Why do they hate us? Reality

pre 911

1947-48: U.S. backs Palestine partition plan. Israel established. U.S. declines to press Israel to allow expelled Palestinians to return.

1949: CIA backs military coup deposing elected government of Syria.1

1953: CIA helps overthrow the democratically‑elected Mossadeq government in Iran (which had nationalized the British oil company) leading to a quarter‑century of repressive and dictatorial rule by the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi.

1956: U.S. cuts off promised funding for Aswan Dam in Egypt after Egypt receives Eastern bloc arms.

1956: Israel, Britain, and France invade Egypt. U.S. does not support invasion, but the involvement of its NATO allies severely diminishes Washington’s reputation in the region.

1958: U.S. troops land in Lebanon to preserve “stability”.

early 1960s: U.S. unsuccessfully attempts assassination of Iraqi leader, Abdul Karim Qassim.2

1963: U.S. supports coup by Iraqi Ba’ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein) and reportedly gives them names of communists to murder, which they do with vigor.3

1967‑: U.S. blocks any effort in the Security Council to enforce SC Resolution 242, calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 war.

1970: Civil war between Jordan and PLO. Israel and U.S. discuss intervening on side of Jordan if Syria backs PLO.

1972: U.S. blocks Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat’s efforts to reach a peace agreement with Israel.

1973: Airlifted U.S. military aid enables Israel to turn the tide in war with Syria and Egypt.

1973‑75: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq. When Iran reaches an agreement with Iraq in 1975 and seals the border, Iraq slaughters Kurds and U.S. denies them refuge. Kissinger secretly explains that “covert action should not be confused with missionary work.”4

1975: U.S. vetoes Security Council resolution condemning Israeli attacks on Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.5

1978‑79: Iranians begin demonstrations against the Shah. U.S. tells Shah it supports him “without reservation” and urges him to act forcefully. Until the last minute, U.S. tries to organize military coup to save the Shah, but to no avail.6

1979‑88: U.S. begins covert aid to Mujahideen in Afghanistan six months before Soviet invasion in Dec. 1979.7 Over the next decade U.S. provides training and more than $3 billion in arms and aid.

1980‑88: Iran‑Iraq war. When Iraq invades Iran, the U.S. opposes any Security Council action to condemn the invasion. U.S. soon removes Iraq from its list of nations supporting terrorism and allows U.S. arms to be transferred to Iraq. At the same time, U.S. lets Israel provide arms to Iran and in 1985 U.S. provides arms directly (though secretly) to Iran. U.S. provides intelligence information to Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons in 1984; U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Iraq. 1987 U.S. sends its navy into the Persian Gulf, taking Iraq’s side; an overly‑aggressive U.S. ship shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290.

1981, 1986: U.S. holds military maneuvers off the coast of Libya in waters claimed by Libya with the clear purpose of provoking Qaddafi. In 1981, a Libyan plane fires a missile and U.S. shoots down two Libyan planes. In 1986, Libya fires missiles that land far from any target and U.S. attacks Libyan patrol boats, killing 72, and shore installations. When a bomb goes off in a Berlin nightclub, killing three, the U.S. charges that Qaddafi was behind it (possibly true) and conducts major bombing raids in Libya, killing dozens of civilians, including Qaddafi’s adopted daughter.8

1982: U.S. gives “green light” to Israeli invasion of Lebanon,9 killing some 17 thousand civilians.10 U.S. chooses not to invoke its laws prohibiting Israeli use of U.S. weapons except in self‑defense. U.S. vetoes several Security Council resolutions condemning the invasion.

1983: U.S. troops sent to Lebanon as part of a multinational peacekeeping force; intervene on one side of a civil war, including bombardment by USS New Jersey. Withdraw after suicide bombing of marine barracks.

1984: U.S.‑backed rebels in Afghanistan fire on civilian airliner.11

1987-92: U.S. arms used by Israel to repress first Palestinian Intifada. U.S. vetoes five Security Council resolution condemning Israeli repression.

1988: Saddam Hussein kills many thousands of his own Kurdish population and uses chemical weapons against them. The U.S. increases its economic ties to Iraq.

1988: U.S. vetoes 3 Security Council resolutions condemning continuing Israeli occupation of and repression in Lebanon.

