Saturday, June 27, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Waxman-Markey: Man-Made Disaster
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Fiscal Policy: The House of Representatives is preparing to vote on an anti-stimulus package that in the name of saving the earth will destroy the American economy. Smoot-Hawley will seem like a speed bump.
Not since a misguided piece of legislation imposed tariffs that turned a recession into a depression has there been a piece of legislation as bad as Waxman-Markey.
The 1,000-plus-page American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) is being rushed to a vote by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi before anyone can seriously object to this economic suicide pact.
It's what Janet Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security, might call a "man-caused disaster," a phrase she coined to replace the politically incorrect "terrorist attack." But no terrorist could ever dream of inflicting as much damage as this bill.
Its centerpiece is a "cap and trade" provision that has been rightfully derided as "cap and tax." It is in fact a tax on energy everywhere it is consumed on everything it is used to make or provide.
It is the largest tax increase in American history — a tax on all Americans — even the 95% that President Obama pledged would never see a tax increase.
It's a political bill that could come to a vote now that a deal was struck with farm-state legislators concerned about the taxation of even bovine flatulence.
As part of the agreement reached Tuesday night and announced by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Beverly Hills, agricultural oversight for cap-and-trade was transferred from the Environmental Protection Agency to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Farmers hope the USDA will be less intrusive. The EPA has been tasked by a Supreme Court ruling to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from your nostrils to your lawn mower. This even covers the emissions of barnyard animals, including the methane from cows.
The American Farm Bureau warns that cap and trade would cost the average farmer $175 on every dairy cow and $80 for beef cattle. So farm-state politics trumped climate change.
We all know about farmers paid not to grow food. But now, American taxpayers apparently will be paying companies not to chop down trees. The Washington Times reports that as part of the legislation, the House will also be voting Friday on a plan to pay domestic and international companies around the world not to cut down trees.
Such offsets "would be a transfer of wealth overseas," said William Kovacs, vice president for environmental affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. So if a tree falls in a Brazilian forest, does a U.S. taxpayer make a sound?
As we've said before, capping emissions is capping economic growth. An analysis of Waxman-Markey by the Heritage Foundation projects that by 2035 it would reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $7.4 trillion. In an average year, 844,000 jobs would be destroyed, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by almost 2 million (see charts below).
Consumers would pay through the nose as electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, as President Obama once put it, by 90% adjusted for inflation. Inflation-adjusted gasoline prices would rise 74%, residential natural gas prices by 55% and the average family's annual energy bill by $1,500.
Hit hardest by all this would be the "95% of working families" Obama keeps mentioning as being protected from increased taxation. They are protected, that is, unless they use energy. Then they'll be hit by this draconian energy tax.
And what would we get for all this pain? According to an analysis by Chip Knappenberger, administrator of the World Climate Report, the reduction of U.S. CO2 emissions to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 — the goal of the Waxman-Markey bill — would reduce global temperature in 2050 by a mere 0.05 degree Celsius.
President Obama has called on the U.S. to "lead by example" on global warming. During the campaign, he said: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."
Soon we may not be able to. Other countries can just sit back and watch us destroy ourselves. Where will you be when the lights go out?
Related Story (If you do not read anything else in the next six months you should at least read this...every day!) : Obituary: USA
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Buried on page 83 of the 89-page Report on Financial Regulatory Reform issued by the U.S. Administration on June 17 is a recommendation that the new Financial Stability Board strengthen and institutionalize its mandate to promote global financial stability. Financial stability is a worthy goal, but the devil is in the details. The new global Big Brother is based in the Bank for International Settlements, a controversial institution that raises red flags among the wary . . . .
“Big Brother” is the term used by George Orwell in his classic novel 1984 for the totalitarian state that would lock into place in the year of his title. Why he chose that particular year is unclear, but one theory is that he was echoing Jack London’s The Iron Heel, which chronicled the rise of an oligarchic tyranny in the United States. In London’s book, the oligarchy’s fictional wonder-city, fueled by oppressed workers, was to be completed by 1984. Orwell also echoed London’s imagery when he described the future under Big Brother as “a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” In Secret Records Revealed: The Men, the Money, and the Methods Behind the New World Order (1999), Dr. Dennis Cuddy asked:
“Could the ‘boot’ be the new eighteen-story Bank for International Settlements (BIS) which was completed in Basel, Switzerland, in 1977 in the shape of a boot, and became known as the‘Tower of Basel’?"
The boot-like shape of the building is strange enough to be thought-provoking (see photo), but more disturbing is the description by Dr. Carroll Quigley of the pivotal role assigned to the BIS in consolidating financial power into a few private hands. Professor Quigley, who was Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, claimed to be an insider and evidently knew his subject. He wrote in Tragedy and Hope (1966):
“[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.”
That helps explain the alarm bells that went off among BIS-watchers when the Bank was linked to the new Financial Stability Board (FSB) President Obama signed onto in April. When the G20 leaders met in London on April 2, 2009, they agreed to expand the powers of the old Financial Stability Forum (FSF) into this new Board. The FSF was set up in 1999 to serve in a merely advisory capacity by the G7 (a group of finance ministers formed from the seven major industrialized nations). The chair of the FSF was the General Manager of the BIS. The new FSB has been expanded to include all G20 members (19 nations plus the EU). The G20, formally called the “Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors,” was, like the G7, originally set up as a forum merely for cooperation and consultation on matters pertaining to the international financial system. But its new Financial Stability Board has real teeth, imposing “obligations” and “commitments” on its members.
