Libyan Lunancy: Media Misses The Mark On Rebellion

With all the reporting this past week prior to Irene's arrival superceding it, much has been reported in the media regarding the recent events in Libya.

Most of the reporting, for the most part has been favorable to the rebels which have gained control of most of Tripoli, forcing Mr. Kaddafy into hiding somewhere with the city.

Photographs were taken and broadcast of the revelry, and of the homes and compounds which were owned by the Kaddafy family prior to their escape.

Of course, at this point it has been stressed that the U.S. is affording the U.N. forces and NATO to take the lead in support for the rebels.

France in particular from what has been reported, keeping the Brits and their involvement from public scrutiny due to the recent events in London, I would suspect.

But much has also been alluded to by the press, apparently at the behest of Washington, such as just how at some point it may be necessary for U.S. troops to go into Libya to restore order and begin rebuilding Tripoli.

Sort of what happened with Iraq, if you recall.

On the pretense of finding bin Laden in that instance.

Which country eight years later we are still rebuilding.

Also what has been left out is that several years ago, according to reports from the foreign press, Kaddafy moved many of the leaders of his regime out of Tripoli, and into outlying areas in order to conduct the existing government's business.

So much of the leadership of Libya isn't even in Tripoli, from those reports.

Two short years ago, it appeared the Brits placed great pressure on Scotland in order to secure the release of the Lockerbie bomber, perhaps setting the stage for this rebellion, and in order to also gain U.S. support for the allied forces mission to have Mr. Kaddafy, Libya and their citizens "get with the program" of their vision of global world government.

The banks in Libya, after all, are state owned and there is only minority ownership afforded any foreign bank operating in Libya under the Kaddafy regime. The state retains 51% ownership of any and all foreign banks there at the present time under their form of government.

Which most likely annoys those globalists within NATO and the U.N. who perhaps don't feel their control or ownership shares are enough.

Libya has always been a thorn in the Brits and U.S. side. Another country rich in oil and oil reserves, yet for the most part there is little else.

All the wealth then, is owned by the state through those oil reserves and their banking system.

Watch to see what kind of "democracy" eventually comes out of Libya.

Whether there will be a "Congress" of states and three distinct branches, or another Parliament.

To see who is really calling the shots here.

And whether, either prior to or after the U.S. elections, there is a move by Washingto to send in our troops to either restore order, or rebuild a "new" Tripoli.

The way things are going, within a generation there may be few able bodied U.S. males left in this country.

The Obama Solution: Lenders As Landlords

This past week there was a news report released by the mainstream media that Barack Obama has arrived at a solution to "solve" the mortgage crisis and foreclosure mess, especially in the hardest hit states of Arizona and Florida, by turning Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the mortgagee on a great many of those properties, into landlords.

It was also reported that input into this proposal by the public would be accepted until September.

Instead of actually addressing the true problems and just why the housing market isn't rebounding with the public expressing their free market dissatisfaction with the manner in which most of those properties are sold, with overly restrictive terms and conditions on those loans, and at usurous rates at that, the Obama Administration's agenda appears to be to corner the market on private land and home ownership in this country.

Or shift those properties over to all those investment groups so that all land is eventually "corporately" owned, and "managed".




The greed of the banks and the foreclosure industry at this point is truly incredible.

And make no mistake about it, in both Arizona and Florida the foreclosure industry is very big business, and both states have a very long and illustrous history of land and real estate fraud.

Just imagine all those LLCs and limited partnerships of doctors, lawyers and other high income individuals who will eventually purchase those bargain basement mortgages on entire developments if this "suggestion" becomes law.

Gone will be all private land ownership in this country eventually, as has been the agenda it appears with the progressive agendas of placing management companies and lawyers in charge already of large developments under those covenants already sold with homes in which "homeowners associations" throughout the nation have become the norm. Where the freedom to even paint your home the color you wish, or make improvements now involves a "corporate" or "committee" decision of your neighbors, or the non-owner management companies.

I wonder, just why are Americans turned off at this point with purchasing a property only to find out they truly have no "ownership" rights to speak of in any manner whatsoever.

