Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Canada should indeed take a Strong Stand on Honduras

I wrote the following as a letter to the editor in the Globe and mail as a response to this transparent piece of propaganda written by Jorge Heine in that paper.
Jorge Heine is right insofar as Canada does need to take a strong stand on Honduras, but he and I have a vastly different understanding of what that one line means, since I disagree with and challenge every other word in his piece.

His suggestion that a coup took place is an outright falsehood, and to refer to imterim President Roberto Micheletti as a "strongman; is about as laughable as one can get, if the situation was not so deadly serious.

Interim President Roberto Micheletti was a democratically elected congressman who is not seeking re-election to congress. He is also a member of ousted President Manuel Zelaya's Liberal party. He was asked to assume the presidency, as per the constitutional line of succession, on an interim basis until what would have been the end of Zelaya's term after the Liberal party controlled Congress voted unanimously to remove Zelaya for having defied a Supreme court ruling against his planned illegal referendum which would have permitted him to change certain articles in the constitution which then would have allowed him to run for president again.
Once again I will refer to Heine's reference to Micheletti as a "strongman", and demonstrate how utterly misleading his statement was, given that Honduras has the one term in a lifetime limit built into the constitution so that no "strongman" could ever rise again in a latin American land which had lived under a succession of dictators prior to the new constitution of 1982. So as to make absolutely certain of this, though some articles in the constutution can hand have been reformed through prescribed mechanisms, the provision for term limits is one of several that cannot be changed for any reason.
Mr Zelaya was removed for having refused to heed the decision handed down by the Supreme Court, and the removal from office was backed up by the armed forces who arrested him and sent him to exile in Costa Rica.
President Micheleti spoke with Greta van Sustern on Fox news, and told her that he will not be running for president, nor can he ver consider doing so, since he has now served as President and is ineligible to run in the November elections.
The western world should realize that if they are on the same side as Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, and Hugo Chavez, it is probably a good idea to go back and re-examine their premises, or better yet stop listening to people like Jorge Heine, and get the facts, free from political colouring.

The Prophecy of Francisco D'anconia

As i watch the decline of the United States that has taken place since Reagan left office, and hit Mach IV speed under the Obama administration, I observed that Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is playing out in front of us. One of the characters in the book, Chilean copper idustrialist Francisco D'Anconia lets loose at a function about the prevailing mindset at the time which is remarkably similar to today. In it he defines teh meaning of money, and how the lack of understanding of what it is and how it is made vs. obtained and then brings us to a conclusion of what lies ahead if the paradigm is allowed to grow and fester.

Francisco D’Anconia’s Speech: The Meaning of Money
Tuesday, January 1, 1957

“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia.

“Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

“When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor–your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?

“Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions–and you’ll learn that man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

“But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made–before it can be looted or mooched–made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced.

“To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss–the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery–that you must offer them values, not wounds–that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men’s stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade–with reason, not force, as their final arbiter–it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability–and the degree of a man’s productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

“But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality–the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

“Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he’s evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he’s evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

“Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth–the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

“Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men’s vices or men’s stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment’s or a penny’s worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you’ll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?

“Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?

“Or did you say it’s the love of money that’s the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It’s the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money–and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.

“Let me give you a tip on a clue to men’s characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

“Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another–their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

“But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich–will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt–and of his life, as he deserves.

“Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard–the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money–the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law–men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims–then money becomes its creators’ avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they’ve passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

“Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion–when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you–when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice–you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

“Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, ‘Account overdrawn.’

“When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, ‘Who is destroying the world?’ You are.

“You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it’s crumbling around you, while you’re damning its life-blood–money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men’s history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves–slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody’s mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer, Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers–as industrialists.

“To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money–and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man’s mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being–the self-made man–the American industrialist.

“If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose–because it contains all the others–the fact that they were the people who created the phrase ‘to make money.’ No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity–to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality.

“Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters’ continents. Now the looters’ credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide–as, I think, he will.

“Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns–or dollars. Take your choice–there is no other–and your time is running out.”


The above is an excerpt from the novel Atlas Shrugged that appears in the Ayn Rand’s Institute website.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Trouble in Honduras

This is a hastily made post, because of the urgency of the matter

there's trouble in Honduras. As many people know, the Supreme Court of Honduras found President Manuel Zelaya in violation of the constitution for trying to hold a referendum that would allow him to seek another term in office. After having lived under successive dictatorships for many years, in 1982, the new democratic government adopted a constution which forbade anyone from serving more than one four year term as president in a lfetime, so that no strongman could ever arise again.
With the backing og Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, Zelaya tried to hold a referenum to change that part of the constitution, the trouble was, that is the one part of the constituion that cannot be amended. Zelaya was removed from power by a unanymous vote in Congress, and the decision was enforced by the military which arrested him and took him to Costa Rica.
This was immediately condemned as a "military coup" by Hugo Chavez, who pulled just such a stunt to perpetuate his power, and he was quickly backed by his socialist sock puppets in the Organization of American States. Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton joined in, in calling it an illegal coup. The Canadian government and several others joined this group on the wrong side of history. Only Israel and taiwan has expressed support for the legitimate government of Honduras.
Now, Zelaya has sneaked back into the country and is holed up at the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa. My sources in Honduras tell me that interim President Roberto Micheletti has declared a curfew, whereby nobody is permitted to leave their homes, and troops have surrounded the Brazilian Embassy demanding that the former President to be handed over. There is a stand-off in progress.
This is a call t all who beleive in freedom, liberty and the sovereignty of bnations to stand up and denounce this attempt to restore a wannabee dictator to power. We need good people to call on our governments to get behind the Micheletti administration and to stop kissing Hugo Chavez, Lula, Fernandez-Kirchner and Castro's socialist behinds. I'll be posting some more stuff on this, but for more background on this situation, please vist my archives from June and July. You will see the truth. Our friends in Honduras need your support!

