

Critics say it proves Senator wasn’t being detained

Security video of Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s run in with the TSA earlier this week has been leaked to a newspaper, and critics say it proves that Paul was not detained by the federal agency.

The footage, obtained by The Tennessean shows the Senator seated in a chair within a glass walled cubicle in the security area of Nashville airport after refusing to undergo a pat down.

As Paul talks on the phone, presumably to his office as he had stated in interviews, three TSA officials stand guard, along with police officers standing outside the cubicle.

The video then shows Paul later being escorted through the airport by an official. The footage represents about one minute of the incident which Paul said lasted over an hour.

The Senator is partially obscured by a column blocking part of the cubicle for some portions of the video. When asked why the camera would be set up only to be obscured by a column, airport spokeswoman Emily Richard told The Tennessean that cameras are “placed for the widest view possible, not a specific area.”

The airport authority and the TSA have declined to comment on the footage.

Watch the video below:

Although the report in The Tennessean points out that the footage contradicts a police report that claimed Paul was “irate”, critics jumped on the footage to suggest Paul over reacted and exaggerated the incident.

Max Read of blog site Gawker said he believes the video proves the Republican was “totally full of sh-t” when he called his spokesperson.

“I got a lot of mail, some of it syntactically and orthographically correct, disputing my account of Rand Paul’s full-of-sh-tness by referring to the dictionary definition of the word ‘detained.’” Read wrote.

“Here is my feeling: when your argument centers around ‘the dictionary definition’ of anything and involves the adverb ‘technically,’ you are full of sh-t. When you tell someone you are being ‘detained by the TSA,’ you don’t mean ‘sitting in a chair while they decide what to do.’”

Another blogger suggested that “the way Paul was treated (not a finger laid on him) doesn’t quite illustrate the harshness that word [detainment'] usually suggests.”

In response Paul supporters pointed out that just because Paul wasn’t shackled and pushed around doesn’t mean he wasn’t being detained by the TSA.

“‘Detained’ is a legal term that very much applies to this situation. It does not matter that he is not in handcuffs or behind bars; when a peace officer restricts your freedom to vacate an area through verbal instruction (the consequence of disobedience being immediate arrest for disorderly conduct), you are detained.” one commenter noted.

Following the incident Monday, Rand Paul told reporters “I tried to leave the cubicle to speak to one of the TSA people and I was barked at: ‘Do not leave the cubicle! So, that, to me sounds like I’m being asked not to leave the cubicle. It sounds a little bit like I’m being detained.”

——————————————————————

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, andPrisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

Source: Prison Planet.

*Written by Tho Bishop.

Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan has caught the political world on fire, best demonstrated with his prominence in the latest Republican debate. Though few viewers could likely recite any answer Mitt Romney gave, anyone who follows politics has likely heard about Bachmann’s evoking the dreaded mark of the beast, or Huntsman’s latest lame attempt at a memorable debate joke. (Off topic: How pissed is he that Gary Johnson, in one debate, accomplished what Huntsman has failed to do in four months?) In spite of the attacks from his critics, Cain’s 9-9-9 plan has catapulted him to the top of the polls and now even carries the support of noted economist Arthur Laffer. But is it REALLY a good idea?

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a proud supporter of the FairTax movement. If you aren’t familiar with the FairTax, it is a 23% national sales tax that would replace all federal taxes on personal and corporate income (for some of the finer details try Google). Of the 2012 Republican nominees, only Gary Johnson and Herman Cain has voiced support for this proposal with Cain offering the 9-9-9 plan as a transitional step towards implementation of a full FairTax. It was this very issue that initially gave me a favorable opinion of Cain’s candidacy. Unfortunately, while I sympathize with what Cain is trying to do, if the 9-9-9 plan ever became reality it would likely be one of the gravest mistakes in many decades.

On the surface there is a lot to like here. Assuming it would pass as is, 9-9-9 would completely flatten the tax code, eliminating horrific 20,000+ pages of tax code that no one truly understands. Not only would this save incalculable man hours in filling out repetitive tax forms, but millions of dollars in the cost of tax compliance for families alone. Further, with a genuinely flat tax code, lobbying will decrease as tax credits disappear. These are all reasons why I support the FairTax.

There are also a lot of poorly thought-out criticisms of 9-9-9 (and sales tax in general). Relying on the political go-to move of the demagogue, defenders of the status quo describe horror stories of poor people being forced to starve due to the added cost placed on goods with the sales tax. While it is true that a sales tax will increase the retail price of goods and services, this line of reasoning typically only looks at one side of the equation. Since payroll taxes are gone, people have more take home pay. Since corporate taxes are reduced in 9-9-9 (or eliminated completely in the FairTax), the price of producing goods goes down (which is reflected in prices). The ease of tax compliance makes administration costs go down (which is reflected in prices).

But is it regressive? Since Americans typically spend a greater amount of their income the less wealthy they are, some critics complain the tax benefits the wealthy at the expense of the rich. While it is possible that a greater percentage of income will be taxed, the less wealthy also enjoy the greatest benefits of this sort of reform. A flat 9% corporate tax attracts foreign industry more likely to employ new blue collar workers than white collar executives. No pay check withholding means working class Americans are no longer deprived of potential interest on earned wages. Most importantly, with a flat tax rate, the working class will be on the same playing field with more powerful groups who can currently take advantage of tax code loopholes though costly political manipulation. This isn’t tax regression, but tax equality.

If I can dismiss some of the most common criticism of Cain’s plan, why can’t I support it? Unfortunately 9-9-9 is dangerously naïve and tragically short-sighted.

Grover Norquist best highlighted the flaw in Cain’s proposal when he said recently, “Having three taxes, all of which can grow – it’s like having three needles in your arm taking blood out, it’s much more dangerous than having one.” If you are going to open a door for government to collect revenue by way of a sales tax, you have to slam shut others. 9-9-9 leaves the income tax wide open.

Now Cain would probably respond by saying that he would never raise income taxes, and that 9-9-9 is only a stepping stone to a true sales tax. Unfortunately his word isn’t enough. Herman Cain, should he win the Presidency, won’t hold the office forever. As Obama has learned, the ability to accomplish a key campaign promise early in your presidency, doesn’t mean you will be able to follow through on others later. 9-9-9 plays a dangerous game of Trust Washington and I have no interest in playing. Though Cain’s lack of true government experience has served to be a political weapon, it is this same inexperience that may be the source of his apparently legislative naivety. I have a hard time seeing anyone familiar with Washington gridlock making a proposal heavily reliant on legislative restraint and future promise the focal point of his campaign.

