The Two Party System: A Grand Success

What? I'm sure you expected me to call the two party system a dismal failure! But no. I insist that it is one of our greatest successes...

I think you have to look at what the goal of the two party system actually is in order to determine if it's failed or not. If you assume that the goal is representing the people as a democratic republic, then yes, it's a failure. In fact its failure in this respect is so utterly complete, that it's hard to believe that this was ever the goal in the first place.

In my opinion, representing the people as a democratic republic is not--nor was it ever--the goal of the two party system. The goal is simple: social control. The two party system is a tool of the global financial elites to maintain power over currency, systems of social conditioning, the mass-media, education, etc. In that respect the two party system is a grand success.

H.R. 4694 is an endeavor to make that success unchallengeable. Please contact your congressperson and demand that this bill be struck down with a vengeance. Otherwise the two party system is doomed to success, and that would be bad for all of the American people...

Open Letter to Tom Ashbrook

So I wrote a letter to Tom Ashbrook after listening to his program on NPR, "On Point." His guest was Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria "Torrie" Clarke. She's recently published a book called "Lipstick on a Pig : Winning In the No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the Game." The subject of the conversation was transparency in the War in Iraq. Hearing the show made me sick to my stomach (read below to find out why), but I couldn't turn it off... I wanted to call in and call her out on this BS, but I was in the car for most of the program and by the time I got home, there was only a few minutes left. And as I found out later, it wasn't being broadcast live... Anyway, here's an e-mail that I sent to Tom Ashbrook later that evening.

---

Dear Tom,

First of all, let me say that I really enjoy your show, and I listen whenever I get the chance. I like both the format and the subject matter of the show.

Now, on to my unfortunate disappointment with your recent segment with Torie Clarke... I am insulted that she sat there talking about "transparency" regarding the Iraq War, and neither you nor any of your guests or callers pressured her to talk about the underlying motivation for the USA to attack Iraq, and for the current building tension with Iran.

Weapons of Mass Destruction and a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were popularized as the justifications for attacking Iraq. The media and government officials such as Torie Clarke keep us busy with in depth analysis of the process by which these weapons were searched for and the validity of the information behind it. But I believe that those reasons are nothing more than a smoke-screen for the petrodollar issues that surround both the war with Iraq and the current tensions with Iran.

Saddam Hussein began selling oil for Euros in September of 2000 in response to US sanctions. While Iraq sells only a small portion of OPEC's total, the precedent of any OPEC nation bucking the petrodollar hegemony could not be allowed to be set, lest the dominoes be set up to fall... But there was no way to obtain public support for war with Iraq--because talking about the petrodollar is for some reason taboo in America.

After the horrific and tragic events of 9/11, the American people were rightfully scared, and the "weapons of mass destruction" claim was something that--in our state of fear--we viewed as an immediate and direct threat to our safety. WMDs were used to manufacture public consent for this war, while the petrodollar reasons for war, which are at least as much if not more of a threat to our way of life, were completely ignored by Torie Clarke, you, and the rest of the mainstream media. And she has the nerve to even say the word transparency...

We have an even more dangerous situation brewing in Iran--the imminent opening of the Iranian Oil Bourse. This new oil exchange, unlike NYMEX and IPE, the only two places where oil is currently available, will deal in Euros. This could be devastating to the US currency, as China and other nations could begin to diversify their reserve holdings and sell off hundreds of billions of dollars. Any nation will be able to buy or sell oil for Euros instead of dollars on this exchange. And this could bring the dollar down in flames. But this information has not been made available to the American people...

Instead we are led to believe that Iran is producing weapons of mass destruction, and the instabilities of the Middle East are laid out in front of us by the media morning, noon, and night, seemingly without reprise... Again, the US Government has the American people's consent to take aggressive action against Iran to protect the dollar without ever disclosing the main reason for this action. Transparency indeed... Opacity is more like it...

