http://www.roncorvus.com/ roncorvus.com en-us Nucleus CMS v3.32 Γ―ΒΏΒ½ Weblog http://backend.userland.com/rss http://www.roncorvus.com//nucleus/nucleus2.gif http://www.roncorvus.com/ http://www.roncorvus.com/index.php?itemid=19
As CBS 2's Dana Kozlov reports, the Ewert brothers have a rather advanced science project. But instead of a typical dry ice experiment, Chris and Andrew used batteries and a charger to make their hybrid Toyota Prius get 100 miles per gallon.

"My brother and I built this, and car companies should be able to do it, too," Chris Ewert, an electric vehicle enthusiast, said.

The car is the Wheaton brothers' way of lessening the dependence on oil and helping the environment.

It's something the DuPage County Forest Preserve has been focused on for close to a decade.

"Oh, we're making a significant difference in the environment," said the district's John Walton.

The district has hybrids and vehicles that run on four different types of alternative fuels, including natural gas.

"It burns at less than 10 percent of the pollutants of gasoline, and for the mile per gallon dollars, it's costing us about a dollar a gallon," Walton said.

If you want to forget about fuel sources altogether, you can go electric. Neighborhood electric vehicles get 40 miles per charge, costing three cents a mile, and are meant for local neighborhood use.

"With the gas prices going up and with the green movement, it's really unbelievable the number of cars we're selling today," said Dan Mack of the Electric Avenue Auto Mall.

The hitch is the tiny neighborhood electric vehicles are not legal in Illinois.

That's frustrating, considering Mack, Walton and the Ewerts are convinced gas is not the way of the future.

"There is no gas shortage today; there will be in the very near future," Walton said. "We are not going to have gasoline the way we have it."
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/efficient.car.gas.2.707134.html]]> Gasoline http://www.roncorvus.com/index.php?itemid=19 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:09:14 -0700 http://www.roncorvus.com/index.php?itemid=17
Our Founding Fathers warned us of the dangers party politics brings.

Six Primary Goals:

1. Economy: Let's improve our economy; here's how;

2. Healthcare: Let's pass single-payer universal healthcare; here's how;

3. Education: Let's pass single-payer college education; here's how and why;

4. Taxes: Let's end the federal income tax on individuals and small businesses; here's how;

5. Let's end illegal immigration: here's what to do;

6. Open Government: We The People MUST institute accountability, constitutionality and transparency in government; here's how and why;

MOREBEGINNINGS ENDINGS
1. ACCOUNTABILITY: Transparency in government. Follow our own laws and uphold our constitution. Restore all civil rights eliminated and abridged by the Bush administration; Institute full independent investigations of 9/11, Bush, Cheney and anyone else responsible for providing the false information used to go to war in Iraq. 1. Withdraw all U.S. military from all Muslim land.

2. End the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive military strikes.

3. End the bogus "War On Terror."

4. End the Federal Reserve.

2. Social Services: Implement fully-paid, single payer, universal healthcare for all; Implement fully-paid college education for all who graduate from high school. 5. End the federal income tax for the individual U.S. citizen.

6. End Corporate Welfare: Impose 10% flat tax on all foreign and U.S. corporations grossing $100 million or more in the USA. Reduce corporate loopholes.
7. END NAFTA and the WTO.agreements.
3. Legislation: Balanced Budget Amendment; New Energy Project; Hemp & Marijuana Act of 2008; Cut the bloated DOD budget. Focus on increasing manufacturing jobs. 8. END Bush's plans for a North American Union, his SSP Security and Prosperity Partnership with Mexico and Canada.
9. END privatized toll roads.
4. Election Reform: public funding of all federal campaigns; institute approval voting with paper trails;

5. AUDIT: FULL AUDIT of the Pentagon/DOD. Trillions of U.S. tax dollars are 100% missing.

6. Living Wage: Implement a living wage; corporate profits are up 45% while worker earnings up only 4%.

7. Re-Instate ABM Treaty: Bush withdrew from the ABM Treaty, thereby reinstating and resuming the nuclear arms race again.



The Independent Voter Agenda and Platform



I recommend you register as an independent, partyless voter and vote for independent candidates who support an independent voter platform.



According to CNN polls, most Americans consider themselves independent:



(42%) Independents

(33%) Democrats

(25%) Republicans



The goal of the independent voter should be to institute the independent voter platform. (IVP)

The IVP should consist of several planks of, by and for the independent voter.


What To Do

Voters don't know what to do. Voters know what they DON'T WANT to do. Voters DON'T WANT to keep on supporting the Democratic and Republican parties; Voters have endured this double-headed snake for years..........Voters are sick and tired of party politics and the results, or lack thereof. A majority of Americans now support a new way, a new idea, a new platform; a majority of Americans now painfully realize that neither of these two parties are EVER going to give their constituents what they want - the very reasons they were voted into office in the first place. There has been no real identifiable platform either of these two parties have set forth for inspection; their plausible deniability resides within this indistinctive characteristic of their party.

BUT NOW, we have a chance to replace party politics and their cheerleaders with an independent voter platform. If you want to become an independent voter, then you have to change your party affiliation from your current party affiliation to "none/independent."

It is worth noting that any American seeking office who wishes to run as an independent is required by law to have registered as an independent 13 months PRIOR TO seeking office as an independent candidate. However, one may choose to run as the registered Democrat they are but proudly and publicly support an independent voter platform, as opposed to the Democratic Party platform - whatever the hell that is!

The longest journey begins with a single step; and apparently, a majority of Americans have got to steppin'!

An average of CNN polls and other polls indicate that a majority of Americans now consider themselves "independent" rather than Democrat or Republican. 42% - Independent; 33% - Democrat; 25% - Republican
This "independent movement" reminds me of our Founding Fathers packing up, boarding great wooden ships and sailing away from the Queen's monarchy to a new, free undecided land.