And just why was this "announcement" buried by most news readers and reporters, when it has such monumental impact with respect to its "legality?"

And all appearances to the contrary, the Democratic Party is clearly as "corporately" focused as Mr. Romney's definition of "people," only this time fundamental private property rights and ownership rights are the targets to this Administration.

Placing them now under banker's control as the "landlords."

So THIS is where all that stimulus money will eventually be spent? Purchasing all the land and homes of Americans also now affected by failed governmental policies who have lost their jobs, and will now be losing their homes to the banker landlords?

When many of those banks who offered those Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae loans are controlled by foreigners through their stock ownership?

Outrageous.


If you agree that this is outside the intent for private property ownership, with banks not as lenders but as landlords, contact the Federal Housing Financial Administration at FHFAinfo@FHFA.gov.

Washington Taking Direction From Madison Avenue: "Super" Committees?

It appears that Washington must have a Madison Avenue mentality, more than a Constitutional one, with respect to its understanding of our American form of government.

In the wake of the "budget deficit" talks and moves to raise the U.S. debt ceiling, justifiably or not (given that there are no offset credits against that deficit for all the outsourcing, and foreign aid we continue to give foreign governments at the cost of the American public), now we have a Super Committee of legislators whose sole job is to study the problem and come up with a bi-partisan solution.

Rather than letting this old dog simply die its legitimate death.

Super sizing and the Super Bowl appears to be the marketing strategy in order to sell whatever comes out of this committee to the MacDonald's and football crowd.

New York and California are complaining through their state legislators about unfair representation on this committee, noting that due to their larger populations, they should even have more Senators than their Constitutional two.

Not mentioning that perhaps about 1/4 of their population might not even be "legal" Americans, simply tourists or transient workers on visa waivers. Or Mexicans. Or Canadians. Or maybe part time residents of Arizona, Florida or other SunBelt states, thus only "part time" non-residents residents.

Making the same mistakes and trouble in those states through their vacationer status at this point progressively as they created in their own "home" states.

When the Senators, after all, are merely there to represent the state governments, not the people actually at all since the House of Representatives, by that Constitution, is supposed to be the "people's house" representing ONLY those citizens living in their legislative district.

But, of course, campaign finance laws have also afforded "corporate" out of state special interest groups to totally undermine representation in the House, making the House of Representatives more the House of Misrepresentatives.

I wonder, just whose idea was this? And just where is it Constitutionally permissible?

Super egos, I'm sure, will insure that that information will be kept from the public, in the interests of "national insecurity" maybe?

The Submission Question: Larger Questions on Bachmann Loom

It has been interesting to this Independent the media attention which has been given over Michelle Bachmann's "surprise" question during the Iowa Republican debate.

I mean, was this question REALLY relevant, and just why does there seem to be such media over analysis which continues almost a week after those debates?

Ms. Bachmann, I'm sure, would be more than happy to move on to some really important matters, and I watched her deflect this question at least a dozen times restating her position and beliefs, and reiterating her candidacy based upon so-called "conservative" positions.

Tonight, I even watched as Fox's "anchor" Laura Ingalls once again analyzed Ms. Bachmann's response supposedly "supporting" it, while bringing in Fox's oft used "foil," Bernie Goldberg to attempt to poke holes in Ms. Bachmann's definition of submission, and "respect."

What is so very funny is that it is rather ludicrous to believe that any candidate that runs for public office, not to mention the presidency, would not be influenced by their spouse at times during critical moments.

I mean, Reagan was. So was Jimmy Carter. Both Nancy Reagan and Rosalyn Carter were very influential over their husbands. As is, I'm sure, Michelle Obama on "policy" decisions and positions when push comes to shove.

So why this focus just because this candidate happens to be a woman?

Family of origin influence also is in the psychological makeup of everyone on this planet, for good or ill.

Her husband will be under the magnifying glass, but really should he be?

I don't think Jimmy Carter's brother's travails and some of his antics actually affected Mr. Carter in any adverse way, even his association with "Billy Beer."

