BLOG
ARCHIVES

JAN. 2007
DEC.  2006
NOV. 2006
OCT. 2006
SEP. 2006
AUG. 2006
JUL. 2006
JUN. 2006
MAY  2006
APR. 2006
JAN-MAR. 2006
JUN-DEC. 2005
MAY-JUN. 2005
APR. 2004
MAR. 2004
FEB. 2004

BACKLOG
Of Unorganized
Diatribes

Sunday 31 March 2007

STOCK TIP REVEALS HOW TO "PLAY" THE MARKET

The Stock Market has been a speculative game for well over a century. In the early years it was the exclusive domain of financiers, industrialists, institutional investors, and a relatively small number of high-rolling individual investors. Now it's a game that anybody can play like a fiddle – for a price. It's become both a money making toy and a den of thieves. You can make money if you play it right, and you can loose money if you don't.

Hot stock tips now circulate on the Internet like multi-level marketing chain letters (directed at "opportunity seekers" mailing lists), used to circulate through the mails. But, since sending emails are cheap, the new opportunities are much more democratic. "Subject: CNNMoney: Bush hits Democrats on Iraq Deadline | Video Video." That's the subject line of the latest hot stock market tip to hit Pridger's inbox. The totally irrelevant subject is a trick, or "hook," to get you to take a look at a moneymaking opportunity. The message reads:

Are you aware of the biggest Wave Sweeping the Telecom 
industry right now? It's called VOIP and it's taking the 
sector by Storm. We are bringing you an Amazing Play that 
is Right in the Thick of the business.

This winner is Peopleline Telecom (PPTM). As with all Tech 
plays it's about Catching that Rising Star on the Ground 
floor and riding it Up. 

PPTM is in just such a position. Trading at around 30 
cents with Astounding news on the way, this is one play you 
can't afford to miss! The Upcoming news and Promotion is 
going to see this one at around $1.00 in no time!

Pridger hasn't investigated PPTM. It's probably a legitimate stock and maybe even a legitimate company. Otherwise there would be no point in sending out such an email to a large mailing list. As stock "trading at 30 cents with Astounding news on the way" sounds pretty attractive. Perhaps "this is one play you can't afford to miss!"

At $.30, a block of a 10,000 shares would only cost $3,000.00. When (and if) it reaches the $1.00 target price, those 10,000 shares would be worth $10,000.00. The profit potential it $7,000.00 on a $3,000.00 investment in a matter of days! The math is that simple.

Here's how it works. (1) Purchase, or otherwise acquire or construct, a large email list. Even a random email list system will do. (2) Pick a likely small startup "penny stock" company that is being traded on the exchange. It should be in an attractive field, such as the telecommunications industry. (3) Purchase as large a block of stock as you can afford. (4) Start your email campaign. If you are in this with several other people who will be coordinating with you, all the better. (5) Watch the stock start going up as the gullible email recipients start buying. Others will follow as the price starts up, kicking it up faster. (6) Sell just before the target price is reached and take your profit. When you sell, the stock the price will likely begin to collapse. (7) Start the process over with another stock.

It's a wonderful system. The whole stock market spikes and dives on rumors and comments by such luminaries as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Individual stocks of small companies are more susceptible to individual manipulation – with or without the collusion of the company itself. Actual collusion by the company would be a prosecutable crime, but manipulations by outside investors "playing the market" seems to be acceptable – it's all part of the game.

As in the example above, the "market" means nothing. A stock can be bid up or down by "investors" where or not the company is good, bad, or indifferent. The company could be no more than a shell and the same thing can happen. The larger market, which is a major gauge of national prosperity and economic health, really bears no relationship to any reality. It's a national or international casino game.

Gas prices reflect the same sort of irrationality. Gas prices go up in response to rumors or minor events in the Middle East and elsewhere when absolutely nothing has yet happened with regard to the actual supply and demand situation. It has become a game the oil companies play with consumers to grossly enhance their bottom lines.

John Q. Pridger

Tuesday March 20, 2007

THE RE-CONQUEST OF THE united STATES OF AMERICA

The illegal alien problem in the United States is much more serious than most Americans realize. Of course, the main reason it is much worse is that the fundamental plan of globalization is not only about free trade but open borders as well, where labor is free to cross borders as freely as trade goods. In fact, the New World Order is all about erasing national borders and the nation-state system itself. Illegal Mexicans are looked upon by the One World planners as nothing more than free-roaming labor. Naturally, getting upset about Mexicans coming to the United States (legally or otherwise), is antithetical to the whole program of globalization.

All of this was planned a long time before President Reagan first publicly announced the "new international economic order" and President Bush, the 1st, announced the "New World Order." The United States of America has effectively been gifted to the world as the first step to accomplishing the ultimate goals of globalization. As the present President Bush has said, America is not a place, it's an ideal. And as President Reagan might have said, "You ain't seen nothin' yet!"

Of course, Pridger hasn't read all the literature available on the "great plan," but he's read enough to get more than just the general drift of things intended to come. For those who are shy of conspiracy literature, Pridger recommends reading such works as; Socialism and International Economic Order, by Elisabeth L. Tamedly (1969, the Caxton Printers, Ltd., Caldwell, Idaho); RIO, Reshaping the International Order, A Report to the Club of Rome (1976, E.P. Dutton, New York);  "North-South, a Program for Survival, The Report of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues und the Chairmanship of Willy Brant (1980, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts).

Those are only three of many semi-official works produced by those who have helped define the rationale and "socio-economic imperatives" behind the great New World Order plan. They reveal the genesis and intents behind the United Nations and the "later advent" of socio-economic globalism.

An autographed copy of One World, by Wendell L. Willkie (1948, Simon and Schuster, New York), is another work that happens to be in Pridger's library. Willkie, of course, was Franklin D. Roosevelt's opponent in the 1940 presidential election. He had been against FDR's New Deal program (first as a Democrat, then a Republican), and prior to World War Two he had been a non-interventionist, against war with Germany. Later he supported Roosevelt's programs which resulted in our entry into the war and the war effort itself.

Willkie was not one of the major players in the creation of the United Nations (he died in 1944). Significantly, however, he referred to the WWII allies as the "United Nations" throughout his One World book (as did FDR and Winston Churchill). The book was undoubtedly very influential in promoting the "One World" idea, particularly from an industrialist's standpoint. This is significant in that the real powers behind globalism have not been the socialists, liberals, and academic Utopians who have been so strongly behind the United Nations and the idea of a New World Order, as much as financial capital and multinational corporate interests. These have been the real muscle, and prime profit-making beneficiaries, of economic globalization. 

The United States of America, as the linchpin and spearhead of globalism, must lead, at least in part, by example. The opening example has been to open our markets to all nature of foreign produced goods, both natural resources and manufactured products. We began by opening our markets to the re-industrializing post-war nations – most significantly Japan, which proceeded to totally absorb and supplant many of our emerging electronics industries, and capture a huge share of our auto market. 

The free trade idea was merely the big foot in the door – the camel's head under the flap of the tent. The ultimate program, at least from America's standpoint, is totally open borders. "From America's standpoint," because no other major industrial nation has given up its markets to the degree we have. For example, American products have not significantly penetrated the Japanese market and probably never will. And now we see Chinese goods on just about every American consumer shelf. But China does not import many American goods, other than raw materials, money, and whole industries, which are going to China.

It's almost certain that the "Made in America" label won't penetrate the Chinese markets. But that isn't to say that American capital isn't cashing in on China's big economic boom. Wall Street is being looked after, but American labor has been totally cut out of the loop. In fact, we have been actively de-industrializing, and thus increasingly unable to produce for others elsewhere even if we could be competitive. Not only can we not compete because of the high cost of American labor, but because we've also managed to get rid of the industries that produced the goods.

Cheap imported foreign oil, automobiles, electronics, and other consumer goods have been an easy sell with American consumers. The American public has literally been a  pushover for such things, and "stores" like Wal-Mart have become so popular that they have been allowed to rearrange the national commercial landscape with hardly a peep of protest from the public. Consumers love it, and "Super-Wal-Marts" are now popping up around the nation like corn in a virgin field.

Freeing up immigration has been going on a bit more stealthily than free trade – usually accomplished as the result of various, apparently unrelated, geopolitical events. Such "events" have conveniently contributed major surges of immigration, to soften us up and make us a multi-cultural nation without any effort. Wars and related instances of foreign imperialism have played the major role. The Spanish American War opened the doors to Caribbean, Philippine, and other immigration. This was even before the current metamorphosis of the New World Order plan was solidified and adopted as a national policy goal in the decades after World War Two.

Since the solidification of the  of the present genesis of the New World Order plan, we've had a major liberalization of immigration policy. That change conveniently coincided with with Civil Rights movement, and was even demanded by it. We no longer favored the immigration of kindred peoples from Europe and began welcoming all comers from the Third World.

Since the communist takeover of Cuba, we've had massive immigration from Cuba, which transformed southern Florida. And we've had large numbers of immigrants from such poorly run nations such as Haiti. The tragic conclusion of the equally tragic Vietnam War resulted in a massive and ongoing surge of immigration from Vietnam and Asia. Every other small war has resulted in surges of immigrants by displaced persons and political refugees. The Cold War caused considerable political turbulence everywhere, including Latin America, which have resulted in large numbers of South and Central American immigrants, not to mention the large numbers of Russians and Eastern Europeans that began to immigrate to America. 

Perennial turbulence in Africa has resulted in a steady stream of African immigrants. The ongoing strife in the Middle East has caused large numbers of Arabs and others to immigrate to the United States.

India and the Asian subcontinent have provided large numbers of immigrants. Indian doctors and other professionals have become common throughout the nation. Many came to study in the United States under various government subsidy programs, and they simply stayed because "we needed them" (it ain't easy for an American to become a doctor), and this is where the money is. And it seems that the low-end hotel-motel industry has mysteriously been ceded to Pakistanis and other Asians.

