Experience; Hillary versus Obama versus logic

Experience

 

    Today one of the young female announcers on the FOX NEWS Channel (around 10:30 o'clock PDT) said that the majority of Democrats consider Hillary to have better experience to be president than Obama.  That announcer should rephrase her comment, to: "The majority of young,
inexperienced "democrats" view Hillary as better prepared than Obama".

    Most of we older (traditional) Democrats, who not only have a good knowledge of history but long experience in our lifetimes, view Hillary as nothing more than an absolute opportunist who will do anything for power, hence her never ending changing of views and opinions matching the undulating news media broadcast of various polls.

    Hillary's major experience, as far as we are concerned, was her high involvement in the management of the (never fully investigated) Whitewater
fraud in Arkansas that took millions from investors.  President Clinton fired all 93 federal attorneys (was his purpose to prevent prosecution of Mrs. Clinton?).  Remember, the "independent" prosecutor worked for Attorney General Janet Reno, who in turn was in the employ of Bill Clinton.  At best, we could say the Clintons' investigated themselves through a surrogate.  The final result was obvious from the beginning, as many of we older Democrats predicted.

   Since my vote for John F. Kennedy in 1960, and more than 45 years as a Democrat, like so many others, I feel that we traditional liberals simply no longer have representation in any White House candidate, and very little in the House or Senate.  Jerry Zeifman, Chief Counsel in the Nixon Impeachment, refers to many who have commandeered control of the Party today as "illiberals".     Obama, in that he is the precise antithesis of JFK on so many issues, from US sovereignty to taxes, certainly "is no Jack Kennedy"!!!!!!!!

    To those who want to use the power of government for their personal benefit, John Kennedy said,   "And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country".

 

    Most of we who will not violate democratic principles regardless of party affiliations, will very likely be voting for Congress Member Ron Paul for president in November, even if it is simply a "write-in" protest.  We may be far outnumbered by the masses of voters who have no clue as to the history of the Democrat philosophy, going back to Magna Carta (c.1215), but we do not surrender to interlopers and infiltrators who have reversed the meaning and morality of our Party.  We do not vote for a candidate only because that candidate claims to be a "democrat".  We remain loyal and committed to, as Magna Carta began the movement, limiting the powers of those who administer the functions of governance.  Government power, then delegated by The Church, was referred to as "the divine right of kings" and royals.  Do we want to return to that concept?  I repeat:  Do we want to return to that (socialistic-omnipotence of government)
concept????

A. Benton Edmons, editorialist, The Centrist Democrat International
Disclaimer: TCDI, a newsletter disseminating the viewpoints of traditional Democrats, is not in any way affiliated with any political faction of any country

13536 Lakewood Bl, PMB 326

Bellflower, CA, USA 90706-2031

Global Economic Equalization - - Free Trade Agreements

One Democrats Opinion

Date:  25 Fe 08

NAFTA, CAFTA, NAU, etc., vs. "Global Economic Equalization"

     Are NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO and other international agreements that provide uneven economic advantage for other countries, the major and real causes of so many industries and jobs being "exported" from the USA to foreign countries?  Do these agreements put Americans at a major disadvantage compared to job seekers in other countries?  Do these programs cause unemployment in the USA?

     Did you know that the "Global Economic Equalization" that we have been experiencing since the mid-1980s (most often referred to as:"globalization") is a result of the advancing development and proliferation of "information technology" (IT); economical computers and programming?    It has been the massive reduction of costs of computers and programming that made the "international industrial revolution" a fact.  This lowering of costs made possible the rapid growth of engineering, business and industry in India, China, Brasil, Vietnam, Indonesia and many other countries.  The leadership of countries competing with the USA realized and understood the colossal power of computerization, which would enable them to establish both light and heavy industry, as well as business advisory and technical staffs for worldwide competition at very low start-up costs.  These well informed officials reacted by enrolling millions of their citizens in IT education, science and business, readying them for the world of today; while American administrations, concentrating on "social" education, have been reducing our studies of engineering, science, math, IT, etc.   NOTE:  Most early computer and programming development came out of American technological development.

