It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tips & Epiphanies Collaboration Thread

page: 4
37
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 



You don’t need to have an actual war to fight for your rights, they are yours, you just have to make them give you them back.

I' think that we may actually have taken a step towards this process. And shockingly a bipartisan one.


Liberals Use Gun Case to Bolster Other Rights
By Tony Mauro
Legal Times
February 16, 2009
The Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in D.C. v. Heller was a constitutional earthquake, breathing life into the Second Amendment as a guarantee of an individual right to bear arms.

But the aftershock of that decision is beginning to transform the constitutional landscape well beyond gun rights, in ways that have liberals cheering and even joining hands with onetime adversaries like the National Rifle Association.

In a follow-on case pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, a progressive legal group and liberal law professors including Yale Law School’s Jack Balkin earlier this month joined gun-rights advocates in urging that the right established in Heller, which involved only the District of Columbia, be extended to apply against gun restrictions in the 50 states. The case is McDonald v. Chicago, a challenge to that city’s strict gun control law and, no matter what, the outcome is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

But these academics and the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center, which filed a brief in the case, have not suddenly taken up the Second Amendment cause, Charlton Heston-style. Rather, they joined the case to urge the court to adopt a new way of making the rights protected by the federal Constitution apply to the states (a process known as “incorporation”).

That new pathway runs through the long-dormant “privileges or immunities” clause of the 14th Amendment. In the view of scholars and historians of all political stripes, the clause provides the strongest legal foundation for applying the Bill of Rights to the states. The language—“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States”—is broad and clear, advocates say, and could be used to incorporate the entire Bill of Rights to the states, wholesale. It would replace the narrower and more piecemeal way in which the Bill of Rights was usually made binding on the states, right by right, during the 20th century—namely, the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.

Use of the due process clause has led to “the constitutional equivalent of a food fight” with conservative justices increasingly wary of expanding or creating new rights because of the clause’s process-oriented scope, says Douglas Kendall, founder of the D.C.-based Constitutional Accountability Center. Kendall says invoking “privileges or immunities” would have a “lift-all-boats” effect, strengthening free speech, and possibly even abortion and gay rights, at the same time that it bolsters the right to bear arms.

Kendall had few qualms about joining McDonald on the side of gun-rights advocates. “The conversation on this clause has begun, and there are very important progressive values at stake in the outcome,” Kendall says. “We need to be in that conversation.”

‘MORE THE MERRIER’

At a conference in D.C. in January co-sponsored by the American Constitution Society and other civil rights groups, John Payton, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, endorsed Kendall’s campaign. Pointing to long-cherished individual rights, Payton said, “If you read the history, these rights were supposed to come in as privileges or immunities of being a citizen of the United States.”

So, why does the “privileges or immunities” clause need reviving? Because it was gutted by the Supreme Court in the notorious 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases, which upheld a state-endorsed slaughterhouse monopoly. The Court ruled that the federal immunities clause, which had been invoked to challenge the monopoly, only applies to federal citizenship, not state citizenship. That is a distinction with little meaning today, but at the time had the effect of turning the clause into a dead letter. Dissenting Justice Noah Swayne said the majority in Slaughterhouse had transformed “what was meant for bread into a stone.” The ruling led succeeding justices to turn to the due process clause as the way to bind states to federally declared rights.

But in recent decades, new scholarship on the 14th Amendment has shown that its authors intended the privileges clause to be a broad, robust way of applying constitutional rights to the states—especially for freed slaves, and especially, it seems, for the right to bear arms.

The high court showed a glimmer of interest in reviving the clause in 1999, when in Saenz v. Roe it struck down a California law that gave lesser welfare benefits to new residents.
Justice John Paul Stevens invoked the clause, and though Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, he said in a footnote that he was open to “re-evaluating its meaning.”

In Heller itself, Justice Antonin Scalia in a footnote said the Court was not addressing the incorporation issue, but noted that a key precedent “did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by later cases.” That could be a hint that it’s time for a new inquiry.

Gun-rights advocates respond with a “more the merrier” attitude when asked if liberals are hijacking the Chicago gun case for their own purposes.

Alan Gura of Gura & Possessky in D.C. and Virginia, who won the Heller case and filed the McDonald appeal in Chicago, said the participation of liberal groups and scholars did not surprise him. “There are wider consequences than the Second Amendment” in his appeal, he acknowledges.

Adds Stephen Halbrook, a Fairfax, Va., practitioner who is part of the NRA’s team in a companion case to McDonald, “It’s an exciting case, and we’re pleased with all the company we can get.” He notes that the NRA’s brief argues for incorporation of the Second Amendment the old-fashioned way, through the due process clause, not the privileges clause.

On the other side, Dennis Henigan, legal director of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, says of the liberals’ brief, “It’s unfortunate that they would choose to participate in a gun case to grind that particular ax” because of the public safety implications. That said, Henigan added that applying the Second Amendment right to the states may not have major impact, so long as it is the restricted right announced in Heller.

BEYOND HELLER

Beyond the Second Amendment, one possible result of a strengthened privileges or immunities clause could be a change in the criminal justice system for some states. The Fifth Amendment’s requirement of indictment by grand jury in major crimes has never been made binding on states, half of which don’t currently require grand juries to bring indictments.
That could change.

The libertarian Institute for Justice also says that a stronger foundation for individual rights could benefit business or contract rights, too. The institute filed its own brief in McDonald, asserting that the 14th Amendment was passed to give freed slaves economic as well as personal liberty. “In some states, it was illegal for a black man to leave his employer’s property without permission; in others, blacks could be flogged for breaking a contract,” says Chip Mellor, the institute’s president.

Should the fact that conservatives like Thomas and Scalia are interested in reviving the clause give liberals pause? In the process of strengthening some rights through the privileges and immunities clause, could the Court weaken others?

Kendall does not see much downside to fortifying basic rights. And he has not gotten pushback from liberal colleagues about joining the gun case or jumping into the debate over the clause at the same time as conservatives. “It’s remarkable how broad a consensus there is that privileges and immunities is the right way to go.”




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by lazy1981
 


Interesting. I am still plowing through my response to your last posts, I'm almost there, but I am sure I ask whether it is true that I read somewhere that all amendments to the constitution can be undone via the proper channels. This seems to answer that question, though I may be mistaken, my knowledge of your system is not that clear.

(As my response is now stretching to 8 pages, I may be able to edit that out, get it down to a more manageable 7
)



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 

Technically I believe any amendment can be overturned if there are sufficient votes in the House of Rep., and then the Senate, and then signed by the President in the legal fashion that is required to pass any law here. However, I don't think that could ever happen. The Bill of Rights are sort of like the Ten Commandments. They are etched in stone. Government ignores them from time to time but they know that they can't marginalize them. I'll have to look into that a bit deeper, I want to say that those ten can't be altered due to a clause, but due to the fact that all other amendments can be I'll say yes at the moment. "Technically"



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 
Ok, I think that I have finally found what you are looking for. (You see what I mean about learning new things)? If you hadn’t asked I’d never have really looked, just took it for granted that they could not be changed or rendered useless.

“An un-entrenched bill of rights exists as a separate act that is presented by a legislative body. As such it can be changed or repealed by the body that created it. It is not as permanent as a Constitutional Bill of Rights. A Constitutional Bill cannot be changed except with the approval of that country's voting public.”- Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org...

Article V - Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

www.usconstitution.net...

I also have a Q&A on Legal Guru that basically says the same. The reply comes from an Attorney at Law.

www.lawguru.com...



And yet another.

www.footnote.com...

I hope that I have cleared up that question for the both of us, can’t say that it is very pleasing to me. The good thing is that we have the caveat that the states must ratify the Amendments.

One quickly forgets the little “Legalities” when we don’t remember that it is a legally binding document. So many of us take those first ten amendments for granted (as irrevocable) that we forget there may be an amendment coming that could nullify them!



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by lazy1981
 


It may take me a while to decypher that into plain English.
I am not too good with legalese.

So...the Constitution can only be changed by a national vote? But, amendments can be changed or removed by the 'group' that made them? Is that right?

I remember reading some time ago about the many failed attempts to get the wording changed from 'all men are created equal', 'to all are created equal'...the last time it came up, they just failed to get the necessary ratifications. Shouldn't that be down to a national or public vote? I think I am completely lost!!!

It is very confusing.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 
The common way of getting an amendment passed is for it to pass both Houses (Senate & House of Rep.) with a 2/3 majority. In this case you actually don't need the Pres. signature.

After that it goes to every State Legislation (House & Sen. respectively or what have they, not all states have both) of which they need a 2/3 majority. In order for it to be ratified. In each state.

It must finally carry with a min. approval of 3/4 of ALL States ("37.5" of the 50 States must ratify the motion in order for it to become an Amendment and leaglly binding. i.e. 37 or 38 States).

There are a few other ways in which it starts at the local level calling for an amendment and then works it's way up by way of Conventions (if I remember corectly). There are different ways to do it but the end result is that the greater majority (not just a numerical majority) must ratify the amendment. This is the case for ALL amendments.



[edit on 13-3-2009 by lazy1981]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by lazy1981
 


Much clearer. Thank you.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by lazy1981
 



Originally posted by lazy1981
Little known facts to those outside of the US, Wilson’s “14 Points” were never taken up by the Congress (passed by The House and Senate) and then signed by the President into law. I’m sure that’s what you’re talking about. Even better the US never joined the League of Nations after WW1. And here’s the best of all (that many do not know), Congress never ratified the Treaty of Versailles passing it into law. So, we were officially “still at war” even up until WW2.

en.wikipedia.org...


