Jeff Rense
[youtube=http://youtu.be/RwhMa-JsUbg&w=500]
Ronald Reagan
The Growth Of American Fascism: From LBJ To Obama
theIntelHub January 12 2013
“It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.”- David Hume
In the aftermath of the highly suspicious Sandy Hook incident, Americans have experienced a predictable escalation of the elite’s ongoing efforts to destroy their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
A disarmed civilian population has long been a principle ambition of the globalist elites. As patriots are well aware, an armed population is the last line of defense against tyranny.
It is of vital importance to the globalists that Americans be shorn of their means of defending themselves against the dystopian visionaries of the New World Order.
The globalist vision is one that has been passed down over time through each succeeding generation of the elite.
As James Warburg of the Council on Foreign Relations stated to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17, 1950, “We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent.”
Of course, a disarmed populace is much easier to conquer and therefore does not need to give consent to the neo-feudal rule of the NWO overlords. The American police state has continued to expand in an exponential way since Warburg spoke those words.
The elected officials supposedly charged with the task of preserving the constitutional rights of Americans have become ever more acquiescent to tyranny as the decades have passed. For instance, during the same year that Warburg proclaimed these sinister intentions, President Harry Truman, himself sympathetic to globalist designs in many ways, nevertheless vetoed the 1950 McCarran Act which would have allowed the indefinite detention of citizens without trial.
His successor President Eisenhower, himself connected to the Rockefeller internationalists, nevertheless criticized the growing dominance of American foreign policy by the merchants of death through the military-industrial complex.
Of course, the last American president to challenge the globalist agenda in any serious way was John F. Kennedy, whose quixotic efforts to halt the monetary dominance of the Federal Reserve cost him his life.
Subsequent U.S. presidents have learned well from the example that was made of Kennedy. It is no coincidence that it was JFK’s successor, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who presided over the unprecedented assault on the Second Amendment rights of Americans that came with the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Jon Rappoport ~ The Club Of Liberals, Transhumanism, Depopulation
nomorefakenews.com | January 25 2013
By liberals, I simply mean those people who accept big government as a given, regardless of their political affiliation.
And yes, at certain key levels, they are a club. They come from major media, large corporations, banks, the military, well-funded foundations, investment houses, do-good non-profits, legal and medical societies, academic factories, think tanks, and of course the huge pool of government employees.
For them, big, bigger, and biggest government is a rock-bottom assumption that requires no thought. The sun comes up every morning, and there is big government.
This assumption supersedes anything written in the US Constitution explicitly limiting the power of central authority.
Where there is conflict between that document and the actions of government, the Constitution automatically takes a back seat. It is looked upon as a primitive, ancient, and worn-out set of ideas.
In fact, the Club is surprised and shocked that anyone would try to impede government based on fanciful notions about powers reserved for the individual states, or readings of the 2nd Amendment.
Long ago, the Club decided that every statement made in the Constitution was subject to revision or outright dismissal, based on the arrogant concept that changing times require new measures and new solutions.
In their eyes, they are working with reality, whereas Constitutionalists have a quirky and disturbing obsession that clings to absolute Principle. If Principle isn’t a sign of a mental disorder, it at least indicates an unhealthy nostalgia about a fairy tale of days gone by.
The Club blithely assumes it has won its battle.
The Club is focused on what big government, in concert with its corporate allies, can do to further expand. This is where a disjunction of attitude occurs.
For some Club members, the mission of government is to do good, to give to those in need, no matter how many are in need or how much that need grows.
For other Club members, at higher levels, the massive giveaway and fulfilling of need is just a pose, a tactic to gain more adherents who will trade a great deal of their freedom for a little security.
But there is no debate within the Club about this matter. No one wants to rock the boat. Those at higher levels view the do-gooders within their ranks as useful and amusing dupes.
The do-gooders, if they glimpse the faces and intentions of the higher-ups, shrug it off, assuming that somehow, in the long run, the vision of “a shared and just world” will triumph, because the universe wants to make it so.
The Club has one major enemy.
Abundance.
Paul Craig Roberts ~ A Culture Of Delusion
Paul Craig Roberts | September 27 2012
A writer’s greatest disappointments are readers who have knee-jerk responses. Not all readers, of course. Some readers are thoughtful and supportive. Others express thanks for opening their eyes. But the majority are happy when a writer tells them what they want to hear and are unhappy when he writes what they don’t want to hear.
