–Do you want an austere America? Be careful what you wish for

Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity breeds austerity and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

Lest you believe that the Tea Party Patriots and the Republicans are purely political groups, who preach patriotism, fiscal responsibility, the Constitution and the free market, think again. While they use those words, many of them believe in a religious fundamentalism, completely at odds with what you may think those words mean.

Their “patriotism” does not mean love of our nation, for they wish to minimize or eliminate the very government that makes our nation possible. Their “fiscal responsibility” is a fiscal cruelty that would deny help for the needy. The “Constitution” is the antithesis of their beliefs, since they do not accept the dominance of civil law. And their “free market” is free only for the very wealthiest among us. The oil, coal and railroad barons of yesteryear believed in that version of a “free market.”

Background: In every group, the extremists define the agenda and the words to describe it. They are the loudest, most assured, most demanding sect, and view themselves as the “true” believers, with all others being lesser versions or even infidels. Thus, for conservatives, Christian Reconstructionism sets the agenda. It believes civil law must conform to their interpretations of biblical law. They preach a Calvinist, austere, hardhearted America.

Christian conservatives are akin to those Muslims who believe civil law must conform to Sharia law. Both tend to theocratic ideals, with the civil government being reduced or eliminated altogether, in favor of religious interpretations and religious administration of all law. The common claim, “America is a Christian country,” merely is a way to say, “If you’re not Christian (my kind of Christian), you aren’t American and don’t deserve to be treated like an American.”

The Tea Party’s call for less taxing and smaller government is a direct result of this theocratic fervor.

Applying ancient interpretations of religious law to modern life leads to a cruel, austere, arbitrary, pitiless world, in which human needs and desires are suppressed by a dictatorial priesthood, often harsher than the most evil, civil dictatorships. The extreme right believes there should be a Christian theonomy, where God is the source of ethics, as interpreted by the priests, not by civil law, similar to the Taliban teaching and enforcing of Sharia.

Under Christian Reconstructionism, the death sentence would be applied to adultery, homosexuality, incest, bestiality, pretending to be a virgin, idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, false accusations, false prophesying, kidnapping, and rape. Because the vast majority of humankind, including most religious leaders, has engaged in a least one of these “crimes,” the priesthood would have wide latitude to punish by death anyone they choose.

The natural result of the belief that God’s law supercedes civil law, is the belief that governments are immoral, so civil laws are immoral, and obeying civil law is optional. From this evolved the evangelical, home schooling movement, which is related to the notion that man’s science is immoral.

All the above has a powerful political outcome. For example, the vitriol against using embryonic stem cells for research that can save lives, is based on “God above man,” “God above science” beliefs. Though there is no scientific (or even biblical) basis for claiming that an embryonic stem cell is a human being, and that killing this invisible-to-the-naked-eye cell is murder, religious extremists interpret everything according to their vision of their bible, including the belief theirs is “the one true religion.”

The result: Many thousands of unfortunate women forced to carry babies they neither want nor can care for; many thousands of unwanted children born into poverty, crime and disease; many thousands of sick people not cured – a great mountain of misfortune and misery, none of which concerns those of the extreme right, for theirs is not a human morality, but a religious one.

Which is why they so willingly preach harsh austerity, for their neighbors and for their nation (their claims of “patriotism” notwithstanding).

The anti-government preaching of the right has dire consequences for America. It is consistent with the anti-science teaching of creationism, leading to acceptance of other anti-science such as vaccine conspiracies and naturopathy. Once you doubt science on the basis of religion, you can use the same religion to disbelieve all science, and a return to the dark ages is a small step away.

The cold, lack of concern for human misery and misfortune has other political repercussions:

Under the guise of employment and resource scarcity, a harsh immigration policy, allowing difficult immigration laws and no amnesty.

