Are the markets discounting a V-shaped recovery? Or does the evidence advise this is still a bear store rally akin to those of the 1930s and 1970s?

Ah, V-shaped recovery, how we doubt thee. Let us count the ways...

Trickle Up Poverty

But first, let's note something about how to make money in markets. (Because, really, that's what this is all about, right?)

7 Reasons to Doubt the V-Shaped saving

Just as there are many company models that victorious fellowships follow, there are many profitable paths up the store mountain. But one of the most time-tested, trustworthy ways to do well in markets over time is establishing a large position (often after testing the waters with small positions)... Riding that position to vast gains... And then protecting those gains when the store turns.

Simple, right? It's easier said than done, of course. There is a fair amount that goes into it. But that's the gist.
And given that gist, one might say the trader or investor's job record falls into four categories:

o Minimizing losses on positions that aren't working.

o Maximizing gains on profitable open positions (knowing when to add to the position).

o Protecting gains when a vast body of profits has accrued.

o retention an eye out for the next big venture or trade.

This roster of responsibilities highlights why we are at such a needful juncture.

For those who have ridden the 2009 rally to major gains, the dilemma is either to protect open profits with a hedge (akin to buying fire assurance on one's portfolio)... either to "take some off the table" and partially cash out... Or either to cash out entirely. (Notwithstanding the fourth choice of naturally "letting it ride.")

For those who are not sitting on long-side profits (and even for those who are), a key query is where the next big round of chance will come from. Will it be on the upside... Or the downside? Will it be in "risk-loving" assets (more of the same)... Or "anti-risk" assets (a turn from the status quo)? How soon might the turn arrive?

From a practical perspective, these questions highlight the importance of the "what's next" question. So now, without supplementary ado, let's take a closer look at some reasons to doubt the V-shaped wisdom.

Reason to Doubt #1: Parallels to 1930

"There's a large amount of money on sidelines waiting for venture opportunities; this should be felt in store when "cheerful sentiment is more firmly intrenched [sic]." Economists point out that banks and assurance fellowships "never before had so much money lying idle."

Sound familiar? The above headline feels like 2009, but is authentically vintage 1930 (courtesy of the "News from 1930" Web site).

Those who take the gift rally as incontrovertible evidence of a V-shaped salvage are forgetting something important. Investors in 1930 brimmed with a similar doomed confidence.

Comparing today's post-crash move to the one back then, fund employer John Hussman notes that "the store recovered by an roughly same percentage following the 1929 crash, peaking in April 1930, after which it suffered a subsequent decline to fresh lows."

The point is not to say today looks just like 1930, Hussman goes on to add, but rather to point out that, when it comes to economic salvage prospects, a giant rally doesn't prove that much at all.

Reason to Doubt #2: The Biggest Rallies Are Bear store Rallies

From Monday's Wall street Journal:

Rarely has the stock store seen a six-month rally like the one it just turned in. The Dow Jones industrial Average's 46% surge was one of just six of that magnitude in the last 100 years. And that is exactly what worries many analysts.

All former rallies of this magnitude took place in the 1930s and the 1970s, according to Ned Davis Research. Those were periods of turbulence for both the cheaper and the markets, and none of the gains was sustained.

Many analysts believe that stocks are again in such a turbulent period, and that this rally could lead to someone else slump. Stocks did enjoy a rally of 40% in 1982, at the start of a long-running duration of stock-market prosperity. That rally wasn't of the same magnitude of the others, however. It came as economic troubles, notably inflation, were ultimately being squeezed out of the economy.

Reason to Doubt #3: It Still Ain't 1982

In a Taipan Daily piece some months back titled "This Ain't 1982," we noted the many reasons why the gift environment looks nothing at like that of the early 1980s.

In a nutshell, 1982 was the starter year for a 25-year upswing in leverage and credit. Fed Chairman Paul Volcker had just "broken the back of inflation" (at a cost of great economic hardship) and America was on the cusp of the longest debt binge (among consumers, businesses and government) in all of recorded history.

At the same time, consumer savings rates went into a steady decline, from double-digit division rates to below zero, as America shopped and shopped. Meanwhile, decades of aggressive financial innovation (under a complacent Alan Greenspan) led to the creation of the "shadow banking system," a quasi-official means of pumping the cheaper full of even more leverage and prestige by way of venture banks, secret venture pools and so on.

Now we are at the tail end of all that. After a quarter-century of build-up, a great "deleveraging" is at hand. The consumer is flat on his back, the shadow banking principles lies in shambles, and consumer entrance to prestige has gone from a flood to a trickle.

Reason to Doubt #4: The Megabanks Are Just as Rotten as Ever

Every year the World Economic Forum (Wef) releases its yearly "Global Competitiveness Report." Among the assorted factors thought about by the Wef is the soundness of a country's banks. By this quantum America ranked 108th, a spot behind Tanzania. One could arguably have more reliance development a deposit at the Bank of Burundi than many institutions in the U.S. Or the U.K.

And in spite of the hundreds of billions (trillions?) poured in via backstops, guarantees and cash injections, some of the major banks still look like ticking time bombs. For instance: Dick Bove, a long-respected banking examiner with decades of taste on the street, has described present-day Wells Fargo as a "volcano, with a amount of tremors, that is possibly about to blow."

The new Wells Fargo concern traces back to the big Wachovia merger (a failing bank that Wells swallowed up). In taking on Wachovia, it turns out, Wells Fargo may also have gulped down a amount of live hand grenades in the form of unhedged and unaccounted-for derivatives trades. Surprise surprise, Wells Fargo's management has turned out to be less than forthright about this troubling exposure.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. The real problem is, the banks haven't changed much at all... The only material difference, in fact, is that the big have gotten bigger. Tens of trillions of dollars' worth of unstable derivative contracts are still concentrated in untrustworthy hands. And as the newest Wells Fargo concerns demonstrate, the megabanks have been anything but forthright.

With the blessings of the Fed and Treasury, the megabanks' strategy has been to use every accounting trick in the book to gift the appearance of big profits - most of those profits created by way of government bailout funds - while simultaneously burying the remaining toxic time bombs as deep in the balance sheet as possible.

This "play for time" strategy hinges entirely on the hope that nothing else will blow up before the patchwork of quick fixes finds time to work. It is, in other words, one hundred percent company as usual.

Reason to Doubt #5: Hundreds More Banks Will Fail

As of this writing, 94 banks have failed in 2009. Banking examiner Meredith Whitney (who gained fame for calling the collapse of Citigroup in advance) has said she expects at least 300 banks to fail. Institutional Risk Analytics, one of the top bank-analyst services in the country, expects more than 1,000 banks to fail over the course of the cycle.

Banks provide prestige to consumers and businesses straight through the form of mortgage loans, auto loans, prestige card loans and the like. When banks fail, prestige contracts, development it harder for consumers to spend and businesses to stay afloat. Lowered spending as a result of reduced prestige then leads to more layoffs and lost jobs in a vicious circle. The vicious circle completes itself as banks pull back even supplementary in a tough economy.

Not only are hundreds more banks set to fail, the Fdic (Federal Deposit assurance Corporation) is on the verge of a public relations disaster as it runs out of money. There is no way the Fdic will be able to handle all these failures. Based on their projections, Institutional Risk Analytics thinks the Fdic could be on the hook for 0 billion-0 billion if not more. (And that's not even taking into list a fresh megabank debacle, like a Wells Fargo blow-up).

Where in the world is the Fdic going to get 0 billion? As John Mauldin writes,

The Fdic can borrow 0 billion in an emergency line of credit, and straight through 2010 it can get someone else 0 billion. But if and when that money is borrowed, it will have to be paid back. Remember the money that was lost in the savings and loan emergency 20 years ago? The Fdic had to borrow a mere billion. We are still paying that 30-year loan back.

If the Fdic is forced to borrow from the Treasury, Congress (and America's creditors) will scream bloody murder. One alternative, as Mauldin supplementary notes, is for the Fdic to leverage more "special fees" against the banks.

But guess what? If the Fdic tries to squeeze blood from a stone in terms of hitting up the banks, that will cause the surviving banks to pull in their horns even further... To lend even less. This is someone else heart attack waiting to happen for consumer prestige and small company prestige - in an cheaper 70% driven by consumer spending and largely powered by small businesses.

Reason to Doubt #6: The Housing Bubble Has Not Yet Fully Burst

U.S. Mortgage delinquencies set a new record in July, with 7.58% of mortgages (roughly one out of 13) at least 30 days late on payments. according to Reuters and Equifax, subprime mortgage delinquencies have hit a whopping 41%.