They were never taken up at the Paris Peace Conference either, much to the disappointment of many, but from what I can gather Wilson never intended for them to be lauded by the Europeans quite to the extent that they were. They were essentially meant as domestic propaganda to justify the US expenditure in a war in the ‘Old World’. When he arrived in Paris, Wilson was met at every turn by rapturous crowds holding up banners promoting their hope in Wilson, his Fourteen Points and their belief in a real, lasting peace. Dillusionment quickly followed.

Wilson’s idealism was doomed to failure, his committee of 150, had failed to take into consideration that Empire was not quite dead, and though many statesmen applauded Wilson’s efforts, he put one or two noses out of joint. Britain would never concede control of the seas, and the French would never be happy unless Germany was made to pay, but it was the promise of self-determination that would have the most devasting effect on Europe and would help lead to the conflicts of the second world war, especially Point 11, which led to the Balkanization of the former Ottoman territories that is still unresolved and of high contention to this day. Sadly, Wilson failed to understand the diverse ethnicity of this region and the hell that was about to be created there. He saw, I think ethnicity in terms of black and white, Europe has never been that simple. Interestingly, his wife refused to bring her black maid with her to Europe because she didn’t want her getting any ideas, as the British treated the ‘black’s too well’.

I believe that in the end none of the points were taken up, at least not in their entirety, but then there was no real desire by some of those statesmen to have lasting peace, too many scores still needed to be settled. And, as the economist John Maynard Keynes pointed out, just as the American’s had feared, Wilson was ‘bamboozeled’. Wilson had thought that given the $7 billion that Europe owed the US that he might have some sway in how the talks went, in the end, somewhat sadly, he was only given lipservice.


Originally posted by lazy1981
I think that the "UN" is all but impotent when it comes to keeping the peace. Without countries like the UK, Russia, China, and the US they have no real power to do much. And I’m sorry, but it seems that whenever there is a “world policing action” or “UN Resolution” passed the US always ends up putting forth the main body of troops and equipment for the task. Korea, Bosnia (Yugoslavia), Somalia. Quite frankly I feel that we (the USA) have no Constitutional right/authority to engage in such a treaty and are unfairly taken advantage of. When ever the UN has dirty work to be done they call us. I don’t mean to minimalize the contributions of others because I know that others States were involved as well in the fighting and dying but we always seem to take up the lions share.


The others though do not have the military capabilities that the US has, the manpower of a permanent standing army, therefore when asked to contribute a proportion of their military power it seems small by comparison. I agree with you completely though, that the UN, if not impotent, is somewhat stagnant. The US and UK were permitted to invade Iraq, without consequence contrary to the UN, demonstrating their sense of superiority over the ‘peace keepers’. Why should anyone respect an organisation that seemingly only prosecutes its authority when it suits or bows down when challenged?


Originally posted by lazy1981
As far as Agenda 21 is concerned, I have mixed feelings. I think that there is an inherent need to preserve what we have left of our wildlife and habitat, yet I feel strongly about a nation’s sovereignty.


There is a real threat that if we do not move towards de-intensifying our agricultural practices that we will begin to encounter severe food shortages, caused not only by crop failure but also by a lack of biodiversity. Acres upon acres devoted to single crop production is bad for the planet, simple as that. It threatens the food chain by limiting insect life and by killing natural predators at the same times as the pests. Though I appreciate your concerns about a nation’s sovereignty, I do think that certain issues are of global importance, and that when those practices have a knock on effect that causes death and suffering to others on a massive scale that there needs to be some plan in place to ‘nip it in the bud’ before it gets critical. And, as current events are demonstrating, we are not far off that situation becoming critical.


Originally posted by lazy1981
The bigger problem in the US is that we are a country of immigrants, so this compounds the problem. Those of us that are citizens and 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation American (and so on) grapple with striking a balance because we do have to say enough is enough already, “shut the door for a while.” When the argument on the other side is, “who are you to talk?” Both arguments are valid, but it really boils down to the fact that we are a nation of laws. The law says that if you’re here illegally (well, that says it all)?


We’re pretty much a nation of immigrants in the UK too, I certainly cannot trace my lineage back more than three generations, I have Spanish, German, French, Angle, Middle-eastern and African heritage, as well as the pre-requisite Celtic, we are, the British, a bastard breed and on the whole, like you we are usually tolerant of ‘difference’. The problem is economic and mass immigration. Rupert Murdoch, the self-serving piece of pooh that he is, actually had the audacity to refuse to back the current government in the next election if they limited immigration. He has significant welly, but to many he took things that little bit too far and placed himself very much on the back-foot by his arrogance. He isn’t even a citizen, doesn’t have a vote. The British establishment have a tendancy to close ranks when faced with an outsider who thinks that he can call the shots. Money can only take you so far, and the likes of Murdoch who only keep their money here for the tax breaks are only tolerated so much.


Originally posted by lazy1981
The Spanish American War was more of a retaliatory act and had tints of imperialism to it. WW1 was, well let’s just say that we got dragged into that one unless the Lusitania was actually carrying munitions. WW2 is up in the air. That’s anyone’s guess. Did Roosevelt let it happen? Did we back the Japanese into a corner? Would we have found ourselves at war with Hitler anyway (yes)? One thing is for sure, I think we’d be having this conversation in German if the US hadn’t gotten into WW2. Korea and Vietnam were about freedom in a way, just not ours. Did that warrant our involvement? Yes and No. I don’t like the choices.


From my reading, Roosevelt couldn’t wait to get involved in WW2, he certainly didn’t take much convincing, he knew though that the American people did. I wouldn’t like to point fingers but I personally believe that like many recent events in US history, that the extent of Pearl Harbour could have at least been avoided, there is evidence to suggest that intelligence was wilfully ignored. The US government, as well as the establishment and the corporate community were pretty much divided between Anglo-philes and Germano-philes. Plus there was the odd soviet agent to further complicate the mix. The Ausland Organisation, under Hess and later Ernst Bohle, spent a fortune on propaganda in the US, Goebbels’ Ministry for Propaganda spent even more and IG Farben too. All in an attempt to forge a German/US alliance. Luckily for Britain, Roosevelt hated the Germans and refused all entreaties.

Post second world war and we get into the problem that Eisenhower spoke of, too much money was to be made by war and therefore there was a drive to keep war very much an integral part of the US foreign policy to keep the money rolling in for companies like Bechtel and McCone.


Originally posted by lazy1981
Afghanistan had to be done. Iraq? That’s a “no go.” There was no reason for it. By the way I’d like to say from an American to a Brit. (even if you are against Iraq like me) it means allot to people like myself that when we (The US) needed an ally The UK never forgets her allies. You may have a different outlook, but that showed a lot of class to me. How quickly the French forget. Anyway, some of our wars were fought for freedom and some were not, but the men that died in them had freedom at heart and that cannot be mistaken (even if they had been misled).


It is telling that the first person, outside of the US, that George Bush spoke to after the planes hit the Twin Towers was Tony Blair, he was on the phone immediately. And, yes, I agree that it is good that our countries have that basis of mutual support, but, they are also partners in crime. I wouldn’t trust Blair as far I could throw him. I do not believe that Afghanistan was in anyway necessary, Iraq was an illegal act plain and simple, but Afghanistan was equally unjustified. In my opinion. But then I am a pacifist and see no grounds for war at all.

The French are a whole different kettle of fish, they are a Latin culture, and to all intents and purposes significantly more advanced than the rest of us, they, like Spain and Italy have a far better attitude to life and living it than us out and out belligerents do. But they have other problems and other bad attitudes so I won’t dally on that too much. We are none of us perfect.

You make the most pertinent point though, the men who fight these wars, do on the whole die believing that they are serving their countries. Rightly or wrongly, both sides of the fence.


Originally posted by lazy1981
I often have the same thoughts. The scary thing is that I sometimes feel that the “strong man” (dictatorial powers) solution is the only way to fix such problems as those in your country and mine. As much as I despise such governance. And we are aware what happened to the last Republic when a man took Dictatorial rule “for a period of time.” “Beware the ides of March.” And then Civil Wars and Emperors. I often feel that if we had at least one person that could go through this government and make the necessary changes to restore our Republic to its Constitutional place then we could do away with the abuses of power, mismanagement, corruption, and bs legislation. But that would be wrong. And dangerous. The scary part is, if I’ve thought of it how many others have? And how long until one actually does it?


Well it has been done, and more recently Hugo Chavez has done it, and to my mind is doing a very good job under the circumstances. We all look to Hitler and Mussolini as a demonstration of how badly things can go, particularly Hitler. But in both those cases their intentions were, at least initially, in the right place. Hitler had a vision, an actual vision, not one based purely on rhetoric and he thought that it was his destiny to lead Germany to greatness, he believed in that 100%. He was corrupted, one way or another. Retrospectively it easy to look at the ‘visionary’ only through the corruption, and make the presumption that it was the vision that was warped, when it was in fact the messenger. Chavez can through a thorough understanding of the pitfalls learn by Hitler’s mistakes, we can all learn from Hitler’s mistakes. South America sets some good examples, Simon Bolivar for one.

In its truest form, or its original usage in Ancient Rome, a dictator should only hold power for a limited period, as in the example of Cinncinatus who was nominated by the senate to serve as Dictator for 6 months. The beauty of Cinncinatus is the clarity with which he demonstrates that the only reward for service to the people, is serving the people. Service should be the only reward. Anything beyond that permits corruption.


Originally posted by lazy1981
there is little or no industry,

So then I guess you're far ahead of us in the outsourcing crap. How did it get so bad, and why didn't the people try to keep the jobs at home? We are trying to put uo a fight here.