The Shadowy Financial Stability Board
The Report on Financial Regulatory Reform issued by the Obama Administration on June 17 includes a recommendation that the FSB “strengthen” and “institutionalize” its mandate. What is the FSB’s mandate, what are its expanded powers, and who is in charge? An article in The London Guardian addresses those issues in question and answer format:
“Who runs the regulator? The Financial Stability Forum is chaired by Mario Draghi, governor of the Bank of Italy. The secretariat is based at the Bank for International Settlements’ headquarters in Basel, Switzerland.”
Draghi was director general of the Italian treasury from 1991 to 2001, where he was responsible for widespread privatization (sell-off of government holdings to private investors). From January 2002 to January 2006, however, he was a partner at Goldman Sachs on Wall Street, another controversial player. As already noted, “basing” the FSB at the BIS is not a comforting sign, considering the dark and controversial history of the BIS. Dr. Cuddy, writing in 1999, quoted media sources describing the BIS and its behind-the-scenes leaders as “this economic cabal . . . this secretive group . . . the financial barons who control the world’s supply of money” (Washington Post, June 28, 1998); “some of the world’s most powerful and least visible men . . . officials able to shift billions of dollars and alter the course of economies at the stroke of a pen” (New York Times, August 5, 1995); men who can “move huge amounts of money into and out of markets in a nanosecond” and “topple politicians with the click of a mouse” (ABC’s “Nightline,” July 1, 1998).
“What will the new regulator do? The regulator will monitor potential risks to the economy . . . It will cooperate with the IMF, the Washington-based body that monitors countries’ financial health, lending funds if needed. . . .”
The IMF is an international banking organization that is also controversial. Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist for the World Bank, charges it with ensnaring Third World countries in a debt trap from which they cannot escape. Debtors unable to pay are bound by “conditionalities” that include a forced sell-off of national assets to private investors in order to service their loans.
“What will the regulator oversee? All ‘systemically important’ financial institutions, instruments and markets.”
The term “systemically important” is not defined. Will it include such systemically important institutions as national treasuries, and such systemically important markets as gold, oil and food?
“How will it work? The body will establish a supervisory college to monitor each of the largest international financial services firms. . . . It will act as a clearing house for information-sharing and contingency planning for the benefit of its members.”
In some contexts, information-sharing is called illegal collusion. Would the information-sharing here include such things as secret agreements among central banks to buy or sell particular currencies, with the concomitant power to support or collapse targeted local economies? Consider the short-selling of the Mexican peso by collusive action in 1995, the short-selling of Southeast Asian currencies in 1998, and the collusion among central banks to support the U.S. dollar in July of last year – good for the dollar and the big players with inside information perhaps, but not so good for the small investors who reasonably bet on “market forces,” bought gold or foreign currencies, and lost their shirts.
“What will the new regulator do about debt and loans? To prevent another debt bubble, the new body will recommend financial companies maintain provisions against credit losses and may impose constraints on borrowing.”
What sort of constraints? The Basel Accords imposed by the BIS have not generally worked out well. The first Basel Accord, issued in 1998, was blamed for inducing a depression in Japan from which that country has yet to recover; and the Second Basel Accord and its associated mark-to-market rule have been blamed for bringing on the current credit crisis, from which the U.S. and the world have yet to recover. These charges have been explored at length elsewhere. The suspicious might see these failures as intentional. The warnings come to mind of Congressman Louis MacFadden, head of the House Banking and Currency Committee during the Great Depression: “It was a carefully contrived occurrence. International bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair, so that they might emerge the rulers of us all.” David Rockefeller, a key player in international finance, echoed this thinking in 1994, when he said at a UN dinner, “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
The Amorphous 12 International Standards and Codes
Most troubling, perhaps, is this vague parenthetical reference in a press release issued by the BIS, titled “Financial Stability Forum Re-established as the Financial Stability Board”:
“As obligations of membership, member countries and territories commit to . . . implement international financial standards (including the 12 key International Standards and Codes) . . . .”
This is not just friendly advice from an advisory board. It is a commitment to comply, so you would expect some detailed discussion concerning what those standards entail. However, a search of the major media reveals virtually nothing. The 12 key International Standards and Codes are left undefined and undiscussed. The FSB website lists them, but it is vague. The Standards and Codes cover broad areas that are apparently subject to modification as the overseeing committees see fit. They include:
Money and financial policy transparency
Fiscal policy transparency
Payment and settlement
Take “fiscal policy transparency” as an example. The “Code of Good Practices on Fiscal Transparency” was adopted by the IMF Interim Committee in 1998. The “synoptic description” says:
“The code contains transparency requirements to provide assurances to the public and to capital markets that a sufficiently complete picture of the structure and finances of government is available so as to allow the soundness of fiscal policy to be reliably assessed.”
We learn that members are required to provide a “picture of the structure and finances of government” that is complete enough for an assessment of its “soundness” -- but an assessment by whom, and what if a government fails the test? Is an unelected private committee based in the BIS allowed to evaluate the “structure and function” of particular national governments and, if they are determined to have fiscal policies that are not “sound,” to impose “conditionalities” and “austerity measures” of the sort that the IMF is notorious for imposing on Third World countries? The wary might wonder if that is how the mighty United States is to be brought under the heel of Big Brother at last.
