The corporate media is praying for Monday to bring an indictment against people who were associated with Trump and that the indictment will show Russia collusion with the Trump campaign. I'm going to tell you why this will not happen.
Let us presume that Trump paid Russian hookers to piss on a bed that Obama had slept in. Guess what, that would not be a crime. Let us assume that Trump had sex with Vladimir Putin, told him he loved him and Putin said he would give $7,000 for Facebook ads calling out Hillary Clinton. That would not be a crime either. Mueller can only seek indictments for legal crimes, not ethical questions. Unless Mueller can prove that someone in the Trump administration paid to have the DNC server hacked, there is no crime related to Russia. That is not going to happen.
Monday we will be told who is being indicted and for what. If someone gets indicted for tax evasion or anything not related to Russia and Trump doing something illegal then we have to ask ourselves a simple question. Why do we need a special prosecutor and why has that prosecutor wasted so much money to go after tax evaders, isn't that what the IRS is for?
The corporate media is claiming that Mueller can look into anything; but, the reality is that he can only indict for crimes. That is what prosecutors do. Prosecutors are not moral arbitrators. Lets say that Donald Trump Jr. and Kushner met with a Russian who actually had dirt on Hillary, guess what, not a crime. Talking to Russians is not a crime. Receiving information about an opponent is not a crime. I hate to say it but the DNC and Hillary paying $9 million to a retired British agent to get dirt on Trump is not a crime either.
The question for Monday will be simple. What CRIMES is Mueller investigating? Collusion is the act of working together, it is only illegal when it is a criminal conspiracy which means there must be a crime. Firing Comey is not a crime because Comey said that he was not investigating Trump and he said it to Trump, he admitted that.
The corporate media has gotten way ahead of itself on this and most people don't understand the law so the media joyously spins theories; but, they can't make something a crime that is not. The one person who could be prosecuted for a crime is the Podestas as they failed to register as working for foreign companies; but, I don't think that will happen. If it does, if Mueller actually got an indictment for that crime both Republicans and Democrats will flip out and you will see the Democrats call for Mueller's removal; but, Trump will be able to say that he doesn't think the special prosecutor should be removed for doing his job no matter where the chips fall. Stay tuned.
UPDATE:
There is something I forgot to mention. The famous Trump "dossier" that was prepared for Hillary and the DNC doesn't claim Trump committed any crimes. Somehow this is forgotten by people. What it claims is that Trump did not have any business deals in Russia, that Trump paid hookers to pee on a bed that the Obama's slept in at a hotel in Russia and that Russia had sexual dirt on Trump. Trump is not accused of a crime in the dossier. It does claim that Russia has been supplying him with information for six years; but, again that is not a crime. The point is even if we were to assume that the dossier was correct, it does not support any criminal charges against Trump.
UPDATE 2:
And we are given nothing. Paul Manafort is charged with tax fraud and hiding money overseas. Both things which occurred years ago and have nothing to do with Trump. What a shock. Here is the actual indictment.
SCRIBD - Manafort - Gates Indictment.
Of particular note, the indictment claims that Manafort lied to his tax preparer and his attorney. You are probably wondering why. Mueller did not want to charge the tax preparer or his attorney as that would look even worse.
Sunday, October 29, 2017
Friday, October 27, 2017
Russia, Clinton, Whitefish and Puerto Rico
After it came out that Clinton paid a foreign agent (Steele through Fusion GPS) to make up dirt on Trump (see previous post), the corporate media decided to turn their attention elsewhere. The new "big story" is about a company called Whitefish that has been hired to assist in rebuilding Puerto Rico's electrical grid. While a complete rebuild is believed to cost over $20 billion, Whitefish is only getting $300 million. This means that there will be more contracts down the road for lots more money.
The contract is between Puerto Rico and Whitefish and does not involve the United States government. It is basically a time and materials contract. The most pertinent aspect of the contract is that it provides that Whitefish will receive NO payments until after services have been rendered. Claims that they will get $300 million and not have to prove they did anything is a bald faced lie. In addition, the hourly cost for services is layed out in great detail in the attached exhibits, down to how much will be paid by hour for tree trimming (this is also called line clearance in the industry as it involves removing tree branches from around electrical lines). The rates are not the amount paid to the laborers; but, also include overhead, per diem and all other associated costs. Here is the actual contract.
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority and Whitefish Contract.
Independent - Puerto Rico and Whitefish Energy defend $300m deal to repair island's power grid ravaged by Hurricane Maria. The governor is quoted in the article saying, "“Of those (contractors) who met the requirements and aggressive schedules to bring brigades, one was asking for a substantial amount of money - which PREPA had no liquidity for - and another did not require it,” Rossello said. “That other one is Whitefish.”
There could be something dirty in the deal; but, either Puerto Rico could pay in advance or they couldn't and needed a company to upfront the cash. Whitefish is part of a holding company and they will have to find the money which oddly enough is what holding companies do.