Yes indeed, practically the whole country is outsourced or soon to be. What I am struggling to understand, as business after business goes off the rails and heads across the Indian Ocean in search of cheap labour, is who they think will buy the products that they produce. It doesn’t matter how low the prices are, if unemployment goes up any higher, no-one is going to be buying anything. I am not sure if it is a lack of forward thinking or just plain stupidity, perhaps a combination of both.


Originally posted by lazy1981
Well see, the notion of a Civil War is about as close to heart in this country as the Constitution itself. See the first one that we had wasn’t “against” England (The Crown) it was amongst ourselves. Some believe that the entirety of the colonies rose up in unison. It wasn’t as much of a rebellion as it was a Civil War. At that time Americans were mainly “transplanted Englishmen.” Some wanted independence and others wanted to remain loyal to the crown. They fought each other as much (and as fiercely) as they did any British Troops. In fact the worst atrocities were perpetrated amongst Loyalist and Continental Militias upon one another. What I’m getting at is that Civil Wars and infighting have been a part of it from the onset.


Civil war, or civil unrest is very much a part of the British mentality too, they keep trying to breed it out of us, and they may just be successful yet, but I hope not and for my part, I ensure that anyone who gives me an ear to bend learns who Freeborn John was and how he and the Levellers were betrayed by Cromwell and the establishment of this country. And, how we have been sold out time and time again with false promises and temporary offerings of soma. The Levellers and New Model Army, or the ones that refused to compromise their ideals, took themselves across the Atlantic to start their Republic on your side of the water. And we are still hoping….and we, the people, have been consistently screwed to the wall ever since.

A case in point. In 1936, the General Workers Union organised a march from Jarrow to the Houses of Parliament to petition the Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin. These 200 men and women marched about 300 miles, with a petition of 12000 names to ask for help for the unemployed. Not much help, not permanent help, just a little assistance to get them through the hard times that the country’s industries were experiencing, particularly in the North. When they arrived at the Palace of Westminster, Baldwin, Harrow and Trinity College educated twat that he was, told them he was too busy and refused to see even one of them. In the end, they were given a pound each for their train fare home and sent impotently on their way. Such a disgrace, and a clear demonstration that the government is not of the people, and, most certainly not for the people. In fact, if anything, at that time certainly, it was the monarch who was representative of the people and had concern for their welfare. Since Parliament was established, barring a short lapse during the office of Harold Wilson, the government has been just what Cromwell shaped it to be, a representation for the establishment, the land owners and the monied.

Fortuitously for Baldwin’s and then MacMillian’s governments, we found ourselves with an external enemy to direct our dissatisfaction towards (again) and all thoughts of revolution were eradicated along with yet another generation of young men. By the time that stock had been replaced the country was in decline and there was very little left to fight for. And of course mass immigration helped to ensure that the fabric of that society was fractious at best. The thing though that gives me hope personally, though I am sure that many will disagree with me, is that ‘spirit’ is contagious, and it comes with being born here, no matter where your parents are from, if you are born to this soil you feel akin to it (in my mind), which is why the children of those immigrants and their children, know themselves to be British and they know that they are being sold a dud ‘un. It takes time, the progeny of those who arrived on Windrush and those that were expelled from Uganda, are as British as I am and as angry as I am. It is beautiful island and more importantly, it breeds incredible people, and that is what it is to be British in my book, to know that you never trust your leaders, never be loyal to your country, only ever be loyal to your countrymen. If we could only learn to stand together, there is nothing that cannot be accomplished. And, that extends to us all, right around the globe.

I’m getting all preachy again, I apologise.


Originally posted by lazy1981
As for “making the changes peaceably” (as you say) that is in effect every time the Congress is in session. It’s just a matter of how many are actually aware of the oath that they swear, “to uphold the Constitution…..” Very few. So it’s a problem of electing those that honor the document and their oath more than their “political parties” and “bribes” (in the form of contributions by lobbyist). Not to mention simply acknowledging when it’s “UNCONSTITUTIONAL” and therefore illegal (even though it sounds like a good thing to do).


Another favourite quote of mine;

‘Good laws left to the interpretation of evil men are no longer good. Therefore it follows that good laws should be framed as clearly and as unequivocally as a written constitution, to obviate any possibility of deliberate misinterpretation and nullification. Such laws should be applicable to all, including politicians, intelligence services (foreign and domestic) and every agent of law enforcement. Exception leads to general contempt.’
P37, The Gates of Janus, by Ian Brady


Originally posted by lazy1981
I certainly see what you mean about Republicanism not being dead, just diseased. It’s more of a matter of getting the country as a whole to see that. It can in fact be cut out. Those of us that “CARE” try to spell this out to others all the time. It has just become more and more apparent that too many are “fat and happy” so they care not what may come from its destruction until it’s too late to fix it. It’s just as you said divide and conquer (in a way). Some are kept happy and they remain oblivious to the state of the nation of which they depend upon and in turn depends upon their vigilance to remain great.


Too true. The age old problem of being able to lead the horse to water, but not being able to make it drink.


Originally posted by lazy1981
I have to ask, what responsibilities does the local government hold for raising the taxes so high that these companies moved their plants to a place that was more business friendly? And that is the case in Chicago at least. Now it’s starting to happen again in the surrounding suburbs. The Communities grow so large that they raise taxes so high businesses must move in order to stay competitive. And then the Cities/townships cry about a lack of jobs. See the paradox? It’s really screwy, they don’t think before they act.


I do see. In the UK the problem arises usually with the problem that in urban areas, as land becomes more finite, it is financially more viable to sell up and move to the sticks. The city that I live in York, is a tourist centre, and business taxes have gone up and up over successive years, small businesses can’t afford them, you end up with hundreds of boarded up shops and only homogenised high-street brands. The city is now soulless and as a result, only shoppers come to York, tourism has dropped right off, especially international tourism. The overseas visitors want ‘personality’ and that is gone, now it is just a pretty place to shop and a dormitory for those that work in Leeds (a financial services centre, ‘up the road’). Noone ‘lives’ here, they merely exist, no jobs, no prospect, but enough heroin to keep the poor and disillusioned from knowing that the place it dead.



Originally posted by lazy1981


Food exports are wasteful.

Wait for it.....


the UK has the ability to provide food for a maximum of 30 million people. Our current population is around 60 million. We are highly reliant on imported food, textiles and manufactured goods.



We WILL be facing global food shortages in the short to medium term future, globally. And I do think that provisions have to made given that certain members of the global population have a greater proportion of food than others.

My point????

America supplies this demand in alot of cases. But the world (at large doesn't see this when they are spouting off about our energy needs in relation to our exports and what we supply to the rest of the world. I'm still withyou on cleaner sources, "in time." I just had to make that point. Think of some of the Latin American countries andpces like Somalia. They'd starve for sure, 'completely" (I know there are still starving in those countries).


I agree with you in that respect but let me try and put it another way. The UK does have adequate land and resources to provide for it’s population, but it doesn’t, instead it relies upon exports. Not only is the land inadequately utilised, but farmers are paid subsidies. Crops are produced simply as wasteage, because they are surplus to demand, or because exports are cheaper, and they are paid subsidies to continue to do this. We have productive land, but no one is working it because of the restrictions placed on that land by local government say that it can be used for agriculture but cannot be resided on. People want to work the land, grow food crops and raise livestock, but are unable to do so. What is required is more land being opened up for small holdings, but the planning system refuses to allow it restricting land ownership to the wealthy. Land reform could solve many of the problems that this country faces, one of which is the disproportionate amount of food that is imported compared to home production. There is a complete lack of balance.


Originally posted by lazy1981
Most certainly, I just don't enjoy "fear tactics" that are loosely based upon Science (big S for big buisness science). I'm all for preservation and conservation. I just don't buy the "Man-made Global Warming" malarkey. Not but twenty years ago they said we were going into "the next ice age" and now we are melting!? They can't tell their #s^hol3 from a hole in the ground.


The problem is that we do not have adequate historical data to know what is what. I don’t think that the real problem is global warming, or rather I think that we have much more significant problems to deal with. And, with that in mind, I would be willing to consider that the warming movement is a false flag, a distraction to keep us from addressing the real issues of food shortage due to intensive farming, toxification of our environment and a lack of biodiversity. I favour the argument that we haven’t reached the end of the last ice age, so in terms of changes in climate it is hard to tell what effect greenhouse gases have, what I do believe though, is that either way, we have to reduce our toxic output of pollutants. And, if our governments stopped trying to place all our problems under the same blanket term that may be a little clearer. They treat us like idiots and then wonder why we don’t listen.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


Well, this is the second time that I have replied to you and have lost two or three pages worth of good material so if I seem a bit vague you know why (sorry).


They were essentially meant as domestic propaganda to justify the US expenditure in a war in the ‘Old World’.
I feel that he was more of a tool for the growing "NWO."
Here is a "fragment" from a quote that I put in both of my last replies that I lost.

"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." -President Woodrow Wilson

I feel that these were just the subtle preludes to the NWO, and this is some of what people like Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, and many other people (not that these were stand up guys) really seen when they were in fear of a power that was taking control of their country. They just turned to that age old Jewish conspiracy that Christian Europe perpetuated for so long. I thing that it's really a bankers conspiracy (but that's just me).


and the French would never be happy unless Germany was made to pay,
I wanted to say more about this. In any event you're partially correct in my opinion.

The French have been the Ancient super power in Europe for centuries until the Unification of the German Peoples in 1871. They didn't like that.