1990‑91: U.S. rejects any diplomatic settlement of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (for example, rebuffing any attempt to link the two regional occupations, of Kuwait and of Palestine). U.S. leads international coalition in war against Iraq. Civilian infrastructure targeted.12 To promote “stability” U.S. refuses to aid post‑war uprisings by Shi’ites in the south and Kurds in the north, denying the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and refusing to prohibit Iraqi helicopter flights.13

1991‑: Devastating economic sanctions are imposed on Iraq. U.S. and Britain block all attempts to lift them. Hundreds of thousands die. Though Security Council had stated that sanctions were to be lifted once Saddam Hussein’s programs to develop weapons of mass destruction were ended, Washington makes it known that the sanctions would remain as long as Saddam remains in power. Sanctions in fact strengthen Saddam’s position. Asked about the horrendous human consequences of the sanctions, Madeleine Albright (U.S. ambassador to the UN and later Secretary of State) declares that “the price is worth it.”14

1991-: U.S. forces permanently based in Saudi Arabia.

1993‑: U.S. launches missile attack on Iraq, claiming self‑defense against an alleged assassination attempt on former president Bush two months earlier.15

1998: U.S. and U.K. bomb Iraq over the issue of weapons inspections, even though Security Council is just then meeting to discuss the matter.

1998: U.S. destroys factory producing half of Sudan’s pharmaceutical supply, claiming retaliation for attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and that factory was involved in chemical warfare. Evidence for the chemical warfare charge widely disputed.16

2000-: Israel uses U.S. arms in attempt to crush Palestinian uprising, killing hundreds of civilians.
But they hate us for our freedoms right?

The problem with Bernie Sanders bigger government solutions.

Sanders is gaining popularity among the left and is speaking up on some real problems.  The problem is his solutions.  His solutions are bigger government and more regulations.  To the left this sounds like a great thing.  The problem is big government is the reason for these problems in the first place.  More of the problem is not a solution.

Lets take issues he is talking about.

Corporate taxes;
A real issue as some huge corporations get away with paying nothing in taxes.  Yes they should be paying their fair share, I agree but everyone’s fair share should be a lot less.  Bernie’s solution is to tax them a lot more than their fair share, and use that money to pay for all the “Free” stuff he keeps offering up.  Here is the problem.  It is suppose to be everyone pays their fair share now, why is it not?  Because that control is in the government where it will always be for sale.  I here you now, “But…but.. but we’ll pass a law to make sure they pay!”.  Again that power is in government and for sale always.  You can pass and law or regulation you want, they will buy their way around it.  Case in point the banks committed fraud, admitted it, and not one of them spent a day in jail even tho fraud is against the law.  The “fines” were nothing more than a bribe as they made way more committing the fraud in the first place.  Where did the fines go?  to those that got hurt?  Nope, they went to the government.

Since I mentioned it lets go for the “Free” stuff?:
Nothing government gives out is “free” as we all pay for it.  Sure you will get to go to college with paying for it right then, but like Denmark (country always used as a what we should do reference) taxes have to go up to pay for free stuff. Love that combination of words “Pay for free stuff” its self proving it is not “Free”.  Denmark’s people pay over 50% of their income in taxes, how long till you pay for your free stuff?  Not long, and you keep paying for the rest of your life.  Its so bad their the tax administration has been attacked several times by angry citizens.  College, Healthcare, etc costs are so high because of government involvement, more government involvement cannot help.  It will make it worse.

Income inequality:
See my post on raising the minimum wage arguments here

Campaign finance/lobbying:
This one will bring home the final point.  Overturning citizens united or a constitutional amendment to make it illegal or yadda yadda yadda.  WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL.  Overturning citizens united would just put in back under the table. Constitutional amendment? Please these people don’t follow the constitution now in washington.  Once again law means nothing when the power that enforces it is for sale.  It is only the little guys (us) who get crushed under more laws and regulations that do not apply if you have the money.  More laws and regulation will do nothing to change that and just crush us more.

Sanders “solution” to everything is more laws, and more regulations creating a even bigger government with more parts for sale.  To be used to control their small competition (the real solution) while not effecting them one bit.  Take any of these issues and the reason they exist is because of big government and the power that is for sale.  Take any of these high cost things like healthcare and college, the answer is not more government involvement as that is why the cost is so high in the first place.  Also when you cannot afford something, you really cannot afford that something and a government bureaucracy to run it on top of it.