For three centuries, private international banking interests have brought governments in line by blocking them from issuing their own currencies and requiring them to borrow banker-issued “banknotes” instead. “Allow me to issue and control a nation’s currency,” Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild famously said in 1791, “and I care not who makes its laws.” The real rebellion of the American colonists in 1776, according to Benjamin Franklin, was against a foreign master who forbade the colonists from issuing their own money and required that taxes be paid in gold. The colonists, not having gold, had to borrow gold-backed banknotes from the British bankers. The catch was that the notes were created on the “fractional reserve” system, allowing the bankers to issue up to ten times as many notes as they actually had gold, essentially creating them out of thin air just as the colonists were doing. The result was not only to lock the colonists into debt to foreign bankers but to propel the nation into a crippling depression. The colonists finally rebelled and reverted to issuing their own currency. Funding a revolution against a major world power with money they printed themselves, they succeeded in defeating their oppressors and winning their independence.
Political colonialism is now a thing of the past, but under the new FSB guidelines, nations can still be held in feudalistic subservience to foreign masters. Consider this scenario: XYZ country, which has been getting along very well financially, discloses that its national currency is being printed by the government directly. The FSB determines that this practice represents an impermissible “merging of the public and private sectors” and is an unsound banking practice forbidden under the “12 Key International Standards and Codes.” Banker-created national currency is declared to be the standard “good practice” all governments must follow. XYZ is compelled to abandon the “anachronistic” notion that creating its own national currency is a proper “function of government.” It must now borrow from the international bankers, trapping it in the bankers’ compound-interest debt web.
Consider another scenario: Like in the American colonies, the new FSB rules precipitate a global depression the likes of which have never before been seen. XYZ country wakes up to the fact that all of this is unnecessary – that it could be creating its own money, freeing itself from the debt trap, rather than borrowing from bankers who create money on computer screens and charge interest for the privilege of borrowing it. But this realization comes too late: the boot descends and XYZ is crushed into line. National sovereignty has been abdicated to a private committee, with no say by the voters.
Was Orwell Just 25 Years Too Early?
Suspicious observers might say that this is how you pull off a private global dictatorship: (1) create a global crisis; (2) appoint an “advisory body” to retain and maintain “stability”; and then (3) “formalize” the advisory body as global regulator. By the time the people wake up to what has happened, it’s too late. Marilyn Barnewall, who was dubbed by Forbes Magazine the “dean of American private banking,” writes in an April 2009 article titled “What Happened to American Sovereignty at G-20?”:
“It seems the world’s bankers have executed a bloodless coup and now represent all of the people in the world. . . . President Obama agreed at the G20 meeting in London to create an international board with authority to intervene in U.S. corporations by dictating executive compensation and approving or disapproving business management decisions. Under the new Financial Stability Board, the United States has only one vote. In other words, the group will be largely controlled by European central bankers. My guess is, they will represent themselves, not you and not me and certainly not America.”
A bloodless coup . . . Again one is reminded of the admissions of David Rockefeller, who wrote in his Memoirs (Random House 2002):
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
The Commitments Mandated by the Financial Stability Board
Constitute a Commercial Treaty Requiring a 2/3 Vote of the Senate.
Adoption of the FSB was never voted on by the public, either individually or through their legislators. The G20 Summit has been called “a New Bretton Woods,” referring to agreements entered into in 1944 establishing new rules for international trade. But Bretton Woods was put in place by Congressional Executive Agreement, requiring a majority vote of the legislature; and it more properly should have been done by treaty, requiring a two-thirds vote of the Senate, since it was an international agreement binding on the nation. The same should be mandated before imposing the will of the BIS-based Financial Stability Board on the U.S., its banks and its businesses. Here is a quick review of the law:
Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants power to the President to make treaties only with the “advice and consent” of two-thirds of the Senate. The Constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative to the Article II treaty procedure. However, historically the President has also made international “agreements” through congressional-executive agreements that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone. A congressional-executive agreement can cover only those matters which the Constitution explicitly places within the powers of Congress and the President; while a sole-executive agreement can cover only those matters within the President’s authority or matters in which Congress has delegated authority to the President. A sole-executive agreement can be negotiated and entered into only through the President’s authority (1) in foreign policy, (2) as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, (3) from a prior act of Congress, or (4) from a prior treaty. Agreements beyond these competencies must have the approval of Congress (for congressional-executive agreements) or the Senate (for treaties). If an international commercial accord contains binding “treaty” commitments, then a two-thirds vote of the Senate may be required.
Even with a two-thirds Senate vote, before Congress gives its approval it should draft legislation ensuring that the checks and balances imposed by our Constitution are built into the agreement. This could be done by implementing a legislative counterpart to the FSB with full oversight and corrective powers. The legislatures of the member nations could be required to elect a representative body to provide oversight and take corrective measures as needed, with that body’s representatives answerable to their national electorates.
Orwell’s 1984 made the news again in April 2009, when Queen Elizabeth chose the book as her ceremonial gift for visiting President Felipe Calderon of Mexico. Calderon, who crushed riots with boot-like severity after he was accused of vote-rigging to steal the election from his populist opponent, was said to be an admirer of Orwell’s work. The event provoked suspicions that 1984 had been covertly chosen by a modern-day financial oligarchy as the inspirational model for implementing Big Brother globally. The book ends with the protagonist Winston tortured and brainwashed into accepting the party line. We need to act quickly and decisively to ensure that its historical counterpart has a happier ending.
Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her earlier books focused on the pharmaceutical cartel that gets its power from “the money trust.” Her eleven books include Forbidden Medicine, Nature’s Pharmacy (co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker), and The Key to Ultimate Health (co-authored with Dr. Richard Hansen). Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com.
Ellen Brown is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Ellen Brown
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Like Eric, I was not going to post this story but a little more than something compelled me to pass it on...some of you who know me will know that something. Norm
A Chilling Father’s Day Nightmare
Today is Father’s Day. For some, this is a day of joy and celebration.
For one man, today is a chilling nightmare.