Of course, since neither the mainstream media nor our History textbooks ever mention the petrodollar or its importance to (or should I say singular responsibility for) the value of the Federal Reserve Note, it's possible that people may simply not understand even if told plainly and simply... But in order to be truly "transparent," Torie Clarke would be obligated to explain it all to us. The American people deserve to know, and yes--we can handle the truth. We are at war to protect our currency, and no one in the media or the US Government can make the claim of "transparency" until this is made public.

Sincerely,
Me

Iranian Oil Bourse Clarifications

Some messages I've received from some people make me think that there is still some confusion over the Iranian Oil Bourse and its status as a threat to the Federal Reserve note (US Dollars).

Currently, oil is sold only on two commodities markets worldwise. They NYMEX in New York, and the IPE in London. Both of these exchanges deal in dollars only. Nations wishing to purchase crude must make these purchases in US dollars. This is what is known as the Petrodollar system. Nations buy large quantites of US dollars and hold them in their central banks as "reserve currency" to use for oil purchases. These dollars are funnelled through the IPE and NYMEX exchanges into mostly Saudi coffers, and then re-sold on the world market to the very same countries wishing to hold dollars in reserve for oil purchases.

The Iranian Oil Bourse, set to open on March 20, 2006, will be an international exchange market. ANY NATION will be able to BUY OR SELL oil for EUROS INSTEAD OF DOLLARS. This is not about Iran selling their 2 million or so barrels per day for Euros... This is about Iran opening an international petroleum exchange that threatens the very fabric of how American currency retains its value. The Gold Standard was abandoned in 1933. But any time anyone wants to buy oil, they must first have dollars. The dollar is backed by international oil purchases. Without these dollar purchases by other nations, the dollar's value would drop like a stone--as we are running a $450 billion dollar annual budget deficit added to our already astronomical $8.2 trillion dollar debt. In short, our currency only retains its high value because other nations "buy" large portions of that debt and use the dollars to buy oil.

Most people are not aware of how the federal reserve currency system operates. Some people still believe their dollars are backed by gold. And most people probably don't give it a second thought. This is by design:

"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States" -- Sen. Barry Goldwater (Rep. AR)

"The few who understand the [Federal Reserve] system, will either be so interested from its profits or so dependant on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." -- Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

Money makes the world go round. And oil makes the money go round. And the less American citizens know about it, the better, as far as the Federal Reserve bank is concerned. If the president got on TV and said, "My fellow Americans... I regret to inform you that our economy is run by private banking institutions. We must now make war with Iran to prevent our money--which is printed and regulated by these private banking instutions--from loosing all of its value. I hope you understand that we are powerless against the will of the Federal Reserve system. Please continue to live in a perpetual state of debt. The most patriotic thing every American can do would be to take out a second mortgage on their home..." People would be outraged...

Well, people should be outraged. If Iran opens their Oil Bourse as planned, we are going to war with Iran to protect our currency. In that respect, this war with Iran is actually in the national security interests of the US. As for any other official "reason" you may hear for war with Iran--take it with a grain of salt... You--as an American citizen--have a job: spend more money than you earn. Hold large chunks of debt that accrue interest. Make money for the world elites who own the federal banks. Being informed is not in your job description. Well I think it's time for people to say--take this job and shove it.

We can't handle the truth--or can we?

The US spent $441 billion on military expenditures in fiscal year 2006. The rest of the world combined spent about $500 billion... I think it's time for American citizens to stop thinking that there are any real and direct threats to our physical safety that can be prevented by more military expeditions or by military action. We have already won the game of "who can build the biggest army." We are about $375 billion per year ahead of our next closest competitor...
(source)

So then why are Americans so afraid?? Well, because of terrorism, of course... Ok, so let's take an honest look at the most horrific terrorist attack ever on US soil... Even if you buy the government's official story on 9/11--a nation didn't fly those planes into the towers. Terrorists did. US nukes and military spending offer no protection against acts of terrorism. Yet that is how the bush admin is trying to combat terrorism--with military aggression against nations, and unparalleled defense spending.