And contrary to Mr. Goldberg's positions, to most Christians respect definitely is part of the definition of submission, meaning that most women marry a man they do admire and respect, and in most domestic decisions are to submit to their husband's opinions and judgment, but political matters are not domestic issues between a husband and wife, and a man is also called to respect and cherish his wife.

Having advised and counseled her to pursue a career choice that she maybe hadn't considered, a wise Christian man would leave her to her greater knowledge and experience outside his own area of expertise.

But Mr. Goldberg just may not have that basic understanding if he is not a Christian, and has taken public issue with even those of his own faith for perhaps his own "political" reasons.

The questions on Ms. Bachmann's positions, to this Independent, are many and much more relevant to her candidacy than her definitions of marriage (an institution, actually, with an over 3,000 year history and in which gays also did exist at the time of the signing of the Constitution, but in which time even marriage between a man and woman was defined in this country according to the "common law," which is unchanging for the most part. You know, those "God given" unalienable rights those founders spoke of, which were not to be interfered with by government).

Questions about her stances on Iran, for example, as indeed a "threat" to the United States.

My question: Does this mean you view Iran as as much of a threat in the same vein as the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon Administrations and Congresses did Viet Nam? I mean, did we not learn our lesson then about offensive, rather than defensive, wars on foreign soil?

Questions about her stances on Israel, also.

My question: Your bio states that you once lived in a kibbutz in Israel. Would that mean that you would continue to sacrifice the lives of your fellow Christians and Americans for the sake of Israel, when of course Christ came to Earth in order to warn the Israelites that if they did continue in their "legalism," with respect to Old Testament scriptural interpretation, they would eventually lose the Temple and the covenant would be broken?

Rather, would you refuse to involve U.S. troops in any further Middle East wars in order to protect American lives outside any true offensive attack on THIS country by a foreign enemy or army? What about the threat of true "terrorists," economic and/or criminal, even a little closer to home, rather than across two continents?

What about your positions on unrestricted and unlimited immigration, as has increased since the Reagan years, in the interests of "diversity" and our own open borders? What about all the outsourcing that has cost so many Americans their former jobs and livelihoods in order to bulk up the global economy and build up the global profits of foreign citizens and governments at the American people's ultimate expense?

Questions about her stances on taxation, of course, as a former tax lawyer.

What is your position on the 16th Amendment, and the Constitutional provisions and intent for higher taxation for "property" owners (corporate or individual), as opposed to those who are paying those taxes for the land holders and corporations where their tax bites are then passed down to the public? What about states that also have an income tax on top of the federal income tax, what is your position there?

Questions about her claims to be a "tea party" believer, without much of an understanding of just what that tea party was all about, especially with respect to global trade.

Ms. Bachmann, as with Mr. Perry (who apparently has written a book, even) "talk the talk" but don't seem to have much of a record of "walking the walk" with respect to Constitutional positions and just where this country has lost its way and is now under global corporate control, rather than Constitutional government.

I would be interested in hearing answers to THOSE questions.

But I think I already know the answers.

The Constitution is in this election season, and most of those candidates are going to do their damnest, once again during election time, to make you believe they have read it.

Or at least have a fundamental understanding of it.

But after election time, of course, will not submit.

The Iowa Straw Poll: Been There, Done That

This week the mainstream media's primary focus has been on the Iowa Straw Poll which will be conducted in Ames, Iowa tomorrow, so as one who attended the last straw poll during the last presidential election cycle, let me just say that this Republican Party fundraiser is nothing more than that...

A fundraiser.

Not at all an indication of just where and what level of support most of those "candidates" for the Republican nomination lies.

First of all, during the one I attended four years ago, the cost to attend and cast your "vote" was $75 per person, or $150 per couple, and all the proceeds were earmarked for the corporate Republican Party's benefit. Most all of the candidates advertise in the local Iowa papers attempting to trump up attendance and support for this nonevent.

And last election cycle, Mr. Romney was the most well organized of all, even paying the cost of those tickets for those who committed to attend in advance, providing them with "Romney" tee-shirts and a free western style barbeque prior to the speechifying, and during the voting and subsequent ballot count. He even provided buses to and from the campus for those that wished to reserve a seat.