Herman Cain should be celebrated for his continuing to highlight the need for serious, bold tax reform and applauded by his continued insistence to bring new proposals to the conversation. But, as Michelle Bachmann would probably delight in reminding the former CEO, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

*Taken from ABC News.

Sarah Palin’s family attorney John Tiemessen has written a letter to Maya Mavjee, the publisher of the Crown Publishing Group, a division of Random House, that Palin may sue her, the company, and the book’s author Joe McGinniss “for knowingly publishing false statements” in his book released last week, “The Rogue,” ABC News has learned.

READ THE ENTIRE LETTER HERE

The book was widely panned by critics for using unnamed sources to criticize Palin and her family. Tiemessen cites an email they have access to in which McGinniss writes that attorneys from Crown Publishing told him “nothing I can cite other than my own reporting rises above the level of tawdry gossip. The proof is always just around the corner, but that is a corner nobody has been able to turn” and that McGinniss “ran out of time” to sufficiently source the book.

A source close to the Palins tells ABC News that the “Palins are fighting back and demanding answers from Random House.”

CONTINUED..

*Taken from Prison Planet. Written by Paul Joseph Watson.

Mob hailed as liberators by establishment media silences dissent, tortures and rapes children.

The establishment media’s portrayal of the Libyan rebels as freedom-loving liberators fighting to overthrow a dictatorial regime doesn’t quite live up to the hype.

Yesterday, rebels attempted to arrest journalists who were trapped in the Hotel Rixos in Tripoli for the crime of dissenting against NATO’s six month bombardment of the country.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) arrived to evacuate the journalists, but shortly after they were able to leave the building, rebels tried to detain Voltaire Network reporter Thierry Meyssan, who has become a prominent critic of NATO’s role in supporting the rebel army’s overthrow of Gaddafi.

CONTINUED..

*Written by Rob Rimes.

*This article is broken into five parts with each being released a few days apart. This is due to the size of the article. Here is PART I & PART II.

4. Stage Three – Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal:

“The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt

The above quote explains a lot about Franklin D. Roosevelt. He was the great experimenter and we were the guinea pigs. Hell, his tyranny through progressive policy was so broad that we are still little lab rats getting their balls shocked by the mad scientist and his disfigured sidekick. The architect of the New Deal brought forth a plague of entitlements and created a nation starving for a government that would take care of every facet of their sad lives. FDR kicked freedom in the dick and the people just took it. Why? Because they didn’t care. They were getting free shit and a helping hand. They no longer had to be self-reliant. Hell, they didn’t even have to make decisions anymore. The state would now take care of everything. Too bad people’s perception is vastly different from reality. When challenged, the weak pride-less masses just point the finger of blame at all the people trying to take the handouts away, not realizing that it is the myth of the “free lunch” that has got us where we are today. If anyone is really responsible for perpetuating the “free lunch myth” it is Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Being a relative of progressive icon Theodore Roosevelt, FDR wanted nothing more than to fill the massive shoes worn by his blood-related hero. Being a disciple of Woodrow Wilson during his presidency, also added to the progressive disease coursing through FDR’s veins. He was born to privilege, had the connections and was driven enough to make his mark on the world. Interestingly, the Delano family fortune was born out of the Chinese opium trade. Well, at least the dirty blood money helped fund his political ambitions. Too bad for us he didn’t realize that he was a fucking hack when it came to economics. Maybe if he knew he wasn’t an economic genius, we could be in a very different place in this country. Maybe he would’ve found advisors who could’ve seen reality much more clearly.

FDR’s economic vision and understanding of finance was so awful that his good friend and Woodrow Wilson’s Secretary of the Interior Franklin Lane concluded, “Roosevelt knows nothing about finance, but he doesn’t know he doesn’t know.” FDR’s own VP Henry Wallace stated, “I reached the conclusion that I would under no circumstances, ever have any business dealings with him.” About his education, career and work ethic, one of his college professors Jackson Reynolds said, “Franklin Roosevelt was not much of a student and nothing of a lawyer afterwards. He didn’t appear to have any aptitude for law, and made no effort to overcome that handicap by hard work. He was not a worker and he flunked.” The senior partner of the law firm FDR worked at referred to him as “utterly worthless”. Shit man, FDR was an economic idiot and a worthless mess, yet everyone worships this guy and his policies as genius! Well, let’s look at just how genius this nut-nugget was.

Frankie D started his presidency off with a fucking bang! His first hundred days is famously called “The First Hundred Days”. It was the kick-off to his New Deal policies and a major victory for securing the future of progressive tyranny and idiocy. Due to the economic peril the country faced in the midst of the Great Depression, the people demanded immediate action form their new POTUS with his big promises. FDR met with Congress for 100 straight days, where he proposed many new programs and Congress did little-to-nothing to stop any of theses great experiments from being implemented into American society.

The moronic view of the day, which is still the view in modern times, is that a good president must come to the table with a plethora of new programs to reign in the “change”. FDR started this with “The First Hundred Days”. He became the new standard that all future presidents would be compared to. Because of this, meddling with capitalism and liberty was deemed successful while letting the free market run it’s course, was the policy of lazy tyrants trying to maintain the evil status quo of the ruling class.

To start, the first thing FDR focused on was the banking reforms. FDR blamed the banks for causing the depression and did everything he could to dethrone them and strip them of their power. FDR closed every single bank in America and forced them to remain closed until he could pass new legislation! That legislation was known as the Emergency Banking Act or EBA. Essentially, it allowed the Federal Reserve the power to supply unlimited currency to the reopened banks: creating de facto 100 percent deposit insurance. So what are the pros? There are none. What are the cons? Well, the main one is that this law allowed the bureaucrats to take direct control over our banking system. True and honest capitalism was delivered a serious black eye.

The FDIC was created, albeit against Roosevelt’s wishes. However, without FDR’s progressive meddling of the banking system, Congress probably wouldn’t have been able to pass this special piece of banking reform. Although, money invested into a bank is protected by the FDIC, this law gave more tyrannical power to the government over the banking system. For instance, depositors no longer needed to have any reservations about investing with a bad bank, as their losses are protected. Secondly, the cost of doing business with a bank is more expensive with the FDIC in place. Also, the law forces banks to comply with a new government regulated standard for doing business: eliminating the free market. Also, the banks are the ones who fund the FDIC, therefore they are forced to pay for this insurance plan. Switch wealth for health and it’s like Obamacare for banks.