And now the banks have to worry about a new problem: "Strategic Defaulters." As the Los Angeles Times reports,

Who is more likely to walk away from a house and a mortgage - a person with super-prime prestige scores or person with lower scores?

Research using a weighty sample of 24 million private prestige files has found that homeowners with high scores when they apply for a loan are 50% more likely to "strategically default" - right away and intentionally pull the plug and abandon the mortgage - compared with lower-scoring borrowers.

The La Times reports there were more than half a million (588,000) "strategic defaulters" nationwide in 2008.

These are individuals with high prestige ratings who technically have the financial wherewithal to continue development payments on their mortgage, but naturally do not see the logic of pumping money into a more or less permanently-upside down asset.

The thinking runs something like: "Why throw good money after bad in terms of staying committed to a house worth 0,000 less than I paid for it, when the penalty for walking away (damaged credit) will hurt less than throwing time to come wage into a hole for 10 or 20 years."

Meanwhile, Iowa attorney general Tom Miller recently went on record saying "Payment choice Arms [adjustable rate mortgages] are about to explode... That's the next round of potential foreclosures in our country."

Homeowners and banks have only just begun to wrestle with the mortgage "reset" problem, in which monthly payments due suddenly double or triple (or worse) based on fine-print deadlines. As the choice Arm qoute gets serious, look for the amount of "strategic defaulters" to shoot even higher.

That's more horrible news for the already struggling banks... And no wonder previously mentioned forecaster Meredith Whitney think home prices could fall someone else 25% before hitting bottom.

Reason to Doubt #7: Uncle Sam Is a Borrowing Fiend

If you understanding America was a "borrow and spend" nation before, you ain't seen nothin' yet. The past four quarters have dwarfed all former U.S. Government borrowing efforts, and that is a trend that's guaranteed to continue.

What probably won't continue, however, is the Federal Reserve's capability to buy hundreds of billions worth of U.S. Treasuries directly - effectively "monetizing" the debt - without foremost to either 1) an eventual collapse in the U.S. Dollar or 2) an eventual collapse in bond prices and subsequent sharp rise in interest rates. We are headed for an environment of heavier regulations, higher taxes, and more government operate of the cheaper at a time when we can least afford it, and plunging headlong into the debt abyss to pay for it all.

Reason to Doubt #8: Black Boxes and Punk Volume

Finally, a big think to doubt this rally is the troubling lack of volume. Bull markets are typically characterized by wholesome and rising volume trends as more and more investors decide to partake in the market. But that is not what we are finding here.

Instead, share trading has been dominated by quants, high frequency trading (Hft) shops, and other "black box" type outfits rather than more legitimate buying sources. Not only that, but volume has been alarmingly concentrated in a handful of super-speculative stocks. Reuters recently reported that, over a week's worth of trading, a full 40% of trading volume came from just four (!) heavily traded names: Bank of America (Bac), Citigroup (C), Fannie Mae (Fnm) and Freddie Mac (Fre).

So not only are we finding suspiciously low volume when these super-speculative names are weeded out (Citigroup - 491 million shares per day midpoint volume!), we are finding heavy operation from quants and other "black box" type trading systems, with the bulk of operation concentrated in the most casino-oriented corners of the market.

These are a few (but by no means all) of the reasons why your humble editor tips a hat to the mania, yet continues to doubt.

7 Reasons to Doubt the V-Shaped saving

If you want to get underway a heated deliberate upon in any place in the United States, all you have to do is mention wage taxes. Everybody has an concept fluctuating from one ultimate to another: the Socialist wants to tax the wealthy and middle class until they are as poor as Everybody else; the Capitalist says no, we need a simple flat tax; and the Libertarian says you're all wrong; if we eliminate all inefficient government programs, we won't need any wage tax. In spite of this diversity in opinion, nearly Everybody thinks the tax code is far too involved and must be simplified no matter the cost. Regardless of political ideology, finding someone who is truly satisfied with our current wage tax laws is extremely rare. However, a realistic look at the facts indicates we do need some type of tax ideas to fund considerable government services and a progressive wage tax is the fairest and least involved method to raise the required funds. 

The first prominent question is whether or not we need an wage tax. Hard core capitalists and libertarians would have us believe that the hidden sector can furnish all the services we need, with the exceptions of national defense and protection of our constitutional rights, "better and cheaper" than our government. (Libertarian 1,2) They would have us believe that government services, programs, and regulating agencies are unnecessary and even harmful to our economy. This reliance plainly denies our history and fails to identify why our federal government instituted the public programs and regulations in the first place. As ineffective and counterproductive as our government may be at times, a brief study of history proves the ramifications of unrestrained enterprise are even worse. One need not travel far back into our history to realize that our quality of life, from working conditions to pollution, was hardly utopian when there were fewer government regulations and public programs. The federal government didn't pass child labor laws, pollution regulations, minimum wage laws, and workplace protection regulations just to hamper business. 

Trickle Up Poverty

Barber Conable, who served for many years as a Republican leader on the House Ways and Means Committee, said, " As a former Congressman, I can tell you that habitancy are all the time writing to their legislators to say there ought to be other law to do this or that. They are all the time suggesting new ways in which government should be useful." (Conable 94) In other words, these laws and regulations were enacted because of perceived failures and deficiencies in the hidden sector. These laws were passed because constituents felt there were problems that needed to be corrected and hidden enterprise wasn't about to precise the problems because it wouldn't be in their best interest to get underway actions which would growth their costs without also increasing their revenue. 

An consulation For a Progressive income Tax

We wouldn't necessarily save money if we eliminated many of our government programs, we would just turn who received our money or, in some cases, we would growth our risks. Eliminate the Food and Drug management and you good study hard in biology and chemistry because it is going to be up to you to conclude if that steak is safe to eat and what adverse side effects that new drug may levy upon your body. Of course, if you are wealthy you can all the time send your steak and pills to a hidden lab to be tested but it's going to cost you because they want to yield an inviting bottom line. And if you can't afford a lab test? Oh well, just take your chances. Want to drive from New York to California? good take along a huge stack of turn because those toll roads are going to take some money out of your pocket for each and every mile you drive; the same tolls will be charged whether you are rich or poor. Although our public schools may not be the best, they still furnish a basic education to even the poorest of children who have the desire to learn and enhance their position in life. Eliminate our public schools and you can rest assured that many of the poor will be denied an education plainly because they cannot afford the hidden school. Our federal government provides considerable services, programs, and infrastructure for the advantage of all regardless of one's quality to pay. The hidden sector wouldn't: they would only be provided to those with the quality to pay the price and the price will all the time aim to consist of a profit. 

The libertarians would have us believe that eliminating most of our government agencies and programs would give individuals more control over their lives. But the libertarian discussion that government services should be provided by hidden enterprise is undoubtedly not an discussion about someone having control versus no one having control over our lives. It is undoubtedly just an discussion about who is in control. We can have control by elected officials who must face periodic elections or we can have huge international corporations, who need to answer to no one but the wealthiest of stockholders, in control. whether way, some entity will be in control and running aspects of our lives, directly or indirectly. 

Without government regulations, the large multinational corporations would control much of our lives and most of us would find the situation worse than the current level of governmental control. enterprise entities would control the distance of the work week and the size of our paychecks without any restraint on how low the pay could be or how long we would have to toil in order to earn the measly compensation. Without unemployment insurance, laid off workers would be forced to take a job, any job, in order to survive. Competition for jobs, if government employment was eliminated, would ensure a decrease in wages due to increased competition. It's a fallacy that the jobs would merely move from the public sector to the hidden sector. Many services that our government now provides wouldn't be provided by enterprise in a totally unregulated free-market economy. Some services would plainly be unprofitable and others, like welfare for the needy, would be impossible to double in the hidden sector with the same reliability as the public sector. After all, if hidden charities had undoubtedly been successful in feeding the hungry and housing the homeless, there never would have been constituents demanding their government take performance to safe the most basic human ownership of the those doing without life's basic necessities. 

The expenditures of the Federal government have all the time had a major impact on our economy. Our government has been in debt continuously since 1791. (Historical 1117, 1118) Attempts at paying off the debt, that is, running allocation surpluses, has preceded six major periods of economic depression this nation has witnessed. The United States suffered depressions and financial panics in 1820, 1837, 1857, 1869, and 1893. (Davis) After World War I our federal debt stood at ,484,506,000. By 1930 a decade of balanced budgets had allowed the debt to drop to ,185,310,000 (Historical 1117) and we were entering what became known as the Great Depression where the Gross National product fell from 3.1 billion in 1929 to .6 billion in 1933. (Historical 224) during and after the Great Depression, the federal government took more control over our cheaper out of necessity. Elected officials, for the advantage of the citizens, wanted to put an end to the periods of depression that were determined normal in the unrestrained capitalist market. For over 60 years, they have been successful. The recessions since World War Ii have been mild compared to the economic downturns of the 19th and early 20th centuries: a direct succeed of increased government intervention in our economy. 

