Monday, January 12, 2015


The national championship in college football will be decided tonight, Monday, January 12, 2015. It is very easy to determine which team will lose. Therefore, by the law of opposites it is easy to select the victor. 

Many people have made the fatal error of selecting Ohio, reasoning that Ohio has the "Os" covered front and rear, while Oregon lacks "O"-power at the end. For them Oregon will lose in the fourth quarter, since they don't have the "caboose" to fight all the way. They will be goners.

As strong as this reasoning seems to be, I must dissent.

I believe that the fate of the Oregon Ducks depends on their wearing their green-n-yellow uniforms. If - as is rumored - they enter the contest wearing a grey uniform, they will definitely lose to Ohio. 

Note: no Las Vegas bookie shop has perceived this game-determining circumstance.

Tuesday, December 3, 2013


I believe that consideration should be given to the enactment of legislation that would shift the control of the military to a multi-jurisdictional basis. Also, control of immigration should be handed over to the States of the Union excepting the Constitutional provision in regard to naturalization of non-citizens into Citizens of the United States of America.

At the outset of the United States, a Citizen of the United States was a Citizen because he was a Citizen of one of the sovereign States of the Union. The people living in the District of Columbia were Citizens because they were Citizens of one of the States. If a person lived in the District of Columbia but was not a Citizen of a sovereign State, he was not a Citizen of the United States. He was a subject of the exclusive Legislative Power of Congress. [That may be the secret reason that many in the District agitate for "Statehood."]

For example, Robert E. Lee was a Citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia and felt obliged to defend the Sovereign State of his birth. He would be a traitor if he did not.

The Bill of Rights did not reach any person living under the exclusive municipal power of Congress. Still, Congress - in its wisdom - might allow such privileges, but such were not inherent rights. These subjects might be called "Citizens" by Congress, but everyone knew that these were not the same as a Citizen of a Sovereign state.

When the Insular Law cases had finally run their course, the Supreme court had decided that there were three different "United States." One was composed of the Sovereign States of the United States which were subject to the U.S. Constitution and their several State constitutions. Another was the District of Columbia, Federal Territories, Military Depots, and the like, which were subject to the Exclusive Legislative Power of Congress. Another involved the President when representing the nation before foreign nations.

Former Supreme court Justice Thurgood Marshall had lectured students that the U.S. Constitution had been superseded by the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment forced the Sovereign States of the Union to treat the "Citizens" of the District of Columbia as equal with the Citizens of the Sovereign States.

The reason that thinkers in the North took this course was that no one knew quite what to do with the slaves. The slaves were not Citizens of the Sovereign States in which they dwelled. What to do? They were made "Citizens" of the "United States" which jurisdiction happened to be the District of Columbia, military forts, Territories, et al. Therefore, they became, in fact, subjects of the Exclusive Legislative Power of Congress.

This was a very revolutionary step. It would lead to the intrusion of Federal Power over and through the previously Sovereign States.

Without going any deeper into this area, I would like to see a restoration of some of the former powers that were held exclusively by the Sovereign States.

I believe that each Sovereign State should create and control its own Army. At the Federal level a small officer corps, including non-commissioned officers, would remain to plan for contingencies that would be a threat to the nation. The President would still be Commander-in-Chief. The Navy would be a more centralized military force.

However, a small standing officer corps would control a Sovereign State's Army. Most of the members of the Army would be functioning in a manner similar to National Guardsmen now. In short, the U.S. Army would have at least fifty States' Armies under it. Each State might operate similar to an Army base in America today. Each State's Army would be divided into Divisions based on the population of the State.

If danger threatened the nation, these Armies could be completely summoned to duty, or partly. There would be contingency planning and exercises for this purpose.

Otherwise, the Governor of the Sovereign States would be its Army's "Commander-in-Chief." He could call out part of this State Army to protect its borders, if they ran along the border of a foreign nation and a threat manifested itself.

I believe that the ineffectiveness of the Federal Army and the Federal police in protecting Sovereign States under the command of presidents warrants reassigning this task to the Governors of the Sovereign States to interpret and execute according to the Will of the Citizens of his/her State and with the consultation of Governor's of neighboring Sovereign States of the Union.

By reassigning authority over the bulk of the Army to the Sovereign States, I believe that a greatly increased esprit de corps would occur in each Army organized in each Sovereign State. Uniforms peculiar to each State would be allowed, so that the 12th Arkansas Division would be instantly recognized as distinct from the 12th California Division, and so on.