In addition to the previous forms of economic tyranny, FDR suspended the gold standard. Executive Order 6102 forced American citizens to turn their gold over to the government! Americans owning gold, whether they liked it or not, had to exchange it for the existing fixed price in U.S. dollars. Also, FDR’s progressive administration would no longer allow gold to be considered valid legal tender. The United States government would no longer pay gold on demand for the dollar. FDR destroyed the gold standard and made paper money worthless. Granted the gold standard was later reinstated, it was eventually destroyed once and for all by Richard Nixon in 1971. Just keep in mind that it was FDR that first attempted to kill the dollar. In his defense, he had the best of intentions.

Probably the biggest part of “The First Hundred Days” was all the farm and rural programs established by FDR. The biggest of these programs was the Agricultural Adjustment Act which created the Agricultural Adjustment Agency or the AAA. This law restricted agricultural production, giving the government supreme power over the land and everything that grows out of it. There they go pissing on capitalism again!

Anyway, they did this by paying subsidies to farmers to prevent them from using parts of their land and to entice them to kill off excess livestock. The government was trying to forcibly raise the value of crops by eliminating the crop surplus. Therefore, large portions of farmland remained barren. Farmers who did not comply to these new government regulations were thrown off of their land and sent into the downward spiral of unemployment during the Great Depression. There was a massive eviction of tenants from cotton plantations, who were forced to try and stay afloat on a sinking ship.

The AAA was created mainly due to the effects created by the post-World War I farm crisis. Many economists believe that much of the fault of that crisis was due to the progressive legislation of the Wilsonian era. Also, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff created countless retaliatory tariffs that forced Europeans to turn their backs on American farm exports. This is why tariffs are fucking stupid.

FDR during “The First Hundred Days” also established the Reforestation Relief Act. This law established the Civilian Conservation Corps or CCC. FDR must’ve loved alliteration, not mention initialism. The CCC provided immediate work for 250,000 young men in reforestation, road construction and the development of national parks. Of course, this was all paid for by tax dollars: tax dollars during the Great Depression. Just like today, the lefties loved spending lots of money that wasn’t theirs during hard times.

After that, Frankie D created the Federal Emergency Relief Act or FERA. This piece of progressive legislation was responsible for the horrible gory deaths of a large group of our nation’s veterans. Over 400 veterans were a part of the CCC and FERA programs were sent to the Florida Keys to build bridges and roads to help connect Key West and the rest of the Keys to Miami. Unfortunately, these heroes were sent there during hurricane season. Their conditions were also so bad, that they were living in tents on the Key West coastline with little food to eat and barely any supplies. Also, there was no plan of escape set in place, in case the veterans ran into trouble. Even though the leader of the camp sent letters to Washington, requesting places for refuge to be built as well as an escape plan via railroad to be established, his letters went unanswered.

In August of that year, a hurricane hit the veterans’ camp full force! There was nowhere to run and nowhere to go. Large waves destroyed the camp and the debris from the raging hours-long storm dismembered and killed 256 men! One survivor said, “I saw bodies with tree stumps smashed through their chests – heads blown off – twisted arms and legs torn off by flying timber that cut like big knives.” TIME Magazine referred to the incident as a “slaughter worse than war.”

Next up is the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority or TVA, which was created to construct dams and hydroelectric power plants along the Tennessee Valley in an effort to bring electricity to people who previously didn’t have it. It allowed these people to receive electricity cheaply as well as fertilizer. Sounds great, but it was a massive project that only benefitted 2 percent of the U.S. population. It was the other 98 percent that paid the biggest price in the development of the TVA.

In addition to that, the long-term effects of the dam has been incredibly negative. Sure, it was great for a little while but the area that benefits from the existence of the TVA has fallen significantly behind the rest of the country economically. William Chandler in his book “The Myth of TVA” states, “Among the nine states of the southeastern United States, there has been essentially an inverse relationship between income per capita and the extent to which the state was served by TVA.” You see, subsidized power made the people in that region dependent. They had no incentive to venture out into the cities and make a better living. There was a lot of industrial development in the non-TVA states that created new businesses and new opportunities and eventually, due to a lack of governmental meddling, cheaper electricity for those areas. In the end, who benefitted? The region controlled by the government’s good intentions or the region the government left alone?

FDR then created the Federal Securities Act, which was the first law to give government control over stocks and bonds. This law stripped the states of their power in regards to regulating the offer and sale of securities. Many deemed this extension of the federal government’s control to be unconstitutional. Then again, isn’t most of the New Deal?

On the last day of FDR’s “The First Hundred Days” he established the Public Works Administration or PWA and the National Recovery Administration or NRA.

The PWA was created with the intention of reviving industry in America through large scale construction projects of dams, bridges and other public works. It was also created to give jobs to hundreds of thousands of people and to stabilize purchasing power. While seemingly looking good on paper, the PWA spent $6 billion in tax dollars in its short existence. Adjusted for inflation, that is precisely $100 billion today.

The NRA was established to eliminate cut-throat competition. To do so, it worked to bring industry, labor and government together to create codes of fair practices. It also tried to reach its goals by setting “fair” prices. This was a slap to capitalism’s face! The NRA set minimum wage rates as well as the maximum hours an employee could work. Because of all this insanity, the Supreme Court deemed the NRA as unconstitutional. However, the NRA lived on as parts of it were in the National Labor Relations Act that passed later in 1935. Even with the Supreme Court’s ruling however, the damage had already been done in just a short time, as there was a massive surge in the growth and power of unions.

The NRA and National Labor Relations Act created a lot of problems apart from just the union issue. They created a system where the majority in an industry had government approval to force their entire industry, even those who didn’t want to comply, to not be able to sell there prices below a set price. It also allowed the majority to set the wage rates, the hours worked and how much a factory could expand. In the middle of the Great Depression, companies could prevent their competition from exploding with economic growth! This was insanity! The NRA was supposed to eliminate cut-throat competition and in reality, it was eliminating the growth of each and every industry as a whole. When the winners and losers are hand-picked, everyone loses.

One story of the NRA I found in Burton Folsom, Jr.’s book “New Deal or Raw Deal?” talks about a man named Jacob Maged. Jacob had been pressing suits for his customers for over twenty years. He remained competitive with larger tailors due to his ability to offer low prices and quality work. The NRA demanded that the price to press suits must not be lower than 40 cents. Even though he was warned several times, Maged refused to charge his customer more than 35 cents. Jacob Maged was thrown into jail and slapped with a $100 fine! There were more than 500 NRA codes that people had to comply with or be faced with similar penalties.