    Obviously, WTO is simply an international "welfare" program, paid for by you, the American taxpayer, for the benefit and enrichment of bankers and of the governing regimes of other countries.  NAU is designed to be, more than anything else, an invitation for tens of millions more invaders from around the world to enter the USA.   As it is an "open borders" agenda between the USA, Canada and México it would allow untold millions of people, from any number of countries, to sneak into Canada or México, then simply cross the borders to get into the USA.

     Are you aware that it is not actually the programs themselves, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc., but the administration of of these international agreements, that leaves Americans without the technological jobs?  In the world economy of today we really do have to adjust to the proliferation of foreign industries that provide quality competition equal to our products and services.  If we choose economic isolation by curtailing trade agreements, turning our backs on the rest of the world, attempting to maintain the American dominance of the past, we will price ourselves out of competition, and eventually into economic ruin.  If we cannot sell our products to other countries because of our higher costs of production, thus requiring prices higher than our competition, Americans will not earn the money needed to buy the goods we need from other countries, such as oil.   Already America has the world's largest trade deficit, resulting in some countries no longer accepting the USDollar!

     Already our US Dollar has been greatly devalued compared with most world currencies, especially the Euro.  In the late 1990s the Euro was equal to about US$0.82.  Today the Euro is almost double that value against the US Dollar, meaning Americans have lost close to half of their previous ability to buy international products and services.  American isolationism, as demanded by those who oppose (honest, equilateral and beneficial for all) free trade, could drive the USA into a negative economic collapse that would make the "great" depression seem like a picnic.

     The solution is not to cancel all of our trade agreements.  For true prosperity, we must maintain world trade, but re-negotiate all of the trade agreements to make them equally favorable for both Americans and people of other countries. Global Economic Equalization means that all the world will eventually have equal access to prosperity.  In reality there is no need to limit any country.  Human genius can always continue developing better lives for all of humanity.

     To be competitive, we must not throw up barriers to trade, but we increase our American ingenious attitude of the past in order to provide better and higher quality technology so Americans can offer better products and services at the lowest cost to the world, as we always did in the past.   Let's live in the future, not demand to rest on our past laurels of accomplishments that benefited the entire world.  We CAN do it again!!

     Overall, free trade is the democratization needed throughout the world, but on an equal and fair basis; not in the manner that NAFTA, CAFTA and other agreements now penalizes Americans and provides massive and unfair advantages for other countries.

The prices you pay:  Taxes and fees

     Compared to countries like Ireland, Poland and a host of others that have reduced taxation to minimum, now enjoying extraordinary economic growth and prosperity, what is the effect of the punitively high US business taxes/tariffs for American consumers? 

     Regardless of on whom taxes are levied (on business, on the "rich", on industry, on foreign products), it is the final consumer, and/or the lower middle income earner, who ultimately pays all taxes and fees.  How, you may reasonable ask?    To industry and business, unless we impose fascist controls, taxes and fees are no different to any other costs of doing business.  In order to succeed in business, all costs, including taxes and fees, become part of the prices of products and services, paid by final consumers. Thus, in reality, YOU pay all taxes and fees levied on the "rich".  Who are the "rich"?  Under tax planning now being promoted by politicians the "rich" targeted for higher taxes will be anyone who earns more than about $45,000 annually.

Repeat after me:  In reality, you pay those taxes/tariffs in higher prices for the goods and services you buy!

NAFTA:  North American Free Trade Agreement
CAFTA:  China/Asia Free trade Agreement
WTO:  World Trade Organization
NAU:  North American Union (similar to the EU [European Union] except that NAU includes unjust purposes).

     To increase American prosperity for all, we need re-negotiation of all trade agreements, but we definitely need the trade.  We need stronger eduction for all our youth; education that will make them successfully competitive as compared to the working people of other countries.