Support Cindy Sheehan to replace Nancy Pelosi in the 8th district of California. Support an independent voter platform and candidates who support an independent voter platform. Please forward your comment and thoughts on what an independent voter platform should be to: ron@roncorvus.com
]]> Independent Voter Platform http://www.roncorvus.com/index.php?itemid=17 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:18:42 -0700 http://www.roncorvus.com/index.php?itemid=16
Stephen Hadley is an Israeli Bush administration neocon who has set up camp in Bush's ears and brain for a long time now, promoting the Israeli agenda as the American agenda. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who has had more influence on George W. Bush than this Stephen Hadley unit.

Hadley should have been fired and prosecuted long ago, but no! Today Stephen Hadley remains as the National Security Advisor to President Bush!! Hadley is the Zionist who is now pushing to bomb Iran!!!

Please visit: "A Clean Break"
MORE
Bush aide admits he was warned on uranium
By Marian Wilkinson
United States Correspondent
Washington
July 24 2003

A top White House official has admitted that he was warned in two
written memos and a phone call by the CIA director that intelligence on
Iraq seeking uranium in Africa was faulty.

But Stephen Hadley, the White House's Deputy National Security Adviser,
said he did not remove the claim from President George Bush's State of
the Union speech in January.

Mr. Hadley told reporters at an unusual 90-minute briefing that he had
apologized to Mr. Bush for the failure, which he blamed on a lapse of memory.

"I should have recalled at the time of the speech that there was
controversy associated with the uranium issue," Mr. Hadley said.

On January 28, Mr. Bush said in the speech that British intelligence had
learnt that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa, citing it as evidence
that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted its nuclear program.

Prime Minister John Howard cited the same British intelligence claims in
Parliament.

Over the past three weeks, the controversy has grown alarmingly for the
White House with several inquiries investigating how the President came
to use the flawed intelligence.

Previously CIA director George Tenet was forced to take public
responsibility for the claim's appearance in Mr. Bush's speech.

After initially denying that the White House received the warning, Mr.
Hadley admitted that a White House inquiry has discovered he received
two memos and a phone call from Mr. Tenet in October raising objections.

This story was found at:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/23/1058853137079.html




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House official 'forgot' uranium warnings
By Ken Fireman
Washington
July 24 2003

The White House is under pressure after disclosing that officials
included a now-discredited assertion about Iraqi uranium shopping in
Africa in President Bush's State of the Union message in January -
despite warnings months earlier from the CIA that the accusation was
unreliable.

Two CIA memos, along with a phone call from CIA Director George Tenet,
persuaded White House officials to remove the allegation from an earlier
speech that President Bush made on October 7.

But no official at the White House apparently recalled the warnings less
than four months later - as the US was on the verge of declaring war on
Iraq - when the text of Mr Bush's State of the Union speech was being
crafted, according to deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley,
who received both memos.

"There were a lot of people who could have raised a hand, and the hands
did not get raised," Mr Hadley said during a lengthy White House
briefing on Tuesday at which the CIA warnings were disclosed.

Looking shaken, he said: "I should have asked that the 16 words be taken
out" of the State of the Union address, and added, "I failed in that
responsibility."

As a result, Mr Bush's January 28 speech to Congress and the nation
included an allegation, attributed to British intelligence, that Saddam
Hussein was seeking to acquire enriched uranium in Africa.

British officials included the claim in a September dossier on Iraqi
weapons programs over CIA objections. Australian Prime Minister John
Howard cited the same British intelligence claims in Parliament. The
main basis for the allegation has since been exposed as fraudulent.

The White House said last week that the Africa uranium claim should not
have been in the speech but blamed the CIA.

Tuesday's disclosure raises new questions about that defence, as well as
the role that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice played in the
incident.

Dr Rice has said neither she nor the President were aware of any serious
questions about the uranium allegation until March, when international
arms inspectors branded the documents supporting it as forgeries.

But Mr Hadley said the second of the two CIA memos, dated October 6, was
sent to Dr Rice as well as to him. He said the first, dated the previous
day, went to him and chief White House speechwriter Michael Gerson.

Dr Rice has previously insisted that no high-ranking White House
officials were aware of CIA doubts on the intelligence.

"No one knew at the time in our circles - maybe someone knew down in the
bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were
doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery," Dr Rice said in an
interview on on June 8.

Anna Perez, a spokeswoman for Dr Rice, said on Tuesday that Dr Rice did
not remember reading the memo addressed to her but felt "personally
responsible" for the fact that the Africa claim remained in the speech.

The White House, stung by the recent revelation that one of Mr Bush's
arguments for launching a war against Iraq was based on questionable
intelligence, has been conducting an internal inquiry into why the
dubious claim was included in the State of the Union speech.

Mr Hadley's acceptance of the blame effectively protects Dr Rice, his
boss and one of Mr Bush's closest confidants, from direct responsibility
for the error.

Senator Bob Graham of Florida, a former chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee and a Democratic candidate for president, said Mr
Hadley's revelation "raises sharp new questions as to who at the White
House engaged in a cover-up and why President Bush told the nation
something that was blatantly false in making his case to go to war".

"From the beginning, we hoped this was an honest mistake," Senator
Graham said.

Another Democratic candidate, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, said
it was "more bureaucratic finger-pointing".

"George W. Bush is responsible for his administration and needs to take
responsibility for using flawed intelligence," Senator Kerry said.

Mr Hadley said the memos were found over the weekend and he had
apologised to Mr Bush on Monday.

White House communications director Dan Bartlett, who joined Mr Hadley
for the briefing, acknowledged that "the process failed" when the State
of the Union speech was being vetted.

But he said President Bush still retained confidence in Dr Rice, Mr
Hadley and Mr Tenet.