I believe that it is very important to keep the military heart of America - its Army - close to home, where its active duty members stay professional and professionally ready, should the need arise.


For over seventy years a blood libel against the German people has been waged by powerful Jewish interests and their non-Jewish allies, agents and fronts. The libel is enclosed within the term "Holocaust." The factual proofs of a massive murder of Jews by Nazis are virtually non-existent. Those that have been asserted depend upon others accepting the interpretation of words and deeds by Jews, such as historians, who have a vested interest in propagating this massive fraud.

The reasons for Jews propagating this fraud may be many. They certainly would include the following:

1. Hatred of Germans (See Nobel Prize-winning Elie Wiesel on "virile Jewish hatred of everything the German stands for");

2. The need to fund the prior-planned Israeli state in Palestine ("Other people's money") through heavy reparations from a conquered, framed and convicted German people;

3. The preparation for substituting the Jewish people collectively as the "real messiah" of Israel (Yhshua [Jesus] being revealed over time as a fraud. As part of this preparation, the word "Holocaust" was imbued with a sort of sanctity, and "deniers" were scorned as heretics. The Jewish people died and were reborn after their "genocide";

4. The instillation of guilt among non-Jews ("The world watched and did nothing") to lift Jews as a peculiarly suited arbiter of morality to which the rest of humanity should turn for leadership on moral and ethical issues. Further, others would be incredibly insensitive to challenge their sufferings during World War II;

5. To make truth - in the words of George Lord Byron - "stranger than fiction." Therefore, all Revisionist Historians on World War II would be made to seem shamefully irresponsible and grotesque. On the other hand, Jewish movie producers, directors, and writers would make a plethora of World War II films calculated in whole or part to support the "the evil German" and "Holocaust" propositions. Often they were loosely based on an actual wartime event and then massaged with the proper fiction to achieve the desired result. The same could be said generally of journalists, novelists and playwrights. Often characteristics of Jews were applied to Germans, as seen in the "cabaret" in the movie Cabaret.

Another example: In Hungary during the communist revolutionary period of the bloodthirsty Jewish leader Bela Kun, his right-hand man, Tibor Samuelly operated a "death train" from which hapless Hungarians were tortured, murdered and flung as the train coursed through the countryside. Seated at a small ornate desk, Tibor operated from a parlor car that was decorated with a pink silk wallpaper. From this location he sealed the doom of scores of Hungarians. It is precisely this sort of ambiance and ghastly behavior that Americans have come to expect from Nazi Germans, due to mind-management by Hollywood, television, magazines, novels and news stories. Americans have been conditioned to embrace lies with alacrity.

This creates the potential for Jews to lead credulous Americans and the gullible world in the direction that best serves their interests merely by setting forth a fictional scenario that demands a real response. All they need to do is offer the pre-decided response, after careful consideration by their numerous "experts." The world will thank them. Nobel Prizes will flood upon their leading lights.

However, the fact remains that a blood libel against the Germans has been committed. It is an ongoing crime.

Monday, December 2, 2013


There is the usual buzz about things "picking up" in
December, 2013, as there has been since America "came out of the recession" in 2009. Certainly, there are prospering areas of the economy. That is automatic, as the Federal Reserve set as its singular goal the rescue of the great banks. After years of borrowing at almost zero interest and investing in conservative debt instruments at higher interest, the banks have healed nicely.

In turn they extend credit to a coterie of privileged borrowers among the strongest international corporations, becoming still wealthier. The recipient corporations can increase their activity, helping a coterie of lesser corporations increase their business and bottom lines.

However, since the world has been shaped by bankers and corporate magnates into one that is dependent on masses of people buying things, the relative economic health of the world depends on people who have disposable credits to buy things. The people generally don't have much money to buy things, so they will not buy much.

In the world constructed by the bankers, money is overwhelmingly the product of debt. A Federal Reserve Note is a debt instrument, which is different from others in that bankers have rigged it so that it only promises to pay in its own kind at par. There is a hidden interests which becomes part of the national debt. The FRN dollars are exchangeable credits which can be used to discharge a given obligation in the form of the price of an item. In this they are similar to bearer bonds, which is a form of debt invented by the Rothschilds around the mid-Nineteenth Century. The equality of FRN dollars and the price of the good create the potential exchange. One does not have to buy.

If one does not have the requisite FRN dollars, then one will certainly not buy the item.

It is this difficulty that keeps the economy sluggish. Eventually, the huge amount of bank money will create a "cash is trash" mentality, as its trickle increases into a flood.

However, with job-creation primarily in low-paying service jobs, the "rainy season" is not in sight.