Upon arrival, the Romney contingent in their campaign provided golf carts which raced enmass to the buses as they arrived in order to escort them to Romney Central, and past any and all of those "other" Republican candidates, or their supporters.

In fact, the eventual winner of the nomination didn't even attend this event, and as has been suspected by most former Republicans cum Independents, the actual serious candidate that has the corporate support of the movers and shakers within that party, and their campaign backers, has already been selected, to be announced after Super Tuesday.

The "dark horse" candidate which will enter late, in order to "save the day" for the party and the nation running his campaign on a shoestring budget, or the Evangelical vote.

In other words, with Rick Perry's noncandidacy at this point, while being heralded as the write in candidate, look forward to another candidate from the erstwhile "Republican" Party to rerun the Bush years from the Bush state, with the Bush agenda and Bush constituents.

And don't look for "change" once again to be a campaign slogan for either Mr. Obama, or Bush III.

Rather, more of the same.

Or, "second verse, same as the first" only much, much worse.

After all, hitting bottom only applies to "people" not "governmental special interest corporations."

No matter how Mr. Romney or the Republican Party or Democratic Party (those labor unions, and THEIR other "corporate" backers) defines "people."

Standard and Poors Rating Makes Americans Even Poorer

With the announcement of the downgrade in the U.S. credit rating by Standard & Poors, the globally focused arbiter of credit rankings of most of the developed and even undeveloped nations of the world, of course Wall Street today took a huge dive, causing many an American, I would imagine, to head for the medicine cabinet and their Pepto Bismol.

In fact, in one of the local papers today there was an editorial cartoon which illustrated two baby boomers standing next to each other with one reading the headlines and commenting to the other, "There goes our retirement savings. At this rate, we'll have to have multiple jobs until we're 90!...with the next panel paning back showing the very same individuals standing in the unemployment line with the other one responding, "I admire your optimism..."

This latest news is once again being used by both political parties to continue to spin those plates in the air, even now many placing the "blame" on the Tea Party while using this latest crisis, of course, for their own election ends - including those claimed "Tea Party" candidates. We've got a third party, alright, but simply another to bring into this three ring circus.

Standard & Poors, whose roots harken back to the 1800's, is now headed by a gentleman who was born in Jakarta, India.

So I guess this downgrading could have been predicted by those in Washington.

I mean, India does have a great deal of our IT jobs, and was also formerly a British holding, which has had off and on conflicts with Pakistan, the country which bin Laden sought refuge and was killed by those Navy Seals, and the country in which Ms. Bhuto was killed a few years back after her extended exile, and who was also educated in Britain...Hmmm...

Not that I believe there is any truly political motive or bias and media spinning going on here...but...

I wonder, since our deficit is merely a paper debt to the Europeans funding our Federal Reserve, without any offsets, just who has been doing the bookkeeping for Washington all these many years?

I'm sure many of those foreign bankers are now scamming some of those rock bottom stocks also right about now, further being given an opportunity to facilitate a "corporate" takeover.

Another boomer and friend recently wrote me who also has a history similar to my own, and is now on the unemployment line.

Worked for over 20 years in the legal profession, about ten more in the travel industry, early in their career in banking and insurance, with also some work in the health care field thrown in for good measure and further diversifying their career portfolio.

All of those employers, of course, paid unemployment on their workforces behalf all those years he was working.

Got his first unemployment check today after working at an hourly position for less than six months before he was eventually laid off from there after a "ramp up."

He is now living high off the hog on $90 per week, less taxes.

While listening to the news hearing that his mortgage interest rates just might increase, and his retirement funds, or what he has left after using it during his unemployment which is basically gone, is now worth even less.

And is pretty much resigned to the fact that all those 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 dollars withheld from his paycheck for Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid most likely he will never, ever see.

Not with the dollar and America being downsized and downgraded.

And just think, with that great American invention, the computer and international online banking, those foreign moneylenders and bankers don't even have to pay for that expensive paper or ink anymore in actually printing our currency.