This story was found at:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/23/1058853136094.html



National Security CouncilStephen Hadley, Assistant to the President For National Security Affairs Stephen J. Hadley was sworn in as Assistant to the President for National Security ...
www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/hadleybio.html - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

Stephen Hadley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThis article incorporates text from Stephen Hadley's National Security Council biography, which, as a work of the U.S. government, is in the public domain ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hadley - 25k - Cached - Similar pages

Right Web | Profile | Stephen J. HadleyStephen Hadley is a hardliner close to Vice President Dick Cheney and to the neoconservative camp. Named by the president in mid-November 2004 to replace ...
rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1213 - 36k - Cached - Similar pages

Right Web | Analysis | The Vulcans ConsolidateStephen Hadley is a fire-tested Vulcan--a hardliner close to Vice President Dick Cheney and to the neoconservative camp. Named by the president in ...
rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2004/0411hadley.php - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

Security adviser named as source in CIA scandal - Sunday Times ...... CIA agent at the centre of one of Washington’s biggest political storms was Stephen Hadley, the White House national security adviser, according to la.
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1880016,00.html - Similar pages

The Raw Story | National Security Adviser was Woodward's source ...National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley was the senior administration official who told Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward that Valerie ...
rawstory.com/news/2005/National_Security_Adviser_was_Woodwards_source_1116.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

Stephen J. Hadley - SourceWatchNational Security Adviser Stephen Hadley was "the senior administration ... Stephen J. Hadley, Remarks As Prepared for Delivery by Stephen J. Hadley, ...
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_Hadley - 33k - Cached - Similar pages

Stephen HadleyStephen Hadley AKA Stephen John Hadley. Born: 13-Feb-1947 Birthplace: Toledo, OH. Gender: Male Race or Ethnicity: White Sexual orientation: Straight ...
www.nndb.com/people/693/000041570/ - 5k - Cached - Similar pages

Think Progress » Times of London: Woodward’s Source Was HadleyRove: Hey Stephen, I just outed a CIA agent to the press. Hadley: Sorry, Karl, I outed her first. I don’t buy that Fitzgerald saw anything in those e-mails ...
thinkprogress.org/2005/11/20/woodward-hadley/ - 36k - Cached - Similar pages

Bush Aide Fires Back at Critics On Justification for War in IraqBristling from fresh assaults on its justification for war, the White House dispatched national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley to the briefing room to ...
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/10/AR2005111002402.html - Similar pages


]]> Neocons http://www.roncorvus.com/index.php?itemid=16 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:10:32 -0700 http://www.roncorvus.com/index.php?itemid=15
Hillary Clinton wants to require you to buy healthcare insurance. Obama asks, "What's the penalty for NOT buying such a mandated insurance?" The truth is, every politician in Washington, including Obama and Hillary, want you to make insurance payments. They all promise to make healthcare "affordable." Such a promise is disingenious at best, downright criminal at worst. In fact, such promises are indicative of the intent of the politician. The true intent of the politician is to keep using our tax dollars to subsidize these outrageous profits enjoyed by the insurance companies, HMOs and pharmaceuticals. Whether by direct payment or by government subsidy, these politicians REFUSE to eliminate these greedy "FOR-PROFIT" corporations from our nation's $2.3 trillion dollar trough. Obama is promising to implement universal healthcare by the end of his (first) term as President - nonsense! First of all, Obama nor Hillary offer single-payer universal healthcare; nor can a President pass universal healthcare by themself. Such a claim is an insult to the informed American. To the uninformed, it must seem like Kennedyesque rhetoric. Obama, like Hillary, both keep "FOR-PROFIT" corporations maximizing their profits at the expense of all Americans' healthcare.

The fact is, Americans are already paying for all the healthcare their family would ever need - they're just not getting it. Why would a politician want you to keep making payments to insurance companies if our nation's healthcare budget is enough money to cover all the healthcare one would ever need? The answer is to keep corporate lobbyists and their fellow crooked Congressmen and women happy, that's why. The drug lobby literally writes our nation's healthcare bills, and Hillary and Obama know it. They know the drug lobby will NEVER allow single-payer universal healthcare to be passed, period - no matter WHO is President. The Democratic Party and Hillary have been taunting the American public with their empty promises of universal healthcare for a long, long time now. I can only wonder how much longer will Americans keep believing that one day, if we get the right President, then we'll all have universal healthcare. It's NOT going to happen with the Democratic and Republican Party monopolizing Congress.

John McCain asks, "Do you want government running our nation's healthcare system, or do you want families making decisions on how to run our nation's healthcare system?" This is slick, ole Washington doubletalk which is actually French for, "I, John McCain, hereby promise Corporate America to keep "FOR-PROFIT" corporations maximizing profits for their stockholders, to keep corporations siphoning 2/3 of our nation's Medicare/Medicaid budget to the exclusion and expense of the American people."

Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney passed a healthcare bill in Massachusetts requiring all citizens to buy health insurance, whether they can afford it or not. Even more disgusting is the fact Romney and Sen. Kennedy called this their "universal healthcare bill." It's anything BUT universal healthcare. Today almost half of Massachusetts' citizens are criminals - designated such by Mitt Romney and his so-called, "universal healthcare bill," for failing to purchase healthcare insurance.

The sad fact is, many Americans who can afford to make insurance payments DO NOT WANT other Americans enjoying free healthcare without paying for it. This is the ugly truth about how many Americans feel about fully-paid universal healthcare. How did these Americans become so indifferent to their fellow citizens? Mostly from decades of non-stop brainwashing, courtesy of the healthcare profiteers. Some are just plain hateful and snarky. The truth is NO AMERICAN should be making ANY PAYMENTS to ANY insurance companies, HMOs or pharms, since Americans pay enough money to Medicare/Medicaid to cover ALL Americans' healthcare needs.

Virtually no one addresses the real issue, which is should private corporations operate our nation's healthcare system? Should private corporations continue to be allowed to maximize corporate profits at the expense of Americans' health? Some Americans believe private corporations should be allowed to maximize profits at the expense of Americans' health. Some people think that if we didn't allow "FOR-PROFIT" corporations to maximize profits and run our healthcare system, "NON-PROFITS" would fail miserably. There is not a shred of evidence to support such a contention; in fact, evidence exists to the contrary. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain are three of these Americans who prefer to continue to allow private corporations to maximize corporate profits at the expense of Americans' health, sucking down almost two-thirds of the $2.3 trillion Medicare/Medicaid budget.

The fact remains: We The People are ALREADY PAYING FOR FULLY-PAID UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE - WE'RE JUST NOT GETTING IT!

