Summer 2010 Part 2

Greece's Economic Troubles & More Economic Updates

The financial crisis in Greece is important to know about, because it can teach lessons on how we ought to conduct our own financies. In many cases, the wealthy don't pay that much taxes, but the rest of the citizenry do. Many of the protesters in Greece and the Tea Party movement reject an oligarchy shifting the tax burden unto labor. Other Tea Party members have lost so much faith in government that they desire to ignore reforming the government. Reforming the state can give the government the power to check predatory finance and wealth. A fair fiscal policy is needed in American instead of a regressive economic policy that benefits those who are massively wealthy. Some of the Tea Party's lust to shrink government so much as to ruin their interests doesn't work either. The neo cons and the elite are using the Greek crisis to promote the borderline fascist policy of cutting social services, Medicare, Social Security, etc. This is the opposite of what the Greek demonstrators are demanding: to reverse the global tax shift off property and finance onto labor, and to give labor’s financial claims for retirement pensions priority (over claims by the banks to get fully paid on hundreds of billions of dollars of recklessly bad loans recently reduced to junk status). The Greece bailouts is like TARP for German and other European bankers (among global speculators). So, almost $1 trillion is provided by the governments (like Germany) to be sent to Greek government to pay foreign bondholders. This is occuring while reimbursements occur on Euro-governments, the IMF, and even the U.S. Treasury. So, the bondholders are being given money as an excuse to cut Greek public services, pensions, and other government spending. It's junk economics to believe that the economy can pay down their debt by using austerity measures and give bankers more bonuses. Less public spending on social programs will leave more bailout money to pay the banks for their exponentially rising bad debts that cannot possibly be paid in the end. It is inevitable that loans and bonds will default in the usual convulsion of bankruptcy. Financial experts realize this. The good news is that many in Greek labor are fighting for their rights and liberty. The Baltic states have used slashing public sector employment and wages causing their GDP to fall as well. Latvia's austerity measures were opposed in December of 2008. The EU and the IMF austerity measures have influenced Europe as well. At least Iceland and the Baltics have the option of re-denominating loans in their own currency, writing down their foreign debts at will and taxing property to recapture for the government the revenue that has been pledged to foreign bankers. Greece is submerged in the euro currency. In America, high finance have more control over spending programs. The doctrine of the submission of the financial sector under the needs of economic growth have caused massive economic growth from 1945 to the early 1970's. Bondholders and financial speculators have ganged up to demand EU, IMF and US support for them to take their gains before the financial game crashes. Some of the Tea Party people need to realize that a regressive tax shift isn't reforming the govenrment at all. The people should control government in creating economic populism without austerity measures. We should not put the tax burden on labor (and industry). There is no right of giant corporations to dominate our government. The U.S. is spending billions of dollars in foreign wars. This policy isn't apart of fiscal responsibility and it's allowing Wall Street to do what it wants whenever it wants (with any form of regulation). Eliminating all regulations is wrong too. Some U.S. corporations are intent on continuing — and even expanding — foreign wars, low taxes for the wealthy, and when needed, further bank/corporate bailouts. Less government does not necessarily equate to better government at every circumstance. With critical thinking, tea party zealots must recognize that it was not excessive government action that caused the Great Recession. It was rather too little government action to stem the greedy actions among banks and other financial institutions. The core problem is not excessive government but the corruption of government by those in the corporate private sector and other special interests.

