Thursday, January 31, 2008

Global Warming Fascism 101

Global Warming Fascism 101: It’s lights out as EU plans to destroy Britain’s electric power industry

Christopher Booker
London Telegraph
Monday January 28, 2008

It was appropriate that, just as our MPs were voting last week to hand over yet more of the power to run this country in the EU treaty, the EU itself should be unveiling easily the most ambitious example yet of how it uses the powers we have already given away. The proposals for "fighting climate change" announced on Wednesday by an array of EU commissioners make Stalin's Five-Year Plans look like a model of practical politics.
Few might guess, from the two-dimensional reporting of these plans in the media, just what a gamble with Europe's future we are undertaking - spending trillions of pounds for a highly dubious return, at a devastating cost to all our economies.
The targets Britain will be legally committed to reach within 12 years fall under three main headings. Firstly, that 15 per cent of our energy should come from renewable sources such as wind (currently 1 per cent). Secondly, that 10 per cent of our transport fuel should be biofuels. Thirdly, that we accept a more draconian version of the "emissions trading scheme" that is already adding up to 12 per cent to our electricity bills.

The most prominent proposal is that which will require Britain to build up to 20,000 more wind turbines, including the 7,000 offshore giants announced by the Government before Christmas. To build two turbines a day, nearly as high as the Eiffel Tower, is inconceivable. What is also never explained is their astronomic cost.
At £2 million per megawatt of "capacity" (according to the Carbon Trust), the bill for the Government's 33 gigawatts (Gw) would be £66 billion (and even that, as was admitted in a recent parliamentary answer, doesn't include an extra £10 billion needed to connect the turbines to the grid). But the actual output of these turbines, because of the wind's unreliability, would be barely a third of their capacity. The resulting 11Gw could be produced by just seven new "carbon-free" nuclear power stations, at a quarter of the cost.
The EU's plans for "renewables" do not include nuclear energy. Worse, they take no account of the back-up needed for when the wind is not blowing - which would require Britain to have 33Gw of capacity constantly available from conventional power stations.
The same drawbacks apply to the huge increase in onshore turbines, covering thousands of square miles of countryside. They are only made viable by the vast hidden subsidies that wind energy receives, through our electricity bills. These make power from turbines (including the cost of back-up) between two and three times more expensive than that from conventional sources.
This is crazy enough, but the EU's policy on biofuels is even more so. The costs - up to £50 billion by 2020 - would, as the EU's own scientific experts have just advised, "outweigh the benefits". To grow the crops needed to meet the target would require all the farmland the EU currently uses to grow food, at a time when world food prices are soaring. Even Friends of the Earth have called on the EU to abandon its obsession with biofuels. Yet the Commission presses on regardless.
As for the "emissions trading scheme" (a system originating with the Kyoto Protocol, whereby businesses can buy or sell "carbon credits", supposedly to allow market forces to ensure that targets are met), the Commission last week predicted that by 2020 this could be raising £38 billion a year from electricity users. Of this, £6.5 billion a year would be paid by the UK, equating to £260 for every household in the country.
The Commission itself predicts, in recently leaked documents, that this will have major consequences for the EU's economy, and that heavy industries, such as steel, aluminium, chemicals and cement, will have to raise their prices substantially, some by as much as 48 per cent. Yet when it was pointed out that this will put EU industries at a competitive disadvantage, the Commission's only response was to suggest tariffs on imports from countries such as China or America that are not signed up to Kyoto.
It looks like the most expensive economic suicide note in history. But just as alarming is how little this madness has been exposed to informed analysis. It seems, finally, that the price we pay for membership of the EU and the price of our obsession with global warming are about to become very painfully synonymous. And no one seems to have noticed.

Population Control and the Scientific Breeding of Humans

Population Control and the Scientific Breeding of Humans:The Impact of Science on Society Part 3

Brent Jessop
Knowledge Driven
Tuesday January 29, 2008

"If there is not to be an endless succession of wars, population will have to become stationary throughout the world, and this will probably have to be done, in many countries, as a result of governmental measures. This will require an extension of scientific technique into very intimate matters." - Bertrand Russell, 1952 (p38)

Bertrand Russell in his 1952 book The Impact of Science on Society* describes a variety of methods that have been and could be used to reduce the population of the world to a more manageable size. Another very interrelated concept of a managed population size is the practice of eugenics. To be more precise, the practice of dysgenics for the commoners and eugenics for the aristocracy. Commoners will be bred to create a "submissive and docile disposition" while the aristocracy will be bred for much different qualities. "Gradually, by selective breeding the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species."

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell (1872-1970) was a renowned British philosopher and mathematician who was an adamant internationalist and worked extensively on the education of young children. He was the founder of the Pugwash movement which used the spectre of Cold War nuclear annihilation to push for world government. Among many other prizes, Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 and UNESCO?s (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) Kalinga prize in 1957.

The first article in this series described how scientific technique centralizes power within a society. The second part examined the stability of a scientific society and Russell's belief in the need for a world government.
(Article continues below)

Solutions to Overpopulation

From The Impact of Science on Society:

"But bad times, you may say, are exceptional, and can be dealt with by exceptional methods. This has been more or less true unless the increase in population can be enormously diminished. At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued throughout each of the world wars." [emphasis mine] - 115

"There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and third that of general misery except for a powerful minority." - 117

"The nations which at present increase rapidly should be encouraged to adopt the methods by which, in the West, the increase of population has been checked. Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation." [emphasis mine] - 116

"... a scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government... unless there is a world government which secures universal birth control, there must from time to time be great wars, in which the penalty of defeat is widespread death by starvation... Unless, at some stage, one power or group of powers emerges victorious and proceeds to establish a single government of the world with a monopoly of armed forces, it is clear that the level of civilization must decline until scientific warfare becomes impossible - that is until science is extinct." [emphasis mine] - 117

"If raw materials are not to be used up too fast, there must not be free competition for their acquisition and use but an international authority to ration them in such quantities as may from time to time seem compatible with continued industrial prosperity. And similar considerations apply to soil conservation." [emphasis mine] - 124

"To deal with this problem [increasing population and decreasing food supplies] it will be necessary to find ways of preventing an increase in world population. If this is to be done otherwise than by wars, pestilence, and famines, it will demand a powerful international authority. This authority should deal out the world's food to the various nations in proportion to their population at the time of the establishment of the authority. If any nation subsequently increased its population it should not on that account receive any more food. The motive for not increasing population would therefore be very compelling. What method of preventing an increase might be preferred should be left to each state to decide." [emphasis mine] - 124

Eugenics and Dysgenics - The Scientific Breeding of Humans

"biology, physiology and psychology are likely in the long run to affect human life quite as much as physics and chemistry." [emphasis mine] - 38

"In any case, it is pretty certain that scientific technique will very soon effect great improvements in the animals and plants that are useful to man.

When such methods of modifying the congenital character of animals and plants have been pursued long enough to make their success obvious, it is probable that there will be a powerful movement for applying scientific methods to human propagation. There would at first be strong religious and emotional obstacles to the adoption of such a policy. But suppose (say) Russia were able to overcome these obstacles and to breed a race stronger, more intelligent, and more resistant to disease than any race of men that has hitherto existed, and suppose the other nations perceived that unless they followed suit they would be defeated in war, then either the other nations would voluntarily forgo their prejudices, or, after defeat, they would be compelled to forgo them. Any scientific technique, however beastly, is bound to spread if it is useful in war - until such time as men decide that they have had enough of war and will henceforth live in peace. As that day does seem to be at hand, scientific breeding of human beings must be expected to come about." [emphasis mine] - 39

"Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. It may be worthwhile to spend a few moments in speculating as to possible future developments of those that are oligarchies.

...Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.

A totalitarian government with a scientific bent might do things that to us would seem horrifying. The Nazis were more scientific than the present rulers of Russia, and were more inclined towards the sort of atrocities that I have in mind. They were said - I do not know with what truth - to use prisoners in concentration camps as material for all kinds of experiments, some involving death after much pain. If they had survived, they would probably have soon taken to scientific breeding. Any nation which adopts this practice will, within a generation, secure great military advantages. The system, one may surmise, will be something like this: except possibly in the governing aristocracy, all but 5 per cent of males and 30 per cent of females will be sterilised. The 30 per cent of females will be expected to spend the years from eighteen to forty in reproduction, in order to secure adequate cannon fodder. As a rule, artificial insemination will be preferred to the natural method. The unsterilised, if they desire the pleasures of love, will usually have to seek them with sterilised partners.

Sires will be chosen for various qualities, some for muscle others for brains. All will have to be healthy, and unless they are to be the fathers of oligarchs they will have to be of a submissive and docile disposition. Children will, as in Plato's Republic, be taken from their mothers and reared by professional nurses. Gradually, by selective breeding the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organised insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton. (The Aztecs kept a domesticated alien tribe for purposes of cannibalism. Their regime was totalitarian.)