That was a lot of tyranny to cover and that was just “The First Hundred Days” in FDR’s reign! That’s less than a third of a year in a four year term. He was elected to four terms! Everything I covered here just covers roughly 1/48th of his entire presidency! That’s like 2 percent! I can’t go through everything with a fine toothed comb but there are other major progressive programs that I want to shine a light on.

He did close out his first year with a positive, FDR repealed prohibition. I do have to thank him somewhat, otherwise I’d be risking jail time for every single drop of bourbon I throw down my gullet.

Also, to close out his last year, he established the National Labor Board which was legally able to enforce the right of collective bargaining. He created the Civil Works Administration or CWA. The CWA’s purpose was to employ four million people. The CWA failed and closed down in 4 months. He then marched into Congress just after New Year’s and asked for $10.5 billion to help support recovery programs. They gave it to him.

In his second year, he brought us the Gold Reserve Act, the Farm Mortgage Refinancing Act, the Civil Works Emergency Relief Federation, the Crop Loan Act, the Jones-Connally Farm Relief Act, the Cotton Control Act, the Jones-Costigan Act, the Securities Exchange Act, the Corporate Bankruptcy Act, the Farm Mortgage Foreclosure Act, the Silver Purchase Act, the National Labor Relations Board, the National Housing Act, the Federal Housing Administration or FHA, the Taylor Grazing Act, the Tobacco Control Act and the Federal Farm Bankruptcy Act. Are you starting to see who the Godfather of big government is yet?

Kicking off 1935, Roosevelt introduced us to the Second New Deal. He pledged to deliver aid to the aged, the ill, the unemployed and pretty much everyone else. He promised better housing. He promised tax reform. He promised the world.

The first big creation to come out of 1935 was the Works Progress Administration or WPA. The WPA was considered to be the largest and most ambitious agency created under the New Deal. It’s purpose was to employ millions. It’s focus was on public works projects as well as the arts. It also created programs within itself to do community work, such as building local parks, feeding starving children among various other things. This all sounds fine and dandy but the cost of this agency was immense! It also came with a plethora of unintended consequences.

One major consequence that federal relief created, was that those who had trouble finding employment, no longer bothered to try. Big Brother was taking care of them and living off of the State was much easier than fighting thousands of others for one job. The Founding Fathers, most notably James Madison, warned about this. Madison once said, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. What are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine?”

One thing the WPA did, was it created a sense of being taken care of by the Democrats. Local officials in the WPA circus were all part of the Democratic Party. The Republicans of the day accused FDR of using WPA jobs as political patronage. By offering jobs and assistance through the progressive WPA, the Democrats would receive the political support of those benefitting from the programs. Whether it was designed for this is debatable, but no one can deny the fact that those benefitting from progressive policies would make sure that when the time came, they’d do everything within their power to keep those policies in place.

Roosevelt then went on to start the Resettlement Administration or RA, which gave money to families wanting to relocate and start a “better” life elsewhere. He also created the Rural Electrification Administration, the National Labor Relations Act which was a reconfigured version of the diabolical NRA, the Banking Act of 1935, the Public Utilities Act and the Revenue Act. Nothing was as big and monstrous though, as the Social Security Act: the crown jewel of the New Deal.

All one has to do to see the long-term negative effects of the Social Security Act is look around. It is one of the most discussed issues in politics today, over 75 years later! The problem with this huge and vital part of the New Deal just can’t be summed up in a few sentences. This piece of legislation is practically the heart of the progressive beast. The worst thing about it though, has to be the fact that it has created a huge sense of entitlement and reliance on the State.

People seem to have developed the misconception that they no longer need to prepare for the future and plan their own retirement. Many people believe that Social Security is there to protect them and provide for them when they reach the age of retirement. Fact is, Social Security was originally established as a way to supplement one’s own retirement, not to be the sole source of income.

Social Security has also spawned the concept that the federal government can and will take care of us no matter what happens. Those with this helpless and idiotic mentality don’t seem to understand that it is tax dollars that pay for this program. Even if they get that, they seemingly believe that tax dollars are unlimited and if things start to get tight, the rich should pay more to support them. Essentially, those who do not plan and manage their finances correctly, expect those that do to take care of them. That’s like if Student Alpha gets nothing but “A’s” on their report card and Student Beta gets mostly “C’s” and “D’s”, then Student Alpha should give some of his good grades to Student Beta. Maybe Student Beta should just stop partying so hard and take their future a bit more seriously. I’m not ignoring the fact that there are those in impoverished situations, but if there is a will there is a way. It’s the progressive state that has stripped this self-reliance away from the masses.

The Social Security Trust Fund has created a horrible sense of entitlement for bureaucrats even. The temptation for this “free” money is so great that the Beltway Suits find ways to borrow and borrow from it in an effort to fund their pork-laced projects. This leaves behind an unlimited number of I.O.U.’s which have all sucked liberty’s wallet dry and left us with worthless legislation.

The biggest issue with Social Security, is that it is now paid for by those who will never get the chance to benefit from it. I am in my early 30′s as I write this and I pay a huge amount into Social Security. Problem is, I will never see it. The Social Security program is so fucked, that our great grandparents have created a system of borrowing and spending that stuck us with the bill before we were even born. This trend has not stopped there however, it continues every time Congress is in session with every new law they pass that costs money. This progressive mentality has become the way things are done in Washington. We can all thank FDR for starting this caravan of thievery.

We now live in a country where people spend more than they have, don’t take into account the x-factors of life and don’t have the ability to handle their own business when shit eventually hits the fan. People are just like the federal government. They want it all but no one wants to pay for it. Fact is, we ALL pay for it!

If people tried not to pay their share, FDR had a tool to use against them, that tool was the IRS. He did not create the agency but he used it in a tyrannical way, to collect more money for his programs and to threaten the enemies and critics of his policies. The first victim was Louisiana Governor Huey Long. Long continually criticized the New Deal for its “socialist programs”. FDR tried many ways of demonizing and eliminating Long as a threat but none of his methods worked until he turned to the IRS. The IRS indicted Long and many of the people in his administration. Granted Long had some serious skeletons in his closet and was guilty, but the actions of the president were tyrannical nonetheless. With his successful dissection of Huey Long, FDR marveled at how well the IRS could work as a weapon against those who did not fall in line behind him.

Now everything I’ve discussed here is all from Frankie D’s first term. He had three more terms! The majority of the New Deal was done during the first term but it doesn’t mean that he didn’t continue with progressive programs and special projects that have added to our financial crisis today. Truth is, FDR created so much damage that it is almost impossible to go through each piece of legislation and analyze it. Frankly, that would take up at least a few books. One could probably write about it for the rest of their life.