The central banks of the European Union are accused by deliberately controlling the Greek debt crisis so they can consolidate their power. It's easy to see that the moves by the EU is to try their best to perserve the euro currency. The EU was a brainchild of the Black Nobility bloodlines and the Vatican in order to centralize power in Europe (even if its means that violation of the national sovereignities of European nations). The unprecedented €750bn EU bailout has been condemned as not being utilized correctly. This criticism comes from people from across the political spectrum isn't being utilized correctly. Some in the Financial Times believe that key players believe that the bailout is apart of an overall consolidation plan in Europe to cause a giant step toward a fiscal union in the eurozone. Select central banks in control of numerous nations have been a goal of elitists for a very long time. Right now, some want us Americans to bailout Greece in their crisis. There is nothing wrong with legitimate assistance, but the USA is suffering its economic troubles too. Getting money from Americans isn't the answer to this crisis. People realize that the Great Depression was created by the giant Wall Street bubble of the 1920's. This was when bank deposits came about on speculative gambling, which is why Glass-Steagall was passed. This caused a run on American banks. Some believe that the 2nd leg of the depression was caused by Euroepan defaults. The 2nd leg of the Great Depression was worse than the first. The second leg down was primarily initiated by the failure of the Creditanstalt bank in Austria. Creditanstalt (also spelled Kreditanstalt) declared bankruptcy in May 1931. This caused a financial panic spreading worldwide. One reason for the 2010 Greece crisis is by the corrupt policies of the IMF, the international bankers' promotion of toxic waste & derivatives, and other reasons. Spain unveils billions in deficit cuts to halt eurozone crisis fears. Spain will slash public spending by €6bn and cut civil servants' by 5pc salaries this year as part of a plan to ease fears the country could slide into a debt crisis like that of Greece.

*Austrian economic propagandists are still here. They just don't go by the names of Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Alex Jones, Frank Rubio, John Stossel, etc. One such person is named Jacob Hornberger. He's apart of the Left/Right paradigm since he feels that economic freedom is a left/right deal. He mocks the New Deal. The New Deal isn't perfect, but it's a whole lot better than what he promotes. The legitimate parts of the New Deal gave social programs for people literally starving to death in the streets and had some economic populist policies. Today, some in the Obama administration and others want to have IMF style austerity measures. Hornberger tries to glamorized the Gilded Age when it was a time filled with child labor, corruption, and other evils. These evils were enacted by the robber barons in the late 1800's. In that time there was the Crime of 73 and other measures that immorally distributed or transfered landholdings (plus pledged collateral) form bankrupted farmers and business owners to criminal financies. There was fractional reserve lending. These policies were done by private interests for private gain. An Austrian schooler views all government regulation as evil and want the fractional reserve banking system to be unchecked. I don't agree with that since I reject land speculation and depression causing monetary deflation. The laissez capitalist proponents typically ignore the the excesses of the Gilded Age like priviledge transfer programs. Hornberger uses the deception that claims that any form of social programs or a safety net is akin to socialism when he criticized Social Security. Not to mention that people on welfare would decrease if the corporations didn't exploit the economics of the West. Though, I do believe in welfare to help those that need it. The reality is that Social Security originally was a trust fund to help the elderly in America. Even Founding Father Thomas Paine advocated a social insurance program. He wanted a tax on ground rent to fund it instead of a tax on wages. Austrian school salespeople don't admit this fact. In Hornberger's mind, anyone who supports Social Security -- or a social safety net of any kind -- is, by definition, a socialist, fascist, and philosophical soulmate of Adolf Hiter. I don't agree with this at all. FDR didn't adopt fascism as Hornberger claimed. The industrialists in America tried to assassinate him to create a fascist dictatorship. The Austrian School don't see economics as grey sometimes, but more black and white. I disagree with their views. Hornberger is right though to disagree with Glen Beck on civil liberties and foreign policy matters. The Austiran School was created by aristocrats from Europe. It's an aristocratic economic philosophy then. It's as simple as that. For the first years of Mises’s life in the United States, he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation. Ironically, the Rockefellers exploited the Gilded Age in their power to maintain their control (back then, there was an epidemic of sweatshops, child labor, extremely low wages, and other evils. In 2010, this doctrine is found in the Chicago University via the Chicago School). The primary purpose of the Austrian School all along has been to protect and entrench this privilege of the super rich elite -- not eliminate it (under the covers of "liberty" and "free markets" that some Tea Party rallies have taken up). Adolf von Habsburg is the one the mentioned as co-founder of this Pelerin Society. Otto von Habsburg (Pan-European Movement) is the guy whose ideas serve as the basis for the EUSSR, i.e. the European "Union." The Pelerin Society promotes Austrian economics or laissez faire capitalism.