And, under the guise of “fiscal responsibility”:
An end to, or greatly reduced, Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid
Reduced unemployment coverage
Smaller government and reduced benefits of government

And under the guise of morality:
Intolerance of any abortion for any reason
Intolerance of gays
Misogyny
Mixing of church and state

For a much deeper understanding of the right-wing extremism that has begun to take over our nation, I recommend reading: An interview with Frank Schaeffer

Today’s politics in not left vs. right. It is human empathy vs. cruel biblicality. The most important law forgotten by the right wing religionists is the Golden Rule.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
b>Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment + Private Consumption + Net exports

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–America’s biggest “super committee”: The Supreme Court and conflicts of interest

The debt reduction “super committee” was a failure by any measure, not only because it failed to agree, but more importantly, because it was designed to fail. It was a purely political organization, whose decisions were to have nothing to do with the underlying facts, but only be a series of political compromises and power plays.

The super committee could have “succeeded,” if that word even can be used, only if one party had held a majority in the committee, in which case, decisions would have reflected the wishes of that party.

Which brings us to the United States Supreme Court.

The Washington Post
Health-care case brings fight over which Supreme Court justices should decide it
By Robert Barnes, Published: November 27

Just a little more than an hour after some House Democrats recently demanded an inquiry into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s ethics, Senate Republicans stepped up the pressure on Justice Elena Kagan to take herself out of the court’s decision on the health-care reform act.

The process repeated itself a few days later. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) called for the release of more documents about Kagan’s role as President Obama’s solicitor general; the liberal group People for the American Way came out with another broadside against Thomas.

Accusations about both justices, from the left and the right, show no signs of dissipating now that the Supreme Court has said it will review the constitutionality of Obama’s signature domestic achievement, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.

Arguing about which Justices may or may not have conflicts of interest is like arguing about which religions are best or worst. It’s a ridiculous exercise based on phony arguments leading to a pack of lies.

You have seen images of Lady Justice. Here she is on the lamp posts outside the United States Supreme Court.

She is blindfolded to demonstrate justice being meted out dispassionately and impartially, to indicate judges should be ruled neither by their hearts nor personal beliefs, but only by the law. She holds scales which symbolize how facts for and against each claim are weighed evenly. And she carries a sword to demonstrate her power and ability to cut through to the truth.

That is our even-handed, apolitical Supreme Court, devoid of interest conflicts.

Would that it were so. In truth, the U.S. Supreme Court is no less political, no less conflicted than the Congress or the President.

Consider the “Appointments Clause” (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) which states: “ . . . he (the President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court. . . “

Being appointed by the #1 politician in America, subject to the consent of the #1 political body in America, guarantees the appointed Justice will be a highly political creature, which in turn guarantees he/she will be neither dispassionate nor impartial nor without conflicts. Forget the blindfold and the scales. The United States Supreme Court is nothing more than another, highly partisan “super committee.”

And consider the Senate hearings, where each nominee swears he/she has no prior thoughts, ideas, convictions, beliefs or prejudices about anything in the world. To hear them testify, they each are blank slates, having lived apart from humanity, and acquiring no leanings of any kind.

So, the process begins with the nominators denying any political motivation and the nominee lying right along with them, and no one believing any of them — the theater of the absurd.

Perhaps the one difference between the Supreme Court and the super committee, and it is an important difference, is the lifetime appointment. Surprising to many, this nowhere is mentioned in the Constitution, which says only that Justices may hold office “during good behavior.” No Justice ever has been removed for “bad” behavior, though this theoretically is possible.

Which brings us back to the biggest case of the year: The health-care law’s individual mandate, requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance beginning in 2014 or pay a penalty. The Court will decide if the provision is constitutional, whether it can be severed from the rest of the law and whether the penalty is a tax.

A dispassionate evaluation of underlying law will have little affect on the decisions, which ultimately will be based primarily on political motivation. Republican-appointed Justices will tend to lean toward the Republican desire to get rid of so-called “Obamacare,” while Democrat-appointed Justices will lean toward retained the law: Purely political decisions masquerading as even-handed law.