Incidentally, by merely changing the manner in which money enters the economy, the nation could be spared the Fed's "scientific management of money."

If a body of skilled money technicians within an agency within the Treasury issued interest-free money and monitored its aggregates, then the beginning of the end of banker tyranny would be at hand. Congress would legislate the usage of certain excise taxes, while doing away with the income tax altogether. It would provide a limited delegation of taxing power to the agency within the Treasury. Using money creation and money extinction (excise taxes) mechanisms, it could create a vibrant economy which yearly would include less debt.

Working with this agency within the Treasury would be other associate agencies to invest in start-up businesses, in homes and other real estate, in infrastructural construction, etc. In this way the national government would be partnering with entrepreneurs and home-buyers, while offering to each partner a "rent-to-buy" sort of mechanism whereby the government is repaid fairly (no interest) for its funding of the project.

Admittedly, this process would greatly increase the national money and asset values. These should be increased as a natural function of growth. There is a scarcity of money in the economy. It is bankers and their allies who want money to be scare, as the buying power of their own money goes up in scarcity.

Working people have always wanted more money available, because they are the ones who suffer from scarcity. Rich people rarely believed that any working person should have anything other than a subsistence wage. (Witness the relentless chiseling of "help"). However, less august businessmen know that their products won't sell, if ordinary people cannot earn enough to buy them.

If a government serves the people, it has to inject the money - the life-blood of the economy - through non-usurious means, into projects that are useful, needed and/or require maintenance. 

Further, no business or government unit would pay for health insurance, medical requirements or retirement pensions. All of that would be paid by the government. This money would circulate freely in the economy, and it would be spent mostly on goods and services.

If a wholesome equilibrium was threatened, then the agency within the Treasury would place user excise taxes on various things, drawing out of the economy the unwanted liquidity.

For example, a user tax on every bridge in America might exist as a routine tax. Every license plate would bear an individual code that was readable by adjacent scanners. A tax record would be maintained in a central location. A portion of the fees would be shared with the State involved upon collection.

If the Treasury established national banks across the nation and if each citizen was issued a checking account (no savings, as no usury paid) and if these were all linked by a central computer, the collection and paying of funds between government and citizen, citizen and citizen, business and citizen, and government and business could be handled in a very rational manner. No longer would banks be gouging the very people who put money in them as deposits.

This is but a sketch of the correct approach. I've written on this subject for years. President Obama always had the potential to change America, but could not summons the courage.

The salvation of America awaits a great man who will implement these and associated changes to restore the nation, healing it from the injuries it has suffered at the hands of those who would sell it for pottage.

Saturday, October 5, 2013


As the name "Redskins" no longer appears to have the approval of the world community, the Washington Redskins must bow to world opinion. Although owner Daniel Snyder feigns rigidity on the issue, everyone knows that he is a "paper tiger." The moment his wallet is seriously threatened, Dan Snyder will acquiesce and solicit a new name for his team.

With this in mind, I, AmbulanceChaser, a man who has been accused of being a "spiritual Dan Snyder" by my enemies, propose a suitable new name. It is the "Washington Red Hawks."

The new fight song for the Washington Red Hawks football team will be the following:

"Hail to the Red Hawks!
 Hail, Birds of Prey,
 Red Feathers on the Warpath,
 Fly to Victory!

"In the Sky the Fierce Red Hawks
 Do fly their Dread Patterns,
 On the Ground their Foes
 In Fear and Worry Scurry!

"They Flee but Cannot Escape
 The Red Hawks Fury,
 With Steely Talons Another Foe
 Is Tackled, Subdued and Beaten

"With Glorious Victory in Their Grasp
 The Red Hawks Crack a Grin,
 They've Seized Another Win,
 Whoo Can Defeat Them?
"Hail to the Red Hawks!
 Hail Dread Predators!
 Birds on the Warpath
 Let's Cheer for Old D.C."

That song will be a noble expression of the fighting valor of Washington, D.C.'s professional football team, the Washington Red Hawks.


Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Driving a lot of miles today during work, I listened to the radio a lot. The shooting at the Navy Yard in Southeast Washington, D.C. was the main topic. There were endless musings about how the tragedy could have been prevented. “Newstainers” were concerned with the abrupt halt of a dozen lives. They worried about their loved ones. They worried about the deceased shooter, Aaron Alexis, and his troubled mind. They worried about the level of security. How could such a thing be prevented? Should his overseers have nudged him toward getting help? Should he have been given medical help? They wondered how a fellow with several minor incidents of aberrant behavior under his belt have gotten security clearance to work at this and other military facilities.
Naturally, the subject of gun control came up. Can we expect legislation? Are Americans finally “fed up?”
In all this discussion no one mentioned banning guns from military bases. Naturally, police would still be armed. However, imaging machinery could easily be obtained and used to check for firearms. No one bearing a firearm of any kind could enter a military facility. Such facilities fall under the municipal powers of Congress according to the Constitution, and it is a decided matter of law that Congress has “exclusive legislation power” within its municipal realm. The Constitution cannot constraint Congress acting within this jurisdiction. The Seat of government, military bases, depots, territories and the like fall under this unique power. Therefore, claims of violating the Second Amendment would not be valid within Congress’s municipal jurisdiction.
Banning firearms from general use or possession within a military base makes common sense and would have prevented the slaughter at the Navy Yard. No one on the radio news brought this issue to the listeners’ attention.

Wednesday, September 4, 2013



As I listen to the "news, weather and traffic” radio station of my choice, I often hear representatives of the president, as well as out-takes of President Obama’s speeches, fervently decrying the use of poisonous gas by the el-Assad regime in Syria. Republican often seem to chide the president for his timidity in the face of horrible crimes against “his own people.”
Repeatedly, the Obama administration has asserted irrefutable proof of Bashar El-Assad’s guilt. Since this proof has not been presented by the Obama Administration to the citizens for independent analyses, once again, the American people have to take the matter on faith.
Parenthetically, as I believe that in Marxist political schemes, the party functions as a god-surrogate, the stance taken by President Obama was perfectly consistent with the Marx-Lenin-Gramsci strategy. One must believe in the party and work for its ideals. If that included deceit, then deceit must be embraced as a welcome “comrade tool.”
American presidents have often been less than forthright. Western leaders seem to be at one with this practice. It has been an ancient practice. Consider the man, Niccolo Machiavelli, in The Prince, as cited by Vincent Barnett:
Machiavelli recommended that ‘a prudent ruler cannot, and must not, honour his word when it places him at a disadvantage … Because men are wretched creatures who would not keep their word to you, you need not keep your word to them’. Machiavelli then recommended that ‘one must know how to colour one’s actions and be a great liar and deceiver’. Further on, Machiavelli explained that a prince who neglected what was actually done by people for what (by rights) should be done was doomed to self-destruction. Someone who always acted virtuously would quickly come to a sticky end among the multitude who were not at all virtuous. Hence the successful political statesman must learn how and when to act in a dishonest and immoral way, and must be much better at acting dishonourably than those around him.”
I believe that American presidents have generally adhered to this formula. Still, there happens to be another reason why American presidents might not call honesty a friend: Most have been Freemasons.
The iconic French figure, Voltaire (Francis Mary Arouet) was a prominent figure in Freemasonry. He had been initiated into Freemasonry in England and again in France. Different lodges would apparently widened his range of influence. Voltaire, as cited by John Daniel in volume one of his three-volume set on Masonry, “…defended lying as a virtue when practiced for the ‘good’ he advocated. Dillon quotes Voltaire as saying, ‘Lying is a vice when it does evil. It is a great virtue when it does good. Be therefore more virtuous than ever. It is necessary to lie like a devil, not timidly and for a time, but boldly and always.’ Commander Carr, in The Conspiracy, likewise shows Voltaire justifying all kinds of falsehood, telling his fellow enlightened, ‘We must make them [the populace] lavish promises and use extravagant phrases….The opposite of what we promise may be done afterwards…that is of no consequence.’”
My point is that it is common among Western statesmen and politicians to cloak the real facts, if that furthers their goals. A good example was the George W. Bush Administration’s actions in regard to 9/11 and the subsequent attack on Iraq. Atrocity stories and assertions of terrible weapons of mass destruction flooded America by means of the hydra-headed media spouts.
In the radio reports to which I have been listening, the partisanship in favor of the mixed multitude of rebels, revolutionaries and mercenaries has been pronounced. The Bashar el-Assad regime is always presented as “evil.” Presently, he is the premier choice of the media-politicians-intelligence complex for demonization. Ardent spokesmen for “the rebels” beg the American people to support them against the evil el-Assad regime. There has never been equal time given to supporters of the el-Assad regime to make a case for maintaining the secular (Baathist) el-Assad regime.
When war-drums are beating, there is no time for equal treatment provided to the side that “must go.”
President Obama showed himself to be foolish when he initially announced a “red line” the crossing of which by the Bashar el-Assad regime would provoke United States intervention in some unspecified action. He then made himself and the country hostage to a multitude of devious players in the Levant. Nor do I exclude “perfidious Albion” from the list of potential mischief-makers in the Syrian national struggle.
There is reason to believe that the Israelis, who apparently provide much of the “intelligence” on Syria to the United States, have reason to want Syria splintered into a cluster of minor states. Using the United States as its “beast of burden” in this effort at least makes sense for them. Luring the Americans into the Syrian civil war would be easier if ordinary Americans thought children were being gassed.
Furthermore, there is an ongoing need to emphasize the horrors of gassing by the Israelis to buttress their claims for sympathy for the “gassing of six million Jews” during World War II. This claim has reaped vast sums in reparations and sympathy for Jewish claims of “moral authority.” The latter claim has been sharply criticized, based on numerous technical considerations by historians and scientists.
At the outset of this blog, I spoke of the organized pose of outrage in regard to the incident(s) of poisonous gas used against people in the rebel-controlled section of Syria. If it occurred, then the United States should condemn the use of toxic gas in warfare and indicate clearly a devastating reprisal would be launched against the party that instigated such use against the American nation or its navy/merchant marine fleet. It should not become actively involved as a partisan in a “snake-pit” nation. If it cannot be certainly determined what party was involved, then interference would be even less advisable. Since the United States intelligence organizations, separately or together, could manufacture in the language of Syrians any “radio” report they desire, they could certainly provide bogus evidence.
Why would they want to do this? They would certainly do it in furtherance of a mutual goal of America’s present leaders and those of Israel. For Israel it would certainly be the creation of a zone of influence that would be the predecessor to “Greater Israel.” For America it would be the achievement of geopolitical command of the globe, due to its control of Levantine oil. It would seal United States global hegemony. The United States could preach to the world, while cloaking “dirty deeds done dirt cheap.”
As distasteful as poisonous gas may seem to Americans daily preached at by partisan media figures, America itself has used poisonous gas for many years to kill individuals in capital cases. Whether toxic chemicals are immoral or not, they have been regularly used as an alternate to the electric chair and the firing squad. The use of toxic chemicals injected into the individuals to be killed in capital cases has surpassed the use of toxic chemicals in gas form, the electric chair and firing squads. However, the individual to be executed still may have the option of choosing the means by which the state will ultimately kill him in some cases.
Further, I cannot for the life of me see how one is worse off being killed by gas or by being riddled with shrapnel or by the effects of improvised explosives. The United States used depleted uranium extensively in Iraq, and the health issues and lingering death sentences resulting there from have not been acknowledged by the United States.
Furthermore, the United States freely and extensively rained napalm down on enemy belligerents and civilians alike in Vietnam during that war. In case people aren’t aware of it, napalm is a chemical. One might say that it wasn’t internationally agreed upon and made illegal by a treaty of the United Nations, but it cannot be successfully argued that it is moral to roast a human alive but immoral to force them to breath toxic gas.
Please attend:
"Napalm is the most terrible pain you can imagine," said Kim Phúc, a napalm bombing survivor known from a famous Vietnam War photograph. "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius (212°F). Napalm generates temperatures of 800 to 1,200 degrees Celsius (1,500-2,200°F)."[21]