Rand Paul is having his controversy. Like father like son I guess. Ron Paul has been exposed as bashing the 9/11 Truth Movement, believing in the lie that any government interference in society is akin to socialism, and having ties to a Masonic fraternity group. His economic philosophy existed from aristocrats who had ties to the pro-European Union movement. That's Ron. Now, Rand Paul made headlines recently. Rand Paul told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow that he supports the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yet, he didn't say whether he will support or not support whether any private business can discriminate against people based on race. He also said that he believes in the right of racist people to say mean things, but he denies being a racist or supporting segregation in the United States. What is the truth? The truth is legally, free speech is definitely broad. You can say anything you want with exceptions like slander, threats, etc. Although, even in a private business, there is still government regulation. Even a private business can't do what they want whenever they want like discrimination, selling poisons, doing fraud, and other acts of abuse. You still need a public charter in numerous cases to form a business. Using Rand's logic, BP can pump oil in any U.S. coastline abritarialy, companies can sell lead in their products, and private businesses can have theft or they can have fraud. So, Rand Paul is wrong to acquire that extreme liberatarian mindset that government regulation ends in private functions. Private functions are still bound on legal parameters set up by federal government. The Civil Rights Act acted as a legitimate means to prevent discrimination in the workplace whether that workplace is in a private or public format. Nothing in Rand Paul's statements were controversial since his views are common among a certain segment of the U.S. populace. I don't believe he's a serious racist, but he just adheres to that extreme form of libertarianism (except on some of the morality questions). He is is an ideological extremist. He is so categorically opposed to public regulation of private enterprise that he cannot even bring himself to say that the Woolworth lunch counter should've been desegregated. You don't have a right to do as you please on your private property as Aleister Crowley believed. You have no right to murder, and do fraud on your private property. That's against the law. Limitations exist. I believe in the existence of private property and private property rights, but I reject private or public corruption. This doesn't mean that all regulations are legitimate. Some regulations are fine and some regulations are wrong of course. Simplistic ideologies does nothing to meet the real needs of the enviornment, health, education, our civil liberties, our foreign policy, our labor, our economic system, etc. Rand Paul is running for the Republican Senate seat in Kentucky. I don't hate the man, but I do disagree with the man on some issues. He's being hit by the neo con crowd too in trying to force him to accept their archaic views on foreign policy.

*The Senate passes the Financial reform bill. Some critics believe that it doesn't go far enough in trying to promote real financial reform. The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 59-39. It won't fix the core problems in the financial or prevent a next financial crisis. The bill don't include the Volcker Rule. It wasn't even debated. The Volcker Rule is about breaking up or substantially reining in the too big to fail banks. It doesn't force transparency in the derivatives market. Senator Feingold said that the bill doesn't eliminate the risk to our economy posed by the too big to fail financial firms. It doesn't have the real safeguards that was created after the Great Depression, which separated Main Street Banks from big Wall Street firms. That can prevent another economic meltdown. These reforms were lacking in the bill. This crisis created the nation's worst recession since the Great Depression. Senator Cantell said that this bill doesn't deal with the loopholes in derivatives trades that led into the economic implosion. Congress made efforts to weaken the bill by lacking key reforms in derivatives trading. The bill refocus the financial system away from synthetic bets and get more capital in job creators and Main Street businesses. There are some good provisions in the bill, but it still has loopholes in it. Nouriel Roubini said that the bill is cosmetic and won't stop the next crisis. Others have said that this bill won't prevent the next crisis. Dodd himself has admitted that his bill “will not stop the next crisis from coming." In fact, the bill is wholly ineffective, failing to address the core things which need to be done to stabilize the economy. The bill won't remove the massive government guarantees to the giant banks, and it won't even increase liquidity requirements to prevent future meltdown. Senator Ted Kaufman said that there are walls in the bill. The Moody’s report stated: “…the proposed regulatory framework doesn’t appear to be significantly different from what exists today.” The reforms in the bill don't change the size of the big banks. The regulators are limited in cracking down on Wall Street in the future. Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman said that the Dodd bill has unlimited executive bailout authority. This is what Wall Street received. Sherman is the senior member of the House Financial Services Committee and a certified public accountant. Arthur Delaney said that the bill have carve outs purchased by lobbyists. Corker mentioned a few hits from the carve-out list: “Private equity firms are left out,” he said. “Hedge funds are left out.” Select central banks controlling capital in a feudal fashion has been exposed by Georgetown Professor Carroll Quigley (He was Bill Clinton's mentor) in the following words:

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds' central banks which were themselves private corporations. The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups."—Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time, Macmillan Company, New York, (1966) p. 337.