The contract is between Puerto Rico and Whitefish and does not involve the United States government. It is basically a time and materials contract. The most pertinent aspect of the contract is that it provides that Whitefish will receive NO payments until after services have been rendered. Claims that they will get $300 million and not have to prove they did anything is a bald faced lie. In addition, the hourly cost for services is layed out in great detail in the attached exhibits, down to how much will be paid by hour for tree trimming (this is also called line clearance in the industry as it involves removing tree branches from around electrical lines). The rates are not the amount paid to the laborers; but, also include overhead, per diem and all other associated costs. Here is the actual contract.
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority and Whitefish Contract.
Independent - Puerto Rico and Whitefish Energy defend $300m deal to repair island's power grid ravaged by Hurricane Maria. The governor is quoted in the article saying, "“Of those (contractors) who met the requirements and aggressive schedules to bring brigades, one was asking for a substantial amount of money - which PREPA had no liquidity for - and another did not require it,” Rossello said. “That other one is Whitefish.”
There could be something dirty in the deal; but, either Puerto Rico could pay in advance or they couldn't and needed a company to upfront the cash. Whitefish is part of a holding company and they will have to find the money which oddly enough is what holding companies do.
Thursday, October 26, 2017
Clinton, Russia and Trump
There is a lot in the news abut the fact that Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid $9 million for a sleazy report on Trump. It can get confusing so here is a quick summary and timeline of what occurred as far as we know today.
The story begins a few years ago when Hillary Clinton was still Secretary of State. Russia wanted to purchase nuclear transportation assets and a percentage of our Uranium rights. In furtherance of this it appears that Russia was suspected and investigated for bribery and kickbacks to get these contracts and our governments approval to make the purchase of the uranium rights. After Hillary approved the deal the Clinton foundation received $140 million from Russia and Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 personally for speaking in Russia.
Now we move ahead to the election. As she was preparing to run for President, one person working for Hillary was asked to survey to find her biggest vulnerability. The answer came back, "Russia" when people were told that she had authorized the sale of Uranium to them and how the Clinton Foundation got the $140 million. That was specifically stated in an e-mail to her campaign on June 26, 2015. An email to John Podesta from brentbbi@webtv.net dated 12/21/15 suggested that they go after Trump as being in a bromance with Putin..
According to the law firm that represents Hillary, Perkins Coie LLP, they were approached by Fusion GPS in March of 2016 which claimed to have previously been collecting dirt on Trump for a Republican who no longer needed it. While we do not know who the Republican was, it may well have been the Bush campaign as they had the funds to do it and this dossier did not come cheap. The law firm contacted their clients at the DNC and in Hillary's campaign and the Hillary campaign agreed to hire Fusion GPS in April.
Perkins Coie - Fusion GPS. This is a statement from the attorneys that hired Fusion GPS for the Clinton campaign. Thc contract with Fusion ended just before the election in November of that year and the DNC and Hillary's campaign paid almost $9 million for the report and investigation. That is a lot to pay for a document that could not be verified by anyone and in fact neither the DNC or Hillary Clinton ever used any of the information because they couldn't prove it either. The FBI, CIA and NSA all looked into it and couldn't verify it. What we do know is that much of it has been proven 100% wrong as it relates to specific individuals and where and when they were.
Fusion GPS then began shopping for some way to make a couple of more bucks off the story. They shopped it to a whole bunch of media organizations and others; but, no buyers. On January 10, 2017 after Hillary lost the election, Buzzfeed published the documents. Buzzfeed - These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia.
Trump Dossier.
On January 6, 2017 Congress certified the electoral college results and Trump was made President. Trump was sworn into office on January 20, 2017. I want you to understand the timeframe. The electoral college gives the election to Trump, Congress certifies the results on January 6th and the dossier is published on January 10th. After it was published there were calls for preventing Trump to be sworn in.
Since the release of the report Hillary and the DNC constantly denied any involvement; but, according to the attorney who represented them in hiring Gusion GPS was a lie. It should be noted that according to the dossier, the people who Hillary and the DNC hired worked directly with the Russians to create the report. One might say they colluded together.
We are now being told that neither Podesta nor Hillary knew that they had paid for this document. Well, who had authority to authorize a $9 million dollar campaign expense without getting approval from Hillary Clinton. I mean it is a lot of money for a poorly written report.
The story begins a few years ago when Hillary Clinton was still Secretary of State. Russia wanted to purchase nuclear transportation assets and a percentage of our Uranium rights. In furtherance of this it appears that Russia was suspected and investigated for bribery and kickbacks to get these contracts and our governments approval to make the purchase of the uranium rights. After Hillary approved the deal the Clinton foundation received $140 million from Russia and Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 personally for speaking in Russia.
Now we move ahead to the election. As she was preparing to run for President, one person working for Hillary was asked to survey to find her biggest vulnerability. The answer came back, "Russia" when people were told that she had authorized the sale of Uranium to them and how the Clinton Foundation got the $140 million. That was specifically stated in an e-mail to her campaign on June 26, 2015. An email to John Podesta from brentbbi@webtv.net dated 12/21/15 suggested that they go after Trump as being in a bromance with Putin..