If we can found that the federal government has economic and public responsibilities to the citizens, we can agree we need some method of financing the required government services and programs. Most of us agree that we do need an wage tax, but disagree on how the tax should be structured. 

Many capitalists prefer the flat tax, one tax rate for all regardless of income. According to capitalist theory, this would allow the wealthy to keep more of their money so they can invest it and finance additional economic growth. The increased economic growth provides new jobs and additional wage which can be taxed, leading, ultimately, to more taxes taken in by the government at the lower rate: good old furnish side economics coming to the rescue. Make the rich richer and the wealth will trickle down and we all benefit. This sounds good in theory, but the realities of the speculation world don't all the time work in the intended manner. If the wealthy take their savings from lower taxes and buy an existing factory or business, they originate no new jobs. They just own and control more of our nation's financial assets than they already do. If they take their increased capital and buy existing houses for rentals, no new jobs are created; no new wealth is brought into the economy. But the increased competition for houses can drive up the price of homes, forcing lower wage families out of the housing shop and into the rentals owned by the already wealthy. They can stick their extra money from lower taxes into gold and, once again, the cheaper doesn't benefit: the price of gold plainly rises. additional money in the pockets of the wealthy can lead to economic growth and additional jobs, but there is no economic law that says it has to or that it all the time will. furnish side economics didn't work during Reagan's management and it's not going to work now. 

Libertarians and capitalists are fond of quoting John Locke as evidence governments shouldn't intervene in the lives of the individual through wage taxes. Locke wrote, "...every Man has a property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his." (Locke 287,288) But government taxes aren't the only means of confiscating what is properly ours. enterprise owners, in the name of profit, also take a piece of our labor. Any economist will tell you there are two kinds of profit: normal behalf and economic profit. normal behalf is the return received from the labor and goods, along with capital, that a enterprise owner puts into and provides for his business. The owner earns the normal profit. The economic behalf is the gross receipts less all costs, along with normal profit, that a enterprise incurs. All economic behalf is earned from someone's labor. Of course, some of the economic behalf can succeed from the owner's labor, but, in reality, most of the economic behalf comes from the labor of the employees, especially in the contemporary corporation where the owners are ordinarily not employees of the firm. When a enterprise shows an economic profit, it is confiscating part of what Locke said properly belonged to the one who produced the good or performed the service. 

The higher your wage and the larger your net worth, the less likely you are to have earned your wealth from the sweat of your brow and by only your own labor: expansive net worth is most likely earned through confiscating a piece of the labor of many others through economic profit. A progressive wage tax plainly returns some of that unearned wealth back to its rightful owners through government benefits and services. 

Those who think that our tax ideas is too involved often want a flat tax in order to simplify the system. But the estimate of tax brackets is not what complicates our wage tax. The Irs can found tax tables to accommodate any estimate of tax rates. Frame your income, look up your wage on the tax tables and there's the tax you owe. What complicates our taxes are the many preferences, commonly called loopholes by those who don't qualify for the preferences, which have slowly been instilled into our tax code. Conable states, "Congress wasn't trying to complicate the process. It was plainly trying to be responsive to a expansive diversity in sources of wage and dissimilar circumstances of taxpayers." (Conable 41) He believes, "Preferences are... A form of qoute solving. They are a way to encourage, through incentives, some speculation by the hidden sector in areas for which Congress is unwilling to acceptable money." (Conable 101) Individually, the preferences were all legitimate attempts at creating a more equitable ideas of taxation intended to perform goals that would advantage society, but collectively they have created a monster of expansive complexity. The tax code is a extraordinary tool for public engineering, but the price is a involved ideas of tax laws. We can simplify the ideas by eliminating the loopholes, but a flat tax in itself will not simplify the system. 

Not Everybody thinks the tax code should be used to perform desired public aims through tax preferences. Stanley Surrey was a Harvard Law School professor who believed "... Our wage tax ideas should be used only to raise revenues and that the rate of taxation should be extremely progressive." Surrey felt that tax preferences "...eroded revenues otherwise available to the government." He wanted to simplify the tax ideas and he concept the wealthier taxpayers should shoulder a proportionally higher cost of government operations. (Witte 8) 

Surrey was not alone in his call for progressive tax rates. Henry Simons was a professor of economics at the University of Chicago who believed that "...the prevailing inequality of wage and wealth was unjustified in terms of merit and thus inappropriate, and that the tax ideas was the most convenient vehicle for altering the situation." (Witte 49, 51) Simons said, "The case for drastic progression in taxation must be rested on the case against inequality- on the ethical or aesthetic judgment that the prevailing distribution of wealth and wage reveals a degree... Of inequality which is distinctly unlovely." (Witte 51) 

While capitalists and libertarians are fond of citing Adam Smith's singular reference to "the indiscernible hand" in The Wealth of Nations, they fail to mention that, in the same book, Smith also said, "The subjects of every state ought to lead towards the keep of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the wage which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." (Book 5, Chap.2, Pt. 2) 

Were Surrey, Simons and Smith radical socialists demanding equality for all? No, they were plainly involved with a degree of morality and fairness. They realized societies and economies function good when there is a degree of balance in the wage and wealth among the citizens. In the case of Smith, a classical capitalist of expansive influence, some balance in wage and wealth was believed to be considerable to capitalism itself. In his view, capitalism works best when there are many firms producing a singular product or service. Ideally, there should be so many producers that no singular producer can control adequate of the total yield to have any effect, regardless of its actions, on the price or availability of the product or service. Due to the success of some firms and the accumulation of wealth, we no longer have contentious capitalism in most industries of the United States. Instead, we have what economists call oligopolies where few firms control a market. The Fortune 500 consists mostly of oligopolies. (Gottheil 208) We live in a world where more and more of the yield and wealth are controlled by fewer and fewer firms and individuals. A progressive wage tax plainly brings the playing field a little closer to level.

An economic goal, "widely acceptable in the United States" is the principle of "equitable distribution of income." (McConnell 9) In 1967 the top 20% of households earned 43.8% of our nation's total household income. By 1998, that Frame grew to 49.2%. In contrast, the bottom 20% of households earned 4% of the total wage in 1967 and only 3.6% by 1998. It is no illusion: the rich are getting richer and the poor are growing poorer. (Jones 4) The situation is even worse if you reconsider the distribution of financial assets. In 1998 the wealthiest 5% of households held 57.2% of the total wealth held by all households; the poorest 25% held -0.2%. The richest 5% owned 81.6% of all stocks owned by households; the poorest 25% owned 0.0%. (Bertaut 30) 

A progressive wage tax, and taxing all sources of wage at the same rates, is the most logical and convenient method to keep a uncostly gap between the rich and poor and keep the spirit of contentious capitalism alive and functioning in the manner intended by the classical economists. In The ideas of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith said "The wise and virtuous man is at all times willing that his own hidden interest should be sacrificed to the public interest of his own singular order or society. He is at all times willing, too, that the interest of this order or community should be sacrificed to the greater interest of the state... Of which he is only a subordinate part. " (346) While absolute economic equality among all is neither a logical nor desirable goal, it is in the public interest to aim for uncostly levels of economic inequality. It is in the public interest to ensure that all humans have way to the basic necessities of life. It is in the public interest to ensure that all citizens have way to education and condition care. Policies that are intended to perform these goals are in our public interest, from both a moral as well as practical point of view. Healthy, well fed, and well educated citizens lead more efficient lives and that bestows benefits on the entire society. 

Freedom for the largest majority in any community requires that financial power be relatively equal. That is a permissible goal for not only the socialists but the capitalists and libertarians as well. A progressive wage tax is the simplest and fairest method to perform that goal. 

Libertarian Party Brochure. 

U.S. Agency of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 

Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970. Bicentennial Edition.

Davis, Kennneth C. Don't Know Much About History. New York: Avon Books, 1995.  

McConnell, Cambell R. , and Stanley Y. Brue. Economics. 14 ed. Boston: Irwin/Mcgraw-Hill, 1999.  

Gottheil, Fred R. Principles of Economics . 2nd ed. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing, 1999.

Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations.