We don't need to raise taxes or find a new revenue stream to pay for fully-paid universal healthcare! NO! Our nation's $2.3 trillion dollar healthcare budget is MORE THAN ENOUGH to pay for ALL the healthcare you and your family will EVER NEED! Problem is, the majority of those funds go to the fatcat profiteers at the insurance companies, HMOs and pharmaceuticals. Their Borad of Directos have a DUTY BY LAW TO MAXIMIZE PROFITS FOR THEIR SHAREHOLDERS! I say we need to redirect those funds AWAY FROM those profieering corporations and use those funds to pay for all the healthcare your family will ever need! ELIMINATE THE HEALTHCARE PROFITEERS!

I believe an American's right to fully-paid universal healthcare supercedes the corporation's right to maximize profits in the dispensation of that healthcare. Unfortunately, Hillary, Obama and McCain believe otherwise. These three politicians fight for corporations' right to maximize profits instead of fighting for Americans' right to fully-paid universal healthcare. Instead of converting our current greedy "FOR-PROFIT" healthcare system to a "NON-PROFIT" system, Hillary, Obama and McCain prefer corporate welfare - using tax dollars to fund corporate profits!
This is worth repeating and highlighting: Hillary, Obama and McCain prefer to use billions and billions of our tax dollars to pay for the profits these greedy insurance companies, HMOs and pharms enjoy. The politician's job is to CON Americans into believing the best they can do is to make healthcare premiums, "affordable." What a crock! It's bad enough that two-thirds of Medicare/Medicaid goes directly to the profit pockets of these corporations; yet Hillary, Obama and McCain want you to keep making ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS to the greedy corporate profiteers.

The United States is the only industrialized nation in the world who does NOT enjoy fully-paid universal healthcare! The anti-universal healthcare propaganda is staggering. The drug lobby writes our nation's healthcare bills - Congress doesn't. Over 100,000 Americans die each year in America's hospitals from medical negligence. Another 100,000 Americans die annually from LACK OF healthcare, due to corporate exclusionary policies. In other words, the technology was there to prevent death; but was not used, due to corporate decisonmaking regarding "profit-protection."

Yet there is Hillary, smiling and talking about how she cares so much about the plight of Americans' healthcare and how she has devoted her life to implementing "universal healthcare." The woman has done NOTHING AT ALL OVER THE YEARS to convert our current "FOR-PROFIT" healthcare system to a "NON-PROFIT" healthcare system; Hillary, Obama and McCain's job is to convince Americans that paying insurance premiums is the best we can do, so criminalize the act of NOT purchasing healthcare insurance.

Unfortunately, I don't see this situation changing anytime soon. Certainly not by the end of the next Presidential term or even the next. Implementing fully-paid universal healthcare is going to require the American public to become fully informed of the facts of the situation, to the point of voting for partyless candidates, since NO PARTY CANDIDATE WILL EVER IMPLEMENT FULLY-PAID UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE!

The world will continue to enjoy fully-paid healthcare while poor Americans will continue to go without healthcare - healthcare already being paid for, but not received.

Universal Healthcare video - r o n ron@roncorvus.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9mzsdl_yJc#GU5U2spHI_4]]> Healthcare http://www.roncorvus.com/index.php?itemid=15 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:03:26 -0700 http://www.roncorvus.com/index.php?itemid=14
1.) Cut the bloated Pentagon budget. Currently, there is over $3 trillion dollars MISSING - unaccounted for - in the Pentagon budget. (Former)Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made this announcement on, you guessed it - Sept. 10. 2001, the day before 9/11. Our government spends over X trillion dollars annually on our military budget. We can easily and safely cut a huge portion of this out-of-control bloated budget. Here's a short must-see video which very simply illustrates how we spend WAY TOO MUCH MONEY on the military budget, and how we can easily acccomodate our nation's budgetary needs by safely cutting the bloated Pentagon budget.


2.) End the bogus War On Terror and bring our troops home from around the world. This is long overdue. Prosecuting this bogus War On Terror is costing you and I untold billions of our tax dollars, for no good reason at all. There is no reason to keep troops all over the world. The Pentagon refuses to divulge the cost of keeping troops around the world. This is wholly unacceptable and downright criminal. Opponents of bringing our troops home maintain that peace though strength and military superiority is the best policy to protect America and U.S. interests. Well, basically I agree, BUT HOW TO achieve this is the devil in the details.

We have the most advanced and powerful military in the world, with the most deadly and accurate nuclear attack capability on the planet. There is no doubt we are able to defend America from state-sponsored attack. If nuclear missiles were launched from the Middle East, those missiles would have to leave the local theatre and enter outer space to travel the distance necessary to strike the United States. This process takes about an hour, so any attempt to strike the United States would be fatally interrupted by U.S. anti-missile technology. In fact, we have the capability to detect any such launch literally upon launch, therefore there is no doubt we would know the origin of any such launch. Everyone on this planet knows this fact serves as a deterrence accordingly.

The issue to be discussed is the matter of what constitutes "U.S. interests?" When viewed through the prism of U.S. law and constitution, our government has no right to execute a military strike anywhere for any reason other than by Congressional Declaration of War or by proof of imminent threat of imminent attack upon the mainland USA. Such policy would be in strict accordance with our American laws and U.S. Constitution.

Since George W. Bush has made U.S. foreign policy the illegal Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, our government has been unlawfully and unconstitutionally attacking, invading, destroying and occupying sovereign nations without legal justification or process. Ending all these illegal military actions would save American taxpayers untold BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars.


3.) Taxes. We need to eliminate the federal income tax for individuals and all small businesses. We need a flat tax on all corporations with at least $100 million in gross sales. The current tax rate is 38%. We need to lower it to 28%. You may ask, "Where and how do we make up the revenue lost?" The short answer is by cutting the bloated Pentagon budget and cutting wasteful spending.
See, http://www.truemajority.org/oreos


4.) Jobs, jobs jobs. Recreate the manufacturing base. All the experts agree: in order to even have a chance at restoring America's economic greatness would REQUIRE reconstituting our once superior manufacturing base. In recent times our economy has been converted from a manufacturing base to a service-oriented base. This is unacceptable and unsustainable in terms of true economic growth for America.