People have broken up Standard Oil, so it's fine to break up giant banks. Even Senator Ted Kaufman, who was interviewed recently by the American Prospect's Tim Fernholz said that Ted (and Senator Sherrod Brown) wanted to have an amendment to cap the size of the largest banks. This can break them up. Kaufman said that we broke up Standard Oil, AT&T, and accountants as well. So, he said that: "...A lot of the changes we’re talking about, the mergers, are just new. When you look at the reasons these banks are so big — and you know how big they are — remember the reason JP Morgan Chase is so big is because they bought Washington Mutual when it was in trouble, and Wells Fargo bought Wachovia, and Bank of America bought Merrill Lynch [during the crisis]. It is pretty straightforward, now that these are back on their feet, that it makes sense to break them up..." Even fomer Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan wants U.S. regulators to consider breaking up large financial institutions that are considered too big to fail. He said that: "...Those banks have an implicit subsidy allowing them to borrow at lower cost because lenders believe the government will always step in to guarantee their obligations. That squeezes out competition and creates a danger to the financial system..." Greenspan told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. Breaking up Standard Oil back in 1911 didn't cause too much issues in the economic world. You have to have solutions in solving economic problems. Busting big banks is needed to have a policy that can work for the financial system. There should be the resurrection of the Glass Steagall Act that prevented the seperation of commercial from investment banking (and get antitrust laws to the remaining 5 biggest Wall Street banks so none is too big to fail). Economic historian Niall Ferguson wants a serious application of antitrust laws to the financial services sectors and an end to institutions that are too big to fail. Geithner is proposing that] there should be a new “resolution authority” for the swift closing down of big banks that fail. But such an authority already exists and was used when Continental Illinois failed in 1984. Indeed, even the FDIC mentions Continental Illinois in the same breadth as “too big to fail” banks. William K. Bank was the senior regulator during the S&L crisis and an associate professor of both Economics and Law at the University of Missouri. He said that the Prompt Corrective Action Law (PCA), 12 U.S.C. § 1831o, not only authorizes the government to seize insolvent banks, it mandates it, and that the Bush and Obama administrations broke the law by refusing to close insolvent banks. So, the government can find a way to break up the Big Banks if they wanted to.

Those in the economic populist movement want financial and election reforms. There should be a ban on bad derivatives that have infected mega banks. A Derivative is essentially a mass of toxic unpayable mortgages or (futures of mortgages) that are worthless. They are "Exotic investment vehicles" That the private banking sector promised tremendous returns on, in today's case a mass of unpayable mortgages. All ill gotten assests of Henry Paulson, Bernard Madoff, and others should be liquidated in order to replenish retirement funds they have raided. There should be a debt free money system to spend at no interest to fund the repair & production of public goods and other services. "Rights vs. Privileges" is a book written by Robert De Fremery that talks about switching from a debt-based money system to a debt-free money system. Robert believed that you can avoid an collapse by having credit expansion using money that is independent of debt (and at the same time take away the banking system's privilege of creating any more credit. This means to according to Robert De Fremery: "...force banks to cofine their lending operations to the leading of existing funds..."). This can work if the money supply is spent and mechanisms are used to prevent hyperinflation. All economists from across the political spectrum view hyperinflation as wrong. Similar proposals have occurred among Richard C. Cook and Ellen Brown. Cook want a National dividend paid directly to the people (plus community saving banks) along with the government spending debt free Greenback-like money to society. Big Money via monopolists were so evil in the Gilded Age that laws were passed to safeguard workers and financial instruments. The robber baron had overt market dominance and trusts (or their power was centralized into a few hands to be manipulated for maximum profits and power). These robber baron back in the late 19th century and the early 20th century go back the names of Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, and JP Morgan. Even Morgan hated competition. It would be some of these families that formed the Jekyll Island meeting to set up the Federal Reserve Banking system. President John F. Kennedy according to Donald Gibson's book entitled "Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency," wanted to oppose "free trade," he believed that industry should serve the nation, and America ought to develop cheap energy in order sustain its independence. Gibson believed that the oil/banking cartel raised oil prices to levels in order to trap the world in a web of debt. In fact, on June 4, 1963, he issued Executive Order (EO) 11110 giving the president authority to issue silver certificates absent of the Federal Reserve. This is why JFK followed foreign aid, nation to nation cooperation, low interest loans, he believed in Third world nationalism, and other populist policies. It is therefore the Austrian School, not its critics, that is mindlessly denying "reality" when it blindly insists that printing new money is automatically inflationary. Printing new money doesn't cause inflation if the resultant increase in the money supply does not exceed the increase in economic output. So, our economy is filled with debt-based currency, which of course is a problem. Yet, the oligarchs want another bad prescription of using austerity measures in Greece, America, and worldwide in other praise their god of the "free market." This is why the IMF in many nations force countries in economic turmoil to force the government to shutdown social services, thereby cutting off the lifeline of the lower classes. This is class warfare in its most vicious form. It literally results in starvation just to protect the cashflow of rich financiers who hold the country’s debt. We also see Greece being required to outlaw cash for some transactions. This is a strategic goal the financial powers have for the world. A cashless society makes people completely hostage to electronic debit/credit cards controlled by the banks. Austerity is a bad plan for everyone except the upper class. This is why economic populists want money spent to infrastructure projects that are approved by the people in order to grow the economy.

