The EXEGETIST: A Library Of Independent Political Thought. By: Jack H. Dawsey

Euro-English, Anyone?

(Submitted by a Friend)

The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the European Union rather than German, which was the other possibility.  As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5- year phase-in plan that would become known as “Euro-English”.

In the first year, “s” will replace the soft “c”. Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard “c” will be dropped in favour of “k”. This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome “ph” will be replaced with “f”. This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible.  Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling.  Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent “e” in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away.

By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing “th” with “z” and “w”with “v”.

During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary “o” kan be dropd from vords kontaining “ou” and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensi bl riten styl.  Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru.
Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze forst plas.  If zis mad you smil, pleas pas on to oza pepl.

Show Me The Money

By: Jack Dawsey

Doubtless, the central banks of America, Europe, and Asia are the economic engines of the modern world.    Some good is generated from these banks.  For example, without their existence more 3^rd world countries would populate the earth.  But in today’s market, the central banks have become corrupt again much as they were in the Middle Ages.

Did you know that banks, from their early beginnings, proved to be the repository of a nation’s wealth?  And did you know that the earliest banks were the source of financial manipulations?  The clients of the early Renaissance Banks, for example, were mostly Kings, Queens, and families of Nobility. 

The Kings and their designated warriors required loans to fund their military exploits, whose aim was conquest.  It’s no coincidence that clients of the early banking industry required protection from adversaries.  The history of Europe is replete with bankrupt Kings and Queens who borrowed from banks, only to discover that the same bank funded their adversary in military adventures.  It’s no secret that banks funded wars among nations, that banking became the vehicle for potential expansion opportunities of Kings and Nobles, and that those banks supported the earliest idea of a standing army.   It should be noted at this juncture in this editorial that among one of the earliest functions of banks was the financing of wars, that lending and funding war exploits became so profitable it diminished the sole requirement of deposits from Nobles.  And that, as a result of war-mongering, control of the banking industry was relegated in the hands of a few private, family businesses.  Wars among nations generated enormous wealth and put great political power in the hands of a selected few. 

While the banking industry has changed in the modern world, the essence of financial collaboration and manipulation has not.  It’s become worse and more widespread.  Interestingly, the earliest families of nobility, for example the French Rothschild’s, were the lending business arm and source of war of the middle Ages.  Continuity and private ownership has continued in the industry.  But today, (unknown) banks and/or their private (unknown to the public) subsidiaries hold mortgage bundles and liens on commercial and private property, and other major economic interests on American society.

Did you know that the Federal Reserve System, (thought by many to be a U.S. Government Agency), is actually a privately owned corporation?   Similarly, the World-Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are conglomerates controlled by a few.  It should also be noted that when the United States decides how much currency it allows in circulation, the decision is essentially made by the collaboration of a few.  Did you know that when the U.S. Government goes into debt to finance an operations, (whether it’s war, or peace, or Medicare Part D, or the new health care reform program, or stimulus bailouts), it issues monies borrowed, including borrowing from the central banks of Europe and Asia, particularly China? Did you know that China plays an integral role in the financing of America’s interest and debt today, and that Republican President Richard Nixon opened our doors to China?  And did you know that as a result of the excessive democrat and republican borrowing and spending, YOUR dollar at the super market is weaken, that YOUR 401-K Savings Plan is diminished, that YOUR IRA is essentially worthless, and that YOUR most prized hard asset of all, YOUR house and private property, is devalued?

In summary, the major banks of the world, particularly the commercial banks on Wall Street have only a few key players.  They exercise enormous power within the Military Industrial Complex, (the subject of another, forthcoming, editorial), and they exercise obscene political power over YOUR U.S. Congressman or Congresswoman.  It cannot be under stated that these institutions, together and in collaboration, greatly influence the political entities and political actions of the world, including famine and war.

Finally; in closing, President Harry S. Truman is quoted as saying the danger to democracy comes not from the masses, but from the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, and the Income Tax is the best remedy to solve that problem.  Truman is further quoted saying that if a 90% tax was levied on income similar to the 90% threshold on income over $100,000 to fight World War II, that the American government could live up to its responsibility to its own citizens.  As a result of the World War II tax, the nation didn’t have a tax-burden.  The nation was debt free.  And look at the enormous prosperity the post war period brought Americans.  Where are those debt free days today? 

With respect to the current concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, there’s only one way to stop and win the current war on terror.  First, impose the WW-II, 90% Income Tax threshold and reopen Alcatraz. Put the tax dodgers in that isolated slammer and you’ll see an immediate improvement to the nation’s financial dilemma.  The other immediate by-product of that tax policy will cause the “banksters” on Wall Street to stop this war, pronto.