According to the law firm that represents Hillary, Perkins Coie LLP, they were approached by Fusion GPS in March of 2016 which claimed to have previously been collecting dirt on Trump for a Republican who no longer needed it. While we do not know who the Republican was, it may well have been the Bush campaign as they had the funds to do it and this dossier did not come cheap. The law firm contacted their clients at the DNC and in Hillary's campaign and the Hillary campaign agreed to hire Fusion GPS in April.
Perkins Coie - Fusion GPS. This is a statement from the attorneys that hired Fusion GPS for the Clinton campaign. Thc contract with Fusion ended just before the election in November of that year and the DNC and Hillary's campaign paid almost $9 million for the report and investigation. That is a lot to pay for a document that could not be verified by anyone and in fact neither the DNC or Hillary Clinton ever used any of the information because they couldn't prove it either. The FBI, CIA and NSA all looked into it and couldn't verify it. What we do know is that much of it has been proven 100% wrong as it relates to specific individuals and where and when they were.
Fusion GPS then began shopping for some way to make a couple of more bucks off the story. They shopped it to a whole bunch of media organizations and others; but, no buyers. On January 10, 2017 after Hillary lost the election, Buzzfeed published the documents. Buzzfeed - These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia.
Trump Dossier.
On January 6, 2017 Congress certified the electoral college results and Trump was made President. Trump was sworn into office on January 20, 2017. I want you to understand the timeframe. The electoral college gives the election to Trump, Congress certifies the results on January 6th and the dossier is published on January 10th. After it was published there were calls for preventing Trump to be sworn in.
Since the release of the report Hillary and the DNC constantly denied any involvement; but, according to the attorney who represented them in hiring Gusion GPS was a lie. It should be noted that according to the dossier, the people who Hillary and the DNC hired worked directly with the Russians to create the report. One might say they colluded together.
We are now being told that neither Podesta nor Hillary knew that they had paid for this document. Well, who had authority to authorize a $9 million dollar campaign expense without getting approval from Hillary Clinton. I mean it is a lot of money for a poorly written report.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
YouTube Comments
The Pimpernel has been leaving comments on YouTube for about two months now. Not many, just a few. While one might expect that I have received tremendous hate, in fact, I find the whiners tend to go away really quickly when faced with actual discussion.
I point out simple things like I do on this blog. I point out that neither Trump, nor gay marriage, nor blacks, nor Jews, nor Muslims, nor abortionists, nor junkies, nor Mexicans trashed our economy. That was done by the Clintons, the Bushes and Obama. The same is true of who was responsible for all of the wars in the last 30 years. That basic fact is what nobody want's to discuss if they represent the establishment of either party.
We are all being nailed to crosses by the oligarchs that run this place and we are arguing over who has it worse. Simple math seems to allude the establishment in their narrative. In the last decade ALL of the new economic gains in the United States has gone to the top 1% and that is misleading because the vast majority of those gains were by the top .01%. Most of America is white; but, 99.9% of white Americans have not made any gains in the last 40 years. This is called math. People should use it when having discussions. If this nation is truly racist and protecting the interest of white people, they are doing a really bad job of it. The problem is not racism, it is the fact that a very few people own this country and don't want to share in the wealth it has created for all.
I love watching commenters on YouTube make the assumption I am a conservative. I've got a decade of posts that explain that I am socialist. I have written that if you don't pay your taxes, they take your house and put you in jail; but, if a corporation doesn't pay their taxes and hides it overseas, we offer to reduce the amount they pay in taxes. My answer is to nationalize those companies and take the taxes. Those companies are okay with you losing your house for not paying taxes. Does that really sound like a conservative?
There is no left and no right. The Democrats and Republicans are both the party of the wealthy, they just differ on social issues. Be afraid of what unites them, not the meaningless that divides them. The owner of sheep does not like the males more than the females, they are merely cattle.
Trump has confused the wealthy. During the election one billionaire offered Trump $1 billion to quit the race. You can look that up, I am not even sure if I wrote about it at the time. They are not afraid of Trump, they are afraid of everyone else, the middle class, the working class. They afraid that we might respond to their class warfare, that we might revolt over their crashing the economy and stealing all those houses and retirement funds. Those two crashes (housing and stock) were the single thefts in history and it was a conspiracy and it was planned and I have proven that with math in previous posts from that time.
The question is why cannot they figure out that I am leftist on YouTube? Why do they assume I am a conservative if I point out that the media is lying about Trump? Most Sanders supporters will give you the exact same answer, he was cheated, Hillary cheated and took questions in advance before the debates. 1/3 of the delegates had committed to Hillary before the first primary had been held. They don't want people to point these things out and accuse us of being deplorables and Republicans to say that we want to divide and for people to have less. I call for people having more and uniting. We can give everybody a job and we can feed everybody if we want to, the labor is there and the materials are there. The wealthy fear that everyone in the world will become 1970s middle class. An empowered middle class is the scariest thing in the world to aristocracies and oligarchies, to the one's in charge. They fear that you might stop believing that people can be born slaves or into debt?