Even Barack Obama's advisers have ties to Wall Street just like the Republicans have their corporate interests. The elite funds even the Austrian Economic system in order to covertly promote evil austerity measures here in America. America is the last on the list to be fully controlled by the corporate elite in the industrialized world. These austerity measures include cutting Social Security entitlements, increasing the social security tax, and other measures (as promoted by CFR member Peter G. Peterson and others). The Federal Reserve is not really pushing money to the people directly. They are lending it to select banks, while the large banks have been buying up smaller banks, lands, farms, etc. The government should spend money directly to create jobs, provide services, and stimulate productivity. This doesn't cause inflation if supply and demand increase together. Inflation only occurs when the demand exceeds supply (or goods and services). The Social Security going bankrupt is a myth even mainstream economists really don't believe. It's a pay as you go system. Today’s social security taxes pay today’s recipients; and if necessary, the tax can be raised. Federal Reserve Notes compose only about 3% of the money supply (or M3). M3 is money supply that deals with things other than currency, CD, etc. The other 97% is issued by private banks in the form of loans. M1 and M2 are other major money supplies in American society. Money should never be owned by select, private hands. Those in the economic populist movement want states even to form their own banks in order to help citizens solve their financial issues. If the banks in the states issue notes without interest from other places, it can create savings. One example of this is the State Bank of North Dakota that made its debt solvent (or it meet its financial obligations) and has large surpluses. This bank partners with private banks to loan money to farmers and small businesses. It makes 1% loans to start up farms, has a thriving student loan business, and purchases municipal bonds from public institutions. Conversely, Congress is refusing to sent California a modest $26 billion to cover its $26 billion budget shortfall. This is in spite of the at least $700 billion bailout money sent into international banks via Congress. I'm not even mentioning the bonuses and the trillions committed by the FED to the big banks like Goldman Sachs. The federal government has even rejected California's request for a loan guarantee that can save the state hundreds of millions of dollars in interest. A loan guarantee is a promise among 2 parties in economics. One party or the guarantor makes a promise to assume the debt obligation of a borrower if that borrower defaults (or that party can't pay off their debts). California can create their own bank to handle that debt crisis. If California uses their parks, buildings as its capital base (without FDIC capital requirements), the multiplier effect can take shape to create billions of dollars in credit. The multiplier effect is when your money supply expands after banks are able to lend (the deposits created are the multiplier effect after you handle the reserve requirement. For example, if I deposit 100 dollars, and the reserve requirement is 20%, I can loan 80 dollars to other banks. The remaining 20 dollars are kept in reserves). This can increase capital if capital is lent and relent many times over to grow capital. We the people did not precipitate this credit crisis; the banks did.