The advent and growth of the Welfare State, combined with Civil Rights and immigration policy liberalization, conveniently provided a huge incentive for further immigration. Since the Civil Rights era, whole generations of poor Americans found they didn't have to work for a living. A large percentage of the American working under-class was effectively put on paid vacation for more than a generation, and many mothers with dependent children are effectively paid to stay home and mind their children. Naturally, our welfare system also resulted in a huge growth in the numbers of unmarried mothers with dependent children.

When huge numbers of poor Americans were no longer obliged to take just "any job" to make a living, we began to import a whole new laboring underclass, mostly from Mexico – "our" most conveniently situated Third World country.

While the welfare benefits were a great draw that considerably lessened the risks of immigrating, the overwhelming majority of the new immigrants from poor countries came to take the jobs poor Americans no longer needed. As the natural result of this increased influx of labor, wages have been bid downward in several industries, making jobs in those areas less attractive to "regular" Americans, and a further draw to immigrants.

Mexicans have been arriving to take those jobs ever since, and the opportunities and incentives to immigrate are still expanding. The numbers have come to be of major significance and don't show any signs of abating. This massive immigration of a new laboring underclass has been very effectively encouraged by our "world oriented" government. As part of our national New World Order agenda, the national economy has been actively transformed into a service economy which creates more and more low paying jobs that appeal to immigrant labor but not most "traditional" Americans. At the same time, good jobs, factories, and whole productive industries, have been exported to Mexico, China, and elsewhere.

This immigration "problem", of course, was never addressed, because it was really part of a greater agenda that has never been revealed to the general public, and it has been self-feeding.

Naturally, aside from being part of an active (though unspoken), policy, politicians are deathly afraid of massive minority voting blocks. When the black population was finally firmly enfranchised, it totally changed the way our politicians viewed the voting public. The Mexican/Hispanic block of the population has finally exceeded the black voting block.

Though some of our politicians now say they are concerned with illegal immigration (with estimates of as many as 12 million illegal Mexican immigrants already here), they are much more worried about the many times more millions of the friends, relatives, and supporters of those illegal immigrants – because these are already fully qualified citizen voters. Politicians must be more concerned about the catering to minority voters than with the shrinking, ineffective, unorganized, and divided majority – because the minorities can easily make the difference between their ability to attain and retain political office.

At the apex of our political system, with much more power than the other supposedly "co-equal" branches of "representative" government, are the presidential administrations. And the powers behind the executive branch (who care not which party is in power, or what the president may personally stand for), have been committed to a New World Order at least since the Wilson administration.

Since World War Two, no president has managed to buck the powers behind the throne to any significant degree. Kennedy perhaps tried, and look what happened to him. Nixon probably tried, but was forced out of office. Reagan might have tried, but he nonetheless went along with the program set out for him. A brush with assassin's bullet (whether by a "lone gunman" or otherwise), can be pretty persuasive.

Since the Reagan administration, all of our presidents have been unequivocally committed to the New World Order. Bill Clinton (though a bona fide New World Order man who pushed NAFTA through), went through a period of conflict with some of the powers behind the scenes and had a brush with serious scandal and impeachment – but he finally saw the light (signaled by a vigorous bombing campaign in Iraq), and came off wearing his impeachment experience as a badge of honor, and was even re-elected!

Ironically, our national commitment to the defense of Israel seems to trump even the New World Order to some degree. Perhaps not, however. Though it seems that edifice of the New World Order has been somewhat shaken by our present War on Terror and in Iraq and Afghanistan, the aims of those wars – besides insuring Israeli security – are clearly to bring recalcitrant "rogue" nations – particularly the oil-rich ones – to heel to the NWO agenda. We can't have the "free world" the corporate powers want if some of the nations insist on a serious degree of independence.

The "free world" is about having a world in which capital is unfettered by any notion of national independence or sovereignty. And it is about a world where labor is also free to go wherever the best jobs seem to be. Thus our Mexican immigrants (legal and otherwise), are merely doing what they are expected to do.

The North American Union is very much intended to facilitate open borders between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, and the Pan American Union would do the same for the entire hemisphere. These programs are being methodically pursued in semi-secrecy by the administration and our un-elected shadow government. The Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission are two domestic organizations that comprise the movers and shakers of the shadow government. There are several others in the form of both liberal and conservative "think tank" organizations.

Once the trilateralization of the world is complete, with the European Union, American Union, and Asia-Pacific Union solidified, the stage will be set for the placing the final cap-stone on a single system of World government.

The growing issue over illegal immigration in the United States is an acute embarrassment to the "free world" agenda. It isn't that the powers behind globalization care in the least about labor (Mexican, American, or otherwise) – they only care about capital and profit – but the New World Order agenda could never have been sold to liberals and academic social visionaries unless it was a program "for the people" (not the American people, of course, but the people of the world). To them, that's what it is supposed to be (One World), as in Hillary's It Takes a Village. The liberals and academic visionaries (and the whole establishment of the left), have been a major component and tool of the One Worlders since the very inception of the great plan.

In fact, this has constituted a very convenient cause for much of the confusion that has played into the hands of the powers behind globalism. Most of the conservative right thought the New World Order was a communist plot throughout most of its history, when it was really very much a capitalist plot the whole while, with considerable accommodation for the whole leftist political spectrum.

Ironically, as it is being instituted, the New World Order comes much closer to Hitler's vision of a new order than the communist-socialist model. It bears absolutely no resemblance to the individual free enterprise system of the American Republic, or even the pre-1960s "American capitalism" – and is certainly far divorced from any lingering notion of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." What we effectively have is a global form of National Socialism – a system of world fascism, with financial and industrial capital, rather than any government, in the driver's seat.

The Mexican illegal problem is beginning to awaken and anger some Americans. Few enough recognize the larger agenda for which mass immigration to the United States plays a significant role. But when the majority peoples begin to wake up to the fact that a very real invasion of the nation is taking place right in front of their eyes, and the government is not doing anything about it, there are bound to be increasing problems. This is happening in the case of Mexican immigration.

Significantly, the supporters of illegal immigration have become bold enough to demonstrate in a very offensive and "in your face" manner, laying their agenda right on the line for everybody to see for the first time. The reconquista has been under way for quite some time, and it has enough confidence to come out of the closet. This isn't in the New World Order plan, of course, and in fact threatens the prospects of the American Union. Some South American leaders are also becoming a little recalcitrant.

The push to subvert and destroy our nation has been going on for a long, long time – and so few seem to care that anything like a united front against it has not only failed to materialize, but seems totally impossible. The patriot movement that appeared to be forming up prior to Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the Oklahoma City bombing more or less sputtered out as the federal government got tough and started killing and imprisoning people, with the full apparent consent and endorsement of the overwhelming majority of the population. The silent majority remains silent. Both patriots and "conspiracy theorists" have continued to be portrayed as crazies by the establishment media, which is fully in charge of (and are very good at), molding national public opinion.

Since this has become a multi-cultural nation with huge and powerful ethnic voting blocks, traditional nationalist patriots can now easily be shouted down as xenophobic, racist, anti-Semitic, protectionist, isolationist, paranoid crazies, and a host of other bad things. In other words, if a strong potential national leader ever appears, he is certain to be shot down (literally or otherwise), on any one or combination of those scores, long before he has a chance to ascend to national prominence.

The ability of the media to form public opinion continues in spite of the fact that growing numbers of Americans (perhaps even a small majority), no longer believe what the media tells them. Though they don't believe it, they have lost hope and are without direction. We have no American leadership to which to turn, and no way of getting any such leadership. This is why dictators tend to rise like meteors when a certain point is reached in a nation, just as Hitler rose in Germany.

Don't say it couldn't happen here. It can – just as 9/11 happened. President Bush isn't the man. His usefulness is just about ended – his intended mission apparently in chaotic disarray. Hitler had plenty of help from a lot of unlikely sources when the time became ripe for him in Europe, just as the Bolsheviks, enjoyed plenty of help when their time had come.

The Oklahoma City bombing, which took the lives of many innocent men, women, and children soured the public on "patriots." Few have come to realize that there was much more behind that incident than just Timothy McVeigh and a few deluded, overzealous, patriots.

9/11, and the ongoing wars that have followed, have refocused the nation on external threats and further empowered those intent on destroying this nation – obscuring the real threats, and where the real fight for national security lies. It's almost as though Osama bin Laden and his bunch were still on the CIA payroll.

There is much more to 9/11 than most people know. There are many wild conspiracy theories that are gaining currency, and indeed (mixed in with the wild stuff), there are many perplexing, unanswered questions. But what we can be fairly certain of is that it didn't just happen as out of the blue because of a few radical Muslim "liberty-haters" as the administration claims. Of that we can be certain.

Some people are beginning to wake up to the threats posed by illegal Mexican immigrants. The big pro-illegal demonstrations actually woke up a few sleepers. Most importantly, some true, very vocal and articulate, activists for the American cause have been awakened. They have recognized that the immigrant invasion is much more than just a lot of Mexicans coming to the United States to seek jobs. It is literally a foreign invasion with a well articulated political goal – the goal is literally the re-conquest of the American southwest, and more!

As mentioned, Pridger doesn't think this is part of the script, but it will be used in one way or another to convince Americans than a North American Union will be in our best security interests.

The administration in Washington, along with the media, have naturally played all of this down. In fact, the administration is still openly pushing for amnesty, a worker program, and the American Union! In other words, the administration, and our Washington representatives in general are, and have been for a long time, on the wrong team! But the negotiations for such things as the American Union are largely being done secretively by non-governmental organizations. Our legislative branch isn't even in the loop. As in most other "free trade" agreements, they are merely expected to put their stamp of approval on it as a "done deal" after the agreements have been "finalized" by the executive branches of the respective nations involved.

The North American Union is supposed to enhance our security by pushing our "security perimeter" out to the extents of North America. In other words, Mexico will become part of the security zone. Mexico is going to become part of our national security team. And, of course, the Union would be economic too. That means the free flow of goods and services across the boarder, including labor. You can't have a fence at the border in that case – it would make no sense whatsoever.