Ever since the split of the Frankish Kingdom in 843 at the Treaty of Verdun the largest Germanic kingdom on the continent had been dissolved and the seeds of disputes were sown.

But, in 1871 the new German nation had slowly put a bit of a damper on the French (Russian and British for that matter also) economies and Imperial aspirations. They were viewed as pompous upstarts that were in the way of progress.

So not only did the French want them to pay for the war they wanted the new German nation gone for good. That's why they took away 14% of Germany's land's after the war. Including most of Prussia (a prized territory of the German people). The aim was to cripple the German economy and insight an upheaval in the German society. Which is just about what happened give or take.


He saw, I think ethnicity in terms of black and white, Europe has never been that simple.
I try to explain that to people all the time and they can't understand it. My heritage is 1/4 Irish, 1/4 German, and 1/2 Puerto Rican. I get all sorts of guesses as to what my lineage is. Yet people that are not white don't understand the difference when I explain the differences in nationality.

So I usually return the favor. If they are Mexican I'll call them Guatemalan or Brazilian. It drives the point home. People around the world think that white is white until you put it in terms that they can understand.


Interestingly, his wife refused to bring her black maid with her to Europe because she didn’t want her getting any ideas, as the British treated the ‘black’s too well’.
Aren't the blue bloods just lovely that way?????




but then there was no real desire by some of those statesmen to have lasting peace, too many scores still needed to be settled.
I think that it was not so much that they didn't want a lasting peace they didn't want the status quo as it ws before the war. They wanted Germany to pay and to go away in affect bringing back the old status quo. You have to remember peace is good for commerce. Only the bankers want war, not the statesmen.


The others though do not have the military capabilities that the US has, the manpower of a permanent standing army, therefore when asked to contribute a proportion of their military power it seems small by comparison.
Malarkey!

en.wikipedia.org...

The Russians and Chinese both sit on the same security council as we do with the Red Chinese having THE LARGEST MILITARY in the world and the Russians are only in a close third. India is in 4th. But this is all trivial because if the Indians or Chinese wanted to, they could easily out number us by millions of troops.

They are cowards in that respect, they continue to let others do the fighting, and financing of the same "world police" actions that they vote on while they sit back and do nothing. All the while pointing fingers at America and labeling us as warmongers. But in the same token they will use that same excuse, "you have a greater military capability than we do." Then what right do they have to cast judgment upon the very blanket of security that they call on time and again to sheildd the world from tyranny.

I will claim no pristine white garments that cloth the actions of my government (lets be clear on that) but you must see the truth of my statements.


Acres upon acres devoted to single crop production is bad for the planet, simple as that.
Agreed, but here in the states farmers have long since learned that you have to rotate your fields. One must lay dormant and you can't constantly grow the same crops or else they will leach all of the nutrients out of the soil.

Since the dust bowl of the 30's they also learned that the topography must not be changed and that the crops have to be planted in a manner that will utilize the topography in windy and dry times there by avoiding erosion of the top soil due to drought.
Government interference is almost never a solution, after a problem gets bad the people usually figure things out. Global government interference is NEVER a solution. People reap what they sow and when that issue hits those particular countries "they" will reap what they have sown and learn from it.


The British establishment have a tendancy to close ranks when faced with an outsider who thinks that he can call the shots.
This is pretty much the same sentiment here with the "overrunning of America."
We have a great deal of Illegals that think it's ok to try and push their weight around in "our" country when in fact they were felons from the moment that they crossed the border. They actually have the audacity to protest and march in the streets as if everything were hunky dory. That's how un-afraid they are of being deported



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 
Nobody's is mad at them for trying to have a better life, it's just that they are breaking the law and acting out with a sense of entitlement when they should be thanking their lucky stars that there are a bunch of politically correct Nancy boys at the helm that will not do there job and should be fired for dereliction of duty. This isn't even a question of what's right or wrong it's open and closed and they continue to rub our face in it.

The worst part is that we constantly have the politically correct people from around the world (as if we didn't have enough here) trying to put their two cents in. Nobody realizes that it's not their place to say.


From my reading, Roosevelt couldn’t wait to get involved in WW2, he certainly didn’t take much convincing, he knew though that the American people did.
You are entirely correct, Roosevelt couldn't wait. He talked a good game to the people (just like LBJ in the 60's) but he was itching for a fight. Not only because it was part of the agenda and he did in fact hate Germans, but he knew that it would keep him in office for the duration.


that the extent of Pearl Harbor could have at least been avoided, there is evidence to suggest that intelligence was willfully ignored.
I wouldn't say that Pearl could have been avoided. We were trying to assert our influence over the Japanese in Asia and stop there Imperial campaign. That was two fold, we had to safe guard our interest in the area and we were also guarding England and Frances interest in Asia at the time. It was when e stooped shipments of raw materials and oil that the death nails of Pearl Harbor were nailed. And I think that is what was done intentionally.

Any person with a decent grasp of military know how can say that by doing this (and knowing that Japan hasn't the resources for a war on it's mainland) you have backed an animal into a corner. They made Japan commit further acts of aggression in order to get more raw materials, and in turn they propagated the breakdown of peace talks. The Japanese were forced to attack if they wanted to expand their empire. And Fleet Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto had to do exactly what he did. He was a student of Harvard University and The US Naval War College (he knew the might of American industry), he knew that they had to win quickly or they would loose the war to Detroit and Henry Ford.

As for the actual attack, that's anyone's guess. I have my suspicions.


The US government, as well as the establishment and the corporate community were pretty much divided between Anglo-philes and Germano-philes.
If you had been talking about WW1 I would have agreed with you. During the time of WW1 America was just as likely to go to war with England as it was Germany. In fact there was a great deal of political animosity towards England at that time.

However, in the time of WW2 the country was just sick of war altogether, and the anti-German sentiment from WW1 was fresh in the minds of Americans. Accept for the fledgling Nazi party in America and the German American Bund (most of which were thrown into the same camps as the Japanese were but that gets no publicity and it made them worse).


Plus there was the odd soviet agent to further complicate the mix.
There was a chance of a German American alliance before we got bombed (at least on the German part of it all). Hitler had believed that America had robbed Europe of the best portion of it's gene pool and he thought highly of the US at the onset of the war. I guess it's a good thing that we didn't have a Pres. that was aligned more to the right and knew just how many Soviet spies there actually were in the country.


Post second world war and we get into the problem that Eisenhower spoke of, too much money was to be made by war and therefore there was a drive to keep war very much an integral part of the US foreign policy to keep the money rolling in for companies like Bechtel and McCone.
Can't argue with that, I've made that point time and again.


I do not believe that Afghanistan was in anyway necessary,
Well I'm not a pacifist, pass the ammo please....

I'm a bit torn about the whole thing. I think Iraq was BS. Afghanistan IMO is touchy. I don't know if 9/11 was an inside job. Either way it seems to be that the dirt bag we can't or "won't find had a big part in it. The Islamic world hates our guts anyway just for breathing so I feel no real problems about going over there. Accept for the children they haven't had the chance to get brainwashed yet. (just being honest)


The French are a whole different kettle of fish,

The French and Spanish are a bunch of Islamic apologist that can't see their hands in front of their faces. There's a storm brewing and its not going to be pretty. That's all I'm going to say about that, I'd like to attempt to keep my composure.


as in the example of Cinncinatus who was nominated by the senate to serve as Dictator for 6 months.
BRAVO!
I had completely forgotten about Cincinnatus. Great find.


Retrospectively it easy to look at the ‘visionary’ only through the corruption, and make the presumption that it was the vision that was warped, when it was in fact the messenger.
I see what your saying, good point. I don't bother trying to make points like this anymore, the PC crap is so stifling in the US that it's suicidal to even try and explain an idea such as this to people. They're lightening fast with their labels.


It doesn’t matter how low the prices are, if unemployment goes up any higher, no-one is going to be buying anything. I am not sure if it is a lack of forward thinking or just plain stupidity, perhaps a combination of both.
Yet again, you have stolen the thoughts from my very mind! I have also made this point time and again. Good luck getting anyone to listen. Gotta go, I'll finish up later.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 



It is beautiful island and more importantly, it breeds incredible people, and that is what it is to be British in my book, to know that you never trust your leaders, never be loyal to your country, only ever be loyal to your countrymen. If we could only learn to stand together, there is nothing that cannot be accomplished. And, that extends to us all, right around the globe.
If there is one important life lesson that I have learned is that everything is fluid. Everything in this world from religion, politics, and beyond is relative and depends on circumstances and situational variables. Much like the old saying, ”The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Not always your friend, you may just have a mutual purpose to be served. Now that I have made myself clear let me make my point.

What may be true in Britain may not be true in America. America breeds no one. We are much like the original Romans in that sense, we have no ethnicity only a country and an idea just as the Romans did. They started as a small city state that called people from the surrounding area to populate the new power that would become Rome. At that time they had no unifying ethnicity, legends, lore, culture. There were many peoples in Italy: the Ligures, Veneti, Etruscans, Piceni, Umbrians, Latini, Osci, Messapii, and the Greeks. Rome drew from all of these cultures and people, and even more after their conquests.

America has no true common bond between a “base” race if you will. Britain has the four basic countries (England, Scotland, Wales, North Ireland) that make it what it is and they all have a Celtic heritage regardless of how much the English (or actually Norman Kings tried to subdue that heritage). I know not all British are of Celtic decent but you understand my point. There is a common denominator somewhere.

Although this is a beautiful country that is not the reason why people have come by the millions to our shores. From the North to the South, East to West you can see some of the most beautiful country anywhere on the face of the planet and I’m not being eccentric, but that’s not the main reason. Also people can come here and make a great living if they have the drive to do so. However, I think that the line would be significantly shorter if this were a totalitarian country (if there were a line at all).