In Modern America, Do Elections Matter?

By: Jack Dawsey

Political elections come and go.  Soon, another cycle will follow and many political operatives will go bonkers over “their” candidate.  To hear the radio and television ads, one will think Obama is on the ballot.  They’ll demand for you to vote Republican.  Others will extol Obama’s virtue, and recommend to you to vote Democrat.  Neither will be true.  For example, the most recent elections in Virginia, New Jersey and the House of Representative candidate in New York prove it.  What really occurred in those states is true in all elections.  In the case of Virginia and New Jersey, for example, the majority of Democrats was not enthused about their candidate and did not turn out.  The Republicans won.  In the New York House race, the people simply rejected the likes of Conservative Doug Hoffman, and his supporting cast of Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sara Palin.  But in modern America, do elections really matter with respect to the betterment of, “We, the people?”

There is such a thing in the political world as gerrymandering or redistricting.  As we speak gerrymandering is occurring, and the politicians in power are redistricting their power base to benefit their personal need, and not yours.  By the way, the Republicans did it when they were in power.  In modern America, there is no difference between the Dum’o’rats and the Re’pub’a’thugs -as I affectionally call them.  They are merely two different sides of the same One-Eyed-Jack.  [Have you ever noticed that you can only see one eye of the Jack of Spades in a deck of cards?]  The Jack is like your typical Republican and Democrat politician.  You only see one side of them at a time. 

Whether Obama or McCain, or Bush or Gore, they are controlled.  Corporate and Wall Street Banksters always win in political elections because they control the flow of money.   If that hasn’t been made clear in the most recent elections in this country, another ton of evidence will not convince.  And Obama is a classic example.  Where is the hope and meaningful change he promised?  Have the troops departed Iraq and Afghanistan?  Or, why can’t real and meaningful healthcare reform pass?  And look who is serving in positions of power in his Administration.  They are Clinton retreads and people from Goldman-Sachs.

Now with respect to the accusations that Obama is ushering in socialism, I laugh when Republicans come unglued about that.  They decry Obama’s socialism, but gave a wink and a nod when their party spent YOUR money like a drunken sailor.  They didn’t quibble when their party authorized an unpaid $1.3 trillion dollar program for Medicare Part D.  They didn’t say ‘boo’ when their party executed an $850 billion bailout for banks that they said were: “to big to fail.”  They didn’t even whimper when their party spent in excess of $2.0 trillion dollars to their Military Industrial Complex and no bid contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan for privately owned contractors.  Nor did their lap-dog news channel and talking heads on the FOX NETWORK protest as Republicans spent the $1.6 trillion dollar budget surplus they inherited in 2000.

I laugh when the vociferous in the party of NO say they oppose socialism and government spending, but gladly drink water from a county water system.  I laugh when the party of No say they oppose more government, but don’t object to driving their vehicles on the state and federal highway system.  I laugh when they say they oppose socialism, but don’t refuse the services offered by their local fire, police, and EMS departments.  And I’m waiting for those who oppose more government involvement in healthcare to refuse Medicare.  I’m waiting for them to ask their aging grandmother, (if on Medicaid for example), to refuse that socialistic program.  I’m waiting too for those who oppose (socialism) to refuse their monthly social security checks.   And maybe someone should ask them to stop buying meat at their local supermarket because it was inspected by some socialist, USDA certified, government food inspector.  On second thought, they should just GET A LIFE!

And finally, one more comment with respect to the debate about real and meaningful health care.  How can other civilized nations manage to provide basic healthcare to their people, but we can’t?  And consider this.  If we concluded the Iraq and Afghanistan war (by the way a war that was never officially declared by Congress which the U.S. Constitution demands), and if that money was used to improve the lives of our citizens, maybe all Americans could benefit.  But that won’t happen.  While I do expect some form of healthcare reform bill will pass the Congress, it will be laden with loopholes so that the average American will not be served from it.

As long as the “robber-class” rules America and we, the “robbed” allow elections to have no meaningful results, we get what we pay for.  As long as the Exxon-Mobil’s, Halliburton’s, and Blackwater/Xe, and Kellogg, Brown & Root, and the Military Industrial Complex control America’s political process, we ought not to expect positive change.  Frankly, as long as “We, the people…” endorse the existing election process, we should expect nothing short of home foreclosures, job losses, more bank bailouts, and stimulus programs to AIG, Goldman-Sachs and other Wall Street Banksters.