A. Benton Edmons, editorialist,
TCDI in not in any way affiliated with any political faction of any country
13536 Lakewood Bl, PMB 326
Bellflower, CA, USA 90706-2031

Answering Questions from Subscribers

One Democrat's Opinion

Responding to questions from subscribers of The Centrist Democrat International newsletter about the United Nations

 

    On waking up the people:  The re-writing of history in our school texts has been so thorough (since the 1940s, and even back to the 1920s) that very few people have any accurate knowledge of much of historic events occurring before their childhood, and even events afterward are cleverly distorted.  The most used "tool" of the revisionists is 'selective omission' of facts and events, or distortion of them. As a very wise person observed, "Those who do not learn history [this reporter would add: 'especially of the planned divisive and devastating events'] are doomed to repeat it."

   The contemporary protégés of those President Abraham Lincoln referred to as "the money power" [the people who used their financial power to increase and promote "racism" as a means to instigate disintegration of the Union, culminating in the "Civil" War) have so infiltrated nearly every facet of societies of America and around the world, from schools to unions, to political parties, to religions,  to social organizations, even some police forces and veterans organizations, medical bureaucracies, etc.,  that they have acquired near controlling influence of most every facet of life.

   Thankfully, the Internet, though "the money power" has also both infiltrated it and attempted to use local, federal and international taxation as a means to quash open dialog within it, is probably the best vehicle available to bring about understanding, thus eventually eradicate the power of collectivism (socialism - "the money power").  Through their control of central banks of most countries, they derive their power.  Our power on the democratic side, on the other hand, is understanding the (socialist) power seekers methods and "tools".

   It is my conviction that we must keep the Internet free of control by any authority, such as the taxation the UN wants to slap onto it.

   The United Nations, in my opinion, is both the visible authority of the hidden "money power", as well as their very vulnerable "Achilles heel" (due to its' history).   If somewhat full understanding of the history of the UN can be presented to, and absorbed by 10% to 15% of the people, the "marching feet" of the power of socialism could be "cut off" (by curtailing US taxpayer funding of the UN). 

    One of our major problems is the infiltration of the news media (print, radio and TV; especially women's magazines, even sports and entertainment) by the pawns of "the money power", which puts major effort into never discussing the horrendous crimes of the UN (the practice of "selective omission") while only summarily mentioning the most minor offenses committed by the administrators of the proposed "world government".

   We must get truthful information about the UN into our schools. 

   People like you (those who have asked questions on the UN, and who put pressure on elected representatives) are to be commended.  Those who write "letters to editors" of newspapers are also of immense help in this struggle against tyranny.  The smaller newspapers are less likely to be "money power" controlled than the larger ones.

    Few people realize that it is jealousy, avarice and megalomania that drives all forms of socialism (regardless of the synonym of socialism used:  dictatorship, Communism, Nazism, Fascism, theocracy, collectivism, or others).  It is the genius level megalomaniacs who empower the excessively greedy, and devise the indoctrination that influences the "do-gooders", using the hate of jealousy, among those who do the dirty work of perverting education, religions, politics, unions, the news media, "race" relations, entertainment, etc.

    The megalomaniacs want power over all people.  Some actually believe themselves to be promoters of human welfare. They use those consumed by avarice who want to take what others produce for themselves, but without doing the work or devising productive and honest means of acquiring those things.  The jealous want to be seen as being better or more important than anyone else (ex:  the homicide/martyrdom bombers - - usually referred to as "suicide" bombers - - whose intent is not suicide, but is the insanity of martyrdom).

    Even President Woodrow Wilson, including his support of the League of Nations, later regretted his approval of the income tax and the private central bank, the Federal Reserve System, the two major actions that (re)established "the money power" influence over the financial system of the ; both Presidents Jackson [D] and Lincoln [R], as well as JFK [D], did all they could to eradicate "money power" control of America's financial/political affairs.   Baron von Rothschild, "I care not who makes the laws, so long as I can issue the money and set it's value".   The "money power" bankers have always considered themselves above and beyond laws governing all other people.  

 

The establishment of the income tax and the FRS (during the Wilson Administration) was the turning point in America, toward centralized (socialist) power (in actuality, America suffered a silent coup d'état).   In 1945, the establishment of the UN was the beginning of putting "teeth" into visible enforcement of hidden "money power" authority.

