So what will ignoring Dr. Paul and General Washington cost the United States? Well, four things come to mind.
–First, the constitution is in part negated. The prime minister of Israel will decide when America goes to war with Iran, not, as the constitution requires, the U.S. Congress.
–Second, it will transform Barack Obama from the commander-in-chief of the world’s greatest military power into a semi-catatonic automaton who — in his lust for reelection — obeys Israel’s prime minister and the campaign-funding leaders of the Jewish-American community and takes the United States to war against a nation which — save for our “alliance” with Israel — would be a marginal threat to us.
–Third, as noted in this morning’s front-pages, Iran’s U.S.-based intelligence apparatus and that of its Hizballah ally will attack in the United States. These attacks will be carried out by Iran and Hizballah, but they will possible mainly because of the unconstitutional picking and choosing of which federal laws to enforce that has been done Obama and all other presidents in the last 30 years, an illegal practice that has left our borders open and — with millions of undocumented aliens in the country — our domestic security in a shambles.
--Fourth, and needles to say, war with Iran will wreck the already foundering U.S. economy and usher in a lengthy war with the entire Muslim world.
With time short before Israel attacks Iran, what can be done to stop America’s slide to disaster? The answer, I fear, is not much, and what can be done, can only be done by Barack Obama. Still, American history has a precedent and it is Mr. Obama’s for the taking. That precedent was established by George Washington in 1793 when he declared America’s neutrality in the war between Britain and France, then officially America’s ally. (See, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18thcentury/neutra93.asp ).
BATR News - Financial, Freedom, Federal Government and Foreign News Updates
Friday, March 02, 2012
US Media Rigged Ahead of Russian Elections
In the spirit of recognizing mobs of terrorists as legitimate national governments before a sovereign nation's true leadership is murdered by US-led NATO operations, as was the case in Libya, the Western media is already decrying Russia's upcoming elections as "rigged" before they've even taken place. Leading the preemptive media coverage is Foreign Policy (FP) magazine featuring an article by Freedom House president David Kramer and Freedom House vice president, Christopher Walker.
The FP piece titled, "The Kremlin's Big Gamble: Can Vladimir Putin's simulated democracy survive another rigged election?" in title alone already implies that the elections, which polls have long indicated Putin is overwhelmingly expected to win, will be "rigged." This in and of itself is "rigged" coverage - reporting conclusions to events that have yet to unfold.
Kramer's piece is particularly ironic, because the first round of "rigged election" calls were made last December by "activists" funded by the US State Department through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), of which Freedom House is a subsidiary.
In December 2011's "US Caught Meddling in Russian Elections,"US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funded GOLOS was noted as being the key "observer" cited across Western media in an attempt to portray the Russian elections as "stolen." GOLOS owes its existence to the US government and in turn the banking oligarchs of Wall Street and London who have been trying in vain to dislodge Russia's Vladimir Putin from power for years.
It is important to keep in mind Freedom House president David Kramer's words, knowing that both the National Endowment for Democracy and Freedom House are self-serving frauds, when listening to these very same talking points regurgitated by the Western media during the elections this coming Sunday.
The FP piece titled, "The Kremlin's Big Gamble: Can Vladimir Putin's simulated democracy survive another rigged election?" in title alone already implies that the elections, which polls have long indicated Putin is overwhelmingly expected to win, will be "rigged." This in and of itself is "rigged" coverage - reporting conclusions to events that have yet to unfold.
Kramer's piece is particularly ironic, because the first round of "rigged election" calls were made last December by "activists" funded by the US State Department through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), of which Freedom House is a subsidiary.
In December 2011's "US Caught Meddling in Russian Elections,"US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funded GOLOS was noted as being the key "observer" cited across Western media in an attempt to portray the Russian elections as "stolen." GOLOS owes its existence to the US government and in turn the banking oligarchs of Wall Street and London who have been trying in vain to dislodge Russia's Vladimir Putin from power for years.
It is important to keep in mind Freedom House president David Kramer's words, knowing that both the National Endowment for Democracy and Freedom House are self-serving frauds, when listening to these very same talking points regurgitated by the Western media during the elections this coming Sunday.
Obama’s Corporate Tax Scam
Barack Obama can’t hide the fact that he is the One Percent’s president. Most of what he is dangling for the rest of us this election year turns out to be smoke and mirrors, yet he offers corporations a huge tax rate reduction – a gift that will keep on giving long after Obama is gone. It is typical Obama behavior. He sprinkles his speeches with phrases that mimic Occupy Wall Street, then turns around and promises the One Percent a bigger prize than George Bush could deliver.
