America: A Nation in Crisis

The USA is a nation in dire crisis, and I conservatively estimate that not one person in 1,000 (perhaps 100,000) is aware of the cause of our disease.  That means far less are aware of the proper cures.  Not knowing the cause, all the frantic efforts to “fix” the “system” only add layer upon layer of confusion to an already complex problem.  If this were a medical case, all the so-called “cures” would be killing the patient even faster than the underlying disease, which in itself is quite deadly enough.

In a word, our underlying problem is a fatal flaw in our controlling master legal document: the U.S. Constitution.  This flaw allows a “back door” for those who wish to exercise power over others to gain unchecked monopoly power though an “end run” around the constitutional safeguards commonly thought of as “checks and balances” in our system.

More specifically the “fatal flaw” is in the specifics of the mechanisms of money creation, control and regulation.  The loosely worded language allowed private, monopolistic banking powers to gain control over the US Treasury via it’s semi-governmental arm, The Federal Reserve System, established in 1913, and whose governing board is called “The Fed”.

It it far beyond the scope of this article to detail all the ways and means by which this was accomplished, but I can refer the reader to an exhaustive list of resources that leave no doubt of the truth of what is written so far above.  The references are all over this website, but will be listed again at the end of this article.

The process of replacing the authority of monarchs (kings, queens, emperors, dictators and other forms of tyrants) with more diverse and representative governments began far back in human pre-history, but for the purposes of our current Western Civilization of English-speaking citizens, historians tell us it goes back to the Magna-Carta.  In reality, rulers always had to fear rebellions if their tyranny went too far.  Power generally had to be shared with priests, temples, and religious leaders, and the heads of religious orders were often the temporal leaders themselves, or priest-kings and queens.

Continue reading

Advertisements

Act for a Change: Vote for Change YOU Want

A call for action:

Not many opportunities for real change come along.  President Obama has asked for input from the public citizenry on ways to improve our US government.   I spent some hours there yesterday and today, voting and commenting on dozens of proposals, many of them of critical importance, IMO.

I’ve spent years working on what I believe is the root cause of all of the world’s greatest evils: MONEY.  The money creation process, now in private hands, must be transferred to the public domain.  Even if you are not familiar with this issue, or think is is above your pay grade, I urge you to visit the site and read the short proposal and the comments.  Then I hope you will vote your approval of the idea.

You should know that this money proposal only returns to congress the authority given them by our US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.  Congress gave this authority away in 1913 to the Federal Reserve, a PRIVATE banking system, by trickery and deceit.  This act has cost the American people trillions of dollars in needless interest on our national debt since then.  Now it is on the verge of bankrupting our nation, to the great profit of the international bankers who hold most of our debt paper.  This is the prime cause of all other problems in our nation, and in the world.  Everything relates back to it.  Wars, poverty, hunger, pollution…Everything.  Please read it and vote.

There are many other good proposals there also.  If you have time, look through the pages by category or popularity.  I will hopefully follow this note up with a brief summary of a few other great ways that our government could be changed for the better.

I know you will do the right thing.

Jere L Hough

(Kansas City Metro Area)

A message of truth to Sibel Edmonds

A message of truth to Sibel Edmonds on 3rd Party Voting:  Lesser of Two Evils or Wasted Vote?

by Jere L Hough

Sibel Edmonds is one of my heroes.  She is a whistleblower and a truth-teller.  I honor her as I would someone who gives all, even life itself, in support of eternal values such as truth, goodness and beauty.  I hold her and all who honor truth in the same high esteem that many hold Mother Theresa, right up there with the saints and heroes of history.

Sibel asked a question about voting for 3rd or 4th party candidates in America, and whether of not voting for someone who might only get a small percentage of the vote was the right thing to do.   She feels that it is not correct to vote for “the lesser of two evils” when both major party candidates are bad, or do not represent her positions.

I can relate.  I can sympathize.  I understand the rationale.  But I do not agree.

I have heard this issue argued so many times, and have addressed it so many times, that I will now post it on my blog site, so I don’t have to keep going over and over this same ground for the few years that I may have remaining here, should that be God’s will.  I am in my seventies, and have long endured chronic health problems.  I wish to pass on what little light I have attained without undue repetition.  I hope some people read it, and comment, or give their thoughts on the subject.

The answer Sibel leans to is to vote for the best candidate regardless of the situation or the field or the parties or the percentages.  She praised one answer that said something to the effect that ‘as long as one votes for the best possible candidate nobody can fault that choice’, regardless of whether the person voted for can win or not.  She seems to thing that kind of clear moral conviction is right.  Even ‘writing in’ the best candidate is the ‘right thing to do’ according to this line of reasoning.

I’ve heard so many good people make the same argument.  On first glance it seems faultless.  Who could criticize one’s casting a vote for the “best candidate”?  But let us look more closely.  Is voting for the best possible candidate regardless of chance of winning the best policy?  Of course not.  In most cases it is a totally wasted vote.  Here is why:

It ignores the consequences, or outcomes, of your choice.

It ignores the practical reality.  It ignores circumstances or the situation at hand.  The importance of an election is all about the outcome, the results.  It’s not about YOU or YOUR conscience, or smugly leaving the voting booth thinking that at least you didn’t vote for “the lesser of two evils”.  It’s about the consequences of you vote, and that depends of the wisdom of your choice in any given situation in evaluating outcomes.    Quite often that means making sure the worst possible choice  – the one who could do the most harm – is defeated, and kept out of power. Continue reading