FDR’s legacy is regarded as a great one in American history. As you can see, that is far from the truth. The harsh reality is that he destroyed everything our Founding Fathers fought for and believed in. He was an enemy of liberty and a champion of tyranny. He created a state of children needing their nanny to make all their decisions for them. Long gone was the great American ideal, that we didn’t need anyone to make us great, we could rely on ourselves and persevere against all odds. We were a nation that rose to the top of the food chain within a century or so. FDR traded that all in though because the smug progressive attitude is that they know what we need better than we do. I say “fuck that.” If they were so smart, they wouldn’t have dug this goddamned hole we’re in now.

At least Woodrow Wilson felt a sense of remorse for some of his tyrannical and idiotic ways. FDR on the other hand, died a proud man with a proud legacy that in retrospect, has done more to dismantle freedom than most other presidents. However, FDR was not the last, there were others after him who took his lead and ran with a strong progressive agenda. The next one to look at is Lyndon Baines Johnson.

5. Stage Four – Lyndon B. Johnson and the Great Society:

“I am concerned about the whole man. I am concerned about what the people, using their government as an instrument and a tool, can do toward building the whole man, which will mean a better society and a better world.” – Lyndon Baines Johnson

This article is continued in PART IV

*Written by Rob Rimes.

Be forewarned. This is a rant and I am extra salty today. I mean no offense to anyone in Canada or New Brunswick. If you’re offended, what the fuck are you doing reading the Swash anyway?! By the way, this is also TheSwash.com’s 2,000th post, according to my site stats. So congratulations to myself! Now, moving on to the topic at hand!

I live in Florida, most of you who are regular perusers of the Swash know this, based off of some of my other writings and my overabundance of “two cents” sprinkled in from post to post. Well, Florida sucks from Autumn until the week after Easter because of this thing we have down here called “season”. I’m personally thankful as fuck that it is almost over, as Easter is in a few weeks. Why does season suck? Well my loyal Swashies, I shall tell you.

First of all, the “snow birds” crowd up the fucking roads and have every local person statewide pulling their hair out because most of them are pretty damn old and their driving skills are pretty much the exact opposite of the word “skills”. In fact, I have a very frustrating time trying to weave in and out of their Sherman tank roadblocks. In my town, the elderly seem to drive 35 MPH and under in the 55 MPH zones, while in the 35 MPH zones they are flying. It is a weird anomaly that I have never been able to figure out for the life of me. If we are surrounded by trees with no traffic lights or reasons to stop, they slowly slide through traffic. If we are in a highly congested area with plenty of shops, stop lights, stop signs and pedestrians, they are like speed demons from Hell.

The real problem is that people drive differently in different regions throughout the country. When this penis shaped melting pot collects the seasonal run-off from the rest of the country, we have a mishmash of several different driving styles trying to compete for dominance. Unlike the free market, capitalism in driving is a failure. Well, then again, competition  does eliminate the riffraff as many motorists are driven off of the road and/or smashed by this motorized multiculturalism.

The people from the Northeast aren’t so bad but the Midwest people are pretty goddamned atrocious behind the wheel. Canadians are by far the worst. I think they are overly cautious because they are used to dodging elk, falling rocks and suicidal trees. We do have deer in Florida but in my entire life, I have only seen one deer cross a busy road in a densely populated area and that was caused by new construction in his habitat.

As bad as Canadian drivers are as a whole, no region of that cold country to the north is as bad as the drivers from New Brunswick. Jesus David Carradine Christ, New Brunswick sure as shit takes the cake for drivers that are whacked out of their everliving minds! I can only assume that they are used to whale-surfing, bear-riding and other forms of recreational activities that are foreign to my tropical climate. Anyway, their skills on the back of humpbacks certainly doesn’t translate to their ability behind the wheel of their Nautica Special Edition Mercury Villager minivans. I almost feel like Nautica made a deal with the government of New Brunswick and the citizens of that small province were all forced to buy these luxury soccer wagons. Fight socialism! Well, at least Nautica vans are better than the Zaporozhets from Red Russia.

The worst part about these badly and slowly navigating ass clowns is that they never get out of the left fucking lane. If you are going to suck at driving, get the fuck out of the way! Everyone knows that slow traffic is supposed to move to the right for faster traffic. Apparently Canadians do not know this. I can only assume that they don’t have these “rules of the road” in the cold north. Either that or Canadians are just self-absorbed assholes.

When you creep up on them, they don’t move. In fact, they drive slower. If you flash your lights, they get all temperamental, like YOU are the asshole and they brake and start flailing their arms around like fish out of water. Not that fish have arms but if they did, they would call them Canadians. Come to think of it, Canadians really are fish out of water. They just don’t understand the rules of our evil capitalistic empire. They have a holier-than-thou attitude about how great their land is and how crazy and insane our land is. Yet they winter here and jump the border for better heath care. How’s that socialism working out for you loggers and whale humpers up there?

Canadians, like the rest of the world, want to bitch about Americans but at the same time, secretly want to be American. I have no problem with that, I totally fucking get it, we are better than you in every way because we have REAL bacon, not that “ham” crap. We also have Apple Stores and newsstands that sell sudoku books. Good luck finding that in the land of timber and mounties. By the way, the Mountie was a shitty Intercontinental Champion back in the day and Bret “The Hitman” Hart is a whiner.

Anyway, Canadians can come down here and join our scary world but first, they must adapt to our “rules of the road”. If you see an American in a hurry, please move over and let them by. This applies to all American assholes who suck at moving over as well. You people are just fucking traitors and un-American!

By moving over, you are saying to us Americans that “Hey, I’m not one of those douchebag Canadians holding up traffic while looking for a Cracker Barrel to drop a deuce in.” See, Americans are often times crass, like now. However, we pretty much love everyone, contrary to the pop media outlets and preconceived perceptions of almost everyone that isn’t American (please disregard all religiotards with this example, most of us hate them too). See, Americans dish it out because we can take it. The rest of the world (and liberals) fucking hate that because they all have thin skin. America is great because we don’t have thin skin and most of us move the fuck over when one of our countrymen are in a bigger hurry than us.

Truth be told, this is basically a rebuttal to every Canadian (or other non-American) that I’ve heard spout bullshit about Americans and America while sitting in a bar in my country expressing their distaste for our way of life. I would never go to your country and bitch about you and your people on your soil. That is incredibly disrespectful and ignorant. However, we’re always the assholes by default so when we say what’s on our mind, whether true or not, we come under fire. However whenever you spit your bullshit, it’s okay because you’re just talking down the evil empire. The same evil empire that is okay for you to hypocritically exploit and enjoy on your own two-faced terms.