The main bond between our countrymen is the idea, the idea of freedom from tyranny. The freedom to live life the way that you see fit and to have a voice in your government. To have certain rights that can not be taken away. We also used to share the common mistrust of government officials, this suspicion went all the way to the to as even American Presidents warned against the woes of a observatory and overpowering government. I’m sure I have posted these quotes before.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
-President Thomas Jefferson

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
- President George Washington

The distrust of even our new government was once part of the American spirit, until they fooled us into the party systems. And even that was frowned upon as it was divisive amongst the people.

“There is nothing I dread so much as a division of the Republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader and converting measures in opposition to each other.”
-President John Adams


It’s these very principles that make us countrymen, the idea of freedom. Without that we are just a hodge-podge group of people that came to a foreign land in search of a better life. Together with these shared ideals you now have countrymen and with countrymen comes a country. Without one you haven’t got the other, you are as the “lost tribe of Israel.” A people with no home or purpose, so you must be loyal to your country in order to be loyal to your countrymen and vice versa. To hell with your government, they are merely a tool there to serve YOU and your COUNTRYMEN (i.e. your country).

We once stood together in America, and we accomplished a great thing. If we could only do it again one way or the other I don’t know but it needs to be done.


I’m getting all preachy again, I apologise.
None needed, we've gone over this.




Therefore it follows that good laws should be framed as clearly and as unequivocally as a written constitution
"Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior." This is part of our Due Process, but try and tell this to our legislature. I completely understand what you mean, these people make laws that are 10,000 pages long (no BS) and it is literally worded in Lawyer talk. No layman could possibly understand the intricacies of the legislation.


The city that I live in York, is a tourist centre, and business taxes have gone up and up over successive years, small businesses can’t afford them, you end up with hundreds of boarded up shops and only homogenised high-street brands.
This is why I stick to the conservative notion of low taxes, just enough for essential functions. This encourages business, provided they would penalize the businesses products that leave the country to save a dime in labor. And maybe new businesses that reap the benefit of doing business in the country, yet try to run for the hills to save a dime likewise. They have been made to take no stake in the country (as in the past) that they leach off of yet they want the market of that country. Ticks and parasites the whole lot of them.


Noone ‘lives’ here, they merely exist, no jobs, no prospect, but enough heroin to keep the poor and disillusioned from knowing that the place it dead.
That's a sad state. Sounds like most of our steal/automotive cities and towns. The plants were so massive that the whole city's economy was dependant upon it and when it left for China the city fell apart. Gary-Hammond, Indiana and Flint Michigan are a couple. So why do you stay there?



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 



I favour the argument that we haven’t reached the end of the last ice age, so in terms of changes in climate it is hard to tell what effect greenhouse gases have,
This could very well be true, I never heard of this point of view before. I'll have to do some actual research on it before I can come to any conclusion that is worth anything other than basic opinion. But, it seems sound to me at first sight.



what I do believe though, is that either way, we have to reduce our toxic output of pollutants.
I totally agree with you. I just don't agree with their notions of "Cap & Trade." It doesn't work. It's just taking a bit from here and moving it there. One company can pollute as much as they want if they can afford it.

It should be done across the board but on a national level, China and India would never agree to a treaty such as Kyoto and it would cripple other nations economies if they are allowed to do as they please while everyone else is hamstrung.

It should be an effort put forth nation by nation and leveled across the board. Cap & Trade is junk.


And, if our governments stopped trying to place all our problems under the same blanket term that may be a little clearer. They treat us like idiots and then wonder why we don’t listen.
You nailed it, they have found ever more creative ways to blame the most benign issues on Man-Made Global Warming and wonder why people like myself think that they have an agenda and are using this to forward it. And they treat us like children because that's exactly how they view us.


I'll tell you what it's April 5th for Christ sake and it's snowing in Chicago. I'm a little angry with Mr. Gore just now, I should be at the lake going for a swimming according to him. Oh wait, or maybe the lake bed searching for drinking water. Who knows anymore, he's just plain old wrong.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


I wanted to revisit our discussion on varying forms of government and which one would suit the freedoms of the human race better?

In the last few weeks I have been giving that a lot of thought and upon a query into a certain State Legislation I think I may have stumbled upon something that would be great if it were incorporated into existing governing systems.

I was searching for a State Legislation that I had heard about with only one house instead of two and is non-partisan as it turns out. Nebraska has a Non-Partisan Legislature and I think that they have only one house of legislation due to the low population. I by no means see them as perfect but I think that the non-partisan approach in motion shows that it can be done and can have good effect. I don't necessarily follow the Single House rule though.

en.wikipedia.org...


I had also pondered the notion of incorporating "a form" of Direct Democracy into the Constitutional Republic that would give another form of Check and Balance. Accept this time it would put it directly in the hands of the people.

en.wikipedia.org...


For example, the practice of lobbyist and any contributions to Representatives would have to be made illegal. And Secondly, there would have to be a new form of Single issue Legislation (no more paper clipping and 10,000 page bills) All legislation should be in layman's terms and in as simple language as possible. Single issue legislation only.

After this stage you could set up a series of votes (say 4 a year) similar to the primary elections, in which registered voters would have been prompted on the Legislation to be voted on and given the opportunity to inform themselves. The populace cast their votes on the laws and at this stage all that is needed is a Democratic majority rules vote in order for it to move along. If it doesn't meet this requirement the law gets scrapped.

If it gets the majority then it would be sent back to the Houses (in my case House of Rep and Senate) and each would then Ratify it with a 2/3 vote in order for it to pass on (Republic). At this point it passes on to the Judiciary for Constitutional approval and if it is legal then the executive Branch can sign it into law.

It seems a bit of a long process to me too.


But it's the only way that I can figure that we can get the people involved in their own governing process and stop the politicians from robbing us.

Also there needs to be equal insight upon the populace to ensure that they do not vote themselves free goodies.

And the inclusion of the Judiciary from the onset in order that anything illegal never makes it into law in the first place as it has in the past.

What are your thoughts?


[edit on 16-4-2009 by lazy1981]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 

I remember that we also had a conversation not long ago about the ability of Americans to simply take back our rights by way of popular support and the peaceful process (of which I am 100% hopeful of).


What confuses me, when I look at your system of government is, that if you can generate sufficient popular support, theoretically, to envision a civil war, then surely then you can generate the personnel needed to use the constitution to make those changes peaceably. Democracy, or republicanism rather, has not failed, it is diseased and that disease can be cut out. Do you see what I mean? You don’t need to have an actual war to fight for your rights, they are yours, you just have to make them give you them back.
We have been having "Tea Parties" all over the country (i.e. Boston Tea Party 1773), over 500 to give a number. And though political hacks would have the world think that it is only conservatives at these things there are Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, Republican, and Green Party supporters at them. It's just that Fox News (a conservative Media outlet) has been the largest one that actually gives it coverage so everyone is trying to label it a right-wing thing.

When The People try to do it together they set out to divide us again.



We also talked about another issue, the fact that many would not allow the rights that past generations fought and struggled for to be lost easily. In the past year or so 33 States have put forth Legislation Reasserting their Sovereignty from the Federal Government under the 10th Amendment. If you remember I had said that we are a nation of Semi-Autonomous States in Union with one another.



The sates are on target with their claims of Sovereignty, what I fear that if the Federal Government chooses a bellicose form of persuasion that the civil war that people have been grumbling about may well become a harsh reality. And all this at the point when people are ready to take to the streets and try to take back their country.

www.tenthamendmentcenter.com...

Here is the full video of Texas Gov. Perry, it will give you a lot better insight.



There was also another topic that we hadn't fully gotten through that I did want to come back to. It was the issue of a soldiers duty to the constitution.



Do you think that it is likely that will be upheld? The fundamental difficulty with any military is that they are trained/programmed to follow orders, while I think that it is unlikely that an army can be used effectively against its own people, I am equally doubtful that it would stand up to protect the ‘people’ either.


oath-keepers.blogspot.com...

www.worldnetdaily.com...

And here's a thread about it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Waiting for your response. Told you I had a few other things I wanted to post. It's odd how they all came together lately.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


Sorry for the short post but I wanted to make sure that you seen this video, it's important to the opinion that you may come to. Yet, someone seems to want it silence, you'll see if you click on the old link. The new one should play just fine, unless they put the hush puppies on this one too.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


I know that I a sort of ganging up on you. But, things are sort of picking up in pace on this side of the pond. Thought this would be another news piece that would give you some insight.


This is an article about a new gun law in Montana that fly's in the face of the Fed.
www.gather.com...


And this is the actual law that was put into action, if you should care to read it.
data.opi.mt.gov...



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by lazy1981
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


I know that I a sort of ganging up on you. But, things are sort of picking up in pace on this side of the pond. Thought this would be another news piece that would give you some insight.



More!!

I'm almost caught up, so should be able to comment on this post, ooh, say beginning of next week.
Getting there though, I appreciate your patience.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by lazy1981
I thing that it's really a bankers conspiracy (but that's just me).


Hold that thought!


Originally posted by lazy1981
"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." -President Woodrow Wilson


Who do you think that he is talking about?

The problem that I have with quotes like this, is that they are often taken out of context and in doing so given a w hole entirely different meaning from that which was originally intended. Not saying that this is the case here, but I would be hard pressed to really know what he was talking about, or whether it is just political spin. Wilson had an agenda while in office, as most who gain power do, for good or bad, self-interest or altruism. He has been described as a war-monger, he wanted the US in the war because it was high on his agenda to be involved in the peace talks at the end of the war. Wilson wanted to be there when a Brave New World was created. We have already covered how far short he fell in that task. But, what was his motivation, beyond his own ambitions? Or rather who’s interests did he represent?