Meanwhile, some courageous Americans are not only speaking up, but doing things. Private citizens have organized and are patrolling our southern border – much to the embarrassment and chagrin of the powers that be in Washington and Mexico City. They have been able to do this because a large and growing segment of the American population is in their corner. Enough Americans are beginning to feel threatened that our democratic processes are actually beginning to function again in a limited way in the border areas. Even some politicians are beginning to grow backbones.

If enough of the American public ever get the right message and figure out what is going on, a lot more politicians would grow backbones, and we could get some real representation. The fact is, as dysfunctional and perverted as our political system has become, our representatives can only be as firm and dedicated to American freedom and liberty as their constituents. If the people don't stand up and demand representation, and do it in significant and vocal numbers, they won't get it.

Politicians tend to represent those who put them in office and keep them there. The people may do the voting, but if they are merely choosing between two agents of an alien agenda, they are merely putting a democratic face on a subversive agenda disguised as the way to freedom, prosperity and security.

If businesses, multi-national corporations, and internationalist foundations, fund them, set the agenda, and make their election unavoidable, those are the forces our elected officials will represent. If the people who finally elect them by voting don't have any idea of what needs to be done, and do not give those representatives some solid direction, they have assuredly elected mis-representatives. And that's what most of our so-called representatives are today – mis-representatives, doing the bidding of the New World Order power structure.

The North American Union, economically integrating Mexico, the U.S., and Canada, is part of the New World Order agenda, just as NAFTA was, and the WTO is, and the American Union will be, if the North American Union is successfully instituted.

There is little wonder that the Bush administration is dragging its feet on immigration reform and any attempt to solve the illegal immigration problem. All such attempts are totally out of sync with the real agenda that Bush and the New World Order insiders are actually working toward. Total economic integration is their goal. And open borders. Not just in the Americas, but globally.

Father Bush announced the New World Order and George W., has gone the extra mile and admitted that "American is not a place, but an ideal." That effectively means that the American people are no longer in possession of their own land. America belongs to the world, and the World is supposedly going to become a mirror image of what people like the Bushes think "American" (as the embodiment of the New World Order), should be. 

The ideal is a borderless world where everything runs on an assured profit basis according to dictates of corporate planners. People shouldn't be artificially divided into nationalities, races, or cultures but merely members of the same corporate family, with the full benefits of secure corporate employment.

The New World Order is intended to turn the world into a corporate civilization. And it is intended that the Global Village will be a big company town that provides everything for everybody, with full employment.

But there are troubles brewing on the ground. American is the key to the whole program and some courageous Americans are beginning to stand up and make themselves heard. Not in Congress, of course (at least not very much yet), but on the streets of San Diego, California and Tucson, Arizona.

There are signs that there is a gathering storm, with indignant Americans actually getting out there on the front lines and confronting the ongoing invasion from Mexico. They are confronting police at the barricades, lecturing city councils, and stirring up trouble – trouble that is already here, but ignored and played down by both politicians and the press. It could be the beginnings of a movement that will not only stop the re-conquest of the American southwest, but re-take our nation from the forces that now command the loyalty of most of our most powerful politicians.

The gathering storm on our southern border is only once facet of our national malaise, but it is an exceedingly important one.

Consider this email Ross Dove and check out the YouTube links:    

>From the desk of Russ Dove ~ dove@adfasb.com  ~ 520 591-4588
Founder, Americans Defending Freedom At Sovereign Borders
ADFASB/Russ Dove 3661 N Campbell Ave #383 Tucson, AZ 85719

Folks, I don't know how you feel about the social changes that are being forced around and upon us; the increase in lawlessness inside and outside the system and the increasing need to be armed in our own neighborhoods? I for one have had enough!

Now, if you are satisfied with the non-conformational Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of the many MinuteMen projects (MMP) watch and report, but don't confront—just report. Report to who; our own government, it is the one most responsible, by their inaction, for this problem and do nothing when we report an invasion crime. If you think that sending the MCDC $25.00 to put an American Flag on the little over one-mile of fence they have built, which anyone can dig under in less than 4 minutes, than please go to https://secure.responseenterprises.com/mmflags/?a=762 and put an American Flag on the border. You have several other MMP groups to choose from; all seem to have "politically correct" passive SOP's. Don't get me wrong anything is better than nothing and the MMP's have increased the awareness of the American people; still 20,000 illegal aliens came across the border last night. 20,000 is a daily average, so that means that 13,800,000 illegal's have entered this Country since the first MMP muster in April of 2005. What changed? As for me, I'm having a real problem in understanding how a "politically correct" passive SOP is going to overcome the obstacles listed below. I have many problems with the, co-opted by a corrupt system, leadership of the MMP's that I may cover in a later email.

The Nation of Aztlan - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIW-BZ8oLrk
Aztlan Rising - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCCVUot-hBo
La Reconquista Manifesto - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VSDiiRJMcg
The Aztec Al-Qaeda - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc1XAQc8hS8
MEChA de Notre Dame - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fOqnt979TE

Aztlan is mytho-propaganda used to pump up the peons who make up the majority of illegal aliens from Mexico and South America in America today. Peon's are more willing to suffer if they have a cause. According to three retired Border Patrol Officers, with over 112 years service combined, it was agreed that as much as 80% of the illegal's from Mexico already in Country or crossing illegally had Aztlan leanings. Why not, this is what they are taught in Mexico's government operated primary schools, equivalent to a 6th grade education. The very same Aztlan mytho-propaganda is being taught right here in most of America's schools through MEChA. This plan has been advanced by at least the last four presidents of Mexico. Their plan is to dislocate us with poverty, drugs and crime; so as to re-take our land by colonization. And, for the last 29 years our last four American presidents have done everything to help and nothing real to stop them, on our dime.

At the rate I am watching their escalation we had better do something now while we still have standing, or we will be required to use deadly force to protect ourselves later. By vote or by violence is the motto used in declaring their claim to ownership of American Soil. In 2004 American's in The Great State of Arizona, passed Proposition 200 which started the end of their vote fraud plans and although never properly enforced; far to many Americans are watching now for them to continue on with their plans to occupy US with out force; via the vote. If these people fully intend to follow through with their plan of action laid-out in their motto; their only option remaining is violence—by their own words, promises and threats of violence over the last 20 years. By the way Aztlan, MEChA, La Raza, LULAC, MALDEF and the whole host of anti-American invasion/overthrow-Freedom/occupation fronts are supported by the corporations and Our own government. I have a real big problem with the fact that part of the money my government takes from me and the money that the corporations take in profits from me; are being used to fund the destruction of Freedom in America today!

Smuggler War - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTfKqG4d_Cc
Pro-illegal Mentality - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVnefuNYEkQ

Border violence is increasing with wars between American Border Law enforcement and several factions of the Mexico infrastructure; drug lords and human traffickers. Small towns all across America are having their lawful government stolen out from under their apathy and fear by drug lords; creating a safe haven for the distribution of drugs, contraband and humans. Violence, crime and drug abuse is growing in the streets of EveryCityTown, uSA, exponentially to the growth of the illegal alien population.

Communists Declare War pt1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PyWjOFWkUw
Communists Declare War pt2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jhf89SG1kU

Without getting into a long story; I have spent most of my life watching the increase of socialism/communism as it advances through all of America's Institutions. I was taught of the dangers of communism and the values of a Constitutional Republic from a very young age and have kept a vigilant watch for those Russian's to attack US, as did most of America. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that the government of Mexico was using pages out of the Communist Handbook to invade America and our government was helping them. This is what my translator had to say about the characters in this video-log, "I hope everyone gets to see/read what the commie revolutionaries are saying about mental borders and the Border Patrol. Also, the guy with the black hat had EZLN written on it. EZLN stands for Zapastita Army for National Liberation. They are a commie rebel army on the south part of Mexico. They are Che Guevara and Fidel Castro lovers!" Don't think it can't happen here; 140 years ago China was occupied by a God Fearing people living under a Republic form of government; we now know them as Communist Red China. It is happening here already!

Occupied America - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQTksbT7rPA

Christy SDPD Corruption pt1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXo38DGJ5Uc
Christy SDPD Corruption pt2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BUIPSITg3Q

Americans are being segregated by color, discriminated against and arrested based on racial profiling; on behalf of the Mexican government. The video highlighted in the first clip shot by Christie Czajkowski is what brought the wrath of the Mexican government and its occupying agents of the San Diego government down on her. That they, under color of law, stole her livelihood, all of the evidence she had against the corrupt system and her ability to continue to video-log their criminal activity is what gives Christie standing in the Federal Courts. How do I know that the Mexican government had something to do with this, you say. Christie was investigating the corrupt SDPD's connection to the Mexican drug lords and through her video-logging was exposing the corrupt occupation forces in the same manner in San Diego, Ca, that Roy Warden and I are doing here in Tucson, AZ. I know for a fact that the in-land-puppets-of-Mexico are directly responsible for the action against Roy and I. As San Diego is nearly completely occupied with a little over 10% English speaking only population remaining; there is no question who is responsible for the actions against Christie!

The "political correct" passive SOP may work on the border, to avoid conflict; it will not work in our cities! Now I'm not yet ready to advocate offensive violence or necessarily violence of any kind—except in self-defense. The fact is, violence is upon us now; with 9,000 Americans killed last year alone and over 140,000 sex related crimes committed against our women and children in that same time period; all at the hands of illegal aliens. I am however advising that you quickly take a strong physically armed (Second Amendment) defensive position to stand against their increasing advances. I am advocating that you make full use of your Soapbox and every legal standing that can be brought before the local, county, state and/or federal Court system—if you don't you will be forced to use your Ammo Box later or surrender. I am also advocating that you take a very strong legal activist position; find a problem; focus on it and regularly complain to someone in your local government and make public your complaint and their response. Go in to your downtown area during lunch with a bullhorn, the bigger the better, and let your voice be loudly heard, while standing on your Soap Box—this is proving to be very effective. As for the courts; Roy Warden has proven that a clear understanding of the law and the proper application of it works. That using legal action through the courts is a powerful legal weapon against this illegal invasion/occupation of American soil.