Just do us all a favor and move the fuck over. Maybe then we can co-exist a bit better. If not, maybe we’ll start lobbying for a northern border fence too. At least when the Mexicans are on the road they are going to work and moving along. Also they are piled twelve deep in a Suzuki Samurai unlike the Canadians who only travel in pairs, in a minivan for eight, during rush hour traffic just to hit up the Dollar Tree for single-use plastic stemware and Junior Mints.

New Brunswickians or whatever they are called, have a saying on their license plate. That saying is “Be.. in this place.” That place is New Brunswick. So stay there! If not, feel free to enjoy America, we really don’t care but STFU and move over.

*The article I am referencing can be found here. This rebuttal to that article was co-written by me, Rob Rimes & my friend and Co-Director of the SWFL FairTax Educational Association, Shawn Bussler.

Recently, the National Review published an article by Ramesh Ponnuru titled “A Misleading Sales Pitch: For a misguided sales tax”. Mr. Ponnuru, like many FairTax critics, made a lot of interesting points and presented a convincing argument against the FairTax. That is, of course, if you don’t understand it and aren’t educated on how it actually works. Whether Mr. Ponnuru just doesn’t get it, didn’t properly research the subject or just has it out for the FairTax, his article was packed full of untruths and misinformation. I published the fallacious article a few weeks back and promised to offer a rebuttal in the near future. This is that rebuttal.

To start, for those who don’t know what the FairTax is, it is a system to replace the federal income tax, corporate income tax, estate tax, gift tax, alternative minimum tax and payroll tax with a national sales tax. The greatest part about the FairTax is that it ends the tyranny of the IRS and puts the power back into the hands of the people. Under the FairTax, the IRS will no longer exist and the unconstitutional (Article 1, Sec 9) 16th Amendment would be repealed. For those needing a civics lesson, that is the amendment that gave Congress the power to impose a federal income tax on the American people. With the FairTax implemented, workers will be able to take home their entire paycheck. There are dozens of other great benefits as well and to fully understand it, read “The FairTax Book” by Neal Boortz and former congressman John Linder.

In the article written by Mr. Ponnuru, he states that the FairTax is too good to be true. He also states that it is “deeply misleading” and “likely to set back the cause of tax reform than to advance it.” Fair enough homeboy but you’re wrong and your article is the misleading thing here. Let me break it down and explain why.

The first fallacy presented in the article, is that he tries to debunk the 23 percent sales tax figure by stating that it will be 30 percent. This is a common argument and it goes to show that Mr. Ponnuru obviously didn’t read “The FairTax Book” or its sequel “FairTax: The Truth – Answering the Critics”. Both of these books explained the situation really well. Mr. Ponnuru’s representation of these numbers is a complete fabrication.

He claims that the 23 percent is actually 30 percent and claims that FairTaxers came up with the figure of 23 percent because $30 is 23 percent of $130. Incorrect sir. The 23 percent that would be taxed, first of all, would be included into the listed price of the product. So if the product were $100 it would not be $130 after taxes, as you claim, it would be $100 period! The price of the item would actually be $77 with $23 of the total price being the tax. The tax is worked into the listed retail price of every product. Mr. Ponnuru claims that FairTaxers may be trying to mislead people while stirring up confusion. Well, there is that old adage about “finger pointing” that cupcake needs to learn. Truth is, he does not understand the 23 percent/30 percent inclusive/exclusive nature of the FairTax. It is clearly stated and laid out in Neal Boortz’s “FairTax” books.

He also states that it is not clear that the 30 percent (keep in mind it is 23 percent, actually) would raise enough revenue to eliminate the income tax and payroll taxes. He claims, through the research of Brookings Institute economist William Gale that the tax rate would have to be 44 percent. Then he falsely claims that a $100 item would actually cost $144, once again disregarding the fact that the tax is worked into the item’s sticker price. The only way Mr. Ponnuru can make his argument, is by distorting the facts.

The true fact is, that once the FairTax is implemented, this 23 percent figure won’t be more than what we are paying now. Most of our taxes that are stripped from our paychecks are well over 23 percent and that is forcibly taken. For instance, most people pay 15 percent towards the income tax, then over 7 percent for FICA. Now add in the taxes that your employer must pay on top of that. Chances are, you could be that employer and you could be taking it in the arse pretty hard. Under the FairTax, you pay by what you consume. Also, the tax is only on new products. If you buy a used car or an item from a pawn shop, etc., etc., you do not pay tax! Reason being, the FairTax has already been paid on those used items. Try to calculate the taxes you’ve paid on a single dollar under our current wonderful and easy-to-understand system. With income tax, payroll tax, capital gains tax if it was invested, and all of the embedded, hidden taxes from the price of whatever you are trying to purchase, you’d be shocked at the total already paid if there was even a way to calculate it.

Mr. Ponnuru then talks about how several groups would be adversely affected by the FairTax. He gives retirees as an example and states that they have already paid taxes on their wages over the course of their working lives. Now with the FairTax implemented, he claims that the retirees would be screwed paying higher prices for goods due to his fantasy 30 percent. He also claims that the value of non-retirees accumulated savings would drop. Again, he doesn’t understand how this works, going back to the 23 percent vs 30 percent point. Truth is, retirees are already paying these prices, as the prices will not shift.

To expand on the 23 vs 30 point, the embedded cost of our tax code is roughly 22 percent. That is the accumulated taxes for every business that had a hand in creating that good, or any tool in which that service is being performed. The doctor has to pay the taxes for their cotton swabs manufacturer and every entity that has had a hand in creating that cotton swab, including the farmer that grew the cotton, the marketing that went behind it, the distribution of it: all to wipe out your ears. And then, the consumer has the pay the doctor’s taxes, which are built into the bill.

The King of Deception, Mr. Ponnuru then brings in the class warfare argument and tries to frame his point by painting the poor as the victim and the rich as the villain. He talks of how the middle class will pay higher taxes. Wrong. He talks about how these higher taxes will hurt the poor. Also wrong. He then states that the rich would pay less than they do now because investment returns equate to a large share of their income and that they would be untaxed. M’kay pal, let me explain the basic fundamentals of capitalism to you.