To those accustomed to this system, the family as we know it would seem as queer as the tribal and totem organisation of Australian aborigines seems to us... The labouring class would have such long hours of work and so little to eat that their desires would hardly extend beyond sleep and food. The upper class, being deprived of the softer pleasures both by the abolition of the family and by the supreme duty of devotion to the State, would acquire the mentality of ascetics: they would care only for power, and in pursuit of it would not shrink from cruelty. By the practice of cruelty men would become hardened, so that worse and worse tortures would be required to give the spectators a thrill." [emphasis mine] - 61

A very important auxiliary technique involved in creating the "submissive and docile disposition" is education. Bertrand Russell's views on education will be discussed in the following article, entitled Mass Psychology and Education.

*Quotes from Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (1952). ISBN0-415-10906-X

Note: I first heard about this book from talks given by Alan Watt at Cutting Through The, an individual well worth looking into.

Monday, January 28, 2008

How Bush Destroyed the Dollar

How Bush Destroyed the Dollar

Sunday January 27, 2008

It is difficult to know where Bush has accomplished the most destruction, the Iraqi economy or the US economy.
In the current issue of Manufacturing & Technology News, Washington economist Charles McMillion observes that seven years of Bush has seen the federal debt increase by two-thirds while US household debt doubled.
This massive Keynesian stimulus produced pitiful economic results. Median real income has declined. The labor force participation rate has declined. Job growth has been pathetic, with 28% of the new jobs being in the government sector. All the new private sector jobs are accounted for by private education and health care bureaucracies, bars and restaurants. Three and a quarter million manufacturing jobs and a half million supervisory jobs were lost. The number of manufacturing jobs has fallen to the level of 65 years ago.
This is the profile of a third world economy.

The "new economy" has been running a trade deficit in advanced technology products since 2002. The US trade deficit in manufactured goods dwarfs the US trade deficit in oil. The US does not earn enough to pay its import bill, and it doesn't save enough to finance the government's budget deficit.
To finance its deficits, America looks to the kindness of foreigners to continue to accept the outpouring of dollars and dollar-denominated debt.
The dollars are accepted, because the dollar is the world's reserve currency.
At the meeting of the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, this week, billionaire currency trader George Soros warned that the dollar's reserve currency role was drawing to an end: "The current crisis is not only the bust that follows the housing boom, it's basically the end of a 60-year period of continuing credit expansion based on the dollar as the reserve currency. Now the rest of the world is increasingly unwilling to accumulate dollars."
If the world is unwilling to continue to accumulate dollars, the US will not be able to finance its trade deficit or its budget deficit. As both are seriously out of balance, the implication is for yet more decline in the dollar's exchange value and a sharp rise in prices.
Economists have romanticized globalism, taking delight in the myriad of foreign components in US brand name products. This is fine for a country whose trade is in balance or whose currency has the reserve currency role. It is a terrible dependency for a country such as the US that has been busy at work offshoring its economy while destroying the exchange value of its currency.
As the dollar sheds value and loses its privileged position as reserve currency, US living standards will take a serious knock.
If the US government cannot balance its budget by cutting its spending or by raising taxes, the day when it can no longer borrow will see the government paying its bills by printing money like a third world banana republic. Inflation and more exchange rate depreciation will be the order of the day.

Government the Destroyer

Government the Destroyer

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Monday January 28, 2008

This talk was delivered at the 2008 Mises Circle in Houston.
The claim of the Austrian School that has scandalized members of other schools for 150 years is the following. The propositions of economics are universal. The principles apply in all times and all places, because they derive from the structure of reality and human action.
What brought about economic growth, inflation, or the business cycle in China 300 BC are the same institutions that drive phenomena in the United States in AD 2008. The circumstances of time and place change, but the underlying economic reality is identical.
That claim has made other economists – to say nothing of sociologists, historians, and politicians – scatter like pigeons. The Historical School poured scorn on this idea, and Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian School, fought them tooth and nail. The Chicago School of positivists found the claim preposterous, and Mises and Hayek and Rothbard battled them. The Keynesians have long been outraged, and the postwar Austrian generation reasserted the truth. The socialists, who posit that rearranging property titles will transform all of reality, say that the claim is absurd, capitalistic nonsense.
But there it stands. No matter where or when, the essential prerequisite for economic growth is capital accumulation in a framework of freedom and sound money. The consequence of price control is shortage and surplus. The effect of money expansion is inflation and the business cycle. The effect of every form of intervention is to make society less prosperous than it would otherwise be.
The list of universals is endless, which is why every age needs good economists to explain and articulate the truth.
Well, I would like to add that there are universal fallacies too.
(Article continues below)