The fact is every time you bring a bag full of Truth into a room full of liars; you will have a room full of angry offended liars. The only way to avoid conflict is to surrender, go along to get along and hope that today by chance conflict does not find you and that if it does you can successful run/hide from it. Where would we be today if our Founding Father's and all who came before us who paid the ultimate price of Freedom had this passive non-confrontational attitude?

We Put Tucson On Notice - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LqHtgk6Jbo
We Put Tucson On Notice - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozqIL3ijtzw
We Take The Protest Downtown - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wayrzN7mNUY

These are some video-log's that show legal offensive activism. Just showing up with half-of-an-idea of what is going on makes the enemies' of Freedom in America uneasy. We must create lawful resistance to this invasion/occupation and the only way I know how to do this; is to stand armed in the public square, everywhere the invaders are and tell them NO! I am starting to believe that the enemies of America really don't have a working/workable plan to meet resistance, thus even a small amount of resistance has crippled them. A large show of resistance is all that we may need to show and put a stop to this—maybe not. I would rather do something now while we have a fighting chance than to wait until we have no chance at all. If we do not resist them we will lose for sure—it is a choice now; later, not so much!

Three American's have standing too advance this border/invasion/occupation battle into the Federal Court System; we need your help! If we lose these legal actions that are already being processed in the court system; precedent will be set and the next court battle may not be winnable. We could all use continuing sponsorship; however, only Christie requires your assistance NOW! You can learn about Christie's situation at A Case to Establish the Christie Czajkowski Defense Fund
http://adfasb.com/adfasb/christie.html.

By helping today; you will be empowering yourselves to a victory tomorrow. Do nothing and when this battle arrives at your door step, and it will, you won't have enough resources to fight it because the court's rulings (precedent) will have already been set against you; because we lost these early court cases. A little today or everything tomorrow; take a month off of the end of your retirement and invest it today for a Free Country to retire in--think about it. Pick some luxury you enjoy each month and sacrifice it, that while we still have standing, we may be victorious in these court battles. This is not a long time need; within two years the judgements awarded to us against the enemies of Freedom in America will be more than enough to cover our living costs. It is a choice; choose to HELP CHRISTIE TODAY and please send this message to everyone on your email list.

If you havn't already figured it out; we're not asking for help to make a living off of the problem, no, we are asking for help to live while we solve this problem! For 30 years a lot of people have made a lot of money living off of this problem; this too, I am very tired of. How about you?

One resource Christie and I are out of is system Hard Drive(HD) space — video-logging the invasion/occupation/corruption uses a lot of HD space. I have over a TB of video and am down to maybe 50GB HD space remaining and Christie has enough to operate her computer remaining—no room for new video-logs. If you have any 100GB or larger IDE hard drives laying around we could sure use them; new 500+ GB HD's would be real nice too! New Mini-DV tapes are in short supply also. Please send all hardware/supplies to me at the address at the top of this message.

Please send all checks or money orders to:

Christie Czajkowski/Defense Fund
1687 Jeremy Point Court
Chula Vista, CA
truthbrigade@hotmail.com

Or you can visit the Donation Page [PayPal] - http://www.adfasb.com/#donate
Thank you for your time and for your consideration of this request,

s/Russ Dove
TiANews.com
ADFASB.com
YouTube.com/Sov777

Christie Czajkowski is one of those dedicated activists who seem to be irrepressible. We have frequently seen her type on the left – on the wrong side of issues (on the anti-American side) – but seldom on the right, on the right side of such issues as Christie is.

Russ Dove is just as dedicated and just as much on the right side of the issues at hand as Christie. And there are many others heating up the debate over illegal immigration. With men like Russ on the front lines, more and more Americans are bound to begin to wake up to what is happening to our country, in spite of inevitable attempts by the media to blank out their message and portray them as crazies.

We have come to a point where people like Christie, who is a single mom, and Russ, who looks a lot more like a biker than a politician, are the only ones with enough guts to stand up and make themselves heard – literally, with bull horns, confronting police and illegal alien groups in the streets, and politicians in their chambers (and by publishing their message and video footage where it will do the most good in today's video based web community). They are evolving into about the only leadership capable of commanding attention on some of the most important issues facing the nation today. Most mainline politicians (even those who would like to), are afraid to speak out and champion the national cause of the majority, because of the power and threat of large ethnic voting blocks.

Behind their radical form of activism and outspokenness, there is an abundance of solid reason and common sense. Russ is a particularly gifted and articulate spokesman on a broad spectrum of political issues. He's a true American patriot who believes in the nation our founders sought to create. We need many more like him. 

Russ, Christie, and their friends, have Pridger's admiration and support, and maybe through the dedicated efforts of people like them, a few politicians will begin to grow backbones of their own. At some point they may begin the process of stopping the demise of the American Republic and begin putting America back together again.

That's a lot to hope for under such dire and depressing conditions as we have in our nation today. But people who speak up and make themselves heard have the power to energize large groups of followers, and therein lies our only hope of gaining worthy leadership within our presently very anemic representative system of government, wherein special interests with alien or corporate agendas routinely trump the majority.

John Q. Pridger  

Wednesday, 14 March, 2007

WOMEN'S WORK

Another of those jokes that circulate on the Internet prompts Pridger to do a little pontification. Here's the joke:

A man was sick and tired of going to work every day while his wife stayed home. He wanted her to see what he went through so he Prayed:
     "Dear Lord: I go to work every day and put in 8 hours while my wife merely stays at home. I want her to know what I go through, so please allow her body to switch with mine for a day. Amen.
     God, in his infinite wisdom, granted the man's wish.
     The next morning, sure enough, the man awoke as a woman. He arose, cooked breakfast for his mate, awakened the kids, set out their school clothes, fed them breakfast, packed their lunches, drove them to school, came home and picked up the dry cleaning, took it to the cleaners and stopped at the bank to make a deposit, went grocery shopping, then drove home to put away the groceries, paid the bills and balanced the checkbook. He cleaned the cat's litter box and bathed the dog. Then it was already 1 P.M. and he hurried to make the beds, do the laundry, vacuum, dust, and sweep and mop the kitchen floor. Ran to the school to pick up the kids and got into an argument with them on the way home. Set out milk and cookies and got the kids organized to do their homework, then set up the ironing board and watched TV while he did the ironing.
     At 4:30 he began peeling potatoes and washing vegetables for salad, breaded the pork chops and snapped fresh beans for supper. After supper, he cleaned the kitchen, ran the dishwasher, folded laundry, bathed the kids, and put them to bed.
     At 9 P.M. he was exhausted and, though his daily chores weren't finished, he went to bed where he was expected to make love, which he managed to get through without complaint. The next morning, he awoke and immediately knelt by the bed and said:
     Lord, I don't know what I was thinking. I was so wrong to envy my wife's being able to stay home all day. Please, oh please, let us trade back."
     The Lord, in his infinite wisdom, replied: "My son, I feel you have learned your lesson and I will be happy to change things back to the way they were. You'll just have to wait nine months, though. You got pregnant last night."

Voted Women's Favorite E-mail of the Year!

If you agree, send it to all your friends who would enjoy this! And thank your wife, and then thank God for her! Amen?

The message is a positive one. For one thing, there are apparently still enough "traditional households" in the nation for an email of this nature to find a circulation. Some women have not abandoned the home and the most challenging, complex, and important job of all – that of caring for a home, husband, and (most importantly), children.

In spite of concerted efforts and frequent efforts obituaries, traditional family and gender roles have not yet perished from the national landscape. At least not completely. But it has become increasingly difficult for some women to feel comfortable in their God-given role. There are tremendous societal pressures to "denature" gender roles.

Unfortunately many traditional housewives, of even happy marriages, labor under the impression that their role somehow relegates them second class citizenship and they are thus unable to rise to their full potential. But, given the requisite of a happy marriage, the job of being a housewife and "homemaker" is not only potentially the most fulfilling of occupations, but arguably the nation's most important one.

Of course, this iteration may be discounted as the mere opinion of a male chauvinist warthog. As a male, Pridger admittedly has a great deal of capital invested in his own male ego and his presumed role in the world. That role, of course, is rather complicated – but it essentially boiled down to settling down to the job of marrying, having children, protecting home, hearth, and providing for his family.

Young men, of course, tend to linger in a state of immaturity, and are still usually somewhat empty headed when they emerge from their secondary schooling. Even Pridger was like that. So they make the best (or at least most appropriate), risk takers, dare devils, and soldiers. Most go through a period of adventure seeking and the "sowing of wild oats." If they join the service, they'll go out, do what they are told by their superiors, and fight and die, if need be, for the nation – or any other thing that happens to be on the agenda. ("Theirs is not to wonder why, but merely do and die.") It remains for older, more experienced, and hopefully more educated, men to seriously ponder the reasons why, lead the followers, and to defend both the culture and the Constitution.

Young women, generally mature faster than men. Nature has decreed that they be prepared to assume their biological roles, and society once assigned their cultural role. Though they may have the same urge to seek adventure and sow some wild oats, there has traditionally been considerable social pressure on them to be much more socially responsible earlier than their male counterparts. Traditionally, they marry earlier in life than men, and they usually marry slightly older men of broader experience and (hopefully), superior learning – settled men capable of providing them with a secure home in which to rear their children.

Men, naturally remain boys for an extended period of their lives. Some remain boys until they die. But girls become mature women early – in time to carry out their most sacred and important roles. Generally, they soak up early education much more readily than boys, so they will become competent to nurture their children and begin their education as soon as they are receptive to learning. Good wives and mothers, in the protective environment of a secure home, are the key to producing quality, well adjusted, and properly prepared children who will go on to serve the same roles in the following generation.

This is the natural order that has served mankind well since long before the dawn of civilization. But things have been changing – breaking down. Modernity, being what it is, has tended to radically alter this model – simply because we imagine (as a society), that we have totally conquered nature and have risen above the former imperatives of any "natural order" or God-given roles of the sexes.

Women now seek to be the equals of men, and do the empty headed things that young men have always done. They want to be bread winners. They want to go off to war. They want to lead. They want to abandon their most important roles, and leave the children (if there are any), to be mothered by men or the state itself. And they are doing it. The state itself is conforming – becoming the maternal state with nanny police powers.