Funny how people think huge corporations are to big making them powerful and corrupt, and that the solution is to make the government bigger…. making it more powerful and corrupt.  Those same people are perpetuating the problem they want to fix as corporations can only get bigger with bigger government.

The answer is not more, it is less.  You need government to protect personal Liberty and laws that protect you from anyone violating that.  That is it.  Take away all that power that is for sale from government and you leave nothing to buy, and put the real power back in the peoples hands.  Anything you need falls under protecting your liberty, if that is all government was there to do you would have the power and can protect yourself instead of some three letter agency that is for sale.

Anarchy: Some see chaos, some see beauty. Why are you such a pessimist?

When most people think of the word Anarchy they think chaos in the streets, murder mayhem, etc.  Most variations of Anarchist’s and Libertarians have a different view on anarchy.  It being a perfect world where everyone gets along and has no need for laws.  Anarchists believe this whole heartedly, Libertarians don’t think we are totally ready for that but want to get as close as possible.

Some people think of Libertarians as Anarchists, but Libertarians still want government, just one that only protects liberty.  Your right to live as you want, so long as you do not interfere with someone else’s right to live as they want.  Under this concept the laws that matter would fall under.  You could not commit murder, theft, fraud, or anything to another person against their will. Government would be their to only protect that.  Things like nation defense would fall under this as well (defense not war mongering).

Basically as close to anarchy as you can get while still having the protections from chaos in the streets.

The negative view on anarchy is something we are all taught to fear from a young age, so that the belief in how much we need big government could be instilled into us.  That belief at it core is that most people are bad and we need government to protect us from them.  I do not believe most people are bad anywhere in the world, I think most people are good.  Groups are bad (government, religion, etc).   In a Anarchist society bad people would be dealt with ourselves, in a Libertarian society that would be governments only job.

The fact people look so negatively at anarchy is sad really, it is a real pessimistic attitude toward the human race.  Tho not one without truths, but those truths are the minority not the majority.  Most your major evils in the world come from governments and religion.

To all my anarchist friends, lets stick together and get as close as we can.  Better for everyone.  Once they see how great so little can work… who knows.

Minimum wage arguments on both “sides” are nonsense for the most part.

The left and the right fight back and forth about the minimum wage and if it should go up or not exist.  Like most things that get politicized, the truth is usually close to the middle.  In this case its a bit more complicated than both “sides” will admit.

The one thing you have to understand going forward here is the economic system we have here is NOT a free market.  Huge corporations own our government and use it to take more than their share of the market.  Its a type of fascism where corporations own the government, and it is what you get when the government has any control in the economy.  That power gets bought.

Lets start with a pro raising argument.  They want to raise the minimum wage to $15 and get paid sick days, etc etc.  Here is the problem they are missing, it is not the huge companies that will get hurt… It is small business.  Joe blow landscaper for instance is not making money hand over fist and probably cannot afford $15 an hour and paid sick days for his 3 employees.  He goes out of business and his 3 employees are now out of a job also. Soon the only jobs left are mega corporation minimum wage jobs, and the mega corporation gets even bigger.  Small business is already being destroyed via regulations written by huge businesses in that market.  I know I own one, and know others including family with them and it is a struggle already just to stay afloat.  Some weeks you make money, others you do not. What the left is missing is small businesses are the key to shrinking huge ones.  The only key is competition.

Now the against argument.   They want no minimum wage at all.  As a Libertarian this sounds great, the problem is the system we have right now is not the system that will work in (Thanks to Republicans and Democrats).  In a free market there would be so many jobs, more than people there would be competition for people to fill them.  Like a commodity there would be a demand, when demand is higher than supply offered wages would go up.  Again competition.  Our current system however is not even close to a free market.  With so much government control in the market being bought by mega corporations, and small businesses being destroyed, there is no competition as the supply is more than the demand because of the loss of small businesses jobs.  Aka more people than jobs.  Now the competition is people trying to get that job and how low are they willing to work for.

The real problem is the system we are stuck in, so long as government has so much power in the economy it will be for sale.  Huge corporation will buy that power always on or off the table.  If you are on the left and hate huge corporations, small business is the key to taking them down.  So do not do anything that hurts them.  If you are on the right, you should be supporting small business and not supporting mega corporations.  Mega corporations use big government to become huge in the first place.  They are rigging the system and that is not fair competition.