Obama wants to lower the nominal corporate tax rate form 35 percent to 28 percent. For manufacturing industries, the rate would fall to 25 percent. Big Business has long complained – dishonestly – that American companies are put at a disadvantage by the highest tax rates in the world. But that’s only true on paper. When it comes to actually paying taxes, European corporations give a bigger share of money back to their governments and societies than U.S. companies do. The fact that the U.S. posts a higher official tax rate, while in the real world U.S. corporations pay lower taxes than Europe, is proof of the absolute corruption of the U.S. tax system, where corporations write the tax code and all of its loopholes.
Obama claims he will extract even more tax money from the corporations by doing away with loopholes. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that. The administration has no plans to revise the U.S. tax code any time soon.
Private studies show the average company pays an effective tax rate of substantially less than 20 percent, and a government study showed that more than half of American companies paid no taxes at all in at least one out of seven years.
"Corporations only account for ten percent of the money the U.S. government takes in per year."
Back in the Fifties, corporate taxes made up 28 percent of government revenues. In the Sixties, the corporate share was 21 percent of each dollar of taxes. Today, corporations only account for ten percent of the money the U.S. government takes in per year. In other words, they have never had it so good.
Obama wants to lower the nominal corporate tax rate form 35 percent to 28 percent. For manufacturing industries, the rate would fall to 25 percent. Big Business has long complained – dishonestly – that American companies are put at a disadvantage by the highest tax rates in the world. But that’s only true on paper. When it comes to actually paying taxes, European corporations give a bigger share of money back to their governments and societies than U.S. companies do. The fact that the U.S. posts a higher official tax rate, while in the real world U.S. corporations pay lower taxes than Europe, is proof of the absolute corruption of the U.S. tax system, where corporations write the tax code and all of its loopholes.
Obama claims he will extract even more tax money from the corporations by doing away with loopholes. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that. The administration has no plans to revise the U.S. tax code any time soon.
Private studies show the average company pays an effective tax rate of substantially less than 20 percent, and a government study showed that more than half of American companies paid no taxes at all in at least one out of seven years.
"Corporations only account for ten percent of the money the U.S. government takes in per year."
Back in the Fifties, corporate taxes made up 28 percent of government revenues. In the Sixties, the corporate share was 21 percent of each dollar of taxes. Today, corporations only account for ten percent of the money the U.S. government takes in per year. In other words, they have never had it so good.
Thursday, March 01, 2012
Buchanan Against the Conservatives
It’s not just the liberals who are against Pat Buchanan.
When it comes to the issue of foreign policy, the conservatives are against him as well. Most all of them.
With the exception of Ron Paul, the current and former Republican presidential candidates are against him – Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain. And so are previous candidates like John McCain and Sarah Palin
Buchanan understands exactly why the United States is hated by many in the Muslim world:
We came to Afghanistan as liberators, but are seen now as occupiers, imposing our ideas, values, and satraps. After eight years of war in Iraq and ten in Afghanistan, we are coming home with Iraq going its own way and Afghanistan tipping toward the Taliban. . . . We failed to understand what motivated our attackers. They did not come to kill us because they abhor our Constitution, or wish to impose Sharia on Oklahoma. They were over here because we are over there. They came to kill us in our country because we will not get out of their countries. . . . . Osama bin Laden ordered 9/11 because U.S. troops were stationed on sacred Saudi soil that is home to Mecca. We will never end terrorist attacks on this country, until we remove our soldiers from those countries.
We fight them over there, it is said, so we will not have to fight them over here. Yet not Afghan or Iraqi or Somali or Yemeni or member of Hezbollah or Hamas ever attacked us – over here. September 11 was largely the work of fifteen Saudis sent by a Saudi, Osama. And while we are able to smash armies and depose despots, we have proven incapable of building nations or winning the hearts of peoples whose lands we have occupied. . . . Across the Islamic world, we have broadened and deepened the reservoir of hate in which Al Qaeda fishes.
When it comes to the issue of foreign policy, the conservatives are against him as well. Most all of them.
With the exception of Ron Paul, the current and former Republican presidential candidates are against him – Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain. And so are previous candidates like John McCain and Sarah Palin
Buchanan understands exactly why the United States is hated by many in the Muslim world:
We came to Afghanistan as liberators, but are seen now as occupiers, imposing our ideas, values, and satraps. After eight years of war in Iraq and ten in Afghanistan, we are coming home with Iraq going its own way and Afghanistan tipping toward the Taliban. . . . We failed to understand what motivated our attackers. They did not come to kill us because they abhor our Constitution, or wish to impose Sharia on Oklahoma. They were over here because we are over there. They came to kill us in our country because we will not get out of their countries. . . . . Osama bin Laden ordered 9/11 because U.S. troops were stationed on sacred Saudi soil that is home to Mecca. We will never end terrorist attacks on this country, until we remove our soldiers from those countries.