Jones, Arthur F. Jr., and Daniel H. Weinberg. The Changing Shape of the Nation's IncomeDistribution. U.S. Agency of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, June 2000.                        

Bertaut, Carol, and Martha Starr-McCluer. Household Portfolios in the United States. Federal Reserve Board of Governors, April, 2000.

Conable, Barber B. Congress and the wage Tax. University of Oklahoma Press, 1989.

Witte, John F. The Politics and development of the Federal wage Tax. University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.

Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Ed. Peter Laslett. Trainee Edition. Cambridge University Press, 1988

Smith, Adam. The ideas of Moral Sentiments. Amherst, New York: Promethus Books, 2000.

An consulation For a Progressive income Tax

Many people who are master in the issue of the Oswald's rifle are able to clearly demonstrate that the best marksman in the world could not have done what that one rifle was supposed to have done. I suppose once the story was man-made they had to stick with it before they knew about the ricochet and other evidence. On forums and in debates with serious people who have studied all facets of the case I have never had anything stand behind the fact that this one bullet ended up in such a pristine condition. They say things like - 'That was obviously a planted piece of evidence.' I then say things such as this.

If they can allow Ruby the kind of freedom in a police building that I saw as a youngster, they are capable of having done many fabrications in the endeavor to confuse and mislead the American people. If they placed fake evidence on the body of Jfk and told the coroner not to do his usual job, they broke laws that would land anything in prison. Thus when I hear a trained assassination squad person at Camp Le Jeune come forward after he has left the forces and is no longer whether afraid of reprisals or considers the matter de-classified, I listen. I listen when the son of a Dallas policeman who is dead tells me that his father was on the grassy knoll and saw the triangulation team member take the vital shot.

Trickle Up Poverty

The American people had a totally false impression of Jfk and really the American people are commonly gutless sheep who are willing to accept this kind of government due to the fact that most of them know where their bread is buttered. They cannot really say they do not know the Us has been behind numerous enforced and fraudulent businesses that allow America to be the recipient of the largesse it enjoys. It started with the outright immoral invasion of the land of people whose culture was far better and at least as developed as European culture. They used bioweapons and disease with intent. The pork-barreling cronyism that is all over America has allowed people to re-elect whoever brings their district the most shares o these spoils of immoral actions conducted by their agents in the armies and private operations so they turn a blind eye to the facts.

The Cost of the Cold War

The End of the Cold War Could Cost:

The 'dismal science' of economics with its 'trickle-down' or 'voodoo economics' as well as Keynesian wastefulness is defended by many to this day. They believe in full employment rather than sufficient employment of technology just as Rome used slaves rather than technology. The Hobbesian or Machiavellian 'appeals to base human urges' (Il Principe) are behind this Neoplatonic hierarchial oligarchy or Synarchy but I have done many other books on these things.

Please, just think of your own family allocation and how slow-witted it is to spend money blowing up and destroying things just so you have something to fix or work at fixing. The heavy over-building of deserts full of helicopters and airplanes come to mind. Truman sold the Russians a whole air force at scrap value shortly after having gotten the American people to go along with expanding the defence allocation in a time of Peace. He had said bad things about the Russians while cajoling Congress to authorize these black and horrid spending measures that Eisenhower later warned us about. Make work programs might cause greater employment but just imagine what could be achieved if sufficient and educational efforts had been taken rather than the whole Cold War. A War on Poverty and Ignorance would have lead to free power and no need for planned obsolescence and all the other wasteful programs of these economic One Pie schools of thought.

There are people who argue that re-distribution of assets or the seizure of ill-gotten gains is communistic and counter-productive. I could argue that it is not counter-productive, but there is no need to re-distribute the wealth held by the rich except in cases where they continue to operate in immoral fashion. We should tax churches that diminish women and children and we should close loop-holes throughout the world so that the super-rich are paying their fair share of taxes while we cut bureaucracy and encourage sufficient use of the human asset pool and other resources. The Club of Rome, Bucky Fuller and many futurists have described sensible alternatives to these One Pie ideologies.

I think Jfk intended to make real convert quicker than his Merovingian bosses felt comfortable with. They saw the profits they were development from more war and they knew they were gaining greater operate over the world economy. This was the 'cost' that had to be addressed. They acted to end his life rather than end the Cold War that Jfk and Khrushchev had agreed to do. Nelson Rockefeller took his first trip to Moscow the day before Nikita was sent packing. I think this was no coincidence even though I do think the book called None Dare Call It Conspiracy was a politically motivated sensationalistic piece of the Hegelian plot. Again I remind you of what Fdr said - 'If it happened, it was planned.' I have many similar quotes from Yeltsin, Bismarck and even from the horse's (Rothschild) mouths. I know Chomsky is right about Canada being a satellite state and when I say American people are ignorant I consist of all the satellite states and people that this New World Order economic hegemony has wrought.

I remind my brother and other piquant people who I argue these points with, that the Cathars demonstrated a working model for proper governance. I remind people that before Empire there was a Brotherhood that Jesus (and Jfk) or other wise people inside the hegemony have given their lives for. I do really specify details that they often have never heard and I give them the references to back it up.

The Cost of the Cold War

Even though money matters are confusing, it can be explained quite simply that in order for our cheaper to work there has to be scarcity. This means there can' tbe adequate money going around for every man to have their needs met. Photograph a game of musical chairs. When the music stops, there has to be habitancy left standing.

Understanding that our cheaper as it is can elucidate that you're either "in" or you are "out"... But chances are, if you're "out" you already knew that to some extent. Hearing it put into words only makes it more frustrating. However, there are some other things to think as well.

Trickle Up Poverty

Products have a shelf life, for a reason.

What If Money Did Not Exist?

Is it inherent for a lightbulb to burn for over 100 years? Yes it is, look it up. Would it be practical to sell lightbulbs that did not need to be replaced? Most well not! Where's the profit in that?

Alternate fuel sources could be used.

However a solar panel is only profitable about the sale of the goods itself. After that, there is not (yet) a way to operate and profit from the power produced by the sun. Therefore, it is just not practical. For in this cheaper to work, there has to be scarcity.

Homelessness, poverty, and hunger are all results of a monetary based economy.

Money has overwritten human concern for one another. It is not necessary for humans to suffer based on unmet needs. Some say "get a job!" but there just aren't adequate jobs for everyone! Nobody said life was fair, but this brings up the most prominent point of all.

It does not have to be this way!

Imagine working to survive, and not for pieces of paper that have no real value. In other words, imagine a world without money. imagine an cheaper that was based on natural resources ready to us, and not in the hands of "higher ups" who decree how many of us can have a roof over our heads and food on the table.

Imagine a world of abundance, instead of scarcity. Is it possible? There are two prominent things to understand about this. The first is that yes, it is very possible. The second is that it is not a Utopia. It is merely a plan that if people... Humanity... Could unite together to support, it would be something real.

The Venus task is the redesign of a culture, and the exchange of a controlling cheaper that places obscuring on society about what is well important. It is a plan for an cheaper based on resources that are abundant to society.

The idea of technology taking over our jobs has been feared for a long time, but what if it was a welcomed idea. Because technology is capable of replacing many of those unnecessary tasks... Why not allow these creations to make our lives so much easier?

The financial crisis is much deeper than most of society has allowed themselves to think aloud. Maybe the real qoute is the existence of money. What good does it well do?

What If Money Did Not Exist?

In the first presidential debate, Senator John McCain repeatedly accused previous Senator Barack Obama of lacking experience, being naive, and most ironically, not knowing the contrast in the middle of a tactic and a strategy. It was a portentous allegation.

On Super Tuesday, after watching the Maverick and war hero (a.k.a.) McCain go down in defeat, state after state, one thing was abundantly clear: "that one" (a.k.a. Obama) not only knows the contrast in the middle of tactics and strategies, but has mastered them. It proved that you don't have to be a previous prisoner of war to effectively use tactics and strategies to perform your goals.

Trickle Up Poverty

This description focuses on how black males can use the same tactics and strategies employed by President Obama to reposition themselves to perform success in their expert endeavors and add momentum to the black male movement.

The Repositioning of the Black Male

First, let's define terms to ensure that we are on the same page and are speaking the same language:

Tactic: a device for accomplishing an end.
Strategy: a true plan or method; a clever stratagem b: the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal. (There are many war references made in its alternate definitions; thus the suspect for McCain's arrogance.)