A lot of these mega corporations actually support the minimum wage raise as again it will hurt smaller business competition…. not them.  Don’t believe the spin on either side, lets fix the real problem and we all win.

Money in politics: Before you can buy something, it must first be for sale.

Another backwards thinking example, considering the problem the buyers and not the sellers.  How about we go to the source of the problem and remove the sellers, by removing what is for sale.

Government has something no business has, force.  Between the military, police, FBI, CIA, DHS, IRS, DNR, EPA, etc, etc, etc.  Government has a monopoly on force. So while tax breaks and such are all cute, the real thing they are buying is the control over that use of force. A lot of regulations and laws are created by these corporations to control their market.  While it is sold to the public as a good thing to protect us from them, it is them benefiting from it in reduced competition.  Little guys cannot take the hit, or even get off the ground.  Good for business.

Government is just people, and people have a price.  You can vote out a person and the next person will just be bought also.  Especially when we are limited to two parties. Kinda crazy to not expect it from politicians, selling is their job really.  So you cannot keep the sellers from selling, so how do you stop it?

We take away what is for sale in the first place.  We take back our government and return it to what it is suppose to be, a government by the people for the people.  A government that only does one thing, protect individual liberty.  If its only job is to protect your right to live your life and your property, nobody can infringe on yours, and you cannot on someone else.  This is the only protection any of us need against anything and everything.  All the other nonsense while sounds like it is for a good cause or is needed is not, it is put in place for control.  That control is always for sale.

Two ways that happens is from the inside electing people that we hold accountable, any money interest they are done (Not going to be Republicans or Democrats sorry), or from the outside which could get ugly.

Take away the control from the government and puts the power back where it belongs…. in the peoples hands. While corporations are greedy, government is even more so when it comes to power.  It will not give it up easily.

The nonsense that is “Wealth redistribution” and how it only helps government… not the poor.

Wealth redistribution, gives some people visions of being a modern day Robin Hood.  Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.  Problem is Robin Hood didn’t steal from the rich and give to the poor,  he stole tax money back from the government and gave it back to the over taxed poor.  The “Rich” in the Robin Hood story were in control of the government, much like what we have now.

The entire concept of wealth redistribution is to tax rich people much higher and magically that will help the poor.  You are forgetting one thing, government wont be giving that money out to the poor.  If anybody they will give it back to another rich company.  At best since the government spends more than it takes in, it would borrow less… but probably just spend even more.

Mind you if you are a company that used the government for a advantage in the market, far as I am concerned you should lose all your money (all the biggest companies you hate do).  If you made your money by creating a good product or service and didn’t use the government, then you should keep every cent.  Just like we should.   At least we should be paying a equal percent, but that percent should be a whole lot less.

The Federal government takes in over $3 trillion a year (and borrowed another $500 billion this year)  Most of that money does not go to services, and you have to exclude things like social security since that is your money in the first place (you pay into it).  All of it is mishandled and corrupt, more so than any business.

Just 1 trillion dollars of that money you could give the 610,042 homeless people in this country a $1,639,231 check each and make them all millionaires.  That is just bringing governments spending back to 2002 levels.  Want to help people? Give it to them and/or let them keeps theirs, because once governments involved they will get pennies on the dollar.

Want to see a good visual representation of a trillion and how much the federal debt is check this out.

http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/us_debt/us_debt.html

Oh yeah and to you fake Robin Hood wannabes, using governments force is neither brave or charitable.

What is a hand out and what is not

You will see a lot of posts from left leaning people talking about handouts to the rich, the problem is what they are talking about are not handouts.  What they should be talking about are the real handouts and control.

Tax breaks are not handouts.   A tax break is you keeping your own money, that is not a handout.  Subsides, no bid contracts, etc now those are handouts.  A handout is money coming from tax payers to someone, not keeping your own money. While I agree some corporations that pay next to nothing is totally wrong, it is still not a handout. Also I believe everyone’s taxes should be crazy low across the board equally.

The real problem is Corporations buying the government.  Which yes is the reason they get tax breaks and why the tax code is so complicated to create loopholes. That is a minor symptom compared to the control of the market. That they only get from government.