*The neo-conservative movement isn't new. It's a representation of the same old philosophies of the aristocrats. They believe in accepting privatization, banning any attempt of the government to finance internal improvements, eliminate protections of our liberty, and a radical form of law and order doctrine (that includes abolishing parole, eliminate amenities for prisoners, prison exploitation, etc. There are even prisoner chain gangs in Alabama). They embrace a contradictory stance. They say that we have too much government, but they love a huge government to be involved in our prison system, the military, and other parameters in our lives. They feel like that government can't be trusted to run a post office, a railroad, etc. but they can run our criminal justice system. Many people in that movement follow a script. So, they hate welfare to assist the people. On the other hand, they love a police state that oppresses the people. Some of them think that some people should fend for themselves and starve to death. We shouldn't follow the path of oligarchy or the ways of Lycurgus (in his Spartan state wanting to harm industry and science). Today, Austrian proponent Llewellyn Rockwell (of the Ludwig von Mises Institute) believe in the Confederate Constitution. He doesn't even believe in the general welfare clause of the U.S. Constitution. The late U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist followed in the neo cons's footsteps. He promoted states rights even if the state contradicts federal law. He sympathised with the racist Justice Roger Taney. Taney deprived human rights protection from a black man, who was a runaway slave. The states have rights, but they can't do what they want whenever they want without federal legal protections. The federal judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court, were established by the Constitution as instruments for enforcing the federal Constitution over the states. Marshall put this ``federal supremacy'' into practice, and Taney tried to destroy it. He didn't believe in the interference in state administrative procedures even if federal constitutional rights are at stake. William Rehnquist opposed school desegregation cases like the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education. He was a clerk for Justice and Freemason Robert Jackson at the time. He a memorandum for Jackson stating that "Plessy v. Ferguson," the 1896 case which established the Jim Crow ``separate but equal'' principle, was correct, and should be reaffirmed. Even Thurgood Marshall (once head of the NAACP legal defense fund) accurately pointed out the the majority can't deprive a minority of its constitutional rights. Later, Rehnquist claimed that he was expressing Jackson's views and not his won. However, the views expressed in the Rehnquist memoranda were not consistent with Jackson's views, but they were consistent with Rehnquist's own known views. A secretary to Justice Jackson accused Rehnquist of smearing Jackson's reputation. Other clerks said that Rehnquist held onto pro-segregationist views in the lunchroom table. Rehnquist back in 1964 opposed a proposed public accommodations ordinance in Phoenix barring discrimination on the basis of race, color, or creed. In 1967, Rehnquist wrote a letter to the "Phoenix Republic," saying that ``we are no more dedicated to an `integrated' society than we are to a `segregated' society.'' Rehnquist has never dissociated himself from this statement. Senator Edward Kennedy, who opposed Rehnquist's confirmation as Chief Justice in 1986, said that ``he [Rehnquist] denied that he harassed and intimidated voters in Arizona in the early 1960s, but the evidence is substantial that he did.'' Another eyewitness, Dr. Sidney Smith, testified that he had seen Rehnquist confront two black men at a polling place, and tell them; ``You have no business being in this line trying to vote. I ask you to leave.'' So, he was a racist and how did he get in the Court. The deal is that the Senate Judiciary Committee back in those days of the 1970's and 1980's were dominated by pro-segregationists or remnants of the Confederates. In 1971, when he was confirmed the arch segregationist James O. Eastland of Mississippi headed the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1958 to 1978. The old Dixiecrat turned Republican Strom Thurmond supported Rehnquist back in 1986 when he became Chief Justice. Like many neo cons, he isn't a real conservative. He follows the doctrines of Thomas Hobbes (that even the Founding Fathers rejected). Rehnquist classified Hobbes' views as a realist. Hobbes believed that in the state of nature man is at war with every other person. So, men must give their rights to the sovereign (which is given unquestioning obedience. This is totalitarianism). In truth, man is created in the image of God with creative spark and true reason to advance civilization. The government shouldn't oppress people, but it should foster progress in science and technological development. Hobbes' views violate the principal that natural law is superior to the power of the state. No government could usurp these inalienable rights. We aren't founded on majority rule since majority rule is basically the mob rule. Majority rule can violate the rights of the minority. Rehnquist voted in the Court in favor of opposing Miranda and other civil liberties.