Under the FairTax, when a poor man buys his used ’83 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme, he isn’t paying any tax whatsoever. Hell, if he pulls together enough cash to buy a brand new Hyundai Accent, he’s putting 23 percent of that $10,000 price tag into the tax system. Essentially, the poor man is paying $2,300 in taxes. Keep in mind that the car, even with the taxes is still $10,000 and not a penny more. Now when the rich dude buys a Bentley Flying Spur at $220,000, his 23 percent is $50,600! So, how exactly is the rich guy making out better than the poor guy? Both men are paying 23 percent. In essence, the tax rate is “fair”. Not to mention, the prebate and no capital gains taxes would help spur investments which create more opportunities for more people. You see, it doesn’t matter how much you make, all that matters is what you spend. Therefore, the argument about income classes isn’t even a part of the equation.

Our friendly neighborhood deceiver then goes on to use some scare tactics with his argument against the FairTax’s selling point that workers can keep their “entire paychecks”. He writes that if prices stay flat, that wages would have to fall. He tells the reader to think of the “fact” that if existing taxes are embedded in the cost of every product, that they’d also be embedded in the cost of labor as well. This is another complete fabrication or misunderstanding and just proves that this guy hasn’t read the books or the bill and if he did, it was done half-assed. The truth here, is that businesses do not pay taxes, only consumers do! Mr. Ponnuru should watch Milton Friedman’s video “The Free Lunch Myth”. In fact, here it is.

The author’s next point is that the tax administration says that enforcing sales taxes over double digits is hard. He talks about how no country relies on a national sales tax to the extent that the FairTax proposes and then takes a shot at FairTax supporters by saying that that fact doesn’t faze them. Of course it doesn’t mister! The reality is, that if another country had a system like the FairTax, businesses would have already moved there. That country would have a booming economy and any other countries that followed suit would find that it was already too late. The nation that acts first is the nation that will prosper the most. This is why FairTax supporters want this now and not later, after another nation has implemented the idea. The FairTax is the second wave of American Exceptionalism, except on an economic scale.

What do I mean by that? Well, imagine that you are a business owner; you may be one right now. You do a little research and find out that there is a country out there, at this very moment, that you could move to, where every single penny you earn you could keep to reinvest in your business. That would be revenue you earned that you could use to reward your employees, pay your stockholders, streamline your business, and expand into new products or services. That country is what they would call a “tax haven”. That country could mean the difference between keeping your business alive or watching it sink slowly. The United States could be a tax haven under the FairTax. If that were the case, you would have to actively hide from finding a job.

Moving forward, what does a double digit tax mean? What is a higher percentage? What it is, is a clear cut way to see how much the government is spending. If the FairTax goes up, the government is spending like crazy. If the FairTax goes down, the government is cutting back. You see, the FairTax offers an uncomplicated way of seeing exactly where government spending levels are. If the tax goes too high, the assholes get voted out. Solidifying my point from earlier, this is why the FairTax puts the power back in the hands of the people. The FairTax percentage accurately reflects how big our government is getting. The FairTax forces accountability and transparency.

Next, Mr. Ponnuru argues that the advantages of the FairTax system are overstated. He implies that the FairTax plan’s claim that households would not have to prepare federal income tax returns is incorrect. He goes on to say that the federal government needs to know people’s wages in order to properly determine what their Social Security benefits should be. What Mr. Ponnuru is conveniently overlooking, that nearly every American should already know and understand, is that employers report wages to the federal government. The employers would still report these wages and the wasted time of the individual reporting them, under the FairTax, would be pointless and a waste of paperwork and time. The Social Security Fund comes out of general revenue, which will be more stable than the base pay of an employee.

If you were paying attention over the last few years, you saw the unemployment rate steadily climb. If you are somewhat knowledgeable, you can think of when the unemployment rate went higher in the 70’s under Jimmy Carter, how it was lower under Reagan, how it was low under most of George W. Bush’s tenure, and how it was high during the Great Depression and a few years after but low again in the 50’s. The employment rate over the last 80 years has been like a yo-yo or a roller coaster ride. But, have you ever seen a report on the consumption rate? It’s been a steady climb over the last 80 years. That is what our tax code would be based on under the FairTax: consumption. It would be a stable source of revenue for the federal government.

Mr. Ponnuru then gets to the politics of making the FairTax a reality. He asks the reader how likely it is that Congress, the President, etc. would go for a tax system that “punishes the middle class and senior citizens?” M’kay butthead, I already cleared that bullshit up for you.

He then references “The FairTax Fantasy” by Hank Adler and Hugh Hewitt, which was already debunked and challenged by several other writers who understand the FairTax system far better than I do. The example he gives, is that the FairTax requires state and local governments to pay the federal government tax through anything that they purchase. He then gleefully and condescendingly states, “Good luck with that” when telling the reader that it will take 38 states to approve the repeal of the 16th Amendment. I bet he’s one of those who thought that the majority of states wouldn’t step up and repeal ObamaCare. Those people now have egg on their face. Where the argument fails, is in the fact that state and local governments already pay taxes to the federal government through various embedded taxes. I will refrain from calling Mr. Ponnuru an idiot or a jackass.

Homeboy, then attacks the spirit of the FairTax supporters by saying that it will never happen and even though, in America, the odds have been beaten again and again throughout history, that the vast majority of the times that people said, “That will never happen,” they were right. He says that those supporting and pushing this are wasting their time. Guys like Mr. Ponnuru were loyalists to King George back in the day. If it really doesn’t matter and is a big waste of time, I guess that explains his half-assed research and apparent lack of digging for the real facts in regards to the FairTax. Why waste your time even acknowledging the FairTax, sir? I mean, if it’s a big waste and all?

MC Ramesh then talks about tinkering with the income tax and refers to such tinkering as “improvements”. This guy can’t be a conservative, a libertarian or anything other than a statist, if that is his logic. He says that over time, the FairTax system, if passed, would become “just as riddled with exemptions and loopholes” as the current income tax system. Negative Nestor here takes his misunderstanding of the FairTax and recycles his bullshit points throughout his crummy article. The FairTax is one tax rate, affecting everyone, no exceptions. Legislators do not have the ability to play with the numbers for their crony constituents and those they owe favors to. In fact, at its core, the FairTax would eliminate the vast majority of lobbyists looking for special interests inside the Capitol Beltway.

This nincompoop finishes out his article by insulting those behind this movement, telling them to go back to the drawing board and then pulling back his statement only to say that they shouldn’t be allowed near drawing boards. I guess there is no civility in arrogant stupidity.

Being the Senior Editor for National Review just makes Ramesh Ponnuru’s poorly crafted argument a solid piece of evidence against that magazine’s validity as a respected source of conservative journalism. Describing itself as, “America’s most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion,” makes me kind of shutter. After reading such a drivel-filled article, I question the talking points of any conservative who points to the National Review as their source of political sustenance.