The generally used and often misunderstood term "position" was created by marketing pioneers Al Ries and Jack Trout in the 70s. Agreeing to them, position naturally means to occupy a unique mental position in one's mind. We are all positioned in one way or another. Positioning is the deliberate exertion of establishing and controlling one's position. To reposition is to convert or enhance one's primary position. The act of positioning and repositioning should be plan of and used as an element of strategy.

Now let's move on to the specifics of how the repositioning of black males can be closed through lessons in case,granted by President Barack Obama's historical campaign run.

First, I have to say that while both blacks and whites adroitly handled racial issues in this election with striking diplomacy, we all know - whether we care to admit it or not - that race, like sexuality, is all the time an issue. It's the big elephant in the room that we are aware of, but try to ignore, as I try to ignore the fact that I now have over a decade of caress working in corporate America and have yet to work alongside an additional one black male. With the election of our first black President, hopefully a trickle down consequent will take place and employers will be able to transcend any racial issues which may alter my situation (or isolation), and an increase in black male presence will occur.

No doubt we've crossed an epic racial fence - but we still have many battles to be fought. We can't be naive; racist issues (not to be confused with racial issues) still exist and they will for real outside while Obama's Presidency. Many of the racial issues which pertain to and specifically consequent black men, can now be dealt with openly and politically since they were eclipsed by universal concerns while the election. Focus upon them would have created the appearance of an imbalanced perspective for Obama. After all, black issues are esoteric.

Obama's campaign team, lead by David Plouffe, and his chief strategist David Axelrod, have acknowledged that one of the key tenets of the campaign was, in fact, to avoid discussions focused on race. From polling and interviews, the campaign closed from the outset that it was imperative to define Obama's candidacy in terms that would transcend skin color.

Who were their first efforts aimed at? Blacks. Apparently, they deemed it imperative to get blacks to move beyond their "natural" skepticism that one of their own could for real become president. They knew that Obama would have to position himself to be chosen as a leader because leaders don't select their followers; followers select their leaders - regardless of race.

In a description on Msnbc.com by Adam Nagourney, Jim Rutenberg and Jeff Zeleny, Obama's campaign team made the following quote, "The biggest race question we had to solve was not with the white voters," Mr. Axelrod said, "but with African-American voters, a deep sense of skepticism that this might happen."

How about that?

These are called interracial issues. They offer a window, if not a measurement, into just how long the roots of negativity and its insidious effects can have on the psyche of an oppressed people. Were we for real skeptical? Yes, initially, but we were not doubtful of Obama's competence; we were doubtful of his chances based upon our system, and our individual and social black experiences.

After identifying the hurdles to the White House, Obama's camp had their agenda, a mission, and a message. They were all set to execute a textbook policy on repositioning Obama, and offer America's black men invaluable lessons that they could use to transform their lives and perform greater success in their expert endeavors.

This brings us to episode 1 in repositioning the black male: take off skepticism - primarily your own - and identify the hurdles to your success.

With Obama's campaign mantra of Change you can believe in, and Yes we can!, they created a strategy that would enable them to fuel hope and engender allegiance at a time when our nation is at war and in dire economic straits, while simultaneously instilling optimism into the psyches of African Americans, and the vast majority of Americans, in the process.

The strategy was brilliant, but not surprising when you think that Obama wrote a book entitled The Audacity Of Hope, in which he wrote: "Hope is that thing inside of us that insists, despite evidence to the contrary, that something great awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it, and to work for it, and to fight for it." The tears that flowed so copiously while his acceptance speech were tears of hope. He clearly understands that one can not have hope without optimism. He may want to entitle his next book The Benefits Of Optimism.

Lesson 2 in repositioning the black male: understand the thinking and emotional state of the citizen you will serve in order to inspire optimism. Build a bridge from them to you (not the other way around).

Psychologist Martin Seligman, author of the book Learned Optimism, says that optimism has been defined by some researchers as naturally finding the silver lining and suggests that your explanation for why something happens has a major impact on how you will act in the hereafter and what consequent your actions will bring about. This in turn has an eventual impact on your self-esteem and self-image. Optimists expect the best outcome, even while setbacks, and they're more motivated to bring it about.

This is the suspect why a description amount of blacks, youth, and first time voters shed their apathy and zealously headed to the polls in description numbers which accounted for 13 percent of the electorate.

The importance of optimism is not to be understated. Since studies show that black men live 7.1 years less than other racial groups, have higher death rates than women for all foremost causes of death, and caress disproportionately higher death rates in all the foremost causes of death, they'd be interested to know that increased optimism has condition benefits. The May 2008 issue of Harvard Men's condition Watch explores potential reasons for this connection.

Among the description findings: very pessimistic men were three times more likely to institute hypertension, and citizen who display sure emotions had lower blood pressures. In one study, the most pessimistic men were more than twice as likely to institute heart disease compared with the most optimistic. That's welcomed news since 40% of black men die prematurely from cardiovascular disease as compared to 21% of white men.

The description concludes: These results argue persuasively that optimism is good for health. It is potential that optimists enjoy great condition and longer lives because they lead healthier lifestyles, build stronger social maintain networks, and get great medical care. In addition, optimism itself may have biological benefits, such as lower levels of stress hormones and less inflammation.

Because I know that many black men are church-going folks, they are sure to revel in the fact that the Bible also contains scripture on optimism and its effects. (Matthew 8:25-27) Pessimism results from lack of faith. Pessimism is born of doubt; optimism is born of faith. The repositioned black male will have more faith in himself and will prove to be adept at garnering the faith of those who were once reluctant to give it. Being astounding will be the norm.

Cornell Belcher, a pollster who worked for Obama's campaign and studies racial voting patterns said to the press, "It would be difficult for an African-American to be elected president in this country; however, it is not difficult for an astounding individual who happens to be African-American to be elected president." Obama made mention of this in his acceptance speech when he said, "I was never the likeliest candidate for the office." But he ran anyway. And he ran unlike any other presidential candidate in history because he had to. Analysts say he ran a perfect campaign that was astounding in its execution.

Lesson 3 in repositioning the black male: understand that being marvelous begins in your mind with your own self-image; the least likeliest candidate can still get the job. Also, you are no longer the least likeliest candidate.

Like Obama, you must make it your mission to get employers to become comfortable with you and the role in which you will play in their business by demonstrating your quality to cope the challenges within that role. If your values are aligned with theirs, all you have to do is effectively carry on expectations and deliver - which is what the world is waiting for Obama to do next.

It was sure from the outset that Obama was a proficient politician, but he got great while the election in the same manner that any talented and driven athlete gets great as their season progresses. He became superlative while the playoffs of politics, the election run, and was naturally indomitable in each of his debates. He didn't just win the election, he restored faith in the integrity of the presidency while repositioning himself and showcasing solid character.

Lesson 4 in repositioning the black male: showcase solid character at all times.

Where does the process of building character begin? At the very beginning of your journey: at home with your parents and in college. It intensifies when you are pursuing the caress and skills critical to successfully navigate through your career when entering the workforce. It doesn't matter where you want your vocational journey to take you because most citizen can't dream where they are going to end-up; they just need to be prepared to consequent when they get there.

Chances are Obama didn't dream being president when he was working with victims of housing and employment discrimination. That experience, along with teaching at the University of Chicago Law, and landing a spot in the senate clearly helped him procure the skills, knowledge, and caress critical to navigate through the glossy slopes of the political process without getting tripped up - despite the disproportionate lack of caress he had in comparison to McCain.

Lesson 5 in repositioning the black male: lack of caress does not equate lack of chance unless you allow it to.

As previously stated, for many Americans character takes shape in college. For black men, college attendance - on the community college and university level - is dwindling. Agreeing to the spring 2006 Integrated Post secondary education Data ideas study (Ipeds), Black, non-Hispanic male students had the lowest three-year graduation rate - 16 percent - among all minority male community college students.

In an description published in 2007, Disappearing Acts: The Vanishing Black Male On community College Campuses, Lorenzo I. Esters and Dr. David C. Mosby write: What is most alarming about the current state of the Black male on America's community college campuses is that those who are in positions of leadership have been slow to identify the situation as a state of crisis and have been approximately reluctant to own up to their accountability to take restorative action. The accumulated research studies on the subject of Black male student holding may be a source for community colleges to gain some comprehension as to how they may appropriately talk to the epidemic.

Over the past 33 years, black women have enrolled in four-year colleges at higher rates than have black men, Agreeing to the results of a new study conducted by the Higher education research institute at Ucla's Graduate School of education & facts Studies. In 2004, black women comprised 59.3 percent of all first-time, full-time black students attending four year institutions, compared to 54.5 percent in 1971.