Popular Culture Galore Part 6

For years, I have written on this subject. Others have described about this theme as well. I will write on this subject Lord Willing for decades more until I pass away. Now, one misconception about people us is that we want to hurt people in the Hollywood/popular culture world. Nothing can be further from the truth. It takes true discernment and true concern to accurately expose the excesses of popular culture. In that fashion, individuals (espeically from the world of Hollywood, etc.) can wake up and have a more normal, tranquil life. This work will deal with the past and present happenings in 2010 as it pertains to entertainment culture. When you get older as I am, you see the world in more complex terms. You become more tolerant of people. You focus more on accepting succint, non-abstract principles that captivate the heart of men to fulfill the will of God. Now, there have been numerous insiders to the entertainment industry that exposed that industry before. Michael Jackson, Dave Chappelle, Bob Dylan, and others have talked about this issue. These people are or were exposed to that world, so they know what they about talking about when they are discussing about the entertainment industry. Dave Chappelle said that Hollywood had a sick culture. He is right. That is why he left Hollywood and lives in Ohio with his wife plus children (in a rural environment). He was apart of the Chapelle Show comedy series. It was groundbreaking for its risque commentaries on race, sexuality, gender, satire, culture, America, and other subjects. The DVD set is currently the all-time best-selling DVD for a television show, having sold more than three million copies. I don't agree with some of the content in the show though. Its early success prompted Viacom (Comedy Central’s parent company) to offer Chappelle a $55 million contract for the production of two more seasons of Chappelle’s Show. He refused to recieve the money since he felt that the show escaped its original purpose. He wanted the show to expose the hypocrispy and evils in culture in a satire format not promote some of the same stereotypes that he wanted to condemn. He went into Africa for relaxation and solace. He talked about refusing to dress like a women in the film Blue Streak (starring Martin Lawrence). Dave Chappelle said that he felt uncomfortable doing the skit in wearing a dress. No man should be forced to wear a dress at all. Even Bob Dylan told the late Ed Bradley that he made a pact with the commander of the world that we can't see (and he's fullfilling his bargain by performing his music). Some have taken this as selling his soul to the Devil since he doesn't explicitly mention God and God don't make mysterious pacts with people at all. God is Sovereign and doesn't need secret pacts to express his will. Even the model and actress Melyssia Ford said that the fame of Hollywood is corrupt (and people would sell their soul to be apart of it). She talks about Kat Stacks, who is a woman bragging about having sex with mostly black men promisciously. She's a racist (by saying the N word in a hateful way) and she's another distraction. I don't agree with her getting assaulted, but she's not a role model for anyone. Still, some black men support this women. No real black man or black person would ever support a woman like that, who disrespects people. No person period should suck up to her. She promotes stereotypes and is ignorant period. Even Michael Jackson before his death became tired of being exploited and he criticized the music industry (especially Tony Mottola). In June 2002, Michael Jackson, gave an unexpected speech about the dark side of the entertainment business.Some of these stars are victims of propaganda and mind control. The elite know how the human mind works. They know that if you use symbolism and various alters, they can manipulate how these celebrities act in performances and other duties that they are forced to do.

Brain specialist, Dr. Richard Pellegrino declared that music has the uncanny power to: "...trigger a flood of human emotions and images that have the ability to instantenously produce very powerful changes in emotional states...Take it form a brain guy. In 25 years of working with the brain, I still cannot affect a person's state of mind the way that one simple song can..."

Plato and Aristole were wrong on many issues, but even these pagans were correct in the following quotes about music:

"...through foolishness they, the people decieved themsevles into thinking that there was no right or wrong in music, that it was to be judged good or bad by the pleasure it gave...a spirit of law breaking..." (The Laws of Plato, Book III, University of Chicago Press, 700e, 1980, pg. 86).

"...Music directly represents the passions or states of the soul-gentleness, anger, courage, temperance...if one listens to the wrong kind of music he will become the wrong kind of person..." (Aristole, Politics, 8, 1340).

By Timothy