We fight them over there, it is said, so we will not have to fight them over here. Yet not Afghan or Iraqi or Somali or Yemeni or member of Hezbollah or Hamas ever attacked us – over here. September 11 was largely the work of fifteen Saudis sent by a Saudi, Osama. And while we are able to smash armies and depose despots, we have proven incapable of building nations or winning the hearts of peoples whose lands we have occupied. . . . Across the Islamic world, we have broadened and deepened the reservoir of hate in which Al Qaeda fishes.
Activists present anti-ACTA petition to EU
Activists handed the European Parliament an Internet petition Tuesday bearing more than 2 million names and arguing against ratification of a proposed anti-counterfeiting treaty on the grounds it would destroy Internet freedom.
The petition was presented by representatives of Avaaz, an organization that uses the internet to mobilize support for various political issues. "We call on you to stand for a free and open Internet and reject the ratification of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which would destroy it," the petition said.
Proponents argue that ACTA would change nothing in European Union law and would be a means of extending to other countries the kinds of protections against counterfeit goods and copyright infringement the EU already offers. They argue the treaty would protect European consumers against such dangers as counterfeit drugs and auto parts, and European businesses against having to compete with cheap and illegal imitations of their goods.
The International Trademark Association, which represents thousands of companies, argues the agreement would "create and preserve millions of European jobs" and "spur European economic recovery, competitiveness and growth."
In any event, the effort to have the European Union ratify the treaty has for the time being come to a screeching halt. EU passage would require ratification by each of the 27 member countries. As opposition to the treaty grew in some countries recently, the European Commission, the EU's executive branch, suspended efforts to get the treaty ratified and decided to send the text instead to the European Court of Justice to see whether the agreement would violate any fundamental EU rights.
The petition was presented by representatives of Avaaz, an organization that uses the internet to mobilize support for various political issues. "We call on you to stand for a free and open Internet and reject the ratification of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which would destroy it," the petition said.
Proponents argue that ACTA would change nothing in European Union law and would be a means of extending to other countries the kinds of protections against counterfeit goods and copyright infringement the EU already offers. They argue the treaty would protect European consumers against such dangers as counterfeit drugs and auto parts, and European businesses against having to compete with cheap and illegal imitations of their goods.
The International Trademark Association, which represents thousands of companies, argues the agreement would "create and preserve millions of European jobs" and "spur European economic recovery, competitiveness and growth."
In any event, the effort to have the European Union ratify the treaty has for the time being come to a screeching halt. EU passage would require ratification by each of the 27 member countries. As opposition to the treaty grew in some countries recently, the European Commission, the EU's executive branch, suspended efforts to get the treaty ratified and decided to send the text instead to the European Court of Justice to see whether the agreement would violate any fundamental EU rights.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Virginia's NDAA Nullifying Bill Passed by State Senate
On January 16, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall (left) introduced HB 1160, a bill designed to "prevent any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency or the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of a United States citizen in violation of the Constitution of Virginia."
After being passed on Valentine’s Day by an overwhelming majority (96-4) in the House, the bill was sent to the Senate for deliberation by that chamber.
In a telephone conversation yesterday with this reporter, Delegate Marshall broke the latest news of the procedural progress of his very important legislation.
When asked about the future of his bill, Marshall said, “This is on the razor’s edge. There was a 20-20 tie yesterday on sending it back to committee in the Senate. Fortunately, the Lieutenant Governor broke the tie and voted to have it be reconsidered rather than sent back to committee.”
Of his opinion of the prospects on this second vote, likely to be taken today (Feb. 28), Delegate Marshall was guardedly optimistic, announcing to this reporter that he was “talking to a key Democrat that might be able to be persuaded.”
This current measure in Virginia is but one of many noble efforts on the part of sovereign states and communities to courageously assert their constitutionally protected right to self-determination by standing up to the federal government, particularly in regard to the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act that provide for the indefinite detention of American citizens.
After being passed on Valentine’s Day by an overwhelming majority (96-4) in the House, the bill was sent to the Senate for deliberation by that chamber.
In a telephone conversation yesterday with this reporter, Delegate Marshall broke the latest news of the procedural progress of his very important legislation.
When asked about the future of his bill, Marshall said, “This is on the razor’s edge. There was a 20-20 tie yesterday on sending it back to committee in the Senate. Fortunately, the Lieutenant Governor broke the tie and voted to have it be reconsidered rather than sent back to committee.”
Of his opinion of the prospects on this second vote, likely to be taken today (Feb. 28), Delegate Marshall was guardedly optimistic, announcing to this reporter that he was “talking to a key Democrat that might be able to be persuaded.”