5.) Abolish the Federal Reserve. Abolishing the Federal Reserve would do more to improve our economy and actually lift our quality of life more than any other action possibly taken. The Federal Reserve is a private banking institution profiting wildly from loaning us our own money.

http://www.roncorvus.com/economy.htm]]> Economy http://www.roncorvus.com/index.php?itemid=14 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:58:14 -0700 http://www.roncorvus.com/index.php?itemid=13
1.) Corporations profit wildly from student loans;

2.) If our government provided fully-paid college education, our government would not be able to easily recruit citizens for the U.S. military. Our government dangles the carrot and stick promise of money for a college education. A poll of U.S. military members overwhelmingly cite "money for college" as their primary reason for joining the military.

One reason our government should provide fully-paid college tuition is because other nations provide fully-paid college tuition for each high school graduate. India provides single-payer, fully-paid college tuition for each Indian graduating from high school. Now India has more college graduates than America has citizens!!!!

And another thing: Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton call for American high school graduates to donate a whole year of their life working for the government for free, in exchange for a discount on college tuition. This is particularly numbing, considering while your kid is working for the government for free, foreign high school grads are actually going to college during the year your kid is workin' free for the man. Foreign college graduates are not strapped with huge burdenous corporate debt upon graduation as American kids are here. Moreover, American college kids are two to three years behind foreign students.

r o n ron@roncorvus.com This webpage: http://www.roncorvus.com/education.htm
]]> Education http://www.roncorvus.com/index.php?itemid=13 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:56:19 -0700 http://www.roncorvus.com/index.php?itemid=12

Naturally, you may ask, "But how are we going to replace those funds our government is used to spending?"

The short and long answer is by cutting the bloated Pentagon budget and other wasteful government spending. See, http://www.truemajority.org/oreos


Home | Indy Voter Platform | Email Ron | Economy | Healthcare | War On Terror | Taxes | Illegal Immigration | Webmaster]]> Taxes http://www.roncorvus.com/index.php?itemid=12 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:54:05 -0700 http://www.roncorvus.com/index.php?itemid=9
Seventy years ago a highly decorated Marine Corps general, disturbed by his participation in various military interventions, declared that WAR IS A RACKET and that we need a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to guarantee everlasting peace to our nation.

Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler on Interventionism

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
MORE
WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.

The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people – not those who fight and pay and die – only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.

There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.

Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?

Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:

"And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace... War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."

Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war – anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.

Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.

Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.

Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war – a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.

Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit – fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.

Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends.

But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?

What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?

Yes, and what does it profit the nation?

Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington's warning about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.

It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people – who do not profit.



CHAPTER TWO

WHO MAKES THE PROFITS?

The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven't paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children's children probably still will be paying the cost of that war.

The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits – ah! that is another matter – twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent – the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it.

Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket – and are safely pocketed. Let's just take a few examples:

Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people – didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.

Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump – or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!

Or, let's take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.

There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let's look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times.

Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.

Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period.

Let's group these five, with three smaller companies. The total yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000.

A little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent.

Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren't the only ones. There are still others. Let's take leather.

For the three-year period before the war the total profits of Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That's all. The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.

International Nickel Company – and you can't have a war without nickel – showed an increase in profits from a mere average of $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly. Not bad? An increase of more than 1,700 per cent.

American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded.

Listen to Senate Document No. 259. The Sixty-Fifth Congress, reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues. Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal producers during the war. Profits under 25 per cent were exceptional. For instance the coal companies made between 100 per cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war. The Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings.

And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and their billions I do not know, because those little secrets never become public – even before a Senate investigatory body.

But here's how some of the other patriotic industrialists and speculators chiseled their way into war profits.

Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with abnormal profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our allies. Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament makers, they also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from Germany or from France. But they did well by Uncle Sam too. For instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs of hobnailed service shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight pairs, and more, to a soldier. My regiment during the war had only one pair to a soldier. Some of these shoes probably are still in existence. They were good shoes. But when the war was over Uncle Sam has a matter of 25,000,000 pairs left over. Bought – and paid for. Profits recorded and pocketed.

There was still lots of leather left. So the leather people sold your Uncle Sam hundreds of thousands of McClellan saddles for the cavalry. But there wasn't any American cavalry overseas! Somebody had to get rid of this leather, however. Somebody had to make a profit in it – so we had a lot of McClellan saddles. And we probably have those yet.

Also somebody had a lot of mosquito netting. They sold your Uncle Sam 20,000,000 mosquito nets for the use of the soldiers overseas. I suppose the boys were expected to put it over them as they tried to sleep in muddy trenches – one hand scratching cooties on their backs and the other making passes at scurrying rats. Well, not one of these mosquito nets ever got to France!

Anyhow, these thoughtful manufacturers wanted to make sure that no soldier would be without his mosquito net, so 40,000,000 additional yards of mosquito netting were sold to Uncle Sam.

There were pretty good profits in mosquito netting in those days, even if there were no mosquitoes in France. I suppose, if the war had lasted just a little longer, the enterprising mosquito netting manufacturers would have sold your Uncle Sam a couple of consignments of mosquitoes to plant in France so that more mosquito netting would be in order.

Airplane and engine manufacturers felt they, too, should get their just profits out of this war. Why not? Everybody else was getting theirs. So $1,000,000,000 – count them if you live long enough – was spent by Uncle Sam in building airplane engines that never left the ground! Not one plane, or motor, out of the billion dollars worth ordered, ever got into a battle in France. Just the same the manufacturers made their little profit of 30, 100, or perhaps 300 per cent.

Undershirts for soldiers cost 14’ [cents] to make and uncle Sam paid 30’ to 40’ each for them – a nice little profit for the undershirt manufacturer. And the stocking manufacturer and the uniform manufacturers and the cap manufacturers and the steel helmet manufacturers – all got theirs.

Why, when the war was over some 4,000,000 sets of equipment – knapsacks and the things that go to fill them – crammed warehouses on this side. Now they are being scrapped because the regulations have changed the contents. But the manufacturers collected their wartime profits on them – and they will do it all over again the next time.

There were lots of brilliant ideas for profit making during the war.

One very versatile patriot sold Uncle Sam twelve dozen 48-inch wrenches. Oh, they were very nice wrenches. The only trouble was that there was only one nut ever made that was large enough for these wrenches. That is the one that holds the turbines at Niagara Falls. Well, after Uncle Sam had bought them and the manufacturer had pocketed the profit, the wrenches were put on freight cars and shunted all around the United States in an effort to find a use for them. When the Armistice was signed it was indeed a sad blow to the wrench manufacturer. He was just about to make some nuts to fit the wrenches. Then he planned to sell these, too, to your Uncle Sam.

Still another had the brilliant idea that colonels shouldn't ride in automobiles, nor should they even ride on horseback. One has probably seen a picture of Andy Jackson riding in a buckboard. Well, some 6,000 buckboards were sold to Uncle Sam for the use of colonels! Not one of them was used. But the buckboard manufacturer got his war profit.

The shipbuilders felt they should come in on some of it, too. They built a lot of ships that made a lot of profit. More than $3,000,000,000 worth. Some of the ships were all right. But $635,000,000 worth of them were made of wood and wouldn't float! The seams opened up – and they sank. We paid for them, though. And somebody pocketed the profits.

It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war itself. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits. That is how the 21,000 billionaires and millionaires got that way. This $16,000,000,000 profits is not to be sneezed at. It is quite a tidy sum. And it went to a very few.

The Senate (Nye) committee probe of the munitions industry and its wartime profits, despite its sensational disclosures, hardly has scratched the surface.

Even so, it has had some effect. The State Department has been studying "for some time" methods of keeping out of war. The War Department suddenly decides it has a wonderful plan to spring. The Administration names a committee – with the War and Navy Departments ably represented under the chairmanship of a Wall Street speculator – to limit profits in war time. To what extent isn't suggested. Hmmm. Possibly the profits of 300 and 600 and 1,600 per cent of those who turned blood into gold in the World War would be limited to some smaller figure.

Apparently, however, the plan does not call for any limitation of losses – that is, the losses of those who fight the war. As far as I have been able to ascertain there is nothing in the scheme to limit a soldier to the loss of but one eye, or one arm, or to limit his wounds to one or two or three. Or to limit the loss of life.

There is nothing in this scheme, apparently, that says not more than 12 per cent of a regiment shall be wounded in battle, or that not more than 7 per cent in a division shall be killed.

Of course, the committee cannot be bothered with such trifling matters.



CHAPTER THREE

WHO PAYS THE BILLS?

Who provides the profits – these nice little profits of 20, 100, 300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent? We all pay them – in taxation. We paid the bankers their profits when we bought Liberty Bonds at $100.00 and sold them back at $84 or $86 to the bankers. These bankers collected $100 plus. It was a simple manipulation. The bankers control the security marts. It was easy for them to depress the price of these bonds. Then all of us – the people – got frightened and sold the bonds at $84 or $86. The bankers bought them. Then these same bankers stimulated a boom and government bonds went to par – and above. Then the bankers collected their profits.

But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.

If you don't believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran's hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men – men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.

Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.

Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another "about face" ! This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers' aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn't need them any more. So we scattered them about without any "three-minute" or "Liberty Loan" speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final "about face" alone.

In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don't even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.

There are thousands and thousands of these cases, and more and more are coming in all the time. The tremendous excitement of the war, the sudden cutting off of that excitement – the young boys couldn't stand it.

That's a part of the bill. So much for the dead – they have paid their part of the war profits. So much for the mentally and physically wounded – they are paying now their share of the war profits. But the others paid, too – they paid with heartbreaks when they tore themselves away from their firesides and their families to don the uniform of Uncle Sam – on which a profit had been made. They paid another part in the training camps where they were regimented and drilled while others took their jobs and their places in the lives of their communities. The paid for it in the trenches where they shot and were shot; where they were hungry for days at a time; where they slept in the mud and the cold and in the rain – with the moans and shrieks of the dying for a horrible lullaby.

But don't forget – the soldier paid part of the dollars and cents bill too.

Up to and including the Spanish-American War, we had a prize system, and soldiers and sailors fought for money. During the Civil War they were paid bonuses, in many instances, before they went into service. The government, or states, paid as high as $1,200 for an enlistment. In the Spanish-American War they gave prize money. When we captured any vessels, the soldiers all got their share – at least, they were supposed to. Then it was found that we could reduce the cost of wars by taking all the prize money and keeping it, but conscripting [drafting] the soldier anyway. Then soldiers couldn't bargain for their labor, Everyone else could bargain, but the soldier couldn't.

Napoleon once said,

"All men are enamored of decorations...they positively hunger for them."

So by developing the Napoleonic system – the medal business – the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals were issued until the Spanish-American War.

In the World War, we used propaganda to make the boys accept conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn't join the army.

So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side...it is His will that the Germans be killed.

And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the allies...to please the same God. That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious.

Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a "glorious adventure."

Thus, having stuffed patriotism down their throats, it was decided to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large salary of $30 a month.

All they had to do for this munificent sum was to leave their dear ones behind, give up their jobs, lie in swampy trenches, eat canned willy (when they could get it) and kill and kill and kill...and be killed.

But wait!

Half of that wage (just a little more than a riveter in a shipyard or a laborer in a munitions factory safe at home made in a day) was promptly taken from him to support his dependents, so that they would not become a charge upon his community. Then we made him pay what amounted to accident insurance – something the employer pays for in an enlightened state – and that cost him $6 a month. He had less than $9 a month left.

Then, the most crowning insolence of all – he was virtually blackjacked into paying for his own ammunition, clothing, and food by being made to buy Liberty Bonds. Most soldiers got no money at all on pay days.

We made them buy Liberty Bonds at $100 and then we bought them back – when they came back from the war and couldn't find work – at $84 and $86. And the soldiers bought about $2,000,000,000 worth of these bonds!

Yes, the soldier pays the greater part of the bill. His family pays too. They pay it in the same heart-break that he does. As he suffers, they suffer. At nights, as he lay in the trenches and watched shrapnel burst about him, they lay home in their beds and tossed sleeplessly – his father, his mother, his wife, his sisters, his brothers, his sons, and his daughters.