Frédéric Bastiat pointed to one: the belief that the destruction of wealth fuels its creation. He explains this by means of an allegory that has come to be known as the story of the broken window. Most famously it was retold as the opening of Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson, which is probably the bestselling economics book of all time.
A kid throws a rock at a window and breaks it, and everyone standing around regrets the unfortunate state of affairs. But then up walks a man who purports to be wise and all-knowing. He points out that this is not a bad thing after all. The man fixing the window will get money for doing so. This will then be spent on a new suit, and the tailor too will get money. The tailor will spend money on other items and the circle of rising prosperity will expand without end.
What's wrong with this scenario? As Bastiat put it, "It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way which this accident has prevented."
You can see the absurdity of the position of the wise commentator when you take it to absurd extremes. If the broken window really produces wealth, why not break all windows up and down the whole city block? Indeed, why not break doors and walls? Why not tear down all houses so that they can be rebuilt? Why not bomb whole cities so construction firms can get busy rebuilding?
It is not a good thing to destroy wealth. Bastiat puts it this way. "Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed."
It sounds like an unexceptional claim. But herein rests the core case against everything the government does. Perhaps, then, we can see why the allegory is not better known. If we took it seriously, we would dismantle the whole apparatus of American economic intervention.
If you are with me to this point, perhaps you have a hard time believing that anyone really believes that wealth destruction is actually a good thing. Let me try to show that the fallacy is as pervasive as ever.
After every natural disaster, we at the Mises Institute start what we call the Broken Window Watch.
After Hurricane Katrina, the Labor Secretary said: "What will happen – and I have seen this in previous catastrophes and hurricanes – there is a bright spot in that new jobs do get created."
And The Economist said, "While big hurricanes like Katrina destroy wealth, they often have a net positive effect on GDP growth, as the temporary downturn immediately after the storm is more than made up for by the burst of economic activity that takes place when the rebuilding begins."
And the New York Times said: "Economists point out that although Katrina has destroyed a lot of accumulated wealth, it ultimately will probably have a positive effect on growth data over the next few months as resources are channeled into rebuilding."
After last year's California fires, we heard this. "In the odd nature of economic accounting, this will probably be a stimulus," said Alan Gin, a University of San Diego economist. "There will be a huge amount of rebuilding in the next couple of years, financed by insurance payments."
And CBS Marketwatch said: "Economists have noted the perverse reality that in the wake of disasters, re-construction spending helps the economy, even as people are still struggling to recover from their personal losses."
Note that personal loss here is deemed rather irrelevant compared with the beneficial macroeconomic results. Here we have a theme we find often in economics, the attempt to drive a wedge between what makes sense for individuals and what is good for society. We see this on display in this recessionary environment, when people are told to spend spend spend, even though most people understand that recessions are times for saving.
Continuing on, we find the Broken Window fallacy popping up even after 9-11.
Timothy Noah of Slate wrote: "We live in a very wealthy nation that responds to horrible disasters by spending large sums of money…. It will also provide a meaningful Keynesian stimulus to a national economy that, let's face it, was tottering on the brink of recession well before Sept. 11. The recession may still come, but the countercyclical spending should help shorten it."
Another economist declared: "Initially, this could provide a significant boost to an economy that had been slumping. The construction industry could benefit from the rebuilding process. There may also be a boon for slumping tech sales, in replacing lost equipment."
Thus can we see the continuing relevance not only of Bastiat's allegory but also of the characters in the story. The posturing wiseguy who says that breaking windows is good for the economy keeps reappearing again and again. So entrenched is this mistake that we might call it official economic doctrine for the whole country.
I ask you to consider the absurd discussion of a stimulus package designed to rescue the economy from recession. The idea is that the government will inject funds into private markets to stimulate them to the point that they will run on their own. Not once in this debate have I heard anyone ask the core question: where is this money going to come from?
It seems that Washington wants us to believe that they have some magic machine that can turn up $150 billion in new assets without anyone having to do anything to make these assets appear. One wonders, then, why we need to wait until a recession to stimulate the economy. Why not magically create hundreds of billions every day, and not just for this country but for the entire world? Why are we holding back?
Now, the ideas of the stimulus package are not 100% awful. Some people are talking about tax cuts, which is a good thing but rather pointless without spending cuts. I'm particularly intrigued by the underlying assumption here that taxes work as a drag on an economy whereas tax cuts fuel expansion. If that is the case, and is indeed true but for different reasons than Washington gives, why wait until the recession to cut taxes? If taking less from us is good for the economy, we should institute this as a universal policy.
One great lesson of political economy, emphasized for centuries, is that the government creates no wealth of its own. Everything it has it has to get from you and me, one way or another. It can tax. It can borrow. And, finally, it can inflate by means of credit market manipulation. This third option is the most disguised. When people hear the words monetary policy, they figure that this is something they will leave to experts. And central bankers have an astonishing talent for obfuscation to the point that no one knows with certainty precisely what they are doing.
The whole show is designed to make us go to sleep and not think about what is really going on. The unvarnished truth is that when the Fed artificially lowers rates, it is creating new money that waters down the value of the existing money stock, yielding a lower purchasing power for the dollar. That's another way of saying that it creates inflation – perhaps not right away, and perhaps not across all economic sectors, but eventually and certainly.
This, my friends, is a form of breaking windows. It is wealth destruction. It matters not that there will be more dollars to spend, because prices will be higher and wealth has been drained out of the private sector, and redistributed within it. It is Bastiat's fallacy reinvented in a new form.
New money also distorts production structures. At the very time when the market is pressuring long-term investment to pull back, the lower rates encourage expansion in ways that prolong the crisis. It only delays and worsens the inevitable. The Great Depression taught us that government is capable of doing this to the point that the crisis can last for 17 years. So this is no small matter. A government determined to prevent recession is a government that might end up sustaining one to the point of the collapse of civilization itself.
It is a perverse belief, but pervasive nonetheless. It is believed by both political parties. It is held by the president, the media, and the congress (except for Ron Paul). It is a reflexive belief, one that reflects a failure to think between stages and see the unseen effects of government intervention.
One reason that Bastiat's example has power is that it applies not just in one area of policy but all areas. If it isn't true that breaking windows creates wealth, it is not true that government spending and inflating is a boon to the economy. It only ends up draining wealth from the private sector, which is the only source of wealth creation.
It doesn't matter what the government spends money on. For example, building pyramids with tax dollars is not good for the economy, despite what Keynes claimed. But neither is waging war good for us or the victim country, despite constant claims to the contrary.
It is surely one of the most deadly myths that the Second World War ended the depression. As Robert Higgs has shown, it further prolonged it, all phony data aside. And consider the spending on the war on terror. If government spending were capable of stimulating the economy, we would not have recession right now.
Chris Westley assembled some data on the last seven years of economic conditions, and it is sobering indeed. Since 2000, tax revenues are up 25%. That's wealth destruction. Government spending is setting records for expansion, with $1 trillion added to the annul budget, with military spending up $250 billion each year over the egregious $400 billion spent annually in 2000. That's wealth destruction. The national debt is up 59%. That has to be paid. More destruction.
Social security liabilities are up 60%. That too is the promise of future destruction. The money supply is up 72%. More destruction. Inflation itself has risen 20%, so the dollar of 2000 is now worth 80 cents. The gas price alone is up 118%, so that too is wealth destroyed. As an indication of economic trouble, the gold price is up 206%.
Here is the story so far of the government's great stimulus. It has led to hard economic times. More of the same will create more of the same and worse. The unemployment rate is rising. Savings are falling. Prices are rising. We are less secure, less prosperous, and we have fewer opportunities than ever to dig our way out of this mess.
Government expansion has actually created the absurd scenario mentioned above. The boy threw the rock, the crowds in Washington believed the sophist, and now they are plotting to raze all homes on the block, in the name of economic recovery.
Have we learned from the Great Depression? Ben Bernanke believes that he has learned something. He believes that the key problem of that period was a failure of the central bank to pump in enough money and credit. He has never absorbed the critical observation of Rothbard that the Fed did attempt to pump up the money supply from 1929–1934. They used every mechanism, but the credit markets found few takers, and without their cooperation, the money supply does not expand.
The real lesson of the Great Depression is that there is nothing that the central bank can do to forestall a recession whose time has come, and nothing government can do to improve the situation once the recession has arrived. Everything it attempts to do – except shrink – only ends up making matters worse.
So it is in our time. We must ask ourselves what Washington is capable of doing this time around. I believe that the answer is anything and everything. Bernanke will attempt to flood the economy with money. Washington is perfectly capable of imposing price and wage controls on the entire economy. It is capable of terrifying levels of protectionist legislation. New taxes are less likely but taxation through debt accumulation is probably inevitable. There might be rationing, spending mandates, anti-hoarding legislation, and more.
The assumption that driving up consumption is the key to prosperity is particularly dangerous, and also pregnant with irony. During good economic times, we are hounded constantly by the intellectual elites for our consumption habits. It is said that we are a greedy nation, buying ever more fripperies and not looking after the long term. The American public is decried by the intellectual elites as materialist, consumerist, and short sighted.
Then recession hits and the tune changes completely. Reliable leftists, fresh from having complained about the egregious spending habits of the American consumer, suddenly turn on a dime and tell us that more consumption is the key to economic growth. They favor policies that would get us to fork over ever more of our money, under the belief that the core problem is a lack of demand!
A recent example is Barack Obama, who said last year that the problem with popular culture is that it "saturates our airwaves with a steady stream of sex, violence and materialism." But only this week, he seemed to endorse one of the three. "If the economy continues to decline in the coming weeks, we should send checks to people," he said. "This is the quickest way to help people pay their bills and get them to start spending."
In fact, less spending and more saving is what is called for during a recession, which is nothing but a market correction writ large. Attempting to coerce spending threatens the value of the dollar itself.
Here we face a very dangerous situation. If the dollar ever ceases to be the international currency of choice, and this could happen, we could face roaring inflation. And with dreadful legislation that prohibits any kind of choice in currency, Americans will be stuck. Here is a problem that could cause near panic in Washington.
The irony here is that after a century of failed interventionism and socialism, Washington is no less likely, and probably far more likely, to take the path of least resistance and accumulate ever more power unto itself, at our expense.
We are in an election season, so of course people ask who would be the least bad person to head the state in the years ahead. The answer here is not at all clear, if it is not Dr. Paul. As with the 1930s we face a choice between militaristic fascism and Keynesian-style socialism combined with environmentalism. These are two very grim choices.
I tell you this not to spread gloom but merely to be realistic about the prospects for the future of American politics. But there is also good news to be considered. The private sector has raced so far ahead of the state, and is so global, that it is far more resilient than before. There are safety valves available in the form of international capital markets.
The government is so much bigger now than in the 1930s, but, paradoxically, that also makes it less effective than it once was, which is very good news. It is a massive, lumbering giant, whereas the markets are a speed racer.
I might also point out that the government enjoys nowhere near the respect it once had. Once the governing elite consisted of the nation's elite, coming from the best families and the best schools. Today, the governing elite has never been more transparently ridiculous and even freakish. Gone are the aristocratic public servants of yesterday; today, the government is made up of a class of hucksters and gangsters that inspires no confidence.
This is all to the good, for as Mencken said, it is always great when we do not get all the government we pay for.
On the intellectual level, the teachings of economics in the Austrian School tradition have never been more available to the world, or more frequently cited and discussed. And a recessionary environment guarantees more attention to the Austrian theory of the business cycle simply because this is the only model that makes sense of our current problems.
We should never underestimate the power of ideas to make a difference in the world. During the Great Depression, the resistance to the state was present but weak. Today we have built up a mighty intellectual army that extends across the globe. We are prepared in ways that they were not. We have thousands of students and faculty, and men and women of affairs who know real economics. We have the internet. We have new books that put the whole problem in perspective, such as Jesús Huerta de Soto's work on business cycles. We have the biography of Mises now, and it illustrates the heroism of political dissidence. The works of Rothbard on the Great Depression and central banking have never been more widely circulated and available. This time our masters in Washington will not go unopposed.
At the Mises Institute, now in our 26th year, we tried to maintain a careful balance between serious and fundamental scholarly work, and public advocacy. We must never lose sight of the need for research and detailed work. It is not enough to merely repeat slogans. At the same time, there are some foundational lessons of economics that must be taught again and again with each new generation. The fallacy of the Broken Window is one of them, and its implications are truly radical.
Both Bastiat and Hazlitt saw that the government is the great window breaker, that destroyer of wealth that drives the economy backwards. The engine of creativity, recovery, and expansion is the private sector, completely unencumbered by state intervention. Ron Paul's newest book is called Pillars of Prosperity: Free Markets, Sound Money, and Private Property. The title nicely sums up the message of the economics of freedom.
It bears repeating in every age, in all places, for we will never be completely free of the great threat of the window breaker. So long as there are governments with stones ready to throw, there will be a need for someone to point out that destruction is never productive, never beneficial, and never a path to the good life that we all seek.

American Liberty Teetering on Edge of Abyss

American Liberty Teetering on Edge of Abyss

Paul Craig Roberts
Monday January 28, 2008

"Your papers please" has long been a phrase associated with Hitler’s Gestapo. People without the Third Reich’s stamp of approval were hauled off to Nazi Germany’s version of Halliburton detention centers.
Today Americans are on the verge of being asked for their papers, although probably without the "please."
Thanks to a government that has turned its back on the US Constitution, Americans now have an unaccountable Department of Homeland Security that is already asserting tyrannical powers over US citizens and state governments. Headed by the neocon fanatic Michael Chertoff, the Orwellian-sounding Department of Homeland Security has mandated a national identity card for Americans, without which Americans may not enter airports or courthouses.