I receive many emails on a daily basis, and people reveal things to me that are highly personal. This story made me cry, and after much soul searching, I have decided to print the story and redact the names.
I know that Father’s Day is supposed to be a happy day, but there are so many people that feel so much pain that I decided to acknowledge the forgotten at the risk of depressing the rest.
This letter has not been edited for length, although I corrected some of the spelling mistakes, and most likely added a few of my own.
With that, I am printing this chilling Father’s Day nightmare tale.
When I was a kid, I wanted to be just like you. You were my hero, and your approval meant everything to me. Now I am an adult, and it pains me that every day you are alive, you are more hurtful than the day before.
I want you to know that while you may find my words hurtful, this is not about you. This is about my own peace of mind.
Once you are gone, I will not speak ill of you. To do so without your ability to defend yourself would be dishonorable. Therefore, as you live, I want you to know how much pain you cause me. I do not expect you to care, but again, this is not about what you want or need. It is certainly not about what you feel, because I suspect that you stopped feeling any human emotions a long time ago.
Also, this is not based on any one incident. It is about a lifetime of abuse that you have directed toward me for reasons that only you can justify.
In simple terms dad, as we have both gotten older, you have turned into a monster. You lash out and try to crush anybody that dares to disagree with you for any reason. You rule with an iron fist, and this death grip needs to be broken. Speaking of death, your death will probably not give me peace of mind. You will most likely haunt me forever.
So many people think you are a good man because they do not know you. They do not know about the lifetime of torment.
They have no idea that you gave me a savage beating when I was in sixth grade that I will never forget. You gave me my fair share of beatings as a child, but this one was the most hurtful due to the circumstances.
I was playing basketball on the school playground in a game of one on one during recess. Attempting to drive to the basket, I tripped over the other guy, fell, and cracked my two front teeth. I freaked out, and was terrified. What people did not understand was that I was not getting hysterical over my teeth. Yes, I was in pain, but I knew the worst was to come. I knew you were going to blame me, and get angry.
Imagine what it must be like for a child to be scared to death of his own father’s rage. When I got home, and you saw my teeth, you started accusing me of ‘horsing around.’ You came to the conclusion that there was no way this could have happened without horseplay. You never suffered fools gladly, and were not going to tolerate stupid behavior.
When I protested that there was no horseplay, and that this really was an unfortunate accident, you chased me into the basement, and beat me with a plastic pipe until I admitted that I was to blame for this accident through my own recklessness.
I never understand why you didn’t believe me. I knew I was telling the truth. I honestly did not understand why you were beating me. This was not discipline. This was misplaced rage.
I was always an honest person. I still am. Yet when I look back at the worst beating I ever got in my life, it still makes no sense to me. You finally got me to admit that I was horsing around, but only because I wanted the beating to stop. I know in my heart that what happened was an unfortunate accident, with nobody deserving blame, not even the other kid.
When I got too old to beat, you then resorted to an even more painful way of imposing your will at any and all costs. You purposely withheld your love.
You knew how much your approval mattered to me. You did the one thing no parent should ever do. You made your love conditional. You would give me the ’silent treatment.’ Do you know what it is like to go to school and try to study knowing that your own father wants to punish you in such a hateful manner?
Things got worse as I got older. A couple weeks before I left for college, you started screaming at me to clean my room. You were out of control. I feared for my life, and called the police. Is it possible that I overreacted? Sure. Yet you never understood why I did that. I was scared to death that you were going to do something violent. My reaction may have seemed unreasonable to you, but my fear was completely reasonable. Your goal was to have your children be scared to death of you. You succeeded.
I moved 3000 miles away for college to escape your clutches.
When I was on my own, I lived the same clean lifestyle I did at home. I did not smoke, drink, or do drugs. I hung out with the right people. Yet nothing I did was ever good enough. It got to the point where I went to visit my grandparents on Spring Break, just so I would not have to come home. You inquired as to whether I was avoiding you. News flash: Of course I was.
Yet there was no avoiding what happened the day of my college graduation. You never did understand that events such as these are not about you. They are about me. During the luncheon before the ceremony you noticed that you did not like my suit. It was too long, and the tip of it scraped the floor. I never was a snappy dresser.
I sat at the luncheon in fear, knowing that you were going to explode. I kept quiet, praying that you would just let it go. Instead, you stormed off, sat in your car, and boycotted my graduation ceremony.
You have no idea what it was like to try and smile and accept my diploma knowing that my own father was boycotting my graduation.
Nobody noticed the bottom of my suit. It was covered by the big black gown, as I knew it would be.
The guy giving the commencement speech wore jeans. His mother did not care. She loved him for who he was. This was not disrespectful, because again, the jeans were covered by the robe.
You told me on what should have been the greatest day of my life until then that I was an embarrassment. You said it over and over, that I was an embarrassment.
This is who you are dad. We did not talk for four years. That was your choice. Either I was going to apologize to you, or I was not your son. You ruined my graduation over your own selfishness, and somehow I was at fault. You were selfish then, and you still are.
Mom tried to get us to make peace, but she was never willing to stand up to you. She was an enabler, which only made you more abusive. When my sibling and I were kids, you made it clear that you did not care who was at fault for any actions. You just yelled at us both because peace and quiet was more important. You pitted my sibling and me against each other because we both wanted your approval. To this day my sibling and I hate each others’ guts, and you continue to play the puppet master.
Mom also prefers ‘peace’ in the home to actually dealing with problems. She believes that ‘the son always apologizes to the father.’ She tells me that you are old, and in ill health, and that I should be more understanding of how much pain you are in.