The fact that Justice Roberts agrees with Justice Alito an astounding 96% of the time while agreeing with Justice Ginsburg only 65% of the time (Justice agreement) is not an accident, nor is it a reflection of underlying facts. It reflects the lack of dispassion.

So ignore all the moaning a bleating about which Justice should recuse. None will and none should. They all are what they are: Lying politicians.

Let the games begin.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–How the 1% turns the 99% against itself and makes us into dogs

The 1% has the money and the power, but most importantly, it controls the minds of the 99%. It has managed to convince the 99% that the federal deficit (i.e. the money supply) is too large and that programs primarily benefiting the 99% (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, aid for the poor) need to be cut to “save” them.

And the 99% go along with this self-harming, suicidal notion, because they are so accustomed to being told what to do, they readily accept being punished for sins they didn’t commit.

You all have seen this picture. It’s a policeman — a solid member of the 99% — pepper spraying fellow members of the 99%, at the instigation of some unknown member of the 1%.

HELPLESS, PEACEFUL POLICE OFFICER DEFENDS HIMSELF AGAINST VICIOUS ATTACK BY ARMED AND ENRAGED #OWS CRIMINALS

A University of California at Davis police officer pepper-sprays students during a campus demonstration Nov. 18, an act that led to multiple suspensions and calls for the chancellor to resign. (BRIAN NGUYEN, Reuters Photo / November 22, 2011) Chicago Tribune.

The Tribune article says, “Though law enforcement officers will use pepper spray as a nonlethal tactic for crowd control, some have drawn criticism for its use during Occupy movement protests in Denver, Seattle and elsewhere.

“A New York City police commander was transferred in September after he sprayed two female protesters standing behind a police barrier. The UC Davis campus police chief and two officers were suspended after the incident there, and students called for the university chancellor to resign.”

What prompts police and the military worldwide to turn against their own neighbors? I suspect there is something in our pack-animal psychology that makes us yearn for the approval and direction of a leader. Dogs too, are pack animals, and will do virtually anything their leader tells them to do.

In short, we act like dogs.

If the President says, “Give up some of your Social Security,” we not only do so, but we mightily defend this harmful idea, against all criticism.

If the wealthy-owned newspapers say, “Surrender some of your Medicare,” we become convinced it necessary, and argue against anyone who says it isn’t.

If Congress says, “Cut spending on education, roads, bridges, stem-cell research, bank and securities regulation, food inspection and other important benefits,” we, with only the barest of whimpers, do as we are told– like pack dogs.

And if the mayor of your town criticizes #OWS, that is reason enough for the police to assume a mad dog posture, and beat, spray, cuff and arrest non-violent protesters, who are exercising their free speech rights on behalf of the 99% — of whom the police are a part.

Next time you are tempted to do the 1%’s bidding by sneering at #OWS for supposedly dirtying a park or blocking traffic, or by arguing for deficit reduction (which will increase the gap between you and the 1%), remember who you are and what #OWS is trying to do for you.

Don’t be that policeman. Don’t be a pack dog.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Curing anemia by bleeding the patient. Saving the captain by throwing the passengers overboard.

The UK, like the U.S. is Monetarily Sovereign. It has the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency, the pound. It can pay any bill of any size at any time. Unfortunately, the UK, like the U.S., does not know it is Monetarily Sovereign, so it acts exactly like Greece, Italy and Spain, which are monetarily non-sovereign.

The UK and the U.S. see their ships of state sinking. They both need to bail them out, but both nations are ruled by leaders who do not understand the fundamental differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty. So they try to solve their economic money shortages by supporting some sectors (big banks, mostly), while reducing support for sectors that benefit the poor (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the military).

This is called: “Save the captain of a sinking boat by bailing water from the bow and into the stern, while throwing the passengers overboard” It’s a first cousin to the famous, “curing anemia by bleeding the patient,” which the U.S. has perfected into an art form.