There is no more need for this card than there is for a Department of Homeland Security. Neither are compatible with a free society.
However, Bush, the neocons, Republicans and Democrats do not want America to any longer be a free society, and they are taking freedom away from us just as they took away the independence of the media.
Free and informed people get in the way of power-mad zealots with agendas.
It is the agendas that are supreme, not the American people, who have less and less say about less and less.
George W. Bush, an elected president, has behaved like a dictator since September 11, 2001. If "our" representatives in Congress care, they haven’t done anything about it. Bush has pretty much cut Congress out of the action.
In truth, Congress gave up its law-making powers to the executive branch during the New Deal. For three-quarters of a century, the bills passed by Congress have been authorizations for executive branch agencies to make laws in the form of regulations. The executive branch has come to the realization that it doesn’t really need Congress. President Bush appends his own "signing statements" to the authorizations from Congress in which the President says what the legislation means. So what is the point of Congress?
As for laws already on the books, the US Department of Justice (sic) has ruled that the President doesn’t have to abide by US statutes, such as FISA or the law forbidding torture. Neither does the President have to abide by the Geneva Conventions.
Other obstacles are removed by edicts known as presidential directives or executive orders. There are more and more of these edicts, and they accumulate more and more power and less and less accountability in the executive.
The disdain in which the executive branch holds the "separate and equal" legislative branch is everywhere apparent. For example, President Bush is concluding a long-term security agreement with the puppet government he has set up in Iraq. Prior to September 11, 2001, when the President became The Decider, a defense pact was a treaty requiring the approval of Congress.
All that is now behind us. General Douglas Lute, President Bush’s national security adviser for Iraq says that the White House will not be submitting the deal to Congress for approval. Lute says Bush will not be seeking any "formal inputs from the Congress."
"There is no question that this is unprecedented," said Yale Law School Professor O. Hathaway.
Bush can do whatever he wants, because Congress has taken its only remaining power – impeachment – off the table.
The Democratic Party leadership thinks that the only problem is Bush, who will be gone in one year. Besides, the Israel Lobby doesn’t want Israel’s champion impeached, and neither do the corporate owners of the US media.
The Democrats are not adverse to inheriting the powers in Bush’s precedents. The Democrats, of course, will use the elevated powers for good rather than for evil.
Instead of having a bad dictator, we’ll have a good one.

Video: Ron Paul on the Economy at Florida Debates

It's just common sense!

Saturday, January 26, 2008

North American Union becomes litmus test for political hypocrisy among U.S. Democratic Presidential candidates

North American Union becomes litmus test for political hypocrisy among U.S. Democratic Presidential candidates

Peter Tremblay
The Canadian
Friday January 25, 2008

Many Americans who seek to consider which candidate to vote for in upcoming Democratic Party Primaries may wonder which front runner candidate can they trust to best represent the expressed political party values: Hillary Clinton, John Edward or Barack Obama? These values and related policy agenda supposedly include defending America's "middle class'; affirming labour and equality rights; increasing accessibility to healthcare insurance with other social issues; protecting America's natural environmental heritage; redressing Global Warming; and getting America out of the costly Iraq War, which would free up needed public resources for domestic economic recovery. All the Democratic frontrunners have been very eloquent about their professed commitments. However, there is one critical issue, which exposes all of them to be apparent lying hypocrites.
That critical issue is that of the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership North American Union (SPP-NAU). The U.S. President George W. Bush Administration's SPP-NAU agenda, would literally undermine and subvert the kind of values and related policy areas that Democratic Presidential candidates have professed to support. The silence of the Democratic Presidential candidates on the SPP-NAU, demonstrates a complete lack of integrity and disingenuousness. The failure of Democratic Presidential candidates to confront the Bush Administration's SPP-NAU agenda demonstrates that these candidates opposition to the Bush Administration, is merely political theatre, directed at a "gullible" American public.

The apparent truth of the matter is that Democratic Party Presidential candidates, who are all engaged in a conspiracy of silence over the SPP-NAU, along with Mr. Bush, and most of the Republican Party Presidential candidates are little more than different faces of the same malevolent consciousness whose members are working in concert with one another behind the scenes.
The apparent political conflict with one another, is no more real than the conflict that one can find in the typical American production of a Hollywood film.
Americans who seek a better quality-of-life, need to be guided by action, and not simply political rhetoric. Silence, as the action of U.S. Democratic Presidential candidates on a Bush administration effort, conveys a Democratic Presidential strategy of co-operating in a political charade against the American people.
The conspiracy of silence among Democratic Presidential candidates is far more hypocritical than the Republic Presidential candidates, because the "credibility gap" among supposedly more progressive Democrats is far worse. Silence by a Republican candidates like John McCain and his other political party Republican Primary candidates, with their biases toward Big Business interests makes them less hypocritical. This is because these candidates are members of a political party, that unapologetically represents the kind of Big Business biases that SPP-NAU agenda is designed to advance.
Respective political party elites, in collusion with the U.S. political-military-industrial complex in both the Democratic and Republican Parties, through a greed-driven political process that relies on "big bucks", have ensured that any successful candidate running for President of the United States, will represent the core values of a neo-fascist agenda. U.S. President George W. Bush and his current White House colleagues, are just a relative handful of representatives of a well organized "bureaucracy" of related political interests.
Republican Ron Paul is the only Presidential candidate to publicly take on the issue of the SPP-NAU agenda, in association with Congressman Virgil Goode.
Mr. Goode (R-VA), had introduced H.C.R. 40 in January 2007, which presented the acknowledged the real threat which the NAU agenda presents:
"Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada."
H.C.R. 40 has over forty co-sponsors who include: Rep. John J. Duncan (TN-2), Rep. Virginia Foxx (NC-5), Rep. Walter B. Jones (NC-3), Rep. Charles W. Norwood (GA-10), Rep. Ron Paul (TX-14), Rep Ralph Regula (OH-16), Rep. Jim Saxton (NJ-3), Rep. Cliff Stearns (FL-6), Rep. Patrick J. Tiberi (OH-12), Rep Zach Wamp (TN-3). LINK
Mr. Goode's efforts have acknowledged that, behind closed doors, a new scheme is being drawn up to eliminate the borders with Mexico and Canada, replace the Dollar with the "Amero" -- thus destroying American's savings and economic stability; and create a "North American Union" (NAU) like the anti-democratic European Union.
This scheme has been identified as replacing decision making through democratic institutions instead with government under the direction of "directorship" of large corporations and non-elected "advisors" in Mexico, Canada, and the United States. The U.S. political-industrial-military complex, and its Canadian and Mexican allies seek to replace the democracies of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico with a "North American Union" entity that operates as a "national security state".
The SPP-NAU agenda, had also been acknowledged in Canada by the CanWest Global owned Ottawa Citizen, in the article entitled North American Union' plan under fire, that had been published in February 17, 2007. LINK. CanWest Global is a multi-billion dollar media enterprise in Canada, which includes newspapers across Canada and a network of cable television stations.
That article by a well established media organization further emphasises that Americans need to wake up to the fact that Democratic Party Presidential candidates professings of seeking to present Americans with a "new course" away from the self-serving agendas of the U.S. Bush Administration, are statements that are being presented with hypocrisy of the worst kind. Americans as a whole, need to wake up also to the apparent fact that the clandestine elite neo-fascist inspired agenda of SPP-NAU demonstrates that its society's leaders professings about championing democracy in the execution of the "War on Terror" is total mass-deception.
The SPP-NAU, is an effort by the U.S. Bush administration to ensure that whatever is the outcome of the U.S. Presidential election, their clique will rule "North America", toward aspirations of neo-fascist authoritarian Global dominance. SPP-NAU represents the creation of a North American "national security state" under One Party Rule, that will make the Office of the President, along with Congressional representatives, ceremonial positions, like Queen and the Royal Palace in the United Kingdom.
The SPP-NAU agenda is an apparent effort to concentrate global power, in an alliance with the Big Business elites of the neo-fascistic European Union, in a march toward the consolidation of an Orwellian-like "New World Order", where the kind of values fought by great former champions of the Democratic Party like Robert Sargent Shriver, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Robert F. Kennedy, will be totally disregarded, in favour of an agenda of exploitation and oppression under an unaccountable neo-fascist clique.