At no time are you ever asked to understand my pain. I am told that kids have it so easy today, that your generation went through things unimaginable, and that I never knew hardship. This does not mean that any pain I feel is less than valid, and it certainly should not give you license to keep attacking me.
I still remember getting beaten up once on the playground. Then I got home, and got beaten again, for losing the fight. Dad, why didn’t you just teach me how to box? It was only when I got older and took karate that I finally developed self-confidence. I got into fistfights in college, which probably never would have happened had I not gotten beaten so badly as a kid. I was never scared of being thrown out of college for fighting. I probably should have been. I was more scared of losing, and having you find out I lost.
As I got older, you attacked every important decision I ever made. You and mom had safe, salaried jobs. I took a commission job, and you fought me every step of the way. Yes, my income was unsteady. Yes, I sometimes worried about money. Yet had I listened to you, I would have taken a menial salaried job and been miserable. When I told you that, you asked the question that still perplexes me.
‘Who the hell says you’re entitled to be happy?’
Dad, just because your life is miserable does not mean I cannot pursue a happy life. I was not backpacking throughout Europe trying to ‘find myself.’ I was working my behind off in a ruthless profession. My close friend was an actor, and his parents supported him every step of the way when he was waiting tables. Another friend bounced around from job to job, and then finally found a job he loved, that he excels at. His parents supported him.
When I say supportive, I am not speaking financially. I am speaking emotionally.
You do not know how many times I went to bed screaming at the mirror pretending it was you, asking myself ‘Why can’t you just be supportive?’
This is the crux of the problem dad. You don’t know how to just shut up and be supportive. You do not allow me to have a difference of opinion from you without you treating it as an act of war. Disagreeing with you is not the same as being disrespectful.
I needed a father, not another obstacle. I cannot fight the world and my own dad. Mom kept saying that you ‘were not the enemy,’ but what else does a guy call it when the guy that brought him into this world spends every waking minute trying to undermine his confidence in his own skill set?
The irony is that you kept saying that you wanted me to be happy. No, that is a lie. You wanted me to be what your definition of happiness was. It was always about you. Your life did not amount to what you wanted, and you are filled with regrets. The only regret I have is that my father will simply not shut up and be happy for me. By defying you, I became a successful professional that surpassed anything you ever achieved. Outside of my family, I am happy.
Needless to say, between the beatings in junior high school and the post-beating abuse at home, I was not going to succeed with women. My confidence was shot. When your own father reminds you repeatedly how ashamed he is, and what a loser his son is, confidence is not sky high. Yet when I moved 3000 miles away, I finally developed some confidence.
You like to brag to your friends that when I went away I became human. I was always human, and a pretty good person at that. I have had the same friends my whole life, and most people like me. So many people tell me how proud my parents must be of me. It makes me want to cry knowing how ashamed they are. Can everybody else be wrong? Of course not.
In 2005, I met a lovely woman. My Aunt met her, and liked her a lot. Sure, we had problems, but make no mistake about it. The worst fights we had were about you. It started the day you told me that you would refuse to meet her, and never accept the relationship.
She was over 40, and you were concerned that she would not be able to have children. You wanted grandchildren, and were going to get them at any and all costs.
She was a sweet, kind woman with a heart of gold, and you absolutely destroyed her. Maybe she was too fragile, but she never understood why you would not even meet her. She even sent you an email saying how much she cared about me, and you did not give an inch.
I asked you again on the telephone, “why can’t you just be happy for me?”
You coldly responded, “How can I?”
How can you? Because that is what a decent human being would do.
You derisively referred to her as ‘grandma.’ Once you referred to her as ‘Mary Kay Letourneau.’ She was not a child rapist. She was a woman in her early 40s dating a guy in his early 30s.
When I pointed out to you that we could always adopt, you icily made it clear that ‘that is not the same thing.’ I asked if you if you could love an adopted child. You responded, ‘I can’t promise that. I don’t know if I could.’
She broke off the relationship because she knew what most people know. When you marry someone, you marry their family. She did not want a father-in-law that was a complete monster.
Meeting somebody is pressure-packed enough without having to face the contempt of the father. One nice girl left you unimpressed. You asked how old she was. I replied that she was 30, and you coldly responded, ’she looked it.’ What the heck was that supposed to mean? You never had anything positive to say about any of them because you never have anything positive to say about anything.
I truly believe that if somebody put a gun to your head and asked you to say something positive, you would opt for the bullet.
I have different interests from you, and you simply cannot live and let live. You attack me for having leisure time hobbies that bore you, and you attack me for not sharing your leisure time activities. There is nothing wrong with me. I simply have different interests.
As the years went by, I did try to meet somebody. I did internet dating. You repeatedly attacked it, despite not growing up in the internet generation. When I would meet somebody, you would tell me everything you thought was wrong with them without meeting them. When we would break up, you would say that you were right all along. This got to be sadistic.
I truly believe to this day that the only thing that matters to you is being seen as right. You never think about who you hurt. You don’t care.
I once wrote you an agonizing letter over my fear of being alone. The truth is that fear was not of being alone, but that I would be alone and have to hear about it from you every day.
On December 26th, 2007, I called you up just to say hello. I was in a good mood. You were having one of your many ‘bad days.’
You told me that I ‘was doing nothing with my life. I was wasting my life away.’
I was taken aback by this unprovoked attack, even from you. You then went on to scream at me for being single. I was not doing anything in your eyes to pursue having a family. To make things even more bizarre, you told me a couple weeks earlier that you felt I would make a good father. I never understood why you said it. Yet only two weeks later, because I was single, I was supposedly wasting time.