Yet, we've run into innumerable problems with our new social order – problems that have become much more than just obvious as they become more and more intractable. They spread far beyond the problems we now see in families, or the disintegration thereof. The entire nation is in trouble, spiritually, culturally, politically, and economically. The nanny police state is extraordinarily expensive.

Gender roles are stamped upon children by both nature and society, but these fundamental roles are things that we have attempted to repudiate in our march into our present brand of modernity. We now have an increasing problem with gender confusion. Often boys are not taught to be boys, and girls are not taught to be girls.

Still, however, boys tend to be boys and are likely grow up (these days), wanting to be like Rambo or the Terminator rather than, say George Washington, or Hopalong Cassidy. In light of the cultural war against maleness, it is somewhat ironic that strong mean men (good or bad), are the modern role models rather than strong, well mannered, and considerate, men. And increasing numbers of women want to be Rambos too.

It had always been a man's world – this since the first man found he was physically able to overpower a woman and make her do his bidding. But civilization, religion, and learning, gradually encroached on barbaric ways of our forefathers and gave women special protections against male barbarians. In time, they found themselves in an enviable position in societies like ours – on a pedestal in many cases, and certainly co-equal in many ways. In this country the harried and henpecked husband became much more common that the wife abuser.

Wife beating was frowned upon in our society. But now that women have finally been liberated, girl-friend beating is more common than wife beating, and women drink and do drugs just like their fallen male counterparts. And increasing numbers of women have become truck drivers, longshoremen, and warriors.

This reminds Pridger of the lady longshoremen gangs in Vietnam during that war. Smaller than men and weaker than men, they could do the backbreaking work, and they had to work harder than men to do it. Of course, those Vietnamese women weren't there because they particularly liked the work, or because of any feminist agitation for better paying jobs for women. They were there because the fighting, bloodletting, and mayhem, was considered strictly men's work, and the war's use of men resulted in a labor shortage on the waterfront.

Men no longer have their traditional exclusive places of refuge – the military being only one significant example. There is no longer much remaining in the establishment dedicated to reinforcing the idea of being a man and developing masculine instincts, in spite of some of the male stereotypes that roll out of Hollywood. The divide between the sexes is maintained in the field of most professional sports, however – but even there upstanding, decorous, sportsmanship has gone by the wayside in favor of juvenile displays of anger when losing and childish exuberance, jumping up and down, and self-congratulatory "power salutes" upon winning. This has become true in both men and women's sports.

Everything else that men have the privilege of attending these days is co-ed, whether he likes it or not, and men are required to suppress their male instincts in order to avoid sexual harassment or "hate charges." There is no longer such a thing as a "man's army," or "this man's navy," as Pridger knew it. There are no longer any male only military academies. Only women can have exclusive colleges if they want them, but not men. Exclusively "men things" discriminate against women, thus they are no longer allowed. 

In short, society is being transformed into one where there is no longer supposed to be any reason for men to take pride in being a men. Though few men have ever had a desire to wear dresses or skirts, women wear pants or dresses at their pleasure. There's nothing men can do that women cannot also do – and more and more women are insisting on doing them. Of course, many women can do them just as well or better than men. But if they can't, men are expected to make all necessary allowances, overlook their deficiencies, and certainly not reveal any sexual attraction to them in the co-ed workplace or military.

Women, on the other hand, can not only take abundant pride in being women (in whatever role they chose to take on), but increasingly take pride in being able to usurp all the former natural prerogatives of men – including crashing men's exclusive "private" clubs. Men no longer have any special prerogatives and are socially being neutered while women are increasingly being empowered.

This, of course, is a natural result of "democracy." Our founders chose a constitutional republic as our federal form of government because it meshed with the natural order of things in light of our civilization and the then current society. The federal and state governments were not intended to be pure democracies, but representative republics. Democracy is something that can only work at local levels, where state and federal representatives (who are supposed to be chosen by the people), are elected.

Most people in this "democracy" would be surprised to know that nobody has a specific constitutional "right to vote" at all. The federal Constitution is as absolutely silent on the matter as it is on the right to an abortion. Amendments dictate that the "right to vote shall not be denied" on the basis of race, sex, or previous state of servitude, but the actual right to vote is not thereby granted. That is a state prerogative. Significantly, however, the inalienable God-given right to life, was proclaimed in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, along with the right to "liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." 

The peoples' only directly elected representatives were their locale elected officials, state representatives, and federal congressmen. The senatorial branch of the House of Representatives was originally intended to be composed of representatives of the states governments themselves, elected by state legislators. The idea of a full and direct democracy at the federal level didn't come into force until 1913, with the adoption of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, which provided for direct popular election of senators by the people.

This, of course, was merely a further centralization of federal government power in the guise of producing a more complete federal democracy. As for voting for president, that still remains a state right, vested in the electoral college system. The popular vote for president, as shown in the election of George W. Bush, is little more than a ruse – democratic shadow boxing. In this sense, we retain a federal republic of republican states.

With universal suffrage (including irresponsible youth, the dim-witted, the ill-educated, the completely ignorant, and illiterate), we have developed the worst kind of pseudo-democracy. Political candidates slated for election are actually selected and financed by business interests – or other well-healed men of influence, whose hands are seldom shown. And, of course, the great body of the voters themselves are so easily manipulated by the mass media that the very idea of a national democracy is nothing but a joke. 

And, as H. L. Mencken observed, "Wherever universal suffrage, or some close approach to it, is the primary axiom of government, the thing know as 'freak legislation' is a constant evil." This statement has been proven out over the decades. Women didn't even have the vote when the 18th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted in 1919, yet Prohibition was nonetheless an instance of freak legislation demanded by women who were also demanding the voting franchise. And when women actually did get the vote a year later (the 19th Amendment), unusual things were bound to start happening in the fullness of time.

Women, it must be remembered, comprise a natural majority of the population, and thus the electorate. For this reason, there will never again be a Congress able to stand up to the women, or any women's lobby. And while women are very happy to gain the same, or more, political power as men (even if it is mostly smoke), they are also very eager to preserve, expand, and vigorously enforce, all the special protections our society has provided for women. 

Naturally, women would wish to curtail all the powers men had traditionally exercised over women, but they will never relinquish the natural powers women have always had over men. Of course, with women thus politically empowered, still enjoying special considerations (with all elected representatives obviously beholden to them), women have become, as Orwell's pigs in Animal Farm, a little more equal than others.

Fortunately, in spite of all this, most women are still women, and take pride in their appropriate roles, whether in the home or at work. They tend to share the values and political views with their parents or husbands. (But this too, is changing, of course.) The real political power (or abuse thereof), coming from their voting franchise (as is the case with any advocacy group), emanate from "their" activists. Most minority activists, however, tend to be the most radical and atypical of the class they purport to represent. They seldom stand for what the majority of their supposed constituents themselves stand for. Thus, the "women's agenda" is more likely to be that of radical feminists than the majority of women.

In spite of the fact that our democracy is somewhat of a travesty, voters do have considerable power, and representatives (who are popularly elected), must have all due respect for it. But since policy agendas always emanate from either entrenched power or "activists" with narrow agendas, only those agendas get voted on by the supposed representatives of the people. Congressmen and women may respond to the squeakiest wheels among their constituents, but that's about as close as we actually get to representative democracy.

As the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, writing on the subject of "democracy" said (to paraphrase), in a democracy men become more like women, and women become more like men. Gender confusion becomes generalized social confusion – and spiritual confusion. The rising political "power" of homosexuals, and the peculiar advent (and even acceptance), of such travesties as same sex marriage, is ample evidence of this. Laws favoring same sex marriage, or even "unions," cannot but come under the general category of freak legislation.

Homosexuals have a natural ally in women. Effeminate men, of course, often want to be women, and usually have their sympathy. And assertive and masculine women, while wanting to be men in most every way, are the primary power behind the feminist movement, and new laws designed to "liberate" all women. They want to put man into his place, and his place is becoming less clear every day.

We have had to learn that men make just as good of mothers as women. So we also have stay at home "Mr. Moms," with the mother being the family breadwinner. And, of course (we're learning?), that same sex couples make just as good parents, and can provide just as good a home life, as heterosexual couples.

Equality of the sexes, as we have come to know it, has had a tremendous, but widely ignored, impact on the national economy in addition to its devastating overall impact on our national morals. We try to ignore these things, because we have come to view equality of the sexes as fundamental social justice. But the moral fabric of society is demonstrably collapsing, at least in part to this cause. And, though it cannot be blamed solely on women voting habits or women entering the workforce, our economy (both national and global), has become a house of cards built on shifting sand.

As for morals, it isn't that women are any less moral than men. In fact, it seems fairly obvious that even liberated women tend to be more moral than men. Men still have a near monopoly on organized crime, white collar crime, and crimes of a violent nature. Murder, rape, and burglary are almost exclusively male activities. Literally all mass murderers have been men.

The inconvenient truth, however, is that women simply cannot be the equals of men if their natural God-given role is to be fulfilled. No woman can be considered equal to a man if she can be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. To remedy this, feminine political pressure has resulted in Roe vs. Wade, and legal, easily obtained, abortions. Since this landmark Supreme Court ruling, a literal mass genocide has been underway in this country, and women are the primary perpetrators.

Women are no longer morally bound by the necessity of giving birth when a child is conceived, and they are no longer bound to the household or the nurturing and training of children. That would be discriminatory and crippling.

Now women enjoy "freedom of choice." They can choose to be Christian women with a reverence for life, in and out of the womb, or they can choose to be the killers of their children in order to compete with men in the marketplace. "Why not?" they say, "they're the bosses of their own bodies aren't they?" They've got a point there, and any little life within them is little more than so much bodily waste, to be discarded at will.

How can they be faulted? The highest court of the land says its okay. No unborn child has a "Right to Life" according to the men and women on the highest court in the land. In today's way of thinking, it's "right to life" only comes in the event that he or she manages to make it to certifiable birth and not a moment before. There is little wonder that it has become a nation political imperative to squash the idea of the United States being a Christian nation.