I should also point out that I am in fact working on my story about the Rat Pack and vampires. I am actually doing it as a straight drama. After I get the story straight I will do the humor. That was what I decided today and it is changing the plotline in a good way.
I point out simple things like I do on this blog. I point out that neither Trump, nor gay marriage, nor blacks, nor Jews, nor Muslims, nor abortionists, nor junkies, nor Mexicans trashed our economy. That was done by the Clintons, the Bushes and Obama. The same is true of who was responsible for all of the wars in the last 30 years. That basic fact is what nobody want's to discuss if they represent the establishment of either party.
We are all being nailed to crosses by the oligarchs that run this place and we are arguing over who has it worse. Simple math seems to allude the establishment in their narrative. In the last decade ALL of the new economic gains in the United States has gone to the top 1% and that is misleading because the vast majority of those gains were by the top .01%. Most of America is white; but, 99.9% of white Americans have not made any gains in the last 40 years. This is called math. People should use it when having discussions. If this nation is truly racist and protecting the interest of white people, they are doing a really bad job of it. The problem is not racism, it is the fact that a very few people own this country and don't want to share in the wealth it has created for all.
I love watching commenters on YouTube make the assumption I am a conservative. I've got a decade of posts that explain that I am socialist. I have written that if you don't pay your taxes, they take your house and put you in jail; but, if a corporation doesn't pay their taxes and hides it overseas, we offer to reduce the amount they pay in taxes. My answer is to nationalize those companies and take the taxes. Those companies are okay with you losing your house for not paying taxes. Does that really sound like a conservative?
There is no left and no right. The Democrats and Republicans are both the party of the wealthy, they just differ on social issues. Be afraid of what unites them, not the meaningless that divides them. The owner of sheep does not like the males more than the females, they are merely cattle.
Trump has confused the wealthy. During the election one billionaire offered Trump $1 billion to quit the race. You can look that up, I am not even sure if I wrote about it at the time. They are not afraid of Trump, they are afraid of everyone else, the middle class, the working class. They afraid that we might respond to their class warfare, that we might revolt over their crashing the economy and stealing all those houses and retirement funds. Those two crashes (housing and stock) were the single thefts in history and it was a conspiracy and it was planned and I have proven that with math in previous posts from that time.
The question is why cannot they figure out that I am leftist on YouTube? Why do they assume I am a conservative if I point out that the media is lying about Trump? Most Sanders supporters will give you the exact same answer, he was cheated, Hillary cheated and took questions in advance before the debates. 1/3 of the delegates had committed to Hillary before the first primary had been held. They don't want people to point these things out and accuse us of being deplorables and Republicans to say that we want to divide and for people to have less. I call for people having more and uniting. We can give everybody a job and we can feed everybody if we want to, the labor is there and the materials are there. The wealthy fear that everyone in the world will become 1970s middle class. An empowered middle class is the scariest thing in the world to aristocracies and oligarchies, to the one's in charge. They fear that you might stop believing that people can be born slaves or into debt?
I should also point out that I am in fact working on my story about the Rat Pack and vampires. I am actually doing it as a straight drama. After I get the story straight I will do the humor. That was what I decided today and it is changing the plotline in a good way.
Monday, October 23, 2017
People Don't Trust the Media and the Media Reacts by Attacking the People
Politico - Poll: 46 percent think media make up stories about Trump.
The media has been hyping the need to restrict freedom of speech at colleges and on the internet, at the same time the media is horrified at the thought that the FCC might actually take away broadcasts licenses. Taking away broadcast licenses is not censorship. Let me explain.
Broadcast licenses only apply to radio and television. There are a limited number of airwaves. Because of this the FCC was created to regulate who got to use which airwave. Not all broadcasters can use channel 2 at the same time over the air. We cannot create more broadcast waves for radio or television. We can have as many cable channels as we want and those are not regulated. Because there are a limited number of radio waves for radio stations and television stations to use, we require that those who are given licenses to use the airwaves must work in the public good.
The corporate mainstream media is advocating censoring what you can say using the internet and overturning the election through impeachment. They are against both free speech and democracy. Does this bother you? It should. They are for abortion and against free speech. How much do they really believe in personal choice? Or only choices they like. They will defend my right to cut off my penis and call myself a woman; but, not my right to criticize that choice in others.
Look, if I went in to a doctor and said I was armed man trapped in a two armed body, would it be okay for him to remove one of my perfectly healthy arms? He would be arrested. Now, if (like Christina Applegate) I had a family history of breast cancer and chose to remove a breast that exhibited no signs of cancer, would that be okay? Most would probably say yes.
On the one hand we can view this as a legal question; but, we can also view it is a rights issue. For me, I don't ask what right I have, I ask when does society have the right to tell me what to do. Society needs to justify control, I don't have to prove I have a right. That's why the bill of rights was not in the original constitution. They believed you had to justify society controlling anything people did.