Had Britain lost the First War in 1917, J P Morgan would have found themselves having to cover the expense of orders totalling more that $20 million that the British War Office would no longer be in existence to pay for. Not only that, but considering that Morgan took 2% commission on all transactions, they would be out a tidy profit too. And more still, the money raised as loans to pay for the orders came from his clients (including DuPont) whose fortunes he managed.

Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister at that time, was a close friend of E C Grenfell. Grenfell was Morgan’s partner in the British side of the J P Morgan empire. He had been his second choice, his first being Alfred Lord Milner who had declined the offer. Morgan had hoped to provide the same service to the Rhodes-Milner Group as he did to the Carnegie Trust. They were though, already being well looked after by NM Rothschild. However, firm links were forged between the Rhodes-Milner Group and the Carnegie Trust, and their respective banks.

NM Rothschild’s had strong links with the New York banking house, Kuhn, Loeb and Co. Jacob Schiff, the head of the Bank had been out-spoken in support of Wilson in his 1912 Presidential campaign and had provided substantial financial support to that campaign. He would later aggressively campaign for US inclusion in the war and lobbied Wilson’s government to act to end the war as quickly as possible, with or without an Allied Victory. Schiff, though certainly not blase about his clients interests, was though more motivated by altruism than protection of profit, he gave liberally to those providing aid to those affected by war and had himself family in Europe.


Originally posted by lazy1981
I feel that these were just the subtle preludes to the NWO, and this is some of what people like Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, and many other people (not that these were stand up guys) really seen when they were in fear of a power that was taking control of their country.


Kuhn, Loeb and Co provided considerable funds to Alexander Kerensky’s Socialist takeover of the provisional government in Russia. Sir William Wiseman, a ‘Special Advisor’ to President Wilson and a partner in Kuhn Loeb and Co arranged for the ‘cash’ to be channelled to Kerensky via a British SIS agent. Russia was at that time completely dependent on supplies from Britain and France. Britain was desperate to keep Russia in the war and Germany occupied in the East. The funds were therefore initially to maintain economic stability and keep the moderate, Anglo-friendly, Kerensky at the helm.

Germany wanted Russia out of the war. Fritz Platten, a prominent Swiss Socialist, offered General Ludendorff a deal; allow Lenin (plus 34 others) safe passage through German territory and they would take Russia out of the war by spreading dissension and revolution in the ranks of the army (desertions were already rife). Germany were as desperate as Britain by this point, plus they had revolutionary concerns of their own, they sought a swift end to the war so they could focus on domestic matters.

Coincidently (NOT), coinciding with Lenin’s return to Russia, disagreement between Kerensky and the Commander in Chief of the Russian Army, General Kornilov was exacerbated by whispering campaigns implying that each were planning to act against the other, reaching a climax when Kerensky convinced that Kornilov was going to oust him (or worse) calls in the Bolshevik Red Guards. The shift in power was instant, and when less than a month later Lenin took power, there was practically no resistence.

Lenin made good his word, and at great territorial expense, signed the Brest-Livotsk Treaty in March 1918 (which revealed Germany’s territorial ambitions, which would become important later). Britain weren’t particularly pleased with Lenin in power and almost immediately began plotting his assassination sending a team of covert agents to Russia soon after the treat had been signed. Had the assassination attempt been successful it would not have brought Russia back into the war, so it can only be assumed they were driven by other motives.

While the Foreign Office are concerned with the protection of the realm of the United Kingdom (including colonial territories at that time), MI6, then SIS, are concerned with British interests overseas, corporate and financial, and the protection of trade and commerce. Which is why, it traditionally falls under the remit of the Admiralty. At the time of the First War Britain was deeply divided amongst those who still sought to promote Colonial Imperialism and those who understood that Capital Imperialism was the new economic order. By the beginning of the Second War, it was all out Capitalist Imperialism, from within and without, that Britain was fighting.

Lenin’s own treatise on Capitalist Imperialism is well worth a read and indicative of Lenin’s own understanding of who would wield the real power in the emerging new world order.

www.marxists.org...

Lenin was an educated man, he was worldly and understood the machinations of power politics. That was why he had to go.

Everything that happened in Germany between the wars was a reaction to Russia and Bolshevism. The Volkischer movement was driven by the Prussian Junker class, and General Ludendorff embarked on a search for a red haired girl to be Germany’s Joan. Somehow, he found Hitler fit the bill, though not without persuasion from Professor Karl Haushofer and his protégé Rudolf Hess. Through these three Hitler was introduced to some of the most prominent people in the Pan-Germanic movement.

Haushofer had given a lecture tour in Britain in 1899, there he had met the pioneer of geo-politics and member of the Rhodes-Milner Group, Halford J MacKinder. Six years later MacKinder wrote the paper the Geographical Pivot of History for the Royal Geographical Society.

“If the World-Island be inevitably the principle seat of humanity on the globe, and if Arabia, as the passage-land from Europe to the Indies and from the Northern to the Southern Heartland, be central to the World-Island. Then the hill citadel of Jerusalem has a strategical position with reference to world realities not differing essentially from it’s ideal position in the middle-ages, or it’s strategical position between Ancient Babylon and Egypt.” MacKinder quoted on P47 Century of War, William Engdahl

Without wittering on too much, MacKinder influenced both British foreign policy, and Pan-Germanism, with the ‘realisation’ of the Pivot it is the root cause of the Great Wars (in my opinion). Britain had known as early as 1815 that it could not sustain it’s Empire indefinitely, it was simply too vast to maintain under a growing tide of revolutionary thought. Disraeli (then Prime Minister) in 1856 described the colonies as a “millstone round Britain’s neck.” India may have been the jewel in the Crown but it was requiring more and more manpower to combat the growing dissension towards the British overlords and an ever intensifying war between the Muslims and the Anglican Church. Britain feared that Russia would use Afghanistan as a staging post to take India, and they played a game of push-me-pull-me until they came to the realistation that Germany was about to usurp them both.

Germany’s construction of the Berlin to Baghdad railway was a major threat to Britain, not because they feared that Germany would try to take Britain, but because MacKinder had identified the development of the railway as the greatest threat to Britain’s hegemonic control of trade with the East via it’s supremacy of the sea. Assuming the threat would come from Russia via Afghanistan, Britain had totally missed the growing threat even closer to home. As German banker, Karl Hefferlich put it in 1918;

“England’s policy was always constructed against the politically and economically strongest continental power.” (p29 Century of War, William Engdahl)

As Germany formed bonds with the Ottomans and began construction of the railway in Arabia, Britain swiftly signed a treaty with Russia dividing up Afghanistan and turned it’s attention to Germany. The First World War was about protecting the Suez route, physically, by toppling the Ottoman empire and acquiring control of Palestine and economically, by ensuring that no single European power held control of the Pivot.

With all this in mind when Haushofer and Hess wrote the geo-political model that would feature prominently in Mein Kampf they were sure to mention that their expansionism would not impinge upon Britain’s domination of the seas. Hess and Haushofer, saw the two Empires ruling the world “hand in hand”. What Hitler supplied was the common touch. The plan had been that when Hitler attained total power of Germany he would serve, like the ancient dictators of Rome, for six months while a constitutional monarchy was formed to govern Germany. But all this was Old World Order and in their naivety they failed to realise that others saw more monopolistic possibilities in the creation of a Third Reich. Hess, Haushofer and the German industrialists who initially funded Hitler’s rise gradually lost control of Hitler to a cabal of international bankers and industrialists led by Baron Schroder.

Alfred Rosenberg, who supplied the racial ‘expertise’ for Mein Kampf travelled to Britain in 1931 where, on Hjalmar Schacht’s introduction, he met Sir Montagu Norman, the then head of the Bank of England, and another director, F C Tiarks, who was with London Schroder Bank. Norman and Schacht went way back, Schacht named his son after Norman, and they both served on the board of the Bank of International Settlements that had been set up to manage Germany’s reparation payments. It was through BIS, and particularly it’s chairman, New York banker Thomas McKitterick, that word was spread to the US that money was to be made in investing in Hitler.

After the war Ludendorff’s widow resumed the pamphleting campaign her husband had started against the Freemasons, Christianity and Judaism (Ludendorff was a proponent of the Volkischer movement which tied ethnicity to nationalism). However, it was her accusations that Hitler was funded by bankers that resulted in her appearing before a de-nazification court in 1949 and being sentenced to two years hard labour. What is even ‘funnier’ is how Robert S Wistrich, one of the foremost experts on ‘Nazism’, in the 2002 edition of his book ‘The Who’s Who of Nazi Germany’ describes her as “…embracing such outlandish and bizarre theories as the idea that Wall Street Banks had financed Hitler’s electoral campaigns.” (p162) How ludicrous!!

In a very long winded way (I tried to be succinct, but I do not know the depth of your knowledge on the subject) I have tried to show how there was nothing at all subtle about what Lenin and Hitler spoke of. The difference is that Lenin knew what he was talking about, Capitalism, Hitler was told what to think and say and was in the pay of those that Lenin spoke of.

I’ve run out of steam and will continue the rest tomorrow. I’ll try to be a little more concise…but at least I got started at last, apologies for that



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by lazy1981
I think that it was not so much that they didn't want a lasting peace they didn't want the status quo as it ws before the war. They wanted Germany to pay and to go away in affect bringing back the old status quo. You have to remember peace is good for commerce. Only the bankers want war, not the statesmen.