And if you look just slightly below the surface, 9/11 is not that hard to understand... Iraq started selling oil for Euros in September of 2000 in protest of US sanctions (source). The reprehensible 9/11 attacks manufactured sufficient consent amongst the public for the US to go to war with Iraq. The attacks were perpetrated by Saudis--15 of the 19 hijackers were saudis (source). The Saudis directly benefit from the petrodollar recycling system (source) and it was in both their and the US's best interests to stop Iraq from doing so--by removing Saddam from power. The organization that benefits most from the petrodollar recycling system is the Federal Reserve (source). They have vast influence over both the US and Saudi governments. The war in Iraq was made possible by a so-called terrorist attack on US soil perpetrated by a nation (Saudi Arabia) who was similarly economically threatened by Iraq's shift from the dollar to the Euro. The Federal Reserve--via Saudi Arabia and the US--had to send a message to other OPEC nations that a challenge to the petrodollar hegemony would not be tolerated. 9/11 was a horrific sacrifice made by the global elites of the New World Order in order to save the US dollar from total collapse.

Look at the current situation in Iran. They are preparing to open an oil bourse where ANY nation can buy or sell oil for Euros via the Internet (source). This is a vastly larger threat to the petrodollar hegemony than one nation (Iraq) selling oil for dollars. You'll notice that there is TONS of anti-Iranian sentiment in the news right now (and NO mention of the Iranian Oil Bourse). After this disgusting display of violent protest over the Danish-published Mohammed cartoon, I think even those on the left in America would feel that war with Iran is totally justified. Let's not forget: the Federal Reserve banks own a controlling share of the mass media (source, scroll down to 2.4). They are either engineering events and stories to manufacture consent for the next phase of the currency war in Iran or misreporting real events in such a way that Americans believe Iran is a direct and present threat to our physical safety. In actuality, they are a direct and present threat to our economic safety.

Thankfully (sort of)--we have their domestic nuclear program and their crazy-ass president (no doubt being over-represented as crazy by the global banking elites to drum up anti-Iranian feelings in the rest of the world) to scapegoat for this phase of the currency war, so another 9/11-type event will not be necessary to manufacture public consent for war. Media and geopolitical manipulation has been perfectly sufficient for that purpose...

Read Ed Haas' analysis of how we can stop this. I am in no way affiliated with him--we have come to the same conclusions based on our own independent research.

CNN Probably did not broadcast a black X over Dick Cheney's Face

It was reported in the blogosphere that a CNN glitch caused a black "X" to flash over Dick Cheney's face--exactly at the moment when he was saying that criticizing the government is OK... that's more ironic than an Alanis Morisette tune... A little TOO ironic for me...

Did anyone actually see the black X with your own two eyes? On live television? i think this story was a hoax. it was either propagated by right-wing blogs, or the corporate media is all but denying that it ever happened. i will attempt to prove it.

according to the blogosphere, according to the major network newsmedia, it apparently never happened. the only place you will find coverage of this controversial event is in the blogosphere. search for "black x cnn dick cheney fox abc cbs nbc" on Google and in over 329,000 matches, it does not return but 3 or 4 links to a major news network... here are the top 10 URLs that the search returns on google:

dailypundit.com
worldnetdaily.com
drudgereport.com
thepoliticalteen.net
shopmetrospy.com
jokaroo.com
despardes.com
pandagon.net
www.katu.com
whatshappeningatcnn.blogspot.com

katu.com is ABC affiliate station from portland oregon broadcast cnn's "apology". they post no link to cnn.com substantiating the apology. there is no proof that cnn actually responded... KATU is owned by Fisher Communications, who does own several CBS and ABC affiliate stations and several AM and FM stations in the pacific northwest.