This current measure in Virginia is but one of many noble efforts on the part of sovereign states and communities to courageously assert their constitutionally protected right to self-determination by standing up to the federal government, particularly in regard to the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act that provide for the indefinite detention of American citizens.
Ron Paul Only Candidate To Warn of a Fascist Takeover in America
Republican Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate of either party to tell the truth that America is “slipping into a fascist system.”
That is unquestionably the critical issue of the hour for the United States of America and one that Paul’s Republican fellow candidates and their Democratic opponent President Obama choose to ignore.
Hand in hand with this existential crisis is that a nation that goes fascist at home invariably becomes a tyrant abroad. Thus, the Congressman from Galveston is right on the mark when he calls for the predatory U.S. to pull its troops out of the Middle East and Africa and close down its foreign bases. The U.S., indisputably, with its 1,000 military bases at home and a thousand more abroad, is now the most awesome military power ever.
“We’ve slipped away from a true Republic,” Paul told a cheering crowd of followers at a Feb. 18th rally in Kansas City, Mo. “Now we’re slipping into a fascist system where it’s a combination of government and big business and authoritarian rule and the suppression of the individual rights of each and every American citizen.”
According to the Associated Press reporter who covered his speech, “Paul repeatedly denounced President Barack Obama’s recent enactment of a law requiring military custody of anyone suspected to be associated with al-Qaida and involved in planning an attack on the U.S.” (Note: Paul is a consistent defender of individual rights. He also opposed that previous horrific piece of totalitarian legislation mislabeled as the Patriot Act.)
That is unquestionably the critical issue of the hour for the United States of America and one that Paul’s Republican fellow candidates and their Democratic opponent President Obama choose to ignore.
Hand in hand with this existential crisis is that a nation that goes fascist at home invariably becomes a tyrant abroad. Thus, the Congressman from Galveston is right on the mark when he calls for the predatory U.S. to pull its troops out of the Middle East and Africa and close down its foreign bases. The U.S., indisputably, with its 1,000 military bases at home and a thousand more abroad, is now the most awesome military power ever.
“We’ve slipped away from a true Republic,” Paul told a cheering crowd of followers at a Feb. 18th rally in Kansas City, Mo. “Now we’re slipping into a fascist system where it’s a combination of government and big business and authoritarian rule and the suppression of the individual rights of each and every American citizen.”
According to the Associated Press reporter who covered his speech, “Paul repeatedly denounced President Barack Obama’s recent enactment of a law requiring military custody of anyone suspected to be associated with al-Qaida and involved in planning an attack on the U.S.” (Note: Paul is a consistent defender of individual rights. He also opposed that previous horrific piece of totalitarian legislation mislabeled as the Patriot Act.)
For What, All These Wars?
It is time we took inventory of all of these wars we have fought since the Army of Desert Storm restored the emir of Kuwait to his throne.
That 1991 war was seen as a triumph of American arms and a model of the global cooperation to come in establishing the New World Order of George H.W. Bush.
But the savage sanctions we imposed on a defeated Iraq and the planting of U.S. bases on Saudi soil that is home to Mecca was a casus belli for Osama bin Laden. Ten years after the triumph of Bush I, he brought down the twin towers.
This atrocity caused us to plunge into Afghanistan to dump over the Taliban and eradicate or expel al-Qaida. We succeeded, then decided to stay on and build a nation. After 10 years, what have we accomplished to justify the immense price we have paid?
In 2003, George W. Bush, seeking to complete the work begun by his father, invaded Iraq. But Saddam had no role in 9/11 and was no threat to America. Iraq did not even have weapons of mass destruction.
Today, after eight years of war, 4,500 dead, 35,000 wounded and a trillion dollars sunk, the 15,000 Americans we left behind are largely holed up in the Green Zone, as Iraq descends into sectarian, civil and ethnic war.
What did it all profit us?
That 1991 war was seen as a triumph of American arms and a model of the global cooperation to come in establishing the New World Order of George H.W. Bush.
But the savage sanctions we imposed on a defeated Iraq and the planting of U.S. bases on Saudi soil that is home to Mecca was a casus belli for Osama bin Laden. Ten years after the triumph of Bush I, he brought down the twin towers.
This atrocity caused us to plunge into Afghanistan to dump over the Taliban and eradicate or expel al-Qaida. We succeeded, then decided to stay on and build a nation. After 10 years, what have we accomplished to justify the immense price we have paid?
In 2003, George W. Bush, seeking to complete the work begun by his father, invaded Iraq. But Saddam had no role in 9/11 and was no threat to America. Iraq did not even have weapons of mass destruction.
Today, after eight years of war, 4,500 dead, 35,000 wounded and a trillion dollars sunk, the 15,000 Americans we left behind are largely holed up in the Green Zone, as Iraq descends into sectarian, civil and ethnic war.
What did it all profit us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)