Bankers and business. The statesmen, like Hitler, do what their paymasters and lobbyists tell them to. The Military-Industrial Complex was built over the course of the Second World War. There are elements within the Versailles Treaty that all by themselves created World War Two, the most significant is Article 231 regarding war guilt. It was John Foster Dulles and his brother Allen who drew up that particular article.


Originally posted by lazy1981
… And Fleet Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto had to do exactly what he did. He was a student of Harvard University and The US Naval War College (he knew the might of American industry), he knew that they had to win quickly or they would loose the war to Detroit and Henry Ford.


Given that Japan were Axis allies, GM and Ford were effectively on their side manufacturing armoured vehicles for the German War Machine. The entire purpose of the alliance (forged with the help of Professor Haushofer who had visited Japan on numerous occasions, visits that had been closely monitored by British SIS) was to cut Allied supplies from the East, chiefly of rubber (Singapore) and oil (Burma) which are essential to war production. Standard Oil, which developed the process for producing synthetic rubber and synthetic oil, gave the exclusive rights to both, to IG Farben. Militarily, with the combination of Japanese beligerance and US/German industrial cartels, Germany was in a position to scupper Britain. Britain would have fallen had the US not agreed to supply her.


Originally posted by lazy1981

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
The US government, as well as the establishment and the corporate community were pretty much divided between Anglo-philes and Germano-philes.


If you had been talking about WW1 I would have agreed with you. During the time of WW1 America was just as likely to go to war with England as it was Germany. In fact there was a great deal of political animosity towards England at that time.


This is the very problem with politics. We vote, but once those counts are voted, there is no real obligation to fulfil the promises that you made to win those votes. Sure it won’t get you a second term, but so long as you accomplish the goals of those who funded your bid for office in that first term it doesn’t matter. And then there is the lobbyists…

Allen and John Foster Dulles worked for Sullivan and Cromwell, who worked in conjunction with Gerhard Westrick to conceal investments in Germany that were in violation of Anti-Trust Laws. An entire network of bankers and brokers,around the hub of the Bank of International Settlements, worked to mask their clients investments. Those investments were made on the basis that Germany intended to wage ‘Aggressive War’ against Poland and Eastern Europe, taking the Geographical Pivot. In 1934, IG Farben drew up plans for how they would operate in the event of war. They had regular drills and played ‘war games’. IG Farben knew before Hitler that war was inevitable. As far as Hitler was concerned, and according to all the advice he was given, Britain would not declare war if he invaded Poland. IG Farben on the contrary seemed to know to the contrary.

Joseph Kennedy, then US Ambassador to Britain, was advising FDR that Britain was on the brink of defeat in early 1940. Gerhard Westrick, at the expense of Torkild Reiber, head of the Texas Oil Company, arrived in New York in spring 1940 as the Reich representative for post war economic development. Reiber hosted a party for himin June, shortly after France’s capitulation, at the Waldorf Astoria. In attendance were reps from ITT, Kodak, GM and Ford (amongst others). Rieber had worked with Hermann Goering on his ‘Four Year Plan’, and had spoken to FDR on the benefits of alliance with Germany. FDR didn’t like Germans, fortunately for Churchill, and had told Reiber to butt out. Even the governor of Harvard University spoke out against an alliance with Britain because Hitler looked like a much better bet.

At this stage, the US was riddled with Abwehr agents, most of whom worked voluntarily and without financial recompense. By 1940, the Germans were in possession of plans for almost every piece of aviation technology developed in the US. What they didn’t steal was given them freely by those companies who also invested in Germany.

Additionally, as you point out, there were groups like the American Bund,which were funded and supplied with propanganda by Goebbels’ ministry, and Goebbels himself retained at a cost of $33,000 a year,the services of the public relations pioneer Ivy Lee. Lee was also retained by IG Farben.

In this battle for the hearts and minds of the US government, Churchill despatched, Sir William Stephenson to set up the British Security Co-ordination in New York. Stephenson had met ‘Wild Bill’ Donovan in 1916,when they had both been attached to British SIS. Donovan was either a classmate or room-mate of FDR’s at Harvard and though on oppostite poles politically, FDR respected and trusted Donovan above most others. Stephenson’s first job was to run Westrick out of town, then he set about convincing Donovan that Britain could win the war if only the US could help them. A top secret visit to Britain was organised for Donovan, and we put on one hell of a show for him. Not only was he met by the King,who reiterated that Britain would never surrender and would fight until the last man, but he was given a whistlestop tour of our military facilities. It was all mouth and no trousers, we put our best planes and armoured tanks on show, looking to Donovan that we were well equipped and ready to fight (we were very far from it). The clincher though was a tour of our greatest asset GCHQ and it was the realisation of our intelligence capability that really won the show. Donovan went back and told FDR that he should back us. In return we helped the US set up their own intelligence unit, OSS.


Originally posted by lazy1981
They just turned to that age old Jewish conspiracy that Christian Europe perpetuated for so long.


It always amazes me that people look to Israel and say they should know better, that suffering in the way that they have, they should be a peaceful nation, obviously those people have little understanding of geo-politics, but that aside, brutality breeds brutality. That particular worm was going to turn eventually, it waited until it had a decent arsenal is all. When you are backed into a corner you come out fighting or you’re slaughtered. The Jews learnt that the hard way. If there is or was a Jewish conspiracy I can hardly blame them, it tends to fall into the realm of self-defence to my mind. As a people, they have fought longer and more peaceably than any other people, to achieve equal rights, emancipation took long enough. Just because some rose to the top and helped those below them from there does not to be make a conspiracy. Everyone does that, and if they don’t they should.


Originally posted by lazy1981
The French have been the Ancient super power in Europe for centuries until the Unification of the German Peoples in 1871. They didn't like that.

Ever since the split of the Frankish Kingdom in 843 at the Treaty of Verdun the largest Germanic kingdom on the continent had been dissolved and the seeds of disputes were sown.

But, in 1871 the new German nation had slowly put a bit of a damper on the French (Russian and British for that matter also) economies and Imperial aspirations. They were viewed as pompous upstarts that were in the way of progress.

So not only did the French want them to pay for the war they wanted the new German nation gone for good. That's why they took away 14% of Germany's land's after the war. Including most of Prussia (a prized territory of the German people). The aim was to cripple the German economy and insight an upheaval in the German society. Which is just about what happened give or take.


Very well put. In essence Germany was penalised for being imperialist when there was considered to be no more room for any more empires, and as I pointed out when the world was changing. In a memo to the Secretary of State written following the Dunkirk retreat, Sir Robert Vansittart (Chief Diplomatic Advisor to the Foreign Secretary) sums up the British attitude.

‘The future of civilisation is at stake. It is a question of we or they now, and either the German Reich or this country has got to go under, and not only under, but right under. I believe it will be the German Reich…(it has) been the curse of the world for 75 years…The enemy is the German Reich…not merely Nazism…the possibility of compromise has gone by, and it has got to be a fight to the finish.’
(p180, The Hitler/Hess Deception by Martin Allen)

Britain didn’t want to run Europe or the Pivot, but nor did they want any other single power to do so. That would later include the US, the Cold War,was less about holding back the Red Peril, than it was about ensuring that the East was kept backward and the Sea the main conduit of trade with the East.



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by lazy1981
That's a sad state. Sounds like most of our steal/automotive cities and towns. The plants were so massive that the whole city's economy was dependant upon it and when it left for China the city fell apart. Gary-Hammond, Indiana and Flint Michigan are a couple. So why do you stay there?


I make it sound a little bleaker than it is, but it isn’t good and I have difficulty foreseeing any improvement in the near future. Over the last few decades, in a decline that started before the two world wars, more and more of the North’s industries have closed. Police and Coal Miners fought pitch battles in the streets during the strikes of the eighties in the last bit of resistence to decline in output and job losses. Many of the old mining towns are more of a comparison with the US. These places are damn bleak and not only will the Police not even go there (out of fear, the Miner’s Strikes were nasty) but you even try mentioning Margaret Thatcher’s name and you are likely to get your head stoved in.

The rest of the country has suffered decline, it isn’t isolated to the North. But whereas some regions down South have attracted inward investment that has lead to overseas employers locating their business there, here we struggle to get that kind of investment and therefore when one business closes it is unlikely that anything else will fill it’s place. Here in York we are fortunate, we have two Universities one of which has an international research reputation in the sciences. It attracts major funding. We still have one chocolate factory left, but owned as it is by a big multinational (Nestle) it is gradually downsizing and specialising. Eventually it’ll most likely only make Kit Kat, and since the production is fully automated it will only require a small staff.

It is a beautiful city, people want to live here. They work in Leeds, where the jobs and money are, and live here. There is a high speed link to London, so some are even willing to communte to the capital. On the opposing face though are those that live here or come to live here and don’t have jobs. There is a significant problem with homelessness, anti-social and criminal behaviour (in one night two years ago, over 90 cars were vandalised in the street next to mine!), alcoholism and drug addiction.


Originally posted by lazy1981
I do not believe that Afghanistan was in anyway necessary,
Well I'm not a pacifist, pass the ammo please....

I'm a bit torn about the whole thing. I think Iraq was BS. Afghanistan IMO is touchy. I don't know if 9/11 was an inside job. Either way it seems to be that the dirt bag we can't or "won't find had a big part in it. The Islamic world hates our guts anyway just for breathing so I feel no real problems about going over there. Accept for the children they haven't had the chance to get brainwashed yet. (just being honest)

We’re all brainwashed, you and me included.