If something is legal to say in person than it should be legal to say using email or social media, even racist or offensive garbage. I don't believe we can outlaw suicide or racism. I don't believe we can prevent people from cutting their penises off or their arms. I think people that wish to do so have psychological issues and need to work on accepting themselves as they are.
We can go to this question. Do I believe that fat people who wish to lose weight are crazy like people who want to have healthy body parts removed. My answer is nope. Losing weight is not losing healthy parts, it is the opposite, it is improving health.
We are told we are being overrun by Klansmen and Nazis. Where? I haven't seen them except for a couple dozen in frickin Charlottesville. They got shut down quick. I'm old, I remember the Klan marching in states across the US. I remember segregated bathrooms. I remember when George Wallace ran for President. I went to one of the first schools in California to have forced bussing and was friends with kids that got bussed in. I remember what I experienced and saw and I remember when everyone told jokes about blacks and pollocks and ginnies and micks and women. I remember those times and kids, this aint nothing like that. Ask a 60 year old black man if things have changed or not in regards to racism. Does it still exist, hell yeah. Is it growing, hell no. Think gays are treated worse, guess again, they used to go to jail for having sex with other men, for real.
The media views their job as scaring the left, not the right, they want to scare liberals. The boogeyman they have chosen is Nazis and Klansmen. What they are afraid of more than anything else is progressives who want to deal with the economy and economic class issues. If the liberals go after economic issues they would find a friend in Trump supporters and that is what scares them. Trump refused to sign the TPP, Hillary was gong to sign it and Sanders thought it should not be signed. The only people against the TPP that ran for President were Trump, Sanders and Paul. That's it. The TPP would have given corporations to make international legal decisions. Businesses would have true legal authority over governments and democracy would not be allowed to have a say. Why do you think the Democratic party officials are still attacking Sanders supporters?
This should not surprise anyone; but, apparently it surprises the corporate mainstream media. Since the beginning of the last election cycle almost two years ago, this blog has reported on how the media has pushed propaganda to support a corporate agenda. While the vast majority of what the media has been doing is dishonest in spinning context while intentionally leaving out critical information (such as the WikiLeaks information) there have also been clear examples of outright fabrication. Remember when we were told that the Russians had hacked our electrical grid? Yeah, and that turned out to be 100% made up.
This is not good; but, it is the media's fault. It is not a left or right thing, it is just what happens when you have a monopolistic media (6 companies owning 90% of all the media) with a corporate globalist agenda. Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone wrote a whole article saying that the media's insistence on pushing a false Russia narrative was going to hurt their trust among the citizens almost a year ago.
The media has been hyping the need to restrict freedom of speech at colleges and on the internet, at the same time the media is horrified at the thought that the FCC might actually take away broadcasts licenses. Taking away broadcast licenses is not censorship. Let me explain.
Broadcast licenses only apply to radio and television. There are a limited number of airwaves. Because of this the FCC was created to regulate who got to use which airwave. Not all broadcasters can use channel 2 at the same time over the air. We cannot create more broadcast waves for radio or television. We can have as many cable channels as we want and those are not regulated. Because there are a limited number of radio waves for radio stations and television stations to use, we require that those who are given licenses to use the airwaves must work in the public good.
The corporate mainstream media is advocating censoring what you can say using the internet and overturning the election through impeachment. They are against both free speech and democracy. Does this bother you? It should. They are for abortion and against free speech. How much do they really believe in personal choice? Or only choices they like. They will defend my right to cut off my penis and call myself a woman; but, not my right to criticize that choice in others.
Look, if I went in to a doctor and said I was armed man trapped in a two armed body, would it be okay for him to remove one of my perfectly healthy arms? He would be arrested. Now, if (like Christina Applegate) I had a family history of breast cancer and chose to remove a breast that exhibited no signs of cancer, would that be okay? Most would probably say yes.
On the one hand we can view this as a legal question; but, we can also view it is a rights issue. For me, I don't ask what right I have, I ask when does society have the right to tell me what to do. Society needs to justify control, I don't have to prove I have a right. That's why the bill of rights was not in the original constitution. They believed you had to justify society controlling anything people did.
If something is legal to say in person than it should be legal to say using email or social media, even racist or offensive garbage. I don't believe we can outlaw suicide or racism. I don't believe we can prevent people from cutting their penises off or their arms. I think people that wish to do so have psychological issues and need to work on accepting themselves as they are.
We can go to this question. Do I believe that fat people who wish to lose weight are crazy like people who want to have healthy body parts removed. My answer is nope. Losing weight is not losing healthy parts, it is the opposite, it is improving health.
We are told we are being overrun by Klansmen and Nazis. Where? I haven't seen them except for a couple dozen in frickin Charlottesville. They got shut down quick. I'm old, I remember the Klan marching in states across the US. I remember segregated bathrooms. I remember when George Wallace ran for President. I went to one of the first schools in California to have forced bussing and was friends with kids that got bussed in. I remember what I experienced and saw and I remember when everyone told jokes about blacks and pollocks and ginnies and micks and women. I remember those times and kids, this aint nothing like that. Ask a 60 year old black man if things have changed or not in regards to racism. Does it still exist, hell yeah. Is it growing, hell no. Think gays are treated worse, guess again, they used to go to jail for having sex with other men, for real.