With a sky high divorce rate, I simply wanted to get it right. Other issues involving friends with unhealthy children were concerning me. You didn’t care. Everything is about what you want all the time.
You just keep pushing and pushing until I want to beat you to death just to shut you up. Then when I get a girlfriend you list the reasons why it will fail.
I still cannot fathom why you would scream at me just for not having a family.
I tried to get you to give me a bread crumb of paternal affection. I pointed out that on the one hand you want me to be a father, yet your stories of fatherhood were always stories of hardship. I asked you to tell me about some of the joys of fatherhood. I asked you to describe the joy you felt when you brought me home from the hospital the first time. I was begging you to give me one aspect of fatherhood that was joyful.
You wouldn’t do it. You said that, ‘Life isn’t about being joyful. It’s about fulfilling obligations and responsibilities. We don’t do things because they are fun. We do them because they are what we are supposed to do.’
You then again reminded me that ‘nobody is entitled to be happy.’
Mom keeps saying that you are just from a different time and generation. This is an excuse.
Happiness is not some new age, 21st century feel-good concept. Human beings should pursue happiness, provided they do so responsibly. People can have both. I did in my career, and have that in my current relationship.
You consider being supportive as ‘coddling.’
You just can’t stop the negativity. You can’t stop the bitterness. People say that you are too old to change.
Those are excuses. You see no reason to change because nobody ever holds you accountable for your actions.
That is why I wrote this long letter. I am holding you accountable.
I have already warned my girlfriend about you. She seems very emotionally strong, and will not break no matter how hard you try.
Her family is wonderful. They are so warm, loving, and accepting, that it made me cry after I got done meeting them. Then again, I feel that way about the families of all of my friends. Many of those families have taken me in.
Yes, I have an outside view, but my friends who know me know that the way you treat me is far from anything they can understand, and their parents are the same as age as you.
It is not your generation dad. It is not your health. It is not your hardscrabble upbringing. It is you.
You are a bully. The only thing that stops a bully is when you deck him in the face and make him bleed.
I have no intention of using physical violence. Laws prevent that. Yet I will psychologically break you in half because you deserve every ounce of pain that comes your way.
Mom will say that this will not make me feel better, but she is too busy enabling you to see the truth.
What are you going to do, cut me off financially? I don’t care. It’s not my money.
What are you going to do, cut me off emotionally? You already do that. You did it again in 2009 when I ‘defied your orders.’ I defied your orders because your orders were wrong.
You will never accept me for who I am. You once threatened never to speak to me again if I grew facial hair on my cheeks. You felt that a scraggly beard was slovenly. No girl would like me, no employer would hire me, and I would convey a lack of personal pride by having a scraggly goatee.
I was willing to trim it on the few days I visited you, but how I wear my hair on a daily basis 3000 miles away from you is none of your d@mn business. This is an example of you imposing your iron will and values on me. If you want to be ‘ashamed of me’ for how I wear my hair, then I have every right to let the world that I am ashamed of you for the way you treat me.
The final straw was when you told me that my grandfather would be ashamed of me if he were alive today. You know more than anybody how much he meant to me, and that was probably the most despicable thing you have ever said. For you, that is an accomplishment. As for my grandfather, he loved me unconditionally. If he were alive today, he would be ashamed of how you treat me. Even when he got angry, he never withheld his love, not one time. He was a hardened man, but he had love. You may have had that at one point, but that was long ago before anger took over your entire body and soul.
The bottom line is that you are nothing but a bully. I am going public because I am no longer afraid of you. I am going to hit back, and hit back hard, every day of your miserable, rotten life.
I am going to let the world know how you terrorized me.
As I said, you have nothing I want, not your pocket change or your fairweather affection that dissipates every time you don’t get your way.
Mom cries herself to sleep because she wants us to make peace. Again, she wants me to apologize solely because you are the dad.
That does not cut it anymore. As you get older, you will get worse and worse. As your health deteriorates, you will get more and more abusive.
I will not subject you to my future wife and children. You will never meet her. As for the wedding, you most likely would have tried to boycott it anyway unless every detail was to your satisfaction. I am not going to have you make a scene at my wedding like you did at my graduation. You will have no say about my suit or my hair.
More importantly, as for those grandchildren you badly wanted…you will never meet them. I simply cannot and will not let you near anybody I love. You are too angry, too bitter, and too hard on too many good people. They do not deserve to be subjected to you. Nobody does.
My children will not be scared to death from age 13 that drinking a can of soda will give them diabetes, or that eating a hamburger will give them a heart attack.
At some point, a parent has to let go and let the person he brought into this world lead their own life.
You have given me two options. Either I do everything you say all the time, or you simply cut me out of your life. A third option of simply being supportive would never occur to you.
You could try suing me for saying all of this, but truth is an absolute defense.
Despite your vicious nature, I have more compassion than you will ever know. I am giving you one last opportunity to be my father. It is going to involve you saying something that might make you choke. If you do, I can live with that. It will reflect your character.
An apology would kill you, so I am going to go much easier on you than you would ever deserve.
I want you to say the following phrase to me, and you have to mean it:
‘Son, maybe I have been too hard on you.’
I doubt you are even capable or willing to consider this. Unlike you, I am capable of admitting when I am wrong.
Either I hear those words from you, or I will emotionally bury you under an avalanche of your own bile.
I may be an S.O.B, but I am nowhere in your league. I am a far better human being than you will ever be.
It’s payback time dad. The bullying is going to stop now. I will take back the one thing that every human being has a right to possess. I am taking back my dignity.