I could go on and on about the positives of the FairTax but I’m not trying to write an epic here. All one has to do is pick up the two books that Boortz and Linder have written on the subject. If you have questions or concerns, call into Boortz’s radio show and speak to him directly or just go to the FairTax website. Most states also have their own state websites that you can access. There are plenty of videos on YouTube and lots of other articles that can shed more light than I did here. The resources are endless.

Hell, if you have questions, direct them here and I’ll try and get you the answers. Lots of answers can be found on a thread my friend Shawn hosted here. I also have to give Shawn a shout out for helping me with this article. He is the Co-Director of the Southwest Florida FairTax Educational Association. If you are in Southwest Florida, hit me up here and I can get you info on where and when the next FairTax meetings is held.

*Taken from Prison Planet. Written by Jason Douglass.

Talaya Soria, a pastor’s wife living in California and an ex-employee of Wal-Mart shared some interesting information regarding a phone call placed to Wal-Mart’s corporate offices about the mega-giant’s ‘if you see something, say something’ partnership between Wal-Mart and The Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

In response to the new policy, this concerned citizen called corporate to ask some pointed questions and got more than she bargained.

When asked how many stores would be adopting the new policy, the Wal-Mart associate grimly responded, “All of them”. Disgusted by the fascist new policy, Mrs. Soria began to list the problems with a program with this type of focus stating “This policy isn’t aimed at the terrorists but at the populace — to control what we say!”.

Patiently listening to the concerns, the Wal-Mart Associate responded in hushed voice, “yes, I agree with you” the paranoia felt by the employee was completely palpable. Talaya continued, “If I say something someone doesn’t agree with – they can just turn me in!”. The operator once again timidly responded, “Yeah, I know where you are coming from. You’re right!”.

Ending the call, Talaya summed up her argument, “This is a very un-American policy and I will be telling all my friends, family, church members and everyone to boycott Wal-Mart”. The silence on the other end of the line spoke volumes. Obviously, Talaya was preaching to the choir. The associate was in complete, even if silent, agreement.

After Talaya got off the phone, she immediately called her local Wal-Mart to let them know about the new program and express her intention to boycott the store if the policy was officially adopted. When she got off the phone and attempted to make another call a strange clicking sound was clearly audible on the line.

Talaya phoned her husband to let him know about the conversation and she continued to hear the clicking. Her husband did not hear anything on his end of the line and when she hung up, the phone immediately started ringing again. Caller ID showed an unfamiliar number with a (925) area code. When she picked up the phone no one answered.

Again hanging up, the phone began to ring with the same unrecognized caller ID; still no answer at the other end.

Talaya decided to call the number shown on caller ID but the call would not initiate. After several failed attempts the line began to make a high pitched tone with no ringing beforehand.

In an earlier time, one could dismiss such experiences and the fear they impart as paranoia and laugh off those ideas with a chuckle. But thanks to legislation like The Patriot Act and software like Echelon, it is completely within the realm of possibility that the phone call was monitored, threatening language identified and a wiretap immediately placed on the line. No hard to justify warrant needed, Talaya is now being monitored.

A sign of the times, we have traded freedom for the illusion of security.

The perfect storm has arrived. A failing economy and a climate of fear have locked us all into survival mode. The majority of people remain asleep because reality is so grim and our options so limited; surrender is the only viable tactic for most. And so with our silent consent we get comfortable in the control grid erected to ‘protect’ us. Engineered to consolidate power and our complacency plays right into the hands of our wardens.

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

- Pastor Martin Niemöller

My Two Cents: Ooh.. the Blame Game! What’s next, Duck Duck Goose? End Two Cents.

*Taken from the Wall Street Journal.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke fired back amid criticism at home and abroad of the Fed’s easy-money policies, arguing that China and others are causing global problems by preventing their currencies from strengthening as their economies boom.

By keeping their currencies artificially weak, Mr. Bernanke argued in Frankfurt Friday, China and other emerging markets are allowing their economies to overheat, preventing trade imbalances from adjusting and worsening what he called a “two-speed” global recovery.

Their “strategy of currency undervaluation” is preventing more “balanced and sustainable” global growth, he warns, echoing a view expressed by Obama Administration officials.

Mr. Bernanke has come under attack for the Fed’s decision to purchase $600 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds in an effort to drive down long-term interest rates. Critics in the U.S say it could cause inflation. Critics abroad say the flood of dollars that the Fed is effectively printing to finance its bond purchases is pouring into overseas markets and could cause asset bubbles.

Some also have accused the Fed of trying to weaken the dollar to spur U.S. exports.

Fed officials have denied that is their goal, though Mr. Bernanke effectively acknowledged the U.S. currency should weaken against currencies in emerging markets, because their economies are growing so much faster than economies in the developed world.

The Fed chairman’s message, though scholarly in tone, was unusually blunt in laying blame for inflationary pressures in emerging markets and for tensions over currencies on countries like China. A chart accompanying his comments also pinpoints Taiwan, Singapore and Thailand as aggressively trying to hold their currencies down, while India, Chile and Turkey aren’t.

“Why have officials in many emerging markets leaned against appreciation of their currencies toward levels more consistent with market fundamentals?” Mr. Bernanke asks. Mainly, he says, because they are sticking to a long-term strategy of pushing for export-led growth with cheap exchange rates.

Central banks manage exchange rates by intervening in currency markets. As dollars flood into their economies from exports, the central banks use the dollars to purchase assets like U.S. Treasury bonds rather than allowing those dollars to be exchanged freely for domestic currencies. That keeps the domestic currencies from rising in value.

Mr. Bernanke noted that in preventing the yuan from appreciating, China has accumulated a massive $2.6 trillion stock of foreign-currency reserves. Most of that is in U.S.-dollar assets. An alternate risk for the U.S.: If China sells its U.S. bonds, it could push down their value and push up U.S. interest rates.

Mr. Bernanke also made his case against domestic critics, arguing that U.S. unemployment could keep rising without action by the Fed and that inflation is too low and could fall further.

Though critics say inflation could soar because of the Fed’s actions, Mr. Bernanke said it is around 1%, is likely to be “quite subdued” for a long time and that he is committed to allowing it to go no higher than 2%.

“On its current economic trajectory the United States runs the risk of seeing millions of workers unemployed or underemployed for years,” Mr. Bernanke warned. “As a society, we should find that outcome unacceptable.”

Mr. Bernanke got a voice of support Thursday from Narayana Kocherlakota, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. In comments in Chicago he supported the Fed’s easing program, describing it as “a move in the right direction,” though he had expressed some skepticism about the program in the past. He and Mr. Bernanke said the program wasn’t a cure-all.