The media views their job as scaring the left, not the right, they want to scare liberals. The boogeyman they have chosen is Nazis and Klansmen. What they are afraid of more than anything else is progressives who want to deal with the economy and economic class issues. If the liberals go after economic issues they would find a friend in Trump supporters and that is what scares them. Trump refused to sign the TPP, Hillary was gong to sign it and Sanders thought it should not be signed. The only people against the TPP that ran for President were Trump, Sanders and Paul. That's it. The TPP would have given corporations to make international legal decisions. Businesses would have true legal authority over governments and democracy would not be allowed to have a say. Why do you think the Democratic party officials are still attacking Sanders supporters?
Saturday, October 21, 2017
Labor, Purpose and Wealth.
We have enough food to feed everyone on earth; but, we do not. We have enough resources to clothe and provide shelter for everyone on earth; but, we don't do that either. We have enough things that we can achieve that we do not need 99.9999% of us to be poor and could make most productive; but, we don't want to do that.
Let's talk about what we could do. We have more than enough minerals and the technology to send us to Mars and beyond. That is not a guess, it is a fact and the fact that we have put men on the moon and sent a spaceship beyond our own solar system says we could do what we want in this arena. We have more than enough people to create a whole industry to put us further into space and improve our infrastructure in any ways we want. Why don't we? What is stopping us?
People who don't understand the illusion of money wealth will say we cannot afford it? Why not, we can print all the money we want and we allocate the resources as we agree to? You will probably not understand the first few times you read it. Money is merely a promise of future labor or materials in exchange for labor or materials today. Money is nothing more than a contract. In and of itself cash has very limited value, it has no intrinsic worth. This becomes real clear during times of hyperinflation. After the south lost the civil war, what was the difference in value between a confederate dollar and a confederate 100 dollar note? None, they were both worth a penny of United States currency and only as an amusement. All of the promises that had been backed up by that cash were voided.
When I got divorced the court said that I got all of our debt (including the debt she acquired while taking her boyfriend to hotels and restaurants as she was cheating on me). The court voided and promises she had made to me (such as being faithful); but, made sure our joint debt was still paid, only by me alone. The government can pick and choose which debts must be met. Why would anyone support a system that only benefits a few, like .001%?
You know in the bible God told the Israelites that all debts had to be extinguished every 7 years. Of course he also said that it was wrong to charge interest? You know what the problem of charging interest is? It means that the value of what you have given changes, that the promise that is made when you get paid in cash does not need to be kept.
We have seen a decrease in the cash value of labor for the past 40 years and an increase in the cost of materials during that same period. Materials are becoming move valuable as labor is becoming less valuable. At the same time minerals are actually becoming cheaper to mine. That is why all the benefit is going to a very few people, the people we allow to own all the minerals and equipment that we as a society have built.
I shall ask it again, how is it possibly right that someone could be born and be entitled to nothing while another can be born entitled to everything, including the life of the one born in debt? Why should anyone accept that they are not entitled to some part of this earth?
There are no rules. There are no laws. There is only common agreement based on mutual benefit. When that common agreement is violated, there is no longer a valid government. This is called the "social contract" in political science. The question of whether or not I should care about any "law" (agreement by others to control me). If you think I am a libertarian, communist, or anything else you are both right and wrong. The only question for a society is how should we organize ourselves to benefit all of us to the fairest and greatest extent possible. Money (promise of labor or material) is supposed to be a tool to achieve that goal; but, we don't use it that way anymore.
Let's talk about what we could do. We have more than enough minerals and the technology to send us to Mars and beyond. That is not a guess, it is a fact and the fact that we have put men on the moon and sent a spaceship beyond our own solar system says we could do what we want in this arena. We have more than enough people to create a whole industry to put us further into space and improve our infrastructure in any ways we want. Why don't we? What is stopping us?
People who don't understand the illusion of money wealth will say we cannot afford it? Why not, we can print all the money we want and we allocate the resources as we agree to? You will probably not understand the first few times you read it. Money is merely a promise of future labor or materials in exchange for labor or materials today. Money is nothing more than a contract. In and of itself cash has very limited value, it has no intrinsic worth. This becomes real clear during times of hyperinflation. After the south lost the civil war, what was the difference in value between a confederate dollar and a confederate 100 dollar note? None, they were both worth a penny of United States currency and only as an amusement. All of the promises that had been backed up by that cash were voided.
When I got divorced the court said that I got all of our debt (including the debt she acquired while taking her boyfriend to hotels and restaurants as she was cheating on me). The court voided and promises she had made to me (such as being faithful); but, made sure our joint debt was still paid, only by me alone. The government can pick and choose which debts must be met. Why would anyone support a system that only benefits a few, like .001%?