If the bullying does not stop, upon your death, I will kick your coffin in front of everyone you know. They will be horrified, but they will know why I did it. You have kicked me every day of my life.
I would say more, but I have to go call the fathers of my friends and wish them a Happy Father’s Day. They are like the fathers I never had.”
I still have the shakes from those words. I think of my own father, and I realize that no matter how tough I have it, others have it tougher. As I said, it was not my intention to post this letter. Yet it was too compelling for me to ignore. I verified it for accuracy as best as I could, and find it to be authentic.
I just pray to God that it never applies to me or my family or the family of anybody I care about.
For those with better fathers, hug them immediately and be thankful.
To those men, Happy Father’s Day.
3 Responses to “A Chilling Father’s Day Nightmare”
Friends, Romans, and Countrymen, lend me your ears...and stupid people too! Listen up! Time is short! By September We’ll Have CONFISCATED ALL GUNS
May 25, 2009
Kremlin reports on the extraordinary meeting held today between President Medvedev and former United States Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger (under Nixon), James Baker (under Bush Sr.), Charles Shultz (under Regan), former United States Defense Secretary William Perry (under Clinton), and former US Senator and top defense expert Sam Nunn, are stating that the Americans are acknowledging for the first time their acceptance of a New Global Order...
in which they seek to partner with natural resource rich Russia and the oil rich Nations of the Middle East in order to ensure their survival into the 21st Century.
Leading the United States to the shocking conclusion that their very survival is at risk has been the evaporation of 45 percent of the World’s wealth which has caused a rapid plunge in Global manufacturing leading to a 49 percent collapse in US trade exports which the International Monetary Fund is reported has caused the World’s economy to shrink for the first time in 60 years and has lead Canada’s Central Bank chief David Dodge to state the World is “facing a long and deep recession that will fundamentally alter the nature of capitalism”.
Though Prime Minister Putin has warned that “resorting to a printing press would be unwise and extremely dangerous”, the already bankrupt United States, whose staggering debt is four times higher than their entire National income, has allowed its Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Ben “Throw Money Out of Helicopters” Bernanke to ‘create out of thin air’ a further $1.2 Trillion to stabilize the American economy, but which in turn has led to the collapse of the US Dollar leading the United Nations to recommend next week that the World “ditch the dollar as its reserve currency in favor of a shared basket of currencies”.
Russian economists further state in these reports that the United States has been left with ‘no other option’ than to force the massive devaluation of the US Dollar in order to ‘shake lose’ from banks and private investors the hundreds of billions they are currently hoarding and is being blamed for collapsing a United States where consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of its economy and which without money to borrow, or borrowers to loan to, is fast approaching the abyss.
With the devaluation of the US dollar, however, massive inflation will ensue causing the value of these currently hoarded hundreds of billions of US Dollars to plummet and forcing them to be spent before they become totally worthless, a policy which China, the largest Global holder of US debt, has voiced increasing concerns about and have cut back on their purchases of American debt even as desperation hits their own factories as orders plunge.
These top American Officials have also assured President Medvedev that new laws being written by the Obama administration will ‘completely’ reform the American financial system by fully integrating it into a single Global Economy due to be enacted during the coming G-20 summit in London.
When President Medvedev voiced his concerns to the Americans over his belief that the US Congress would not allow such a radical new set of laws to pass, these reports continue, Kissinger stated that the American people were being ‘primed’ to overwhelm their lawmakers into swiftly enacting ‘in its entirety’ the Obama administrations new banking and financial laws by the outrageous behavior of those collapsed financial giants that includes: 1.) The insurance giant AIG which after receiving over $300 billion in US taxpayer money paid out nearly $200 million in bonuses; 2.) The collapsed stock selling giant Merrill Lynch which after receiving $20 billion in US taxpayer money paid out $3.6 billion in bonuses; and 3.) The collapsed US banking giant Citigroup who after receiving $45 billion in US taxpayer money announced a $10 million redecoration of their executive office suites.
News from the United States today further confirm Kissinger’s assertions to President Medvedev as US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has now admitted that he had ordered US Senator Christopher Dodd to include the executive pay provision into the stimulus bill which was, in fact, a loophole allowing these controversial bonuses to be paid out.
To such machinations being utilized by their supposed ‘leaders’ against them in order to pave the road from a once sovereign United States to this New World Order these Americans remain nearly clueless, (empasis mine, NEH) but when pressed by President Medvedev on the plans to ensure that civil society on the North American continent doesn’t break down Kissinger reportedly replied, “By September we’ll have confiscated all privately owned guns so it really doesn’t matter what we do, we’ll still be in charge”.
Russian Intelligence reports state that gun ownership statistics in the United States vary widely, but is estimated to be that nearly 50 percent of US households have nearly 270 million guns, none of which these Americans seem now ready to part with without a fight.
But, new reports coming from the United States show that they are fast adopting the tactics used by the German Nazis to disarm their society prior to the installation of fascist rule and martial law by first rendering all private guns useless by eliminating and restricting the ammunition they use. And from new reports coming from the United States we can see that this ‘plan’ is already being instituted with ammunition shortages being reported in Idaho, Georgia, and Louisiana, and a new law just introduced in California which would:
Even more chilling for American gun owners was the Obama administrations order to the US Military on March 12 which stated: “Effective immediately DOD Surplus, LLC, will be implementing new requirements for mutilation of fired shell casings. The new DRMS requirement calls for DOD Surplus personnel to witness the mutilation of the property and sign the Certificate of Destruction.” which would have crippled the US ammunition industry, who are the largest purchasers of used military ammunition brass, but after found out about by US Senators was quickly withdrawn.