PJB: Why McCain Would be Worse Than Bush

PJB: Why McCain Would be Worse Than Bush

Patrick J. Buchanan
Friday January 25, 2008

In 2004, the voters of Arizona, by 56 percent to 44 percent, enacted Proposition 200, requiring proof of citizenship before an individual may vote or receive state benefits. Forty-six percent of Hispanics voted for Prop. 200, giving the lie to those who say Hispanics support the illegal invasion of their country.
Over 190,000 Arizonans petitioned to put Prop. 200 on the ballot. As it simply required proof of citizenship before receiving the benefits and privileges of citizenship, who could oppose it? Answer: the entire GOP congressional delegation, led by Sen. John McCain.
This is the same John McCain who battled the border fence and colluded with Teddy Kennedy on the amnesty bill rejected by Congress last year after a national uproar.
Bottom line: If the presidential race is between Hillary and Amnesty John, the border security battle is over and lost. As Laura Ingraham asks, “If Congress passes McCain-Kennedy in 2009, would President McCain sign it?”
For conservatives, the stakes could not be higher.
(Article continues below)

For on the great controversies, McCain has sided as often with the Democrats and the Big Media that pay him court as with conservatives.
Where President Bush has been bravest, on taxes and judges, McCain has been his nemesis. Not only did McCain vote against the Bush tax cuts twice, he colluded to sell out the most conservative of the Bush nominees to the courts.
In 1993, McCain voted to confirm ACLU liberal and pro-abortion Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But when Bush set out to restore constitutionalism, McCain colluded with Democrats who wanted to retain power to kill Bush’s most conservative nominees.
McCain helped form the Gang of 14, including seven Democrats, who agreed to block a GOP Senate from using the “nuclear option” – allowing a simple GOP majority to break a Democrat filibuster of judicial nominees – unless the seven Democrats approved. McCain thus conspired with liberals to put at risk the most courageous conservatives nominees of President Bush.
With his record of voting for liberal justices Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, and of colluding with Democrats in their campaign to kill the most conservative Bush nominees, what guarantee is there a President McCain will nominate and fight for the fifth jurist who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?
In the battle over campaign finance reform, McCain colluded again. The McCain-Feingold law denies to gun folks and right-to-lifers their basic First Amendment right to name friends and foes in ads run before elections.
As for the policies that have transparently failed Bush and the nation, McCain remains an obdurate advocate.
After America has run five straight record trade deficits that have denuded the nation of thousands of factories and 3 million manufacturing jobs, McCain is still babbling on about Smoot-Hawley.
“When you study history, every time we’ve adopted protectionism, we’ve paid a very heavy price,” McCain told a Detroit paper after informing Michiganders their auto jobs are never coming back.
But what history is John McCain talking about?
Was the Tariff of 1816, which saved infant U.S. industries from the malicious dumping by British merchants after the War of 1812, a failure? Were Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Calhoun and Henry Clay fools to support President Madison’s tariff?
From Abraham Lincoln through Calvin Coolidge, the Republican Party – the Party of Protection – put 12 presidents in the White House to two for the Democrats, and the United States became the mightiest industrial power in history, producing 42 percent of the world’s manufactured goods.
This is failure – while Bush free trade is a success? Tell it to Ohio.
Even Hillary Clinton, whose husband enacted NAFTA with McCain’s support, has begun to question the NAFTA paradigm. Not McCain.
Where Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon came to office determined to extricate the nation with honor from a war whose costs had begun to outweigh any benefit, McCain is talking about spending 50 or 100 years in Iraq.
Where Bush, by moving NATO onto Russia’s doorstep, planting bases in Central Asia and intervening in the affairs of Russia’s neighbors, has undone the work of Reagan in making Russia a friend, he sounds like George McGovern alongside the braying McCain, who can’t wait to get into Vladimir Putin’s face.
Where Bush finally cleansed his administration of neocons, if not of their legacy, a McCain candidacy is the last, best hope of a neocon restoration and new military adventures in the Middle East.
If Rudy Giuliani founders in Florida, neocons will be chanting, “Mac is back!”
The three issues that ruined the Bush presidency are this misbegotten war in Iraq, the failure to secure America’s borders from invasion and a mindless trade policy that has destroyed the dollar and left foreigners with $5 trillion to buy up America at fire-sale prices.
McCain remains an unthinking advocate of all three.
But where Bush was at his best, on taxes and judges, McCain was collaborating with Hillary. The question conservatives may face if McCain is nominated is not whom should I vote for, but should I vote

Lord Save Us from Useful Green Idiots

Lord Save Us from Useful Green Idiots

Kurt Nimmo
Truth News
January 24, 2008

From John D. Dingell of Michigan, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, to ba-zillionaire mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg and now U2 frontman Bono, we endure calls for a carbon tax. So thick is the hype, so deep is the indoctrination, the New York Times went out of its way to declare that “everyone is using the atmosphere like a municipal dump, depositing carbon dioxide free,” in other words the very fact you are breathing is detrimental to the planet.
Al Gore has declared the discussion over, even though, as Paul Joseph Watson notes, “over 100 prominent scientists who have signed a letter slamming the UN move” toward a carbon tax “as a futile bureaucratic scheme” and “pointing out the results of a recent study in the International Journal of Climatology which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is largely a result of solar activity and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.”
Al Gore, Mr. Green himself, is an inch short of having these heretics flayed alive for the “eco crime” of disagreement based on reality-based science. Like the converso minority of yore, these scientists are to be persecuted for heresy. The only thing missing is the rack, although Al and the new Green bureaucrats — globalist autocrats to the man and woman — expect these enviro-criminals to engage in groveling fashion to the auto de fe, that is to say to ask for penance. Al is our Tomás de Torquemada reborn, the Inquisitor General of the Earth cult.
Enter the pathetic suck-up Paul David Hewson, aka Bono. “Having climate campaigner Al Gore round to your house is to open yourself to a self-flagellating guilt trip, Irish rock star Bono confessed Thursday,” reports AFP. “Sharing a stage with the former US vice president at the annual gathering of world movers and shakers in the Swiss ski resort of Davos, the U2 frontman joked that their friendship was a source of pressure on the domestic front” because “here’s the recycler Al, you know… I’ve got a posh car, but it runs on ethanol.”
Bono’s doing his part, playing the clown at Davos, and never mind that the grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol will feed one person for a year and the grain needed to fill that same tank every two weeks over a year will feed 26 people, as Lester Brown points out for the Globalist. “Simply put, the stage is being set for a head-on collision between the world’s 800 million affluent automobile owners and food consumers.”
But then starvation is not as problem for the one-world globalist types at Davos. For instance, Henry Kissinger, in attendance at the posh resort in Switzerland, basically stage managed talks between the NSC and the Club of Rome back in the mid 1970s. The Club of Rome, controlled by Europe’s nobility, “is the primary promotion agency for the genocidal reduction of world population levels,” writes Lonnie Wolfe. “This group drafted the Carter administration’s Global 2000 document, which calls for global population reduction.”
It takes a certain kind of sociopath and the occasional psychopath like Heinz Kissinger to come up with the peculiar idea that breathing is detrimental to the planet, an idea so common it is now telegraphed across the pages of the Gray Lady, the same venue used shamelessly to sell genocidal wars against distant people — in Iraq, a million dead bodies and counting — who unfortunately sit atop a lot of oil and generally follow a religion that preaches against the dictates of Wall Street and the City of London, i.e., never-ending and predatory usury and loan sharking, especially of the sort organized by the World Bank and the IMF, is a sin. Depleted uranium is required in such cases.
But back to our famous pagliaccio, Mr. Bono. “Acknowledging that a career in rock music was not always conducive to a green lifestyle, Bono compared a conversation with Gore to an act of religious contrition… ‘It’s like being with an Irish priest. You start to confess your sins,’ he said. ‘Father Al, I am not just a noise polluter, I am a noise-polluting, diesel-soaking, gulfstream-flying rock star… I’m going to kick the habit. I’m trying father Al, but oil has been very good for me — those convoys of articulated lorries, petrochemical products, hair gel.’”
Ha ha, big funny. But it is not funny. Because ultimately what we are talking about here is “sustainability,” and for the United Nations and the globalist elite, including minion Al Gore, this will come at a huge and miserable human cost. It’s part and parcel of the globalist control grid. “It should be noted that Agenda 21 sets up the global infrastructure needed to manage, count, and control all of the world’s assets,” writes Joan Veon.
Included are the forests, fresh water, agricultural lands, deserts, pastures, rangelands, farmers’ fields, oceans and inland waterways, marine environment, marine life, cities, housing, sewer and solid wastes, methods of production, air, pollution, biotechnology-every aspect of living-farming, production and manufacturing, research and medicine, etc., along with you and I. Today everything is sustainable: sustainable water, sustainable forests, sustainable markets, sustainable agriculture, etc.
In order to get all this “sustainability,” we’ll need a world government and that’s what the carbon tax — along with previous scams, such as a fuel use tax, a tax on currency transactions (the Tobin tax), an arms sales tax, a global lottery, and a tax on international airline travel, etc. — is all about. Of course, a breathing tax is near perfect — that is unless you plan on giving up the practice of breathing in short order.
Bono will be allowed to keep his lavish rock star lifestyle because he is a useful idiot for the elite.
And so will Al Gore with his 20-room mansion in Tennessee with its 221,000 kilowatt-hours of energy usage in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.
Minionhood for the global elite has its privileges

Turmoil tests the new world order

Here’s my response to this article:

This looks like more typical pompous and brain-dead mainstream globalist double-think. Just think about this for a moment? Do you really believe that the road to prosperity requires setting up a few cookie-cutter multinational and centralized dictatorships run by out-of-touch and unselected bureaucrats? Is this a fair substitute for replacing locally controlled democratic capitalist nation states? It looks like a raw deal to me! You people really have gone insane!

The fact of the matter is that the New World Order must fail because it imposes blind blanket tyranny on free thinking people of differing cultural persuasions. The system will collapse when the impoverished slaves stop working and start rebelling. At that point, either the New World Order elites will be forced to kill the people; or else the people will start killing their globalist slave masters. The NOW, like all tyrannies, must end in an orgy of universal bloodshed and misery!

FYI, an offshoot of this system was already tried by the Soviet Union and the result was grinding poverty and institutionalized genocide. The same fate awaits the European Union, the coming The North American Union and the coming New World Order run by the United Nations!