You know in the bible God told the Israelites that all debts had to be extinguished every 7 years. Of course he also said that it was wrong to charge interest? You know what the problem of charging interest is? It means that the value of what you have given changes, that the promise that is made when you get paid in cash does not need to be kept.
We have seen a decrease in the cash value of labor for the past 40 years and an increase in the cost of materials during that same period. Materials are becoming move valuable as labor is becoming less valuable. At the same time minerals are actually becoming cheaper to mine. That is why all the benefit is going to a very few people, the people we allow to own all the minerals and equipment that we as a society have built.
I shall ask it again, how is it possibly right that someone could be born and be entitled to nothing while another can be born entitled to everything, including the life of the one born in debt? Why should anyone accept that they are not entitled to some part of this earth?
There are no rules. There are no laws. There is only common agreement based on mutual benefit. When that common agreement is violated, there is no longer a valid government. This is called the "social contract" in political science. The question of whether or not I should care about any "law" (agreement by others to control me). If you think I am a libertarian, communist, or anything else you are both right and wrong. The only question for a society is how should we organize ourselves to benefit all of us to the fairest and greatest extent possible. Money (promise of labor or material) is supposed to be a tool to achieve that goal; but, we don't use it that way anymore.
News Dump Friday. LOL. Good stuff going on you should know about.
No fancy post today, just cleaning up all the articles that I have been saving for you.
Fortune - Paris Wants to Ban the Combustion Engine by 2030. Yes, the City of Paris, not the country or province is making this decision on their own.
Fortune - France to Ban Sale of Gas Vehicles by 2040. Here is a line from this article, "The announcement follows Volvo’s announcement on Wednesday that it planned to cease making gas-powered cars and trucks and would instead only make electronic and hybrid vehicles starting in 2019."
Bloomberg - California Considers Following China With Combustion-Engine Car Ban. It might be a really bad time to invest in a new gas station.
Bloomberg - U.K. Joins France, Says Goodbye to Fossil-Fuel Cars by 2040. Don't worry, you won't have to think about this too much because you are never going to get a chance to vote on it.
The Sacramento Bee - California secessionists think their path to independence is easier than Catalonia’s. California is not going to secede. The money behind this is the tech industry, they don't want to be taxed.
MSN - Bloomberg - This country has plenty of jobs. Where are all the workers? Here is the narrative they are attempting to sell. Sweden has taken in hundreds of thousands of migrants; but, still can't fill their jobs. Somehow I don't think bringing I more unskilled Arab workers is going to fix this problem. Many of the migrants, if not most, do not speak or write Swedish.
Washintonian - The Washington Post’s New Social Media Policy Forbids Disparaging Advertisers. Corporate media like the Washington Post, frequently call for censoring the internet and apparently even what their employees say on their own time; but, think it is outrageous that Trump thought the FCC (which is responsible for regulating the airwaves, not cable or the internet) should look at whether or not media conglomerates should have their licenses reviewed when they post knowingly false stories. The concept is that they want to regulate free speech unless they have approved it.
CNET - Jeffrey Katzenberg: Harvey Weinstein 'not a lone actor'. By paragraph two of the article it becomes about Trump.
MSN - Washington Post - Analysis | Longtime foes on foreign policy, McCain and Biden form alliance against Trumpism. For his part, McCain who has made his career pushing nationalism to get elected now says that nationalism is bad and we should be internationalist. While Biden (from a different article) who has long claimed to be for the average guy is now promoting elitism and says populism (democracy) is the problem. There is no left or right, just globalist working for international corporations.
Julia Reda - What the Commission found out about copyright infringement but ‘forgot’ to tell us. While the article is interesting as it pertains to copyright, the thing that stuck out for me was that the EU was considering requiring internet providers to use filters that prevent people from uploading material to the internet that hasn't been checked for copyright infringement. The same filter could be used to prevent other things from being uploaded.
Yahoo - Reuters - U.S. bill to regulate internet ads gains bipartisan support with McCain. McCain is so full of it. Lets go back a bit. PC Magazine - McCain Bill Would Ban FCC Internet Regulations. That article is from 2009.
Huffington Post - What The Hell Was This Rachel Maddow Segment? I am not even going to comment. It is pretty bad when the uberliberal Huffington Post has to call out uberliberal Trump hating Rachel Maddow for making stuff up about him.
Yahoo - AFP - G7, tech giants agree on plan to block jihadist content online. Here is a line from the article, "While acknowledging progress had been made, Britain's Home Secretary Amber Rudd insisted "companies need to go further and faster to not only take down extremist content but also stop it being uploaded in the first place"." Now if all you read was this article, you might miss this line or the fact that the EU wants to regulate what you can upload as is pointed out in one of the articles above. They want to regulate copyright material and anything that is not acceptable in their eyes; but, the excuse is to fight terrorists.