When he returned home minus an eye, or minus a leg or with his mind broken, they suffered too – as much as and even sometimes more than he. Yes, and they, too, contributed their dollars to the profits of the munitions makers and bankers and shipbuilders and the manufacturers and the speculators made. They, too, bought Liberty Bonds and contributed to the profit of the bankers after the Armistice in the hocus-pocus of manipulated Liberty Bond prices.

And even now the families of the wounded men and of the mentally broken and those who never were able to readjust themselves are still suffering and still paying.



CHAPTER FOUR

HOW TO SMASH THIS RACKET!

WELL, it's a racket, all right.

A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.

The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation – it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers –

yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!

Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.

Why shouldn't they?

They aren't running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren't sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren't hungry. The soldiers are!

Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket – that and nothing else.

Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won't permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people – those who do the suffering and still pay the price – make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.

Another step necessary in this fight to smash the war racket is the limited plebiscite to determine whether a war should be declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying. There wouldn't be very much sense in having a 76-year-old president of a munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing plant – all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the event of war – voting on whether the nation should go to war or not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms – to sleep in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war.

There is ample precedent for restricting the voting to those affected. Many of our states have restrictions on those permitted to vote. In most, it is necessary to be able to read and write before you may vote. In some, you must own property. It would be a simple matter each year for the men coming of military age to register in their communities as they did in the draft during the World War and be examined physically. Those who could pass and who would therefore be called upon to bear arms in the event of war would be eligible to vote in a limited plebiscite. They should be the ones to have the power to decide – and not a Congress few of whose members are within the age limit and fewer still of whom are in physical condition to bear arms. Only those who must suffer should have the right to vote.

A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.

At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.

Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.

The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.

To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.

We must take the profit out of war.

We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.

We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.



CHAPTER FIVE

TO HELL WITH WAR!

I am not a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past. I know the people do not want war, but there is no use in saying we cannot be pushed into another war.

Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had "kept us out of war" and on the implied promise that he would "keep us out of war." Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.

In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and die.

Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?

Money.

An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:



"There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.

If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money...and Germany won't.

So..."

Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost secrecy. When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a "war to make the world safe for democracy" and a "war to end all wars."

Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy.

And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars.

Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms conferences. They don't mean a thing. One has just failed; the results of another have been nullified. We send our professional soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to these conferences. And what happens?

The professional soldiers and sailors don't want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments.

The chief aim of any power at any of these conferences has not been to achieve disarmament to prevent war but rather to get more armament for itself and less for any potential foe.

There is only one way to disarm with any semblance of practicability. That is for all nations to get together and scrap every ship, every gun, every rifle, every tank, every war plane. Even this, if it were possible, would not be enough.

The next war, according to experts, will be fought not with battleships, not by artillery, not with rifles and not with machine guns. It will be fought with deadly chemicals and gases.

Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. Yes, ships will continue to be built, for the shipbuilders must make their profits. And guns still will be manufactured and powder and rifles will be made, for the munitions makers must make their huge profits. And the soldiers, of course, must wear uniforms, for the manufacturer must make their war profits too.

But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists.

If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war – even the munitions makers.

So...I say,

TO HELL WITH WAR!

USMC Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler - from his speech delivered in 1933]]> Iraq http://www.roncorvus.com/index.php?itemid=9 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:05:29 -0700 http://www.roncorvus.com/index.php?itemid=7
CNN is guilty of portraying Muslims as heartless, soulless people who have no right to be angry and take action against their oppressors - the illegal occupiers Israel. Remember, the Israeli oppression came before the poor, weak Palestinian reaction to the Israeli oppression and military occupation.
MORECNN rails against Muslim suicide bombers while the U.S. government bombs civilians in the City of Baghdad. The U.S. government kills civilians everyday, yet according to the U.S. media, it's all about the Muslim suicide bombers. CNN acts if Palestinians are just supposed to sit still and take it up the ass - again and again - for forty years!!!! The United Nations won't help the Palestinians evict the illegal occupiers Israel; The World Court won't help the Palestinians evict the illegal occupiers Israel; the U.S. government won't help the Palestinians evict the illegal occupiers Israel; With 85% unemployment and an Israeli cutoff of food and water, and with no Navy, Air Force, Marines, Apache helicopters, M1-A1 Abrams tanks, no nuclear weapons, no Patriot missile batteries, no armored personnel carriers, what is a poor Palestinian to do????? Especially since virtually every Palestinian family has had a family member killed by the Israeli military, what is a Palestinian to do? Sit in a corner and wait for the IDF to demolish your home with IDF bulldozers? No, the Palestinian either gathers rocks or guns or straps on a homemade bomb and walks to the next life, taking their oppressors with them. This is the reality for the Palestinian suicide bomber. Americans cannot possibly fathom the utter, generational hopelessness bestowed upon the Palestinian people courtesy of Israel and the U.S. Congress. Unfortunately, there's a crucial disconnect in the minds of Americans between the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people (with U.S. weapons) and Muslim hatred of America. The U.S. Zionist media acts as if the U.S. government and Israel are as innocent as Little Miss Red Riding Hood - nothing could be further from the truth.


Why in the hell should Palestinians NOT be pissed at the Israelis? Why wouldn't they want to fight back? Wouldn't you? You can't really say, because you cannot even fathom the degree of living hell the Israeli government and the IDF have cooked up for the Palestinian people. It's virtually unprecedented, the way the Israelis have literally walled Palestinians into their own prison colonies with a 24/7 curfew, enforced by rolling IDF tanks and armored personnel carriers. What if Israel was rolling big fucking tanks spewing tear gas in your damn neighborhood? You won't see these atrocities in the U.S. media, but you'll see repeat coverage each time a Palestinian suicide bomber goes off. btw, Israelis have killed 8 or 9 Palestinians for each Israeli killed. For DECADES it's been like this. In my opinion, Israel should have their statehood R-E-V-O-K-E-D, considering the long-term, unrepentent, horrific, well-documented human rights violations committed by the Israelis since Day One.

I mean it is extremely sickening how CNN and Jack Cafferty has bellied up to the Zionist cause of the continued unlawful occupation of Palestine. Not a word about terrorist nation Israel - the all-time World Record Holder when it comes to U.N. resolutions violated with 77 U.N. resolutions violated since 1955. CNN is promoting the idea that Israel is on a par with America; and it's us versus the bad, bad Muslims - pass me a bucket, please....... CNN intimates and imbues the notion we must hunt'em down and kill'em all; otherwise we'll all be "ass up" in the air five times a day and quoting the Koran any minute now. What a crock!

