(Decider) How Russia Became a Great Nation By LOSING a Battle in 1695

35 comments

Posted on 19th September 2014 by Stucky in Economy

Note: Depending on interest shown for this article, every two weeks or so I will be posting educational (hopefully) articles with titles that will start with (Decider) or (Deceiver). “Decider” will focus on people whose decisions made a significant positive impact on world history. “Deceiver” will focus on people whose decisions made the world a worse place to live via them being deceivers, frauds, or just general assholes. Let’s get started.
——————————————————————————————–

Peter The Great — a very brief bio, and what motivated him

Peter The Great (1672-1725) became Tsar in 1689. (Well, actually, it was a joint Tsar-ship with his mentally retarded brother, Ivan … the result of the Kremlin Guard launching a coup d’etat. Ivan died six years later). Peter was a member of the Romanov Dynasty (1613-1825).

When Peter took over in 1689 Russia already stretched from the Polish border to the Pacific. Peter did add some small, yet terrifically strategic important, territory. However, Peter accomplished much greater good for Russia than merely acquiring territory.

http://lisawallerrogers.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/russian-map-1894.gif

What’s important to know about Russia at the time Peter took over is that it was for all intents and purposes totally isolated from the outside world. Russia missed out on all the great events; the Renaissance, the Reformation, the exploration of the world, and the birth of modern science. To westerners Russia was little more than an afterthought … a backwards and unproductive medieval state that was more Oriental than Occidental.

Peter was hell-bent on changing that. He wanted Russia to be competitive economically, and especially militarily, with Western Europe and the other major empire of the day, the Ottomans. But, he faced a huge geographical hurdle. Trade with Europe was essential, but he didn’t have any warm water seaports. Sweden controlled most of the Baltic, and the Ottomans controlled the entire Black Sea. So, Peter went to war.

The first Fort Azov Campaign — failure

The Turks and the Russian had been in on-and-off wars since 1568, vying to control the area around the Black Sea. Previous attempts to take the Crimea directly had failed, so Peter opted to lay siege to Turkish-controlled fortress of Azov at the mouth of the river Don (which flowed into the Sea of Azov, an inlet of the Black Sea).

Fort Azov, located near where Taganrog Gulf meets the Don River

 

The Ottoman garrison consisted of about 3,700 men. The Russian army consisted of 31,000 men and 10 cannons. The Russians blocked Azov from land but they could not control the river and prevent resupply. The siege started in the spring of 1695 and ended in October.

A few months later another Russian army of 120,000 men set out for the lower reaches of the Dnieper River to take the Ottoman forts there. Several forts were taken, but once again the Russians were not able to hold the area and withdrew most of their forces.

The second Fort Azov Campaign — partial success

The failure to capture Azov caused Peter to rethink his tactics … and he began to build ships to form the first ever fledgling Russian Navy. Peter ordered the construction  of two ships-of-the-line, two fire ships, and twenty three  galleys. The Turkish fleet consisted of 23 ships with 4,000 men. The Russian cavalry consisted of 70,000 men. The battle commenced on June 14, 1696. After massive bombardment from land and sea … and despite having lost only two ships … the Turks at the Azov garrison surrendered on July 19.

But, at the end of the day, Russia gained …. nothing. The Ottomans still controlled the Black Sea, …. Peter’s fleet was bottled up in the Sea of Azov due to Crimean and Ottoman control of the Strait of Kerch ….. and Russia still did not have a suitable trading port.

Peter realized that any chance of gaining the necessary hotly contested territory would reacquire an upgraded modern army and a fully equipped modern navy. He also realized that the expertise to achieve these goals simply did not exist in Russia at that time. Peter would need to look at countries that already had advanced military technology and naval engineering.

So, Peter sent out a huge diplomatic mission to Europe, led by himself, known as The Great Embassy (aka, The Grand Embassy).

The Great Embassy

“The Great Embassy was one of the two or three overwhelming events in Peter’s life. The project amazed his fellow countrymen. Never before had a Russian tsar travelled peacefully abroad; a few had ventured across the border in wartime to besiege a city or pursue an eney army, but not in time of peace”  ————— “Peter the Great: His Life and World” by Robert K. Massie

Peter organized a 250-man expedition (ambassadors, noblemen, priests, soldiers, clerks, cooks, and musicians)  for Europe in March 1697, known as The Great Embassy. The expressed intention was to develop relations with those Christian nations of Europe that opposed the Ottoman Empire. Peter’s unstated goal was to learn as much as he could about European military and naval methods.

The Great Embassy’s Political Success

In terms of the diplomatic efforts, The Great Embassy had only one success. The major European powers were in various disputes amongst themselves, which would lead to the War of the Spanish Succession in 1701. As they were preparing to fight each other, they had no desire to antagonize the Ottoman Empire by siding against it with the mostly insignificant Russians.

Peter formed an alliance with Poland and other countries (especially Denmark) with interests in the Baltic against the dominance of Sweden. This resulted in the Great Northern War which took part during most of Peter’s reign (1700-1721). It was after the Great Northern War that Europeans called Peter “the Great” and started referring to his country as the Russian Empire instead of Muscovy. Even Peter’s enemies admitted that “he works harder than any peasant”.

By war’s end Russia had a  powerful standing army of 200,000 – the largest such force in Europe. It provided Russia with the military muscle to replace Sweden as the greatest power in north-eastern Europe. The war with Sweden ended with the conclusion of the Treaty of Nystadt (1721) which gave Russia access to a strategically important stretch of the Baltic coast. Russia now had access to the sea and sea trade which opened the opportunity of economic and cultural exchanges with the countries of western Europe.

Charles XII

The end of the Sweden’s glory days is symbolized by the funeral procession of Charles XII

 

To ensure that Russia could maintain this territory … and to exploit the maritime access …. Peter ordered the founding of a new city on desolate marshland, about three miles inland from the gulf. He used foreign engineers, architects, and city planners he met while traveling abroad to make the bog-land habitable. The city would become famous for it’s gorgeous buildings … many designed by renowned Italian architect, Domenico Trezzini. Peter made a decisive break from the past by moving the capital, Moscow, to this new city … St. Petersburg.

The Great Embassy’s Real Success …. Knowledge

Peter’s goal of learning from the Europeans was a resounding success. He attempted to travel incognito, giving his name as ‘Peter Mikhailov’ … but he fooled few, as it’s hard to disguise someone 6’8” tall.

Wherever The Great Embassy traveled, Peter wanted to learn as much as possible about how things worked. He had no interest in theoretical knowledge. He was more interested in the products of European civilization, rather than the theories that produced them. Sometimes his naiveté resulted in humorous exchanges; while in Prussia, not knowing about whalebone corsets, he remarked that German ladies had very hard bones.

Peter spent his time visiting shipyards, armament factories, and military bases, universities, and museums. In the Dutch Republic Peter was given access to the shipyard of the Dutch East India Company, the largest and most advanced in the world, where he actually labored for four months on the construction of a ship. Using his own tools, he would work with his hands to learn shipbuilding as a carpenter learns it. Peter didn’t want the luxurious house offered to him. He chose instead the master ropemaker’s house, where he lived with several of his men. He made his own fire, cooked his own meals, and mended his own clothes. He even learned to make shoes. Every morning at dawn he set out joyfully to the shipyard dressed as a Dutch workman. He was simply “Carpenter Peter’’ to them. After four months, the ship was finished. Peter was given papers that said he was a master of the art of naval architecture. With great pride Peter would thereafter declare, “I, too, am a carpenter!”

Ultimately he became an expert in 14 crafts: he could shoe a horse, cast a cannon, pull a tooth or cut the type for a printing press.

PETER’S RETURN TO RUSSIA

It should be appreciated that Peter even left his country for 18 months … where a military coup d’état  and a disruptive and often violent political environment was the norm. As such, Peter was forced to return to Russia after an uprising in one part of the army. But, the uprising was quickly and brutally repressed before Peter arrived … which left him free to implement many of the reforms he had been planning while he had been in Europe.

An extensive shipbuilding program was undertaken. The new navy would be modeled on those of the British and Dutch Republics. The army reorganized along the lines of the Prussian and Swedish military … both generally recognized as being the best armed forces of the day. Peter employed numerous experts in various fields (military experts, engineers, scientists, architects, and a whole range of others) during his Great Embassy travels who arrived in Moscow to not only modernize the military, but to modernize the country as well.

Some changes were major, such as; military conscription, establishment of technical schools, replacement of the church patriarchy with a holy synod answerable to himself, simplification of the alphabet, changed the calendar, and introduced a hundred other reforms, restrictions, and novelties. Some changes were trivial … such as encouraging Muscovites to adopt Western dress and customs, which resulted in Peter instituting a tax on beards in an effort to get those who were resistant to change to at least look like clean shaven Westerners.

Peter — Russia’s George Washington

Peter’s decision to reform Russia and implement a policy of ENGAGEMENT … rather than warmongering or bullying … had far-reaching effects for Russia, Western Europe, and even for the entire world leading up to this very day. Compare Peter’s policy of co-operation with current American international politics today … the Politics Of Bombs.

Peter was a true Renaissance Man; a man of many skills and talents, and if he lacked in knowledge in any area of interest he actively and aggressively sought to educate himself. He took the bull by the horns by his own blood, sweat, and tears. He wasn’t just “the decider”, he was a doer. He just as easily could have coined the motto, “The buck stops here!”. Compare Peter’s leadership to the buffoon currently known as POTUS. The contrast couldn’t possibly be more startling.

Closing Note: Please save yourself the effort of googling and searching for “Peter The Great was evil”. This writer is not blinded by Peter’s short-comings. Yes, he exhibited brutality at times. Yes, he failed to reform the concept of tzardom, and the Romanov’s would rule for the next 200 years. Had he instituted reforms regarding political rule of his country, then perhaps there would have been no Bolsheviks in 1917 to instigate the Russian Revolution … and Communism might never have existed. But, no man is perfect. Even George Washington was not able to abolish slavery. It takes a real man, with real character, with real vision, and real strong determination to modernize a huge and backward nation. Peter’s commitment to making Russia a great nation meant that inevitably sacrifices were made, compromises became a necessary evil, and hindsight is always 20-20. However, he is called Peter The Great – not, Peter The Pussy – for a reason.

.

SOURCES:

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/russia/ru03.html (Imperial Russia)

http://www.debello.ca/ussr/1689/095.html   (The Grand Embassy)

http://www.allrussias.com/tsarist_russia/peter_the_great_2.asp

http://missinglink.ucsf.edu/lm/russia_guide/historyofrussia.htm#romanovs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_Russian_Empire#Siege_of_Azov.2C_the_Grand_Embassy.2C_and_the_Streltsy_rebellion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_campaigns_%281695%E2%80%9396%29

 

Barbarism Versus Stupidism

0 comments

Posted on 22nd September 2014 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

Guest Post by Jim Kunstler

In my lifetime, the USA has not blundered into a more incoherent, feckless, and unfavorable foreign policy quandary than we see today.

The US-led campaign to tilt Ukraine to Euroland and NATO — and away from the Russian-led Eurasian Customs Union — turned an “intelligence” fiasco into a strategic humiliation for the Obama White House. Notice that the story has vamoosed utterly from the American media headlines, even when the Russian Engineers’ Union issued a report last week asserting that the Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 was most likely shot down by 30mm cannon fire from Ukrainian military aircraft. The USA State Department didn’t deign to refute it because doing so would have drawn attention to the fact that it was the only plausible explanation for what happened.

Likewise, the campaign to paint Vladimir Putin as Stalin-in-a-judo-robe never really reached take-off velocity, since by all appearances he was the most rational and cool-headed actor on the geopolitical stage, following logical and long-established national interests. If the West had just left Ukraine alone, and allowed it to join the Eurasian Customs Union, that basket-case nation would have been Russia’s economic ward. Now the US and the EU have to support it with billions in loans that will never be paid back. Meanwhile, our European allies have been snookered into a set of economic and financial sanctions against Russia that guarantees they’ll be starved for oil and gas supplies in the winter months ahead. Smooth move.

So, the reason that all this has vanished from the news media is that it’s game-over in Ukraine. We busted it up, and can do more with it, and pretty soon the rump Ukraine region run out of Kiev will go crawling back to Russia begging for a little heating fuel.

Does any tattoo-free American adult outside the Kardashian-NFL mass hypnosis matrix feel confident about the trajectory of US policy regarding the so-called Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL)? First, there is the astonishing humiliation that this ragtag band of psychopaths managed to undo ten years, 4,500 US battle deaths, and $1+ trillion worth of nation-building effort in Iraq in a matter of a few weeks this summer. The US public does not seem to have groked the damage to our honor, self-confidence, and international standing in this debacle.

So, now we’re going to just deal “death from above” on the Black Flaggers across that stretch of their captured territory that runs from Iraq into Syria — violating Syria’s sovereignty in the process, of course. My guess is that such an operation will inspire them to bring the action straight to Europe, the USA, and the grand prize, Saudi Arabia. The movement is too broad now, includes too many psychopaths from all over the world (Europe especially) who hold passports that will enable them to travel easily out of the Middle East and export mayhem wherever they want to bring it.

The USA is stuck within so many pathways of systems criticality in this fall of 2014, that is sure to be expressed in our own internal politics very soon. We’re all set up for a classic state of siege with the Pentagon militarizing every Podunk police department in the land, and one can easily imagine a single IS operation aimed at some soft American target shoving us into hysteria.

While all this is happening, of course, Wall Street and its hand-maidens rev up the engines of malinvestment and bid up false values of things that will do nothing to get us safely into the economy of real things that awaits us. That economy of real things I speak of does not include many of the comforts and conveniences we’re used to — mass motoring, national chain retail, air-conditioning for all, 24/7 electric service — but it’s where we’re going. As reality drags us kicking and screaming toward it, the likelihood of a domestic political convulsion increases. We’ll look back on these weirdly placid years after the 2008 train wreck with amazement. These are the rudderless years of no leadership, of cowardly dissimulating midgets. A people can only take so much of that.

Finance is the weakest link in the chain of systems that allows us to run the old economy. It’s the system most abstracted from reality and the most easily manipulated into ever-greater abstraction. Hence it’s the system most easily subject to fatal slippage. And all it takes to set off the slipping is a simple loss of faith.

I will be reading, yakking, and mixing with the home folks at the Northshire Book Shop
in Saratoga Springs, New York, this coming Friday September 26 at 7:00 pm

The new World Made By Hand novel
!! Is now available !!

Kunstler skewers everything from kitsch to greed, prejudice, bloodshed, and brainwashing in this wily, funny, rip-roaring, and profoundly provocative page- turner, leaving no doubt that the prescriptive yet devilishly satiric A World Made by Hand series will continue.” — Booklist

HistoryoftheFuture_Thumb

My local indie booksellers… Battenkill Books (Autographed by the Author) … or Northshire Books
or Amazon

EXCUSES

0 comments

Posted on 22nd September 2014 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

,

DEAR JANET

0 comments

Posted on 22nd September 2014 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, ,

Dear Janet

Bruno de Landevoisin's picture

Courtesy of the SlealthFlation Blog:

 

 

 

 

United States Federal Reserve                    September 22nd, 2014

20th Street and Constitution Ave NW

Washington, District of Columbia 20551

 

The Honerable Janet Yellen, Chairman

 

Dear Janet;   

   

If I may be so forward, as a concerned citizen of the United States of America, it is with great consternation that I feel compelled to write you the following distressing note.

 

Purposely degrading this magnificent Nation’s hard earned reserve currency status, which was so honorably passed on to you by previous generations who built this great country from the ground up through their virtuous and industrious blood, sweat and tears, only to then implement a disgraceful monetary policy that deliberately steals from future unborn generations in order to facilitate living standards beyond our means, so as to sustain an unearned, undeserved and unprincipled culture of grotesque illegitimate debt financed over-consumption, can only be characterized as a deplorable, misguided, unconscionable abomination of Biblical proportion.

 

It is my understanding that your dual mandate at the Federal Reserve is price stability and full employment. You are profoundly failing on both counts, it is high time you reconsider the ill-considered, malfunctioning, toxic set of policy measures you have short-sightedly embarked upon.

,

 

Respectfully yours,

John Q. Savers

Citizen of the Constitutional Republic of the United States

THE 24 YEAR WAR

0 comments

Posted on 22nd September 2014 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , ,

Guest Post by Ron Paul

Last week, the House and Senate voted to rubber stamp President Obama’s war plans for the Middle East. Both bodies, on a bipartisan basis, authorized the US to begin openly training and arming the rebels who have been fighting for three years to overthrow the Assad government in Syria.

Although the Syrian government has also been fighting ISIS and related extremist groups for three years, the US refuses to speak to the Syrians and has warned Assad not to interfere with the coming US attack on sovereign Syrian territory

President Obama promised that airstrikes alone would “degrade and destroy” ISIS, telling the US military in a speech last week that:

“The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission… I will not commit you and the rest of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq.”

But of course any US troops sent into a war zone are “combat” troops. And more are on their way.

While the president was swearing that there would be no boots on the ground, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, was in open disagreement. General Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that US forces would need to embed with Iraqi or Kurdish troops in combat situations under certain circumstances.

The limited mission the president promised just weeks ago has already greatly escalated, and now threatens to become another major regional war. In reality, however, this is just a continuation of the 24 year US war on Iraq that President George Bush began in 1990 and candidate Obama promised to end as President.

Under last week’s authorization bill, the president would have authority to train 5,000 fighters in Saudi Arabia for insertion into the civil war in Syria. This is in effect a re-arrangement of the deck chairs. To this point the training was carried out by the CIA in Jordan and Turkey. Now, the program will be moved to the Pentagon and to Saudi Arabia.

The CIA training of the rebels thus far has resulted in a direct pipeline of weapons from “vetted moderates” to the al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front and to the very ISIS that the administration claims to be fighting. In July, a full brigade of 1,000 fighters from a US-backed rebel group joined ISIS! Of course they took their US-provided weapons and training with them, some of which will certainly be used against the rapidly increasing US military personnel in the region.

That Saudi Arabia is considered a suitable place to train Syria’s future leaders must be some kind of sick joke. While ISIS was beheading two American journalists – as horrific as that is – the repressive Saudi theocracy was beheading dozens of its own citizens, often for relatively minor or religious crimes.

If we want to stop radical terrorists from operating in Syria and Iraq, how about telling our ally Saudi Arabia to stop funding and training them? For that matter, how about the US government stops arming and training the various rebel groups in Syria and finally ends its 24 year US war on Iraq.

There are 200 million people bordering the countries where ISIS is currently operating. They are the ones facing the threat of ISIS activity and expansion. Let them fight their own war, rather than turning the US military into the mercenary army of wealthy Gulf states. Remember, they come over here because we are over there. So let’s not be over there any longer.

THE FUTILITY OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

1 comment

Posted on 22nd September 2014 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

,


Guest Post by Karl Denninger 

I keep getting asked about this and people keep advocating it, so let’s talk about it.The issue is a Constitutional Convention, with the expressed intent being to return the United States to its Constitutional Roots.Sounds like a good idea, yes?

Well, it quite arguably is, if you’d like to see the government return to its Constitutional boundaries.

The problem is that this “remedy” isn’t a remedy and if it comes to pass what you want won’t happen.

I know this for a fact and, if you think about it, so do you.

I know what you’re going to say: How can you be so sure?

It’s simple: There is nothing wrong with the Constitution as it sits now.  The problem is that it’s not followed.

Let’s just take one example: The Fourth Amendment

It reads:

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It does not say:

a) Except when a police officer wants to stop and frisk you.

b) Except when the government thinks you might be a terrorist.

c) Except when someone else has your “papers” because you had to let them have same as an essential part of buying a service from them (e.g. your cell phone “tower” records.)

d) Except when you’re driving while black.

e) Except when you’re driving anywhere, at all, and the government thinks you might have drug money in the car but has no probable cause to believe so.

And on and on and on.

It says shall not be violated, and it further mandates that a warrant may only issue predicated on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation (not the unsworn word of an unnamed “confidential informant” nor can a dog “swear an oath”) and that the particular place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized must be named.  That latter requirement is there so the cops can’t go on fishing expeditions.

Let’s try another one:

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It does not say:

a) Except for guns that fire more than one bullet with a single pull of the trigger, unless they were made before a certain date and you pay a license fee.

b) Except for guns that have more than some number of rounds of ammunition in the magazine.

c) Except for guns that have some undesirable physical characteristic, such as looking scary, rifles or shotguns with a barrel shorter than some dimension, or similar.

d) Except for guns that fire a projectile larger than (X), or having characteristics of (X) (e.g. armor-piercing ammo, etc)

e) Except for guns that have been made quieter by the addition of a sound-suppressing device, unless you pay a license fee for same and the local sheriff thinks you’re nice.

f) Except if you don’t have a permit to (buy|carry openly|carry concealed) or otherwise “bear” same.

g) Except if you’d like to buy and take it with you right now (e.g. “waiting period” laws.)

h) Except for rocket launchers.

i) Except for surface-to-air missiles.

j) Except for nuclear arms.

Now wait a second, you say!  Those last three are bullcrap in private hands!

Maybe.  But if so there is a way to make them unlawful within the Constitution – pass an Amendment.  Absent that, ownership of any of the above and the carrying of any of the above, without any sort of permit, is lawful.

Unwise?  Maybe.  And immaterial.  It’s lawful and any law that says otherwise is unconstitutional.

Don’t even get me started on the Tenth Amendment.

I further challenge you to find anywhere in the Constitution where the United States Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, is empowered to re-write or as they like to say, interpret the plain language of said Constitution.

This is the sum total of what is said on same in The Constitution:

Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

So where in there do you find there the power to rip up and rewrite said Constitution?

It’s not there, and it never was.

Where there is legitimate debate over statutory construction let’s have it, and let’s have it there in the Supreme Court.  But there is no debate of legitimacy over construction of the 2nd or 4th Amendments.  There are excuses for adding clauses that never existed and still don’t, but they’re flatly unlawful irrespective of who pronounces otherwise.  Those who claim that technology or other changes in life have made the world a different place have a means to address their concern: Pass an Amendment.

Instead what has happened in the “real world” we live in is that the government will find some thing they wish to do.  They know it’s unconstitutional but they do it anyway.  Someone sues, after 5 or 10 years it makes its way to the Supreme Court and the government has in the meantime done its level best to stack the court with judges that will rule as it wishes.  There is no law if the courts simply ignore what’s in front of them, as occurred with Obamacare where the majority opinion ruled that a statute that was explicitly constructed not to be a tax was in fact a tax but the imposition of such a direct tax is barred from the Federal Government except in proportion to population.  In other words you can be (directly) taxed but not in a different amount than someone else.  This is why the 16th Amendment was necessary; to lay a tax on someone’s work in proportion to what they made was unconstitutional.

All of this game-playing in the judiciary rests on the thinnest of foundation; so-called judicial comity and stare decisis.  That is, the premise that once a decision is made even if blatantly unconstitutional, it is thereafter the foundation of everything that follows and reciprocity and recognition is owed against that (blatantly unlawful) decision.

You can’t fix this with a ConCon or with “more Amendments” because they are subject to the same “interpretation” as has been all of the previous; the only solution is to unwind the previous violence done to the Constitution and then, if appropriate, pass Amendments that further constrain the rights protected by and powers delegated therein.

Those who argue otherwise are fools, and those who refuse to take up the underlying issue and address it head-on are playing with you and are attempting to get you to expend your resources on a false premise to thereby consume your efforts rather than solving the problem.

You can interest me in a ConCon when the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments are enforced as written — not one second before.

The right place to enforce this is in fact the States.  If the States will not do so, then the people have to decide whether we are 50 states or factually one state with 50 names.

You choose but don’t blow smoke up my ass with this garbage about a “ConCon” fixing anything because it won’t.

Destruction of America’s Middle Class

0 comments

Posted on 22nd September 2014 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

,

Guest Post by Anthony Sanders

America’s middle class is having a difficult time. They are not sharing equally in the Fed-induced stock market surge and real median household income is the lowest since 1995.

incchqt

Rising home prices (albeit slowing), stagnant wage growth and rising mortgage rates are leading to a decline in home affordability.

Take the National Association of Realtors Homebuyer Affordability Index. You can see that UNaffordability peaked in 2006 when home prices peaked and real median household income was recovering from the 2001 recession.

afford

You can also see that AFFORDABILITY peaked in 2012 after home price declined and mortgage rates hit a low since 2000. Unfortunately, real median household income had also fallen preventing a true housing recovery.

Mortgage purchase applications remain at a 14 year low (like real median household income, mortgage purchase applications are back to 1995 levels). This results in an affordability gap due to rising home prices, rising mortgage rates and declining/stagnant income.

mbaphp

Unless members of the American Middle Class over substantial holdings of the S&P 500 and/or Commercial Real Estate, there massive Federal Reserve asset purchases and interest rate repression scheme has NOT helped the Middle Class.

crededaa

Is loosening credit standards the answer? Do you think Federal housing policy should heap MORE debt on households that are already suffering from the aftermath of a housing/credit bubble that burst? I would say no.

The solution is not more debt, it is adopting policies that allow that economy and wages to grow. Not stifle recovery.

So, like in the movie “The Incredible Burt Wonderstone,” we have succeeded in making the Middle Class disappear!

disappearingaudiencce

littlejanet

CHECKPOINT Belligerent Cop Loses Temper

3 comments

Posted on 22nd September 2014 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

This cop loses his temper when man exercises his Constitutional Rights. This incident ironically occurred on “Thank A Police Officer Day”. You can see the original Facebook thread here: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=…

AREN’T THE TURKS & THE KURDS BOTH OUR ALLIES?

1 comment

Posted on 22nd September 2014 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, ,

I’m so confused. Do I cheer for the Turks or the Kurds? Watching the NFL is so much easier.

Groups of Kurdish people wishing to enter Syria through a border crossing in Turkey’s Suruç district were turned back by police officers and security forces Sunday. Security forces were observed using water cannon and tear gas to protect the border. READ MORE http://on.rt.com/8k1lhp