If abortion can be termed a form of infanticide (which it most definitely is), then women have been guilty of millions of more murders than men. Infanticide has become a woman's right, and such murders are un-prosecutable. For women, they simply aren't crimes in the eyes of the increasingly all-powerful state. They are merely a necessary convenience that permits women equal to men.

If men cannot be impregnated and forced to bear nine months of pregnancy and the pains of bearing a child, followed by a few years of nurturing the young, why should women be forced into such things? That is the reasoning, and the Supreme Court has thus ruled that infanticide of the unborn is not punishable. It has become a simple means of birth control, actively encouraged – forcibly in some countries. 

Naturally, to kill their unborn children, requires a total repudiation of Christian religious moral precepts. But thousands, if not millions, of professing Christian women troop off to the abortion clinic whenever an unwanted pregnancy occurs. For their own convenience they allowed the Supreme Court to determine what is and is not moral. So they can have the equality they have come to see as their right. Women, in their quest for equality can now be just as promiscuous as drunken soldiers and sailors – in fact they can now also be soldiers and sailors.

Women, once spared the horrors of having to participate in the gory spectacle of war, insist on doing their rightful share of the bloodletting. They want to be warriors, and want to do their duty in defending the nation against all enemies – considering this a higher calling than staying home and nurturing children. If women are still a little weak in hand-to-hand combat, at least they can shoot rifles, launch missiles, and drop bombs on enemy peoples – which almost always results in the killing of innocent men, women, and children.

Taking part in the killing of innocent men, women, and children has never been a great ambition for most women. But today, such things can be done by literally anybody. No remorse is required in this kind of killing. It's easy – and there is an excitement involved that used to be the sole prerogative of men. So why not women? If they are to be equal, they've got to share in the carnage of war. It becomes their duty. It's a moral obligation that exceeds that of childbearing and nurturing. Why should they be exempt from the glory business of war? And the guilt? (If there is any.) The death, and the debilitating and crippling wounds?

There are increasing numbers of women who want a part of it – all of it. Being nurses and pencil pushers behind the lines – or homemakers and mothers at home – is no longer good enough for many women. They want to draw blood in more exciting environments than in hospital wards and field hospitals.

They are now marching off to war alongside their male counterparts. The military has come to a point where it couldn't function without the ladies – regardless of all the additional troubles and expense this has inevitably caused (after all, most women are still women, and most men are still men – even in the military).

Today we see the heartrending specter of young mothers leaving their husbands and small children to go off to fight and die in foreign battlefields. It's now just as natural for men to be left at home, widowers to mother and raise small children. Pridger finds this totally both bizarre and gut-wrenching. But we are supposed to struggle with our native gender consciousness, and consider this to be the new normal order of things.

Aside from all this, women entering the workforce in large numbers, and taking many jobs that once were considered part of a "man's world" have had a much great impact on economic development that most imagine. Technology and automation were already taking good jobs away from men. Now women are moving in to take even more jobs away from them.

Women, of course, want equal pay for equal work, which is only fair. But what really happens is that when more people enter the job market, wages are bid downward. New hires usually get lower wages, of course. With more women entering the workforce, employers intend to bring men's wages down to those of new hires, many of which are now women.

Where once a thousand families required only five hundred good breadwinning jobs, now a thousand jobs are required, if not more. This, in terms of economics, is a much bigger deal than at first meets the eye. All of a sudden, at a time when the population is mushrooming, we need twice as many jobs in relation to the population. As mentioned above, wages (at least in terms of purchasing power), were bound to be reduced as women flooded the workplace. And this began to happen at a time when factory jobs – real wealth producing jobs – were destined to begin disappearing, first through automation and then through "free trade."

The natural result is that more and more frequently we find both parents must now work in order to make ends meet. Long before women received the voting franchise, perceptive individuals foresaw all that has been happening. Nietzsche, among others, pointed out that should women invade the labor marketplace, the inevitable result would be that soon it would require two jobs, rather than one, to support a family. We find this to be the case today in many, if not most, remaining "traditional" families.

This transformation, from the single breadwinner middle class to a two breadwinner middle class, has occurred in Pridger's working lifetime. Now that our trusty leaders are leading us into a post industrialized economy, low paying jobs, economy-wide, are becoming the pattern of the future.

This is totally reasonable. A post-industrial economy produces much less tangible wealth and cannot afford to pay labor high wages. So now both parents must work and somebody else has to look after the children, while others elsewhere make all the things required to make life bearable at home.

Not only does the dual breadwinner family require two jobs, but two cars to get both workers to their separate workplaces. This has required many more workers to make cars (though mostly elsewhere), and has also nearly doubled the pollution of auto-exhaust, and greatly increased our dependence on foreign oil.

Just as common as two breadwinner families, are single mother households. Since women have been empowered, many men have felt absolved of their natural responsibilities, and can continue to be boys. Often the boys try to gain wealth without a real job, and end up in the penal system. Children grow up without fathers, and usually without discipline, direction, or positive male role models. And seldom have single mothers who choose this path for their children become prepared to give their children the sort of early education they need to become receptive to formal education or productive citizens.

Single mothers either require government support, and/or need to find work themselves. Both single and married working mothers leave us with a big and growing problem – how to care for young children with working parents unable to care for them?

The only "logical" answer is a massive pre-school "child-care" industry, where once the "natural order" automatically took care of that problem. In fact, it wasn't a problem at all when families were whole and only one breadwinner sufficient. This new problem and remedy, of course, subjects children to government indoctrination through professional child-care practically from the cradle onward, making sure they grow up with the prescribed degree of social sensitivity without sex roles or traditional family values being impressed on them.

Mothers used to be our child care providers. And mothers were about the most important person in the world for most of us who had the privilege of growing up in traditional family environments. We admired and often feared old dad, but almost all of use admired and loved our mothers. What would we have done without them? We're finding out now in the lives of the younger "degeneration" (as Pridger's old Pappy used to call it).

John Q. Pridger

Sunday, 4 March, 2007

WHAT KIND OF A PRESIDENT WOULD AL GORE MAKE?

There is increasing speculation that Al Gore could slide into the Democratic presidential lineup some time before the election.

Pridger, it might be noted, has descended from a long, unbroken, line of Democrats that goes back at least to the Civil War when his ancestors (at least those Pridger is aware of), were known as "peace Democrats" or copperheads. But the chain of Democratic party affiliation was broken when Pridger (a child of the rebellious 50s), became the first totally apolitical spawn of the family.

Though Pridger got some interesting lessons in politics in the early 60s, but didn't actually begin to become very politically aware until the early 70s, as both the political and social landscape had already undergone radical change. Neither major party looked good to him when he began his awakening. Like many youth with the challenges of adulthood and responsibilities staring him in the face, he naturally tended to be a bit liberal. Then, when he finally reconciled himself to working for a living, he tended more toward being a conservative – first of a libertarian bent, then a nationalist-constitutionalist persuasion. Neither party seemed to be getting things right, but the Republican party seemed much more right than the Democrats (before the Republicans gained power). Reagan gave us some hope after the Carter administration, and momentarily enhanced the image of the Republican party in the 1980s. But that turned out to be a false hope, so Pridger has continued to have absolutely no party loyalties.

Both parties have consistently beaten up on the Constitution – the Democrats being the left hand of big government and the Republicans the right hand of big government, in a good cop, bad cop, charade – and both are now obviously joined at the hip as internationalist New World Order parties. Both parties have been instrumental in progressively selling the nation down the river. Third parties have been the only hope for any meaningful change, and precious little hope at that. The president is going to be either a Democrat or a Republican, and that's that.

Still, Pridger had always considered the Republicans the lesser of two evils – at least until the first Bush administration. This mainly because the Democrats tend to consistently fall on the wrong side of the divide in the cultural wars and Republicans at least somewhat consistently continued to give some lip service to some of the values Pridger holds dear. The present Bush administration, however, has just about wrecked any hope that the Republicans have a Constitutional, or truly Christian, bone left in their body politic.

Clinton was Pridger's idea of the worst possible president imaginable, and held that title until the eleventh of September, 2001, when Bush II, saw his opportunity to assume the title.

This being so, Democrats may have apparently become the lesser of two evils, in spite of any and all empty rhetoric on both sides. So maybe we have to look to a Democratic victory this time around, provided Hillary doesn't end up being the anointed one.

Although Pridger has always liked something about Al Gore's personality, his long association with the Democratic party and his previous loyalty to Bill Clinton have been sufficient to prevent a Pridger endorsement for a Gore presidential administration. Gore shot himself in the foot badly, in Pridger's opinion, when he stood up beside President Clinton (after Clinton had been acquitted of impeachment proceedings), and said he thought Clinton would go down in history as one of the nation's greatest presidents.

In Pridger's book, that remark was about as close to political suicide as a presidential aspirant could get. Needless to say, Pridger isn't a Clinton fan (Bill or Hillary). And Pridger harbors about as much continuing distrust for the Democrats as he's gained for the Republicans, despite growing evidence of populist sentiments in the Democrat party.

Barack Obama is the nice guy Democratic hopeful, but he seems to lack any real vision for meaningful change. He may be outspokenly against the war in Iraq (which is significant in itself), and otherwise relatively flawless, but he doesn't seem to stand for very much besides his own apparent common decency. Of course, he may merely be wise enough to avoid tipping his hand before getting nominated or elected. If he is really a good man for the job, it would kill his chances to reveal his agenda. But if it turns out that he become the "anointed one" for the job, he'll merely turn out to be another New World Order yes man.

How are we to judge? Unfortunately, we can't, and that's the wonder of democracy in America. Gore is a little different. He has a strongly articulated mission in the world. He stands for something – a cause that he really believes in. 

Pridger has always had a great deal of respect for Gore's concern for the global environment. At least Al Gore stands for something – and stands firm – and it is something of importance to everyone. And a firm stand on anything has become a very unusual attribute in presidential candidates. So, if we can ignore or forgive Gore's former loyalty to Bill Clinton (after all Clinton was his boss then), maybe he's worth a second look. Nobody else in either the major Democratic or Republican lineup seems to stand for very much.

