US policies exploit citizens, their prosperity, and the peace.

Will Obama fight fascism?

As the economic situation, (otherwise known as the “crisis” as determined by our fearful leaders and their corporate con-friends), unfolds, we shall see what route Obama will take. As the news of the day filters through the economy, and spews out the mouths of the talking heads and spokespeople for the new administration (as with the last rulers, and those before these!), I think the answer will be clear. Indeed, there is much information already available that shows where  Obama will lead this nation by knowing how he will direct the wealth of the people.

[John T Flynn]:

And so we flirt a little with the idea that perhaps fascism might be set up without these degrading features, that even if there is to be totalitarian government it is to be just a teeny-weeny bit totalitarian and only a teeny bit militarist and imperialist only on the side of God and democracy.

Economy? People are still fighting and Dying! The matter is one of War or Peace.

I know more than enough to be skeptical of the actions taken, or accepted as necessary, by our “leaders” that I feel like I can safely assume the worst.

Sure the economy is a big issue for people. Not so much because the vast majority of americans are concerned about the Nation being bankrupt, or because the US military spending adds up to more than all the nations combined, but because they themselves, individuals and families, are concerned about their own well-being first and foremost. As it should be.

But the fact remains that tensions are high and the consequences of this governments military actions are much greater. Our fearful leaders would have the populace believe that this nation will ever remain righteous in this fight, and that those, like me, who oppose these aggressive actions are not only unpatriotic but are unworthy of any voice in the national media. Because, as the “neocon death-squad” logic concedes, War is Peace, and Occupation is Liberation.

Only individuals have the power. Until enough people come together and make a stand, peace will continue to be out of reach and war waged in the people’s name. Unfortunately, this is how the system currently works, legal or illegal. People have to take responsibility for themselves and demand a change. It’s supposed to be a two-way street. Right now, it’s one way by decree, and that is unjust and tyrannical.

“The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. – Ronald Reagan” (Liar)

——————————-

Self-evident ignorance and other obvious deficiencies…

Need I spend my time on seemingly unimportant comments? Unfortunately yes.

Although the opposition has no real argument to offer it is still worth the effort to defend and clarify positions in this matter. The material in question begins with a post regarding the “Worst Week“. Of course the author points out the simple and important fact that Wall Street is not representative of all that is the US economy. And this is important to note when one notes the battle cry of those who want to destroy the free market and governments who want to control money and all transactions and are using an alleged “crisis” to carry out their goal. An impossible goal, to be sure, but governments have never been a bastion of common sense or integrity. Indeed, fallible humans institute power for any reason they deem fit whenever they can get away with it. How many times have you or someone else said: “there should be a law“. (Kinda scary when you think about it.)

I write this as a reaction to a contributor in the so-called “discussion“.

Let me repost some comments in lieu of this misallocation of criticism.

This is the author’s thoughts on the “worst week”:

“I think the threat of an Obama presidency is a major reason for Wall Street’s ills of late.”

“There is simply no other reason. “

I don’t even think I need to confirm my suspicion that this comment was made by a McCain fan. Of course, this is not my problem. This is blatant political bias. My point in responding to such a post was to add to the “discussion”.

For anyone knowledgeable in the going-ons of the market and it’s arch nemesis in organized theft and violence, it should be clear why the market is not rallying. History is relevant and there is none in this post. 5 ‘n 1/2 years is a marker, but it doesn’t tell us anything.

The reactive comment comes after my repeated attempts to bring to the table a larger view of the current state of the economy. I went beyond the bounds of Wall Street by commenting on this broader topic of the economy and introduced info on military spending. In addition, I responded to a comment on Chris Buckley’s endorsement of Obama, but all-in-all, i added nominally more to the discussion than anyone else. I am criticized not because I was speaking off-topic but because the commenter “wasn’t interested”

To cut to the chase…I have yet to directly respond to the latest comment. I think that what was said should speak for itself. (Really, it is so off base in the context of the “discussion” it is amusing. And I know this person says the same of me, except I am presenting actual relevant material (i did include personal opinion and language, whereas this individual is relying on….? I don’t even think they could coherently define anarchism)

Unfortunately, I have recieved similar attitudes from related posters. Of course, they wont claim to be related. I have posted articles that show how the positions they hold are based upon a similar philosophy. I just don’t think they like the language I use, which is something I am working on to improve. But some of these people aren’t familiar with the subject material I present and when they are it is usually insufficient or often based on presumptions or concluded with a question.