The NWO is a form of fascist tyranny because it pegs the global wage scale to that of communist China. Obviously, the free people of the west cannot compete against slave labor but, under the globalist economic system, Chinese slave workers have become the new standard of excellence and efficiency. What’s wrong with this picture?

You propose centralized dictatorship combined with a feudalist economic system. It’s a recipe for disaster! That’s why the people hate globalism and that’s why western leaders now are forced to blatantly lie to the voters about their real globalist intentions. You will pay for this!!!!

Turmoil tests the new world order

24 January 2008

A former colleague was fond of saying that when you are up to your neck in alligators, it can be difficult to remember that you are trying to drain the swamp.

World leaders have a similar problem in Davos as they try to think through the turmoil in world markets to focus on what is really happening to the global economy.
Henry Kissinger picked up on the political implications. The challenge to the world, he said, was handling the structural changes taking place - the transfer of economic power from America to the Pacific, the shortages of water and energy and the threat of climate change, which require global not national solutions.
Economics may be global but politics is local, and the world needs to find a way to integrate the two. The difficulty in achieving even the most modest transfers of power from member states to the European Union shows how hard this will be.
Citigroup head of markets Michael Klein dug a bit deeper, saying the past few years have seen the globalisation of regulation, followed by the globalisation of technology and since 2002 the globalisation of capital markets. This last innovation means that capital now flows freely in 95% of the world economy.
This has equalised the cost of capital around the world and removed the final walls between economies so their natural advantages - people and raw materials - become the main drivers of growth, he added. The result is a mass transfer of jobs to emerging countries and of wealth to the producers of oil and commodities. These are the major secular trends, said Klein.
Most people know that intuitively, but it is still a shock to learn the US has lost 22% of its manufacturing jobs since 2000. The market turmoil, coupled with the pressure on politicians and the authorities to find a response without lapsing into protectionism is, as PepsiCo head Indra Nooyi said, the first real test of globalisation.

Sovereign funds to be welcomed

History may not repeat itself but, as Mark Twain said, it does rhyme. Financial centres have always grown up on the back of economic and political power. The dominance of a country in international trade creates a need for banking and insurance services, and throws off financial surpluses and a demand for the currency that becomes the raw material of a financial services sector.
What makes the City of London unique is that it did not decline as Britain's economic power did in the period after the Second World War. No other financial centre had managed to float free before and separate its prosperity from that of its host nation.
There were several factors in the City's success. Things often cited now, such as the use of English as the world's business language, and the importance of being in a time zone that allowed contact with Japan at the beginning of the day and the US at the end, came later.
At that time, the enlightened approach to supervision of the Bank of England and the open door to overseas banks wishing to set up here mattered more, but the main factor was the willingness of banks in London to use other countries' currency when sterling was no longer sought after. Dollars came first, then the Deutschmark and yen, and now of course the euro.
Citigroup's Michael Klein produced a new twist on this in Davos when he said the investment by foreign wealth funds in the leading US banks was one of the great guarantees of the future of the Western financial system, a comment that is counter-intuitive given the speculation about the dark motives some of these buyers might have.
Finance always follows wealth, he said, and therefore in time one would expect the heart of the world's banking and financial markets system to migrate to Asia as that region displaces the US and Europe as the dominant economic powers in the world. It was hard to disagree with his additional observation that this potential shift was far more important than our recent parochial spats about whether London was displacing New York as the leading international financial centre.
His view is that the investment by sovereign wealth funds in Western financial institutions reflects their understanding that, in the modern globalised world, you no longer need physically to migrate a bank or an exchange to where the wealth is located.
The system can be grown to be global and to meet the needs of all the world's new leading players without having to re-create it as a physical presence locally. But if the Chinese or others are willing to use and develop the West's financial architecture, they not unreasonably expect to be allowed to own a slice of it.
For that reason, if for no other, the financial and political communities should welcome the investment by sovereign wealth funds.

Searching for a new world order in Davos

Searching for a new world order in Davos

Jan 24, 2008

Davos, Switzerland - The spectacular rise of China and India coupled with a decline in US influence has prompted heated debate in Davos this year over possible scenarios for a new world order.

While the United States remains the undisputed military superpower, experts participating in the annual gathering of the world's political and business elite have highlighted its waning ability to set the global agenda on its own.

And with the UN Security Council struggling to provide a consensus on just about any major issue, the question of what nation, group of nations or international institution could command a leading role on the future world stage was floated to a widely varying response.

The only real point of agreement was that the current fluidity in the balance of world power carries a serious threat of instability and conflict, as well as concerns over how to build an effective international response to extreme abuses of power such as acts of genocide or ethnic cleansing.

"We don't live in a multi-polar world, we live in a non-polar world," said John Chipman, director general of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

While the United States is clearly too strong to stay on the sidelines of world affairs, Chipman argued that it was also "too weak" to implement an agenda without wide international support.

Similarly China, while too strong to be seen as just a developing nation, is unable to shape its regional environment alone and India, while certainly a rising power, remains "diffident" about breaking with its non-aligned principles.

At the same time, Russia has accumulated great economic power, but, "wields it in a way that weakens its reputation and causes immense mistrust," Chipman said.

"The real question is whether the rising powers see themselves as the custodians of an international system and are willing to advance interests that go beyond their national ones," he added.

Wu Jianmin, president of the China Foreign Affairs University, argued that China's reticence to try and set a global agenda should be viewed against the tarnished history of Western interference in the sovereign affairs of other nations.

"You Western countries like to divide the world," said Wu. "You got into the habit of lecturing others. You want people to believe exactly like you. It's impossible."

Some delegates in Davos have predicted the development of a so-called "Chindia" power bloc that would see the two giant Asian neighbours taking a joint role in world affairs.

Brahma Chellaney, professor of strategic studies at India's Centre for Police Research said the idea was an understandable one, but flawed.

"Everyone is talking about the rise of China and India. Two nations rising at such an unprecedented speed at the same time in history - one third of the global population," Chellaney said.

"And it is true to say that how this situation evolves will very much shape security in Asia and beyond.

"But we tend to forget these two countries are new neighbours," he said, pointing back to China's 1951 invasion of Tibet, which had previously provided a buffer zone between the two countries.

"So they have been on a sharp learning curve. Both sides are trying to de-emphasise competition, but reality cannot be ignored. This relationship will be defined by managed competition for years to come."

If the threat of US intervention overseas no longer carries the same weight it did in the past, some voiced concern that a contrary policy of strict non-interference in the sovereign affairs of another state - often espoused by China - opened the door to a repeat of such horrors as the genocide in Rwanda.

For Gareth Evans, former Australian foreign minister and now president of the International Crisis Group, even those countries with a deep resistance to intervention were starting to recognise that egregious crimes against humanity could not go unchallenged.

"There is now the beginning of a global consensus that sovereignty doesn't mean a license to kill, doesn't mean a license to stand back and allow killing of that order to take place," Evans said.

"This is a very real phenomenon, that sovereignty is not what it was and can't be what it was," he added.

Nevertheless, the question remained as to what body could organise such intervention effectively while commanding wide international support.

Many pointed to the need for UN reform that would expand the Security Council and break the stranglehold of the five veto-wielding permanent Council members - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States.

Others, like Evans, focused on the potential of informal groupings - like the Group of Eight industrialised nations - which lack the executive authority of the Security Council but function well as consensus-building enterprises.

"The trouble with the G8 of course is that it's so selective in its membership," Evans said.

Davos 2008: Out of the American Ash Heap Comes a New World Order

Davos 2008: Out of the American Ash Heap Comes a New World Order

Daniel Taylor
Old Thinker News
Friday January 25, 2008

As the United States faces an economic crisis that is being compared by experts to the 1929 Great Depression, the global elite are proclaiming the fall of the U.S and the rise of a new global order.
The IOL reports that the recent meeting in Davos, Switzerland, which focused in part on the global economic meltdown, pointed to "global" solutions and the need for a strengthened United Nations in the face of world crises.
Sovereignty, according to many who attended, must be weakened. The IOL reports,
For Gareth Evans, former Australian foreign minister and now president of the International Crisis Group, even those countries with a deep resistance to intervention were starting to recognise that egregious crimes against humanity could not go unchallenged.

"There is now the beginning of a global consensus that sovereignty doesn't mean a license to kill, doesn't mean a license to stand back and allow killing of that order to take place," Evans said.

"This is a very real phenomenon, that sovereignty is not what it was and can't be what it was," he added.

Writing in the evening standard, Anthony Hilton states regarding the Davos meeting,
"World leaders have a similar problem in Davos as they try to think through the turmoil in world markets to focus on what is really happening to the global economy.

Henry Kissinger picked up on the political implications. The challenge to the world, he said, was handling the structural changes taking place - the transfer of economic power from America to the Pacific, the shortages of water and energy and the threat of climate change, which require global not national solutions."

A strengthened United Nations, also discussed at Davos, was promoted by Prime Minister Gordon Brown earlier this week after secret talks with world leaders. Brown called for a "new world order" and a "global society". As the New Zealand Hearld reported,
"British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has begun secret talks with other world leaders on far-reaching reform of the United Nations Security Council as part of a drive to create a "new world order" and "global society"."

The economic crises that the world is plunging into is being and will be used as the pretext to forge the new global order long sought after by the global elite. More centralized control will emerge. "New" solutions will be presented in slick packages to a despairing population begging for order.

Friday, January 25, 2008

Britain Begins Task of Ratifying Lisbon Treaty

Britain Begins Task of Ratifying Lisbon Treaty

January 23, 2008 | From

The unpopular replacement for the failed EU constitution is to be debated in Parliament.

The British Parliament this week has begun the task of ratifying the Lisbon Treaty, the controversial document that will subsume British sovereignty to the European Union. With growing pressure for a referendum, these next few weeks will not be easy for the government.
Parliament’s debate on the EU (Amendment) Bill, or the Lisbon Treaty, began on Monday as the bill passed its second reading. Now it must endure a several-week-long period of debate and be approved in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords if it is to become law.
A significant number of members of Parliament, and a growing percentage of the general population, are calling for a referendum. The government promised to hold a plebiscite on the EU constitution in its election manifesto, but it argues that this does not mean that a referendum is necessary for the Lisbon Treaty. “My case to this House is that this treaty does not constitute fundamental constitutional change,” said UK Foreign Minister David Miliband.
Many others disagree. The government’s own Foreign Affairs Committee, for example, found that when it came to foreign policy there is “no material difference” between the two treaties. The committee stated, “We recommend that the government should publicly acknowledge the significance of the foreign-policy aspects of the Lisbon Treaty.”
Many accuse the government of breaking its election promises by refusing to hold a referendum. The Conservative opposition, aided by Labor defectors, is planning to mount a strong resistance to the treaty. Conservative Party leader David Cameron promised that the Tories would hold a referendum on this issue if they got in power, even if the treaty had already been ratified in Parliament. According to the shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, the government was “brazenly abrogating the commitment made by every major political party in this House to hold a national referendum in this event.” He went on to say:
Today in our country, the word of government is less readily believed than at any time in our modern history. Ministers, instead of tackling the apathy and cynicism that brings, will only add to it with the weasel words with which they try to escape their referendum and commitment, bringing in their wake a political process that will be further devalued and the passage of a treaty whose democratic legitimacy will never be respected.
The Trumpet has frequently pointed to the undemocratic nature of the treaty. As we wrote last month:
Wake up, Britain! The Lisbon Treaty is an attempt to end your national sovereignty. …

Contrary to what some British politicians have claimed, many of the British “opt-outs” are little more than footnotes, having little if any legal weight.

All that remains is for the Labor-dominated British Parliament to ratify the treaty. Sadly, in what amounts to a criminal act—at least by the spirit of the law if not the letter—UK politicians plan to sign away British sovereignty without even permitting a national referendum on the issue.

Will Britain remember its history?
The next few months will be interesting as the government attempts to ramrod the treaty through Parliament. One way or another, there will come a point soon when Britain will not be in the EU. The Trumpet and its predecessor the Plain Truth have proclaimed this for decades. How do we know? And what will happen when Britain does leave? Read “When Britain Leaves Europe …” from the January print edition of the Trumpet to find out.

Democracy Dies in Britain !!!

Democracy Dies in Britain

January 23, 2008 | From

The British government’s refusal to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty will hammer the last nail into the coffin of British democracy. By Ron Fraser

A system of government practiced in some Athenian regions during the fifth century b.c. was given the title by the Greeks, “demokratia.” From a combination of the Greek terms demos, meaning people, and kratos, meaning rule, the process literally meant “government by the people.”
Sir Winston Churchill referred to it as “the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Its earliest documented form in modern history was the Magna Carta. It is enshrined in British law. It supplied the foundation for the American Constitution. In that context, Abraham Lincoln termed it, “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.”
Democracy as we know it is that form of government made popular by the English-speaking peoples throughout their time of global dominance. It has permitted freedom of speech and expression, and the freedom to practice one’s religion, freedoms largely denied by the form of government that dominated Europe for so long in its form as the Holy Roman Empire.
Given their many faults, it has to be said of the free democracies of Western civilization that they have overseen the protection of the rights, obligations and freedoms that have underpinned the most stable societies throughout the past 400 years against their periodic onslaught by tyranny.
But true democracy is, within this 21st century, increasingly being pushed onto the back foot.
By definition, within Western civilization “democracy” has come to mean “government by the people; especially: rule of the majority: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections” (Merriam Webster).
Judged by such a definition, the absolute refusal by the British government to permit the people to have their say on whether or not to sign over their national sovereignty to an imperialist European superstate is entirely undemocratic.
In fact, it borders on being the exact opposite of democratic government.
It is rule by diktat.
There can surely be nothing more undemocratic than the refusal to permit the just representation of the will of the people, especially when the government in power is made aware that fully two thirds of its national electorate favors the opposite action to that which the government is determined to pursue. Such is the state of parliamentary democracy in Britain today.
The sheer bull-headedness demonstrated by the present British liberal-socialist government’s stated intention to ram its own will through over the will of the people in the debate over whether or not to ratify the Lisbon Treaty—the latest and most subversive treaty on European Union to date—tramples on general public opinion, which is supposed to be a major influence on government policy within a democratic society.
How come we take such note of public opinion when it comes to seducing it away from those moral standards of a society that once underpinned its greatness, yet we turn our back on such generally expressed opinion when it balks at handing over its historically hard-won sovereign powers to a foreign entity?
Polls indicate that between two thirds and three quarters of the British electorate are against signing the latest European treaty. In ordinary times, that would be hint enough to any democratic government that to sign up to that treaty will spell future civil disruption of a significant order by a disgruntled electorate once it realizes the full extent of the loss of its freedoms.
This week, a British member of Parliament and seven other eminent Britons—including a member of the European Parliament—put their signatures to a declaration published in the Times newspaper declaring that the Lisbon Treaty threatens “the livelihoods, businesses and government of the British people” (January 21).
Within the context of their declaration, the seven stated that they “believe that its proposals have immense constitutional significance amounting to a ‘fundamental change’ to the way in which the UK is governed. This warrants a referendum in accordance with the government’s own criteria for a referendum” (emphasis mine throughout).
Foreshadowing tremendous disruption to the traditional British way of life, the signatories to this declaration stated, “The Lisbon Treaty represents a fundamental threat to the livelihoods, businesses and government of the British people, and they must have their say on a matter of such vital national interest. It will reduce their sovereign Parliament to the status of a chatting-shop and their elected members of Parliament to nothing more than administrators of European laws.”
Ever since the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 laid the groundwork for the elimination of national sovereignty, national boundaries, sovereign means of exchange, the subsuming of national laws, statutes and regulations into an imposed system regulated by central authority in Brussels with increasingly strong influence from Berlin, voices within Britain have been warning of the grave dangers to British society that the European Union—especially a European Constitution—poses.
One of the most clearly articulated arguments as to the source of the current European imperialist push and its impact on the British is the book Treason at Maastricht by Rodney Atkinson and the late Norris McWhirter. The argument put forward by Atkinson and McWhirter clearly proves the case for treason against the British government of the time for signing up to that watershed European treaty. Had John Major’s government resisted signing that document 16 years ago, Gordon Brown’s government of today would not be faced with the ignominious decision it has taken to deny the British public their right to a referendum on the latest treaty that has evolved since Maastricht. This present perverse Lisbon Treaty is a veritable European Constitution in disguise that will hammer home the final nail in the democracy that once was Great Britain.
But it is not only Britain that will be affected by the Brown government’s yielding to the will of the Eurocrats. Every democratic nation that is a member of the EU will suffer the same fate. Yet the voices for freedom and democracy within Europe are being effectively ignored, or even worse, silenced.
The full extent of bipartisan support for the Euroskeptics’ call for referendums on signing the Lisbon Treaty was revealed last October when a petition signed by concerned people from every single EU member nation was presented to No. 10 Downing Street. This was done in an effort to get the British government to fulfill its obligation to hold a referendum on the issue, an obligation which Mr. Brown is not only denying to fulfill to the British public, but one which he has overtly canvassed against any other EU national leaders offering to their own constituents.
Concerning that petition, the Daily Telegraph reported, “But the new pan-European campaign is proof that referendum fever is not confined to Britain. The group spans the full political spectrum in EU politics, from conservative Eurosceptics to socialists, liberals and greens, and even Tony Blair’s former economic adviser …. It also includes academics, former diplomats and [a film star]. In their letter, the group says: ‘The adoption of this far-reaching document without referendums would further decrease the legitimacy of the EU and seriously damage democracy in Europe’” (Oct. 20, 2007).
It seems that petition had little effect.
On January 9, Prime Minister Brown joined in concert with President Sarkozy of France and Chancellor Merkel of Germany to pressure Portugal’s prime minister, José Sócrates, from holding a referendum demanded by the Portuguese public on whether or not their nation should sign up to the Lisbon Treaty. Under pressure from the big three, Mr. Sócrates caved in, denying the democratic right of a referendum on the issue to the Portuguese.
As the Times reported, “The decision by Portugal not to hold a referendum but to ratify the treaty through its parliament will come as a huge relief to Downing Street and the Élysée Palace, which feared extra pressure on them to hold a public vote. The revelation of top-level phone calls will, though, only increase suspicions that the European political elite have coordinated efforts to avoid a repeat of the referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005 that sank the proposed constitution and plunged the EU into a two-year crisis” (January 10).
The Times was referring to the two instances in 2005 when democracy was tested by two EU member nations and plainly revealed a stance by the electorates against European centralization. In separate referenda held in France and the Netherlands, 55 percent of French voters rejected the European Constitution despite the support of both main political parties, while in Holland, 61.6 percent of Dutch voters rejected the constitution despite the united backing of the main political parties, trade union movements and most leading newspapers.
With this disturbing recent history of the dangers that true democracy holds for the European Unionists’ dream, they could ill afford further disruption to the pursuit of their imperialist goals by holding more referenda on the European Constitution. So they resorted to subterfuge by embedding their latest imperialist goals within the body of the rejected European Constitution, including transferring jurisdiction to the EU in crucial aspects of member nations’ systems of criminal justice and immigration, energy policy, the appointment of an EU president to manage the political affairs of the 27 states within the EU bloc, and foreign minister assuming control over member states’ foreign policy, together with mandating a clear systems subordination of their individual parliaments to the mighty EU. Then they simply gave the document another name. By terming it just another “treaty” and doing away with the nasty “constitution” word, the Eurocrats hoped to mask the true intent of their efforts to get their way by hook or by crook.
A more crooked initiative of anti-democratic intellectual thuggery would be hard to imagine.
With a compliant presidency at the helm (the current six-month Slovenian presidency of the EU has indicated that ratifying the treaty smoothly has become one of its top priorities, indicating that it will “not tackle anything deemed too controversial in EU states where ratification is most controversial,” namely Britain and Portugal), the European Constitution, aka “Lisbon Treaty,” is now commencing a year of ironing out any technical glitches that would impede its smooth passage to ratification in January 2009.
Veil the British bastion of democracy—hail Holy Roman Empire!
For more information on this subject, read our book The United States and Britain in Prophecy.