When used as a part of an incendiary weapon, napalm can cause severe burns (ranging from superficial to subdermal) to the skin and body, asphyxiation, unconsciousness, and death. In this implementation, napalm fires can create an atmosphere of greater than 20% carbon monoxide[2] and firestorms with self-perpetuating winds of up to 70 miles per hour (110 km/h).

One of the main anti-personnel features of napalm is that it sticks to human skin, with no practical method for removal of the burning substance.”

In 1980 a treaty was indeed signed at the United Nations outlawing the use of napalm gel on large gatherings of civilians. However, in a civil war where one side has no specific uniform, identifying whether groups were citizens or active belligerents might be a challenge.
Given the vast range of killing devices possessed by America’s military/intelligence organizations, the fastidious perspective on correct modes of killing other human beings possessed by America’s leaders lends itself well to accusations of hypocrisy.
And let’s not even talk about nuclear weapons, and the only country on Earth to have employed them against huge gatherings of civilians. Nor let us consider what nation is still prepared to use nuclear weapons against “enemies.”
Israeli dogs on Capitol Hill and in the media may demand for President Obama to enter the killing fields of Syria in behalf of gassed dead and the “forces of liberty,” but he should simply preach peace and democracy as a better road than the present costly, bloody road. He should not leap between two fighting dogs. He should not be a dog.