   The influence of "the money power" on contemporary American politicians is obvious in that most of them, Democrat and Republican, "conservative" and "liberal" alike, use the power of their elective office, not to conserve Constitutional provisions limiting federal powers, but to override the Constitution by increasing centralized and international governmental reach into the lives of each and every inhabitant.   Ex:  The present "health care" insurance scam (surrendering individual health care decisions to government bureaucrats) is nothing less than greatly increasing governmental control in the economic lives of every individual, and will not
empower the people for better access to health care; "Universal Health Care" will ultimately only give distant and "cloudy" bureaucracies more control of individuals and increase the overall expense of health care for everyone, just as the Medicare expansion has done (the "back door" entry to universal health care).

   Understanding is our most powerful "weapon". Every act of government and those with control over the nation's economic system must be very minutely scrutinized. Another wise person cautioned us, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance". Most of the active patriots during the many years of the American Revolution better understood the eternal struggle between civilizations than any of our Senators or Members of Congress of today. The two forms of opposing civilization have always been, 1. The collective (centralized) power (now referred to as 'socialist civilization'), and 2. Decentralized political power vested in all of the inhabitants of a society (now referred to as 'democratic civilization'). The socialist threat of centralized power over all people will always exist in that jealousy, avarice and megalomania will always be mental and emotional distortions among mankind, driving the perpetrators of dictatorial powers. To maintain and expand human liberty accurate recording of history must be made profusely available to every inhabitant of the nation, and of the world.

 

A. Benton Edmons, editorialist, The Centrist Democrat International

TCDI is not in any way affiliated with any political faction of any country

13536 Lakewood Bl, PMB 326

Bellflower, CA, USA 90706

Replacing our Constitution

One Democrat's Opinion

Date:  13 Fe 08

Why, as a Democrat for over 45 years, will I be voting against both the "Republican" candidate and the pretend-"Democrat", Barack Obama, if he becomes the "Democratic" candidate for the presidency? 

    There is now a Bill under discussion in the US Senate,  sponsored by Barack Obama.  It is legislation that if approved, would ratify treaties with the effect of furtively rescinding the human rights protections of American citizens included in our Constitution, and would surrender almost all of our national sovereignty to foreign bureaucrats, most of whom hate both democratic civilization and the USA.

    One , among many of my reasons, is Obama's sponsoring of this Bill
to surrender most of  American sovereignty, with respect to : taxation (enacting international taxation authority without consent of the American people - - that was the cause of the American Revolution against England), to naval operations, to administration of US foreign aid, to US environmental policy, to elimination of Constitutional Habeas Corpus and other legal protections of American citizens (by subjecting Americans to foreign legal prosecution), among other powers that would then be vested in unelected officials of the United Nations.

   What is that Bill now in the Senate?  It is disguised as "The Global Poverty Act"; but is in truth both a raid on the US taxpayers treasury and a surrendering of almost all parts of American sovereignty to the foreign bureaucrats of the United Nations.  This Bill provides for an additional $845 Billion of your tax dollars in foreign aid to be distributed by the UN.

    Are you aware, as in the "UN Oil for Food" scam (supposedly to provide food and medicine for Iraqis during the last years of the Saddam regime, in which between $10 and $20 Billion was diverted to the bank accounts of UN officials and their cronies), that probably far more than half of all
"humanitarian aid" provided to UN administrators never reaches the poor?  The embezzlement and diversion of aid at the UN equals more than the national budgets of many countries around the world.  Did you know that the US taxpayer provides more than half of all UN funding (including "foreign aid" that is "earmarked" to pay UN dues for other countries)?

    To surrender all these sovereign powers of the USA to the UN would absolutely breach and defeat our Constitutional protections by putting all American citizens under the authority of UN bureaucrats and judges; effectively (though not stated) the President of the United States would become simply a lower level functionary (like a governor) of a "state" (a subdivision) of the UN, and the Congress, thus the vote of the people, would be bypassed; UN edicts then becoming the supreme law of our country and of the world.