Video: Goodbye Magna Carta !! Hello E.U. Style Tyranny !!


Great video! This is a must see!

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Where does Paul think he lives? America?

Where does Paul think he lives? America?

Thursday January 24, 2008

Where does Paul think he lives? America?
Who in this country would ever vote for Ron Paul?
It would be ludicrous to vote for a man who believes in our Constitution and has abided by it with every vote he has cast in Congress. It is a certainty that we would never elect a man who has never voted to raise taxes. And why would we ever want to restore the civil liberties that we have lost under the Bush administration?
I feel much safer knowing my phone and e-mail can be monitored by the government. And the fact that habeas corpus can be suspended makes me sleep better at night. Paul wants to put an end to our safety.

Good grief. Paul wants to get us out of Iraq. And he wants to stop us from meddling in the affairs of other countries. Does he think he lives in a free America? Worse, he wants a sound monetary policy as opposed to our current deficit spending.
Wouldn't we be better off with Hillary or McCain in the White House? That way, we could be assured of a prolonged conflict in Iraq, an even larger national debt and feel safe -- all at the same time.

Forget 1987, This Could Be 1929 All Over Again

Forget 1987, This Could Be 1929 All Over Again

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, January 24, 2008

The huge debt bubble, which has artificially propped up the stock market since the turn of the millennium, could cause a new great depression according to one expert, who also predicts that investors will flock to buy gold as the dollar continues to plummet.
Financial analysts have been drawing comparisons between this week's chaos and the October 19 1987 crash, known as Black Monday, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped by over 22 per cent and markets sunk worldwide.
But Vancouver-based investment adviser Ian Gordon has gone a step further, seeing clear parallels between current events and those that foreshadowed the 1929 crash and ensuing depression.

“We’re really seeing a mirror image of what happened following the [19]29 peak in equity prices in the United States, and the subsequent crash in equities,” Gordon told the Georgia Straight. “We’re seeing really the mirror of…the huge debt bubble that was built into the economy in the ’20s in the United States. We’re now seeing the collapse of the debt bubble that was built into the world economies, but principally in the United States.”
Gordon levels the blame at Alan Greenspan for creating a huge bubble by injecting too much money into the system in an attempt to offset the "economic winter" that inevitably arrives as part of the boom and bust cycle of the fiat money system, arguing that the realistic peak in the stock market occurred in 2000.
Gordon predicts that the "economic winter" will last another 7 or 8 years and that the worst is yet to come, with the continued meltdown of the dollar causing people to flock to the safe haven of gold.
“As this whole collapse in paper assets begins to unfold, causing tremendous strain on the banking system, we will see a tremendous rush to gold, to own gold,” he said. “But I think the worst is definitely in front of us, and not behind us.”

Gordon slammed the huge 75 points rate cut as ineffective, arguing that neither banks or consumers want to engage because of the crippling problems of their existing debts.
The analyst's conclusions are in line with those of Paul Craig Roberts, the father of Reaganomics, who on Tuesday warned that the mess could result in the dollar losing its status as the world reserve currency.
Roberts also cautioned that the rush to diversify into gold could make people's assets a target for government confiscation, as happened in 1933, four years after the great depression.

PJB: The GOP’s Creative Destruction

PJB: The GOP’s Creative Destruction

by Patrick J. Buchanan
Jan 18, 2008

With Mike Huckabee winning Iowa, John McCain winning New Hampshire and Mitt Romney winning Michigan, all in 12 days, pundits are saying the GOP is in chaos. That prognosis is premature.
Undoubtedly, with the nation in the fifth year of an unpopular war and the economy tanking along with President Bush’s poll numbers, GOP prospects for holding the White House are poor.
But what is taking place in the Republican primaries is healthy. A new party is taking shape, or rather being hammered into shape. GOP leaders are being introduced, sometimes rudely, to the reality that the national party has lost touch both with the country and its own base. And the would-be future leaders are either listening, or they are losing.
Refusing to hide his Christian beliefs, Mike Huckabee put them on public display in Iowa. After a second-place finish in the August straw poll, thanks to evangelical support, he rose steadily until he routed all four front-runners to win the caucuses on Jan. 3. Fred Thompson, a state’s rights man on right-to-life, and Rudy, who is pro-choice, are almost out of the running. Traditional values are still a trump card in the GOP.
Before the race began, Giuliani was a sanctuary city mayor, McCain an amnesty man and Huckabee favored letting illegal aliens compete for state scholarships. Now, after being battered at a thousand town meetings and on a thousand talk shows, all of them sound like Tom Tancredo.
A year ago, the GOP was a free-trade NAFTA-GATT party, no one more so than McCain. After his New Hampshire win, straight-talking John went to depressed Michigan and told Michiganders their jobs in the auto industry were not coming back. And Michigan Republicans told straight-talking John to get lost and not come back.
In the early debates, Ron Paul was booed for calling the Iraq war a blunder and saying the terrorists of 9/11 were over here because we were over there. Rudy got a roaring ovation for denouncing him. The Michigan GOP chairman demanded that Paul be excluded from all future debates. But whenever Fox News ran a post-debate poll, Paul came out on top. And in Michigan, he paid back the GOP chair by thumping Fred Thompson and America’s mayor.
What is taking place inside the GOP is not decay, but creative destruction.
As in the Goldwater era, voices are being raised to tell an arrogant (Huckabee had the right word) establishment its policies are no longer producing and that if the party does not reconnect with the country, it is headed for the dumpster.
After his defeat in 1960, Richard Nixon, observing Barry Goldwater’s rise and the energy his campaign generated, realized the center of gravity in the party had shifted away from the establishment he had courted with his Pact of Fifth Avenue with Nelson Rockefeller. The center of gravity had moved south and west, and sharply to the right.
No ideologue, Nixon moved with it.
To win the 1968 nomination, he ignored the establishment and courted Goldwater, Strom Thurmond and the conservatives. After his victory in 1968, Nixon created a new center-right coalition that would win four of the next five presidential elections, two with 49-state, 60 percent landslides.
It is not Reaganism that is being repudiated in the GOP primaries; it is Bushism and its fruits: an unpopular war, a deindustrialized nation, a Third World invasion. Ronald Reagan’s principles and philosophy remain the bedrock upon which any conservative and Republican majority must be built. But the policies of that era, on immigration, trade and jobs, must change. And as the Soviet Empire and the Soviet Union are history, U.S. strategic interests are no longer at risk in every quarrel or on every continent, as in the 1980s. As our situation is new, said Abraham Lincoln, let us think and act anew.
Nor was Reagan an inflexible ideologue. Though a free-trader, he did not hesitate to put free-trade absolutism on the shelf if national interests commanded it. Thus he imposed quotas to halt the dumping of steel, autos, computer chips and motorbikes into the United States. Saving Harley-Davidson meant more to the Gipper than fealty to Manchester School economists, none of whom had ever built or run a great nation.
For Republicans, issues that yet unite the coalition and remain majority views nationally are family values, low taxes, conservative judges and Second Amendment rights.
But to win the election, the GOP has to be competitive in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania. It will thus have to come up with credible ideas not only to secure the border and roll back the invasion from the Third World, but to stop the hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs and reindustrialize the country, and to extricate us from Iraq, as Ike got us out of Korea and Nixon pledged to end the war in Vietnam.
What the voters are saying to both parties is that yesterday’s men and yesterday’s ideas will no longer do.