For the left-wing, Ronald Reagan is the great bogeyman. Those on the left don’t understand supply-side economics as a macroeconomic innovation that cured stagflation by utilizing the impact of fiscal policy on aggregate supply. Instead, they see “trickle-down economics” and tax cuts for the rich. Leftists don’t understand that the Reagan administration intervened in Grenada and Nicaragua in order to signal to the Soviets that there would be no more Soviet expansion or client states and that it was time to negotiate the end of the cold war. Instead, leftists see in Reagan the origin of rule by the one percent and the neoconservatives’ wars for US hegemony.
In 1981 curtailing inflation meant collapsing nominal GNP and tax revenues. The result would be budget deficits–anathema to Republicans– during the period of readjustment. Ending the cold war meant curtailing the military/security complex and raised the specter in conservative circles of “the anti-Christ” Gorbachev deceiving Reagan and taking over the world.
In pursuing his two main goals, Reagan was up against his own constituency and relied on rhetoric to keep his constituency on board with his agenda. The left wing heard the rhetoric but failed to comprehend the agenda.
When I explain these facts, easily and abundantly documented, some of leftish persuasion send in condescending and insulting emails telling me that they look forward to the day that I stop lying about Reagan and tell the truth about Reagan like I do about everything else.
“Knee-jerk liberal” is a favorite term of conservatives. But conservatives can be just as knee-jerk. When I object to Washington’s wars, the mistreatment of detainees and the suspension of civil liberties, some on the right tell me that if I hate America so much I should move to Cuba. Many Republicans cannot get their minds around the fact that if civil liberties are subject to the government’s arbitrary discretion, then civil liberties do not exist. The flag-waving element of the population is prone to confuse loyalty to the country with loyalty to the government, unless, of course, there’s a Democrat in the White House.
Rationally, it makes no sense for readers to think that a writer who would lie to them about one thing would tell them the truth about another. But as long as they hear what they want to hear, it is the truth. If they don’t want to hear it, it is a lie.
Both left and right also confuse explanations with justifications.
Paul Craig Roberts ~ USA To Continue Its Wars As Long As Dollar Remains Reserve Currency
Paul Craig Roberts | September 25 2012
Pravda.Ru interviewed Paul Craig Roberts, an American economist, who served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and became a co-founder of Reaganomics – the economic policies promoted by the U.S. President Ronald Reagan during the 1980s. We asked Mr. Roberts to share his views about the current state of affairs inside and outside the United States.
Pravda.Ru: Mr. Roberts, you are known in Russia as the creator of Reaganomics, which helped the country overcome stagflation. What were the key aspects of that policy and how would you estimate its results today? Do you think your faith in free market has shattered?
Paul Craig Roberts: Free market means the freedom of price to adjust to supply and demand. It does not mean the absence of regulation of human behavior.
Reaganomics was a political word for supply-side economics, a new development in economic theory. In the post World War 2 western world, governments used Keynesian demand management economic policy to control inflation and to boost employment. John Maynard Keynes was the British economist who explained the Great Depression in the West as a consequence of insufficient aggregate demand to maintain full employment and stable prices.
Keynesian demand management relied on government budget deficits and easy monetary policy (money creation) to stimulate demand for goods and services. To control inflation from too much demand for goods and services, high tax rates were used to reduce disposable income.
The problem that developed is that the high tax rates on income made leisure inexpensive in terms of lost current earnings from not working, and made current consumption inexpensive in terms of lost future income from not saving and investing. In other words, high tax rates on income made leisure and current consumption cheap in terms of foregone present and future income. Thus, high tax rates on income depressed the supply of labor and capital.
Using the UK’s 98% tax rate on investment income (pre-Thatcher), the Nobel economist Milton Friedman illustrated the problem with this example. You are an Englishman with $100,000. Shall you invest it for future income, or shall you purchase a Rolls Royce and enjoy life? The true price of the Rolls Royce (or Bentley, or Ferrari or Maserati) is not the purchase price. The price of the exotic car is the foregone future income from not investing the $100,000.
Suppose you could earn 10% on the $100,000. That would be $10,000 per year as the cost of purchasing the luxury car. But after tax (98%) the car would only cost $200 per year, a very cheap price.
The same example works for labor and salary income. Because of the high marginal tax rates, many professionals such as medical doctors closed their practices on Fridays and went to the golf course.
By changing the policy mix, that is by tightening monetary policy and reducing marginal tax rates (the tax rate on increases in income), the supply-side economic policy of the Reagan administration caused aggregate supply to increase. Thus output expanded relative to demand, and inflation declined.
This supply-side policy was instrumental as Reagan’s first step toward ending the cold war with the Soviet Union. As long as the US economy was afflicted with stagflation–the simultaneous rise in both inflation and unemployment, the Soviet government saw capitalism failing along with communism. But when Reagan corrected the economic problem, it made the Soviet government unsure that it could withstand an arms race.