Is AIDS a Deliberately Created Biological Agent?

We've been led to believe that AIDS came from African Green Monkeys, but  many very intelligent people, including doctors, lawyers and Nobel Peace Prize winners seem to think that this fatal leap from ape to man theory is pure rubbish, backed up by politically motivated, psuedoscience. Moreover, they can prove Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) was created in a lab with documentation. And some, such as Dr. Body 'Ed' Graves, J.D., have experienced, first hand, the ramifications of not only exposing that evidence, but through his personal experience with HIV/AIDS.

In 2004, ecologist Wangari Maathai, the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize, claimed that the AIDS virus was a deliberately created biological agent, a genocidal plot against the third world. She won the prize for her work in human rights and reversing deforestation across Africa.

How is this possible when genetic manipulation is, from what we've been told, fairly recent technology? Well, according to Dr. Romesh Senewiratne, if you read the work of Macfarlane Burnet (biological warfare expert) and publications of the Walter and Eliza Hall institute in the 1950s and 60s you will find that techniques for genetic manipulation of viruses through a range of means was underway long before the appearance of HIV. In fact, you can trace the genetic engineering/manipulation back to the early 1900s, beginning with the Rockefeller-funded research of Peyton Rous, who transplanted cancer between species in the early 1900s.

“When "kuru" (a New Guinean term [to represent] infective spongiform encephalitis [now referred to as prion]) ) was first described by Carlton Gadjusek and MacFarlane Burnet as an infective agent "spread by cannibalism" in the 1950s, it was described as a "slow virus". These were later termed "retroviruses". In fact, the infection they called "kuru" is pathologically indistinguishable from a sheep virus known as "scrapie". It so happens that the epidemic broke out very close to an ANZAC Second World War base, and that Macfarlane Burnet (from Melbourne University) and Gadjusek (from NIH) were both biological warfare experts.
[...]
HIV was developed as a retrovirus (previously called a 'slow virus') by scientists in Australia, USA, Japan and France. It was seeded into targeted populations through a number of means - infected batches of vaccines, blood transfusions and other blood products, and possibly specially bred mosquitoes (entomological warfare, at which Australia's CSIRO are world leaders)...
[...]
My research suggests that HIV was manufactured from selective splicing of pathogenic genes into the sheep retrovirus known as "scrapie" using bacteriophage technology (in which the Australian scientist Sir Frank MacFarlane Burnet was a pioneer in the 1940s, 50s and 60s). Infected batches of vaccines (notably hepatitis B vaccines, injected polio and smallpox vaccines) are implicated in the initial epidemics in Africa and the USA and subsequent epidemics in New Guinea and the Pacific Islands.-- Dr. Romesh Senewiratne

One more thing. HIV/AIDS is not a gay disease, which becomes evident once you begin looking at the epidemiological facts. Since this biological agent began ravaging sub-Saharan Africa--which is home to just over 12% of the world’s population but two-thirds of all people infected with HIV, 13 women for every 10 men--in the early 1980s it has NOT been associated with either homosexuality or injecting drug use there.












"Eugenics and Genocide in the Modern World - the Cause of the AIDS Epidemic"

Read more...

The Great Man Made Global Warming Swindle May Finally Come to an End.

Why did the temp go DOWN at the same time industrial
growth and CO2 level soared, if global warming is man-made?

The "theory" of man-made global warming, untroubled by any contrary evidence no matter how strong, is now so firmly entrenched, the voices of opposition so effectively silenced that it seems virtually impossible to stop this myth [see video below]  from continuing to perpetuate.

There are billions and billions of dollars invested in the "anthropogenic global warming" industry, which means there is a huge constituency dependent upon those dollars, and they have every intention of ensuring that this agenda plays forward, despite the total lack of hard evidence.

However, there is hope.  The Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) just announced that a news conference has been scheduled for August 21, 2013, during which the end of global sea level rise will be formally declared and a specific timetable for sea level decline will be released.