Here is the UK approach:

UK aims for recovery with £20 billion loan scheme
By Tim Castle | Reuters 11/27/11

LONDON – Britain will underwrite 20 billion pounds of loans to smaller companies in a package of measures to boost the economy, while sticking to a strict austerity programme, Chancellor George Osborne said on Sunday.

Osborne is under pressure to find ways to revive a stagnant economy and avoid a return to recession without compromising a deficit-cutting spending squeeze.

The government will back loans to be made by banks to small- and medium-sized companies to cure a shortage of credit that has hampered Britain’s economic recovery.

The “revive, while deficit cutting” is the classic debt-hawk bailing system. Notice also that it involves loans to companies – loans which, when paid back, will reduce the money supply. Why loans instead of gifts? Because the UK does not know it is Monetarily Sovereign, and we’re talking about small companies, not big banks.

Osborne and his coalition government has staked its reputation on eliminating a budget deficit that was a record 11 percent when it came to power last year by implementing the deepest spending cuts in a generation.

This should read, “Osborne and his coalition government has staked its reputation on eliminating the money growth so desperately needed by his sinking economy.

That has limited his room for manoeuvre, cutting off the route of greater deficit-funding to stimulate growth and drawing criticism from the Labour opposition who say the austerity programme is too tight and should be relaxed.

Who’da thunk? You mean cutting the money supply has an adverse effect on an economy? Imagine that!

The neighbouring euro zone crisis has compounded the challenge, with the government’s fiscal watchdog expected to follow other forecasters next week by slashing its growth outlook for 2012 by more than half. The British economy has barely grown over the past 12 months, with households cutting spending as wages fall behind inflation and unemployment rises.

Captain Osborne says, “Pay no attention to that iceberg, mate. Full speed ahead.”

Osborne said it was the credibility gained by Britain’s adherence to its fiscal plan which meant he was able to create the loan guarantee scheme. “There are many governments at the moment that could not operate a scheme like this because (they) would not be regarded as creditworthy enough to do it,” he said.

Ah, the “credibility fairy.” Here’s how she works. A Monetarily Sovereign nation decides to starve its sinking economy of money. As a result, forecasters expect the economy to sink faster, which provides the economic credibility that allows the nation to lend money it should give.

Understand?

“We have got a deficit reduction plan that has brought us record low interest rates, that has earned us that triple A credit rating,” said Osborne. “We are absolutely going to stick to that plan because that is what is helping Britain weather this international debt storm and is also helping us lay the foundations of a stronger economy.”

Said another way: “Diving deeper into recession, with the money supply draining away, is what earns a triple A credit rating from the rating organizations that also gave a triple A rating to worthless mortgage securities. Based on our past success, we are laying the foundation for a stronger recession.”

. . . ministers have announced . . . measures to help growth, including backing mortgages for families buying new-build homes and a 400 million pound investment fund to help construction firms finance housing developments . . . an agreement with large British pension funds (to invest) in . . . roads and broadband networks, . . . a 1 billion pound programme to find jobs and work experience for 400,000 unemployed young people, and a 600 million pound investment in specialist maths schools.

Sounds good, right? Now, the other shoe drops:

There has been less detail on the funding for these measures, with newspapers speculating that some welfare benefits will be frozen to pay for them.

Perfect. Take money from welfare recipients to pay for economic growth. The lowest, weakest, least influential part of the 99% will pay for the 1%.

Sound familiar? In America we have a similar, though somewhat different system for screwing the 99%. We cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits to “save” these programs (In Vietnam, we bombed villages to “save” them), while bailing out the biggest, wealthiest banks at the expense of the customers they screwed.

And the only ones complaining are the #OWS protesters, whom the 99% abhor for being loud, unkempt and causing traffic jams.

You simply cannot make this stuff up.

I award Chancellor Osborne 2 clowns for obvious reasons.

This brings my clown deficit to 1352. Osborne is worried.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: