Sunday, April 26, 2015


I’m certain that I am not the only one who has had the occasion to view bumperstickers on the vehicle ahead of me. Red light signals provide ample opportunity to “check out” messages that people feel warrant observation and reflection. These messages range across a wide spectrum of subject matter.

One bumpersticker message that always seemed provocative to me advised readers: My Boss Is A Jewish Carpenter. The reference appeared to be to “Jesus of Nazareth,” although this inference on my part may be in error.

Did this message make sense? Is it factual or an expression of poetic license by an adherent to some branch of Christianity?

According to the Holy Scriptures, the “father” of Jesus of Nazareth was Joseph, who was a carpenter by trade. As there was and is no hard evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a carpenter by trade, the message on the bumpersticker becomes more curious.

The message on the bumper or rear-end of vehicles may be keyed to the notion that in the workaday culture of Judaea in the days of Joseph, Mary and Jesus of Nazareth, the son took up the trade of the father. Hence, if Joseph was a carpenter, then Jesus must have been an apprentice.

Was this the case? There is no scriptural evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was even an apprentice carpenter.

During the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, he manifested amazing gifts as a teacher, healer and disciple of his Father. He advised his disciples that his doctrines were not his but, rather, that of his Father. Who was the “Father” that Jesus referenced? As revealed in scripture, did Jesus of Nazareth ever refer to Joseph as his father?

The conversations of people are typically colored by imagery that arises from things they know best. When Jesus of Nazareth spoke to the Israelites and others gathered nearby – usually in Galilee – about subjects that were important or dear to him, he nevered used the terminology of carpentry to illustrate his point. If he had been an apprentice carpenter to his “father” Joseph, surely he would have made points by reference to preparing for the construction of a house, window, barn, water trough, furniture or something at least generally associated with the trade of carpentry. Further, surely Jesus would have made points in his sermons, lectures and teachings that utilized the commonly understood tools of the carpentry trade. Yet, this did not occur. Why?

If one searches a King James Version Biblical application offered online for “carpenter,” then there will be found two Gospel references: Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. Both reference Jesus’ “father” Joseph. If one searches “nail,” then there is one reference: John 20:25, concerning the doubtful Thomas upon hearing of Jesus’ resurrection. If one searches “saw,” then there is found no reference to “saw” as a tool. If one searches “hammer,” then there are no New Testament Gospel references, although there are quite a lot of such references in the Old Testament. If one searches “axe,” there are two references: Matthew 3:10 and Luke 3:9. These two references are about applying an axe to the root of a tree that bears no fruit and casting it into the fire. As worded, this passage cannot be well-argued as applying to the carpentry trade. If one searches “builders,” then one finds three NT Gospel references: Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10 and Luke 20:17. All of these references deal with the “stone rejected by the builders,” and they cannot be reasonably assigned to the carpentry trade.

Therefore, for me the message on the bumpersticker alluded to above is a non sequitur at best.

Thursday, March 19, 2015


For several years American elected officials have been considering options in the Middle East in the face of various violent problems created by opponents of American "nation-building." 

The Middle East has not proven to be the land of milk toasts. Most of apparently progressing nations have been ruled by "strong men" such as Saddam Hussein. There does not appear to be any good option when cutting off heads and burning foes alive seem reasonable political expressions of opposition.

Therefore, to undo the damages done by removing a strong man who "ruled with an iron fist," the American presidents - with the advice of the Pentagon brass and variously placed U.S. advisors - usually have decided that American "boots" must be sent to "walk the walk" of American policy-makers. Soldiers in various units have been sent to Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, et al, to gain some semblance of Western-style order. After all, how can you create a democracy in chaos?

The United States then established a puppet to be the face of democracy in the "rescued" nation. Serious, violent opposition then arose to fight the American puppet. American soldiers must fight the "now you see them, now you don't" opposition. Deaths among the U.S. soldiers grow as the years go by. For some reason the people don't rally behind the American puppet, who also now wars against religious "heretics" in very brutal fashion. Fraud and massive theft of money and war materiel shock U.S. officials some of whom have not participated in the looting. At home people have become concerned by the open-ended war, the accumulating dead soldiers, and the rising debt required to pay for it all.

"Why were we here?" ask many. "What was our interest?"

Since the Middle East policy involved oil and Israel, isn't it appropriate for America to declare that the opposition has been badly wounded and that Israeli "boots" should replace American soldiers in establishing a new peace process for all in the Levant? If Israeli officials want to create a state of hegemony for their nation in the Middle East, they should get their "booties" on it.

Friday, March 13, 2015


The word "nigger" is surely the most curious offensive term a person can utter in the American English language. It is not the denotative interpretation of the word that carries offense; it is the interpretation by the person so named of the contextual connotation that determines whether the word is very offensive, mildly offensive, inoffensive or even humorous.

In a sense it is the most racist of terms, as the degree of offensiveness quite often is determined by whether or not the user belongs to the same race or a different race from the potentially offended party. In its allegedly worst degree of offensiveness it is spoken by a white person to or about a black person. Hence, equal treatment of people speaking this term "goes out the window" when race is factored into the equation.

African Americans today may use the term among themselves with a richness of connotations which may be humorous, which may have a "black everyman" character, which may have a "street wise" character or which may carry a "put down" connotation. 

On my Pandora application one of my channels is "Gangsta Rap." It seems to be mostly West Coast in terms of artist and style. Needless to say, the word "nigger" is not a stranger to this musical genre. As used here, the worst interpretation (other than profane) would be "put down." In a given rap song the word may experience two or three usages, letting the listener participate according to his/her interpretation. There is an invitation to the audience to participate, because it was and is an "our thing" event.

The word "nigger" seems to be derived primarily from the word "Negro." The Latin word "niger" seems to have spawned the French word "negre" and the Spanish/Portuguese "negro." In Roman days "black" was "nigrum." The African countries Nigeria and Niger appeared to have gotten their names due to the Spanish/Portuguese/French influence.

Parenthetically, the various tribal peoples now known as Nigerians or Nigerites do not seem too stressed by the likely origin of their names. However, in time they may choose to change it, viewing it as a remnant of colonialism.

Still, people don't usually halt the use of words which have long, respected and practical applications. Probably only in America could one find large numbers of people embarrassed or angered upon hearing the word "negro," even though it was employed by a Latino while discussing a bean used to make his/her soup. Political Correctness, a redesigned Marxism possessed allegedly of a "human face," hovers like a dismal swamp gas over the fearful, superstitious descendants of the nation's founders.

I am confident that Southerners originally spoke the word "negro," after the British fashion generally. However, since the slave traders were often of Dutch (migrants from Iberia), Spanish and Portuguese ancestry, there common usage of "negro" for the "hombres" they brought to America in their ships as slaves must have created a common usage over time with the British, Scots, Welsh, Irish and German settlers.

Still, although the "word" was embraced by most colonial settlers, the various settlers would still speak it with slightly different accents. In the South there were pockets of French and Spanish people who maintained some of the old ways of culture, style and pronunciation. While the more cultured - or pretentious - white Southerners might continue to pronounce "negro" as the British did, the marked heat and humidity of much of the coastal areas of the South must have worked their "mildewing" effect on the pronunciation of all words uttered by them. Southerners tended to conserve their energy. Words elongated and letters not absolutely required - such as "r's" - were let go. People asked for "wat-ah." The word "negro" probably was generally "nee-grah" - with the "r" almost silent or a whisper.

I am not convinced that the word "nigger," or "niggar," was much used by Southerners, until after the War Between The States, when large numbers of carpetbaggers and land-speculators swarmed into the South, bringing their more clipped, sharp, hard pronunciations. As these "New Aristocrats" took possession of a Post-Bellum South, their phraseology was adopted to some extent by Southerners trying to "make it" in tough times. By the time of Mark Twain the word "negro" had evolved into "nig'r" or "niga."

The problem with the word "negro" - however it was pronounced - was its implication of a low status. This may be what really incensed American rulers in regard to the college fraternity members in Oklahoma who were chanting "racist" words. It made the status issue too crudely overt. President Boren, an elite type, was very angry.

On the other hand a crowd of angered black folks can scream "Kill the white people," and the American rulers would not be incensed. It is a social issue of status with them. Soto voce they would whisper, "What do you expect of them, for god's sake? They are America's underclass."

A great deal of effort has been made to address this situation, often at the cost of considerable blood. The present American leadership is Marxist, and for that reason its approach is to dictate equality of the community. If a Procrustean Bed had to be utilized to achieve the equality they demanded, then appropriate the money and build it. And in all these matters of socially correct society-building, it must always be remembered as George Orwell warned, "Some Americans are more equal than others."

Chercher les conseillors, mes amis.

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.