There is a very simple unavoidable fact about Afghanistan and that is Heroin. Prior to 9/11, Afghanistan was supplying 90% of Britain’s street heroin. Today, Afghanistan is still providing 90% of street Heroin. Factor into that, that demand has grown exponentially, there are far more addicts now than there were prior to 9/11, the quality has improved (ie the cut is higher in pure Heroin) and, now here’s the clincher, it has gone down in price by almost 80%. The chief difference though is that it is coming in through Turkey rather than through the traditional Balkan route. There has presumably therefore been some change of hands in the ‘dealership.

The problem of the Taliban could quite easily be solved, along with stopping 90% of illegal heroin hitting the streets, by agreeing terms with the Taliban to allow them to sell their raw Opium to the pharmaceutical industry. That is all these people want, the ability to raise and sell the same crop as other ‘sanctioned’ producers are able to, and to be given a fair deal in doing so. There is currently, and has been for some years, a shortage of pharmaceutical Heroin. The demand and the supply are there, and it would allow the Afghani’s the right to produce legally, the only thing that their barren little country is good at producing. Doesn’t that sound reasonable to you?

So, if we need the Opium, why don’t we buy it, help the Taliban to lift themselves up and stand proud, and, if there is a war on, which should in theory impede the transit of drugs, therefore reducing supply, driving up the price and lowering quality, is the complete reverse happening? Do you see now why I don’t feel that the situation has anything to do with 9/11?


Originally posted by lazy1981
What may be true in Britain may not be true in America. America breeds no one. We are much like the original Romans in that sense, we have no ethnicity only a country and an idea just as the Romans did. They started as a small city state that called people from the surrounding area to populate the new power that would become Rome. At that time they had no unifying ethnicity, legends, lore, culture. There were many peoples in Italy: the Ligures, Veneti, Etruscans, Piceni, Umbrians, Latini, Osci, Messapii, and the Greeks. Rome drew from all of these cultures and people, and even more after their conquests.


But surely by now you must find there is some unity? I think that it is a misconception that a people should have commonality. Britain is pretty multicultural, and most do come here with the intention of assimilating. Whenever you have mass immigration there will always be some ghettoisation, but on the whole we have a mixed bag. But, I would add, that that state of affairs is somewhat guided by the fact that we are a secular state, that can make all the difference. I was in London a few weeks ago and it is a few years since I have been down, but I was surprised at the ethnic mix. Very, very few whites, and those that were white were not necessarily ‘British’ (a lot of Eastern Europeans are coming here to work and study). I found it liberating, I felt safer in the ‘big city’ surrounded by all those people who were there because they wanted to be there, rather than in my chocolate box little city filled with bitter people with nowhere else to go.


Originally posted by lazy1981
America has no true common bond between a “base” race if you will. Britain has the four basic countries (England, Scotland, Wales, North Ireland) that make it what it is and they all have a Celtic heritage regardless of how much the English (or actually Norman Kings tried to subdue that heritage). I know not all British are of Celtic decent but you understand my point. There is a common denominator somewhere.


I don’t think it is about race, I think that it is all about attitude. One of the things that I am proud of being British about, or more particularly working-class British, is that during the era of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, all attempts to introduce the use of African slaves was rejected and repulsed. The middle classes and the landed gentry managed to get away with the odd house boy or lady’s maid, but they were never used industrially or agriculturally en masse. My great, great grandmother was a ‘mullato’ or was so described and it is a part of my heritage that I take a great deal of pride in. Before mass immigration to the New World, Britain was the last refuge from oppression in mainland Europe. It is something that has shaped the mentality, and we welcome incomers. Although, that said in recent years the influx has reached bursting point and it is largely economic, the drive for cheaper labour. When those already established here can’t find work it is never going to sit easy.


Originally posted by lazy1981
The main bond between our countrymen is the idea, the idea of freedom from tyranny. The freedom to live life the way that you see fit and to have a voice in your government. To have certain rights that can not be taken away. We also used to share the common mistrust of government officials, this suspicion went all the way to the to as even American Presidents warned against the woes of a observatory and overpowering government. I’m sure I have posted these quotes before.

“There is nothing I dread so much as a division of the Republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader and converting measures in opposition to each other.”
-President John Adams

"Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior." This is part of our Due Process, but try and tell this to our legislature. I completely understand what you mean, these people make laws that are 10,000 pages long (no BS) and it is literally worded in Lawyer talk. No layman could possibly understand the intricacies of the legislation.


If you can’t dazzle them with style, baffle them with bull#!

[

Originally posted by lazy1981
Agreed, but here in the states farmers have long since learned that you have to rotate your fields. One must lay dormant and you can't constantly grow the same crops or else they will leach all of the nutrients out of the soil.


We have been operating on a three year rotation for several generations. It still kills the soil and the life in it. I watched a documentary a while back, which basically demonstrated how reliant British agriculture is on oil, it was eye opening. However what was most interesting was footage of a field being ploughed for the first time in the 1980s (it had been pasture for untold generations before). As the plough cut into the soil and opened it, flocks of birds, all varieties, were feeding of the insect and seeds being raised to the surface. This is a field on three year rotation. The footage of the same field being ploughed last year was horrific in comparison, not a single bird. Not one.

Because the soil is dead, the natural predators gone, the soil leached of minerals and nutrients, we have to use pesticides and fertilisers. Our bird and insect numbers have dropped dramatically in recent years. Biodiversity though is being taken seriously in this country and funding is in place (my brother is a Biodiversity ‘professional’ incidently), it is realised in government how serious the problem will be if we do not intervene now. But it is still not enough in my opinion.


Originally posted by lazy1981
Government interference is almost never a solution, after a problem gets bad the people usually figure things out. Global government interference is NEVER a solution. People reap what they sow and when that issue hits those particular countries "they" will reap what they have sown and learn from it.


I agree, but we should also be wise to know the difference between interference and support that is offered. And, also if individuals are doing no harm to anyone but themselves, then fair enough leave be. If not, if they are harming the environment, stubbornly refusing support and guidance, them I believe that the rights of that individual should be subjugated to the safety of the majority. But, obviously, if there is mistrust of the government you will not get the people to confirm because they’ll think it is some sort of conspiracy.


Originally posted by lazy1981

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

I favour the argument that we haven’t reached the end of the last ice age, so in terms of changes in climate it is hard to tell what effect greenhouse gases have,

This could very well be true, I never heard of this point of view before. I'll have to do some actual research on it before I can come to any conclusion that is worth anything other than basic opinion. But, it seems sound to me at first sight.


There are a number of theories out there based upon the available information. The mistake that I think was made in the US, especially with the Gore film, was to ‘create’ a definitive conclusion because they thought it would make it easier to digest or they were concerned over sensibilities. In order to do that they ignored some information, exaggerated others. As soon as those discrepancies were brought to light, any good that the film may have been able to generate was totally negated and replaced with mistrust.

In the UK we are highly fortunate to have access to the programmes and research conducted by the BBC Natural History Unit. Though I often complain about the TV Licence Fee that we are all obliged by law to purchase, I am also eternally grateful to the education that the Natural History Unit has provided me. I am also grateful to have been born into a country that is secular and therefore does not have to accommodate or defer to the beliefs and superstitions of others. Beliefs are all very well, but when they seek to conceal information that conflicts with those beliefs you are on a slippery slope towards national ignorance.


Originally posted by lazy1981
I totally agree with you. I just don't agree with their notions of "Cap & Trade." It doesn't work. It's just taking a bit from here and moving it there. One company can pollute as much as they want if they can afford it.


I agree, it doesn’t work at all. I’m for zero tolerance, although damage caused by natural disaster may be excuseable, otherwise there is no such thing as an accident. However, what these companies do rely on is the fact that they are massive employers. Take the company’s operating licence away or shut it down and people are out of work. Makes things difficult in terms of enforcing the law. There is very little alternative than to set penalities, I do think more could be done to prevent those fined from passing on the costs to their customers. I also favour corporate responsibility, if someone issues an order that leads to environmental contamination and/or the loss of life, they should be held criminally responsible and subject to a custodial sentence.


Originally posted by lazy1981
It should be done across the board but on a national level, China and India would never agree to a treaty such as Kyoto and it would cripple other nations economies if they are allowed to do as they please while everyone else is hamstrung.

It should be an effort put forth nation by nation and leveled across the board. Cap & Trade is junk.


I said several months ago that it wouldn’t be long before we would be trading emission credits as commodities. A couple of weeks ago NM Rothschilds announced that they would be moving into this area. There is money to be made, but you’re right it is not only unethical but also deeply unfair.

There is a small upside though, certainly in the UK anyway, I am not sure how it works elsewhere. Those that produce clean energy receive credits that they too can sell. Even householders can earn these credits and they are free to use them as they see fit. They can also sell their surplus output to the National Grid. Though at present the emphasis is on carbon credits trading being used to allow companies to ‘make up’ their deficits and continuing polluting the atmosphere, I feel that as we move towards sustainable energy sources that their value will decrease as people become more aware of their own purchasing power and it’s ability to drive change.


Originally posted by lazy1981
And, if our governments stopped trying to place all our problems under the same blanket term that may be a little clearer. They treat us like idiots and then wonder why we don’t listen.
You nailed it, they have found ever more creative ways to blame the most benign issues on Man-Made Global Warming and wonder why people like myself think that they have an agenda and are using this to forward it. And they treat us like children because that's exactly how they view us.

This is the problem that I have too. Britain has turned into a Nanny state, every little thing is defined and legislated. There is advice and guidelines on everything, no room is left for the individual to think for themselves. However, I think much of it can be blamed on the compensation culture.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join