If you closed all the loopholes would your taxes go down?  No, would just be more money for government to spend recklessly. Probably in subsides back to those corporations.  So wouldn’t help us anyway.  Taxes should be simple, equal, and lower for everyone.  More fair a system would be a flat tax or a consumption tax on things.  Income tax should be non existent because taxing someones blood, sweat, and tears is just plain wrong (and unconstitutional by the way).

These corporations are only this big because of the government control they own.  Without it, competition would have never left them get so big. Again the only fix is to take that power away from the government and put it into the peoples hands.  Which is what the country was originally intend to do, a government for the people by the people.  People have been fooled by spin on how something sounds like a good idea but the hidden agenda behind it is what got us to this point.  Power is always for sale.  On the table or off, making it illegal wont stop it.  Taking the power back will.

The Backwards concept on how corporations got all their power.

I read a quote from Bernie Sanders the other day, it is amazing how backwards people have things. The basic part of his statement was these corporations took over the private sector and with so much power are taking over the government.  This is completely backwards.

Corporations got this big and powerful via buying the government first.  They lobby and even right bills that are written to “regulate” their own market.  Why would they do such a thing.  Its is simple, they pay to pass regulations they can afford but small businesses cannot.  Taking out competition before it can even start. Then they buy up more of their market and the now failing businesses.  That is how you end up with corporations so big they can control our government.

All you have to do is look behind the curtain and see when they actually are supporting regulating themselves. Take the ACA for instance.  Lobbyists from the insurance companies were involved in writing the bill, now they have record profits and control over their own market place.  With guaranteed customers to boot.   Same thing happens in every market.  From drug companies to the auto companies.

Another big example is the creation of the Federal reserve in 1913.  They created a intentional disaster in their own market to create a so called “need” for a central bank.  Written in secret by the bankers themselves, passed into law by politicians they owned. A private bank gave itself total control over our money, our government has none at all.

This has been going on for a long time, the last hundred years have been a complete take over.

These mega corporations and banks are that way because of government, no amount of government cannot fix the problem as it is the problem.  Power has value and so is for sale, more powerful the government the more its for sale.  Does not matter if its a capitalist, socialist, fascist, or communist system the end result will be the same.

The ONLY solution to the problem is in concept what the country originally was founded on, a government for the people by the people.   A system that has been corrupted to what we have now.  Now we have rulers, when we are suppose to be in charge.  The only way to get back to that is a government that only does what it is suppose to, protect liberty and nothing else.  That puts the power back into the people hands, and out of a corporations.

Must see video: Truth in Media: Origin of ISIS

When what sounds good is not. Why things like the Department of Education, and Post office need to go.

This will get some people screaming and freaking out. What would we do without ____ (insert any three letter government agency). Short answer, what we did before it existed for a lot of them. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, add government and you are in the fast lane. While the intention may have been good, it is the results we need to be looking at.

Lets start with the post office. Here is a government run business basically, you pay for their service. The post office has competition like UPS, FedEx, and DHL. The post office losses over $5 billion every year, while its private competition is making billions doing the same job. Guess who pays for that $5 billion. This is a example of how well government can run a business, horribly. It would fail without the tax payer bailout.

Now lets attack the Department of Education. It was founded in 1979 under Jimmy Carter, so not really so long ago. Before it was founded we were #1 in education in the world, now we are 36th. Not a very good track record would you say. This is one of those “what would we do without it” freak outs you will hear like “What about the children”. Without we would go back to what we had way back in 1978 when we were #1 in the world.

Department of transportation put into place to fix the roads and such, now they are asking for another Trillion dollars to do the job they have not been doing all this time. Environmental Protection agency only bothers to go after 5% of cases. Department of energy basically picks winners (usually oil). DOD, FDA, etc, etc, etc. Most government agencies while put in place seemingly to do good, have mostly just done harm.

On the business side (like the post office) why worry about performance when you have government as your golden parachute via the tax payers. If any of these agencies were run as a business they would have gone out of business.

The reasons for this is simple. Government is inherently for sale, and power is always pursued by power hungry interests. Does not matter what type of government or what type of economic system, all of which fail for the same reason. To much power in the governments hands, power that powerful people get control of. The only solution for this is a small government that only protects the people’s liberty. Leaving no power to buy because the power would be back into the peoples hands, like this country was originally founded on.