Having recently viewed Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, Pridger took Gore's 1992 book, "Earth in the Balance, Ecology and the Human Spirit" down off the shelf to read a little more thoroughly than he had before.

The book sheds considerable light on Gore the man, and what he believes in and thinks of aside from strictly environmental concerns. Among other things, Pridger found some rare and valuable insights in Chapter 10, "Eco-nomics: Truth or Consequences" worth quoting. He points out some inconvenient truths that Charles Walters of Acres U.S.A. has been attempting to shed light on for several decades.

Walters points out that there is only one free source of power on the earth, and that happens to be the sun itself. The earth itself is a mere captive satellite of the sun, and thus part of its own greater being. The sun is the source of everything that we depend on for life. Everything that we use has had input from the sun – literally every resource that we use was, or is, created compliments of the sun, from the hydrocarbons we extract to the crops that feed us, are the result of past and present photosynthesis, a primary, ongoing, and sustainable, creative life process.

Both Walters and Gore point out that our system of economics is fundamentally flawed because in the calculations from which we derive such empirical data as gross national product (GDP), we fail to account for the expenditures of natural resources, many of which are irreplaceable in any number of human lifetimes. Thus all of our economic measuring sticks are seriously deficient when it comes to measuring economic reality. This means our capitalist system is running on many false and deceptive assumptions. Gores says:

"Free market capitalist economics is arguably the most powerful tool ever used by civilization... 
     "...But capitalism's recent triumph over communism should lead those of us who believe in it to do more than merely indulge in self-congratulation. We should instead recognize that the victory of the West – precisely because it means the rest of the world is now more likely to adopt our system – imposes upon us a new and even deeper obligation to address the shortcomings of capitalist economics as it is now practiced.
     "The hard truth is that our economic system is partially blind. It 'sees' some things and not others. It carefully measures and keeps track of the value of those things most important to buyers and sellers... and indeed, money itself. But its intricate calculations often completely ignore the value of the other things that are harder to buy and sell... 
     "...The first step (in addressing our shortcomings), is recognizing that economics, like any tool, distorts our relationship to the world even as it gives us impressive new powers...
     "Much of what we don't see with our economics involves the accelerating destruction of the environment... In calculating GNP, natural resources are not depreciated as they are used up. Buildings and factories are depreciated; so are machinery and equipment, cars and trucks. So why, for instance isn't the topsoil in Iowa depreciated when it washes down the Mississippi River after careless agricultural methods have lessened its ability to resist wind and rain? Why isn't that loss measured as an economic cost of the process by which our grain was produced last year? If the rate of topsoil loss is high enough in a given year, the nation may end up poorer, even when the value of the grain produced is taken into account. Meanwhile, our economic reports will assure us that, to the contrary, we are richer for having grown the grain, and richer still because we didn't spend the money required to grow it in an ecologically sound manner and thus keep the topsoil from washing away. ...we have (already) lost more than half of all the topsoil in Iowa.
     "...the heavy use of pesticides may ensure that the grain we grow achieves the highest possible short-term profits, but the careless and excessive use of pesticide poisons the groundwater reservoirs beneath the field... And largely because we have failed to measure the economic value of clean, fresh groundwater, we have contaminated more than half of all the underground reservoirs in the United States with pesticide runoff and other poisonous residues that are virtually impossible to remove. ...GNP treats the rapid and reckless destruction of the environment as a good thing! ...
     "Classical economists... presume to know all the facts surrounding their choices, even if marginal errors of judgment are allowed...
     "...But every production process creates waste; why isn't it accounted for?...
     "Indeed, improvements in productivity – the single most significant measure of economic 'progress' – are currently calculated by a method that embodies yet another absurd assumption: if a new technique has both good and bad consequences, it is permissible, under some circumstances, to measure only the good and simply ignore the bad.... But what if the clever new process result not only in the increased production of good things but also in an even larger increase in the the number of bad things? Shouldn't that count? After all, it may cost a lot of money to deal with the consequences of the extra bad things.
     "And the absurdity doesn't stop here. Later, when expenditures are required to clean up the pollution, they are usually included in the national accounts as another positive entry on the ledger. In other words, the more pollution we create, the more productive contribution we can make to national output. The Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, and efforts to clean it up, to take one example, actually increased our GNP.
     "Classical economists also fail to account properly for all the costs associated with what we call consumption. Every time we consume something, some sort of waste is created, but this fact is conveniently forgotten by classical economists."

So we can see that Al Gore has a handle on some of the most fundamental flaws in our capitalist system as we have come to know it, and its system of economic planning and accounting. These are large issues that go far beyond environmental concerns. In Chapter 9, "Self-Stewardship," Gore asked, "...how did we make so many poor choices along the way?"

"Aside from its uninspired response to the environmental crises, our political system itself has now been exploited, manhandled, and abused to the point that we are no longer making consistently intelligent choices about our course as a nation. For one thing, the way we make political choices has been distorted by the awesome power of the new tools and technologies now available for political persuasion.
    "...why present genuine ideas and true character if artificial ones are more effective in the marketplace of power. And nowhere is this lack of authenticity more of a problem than in our political dialogue. 'Get it while you can; forget about the future' has been enshrined as the political ethic of the age. It is not so much the easy lies we tell each other as the hard truths that are never told at all... Somehow, we have convinced ourselves that that we care far less about what happens to our children than about avoiding the inconvenience and discomfort of paying our own bills. So instead of accepting responsibility for our choices, we simply dump huge mountains of both debt and pollution on future generations.
     "It is increasingly difficult to avoid the conclusion that our political system is itself is deep crisis... And the resulting frustration is intensified because so many people feel our civilization's deepening crisis in their bones and want to see it addressed. ...candidates promise bold leadership but after the election run with the pack. And as voters lose faith in the ability of their elected leaders to make a difference, they inevitably lose faith in their own ability to make a difference. At that point, it becomes clear to everyone that the political system is simply not working."

Cognoscente that the political system is in deep crises and the capitalist economic model that we are now following is seriously flawed, Gore says:

"...the political imagination of Western civilization has been focused on the New World, the place where hope has a second chance... self-government is one of the most sophisticated technologies ever created... the Constitution is a blueprint for an ingenious machine that uses pressure valves and compensating forces to achieve a dynamic balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of the community, between freedom and order, between passions and principles... a point best illustrated by the fact that despite today's dizzying pace of change, a document written more than two hundred years ago is still universally recognized as the world's most forward-looking charter for self-government.
     "...America's hold on the imagination of all humankind has grown steadily stronger. More and more people everywhere have come to believe that the United States, for all its mistakes and excesses, holds the key to important truths about the future of human civilization.
     "...Now that the human community has developed into a truly global civilization, we have a choice: either we search for the means to steer the changes shaping our new common history or we will be steered by them – randomly and chaotically. Either we move toward the light or we move toward the darkness."

Unfortunately some of these ideas might already seem somewhat dated. In Pridger's modest opinion we have been moving toward the darkness for quite some time – including the period when Gore was vice-president. But obviously Gore still sees America's potential to make a difference in the world, based on its founding ideologies. Pridger agrees. The question is, what would an Al Gore presidency do to get us back on the right track toward the light? Could he make a difference if he were elected president?

Gore obviously sees a lot of the big picture – perhaps more than any major party hopeful. Yet when Gore expresses the typical opinion that "isolationism and protectionism" are no longer an option for the United States, and says, "I have therefore come to believe that an essential prerequisite for saving the environment is the spread of democratic governments to more nations of the world," Pridger begins to have a few reservations, though Gore probably wouldn't dream of instituting democracy in foreign nations by force of arms as the current administration is trying to do.

Does Gore think democracy is working here? Or is our system in deep crises, as he said? And, whether or not democratic governments in more nations of the world would help save the environment, our first job is to get it right here before we entertain the thought of getting it right elsewhere.

Gore, in spite of his studies into the causes of global warming, seems to have omitted at least one of the major causes. As the editor of Acres U.S.A. pointed out in an interview with Richard Heinberg ("The Future of Agriculture" in the March 2007 issue), "...carbon dioxide, of course, is a global warming gas that's running amok. You know that we have taken agriculture to high nitrogen use, not only in the United States, but worldwide, and this nitrogen is mostly wasted because it goes off into the air – especially anhydrous, less so with natural nitrogens – where it locks into the oxygen and becomes one form or another of nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide, in turn, is 183 to 212 times more polluting in terms of global warming than carbon dioxide. Yet we find that Al Gore doesn't even mention it in his film, An Inconvenient Truth." Heinberg responds, "That's right... That's yet another reason why we have to reform our entire food system, and very quickly."

"(W)e need to reform our entire food system." That's a big issue! In Earth in the Balance, Gore did mention the problem briefly:

"Fertilizers, too, demand that we make a difficult bargain... widespread use of nitrogen fertilizers can stimulate oxygen deprivation and cause the soil to produce excessive methane and nitrous oxide. As it happens, concentrations of both methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere are increasing and together now account for more than 20 percent of the cause of global warming... the use of nitrogen fertilizer is now considered one of the major causes of increased emissions..."

Though Al Gore may may not have the whole picture, and whole solutions, exactly right, he obviously has many times more relevant issues in focus than any other potential candidate for the presidency who has come forth as a contender. Al Gore both thinks and stands for something – rare commodities in presidential politics. For this reason he is probably unelectable and probably will not be drafted. A Gore presidency would threaten too many powerful vested interests.

We, in all our supposed wisdom and power, have managed to get the whole world going right down the same ecologically and economically disastrous path that we have foolishly taken in all of our presumed wisdom. In a very short-sighted attempt to "clean up our environment" we have sent our dirt industries elsewhere, and have managed to help China and other countries start down the very same wrong paths we have taken – over-industrialization, and conversion to chemical based, industrial scale, agriculture.