    Abraham Lincoln said a "house divided against itself cannot stand"; this is exactly the case with respect to attempting to support both the Constitution of these United States and the Charter of the United Nations.  This divides your loyalty; one cannot be both a supporter of democratic civilization while supporting it's antithesis,  socialistic civilization.  

• The US Constitution is a structure, a foundation, for government that distributes ultimate political power among all the people through electing their own officials. 
  
• However, the UN Charter provides for only centralized authority control with ultimate power vested in a tiny elitist cabal of bureaucrats (as was the case with the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and other socialist regimes such as present day Iran, North Korea and Cuba).
  

    What could we expect in a world  without democratic nations like the USA?   Everyone had best put some deep thought into this question.  The "Global Poverty Act" very certainly does have, if enacted, the capacity to gradually eliminate democratic civilization throughout the planet.

    Did you know that of the total of 191 member "states" of the UN, less than 50 allow any semblance of authentic democratic civilization within their borders.   The ironic question is, "Why would any Democrat support such an organization in which the vast majority of member 'states', approximately 140 of the 191, are both anti-democratic and anti-American?"   Also, why do our politicians insist that we taxpayers provide the money used to pay those who hate and oppose us?

The "Global Poverty Act" MUST BE DEFEATED!

A. Benton Edmons, editorialist,
The Centrist Democrat International
TCDI is not in any way affiliated with any political faction of any country
13536 Lakewood Bl, PMB 326
Bellflower, CA, USA 90706

Truly a “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”: Hillary

One Democrat's Opinion

 

Date:  05 Fe 08

BEFORE CRITICIZING OTHERS, ENSURE THAT YOUR OWN HOUSE (PARTY) IS DEVOID OF INVERSE AND UNSCRUPULOUS INDIVIDUALS; most candidates today are truly "wolves in sheep's clothing"

   One of the ladies in the discussion with Shepard Smith today said (on the FOX NEWS Channel), "Republicans don't want to allow a Democrat in the White House".  If this is so why have Republicans not supported a candidate of their Party who truly may beat the (pretend) "Democrat" candidates (Barack and Hillary)?

   Note:  Traditional Democrats have no candidate in this election.  To we traditional Democrats, the term 'liberal' has been distorted to mean the same in America as it does in Europe: 'Socialist', in short "illiberals"!  This fits Obama because he is at least honest in his quest to centralize governing authority over every minute of the lives of all the people under omnipotent control by bureaucrats in Washington, even their health care.  However, Hillary has no convictions, other than doing anything and everything that will acquire power for Hillary.  She is no "liberal", she is the ultimate among ingenious political opportunists.

   People in the USA are no longer prepared for elections.  In general we are far too well "educated" in the quest of factionalization on the basis of religion, "race", gender and ethnicity that are used by clever propagandists (indoctrinationalists) to divide Americans against each other on petty issues that are specifically designed to generate chaos across the nation (as was done to Yugoslavia). 

    Few voters today understand the structure of democratic civilization (the opposite of socialist civilization); that we must support the Constitutional framework that built the greatest nation in history.  Instead of voting for candidates who will promise anything to factions to get a vote (although those promises specifically imply establishing powers prohibited to the federal government by the Constitution [10th Amendment]), voting must be on principles holding the country together.  Of course we cannot rely on what a candidate says.  The reason the Constitution provides that the president be at least 35 years of age is that we have to rely on a candidates long term personal history, not their promises, to understand what he or she really may do in the future.  Worst of all are candidates who, once elected, will continue the consolidation of dominance by "the money power" elitist cabal that acquired control of our economy in 1913, and who have gradually acquired majority control (through money influence) in both major political parties.