several thousand links down, there is a link to abcnews.go.com:
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=1340823
it's the same story as you'll find on katu.com--with no link to CNN.com to substantiate that CNN recognizes that this apology ever happened. http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=81349

whatshappeningatcnn.com only has the fabricated apology from CNN--no story about the original event... they link to broadcastingcable.com as the source for their information. however, the source that they provide: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA443557.html?display=Breaking+News&referral=supp -- provides no information whatsoever about the black X over cheney's face. it's talking about a CNN producer dropping the f-bomb during the democratic convention when some baloons didn't drop at the right time...

nothing on fox.com or foxnews.com, nothing on bbc.com, nothing on alternet.org. msn.com barely touches on it--also just returning ONE page that's just the bogus apology--which they claim is from the associated press. ap.org does not have anything listed for the story. perhaps it's in their pay archives, but even if it was there--the story has no link to a statement on cnn.com. the apology--the only thing the corporate news media reported on--is not substantiated by the broadcaster. don't you think that's the ONE thing they would want to get their proper PR spin on??

CNN doesn't even care enough to respond to it themselves. in all likelihood, they did not make the apology because the black X over cheney's face did not happen. unless someone credible saw it with their own two eyes and/or has video of the event, i think that either the entire thing did not happen at all... or the corporate news media is doing their best to pretend that it didn't.

State of the Union Clarifications

Wow, what a complete load of crap... But as I don't have all day to dissect it, I'll offer two points of clarification--on energy. What Bush said was that we would reduce by 75% the amount oil that we get from the Middle East by 2025... Let's look at what this really means...

If he had said "we will reduce our oil imports by 75% by the year 2025" that would be something to talk about... But he did NOT say that we would reduce our oil imports by 75%. Nor did he say that we would aim to reduce consumption by even 1%.

Out of 14 million barrels per day of imported oil in 2005, approximately 3 million came from the Persian Gulf. EIA Source. That's about 20% of our total oil imports. So, by 2025, we are supposedly going to reduce that number by 75%. So in 20 years, we will only be importing 750 thousand barrels per day from the Middle East. However, domestic production will likely be in the realm of 6-7 million barrels per day or less by then and we will have to increase imports from elsewhere. Canada, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc... This move does nothing to break our oil addiction. It only says that we will buy less from the dealers that we don't buy that much from as it is...

Bush also said that he wants to replace much of our gasoline with Ethanol... Let's look at some Ethanol facts... You get approximately 35% more energy from Ethanol than it takes to produce the Ethanol in the first place. Or, if you want to use the numbers from Ethanol.org, you get 77% more energy than you put in. For the sake of argument, let's average out the two numbers, and say you get 50% more energy than you put in. Sounds pretty good. So lets say that we wanted to run a 90/10 gasoline/ethanol mix in the US. We use 146 billion gallons of gasoline each year (source). In order to replace 10% of that gasoline with ethanol, we would need 14.6 billion gallons of ethanol. This would require about 4.5 billion bushels of corn (one bushel of corn = about 3.25 gallons of ethanol (source). The US currently produces about 10 billion bushels per year. So we're talking about 45% of our domestic corn production (most of which feeds our cattle) now going towards energy... Other feedstocks will be used (sugarcane, switchgrass, wood, etc), but corn will be doing most of the work. So in this way we would displace 14.6 billion gallons of gasoline with ethanol (roughly speaking - a gallon of ethanol contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline).

Remember though--just because the net energy gain is positive doesn't mean it doesn't take fossil fuel energy to make the ethanol. So you can't just take that 14.6 billion gallons and write it off as energy profit... Assuming a 50% net energy gain on Ethanol, the net savings is about 5 billion gallons of gasoline if all of the gasoline we sold were sold as an E-10 blend. So this would correspond to about a 3.5% savings in total gasoline usage. To reduce 35% of our gasoline usage with ethanol, we'd have to increase corn, switchgrass, and sugarcane production by about 500%, and find something else entirely to feed our cattle with. We'd need what, about 2 or 3 times the amount of arable land that we currently have in all of the USA devoted to feedstock to replace just 1/3rd of our domestic gasoline usage with ethanol? Doesn't seem like a very good solution to me... A small step in the right direction at this point in the game is FAR too little and much too late.