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Obama leading us to Global war?

Obama leading us to Global war?

Barack Hussein Obama has reneged on a US promise to provide Missile defense for Poland and the Czech Republic... Why? To appease the revanchiste Russian regime of Vladimir Putin. And to add insult to injury, he has done it on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet Invasion of Eastern Poland as per the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty.

Though nominally the President, let's make no mistake about it, Dimitri Medvedev doesn't even take a trip to the loo without Putin first signing off on it, and for Obama to believe he can do business with these people is either a demonstration of an appalling ignorance of history, or a deliberate sellout of western security.

Poland has long been a staunch US ally. Now Poland has been betrayed. So what is Poland to do?

It is my view that as long as Obama is president, the United States is no longer to be trusted or counted on. Ask anyone in Honduras.So Poland, and other countries in Eastern central europe must take measures themselves to protect themselves against Russian aggression.

George W. Bush once stated that he " looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul" John McCain, however, got it right when he said " I looked into Putin' eyes and saw three letters: K-G-B".

Like Chamberlain, Barack Obama seems to believe that appeasing rogue governments is the pathway to peace. In 1936, Adolf Hitler first tested the resolve of western powers by marching a hanful of trrops into the Rhineland. he marched the same troops out and then back in again several times, and the west was sufficiently afraid of confrontation that they let him get away with it. Hitler tested them again over Austria, and then Czechoslovakia and was able to size them up as "liitle worms" as he put it. Had they marched into the Rhinelnad and called Hitler's bluff, the Nazi dictator would have , by his own admission, fallen from power. Instead, the result was a major war 3 years later that took tens of millions of lives and left Europe in ruins.
Now Obama is backing down on all the eastern European allies that George Bush stood up for and John McCain would have stood up for. And even more amazing is that he let his guard down just after the Russians agreed to ship weapons and tanks to the Chavez regime in Venezuela, and is cozying up to Iran.

I believe that Barack Hussein Obama is leading us to just such a war. Chavez is buying these Russian weapons, not to "defend" Venezuela, which has no enemies seriously contemplating, let alone capable of invading them, but rather, he will launch an invasion of Colombia, which as an emerging democracy, threastens to embolden the resistance within Venezuela. he may well ship some tanks to his ally Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, so that an invasion of Honduras will be possible.
Meanwhile, Russia is a clear and present danger. It is my contention that Putin wants to restore the Russian Empire, and realize the longtime Russian goal of getting a warm water southern port. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, which saw many captive nations break away from Moscow's grip. It is enough that it was a humiliation to a once great power, but strategically , it was a disaster. With Ukraine declaring independence, Russia lost Odessa and Sebastopol, their ports on the Black Sea, which allowed them access to the Mediterreanean via the Dardanelles. They now lease the port from Ukraine, which limits them in terms of how it can be used. They also lost huge coal resources, and excellent farmland. Since the ascension of Putin, the Russians have tried to weaken Ukraine, and even brimg her back into the Russian sphere of influence. Note the interference in the last election, and sponsorship of a pro-Russian candidate, and an attempt to poision Viktor Yushchenko. I believe they will interfere in the next elections, and even more ruthlessly, since they have nothing to fear from "Hello Kitty" (as tammy Bruce calls him) in Washington.
He has been massing troops on the Georgian border fro some time now, and will no doubt find some reason to justify inishing off his grudge match aganst President Mikhail Saakashvili and democracy in that small country.
With Ukraine back under his belt, either as a component of the New Russia, or as a puppet state (like Lukashenko's Belarus) Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, The Baltic States and the Czech Republic will come under pressure.
Poland and the Eastern European nations need to take matters in their own hands. After the First World War, Poland, Ukraine and Lithuania had held talks about establishing a Confedracy such as had existed in times past, which had provided some measure of security, and could have provided a bulwark against both an aggressive germany and Russia. Past wrongs and festering animosities prevented it from happening. the result was Ukaine losing its independence an being absorbed by Russia two years later, whil Pland and lithaunia would only enjoy their independence for 20 years. Such a confedration if tried today could work, and keep Russia in check, But the Czech reoublic, Slovakia Estonia, Latvia and Hungary should also be included. Such an entity/alliance could provide for its own defense, and deter Russia.
Georgia, due to Geography, is in a much more difficult position. Logically they shoul ally themselves with Armenia and Turkey, but the Armenian/turkish animosities still run too deep for common sense to prevail, leaving Georgia out in the cold.
It is also possible that the Russian moves in the Caucasus may well be part of a plan for Russia to move into Iran eventually, should Israel take pre-emptive action against the regime in Teheran and heir nuclear project. Russia would then control even more immense oil resources, and have their long sought after southern port.
By his appeasement policies Obama has sent the wrong signals to the wrong people, which could well result in these rogue powers acting to advance some of their long term aims. If this argument needs any more re-inforcement, Obama has now agreed to hold direct talks with North Korea.... So there WAS a price paid to the pot bellied "Dear Leader" after all...
Will China, which sees Taiwan as a renegade province take it as a green light to finally regain face, and settle that old score?
Barack Obama has exposed the United States, the west, and the emerging free republics in Asia and latin America to danger on all sides, and if any of these scenaros do come to pass, we will find ourselves in the midst of a global war that cannot be won without nukes...and the problem is, the other sides have the bomb too... The countries that truly love their freedom must stand firm, an take their defense into their own hands. It is time to stop relying on the USA.