“Mr. Casey clarifies by saying, “ One of the myths of manmade climate change caused by human CO2 emissions has been the threat to the world’s largest cities caused by global sea level rise. Two years ago we issued a preliminary finding that within two or three years the data to make a final assessment on the future of global sea level rise would be available. That data is in. It is time to provide a formal statement on the end of global sea level rise, the latest phase of which began roughly two hundred years ago. Like most major climate events, the past sea level rise was caused by the Sun and had little or nothing to do with mankind’s industrial greenhouse gas emissions. Now that the Sun has entered a state of “solar hibernation” and is cutting back on the energy by which it warms the Earth, a new and potentially dangerous decades-long drop in global temperatures has begun. The atmosphere and the oceans are cooling rapidly. Along with this next climate change to one of extreme global cooling, the oceans will contract, and sea levels will begin to drop as they always do during extended cold climates.”

As to why this forecast should be accepted by the US government which still maintains that manmade global warming is real, Casey adds a basic fact,” When it comes to believing who is right about climate change, the answer is fairly straight forward. Who has the best record for climate predictions?

The US government under President Obama and the United Nations have an abysmal record with their predictions for climate change. They have said mankind’s CO2 is driving the climate in accordance with the greenhouse gas theory. However, the past decades and billions of dollars spent to prove this age-old, disputed theory have shown conclusively that the greenhouse gas theory and the dozens of climate models made from it simply don’t work. It has been an unmitigated failure of science and governmental leadership. It is becoming more and more embarrassing for leaders from local to state, to federal levels as they attempt to defend it. On the other hand, my Relational Cycle Theory of climate change and the use of solar activity forcing (SAF) models by scientists who study Sun-Earth climate interactions, routinely demonstrate over 90% reliability in climate prediction. These tools have allowed me and the team at the SSRC to establish a track record for major climate prediction success that is today, still unmatched by the UN, the US government’s science agencies, including NASA and NOAA and the EPA.

The core question then is do we want our people and our government to be led astray by theories that don’t work or do we want to base our government, our economy, and our lives on theories that do work? It is time to cast off the failed theories and politics of the past and get prepared for the new cold era. Our planned news conference on the coming reduction in global sea levels is part of the process of returning to a fact-based and not a politically correct version causes and effects of climate change.”

What Al Gore doesn't tell you about the ice core survey is that it shows CO2 increase lags
behind temp rise by 800 years, so obviously CO2 is NOT the cause of that warming.

“The analogy I use is, my car's not running very well, but I'm going to ignore the engine, which is the sun, and I'm gonna ignore the transmission which is the water vapor and I'm going to look at a nut on the right rear wheel which is the human produced CO2. The science is that bad. -- Prof Tim Ball, Dept. of Climatology Univ of Winnipeg

Read more...

The Overpopulation Myth: The Biggest and Most Dangerous Disinformation Campaign in History.

From Bill Gates, to Bill Maher to Ted Turner, celebrities, journalists, talking heads, politicians, corporate CEOs, and most of all, our public education system endlessly proclaim the world is overpopulated--or will become overpopulated--leading us, if not checked, all to the brink of extinction, or as Paul Ehrlich, Al Gore's mentor, said in his book, "Population Bomb", "We will breed ourselves into oblivion," a belief that Chris Hedges feels compelled to remind us lest we forget.

Moreover, our national and international governments are, by law and by international agreement, committed to reducing the worldwide rate of population growth.  Why? What else? Profit and power. Not only does this ideology oblige taxpayers to fund population control programs, and carbon trading investment and ponzi schemes, capitalism thrives on shortages: shortages of land, food, oil, water, money...you name it.  If it has  monetary value, there must be a shortage, so suffice it to say, it's in the capitalist class' best interest to proclaim, "Shortage!" "Overpopulation!"

This myth is, perhaps, the biggest disinformation campaign in history.  It is also very dangerous. Why?  Because that belief justifies genocide, whether, indirect or direct, soft or hard.  One thing is sure, the genocide will target the poor, never the rich.

Of course, it's the wealthy and powerful who propagate this myth. Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth’s non ocean surface.

She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory. This land ownership is separate from her role as head of state and is different from other monarchies where no such claim is made – Norway, Belgium, Denmark etc.

Consider this. More than 97% of the earth's land surface is unpopulated! Not to mention, the entire global population could live comfortably in the state of Texas alone. All you have to do is take a long drive outside city limits, through the countryside, to see the vast uninhabited land.

Here are ten myths about overpopulation:

MYTH 1: The world is overcrowded and population growth is adding overwhelming numbers of humans to a small planet.

In fact, people do live in crowded conditions, and always have. We cluster together in cities and villages in order to exchange goods and services with one another. But while we crowd together for economic reasons in our great metropolitan areas, most of the world is empty, as we can see when we fly over it. It has been estimated by Paul Ehrlich and others that human beings actually occupy no more than 1-3% of the earth's land surface.

If you allotted 1250 square feet to each person, all the people in the world would fit into the state of Texas. Try the math yourself: 7,438,152,268,800 square feet in Texas, divided by the world population of 5,860,000,000, equals 1269 square feet per person. The population density of this giant city would be about 21,000 -- somewhat more than San Francisco and less than the Bronx.

Another fact: World population growth is rapidly declining. United Nations figures show that the 79 countries that comprise 40% of the world's population now have fertility rates too low to prevent population decline. The rate in Asia fell from 2.4 in 1965-70 to 1.5 in 1990-95. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the rate fell from 2.75 in 1960-65 to 1.70 in 1990-95. In Europe, the rate fell to 0.16 -- that is, effectively zero -- in 1990-95.And the annual rate of change in world population fell from 2% in 1965-70 to less than 1.5% in 1990-95.

Worldwide, the number of children the typical woman had during her lifetime (total fertility) fell from 5 in 1950-55 to less than 3 in 1990-95. (The number necessary just to "replace" the current generation is 2.1.) In the more developed regions, total fertility fell from 2.77 to 1.68 over the same period. In the less developed regions it fell from more than 6 to 3.3. Total fertility in Mexico was 3.1 in 1990-95. In Spain it stood at 1.3, and in Italy, it was 1.2.
.
Official forecasts of eventual world population size have been steadily falling. In 1992-93, the World Bank predicted world population would exceed 10 billion by the year 2050. In 1996, the UN predicted 9 billion for 2050. If the trend continues, the next estimate will be lower still.

MYTH 2: Overpopulation is causing global warming.

The message that is most likely to arouse the fervor of young people is that overpopulation is destroying the environment and the biosphere. On this point, the first thing to keep in mind is that some of the most beautiful parts of the world, with the highest environmental quality, are in densely populated countries such as western Germany, which has more than 600 persons per square mile, and the Netherlands, which has almost 1200 persons per square mile, compared with 330 in China. Several myths promote the belief that we are engulfed in an environmental catastrophe.

For instance, Vice-President Al Gore and some scientists say population growth is causing global warming. But there is much disagreement in the scientific community about this. Seventy-nine scientists issued the "Leipzig Declaration" in 1995 saying "...There does not exist today a general scientific consensus about ... greenhouse warming ...." Additionally, the satellite readings of global temperature, available on the NASA Web site at www.nasa.com, do not show a warming trend. And further, respected climatologists such as Hugh Ellsaesser, Richard S. Lindzen and Robert C. Balling vigorously dispute the notion of a global warming danger.

MYTH 3: Overpopulation causes ozone depletion.

Like global warming, the cause and significance of the so-called ozone "hole" is a matter of intense scientific dispute, although the United States and other nations have agreed to reductions in the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were alleged to have caused it. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist who participated in the earliest ozone measurements, calls the ozone scare a "misuse of science." In fact, many think the chief function of the CFC ban has been to help big chemical companies establish highly profitable new monopolies on the CFC substitutes which they developed.
.
MYTH 4: The world's forests are disappearing because of overpopulation.

This is an important matter because forests are an essential part of the world's environment and, therefore, humanity's well-being. The Psalmists spoke in awe of the cedars of Lebanon. Today we know that trees inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen, which means that they are a first line of defense against air pollution and the specter of global warming. The world forested area, estimated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), currently amounts to four billion hectares, covering 30% of the land surface of the earth. Few people realize this is the same figure as in the 1950s.
.
In the United States, vast forests cover a third of the land, according to the US Forest Service. That's equivalent to two-thirds of the amount of land that was forested when the Europeans arrived in the 1600s. This acreage has not declined since 1920. In fact, annual forest growth today is more than 3-1/2 times what it was in 1920. Two-thirds of the nation's forests are classed as timberland, capable of producing at least 20 cubic feet per acre of industrial wood annually. Another fact: Trees are growing 33% faster than they are being cut.

The highest volumes of growth occur on privately-owned forest industry land, while the government-owned national forests, where the trees are older, have the lowest volumes of tree growth. The National Wilderness Preservation System grew from nine million acres in 1964 to 96 million acres in 1993. But this is not enough for the environmentalists of The Wildlands Project, who hope to turn fully half of the land area of the United States into wilderness areas inhabited by grizzly bears, wolverines and mountain lions, and make it off-limits to humans. There has also been great agitation about the "destruction of the tropical rainforests." Someone has claimed that an area twice the size of Belgium is now being logged worldwide each year, but people don't realize Belgium could fit into the world's tropical forests 500 times, and in the meantime, the rest of the world's trees -- 99.6% of them -- are continuing to grow. One of the greatest of these tropical stands exists in Brazil, with more than half of the forests of South America.

FAO and Brazilian government figures suggest that logging takes about 0.2% of forest acreage per year, and in 1993, Brazilian forests covered 58% of the country's total land area. Such figures hardly suggest a catastrophic decline. Another thing that's misleading is that FAO figures show a "decline" in forest cover even when forest land is appropriated for use as public parks, and not a single tree is cut down. And if in fact some deforestation is occurring in Brazil, it can scarcely be the result of overpopulation; Brazil has less than half as many people per square mile (31.2) as the world average (101).

MYTH 5: Air pollution is the result of overpopulation, and acid rain, a byproduct of air pollution, is destroying lakes, rivers and forests.

In fact, air and water pollution levels have been highest in the centrally-planned economies of Eastern Europe and China, where population growth is low or negative. Legendary air pollution in Poland and Russia has occurred in areas with thinly-settled populations. In the United States, air pollution is declining significantly. The federal government's National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program recently reported "no widespread forest or crop damage in the United States" related to acid rain.

MYTH 6: Many plants and animals are disappearing because of the growth in human numbers.

There is absolutely no scientific data whatsoever to support this claim. Even a scientist such as David Jablonski, who believes species will decline, says, "We have no idea how many species are out there and how many are dying." Some species, such as blue whales, spotted owls and blackfooted ferrets, have been found to be more numerous than was once thought. Since many species exist in forests and the earth's forest cover is remaining about the same, the claims of massive species extinction appear doubtful.

MYTH 7: Overpopulation is threatening the world food supply.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, world food supplies exceed requirements in all world areas, amounting to a surplus approaching 50% in 1990 in the developed countries, and 17% in the developing regions. "Globally, food supplies have more than doubled in the last 40 years ... between 1962 and 1991, average daily per caput food supplies increased more than 15% ... at a global level, there is probably no obstacle to food production rising to meet demand," according to FAO documents prepared for the 1996 World Food Summit. The FAO also reported that less than a third as many people had less than 2100 calories per person per day in 1990-92 as had been the case in 1969-71.

At present, farmers use less than half of the world's arable land. The conversion of land to urban and built-up uses to accommodate a larger population will absorb less than 2% of the world's land, and "is not likely to seriously diminish the supply of land for agricultural production," according to Paul Waggoner, writing for the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology in 1994.

MYTH 8: Overpopulation is the chief cause of poverty.

In reality, problems commonly blamed on "overpopulation" are the result of bad economic policy. For example, Western journalists blamed the Ethiopian famine on "overpopulation," but that was simply not true. The Ethiopian government caused it by confiscating the food stocks of traders and farmers and exporting them to buy arms. That country's leftist regime, not its population, caused the tragedy. In fact, Africa, beset with problems often blamed on "overpopulation," has only one-fifth the population density of Europe, and has an unexploited food-raising potential that could feed twice the present population of the world, according to estimates by Roger Revelle of Harvard and the University of San Diego. Economists writing for the International Monetary Fund in 1994 said that African economic problems result from excessive government spending, high taxes on farmers, inflation, restrictions on trade, too much government ownership, and overregulation of private economic activity. There was no mention of overpopulation.

The government of the Philippines relies on foreign aid to control population growth, but protects monopolies which buy farmers' outputs at artificially low prices, and sell them inputs at artificially high prices, causing widespread poverty. Advocates of population control blame "overpopulation" for poverty in Bangladesh. But the government dominates the buying and processing of jute, the major cash crop, so that farmers receive less for their efforts than they would in a free market. Impoverished farmers flee to the city, but the government owns 40% of industry and regulates the rest with price controls, high taxes and unpublished rules administered by a huge, corrupt, foreign-aid dependent bureaucracy. Jobs are hard to find and poverty is rampant. This crowding leads to problems such as sporadic or inefficient food distribution, but this problem is caused -- as in Ethiopia -- by that country's flawed domestic policies.

It is often claimed that poverty in China is the result of "overpopulation." But Taiwan, with a population density five times as great as mainland China's, produces many times as much per capita. The Republic of Korea, with a population density 3.6 times as great as China's, has a per capita output almost 16 times as great. The Malaysian government abandoned population control in 1984, ushering in remarkable economic growth under free market reforms, while Ecuador, Uruguay, Bulgaria and other countries complained at the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo that though they had reduced their population growth, they still had deteriorating economies.

MYTH 9: Women and men throughout the world are begging for the means to control their fertility.

Not so, according to reports from such places as Bangladesh, Africa and the Philippines. The fact is, surplus condoms and birth control pills fill warehouses in the less developed world and women flee the birth control workers and beg to have their implants and IUDs removed.
.
US foreign assistance law requires countries receiving American foreign aid to take steps to reduce population growth [you can find this in 22 US Code, sec. 2151-1; 22 US Code, sec. 2151(b)]. Far from meeting an "unmet need" for birth control, foreign-supported family planners in India, Bangladesh and other countries must pay, or force, their clients to accept it, according to reports from these countries. Foreign-supported population control is so unpopular in Bangladesh that riots over this issue prevented the prime minister from attending the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1994.

Dr. Margaret Ogola, a Kenyan pediatrician, disputed the claim of "unmet need" for family planning at the International Conference on Population and Develop-ment in Cairo in 1994. She said that foreign aid givers have lavished pills, condoms and IUDs on hospitals and clinics in Kenya, but that simple medicines for common diseases remain unavailable. A United Nations survey of abortion and birth control policies throughout the world found that high proportions of women were familiar with and were using "traditional" methods (NFP) of limiting births.

In 1981, the typical Bangladeshi woman was having seven children during her lifetime; since then the number has fallen to 3.4. According to Bangladesh press reports in 1994, the secretary of health acknowledged that "coercion, blackmail [and] abuse of payment provisions" were problems in the population control program. Alarmed by extremely low fertility, South Korea reported to the International Conference in Cairo that it has slashed its government expenditures on birth control. Singapore, faced with below-replacement fertility, reported that it now offers tax rebates to couples with more than two children. Government-supported "family planning" agencies in the United States, such as Planned Parenthood, claim their services save public assistance costs. In fact, published research has shown that states which spend large amounts on birth control subsequently have higher costs of public assistance. Research also shows that states which require parental consent for a minor to have an abortion have lower rates of adolescent pregnancy.

MYTH 10: Overpopulation causes war and revolution.

The most war-torn continent on earth -- Africa -- is also one of the least densely populated, with about half as many people per square mile as in the world as a whole. Bad governments, propped up by ineptly and unjustly managed foreign aid, are more probably the root of strife.

The worldwide movement which promotes population control is not small or weak. It is a powerful alliance of United Nations agencies, national governments, foundations and "nongovernmental organizations." It commands many billions of dollars in resources. Its members include family planning agencies, radical leftist environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club and the World Wildlife Fund, development planners, international financial institutions such as the World Bank, foreign relations agencies such as the US Agency for International Development, and "research" organizations such as Worldwatch Institute. Its ideology increasingly dominates school and college instructional programs and textbook publishing.

Ultimately, however, its power rests on public ignorance in countries such as the United States. For the billions of people who inhabit God's creation, and for the billions more He intends it for, it's up to us to find out the truth about "overpopulation," and to share it with as many people as will listen.

Dr. Jacqueline R. Kasun is an economist and the author of The War Against Population: The Economics and Ideology of World Population Control (Ignatius, 1988, 1998).

Read more...

Stay Asleep and Dream the American Dream.

The "American Dream" mentality, equating happiness with the superficial act of acquiring or gaining possessions and wealth, breeds a lifestyle of unsustainable consumption that often creates the American nightmare for all too many of us, simply because the system is rigged against the vast majority. Yet people continue to dream on.

The Economic Collapse reports a 3-hour hospital visit can cost as much as $83,046! Is it any wonder that medical bills are the number one reason Americans file for bankruptcy?  But that's what you get with profit-as-much-as-you-can health care.

The fastest way to go broke in America is to go to the hospital. These days it seems like almost everyone has an outrageous hospital bill story to share. It is getting to the point where most people are deathly afraid to go to the hospital. All the financial progress that you have made in recent years can literally be wiped out in just a matter of hours. For example, you are about to read about an Arizona woman that was recently charged $83,046 for a 3 hour hospital visit. How in the world is anyone supposed to pay a bill like that?

Moreover, what are the chances of achieving the "American Dream" when well over three-quarters of the population is living paycheck to paycheck - that is, if they're lucky enough to get one, a paycheck, that is. To quote E.L. Doctorow, “I am often asked the question How can the masses permit themselves to be exploited by the few. The answer is By being persuaded to identify with them.”

“I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence.”
― Eugene Victor Debs

Read more...

Maintaining the Myth of Poor Little Israel.

Zionism can take many different forms. One form simply believes in the revival of Hebrew as a spoken language and that Jewish people should live free from prejudice and oppression. In that context, I consider myself a "Zionist". However, another form of Zionism (Israeli hawks) takes a much more intransigent, aggressive, imperialistic stance. It is this form of Zionism to which I refer.

In July, 2010, due to implications over Israel's "adherence to international law," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu extended the period during which material contained in government archives will remain classified by 20 years.

The government’s decision to classify Israel’s past as top secret prevented the "revelation" that the stereotypical image of Israel as a persecuted nation, surrounded by dangerous Arab countries as a lie. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Israel's aggressive policies from the very beginning have contributed to the troubles it faces. In other words, Israel’s claim that it acts only in self-defense is laughable; however, dare to criticize Israel, and you will face the accusation of anti-Semite.

Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. From 1976-2004, Israel was the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, having since been supplanted by Iraq. Since 1985, the United States has provided nearly $3 billion in grants annually to Israel.

In his article "Who is the Superpower, America or Israel? Bernd Debusmann said:

On February 18, the United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories. The vote raises a question: Who dominates in the alliance between America and Israel?

Judging from the extent to which one partner defies the will of the other, decade after decade, the world’s only superpower is the weaker partner. When push comes to shove, American presidents tend to bow to Israeli wishes. Barack Obama is no exception, or he would not have instructed his ambassador at the United Nations to vote against a policy he himself stated clearly in the summer of 2009.