Gore, being a Democrat, would likely attempt to find global solutions, through the United Nations and the Kyoto treaty process, rather than concentrating on getting our own national house in order first as quickly as possible with comprehensive national solutions. It's too bad that we've gone to such lengths to get the rest of the world to follow our unenlightened example. But, though it is important to continue to work within the international community to effect change, we must begin where we have the most influence and ability to effect positive change the most quickly – at home. We should work on our own house first, and get it right (because that's where we live), and, once we get it right, then we can righteously expect the world will follow. 

John Q. Pridger

Saturday, 3 March, 2007

THE STOCK MARKET HAS THE HICCUPS AGAIN

Some investors are getting a little nervous again as well they should. It can probably be safely assumed that the stocks in general are still substantially overvalued, and a grossly overvalued market is a weapon of mass destruction poised to go off without notice.

The stock market was not actually established to be a massive gambling operation, but that's what it has nonetheless become. It's a huge casino where people win and lose by buying and selling stocks for profit. The difference between winning and losing is getting out in time. Most of those who don't sell quick enough become losers.

Originally, the idea was to make it possible for the public to purchase an ownership stake in corporate stocks. If the company did well, it would pay dividends to the stockowners. That was the original hope of gain in owning stocks. Generally speaking appreciation of stock value was not a company function, though if a company did well it's stock prices would naturally be bid upward by buyers as the company was presumed to be worth more. The company could gain the benefit of these increases by issuing new stock to the public at the higher rates the market dictated.

The stock market evolved into a gambling casino well over a century ago. There was a basic value-cost ratio formula for determining a basic fair value of a company's stocks – to determine whether any given stock might under or overvalued. But more and more frequently in recent times the market price of stock goes up or down on the power of the bidding process on the strength of rumors or market impulses. Sometimes stocks go up without any connection to any sort of reality. Now ownership of companies is hardly a major consideration in acquiring stock. Who cares about the company, as long as the stock seems to be a good bet? And bet is the correct term.

Most individual investors today look at the market as something to "play." They play the market in hopes of buying low and selling high. Value of the company is secondary. Dividends have become secondary. Some companies don't even bother any more. They prefer to reinvest gains and ad value in order raise stock values so they sell new stock at higher rates, rather than to make distributions to stockowners who couldn't care less about the company.

Stock values are bid upward by the market more often, and more regularly, than value is gained in the company itself. With the advent of individual computer trading, more and more investors are of the "day trader" variety, buying on an up trend and selling as soon as a clear profit is to be taken.

The entire market is subject to mass psychology and hysteria. A word from the Chairman of the Federal Reserve can send stock prices up or down. A mere rumor can do it. These things are at work with individual stocks as well as with the entire market. And, since the financial and stock markets are now global, a hiccup in the Chinese or European market can be telegraphed into the American market overnight, resulting in the sort of "corrections" we've experienced in the past week.

Everybody is edgy because the markets are actually a lot more volatile than we like to think. Stability is a facade – buoyed by hope and, more and more frequently, desperate behind the scenes maneuvering to is used to prevent or retard massive sell offs.

We have a global problem on our hands and it is called the American dollar. We live in a global economy that is tremendously inflationary. It's almost impossible for the Federal Reserve to do anything about it but continue to inflate. To fail to continue inflationary policies would be to invite a catastrophic crash in the markets. But continuing to inflate will insure that the value will continue to leak out of the dollar at an accelerating rate.

Unfortunately, the market is not significantly under the control of the Fed or anybody else. The Fed can only tinker a little by manipulating prime interest rates, and must do it very cautiously. Beyond that, (along with the Treasury Department and maybe the Department of Homeland Security), it probably has some emergency machinery in place to try to stop a major crash by purchasing massive amounts of stock with new dollars (more inflation). But, in the final analysis, markets always tend to be self-correcting, and they can make the correction on their own, and probably in spite of any safety value gimmickry. Both the dollar and the markets survive on public faith – something that was once reserved to the religious faithful. If and when those levies of faith are broken, a massive, perhaps unstoppable, selling panic is bound to follow.

The up side of a catastrophic stock market crash (if you could call it an upside), is that it's about the only way to effect a serious deflation of the currency. Such an event would sorely hurt everybody whose wealth is directly or indirectly invested in the stock market (which is most of us). But a crash would help save some of the value represented by "cash" and deposit dollars by simply evaporating all the dollars represented in the market losses. A crash could effectively wipe out hundreds of billions of what is effectively false wealth restoring the vitality of remaining dollars. This would leave holders of cash, and especially hard assets such as gold, in an enviable position (provided they can find something to eat).

John Q. Pridger

IF PRIDGER WERE ELECTED PRESIDENT

The first order of the day would be to pull our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We've done about as much damage in that part of the world as we ought to permit ourselves for the time being. We'd apologize as best we could and tell the Iraqi's and Afghanis to send us a bill when they've got everything sorted out and added up. We'll send the money, provided the amount is reasonable, just as soon as they have settled down and learned to rule themselves again. Lord knows we've given them enough lessons. Now it's their turn to get their house back into order.

Of course, we might reason that we've already paid for all the damages once, but since about $12 billion in cash have simply disappeared, the fault is not with the Iraqis nearly as much with the ones who shipped the cash over there in the first place.

Most importantly, it's high time we started getting our house back into order. Our leadership should have recognized that a long time ago but have failed to recognize that we have a serious problem that requires insight, dedication, and a lot of hard work.

Pridger's New World Order plan would be to go back to the drawing board with a clean sheet of paper – then leave the paper blank for a while. Under a Pridger administration the United Nations would no longer anything having to do with American citizens, American industries, any piece of American real estate, or how we conduct our trade. We'd protect our own markets to the extent they should be protected to insure control of our own national economic destiny and security.

We would cooperate with the United Nations on problems concerning the global environment and perhaps several other areas such as discouraging aggression and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but no United Nations "Law" or "Regulation" would be applicable within any United States jurisdiction, or with regard to our ships on the high seas.

This said, the United States should be the international leader, not a follower, in solving global environmental and economic problems. It should lead by example, without arrogance. And, while jealously guarding the interests of the American people, be receptive and cooperative when "good ideas" come from any other nation or the body of the UN itself – but never relinquish an iota national sovereignty or allow itself to become legally fettered by UN mandates.

This is not crawling "back into an isolationist and protectionist" shell, but merely reasserting the right of national self-protection – the right of every sovereign nation has to be secure within its own borders with a national economy calculated to nurture the conditions conductive to the "right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Under a Pridger administration, there would no longer be any call for us to answer charges of international military aggression or human rights abuses. We'd return to being the global champion of what was once known as "Truth, justice, and the American Way." Nobody would have call to lecture us on human rights or consider us a Great Satan.

While we would reserve all of our rights as a nation, we would be first and foremost in exercising those rights with utmost responsibility and consideration to and for the global community of nations.

Perhaps a time would evolve when we might once again consider ourselves a Christian nation, and no longer have cause to be ashamed of such recognition. If not that, at least be considered a "good nation" once again.

Pridger would issue an executive order mandating that all of our legislators and top officials, including federal judges, re-examine the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Federalist Papers, and the writings of our founders. 

Then, they would be strongly encouraged to scrutinize American history and attempt to determine what led to our success as a nation – what we did right, and what we have done wrong.

Pridger, as president, would present Congress with a comprehensive national plan – essentially a national economic plan – as a rough guideline to what a sustainable, environmentally friendly, national economy should look like, and how to begin moving in that direction. It would combined agrarianism refocused on the family farm system; distributionism, with regard to individual free enterprise activities, including mercantilism and all nature of small business enterprise; and national capitalism for a productive and sustainable industrial sector. It would also include a plan for a new national monetary system, separate from, and independent of, international finance.

The goal would be to reestablish national independence with a productive and sustainable economy that would serve as an example to all other large and viable nation-states.

Pridger's New World Order would be one where national self-reliance in food and consumer goods, rather than international interdependence in such things, is considered the predominate imperative. We cannot help but be internationally interdependent in many ways in a modern world, so Pridger doesn't advocate that nations build brick and mortar walls around themselves, but merely that all nations try to take care of their own ballywhacks for the benefit and security of their own citizens, while engaging in trade with other nations on a truly mutually beneficial basis.

To illustrate what whet wrong we might begin with a look at the following simple illustrations:

The two illustrations above show Pridger's idea of economic progress we've seen as a nation – the most solid economic structure on the left, and a dangerously inverted economic structure on the right. We experienced our most stellar, and still very stable economic development from the early 1900s through about 1950. This period is represented by the barrel shape captioned 1900. In the latter half of the twentieth century, be began to develop some serious economic imbalances.

In the illustration directly above, the green colored areas represent the agrarian sector of the economy – the economic foundation of any nation. The yellow areas represent the private industrial and service sector of the economy. The red area represents the degree our economy depends on foreign trade. The orange areas represent the public sector (government, etc.). The colored areas are not scientifically accurate, but are close enough to make the point intended. The shapes (pyramid, barrel, top), indicate degrees of stability, equilibrium, and sustainability.

When the nation was young it was largely agrarian with a strong base of family farmers that insured a secure and abundant food supply for the nation. Wedded to the ground, they were the base and substance of the national economy. The rest of the economy was largely tradesmen, artisans, and merchants. We were dependent on foreign trade for many of our manufactured goods, and government was relatively small.

By our middle years our agrarian base had shrunk somewhat in terms of people involved due to progress in farming methods and machinery, but production had increased and continued to produce a food surplus. But the agrarian sector was still large enough to provide a solid and sufficiently broad base. We had developed a huge and growing industrial sector, and our dependence on foreign trade was much smaller than it had been earlier. In fact, we were almost totally industrially independent, exporting much more manufactured goods than we imported. We had actually overdeveloped industrially, which soon made the theretofore unnoticed problems of industrialization apparent. Government had grown too, of course, and has grown steadily throughout our history.

Presently, we see the original pyramid shape again, only inverted. Our agrarian sector, in terms of people involved, relatively self-reliant family farms, and diversified farming practices, is just about gone. Though corporate sized farms and agribusiness continue to produce more than sufficient food, the industry is no longer self-reliant nor sustainable. It depends on huge, unsustainable, mono cropping operations and equally huge chemical inputs, and on literal factory farm "meat" operations.

Our agricultural base