To the reasons feared by the leadership class in the United States of their citizens retaining the right to firearms we can read:
“As the growing world-wide economic crisis deepens, military forces from Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom are preparing to meet angry citizens on the street. The economic crisis - and the public outrage it is causing - is at the forefront of intelligence agencies and military forces in the western world.
Reports from the United States are also revealing that for the first time since their Civil War, active duty US Army Troops were put into the streets of Alabama after the killing spree of a crazed gunman, but which the US Army is now reporting it is ‘investigating’ because it doesn’t know who deployed them.
To whom the leadership elite in America are actually planning on protecting themselves from we can further read: “A new document meant to help Missouri law enforcement agencies identify militia members or domestic terrorists has drawn criticism for some of the warning signs mentioned.
As to what these dangerous American terrorists can expect once they are in the custody of their US intelligence services?
Even worse for these dissident Americans are the chilling revelations from top investigative news journalist Seymour Hersh: “After 9/11, I haven’t written about this yet, but the Central Intelligence Agency was very deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state. Without any legal authority for it. They haven’t been called on it yet. That does happen.”
So today, as the United States ‘watch list’ for domestic and International terrorists has hit 1 million names, in a country that already has more prisoners than any other Nation in the World, or our entire Earths’ history for that matter, and as sales of weapons and ammunition are still hitting record highs in America since President Obama’s election, it would appear more than likely that the assertions of US officials to Russia that they remain in control of their country is highly doubtful…and needing just one single ‘spark’ to plunge it into full scale civil war.
And whose to say that hasn’t been their ‘plan’ all along?
----- Original Message -----
I wrote this in response to the Kissinger promise forwarded to me." I believe that essentially the statements will prove correct, but what riles me is the claim in there that the "German fascists" (horrible description of National Socialism) disarmed the German populace. That is false, a downright lie, gun ownership was encouraged, the gun laws in the Weimar Republic were softened. No military guns shooting military ammunition were allowed though generally..
I myself stood as a 6 year old boy in the summer of 1945 before a gigantic heap of guns in Germany that had to be turned in and a lot were destroyed. The glorious Allies even confiscate guns from the 1500s, valuable handmade wheel locks. Anything that was technically shootable or had a barrel had to be turned in. Priceless guns with engravings, gold and platinum inlays in the metal depicting hunting scenes, carved wooden stocks depicting game and natural scenery.
Just my little rant
Apparently some writers who seem to be patriotic cannot do without slamming the "Nazis", maybe they think that our true masters, you know the ones who belong to the same tribe Kissinger belongs to "will be placated.."
Posted: 23 Jun 2009 10:00 AM PDT
I don’t know if anybody else has been following this, but the Supreme Court made an interesting decision on Monday. I’ll give the background and then the decision.
Much of the South is covered under the “Voting Rights Act of 1965”, which requires that any changes to election law or districts be approved by the Feds prior to implementation, because of a history of racial discrimination in the past. Alabama is one of those states.
Recently, that law was challenged by “officials from a water district near Austin, Texas, who said they should not have to ask for permission from Washington for switching a polling place from a house to a public school.”
The case wound up in the Supreme Court, who ruled on Monday that the Voting Rights Act would remain intact. Though they didn’t invalidate the Act, they DID create a way for cities to be removed from it by “going to court and showing it had not violated any provision of the Voting Rights Act for a decade.”
Well, that’s a LITTLE better, since now cities CAN get out from under the thumb of the Fed. But the process described by the Justices is time-consuming and expensive, and I would have hoped for a better fix.
Still, from some of the comments made by the Justices, the next such case that lands in front of of the Supremes may receive an entirely different reaction.
Personally, I’d like to see the law disbanded entirely.
Posted: 23 Jun 2009 05:45 AM PDT
As you know, PresBo says he wants to cut health care costs, and the way he wants to do it is by creating a “public option” for health insurance. This means a government-run insurance company that competes with privately-run companies. This is how PresBo wants to bring down health care costs.
Will it work? CAN it work? Well, if history and previous precedent mean anything, then no, it cannot and will not work.
Let’s look at Medicare for an example of how a government-run health care program has reduced costs over time. Another reason to use Medicare as an example is that, according to Tom Daschle, the new program will be “modeled after” Medicare.
A new study published by the Pacific Research Institute “…takes all health-care spending in the United States and subtracts the costs of the two flagship government-run programs, Medicare and Medicaid. It then takes that remaining spending and compares its cost increases over time with Medicare's cost increases over time.”
And the results? Did Medicare costs increase more slowly than private insurance? Well, no, not exactly.
The results are clear: Since 1970 — even without the prescription drug benefit — Medicare's costs have risen 34% more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of which is purchased through the private sector.
Okay, you say, maybe the study made assumptions that made this outcome likely? Nope. If anything, the reverse is true.
These conclusions are true despite very generous treatment of Medicare. My study counts Medicare's prescription drug expenditures as part of privately purchased care, rather than as part of Medicare. It counts health care purchased privately by Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries (including Medicare copayments and Medigap insurance) among the costs of private care, without counting its recipients among those receiving private care — thereby magnifying private care's per-person costs. And it doesn't adjust for cost-shifting from Medicare to private entities.
What about other studies showing the reverse?
The New York Times and others have quoted studies claiming that private insurance has failed to contain costs as well as Medicare. Such studies are deeply misleading, for they omit any consideration of out-of-pocket spending, thereby neglecting a major shift in the private health care market.
So the bottom line is that creating a government-run insurance option patterned after Medicare will cause health care costs to increase faster than they would have with only private insurance. Costs will go UP, not down.