I will add more to this later…..I have work to attend to.

———————

UPDATE:

well i responded. i used mike rozeff as a weapon. his precise analysis is deadly.

i used this link.

Liquidity Revisited (contains a great link to Rogers on bloomberg too, 10minutes long)

harking back to the opposition comment…anarchist proposals? heck yeah!! lol. go ahead click on the link if you dare…

______________________

UPDATE:

So, I think that the links i provided to the comments section on both websites were made

by the same individual…. I hadn’t realized that till just now…Most people seem to go by the same name….my bad…

But my position is still the same:

I tried to narrow my comments to the focus of the author, derekglover on libertasexemplar.

It is not my intention to conflate the attitude of the commenter with the content of the post. Thats just a matter of circumstance.

My first comment was stupid. I really didn’t understand that I was asking exactly what the author was claiming. Duh!

I could’ve spent more time on providing the evidence derekglover asked for specifically. he deviation in his post and my responses were a matter of perspective. partial responses by the author:

“I have made an assersion in hopes of explaining the situation and my evidence is Obama’s chances of election, proximity of election day, and his tax proposals. What kind of evidence do you want?”

“Investors are concerned with things outside the scope of the bank bailout.”

i was making another claim other than the “threat of an Obama Presidency”. Namely that: “the confidence is not there.” and“government is pre-empting the market and establishing vast controls.”

I continued to suggest other input and more sources for a larger perspective on the economy because it serves no one to only look at one sector of the economy or government action. It is all related.

Sure, I offered some harsh language and opinion! : “a con game has been played and a lot of cards are on the table. people are folding left and right. soon only a few powerhouses will remain. it might be a massively decepetive and destructive way to eliminate competition but it is working.”

Meanwhile, the commenter who demands “discussions of merit” avers: “clearly, the Office has been preempted by It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia as the funniest show on television.”

Some neoconservative motives…and “islamofascism”

Wikipedia has an entry on Stephen Schwartz
“After college, Schwartz became involved in the labor movement, first in the Sailors’ Union of the Pacific and then the AFL-CIO……Schwartz identified as a member of the Social Democrats USA, following a path similar to other Trotskyists who shifted from left- to right-wing politics.”

How many times have I heard some of the Republican Candidates use that word?

What Is ‘Islamofascism’?A history of the word from the first Westerner to use it.
by Stephen Schwartz

Daniel McCarthy has a piece on this “Springtime for Trotsky”

“In most circles the word “fascist” is a generic pejorative, an epithet that conveys a moral judgment rather than a description. We Americans have perhaps become so accustomed to this use of the word that we don’t even think about it. We should, because “fascist” in this sense was specifically coined by the Communist revolutionary Leon Trotsky to identify all of his rivals, even Stalin, with Hitler and Mussolini – and with “the right.” Its use reveals the undying influence of Trotsky.

By calling Stalin a fascist, Trotsky and his followers could claim that “real” socialism is not a murderous ideology. They could further claim that all true threats to human dignity and freedom really come from the right. Although Trotsky himself had a rather fateful encounter with an icepick in 1940, Trotkyists today continue his fight on behalf of international social democracy. These days however, Trotskyists prefer to call themselves “neoconservatives.”

“…….Worthy of note is that while ex-Stalinists tended to denounce their Communist roots vehemently, neoconservatives like Kristol and Schwartz remain at least wistfully fond of Trotsky. It’s also worth noting that the neoconservative preoccupation with exporting social democracy abroad through war and mercantilism reflects the original split between Trotsky and Stalin. Trotsky argued that there could not be “socialism in one country” but rather that the revolution had to be truly international. And so the neoconservatives push for “human rights” and social democratic governments to be imposed on Serbia, for example, by force of arms.

And so fifty-six years after the death of Hitler we’re still fighting a war against “fascism” in one form or another. We’re still fighting to make the world safe for (social) democracy. Somewhere in the bowels of hell Leon Trotsky must be smiling.”