CNN acts as if the U.S. government has the right to invade sovereign nations and kill their selected Muslim victims at will....all in the name of terrorism and 9/11. Bushit!!!! They may (or not) have knocked down our towers - they didn't knock down our laws and constitution!!! 9/11 terrorists were criminals - but they weren't state-sponsored actors justifying the unilateral attack, invasion and occupation of sovereign Muslim nations. There are no terrorist criminal acts which justify the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes and the wholesale disregard for our American laws and constitution.

According to CNN, it's EVERTHING BUT U.S. support of Israel that is driving terrorism against America.

And you wonder how the Democrats could have turned their backs on the American people? It's because AIPAC would cut the nuts off any Democratic Congressman or woman who voted NO on Bush's $120 billion war bill. AIPAC and the war profitteers are the pimps, and the Republicans and Democrats are the whores.




.r o n ron@roncorvus.com

http://www.roncorvus.com/hopelessness.htm]]> Palestine http://www.roncorvus.com/index.php?itemid=7 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:01:23 -0700 http://www.roncorvus.com/index.php?itemid=6 Here's a few videos about the negative impact illegal immigration is having on our nation and George W. Bush's plan for the illegal, unconstitutional, unAmerican North American Union:



Bush Sells Out Social Security To Mexico
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU-W-9GS5M8
Crime Victims of Illegal Aliens
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpomTIkv0V8


Russian Illegal Aliens get $60,000
year Social Security
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYw3oClxggk
Cost of Illegal Immigration - $100 billion+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY6t2ckpb5g



http://www.ImmigrationCounters.Com



Real Time Info & Stats

The Staggering Cost of Illegal Immigration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYrLbr0iLCg



Mexicans Tell Black American Minutemen
To Leave "Their" Continent
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdlMWj0Lh9o

Health Care ~ Illegal Immigrants~
'THE PRICE WE PAY'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhYKDswrLd4

CNN / Lou Dobbs - Illegal Aliens to vote in Nevada 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnkVaT35VPk
Illegal Immigrants Stealing
American Citizens' Identities
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nh0hWjUMwQ








Is it racist to support ENDING illegal immigration?

Of course not. However there are some Americans and pro-illegal alien groups who consistently try to characterize as racist anyone who demands our government END illegal immigration. They further obfuscate the issue by insisting that it isn't even POSSIBLE to END illegal immigration. OF COURSE it's possible to END illegal immigration. They further cloud the issue by falsely claiming Americans who seek absolute control of our borders as being anti-immigrant; the truth is, Americans have a right to expect their government to secure our nation's borders, period.

This goal doesn't sit well with pro-illegal alien groups who seek to keep our borders open for all the illegal aliens who can cross our borders.

the real problem with pro-illegal alien groups is most are from Mexico and sincerely believe they are ENTITLED to cross our borders at their discretion without any U.S. authorization whatsoever; they also believe they DO NOT HAVE TO GET IN LINE WITH THE REST OF THE IMMIGRANTS FROM AROUND THE WORLD! Why? Because they believe the southwestern states historically and literally belong to Mexico anyway - their words - not mine. This is the kind of propaganda they spew forth at each and every turn. They seek to make it a race issue, despite it being a legal issue and a duty our government owes its citizens.

For the American citizen who demands our government control our borders, it's not about the RACE of the illegal alien - it's the fact of AN illegal alien unlawfully entering our nation. If Swedes were just south of us instead of Mexico, and were illegally crossing our border at the rate Mexicans are unlawfully entering our country, the American citizen seeking border control would want to STOP Swedes from unlawfully entering our country as well. It seems simple enough, right? It should be, but for the pro-illegal alien lobby, it's not that simple. Why? Because the pro-illegal alien lobby in America has an interest in migrating as many as illegal aliens into America as possible, for their own purposes. My problem with the pro-illegal alien lobby is they care more about illegal aliens than middle class Americans and protecting American jobs FOR American citizens.





Building a Security Barrier



Surely you've heard over and over from the mouths of pro-open borders proponents that a fence won't stop illegals from crossing our borders. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson routinely says building a fence won't stop illegal aliens from crossing into America, claiming, ".......if we build a twenty-foot fence, they'll just use a twenty-one foot ladder." This is a flat-out lie. This untruth emanates from the mouth of the Governor of New Mexico who presides over the New Mexico State Prison system, whose fences have kept violent offenders from crossing into our communities and neighborhoods for decades now. Americans have been acclimated into seeing illegals easily hopping over a single threadbare fence over and over and over on television. You can bet that with the Southern Security Barrier illegal aliens will NOT be "hopping" over this barrier anytime soon. I envision a security barrier that is basically two sets of barriers with a no-man's zone, a hundred yards wide. The first barrier would consist of 12 foot deep, 25 yard wide super razor wire barrier, followed by a hundred yard wide "No-Man's Land" followed by another 12 foot deep, 25 yard wide super razor wire barrier. This is a very, very formidable obstacle to anyone attempting to enter our nation without authorization. To the potential invader, the very sight of these security barriers would be a deterrence to most potential invasion attempts. Illegals won't be hopping over THESE barriers. You may ask, "What about tunnels? Won't they just dig tunnels?" The short answer is yes, there will be some tunnels dug, but the big picture is tunnels can be detected by air surveillance and satellite imaging. Tunnels will be detected and cured. On balance, this kind of security barrier will virtually reduce the flow of millions of illegal aliens to a trickle. In other words, this kind of security barrier will effectively END illegal immigration across our Southern border, thereby STOPPING the ever-increasing harmful effect illegal immigration is having on American middle class jobs and wages.






Who Can Build These Barriers and At What Cost?



Razor International, that's who. http://www.razor-wire.com

THIS WEBPAGE: http://www.roncorvus.com/illegalimmigration.htm

]]> Illegal Immigration http://www.roncorvus.com/index.php?itemid=6 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:59:14 -0700