With this type of research and data, why haven't there been any extra initiatives or greater outreach from colleges to address this issue? My research found a potential answer:

Black male enrollments are shockingly low at many colleges and universities, even those with good track records at attracting a diverse student body. While some demographers have noted this situation for years, many colleges have shied away from dealing with the issue head on, fearing that doing so could reinforce stereotypes, offend women, or draw conservative criticism.

Perhaps Obama will put this on his ever growing list of priorities. He's well aware of the question and has referred to it on any occasions, the first in his Democratic National custom speech when he stated: "Yes, we must contribute more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents (and) that government can't turn off the television and make a child do his homework...that fathers must take more accountability to contribute love and guidance to their children."

Last year, at the Naacp forum on July 12, 2007, he was also quoted as saying: "We have more work to do when more young black men languish in prison than attend colleges and universities across America." That is incorrect. The media has perpetuated that myth by reporting the total amount of incarcerated black males, in comparison to the the total amount of college-age (18 - 25) black males. Precise statistics divulge that since 2005 there are, in fact, more college age black males enrolled in colleges and universities than there are incarcerated in the same group.

Lesson 6 in repositioning the black male: increase and strengthen your education with the goal of becoming smarter. That includes, but is not itsybitsy to, enrolling in school. education builds character and is a crucial tactic in our uncut success strategy. education shapes values, alters perspectives, and fosters altruism. Studies show that there is a direct link in the middle of increased education and decreased levels of crime and violence - even within the prison system.

Education is also the fountain from which the tactical resolutions to the previously stated problems and those which have plagued us for centuries will be spawned. The repositioned black male must encourage the next generation of black men to take interest in pursuits other than sports and entertainment at a younger age. We need to deepen our talent pool of hereafter policy makers who can instigate and maintain change. A generation of young men, who like Obama, will be effective at using tactics and strategies to get results.

That's the crux of President Obama's success. Success is within closer reach for the repositioned black male who comprehends that positioning is an art, a psychology, and a science. It's not just for the artful, the psychological, or the scientific; it's for thought about visionaries who want great lives and a greater share of resources for their families, their communities, and themselves.

And while we have reached our most critical milestone as black men, we must now look ahead to the hereafter and get ready for it in the present, the way Obama did when he contained his emotions, less than 30 minutes after being elected, and had the presence of mind while his shining moment, to take the chance to carry on soaring expectations by remarking in his acceptance speech:

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America -- I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you -- we as a citizen will get there...there will be setbacks (see paragraph above on optimism and setbacks) and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will all the time be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree."

Final episode in repositioning the black male: all the time see the big picture and your place within it.

The Repositioning of the Black Male

The years of the great depression, the symbols of economic failure were the long line of citizen queuing up at Soup kitchens, and growing shanty towns for the homeless. This was the corollary of a great economic change.

Today, we are also living in the crossroads of great economic change, a turn that is transforming existing economies that should finally lead to a more sustainable New Economy.

Trickle Up Poverty

The extreme cost of this turn could be the impoverishment of millions, who are adjusting to the end of the old economy, into the first months of our economic transformation. Creating employment could be the key to reducing poverty, whilst creating hope.

Eight Ways to create Sustainable Employment during an Economic urgency

1. Community Help

Communities hit hard by the current economic crisis, may need to resort to self-help tactics. This could mean, setting up society food banks, encouraging volunteers to seek out the worst effected by this crisis, and encouraging clothes and treatment collections. That can be distributed to those suffering the most.

2. Governmental Assistance

Governments may find themselves short of funds in the long term, and may have to cut or even stop unavoidable pre-crisis benefits to equilibrium budgets. One way our governments may choose to help the worst affected, is to offer tax holidays for low paid workers, New deal company start up schemes, and generate temporary society housing schemes in empty government owned reprocessed properties at reduced rents.

3. Self Employment

Governments could encourage self-employment by sponsoring society operation groups, and slashing taxes and cutting down on restrictive bureaucratic practices to anything waiting for help.

4, Re-Training Programs

Some jobs in the old pre-crisis cheaper are now obsolete, pin-pointing the unemployed who did these jobs, and now need re-training for jobs that exist in the current economy, could cut poverty levels by their millions. Some current Governments acknowledge that unemployment levels still exceed job vacancies in many Countries. Re-training and re-location schemes could cut the level of unemployed, whilst filling these current vacancies.

5. Infrastructure Projects

How cash-strapped Governments pay for repairing existing infrastructure projects is a major question. Any way in the 1930s, the New Deal did offer employment to millions who were otherwise facing destitution and long term unemployment.

Infrastructural projects cooperating with localized industry, is a duplicate win-win situation in the short term. Local industries employ citizen for these projects, whilst governments fund these projects, in return taxes from these Industries, and employees pay for the projects. This may stimulate local economies, and re-build communities worse effected by this current crisis.

6. Green Grants

If normal Motors or Ford were offered a Green Grant, to turn their procedure of manufacturing inefficient gasoline driven cars, towards Green cars. Then both associates could reinvent themselves, offer employment during the current economic transformation, and emerge as a rising star in the new economy.
Green Grants may not be cash incentives, they could be in the form of reduced taxes, promises of time to come business, and even untaxed society led programs.

To offset the loss of taxes, in the case of petrol driven cars, high taxes could be imposed on less fuel productive cars, whilst lowering taxation levels on more 'greener" cars.

7. Employment Driven Policies

In the old pre-crisis Economy, we were encouraged to look at labor savings, rather then encourage employment. Now in a temporary era of unemployment, we need to focus on labor creating ideas, rather then the old idea of labor saving.Reducing the dependency on our Governments to supply unemployment benefits whilst creating new short-term unemployment could make economic sense, especially as developed economies could face financial restraints.

8. Self Learning

Encouraging self-learning rather then forced learning, through society centers, and social libraries could train individuals to meet the future. citizen could be encouraged to visit these centers, by chance them up, supplying voluntary counselors and even paying part-time trainers.

Labor creation is good than labor saving, society self-help groups can take the pressure off governments to provide, lowering unemployment benefits, whilst re-training and contribution employment alternatives creates opportunity. contribution incentives in terms of business, through taxation policies leads to building new industries, but also reinventing the old. Thus reducing the chances of meeting the New cheaper in a weakened state, but rather in a healthier more viable state, ready for the future.

Eight Ways to create Sustainable Employment during an Economic urgency

As far as I am concerened, the leaders of China are not now and never will be our friends or allies. The leaders of China do not care about anything other than amassing power and destroying their enemies and since everybody not Chinese is their enemy they feel that it is their duty to someday rule the world. As far as they are concerened the United States is the largest hurdle to their attaining their dreams, therefore the first thing that they have to do is destroy us. They are not currently capable of defeating us militarily so they have decided to attempt to defeat us economically and so far they are doing a fairly good job at it. They are not our trading partner, they are our trading enemy and they are currently trading us into the ground.

Shock of shocks, today I was reading the op-ed section of the paper and found myself according with the author about American relations with China and the Vip treatment Chinese President Hu is recieving in this country. Both of us agreed that President Hu does not deserve such treatment. My shock was, I was according with Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. I never agree with her.

Trickle Up Poverty

Her narrative stated in part "Today, President Bush will roll out the red carpet for Chinese President Hu Jintao, a leader whose government brutally crushes freedom, democracy and the religious expression of the Chinese and Tibetan people. Hu will receive the best welcome U.S. Taxpayer money can buy, together with full military honors and a 21-gun salute.

Relations With China

This is the same regime that provides military technologies to countries that threaten international security, together with Iran and North Korea. The same regime that threatens Taiwan with a military attack, detains and tortures Chinese citizen for expressing their political and religious beliefs and arrests Tibetans for carrying a photograph of the Dalai Lama.

While open dialogue is essential, many of us on both sides of the aisle in Congress oppose the celebratory nature of this official visit.

This is not about isolationism. We must have engagement with China, but it should be sustainable engagement that enables us to assert our values, continue our economic increase and uphold our national security.

Our growing national debt to China is a national protection issue. Countries such as China that own our debt will soon not only be production our toys, our clothes and our computers, they will be production our foreign policy.

U.S. Course toward China is ineffective in upholding the pillars of our foreign Course -- promoting democratic freedom, stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and growing our economy by promoting exports abroad. Instead, we have pursued trickle-down liberty -- promoting economic leisure first, assuming that political leisure will follow. Reality exposes this Course as the illusion it is."

There was more to her article, some of which I agreed with and some of which I disagreed with. The point is, though, that we should not be treating the President of one of our most perilous enemies like he is a favored long lost friend and ally. He is not a favored long lost friend and ally, he is our enemy and should be treated with caution and firmness. It is right that our President should meet with him but it is wrong that our president should treat him with such a show of pomp and ceremony.