“The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop,” he said in a much-lauded speech in Cairo.

Compare this with the text of the resolution that drew 14 votes in favor and died with the U.S. veto: “Israeli settlements established in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.”

So, while the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, blockade of Gaza, and the  murder of innocent civilians - unarmed fishermen, in this case - continues on, the US continues on arming Israel to the tune of $3 billion per year, perpetuating the myth - through its corporatized mass media and heavily lobbied politicians - of poor little Israel fighting for its life against the big bullies on all sides, when the truth is, the "big" bully is Israel.

Read more...

The "Self-Made" Man Fantasy.

Most of the upper and upper middle-class act as if their status in society is solely a result of their intrinsic "superiority" and strong work ethic, some actually claiming to be "self-made". But, what does "self-made" mean? Did they change their own diapers? Self-nurse? Did they support themselves right out of the womb?

I doubt it, yet who raised you, where you were born, gender, race, social status, level of familial structure, good timing, the right connections, level of affluence, your education, etc. as well as hard work, talent and the willingness to take risks, etc., all factor into how far you go in this world.

Take Bill O'Reilly who proclaimed (a few years ago) that he could make himself into the same "Bill O'Reilly" he is now even if he was born in Afghanistan brought up on a diet of insects and grass... that his male gender, white skin, private education and good fortune to be born in the world's wealthiest most powerful country had nothing to do with contributing to his success. After all, he went over to Afghanistan several times and even dodged a few bullets during his lifetime. Ipso facto, he overcame the same level of hardship as a poverty-stricken Ethiopian.

How arrogant is it to overlook the advantageous circumstances and the people who "contributed" to the person you eventually become? How can anyone claim being born in the USA is equivalent to being born into a poverty stricken family in Afghanistan, Africa, India?

So, what's the big deal if a few people claim themselves to be "self-made"? It's harmless, right? Maybe, however, "self-made" men often take on a "deserved" pretentious bravado of superiority that serves to justify their political beliefs that those who don't have as much, somehow deserve to be marginalized. Deep down, they believe that they made themselves who they are, therefore they do not owe anything to anyone, including their country.

It's OK that we have the highest child poverty rate in the developed world, (21.9% in 2006), that almost 50 million people do not have health insurance, that the gap between the rich and the poor is vast...if they did it all "alone", than others can do the same.

Pay taxes? Why? The "self-made" man could have been born in Haiti, brought up on a diet of mud cookies, mud floors, and mud huts and he would be the same man he is today, albeit his birth into an affluent (relatively speaking) family with advantages 98% of the world lack.

Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, says, "Lots of people who are smart and work hard and play by the rules don't have a fraction of what I have. I realize I don't have my wealth because I'm so brilliant."

One out of every 10,000 American families can claim an income in excess of $10.7 million. No matter how hard these wealthy families worked to earn their money, they worked no harder as than most American families. As far as risk goes, the average taxpayer is the one who absorbs their risk... AIG, Fannie Mae/Fredie Mac, etc.

Money begets money. Our justice system, laws, tax code and economy all favor the rich. The more you accrue, the easier it becomes to accrue, on an increasingly escalating scale. The Bush tax cuts gave/give those who earn over $1 million dollars annually a tax cut anywhere from 100-600 times the average American. Does anyone think the "self-made" man possess 100-600 times the superior intellect, talent or work-ethic than the average American?

Over the last quarter century, the portion of the national income accruing to the richest 1 percent of Americans has doubled. The share going to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent has tripled, and the share going to the richest one-hundredth of 1 percent has quadrupled.

Instead of coveting their gratuitous profits and refusing others the same advantageous circumstances they received/receive increasingly, the"self-made" man and those who continue to benefit from his blood-line should contribute a fraction of what's been given to them. It's their patriotic duty.

“The rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more in proportion.” -- Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations, vol. 2, ed. Campbell, Oxford U Press, 1976, p. 840.)

Read more...