    Due to the Republican candidates being promoted by the Party, and especially by the News Media, we are nearly guaranteed that the (false) Democrat candidate (either Obama or Hillary) will occupy the White House as of next January.  This would almost certainly be a repeat of the economic disaster and foreign hatred of Americans generated by the Eisenhower and Carter Administrations, or worse, perhaps a full fledged (new) "Great" Depression.  The Carter people not only generated the most damaging inflation in modern times resulting in the highest nationwide home buyers interest rates in US history, the highest unemployment since the "Great" Depression, , but the present hostile situation with Iran grew out of the Carter betrayal of the fledgling democratic government that was in the course of being established there by the Shah.

    Worth repeating:  At this point in time we traditional Democrats have no candidate in this election year.  Like Senator Joseph Lieberman, authentic Democrats have been forced out!  Also, the only announced Republican, that very likely would have beaten interlopers Obama or Hillary in November, has been ridiculed, mocked and side-lined by the News Media, including the loyal pundits controlling Republican commentary.   In that all other announced presidential candidates of both the major parties encourage centralizing more power in Washington through a national health program, among other destructively costly breaches of Constitutional provisions, Congress Member Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who firmly represents the Constitution, and the only one who could be victorious in November.  Perhaps an alternative political party will grow into prominence this year and elect our president?  This, of course, would depend on the ability to overcome news media bias.

    The authentic liberal movement began as the intent to reduce government powers over the individual, starting with Magna Carta in England (c.1215) in the argument over land ownership; whether the Church allocated "divine right of kings" legitimately gave "royals" the power take what they wanted from the people.  The "liberal" movement of today (which is in truth solidly "illiberal"), a reversal of the original intent of liberals, instead of continuing and expansion of the freedoms and rights of the individual, now increasingly consolidates more power in the bureaucracies of Washington.

    American rights and freedoms grew from Colonial times right up until the 1960s, . . then began the "illiberal" trend (reversal of the long history of the growth of liberty), and now government is gradually regaining absolute power over the population.  Which way America? . .  this is the question we must answer.  Will we degrade back toward socialist civilization (centralized power held by elitists), or will democratic civilization again expand (political power disseminated throughout the population)?  Will we continue to vote as factions (as desired by the instigators of chaos), or will we vote for the betterment of all people of the nation?

A. Benton Edmons, editorialist, The Centrist Democrat International
TCDI is not in any way affiliated with any political faction (party) of any country
13536 Lakewood Bl, PMB 326
Bellflower, CA, USA 90706-2031
Date:  05 Fe 08 (California Primary Election Day)

Poll on both Immigration to, and Invasion of, the USA

Poll On:  BORDER SOVEREIGNTY OF THE USA, an INTEGRAL part of American National Defense

You may want to respond to, and/or copy and send this poll to your correspondents.

Immigrants are only those people of foreign origin who come to the USA through the lawful process. 

Invaders are those people foreign origin who violate our laws to enter the USA. Most invaders continue violating other laws after entry.

Any of the following; nationality, language group, "race", skin coloration, religion, or other ethnicity , is not an issue in this poll.

What is your position on both invasion of, and immigration to, the United States?

 Support and welcome immigrants, but firmly oppose invaders?

 

Yes

 

No

 Welcome invaders, oppose immigrants?

 

Yes

 

No

 Welcome both immigrants and invaders?

 

Yes

 

No

Build a fence along the border?

 

Yes

 

No

 I am opposed to granting legal status to invaders.

 

Yes

 

No

 I favor a guest worker program (similar to the "bracero" program of earlier years), but consider this as a need only after stopping the millions of invaders violating our democratically enacted immigration, employment, social services, driving and other laws.

 

Yes

 

No

Tighten security first, but I also believe we should provide a path to citizenship for invaders who are already here and have no criminal record.

 

Yes

 

No

I favor stiff fines for employers who hire invaders, a security fence along the border, and a denial of citizenship to children born here of parents who are in the U.S. as invaders.

 

Yes

 

No

 I oppose any form of amnesty, such as the McCain-Kennedy ruse.

 

Yes

 

No

Bring 50,000 American military personnel home from Korea, Japan and Germany (in that occupation ended in those countries decades ago) to reinforce the Border Patrol and our Coast Guard.

 

Yes

 

No

Is this issue important to you?

Not at all  Somewhat  Very