Relations With China

Many years ago in many countries, the poor were oppressed by the wealthy. The rich land owners made the rules, created their own armies, and hoarded the wealth while the remainder of the population, who were rendered powerless, were left to fend for themselves. More often than not this meant near starvation along with no treatment or doctors and many times a proper of living not far removed from that of animals.

This was a gross injustice, a hell beyond imagination that perpetuated itself and became institutionalized while the masses, a thousandfold more populous than the mercenary, ruthless, and cruel ruling class, remained oppressed yet docile and satisfied. Why was this?

Trickle Up Poverty

It was because of God.

Why Atheism Is Growing in America

Atheism, therefore, is not so much a distaste toward or inequity of those who believe in a originator god. After all, who de facto cares what you select to believe? Atheism is more of an acknowledgment of the damage that a dependency on a originator god can do to a community at large when a originator god is the predominate belief.

Very wealthy habitancy ordinarily aren't overly religious; it is ordinarily only the poor masses that depend upon God for their sustenance. And since the poor in the world have the most kids, and these kids are then indoctrinated into the religion at birth, poverty is self-sustaining.

The supervene of God, and theistic religions in general, can be a blindness to reality, an "opiate of the masses" that effectively conceals the reality of economic injustice by a quasi, drug-like induced dream world of heavens and martyrism that the masses deem more leading than economic fairness.

After all, what inequity does it make if we live in abject poverty in this short lifetime, or even if we are treated unfairly, as long as we keep on good terms with God and are saved in the next lifetime? And don't think that those in power don't rely heavily on this belief. The rich are seldom overly God-fearing - money comes first! The fear of God is a hallmark of the poor, those that have no money.

We need look no further than contemporary America to find the beginnings of that same oppression where religion has blinded many from the fact that their lives are falling apart economically

The money for their basic wages, their group welfare, and their group security nets are going into the hands of gamblers on Wall Street, as well as toward guns and bullets for a bloated troops sent on nefarious missions by the wealthy who at their core are very insecure and afraid - that the masses might wake up someday.

In America, no longer is there fair play in the labor market. Wages and benefits are plummeting with mostly poor paying jobs available. No longer are wages and benefits based upon productivity with the profits fairly distributed to the workers. The profits all go to the top now, to the "wealthy land (stock) holders."

And as the numbers of the poor and oppressed mount, the wealthy again hold out the carrots of high interest loans to perpetuate the addition inequity of the classes, and ingeniously threaten the masses with their straw man arguments cleverly diverting concentration from economic injustices to empty threats that "they" will take your guns and bibles, and that wealth will someday trickle down to you if you work hard enough and give us your money by investing in Wall Street. And for sure, continue to believe in God, and the flag, by buying more guns to increase corporate profits, and look send to a good life next time.

These are the myths perpetuated by the movers and shakers for over thirty years now, as the poor and middle class proper of living declines steadily while the wealth increases exponentially at the top levels.

As the poor, and even the middle class, find themselves gently sinking into the abyss of the masses where only the wealthy will be privy to such basics as health care, comfortable homes, and a comfortable proper of living, immense holes are developing in the security nets of the poor and middle class. As an example, look at how many conservative states, such as Texas, that are obliterating group programs in lieu of company incentives based on the debunked theory of trickle down economics. The poor are being shut out and de facto killed by a lack of caring.

And there are no uprisings against the inequities. Why? Because of God.

For the last thirty years, there has been a decline in the proper of living for the poor and middle classes in America. This inequity has been ingeniously engineered by those in financial power, and perpetuated by myths such as "Why give your money to habitancy who are lazy and on welfare! End socialism, end security nets, end government, take care of yourself! (Give all your money to Wall Street). And so the masses believed, and cut their own throats.

This wealth disparity was concealed for awhile by the availability of easy and cheap credit, where middle class Americans were able to use their home equity as an Atm machine, while the poor without prestige could still buy cars and sometimes homes because of "creative" prestige policies, which is someone else word for high interest usury and dishonesty.

The wealthy top 5% made out well, while the rest of America silently and obediently lost even more ground as the prestige and home equity bubble burst. And as the poor and middle class were led to believe that it was all their fault, they also continued to believe that they were doing well, and their hereafter was spellbinding - because God was in their corner. The banks and financial institutions are already back again making creative loans, all bailed out by the taxes paid by the poor and middle class, not by God.

Blind confidence is a lack of open-minded understanding of what is de facto coming down. This shirking of taking individual accountability for both oneself, as well as the welfare of all, and surrendering America's destiny to an all-knowing, omniscient God, is what Atheists are de facto upset about. Why? Because this is the kind of delusion that molds a deluded society, a community that is becoming... Well, just look at our country, bristling with guns, bibles... And anger.

When we believe in a originator God, we can de facto shift accountability from ourselves to an imaginary being. If we are having any problems in life, if even our economic situation is becoming unbearable, we, instead of voicing our disappointment with the system, shift that accountability to an internal imagination that rationalizes that we are somehow whether being punished, or that this pain is good for us because worldly suffering will turn us more toward God. In other words, what is meant to be will be.

And therefore, their is nothing further for us to do, other than to pray, and hope for a good life in heaven.

Proactivity is not an option. In other words, there is an acceptance of a ruthless, entirely capital based community which has no enforcement toward group accountability or compassion toward those less fortunate. This acceptance is based solely on the factory of an internal fly toward God, away from the external injustices, an internal fly to God where we are promised great things... Later... If we can successfully put up with all the economic and group inequities in a saint-like manner so that we don't jeopardize our association with God, and therefore jeopardize our eternal salvation.

With this psychological rationalization in place, the God believers may succumb to any and all injustices. The only thing that the ruling, wealthy class has to do to withhold power is to above all spend great amounts of money on troops power to safe themselves and their wealth, and rely on the lack of awareness of the masses by cleverly shifting concentration from the economic injustices of the poor and middle class to strawmen that threaten the masses' confidence in God. Thus, the anger is craftily diverted. As long as we believe, our rewards will be in heaven. So we will plainly pray and accept.

Atheists gawk that God believers do not have a clear view of what is happening; and that is dangerous. Also they gawk that God believers, because of their propensity to blindly believe, will believe almost anyone if it is somewhat linked to their beliefs. Because God is so fine in their minds, anyone happens to them is His will, and shouldn't be questioned. This is also very dangerous and can be de facto manipulated by those in power - the wealthy. Rush Limbaugh makes well over 0 million a year.

Adding to the danger in America is that the God believers are in the vast majority, as is the poor and middle class. Therefore, these poor and middle class people, who believe in an imaginary being as the architect of their lives, cannot elucidate rebelling against their circumstances, which to their deluded perceptions, are a supervene of God Himself.

Thus the oppressed, in America and throughout the world, are kept in bondage by systems that prey on such confidence systems to keep the masses under control.

Any performance that tends to open up the mind and wake habitancy up is discouraged by most leaders of theistic religions. An awakening of the masses is a very dangerous hope de facto for those in power, not only in business, finance, and unregulated capitalism, but in the halls of religion as well.

The danger is that when habitancy do wake up, truly wake up, the worship of a originator God shares center stage with ideas that we, ourselves, must become proactive so that the poor are not victimized and scorned but taken care of, and that dishonesty is be substituted by truth and fairness across the entire national spectrum.

A lot of money and power is at stake, money and power that is now in the hands of a few. Hence, atheists, and any religion or custom stressing waking up, such as meditation and yoga, are regarded as a very real threat by the status quo, and will be fought tooth and nail in many ways, both openly and surreptitiously.

Meditation and yoga are growing because they embody a new awareness that is just starting to awaken America, an awareness of the fact that we have been asleep for many years now, and that our country is in grave danger if we don't soon wake up and start taking care of each other both here in America, and all over the world.

The days of darkness and oppression may soon be over. The days of clarity, awakeness, and compassion are perhaps just beginning.

Why Atheism Is Growing in America

The concept of self interest is altered if we think that the biggest human motivation is conference more personal power rather than struggling towards constant repetition of joyful moments. Current popular comprehension of self-interest goes hand in hand with the classically liberal concept of the right to "pursue happiness". That's the idea libertarians use to by comparison their maximum discount of free time of action for individuals. The pursuance towards something psychically warm and cuddly such as happiness seems so right and wholesome for a human being to undertake that denying it seems cruel and out of the question.