I have never attempted to hide what I believe in on this blog. I will restate it. I believe in strong national borders, a flat income tax with no deductions, taxing inheritances (you really are not entitled to your parents money), free trade or college education for all, universal healthcare, nationalizing any company that refuses to return it's taxes to the US, freedom of speech (on and off the internet using the same legal precedent - you cannot libel people or engage in a criminal conspiracy) and that we should have a new WPA (government jobs for all rebuilding our infrastructure and building the infrastructure of the future, including sending people to Mars). I believe in reasonable gun control, I do believe people have a right to own guns for hunting and self protection (even though I am a pacifist). I was against the war in Iraq. I have written about all of these things, except the Mars thing, I am going to post on that soon enough. I doubt very much that Trump would agree with me on most of these items; but, I will continue to call out the oligarchical media for lying about him. Read my next post about labor.
Fortune - Paris Wants to Ban the Combustion Engine by 2030. Yes, the City of Paris, not the country or province is making this decision on their own.
Fortune - France to Ban Sale of Gas Vehicles by 2040. Here is a line from this article, "The announcement follows Volvo’s announcement on Wednesday that it planned to cease making gas-powered cars and trucks and would instead only make electronic and hybrid vehicles starting in 2019."
Bloomberg - California Considers Following China With Combustion-Engine Car Ban. It might be a really bad time to invest in a new gas station.
Bloomberg - U.K. Joins France, Says Goodbye to Fossil-Fuel Cars by 2040. Don't worry, you won't have to think about this too much because you are never going to get a chance to vote on it.
The Sacramento Bee - California secessionists think their path to independence is easier than Catalonia’s. California is not going to secede. The money behind this is the tech industry, they don't want to be taxed.
MSN - Bloomberg - This country has plenty of jobs. Where are all the workers? Here is the narrative they are attempting to sell. Sweden has taken in hundreds of thousands of migrants; but, still can't fill their jobs. Somehow I don't think bringing I more unskilled Arab workers is going to fix this problem. Many of the migrants, if not most, do not speak or write Swedish.
Washintonian - The Washington Post’s New Social Media Policy Forbids Disparaging Advertisers. Corporate media like the Washington Post, frequently call for censoring the internet and apparently even what their employees say on their own time; but, think it is outrageous that Trump thought the FCC (which is responsible for regulating the airwaves, not cable or the internet) should look at whether or not media conglomerates should have their licenses reviewed when they post knowingly false stories. The concept is that they want to regulate free speech unless they have approved it.
CNET - Jeffrey Katzenberg: Harvey Weinstein 'not a lone actor'. By paragraph two of the article it becomes about Trump.
MSN - Washington Post - Analysis | Longtime foes on foreign policy, McCain and Biden form alliance against Trumpism. For his part, McCain who has made his career pushing nationalism to get elected now says that nationalism is bad and we should be internationalist. While Biden (from a different article) who has long claimed to be for the average guy is now promoting elitism and says populism (democracy) is the problem. There is no left or right, just globalist working for international corporations.
Julia Reda - What the Commission found out about copyright infringement but ‘forgot’ to tell us. While the article is interesting as it pertains to copyright, the thing that stuck out for me was that the EU was considering requiring internet providers to use filters that prevent people from uploading material to the internet that hasn't been checked for copyright infringement. The same filter could be used to prevent other things from being uploaded.
Yahoo - Reuters - U.S. bill to regulate internet ads gains bipartisan support with McCain. McCain is so full of it. Lets go back a bit. PC Magazine - McCain Bill Would Ban FCC Internet Regulations. That article is from 2009.
Huffington Post - What The Hell Was This Rachel Maddow Segment? I am not even going to comment. It is pretty bad when the uberliberal Huffington Post has to call out uberliberal Trump hating Rachel Maddow for making stuff up about him.
Yahoo - AFP - G7, tech giants agree on plan to block jihadist content online. Here is a line from the article, "While acknowledging progress had been made, Britain's Home Secretary Amber Rudd insisted "companies need to go further and faster to not only take down extremist content but also stop it being uploaded in the first place"." Now if all you read was this article, you might miss this line or the fact that the EU wants to regulate what you can upload as is pointed out in one of the articles above. They want to regulate copyright material and anything that is not acceptable in their eyes; but, the excuse is to fight terrorists.
I have never attempted to hide what I believe in on this blog. I will restate it. I believe in strong national borders, a flat income tax with no deductions, taxing inheritances (you really are not entitled to your parents money), free trade or college education for all, universal healthcare, nationalizing any company that refuses to return it's taxes to the US, freedom of speech (on and off the internet using the same legal precedent - you cannot libel people or engage in a criminal conspiracy) and that we should have a new WPA (government jobs for all rebuilding our infrastructure and building the infrastructure of the future, including sending people to Mars). I believe in reasonable gun control, I do believe people have a right to own guns for hunting and self protection (even though I am a pacifist). I was against the war in Iraq. I have written about all of these things, except the Mars thing, I am going to post on that soon enough. I doubt very much that Trump would agree with me on most of these items; but, I will continue to call out the oligarchical media for lying about him. Read my next post about labor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)