Let's look deeper into the supposed utopia proposed with addition frequency by ideologues like Ron Paul and juvenile college educated population colse to the world who view themselves as having what it takes to become prosperous capitalists themselves (regardless of the fact that collective mobility is constrained in United States as well as in most countries by a small estimate of oligarch families gaming the system). I don't have any country in mind in this consulation and will use clean abstract concepts (haha "clean abstract") for simplicity.

Trickle Up Poverty

For a moment let's forget all the varied assumptions and constructs that are needed for libertarian theoretical defense to work at all such as:

question of Defining Self-Interest For Libertarian community

1) free will or what's left of it after a century of Freud, Nietzsche, Marx and now brain scanning experiments

2) rationality or some tasteless concept process pretending to be rationality in a diverse population with individuals of vastly differing educational backgrounds and consciousness levels

3) equality before the law as well as rule of law itself for a contractual community to function (laughable fictions in most societies on the planet right now since the most distinguished individuals constantly evolve and turn the concept of the rule of law through force and fantastic law technologists)

4) reality. This is a big one in that applying a "perfect" libertarian originate to say, United States is like applying "perfect" proportional representation democratic originate to Afghanistan. Of policy the ideologues insist it can work if the whole world united in this purpose and slowly moved towards this workers paradise

Any one of these by themselves are enough to discredit an ideology that relies on everybody being a utility calculating rational computer. Any one of them is enough to cause population in 20 years to say customary statements such as, "well libertarianism sounds good on paper but you know, human nature and the possible contradictions of the law make rapid application of the concept disastrous" (in terms of creating inefficiencies, inequalities, exploitation, suffering, and stagnation).

My focus any way is on self-interest as the driving mechanism in a libertarian society. There is still lack of consensus on what is true human motivation but it increasingly looks that it is a mixture of power seeking as well as satisfaction seeking with power being a best explanatory human goal. Many of us have seen the noted quote by Adam Smith,

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest"

At this point many automatically think that being self concerned is just wanting to be more happy and that the most foremost thing to aid our self interest is money. Since desire to make more money is accepted, pursuance of self interest is thus seen as safe and even sturdy enough to build a radically dissimilar socioeconomic system. As mentioned above, there are other takes on what life is all about besides just seeking money fueled happiness. Let's take Nietzsche for example,

"Life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of the strange and weaker, suppression, severity, imposition of one's own forms.. "

The mere fact that growing and living may involve more than just joy seeking poses a considerable and basal question for free store ideologues. Let's succeed them on the road towards a more capitalist community while retention in mind that it may be more foremost for population to keep getting stronger as well as trying to be "happy"...

Since happiness can undertake many forms, the private thus has a strong case to argue for the right to personally negotiate governance with others and sacrifice as many regulations on modes/fruits of pursuance as possible. Libertarian ideology then seems the most spellbinding as individuals become their own utility calculating contractual lawmakers. The succeed is that the legislative branch in a libertarian community finds itself with little to do. By definition, manufacture laws is creation of uniform regulation on human behavior. This type of government sponsored uniformity becomes redundant (since each population is now consenting to enter into contractual regulation of his or her own choice) at best and "coercive oppression" (or any estimate of silly names given at the Gop protests in modern months) at worst. The libertarian community would then rightfully prevent uniformity from arising and applying to all (unless possibly dealing with matters that cause grievous harm to others and corporate externalities).

However, if we think of real human motivation as pursuance of influence over their environment (and other human beings within it), allowing humans the maximum playing room begins to take on a more sinister dimension.

The customary actor of legislative branch and the area covered by it is mostly displaced by a great multitude of smaller actors manufacture contractual agreements with one an additional one and creating a great patchwork of powers and networks throughout society. Without the counterbalancing small actors of local government (assuming libertarian community is libertarian top to bottom), an endless multitude of free store actors would be responsible with creation of regulation for all (for example: road company figures out with local land owner how many tolls to have, dimensions of obvious infrastructure, fine limits for jaywalkers on private roads, etc).

This prosperous overlapping regulatory complexity with greatly decentralized nodules of influence (assuming the indiscernible hand goes against all history and human nature so far and prevents monopoly formation) is a duplicate edged sword. Free store is relatively productive at distribution of capital (at least on sub-national local level when legal conditions are favorable) and the regulatory contractual patchwork is often best able to adapt to pressures of time and collective flux. One thing the indiscernible hand is less good at is redistribution of justice (giving population what they think they deserve).

At the end of the day in the contemporary world, justice (in all its current forms) is mostly in the monopolistic hands of the legislative branch. The legislative branch makes it uniform and suitable for a time. In this branch, all private free store actors ( the people) have a say about what uniform sort of justice is right for a single society. There is of course, indirect influence from larger clusters of power and bigger free store actors (ranging from small businesses to billionaires to churches to transnational corporations) that cannot totally be avoided.Their influence is commonly somewhat counterbalanced through sheer numbers of lesser powered individuals and their allies in the distinguished agent of the legislative.

Since free store libertarian justice is inseparable from wealth (arising from selling one's labor via the most cold blooded meritocracy that doesn't identify inequality of origin), only the individuals with enough wealth form nodules of power considerable to generate varied relatively wide ranging regulatory norms in society. With wealth comes increased bargaining power and best contractual positioning. Considering the goal of human motivation is personal expansion of influence, the sheer size of some of the power nodules in community is cause for concern as their contractual arrangements influence the lives of millions of less distinguished individuals. An ideologically libertarian oriented community would sacrifice the influence of the biggest guardian of less distinguished individuals (legislative branch) by transfering regulation of community to a multitude of distinguished players with their own spheres of influence.

A new form of feudalism arises. Anything population "deserve" in this community is Anything they can wrestle from others through raw financial power (acquired by individuals with personal physiologies that thrive in free store conditions or those who were born into wealth or both). The new creators of standards and norms are thus illegitimate (nobody voted for them unless it is stock owners voting for new company leadership) and they are constrained by nobody but store conditions. Even store conditions can be shaped with strong enough players and enough money. In a legal legislative vacuum, even informed consumers and workers have little bargaining power against the abuses of varied cartels, guilds, and land barons (whatever new name they would go under informally or formally). Less distinguished individuals would strategically be forced to dedicate big amounts of time to collective bargaining. Emergence of distinguished unions for aid commerce is difficult to calculate on but without government security new forms of security will have to be devised and vigilantly implemented ( 1> this in turn creates inefficiencies/other abuses as union leaders are as concerned in power as Ceos and use up big amounts of productive resources on court battles and assosication 2> union power receded in part due to rise in aid commerce and in part because the legislative addressed their concerns through legal regulation)

In an interconnected world where wealth and influence from distinguished players is transferred without regard to borders and the needs of localities, unblemished deregulation is dangerous.We need truthful functioning legislative branch not just out of fear about re-emergence of old abuses (ex. Blacklisting workers) and rise of new ones. We need a strong legislative branch because the distinguished there counterbalance the distinguished in the private sector. In libertarian world the distinguished (masters of wealth acquisition with wide ranging powers derived from it), would be free to collude or battle each other with stifling consequences for the weak. Denying them some free time of movement is not a cruel institution of denying somebody their shot at happiness but tempering raw power and discount of private tyranny at home. distinguished entities providing services to us at our own selecting does not eliminate our trust on them. Hand that helps for money is hand that controls. We can't imagine the police or the courts being privately owned due to fear of corruption and abuse and it is no less horrifying to think that private individuals will take over from the legislative in a libertarian world.

[Sidenote: This consulation had a medium sized country in mind. If a libertarian country is smaller, one can beyond doubt see the whole of community dominated by one or two international corporate actors with the wealth flowing out of the country. A dystopian cyberpunk hereafter in the mold of William Gibson is essentially a libertarian one. The unhealthy corporate influence in America and its corrosive succeed on government is due beyond doubt because the strong in the legislative are splintered against each other while the strong in the private sector are gaining through attrition. Having a poorly functioning legislative battling the administrative does not stop excesses of power. It just creates dysfunctional weak government. The excesses continue in the private world that permeates the public. Parliamentary government with proportional representation (with constitutional protection) is thus a much best guarantor of decentralization of power within society.]

The 21st century cannot afford a disjointed slow self cannibalizing government concocted by 18th century aristocrat intellectuals. Something so out of date is in no position to face a fast paced world or promote freer improvement of vast majority of individuals against the designs of domestic and foreign elites. It does us disservice to think of power as just residing in government that we should be free from. best disunion of powers would be the strong in private and collective spheres balancing each other in a wholesome dialogue with the weak being the middlemen in the middle of the two.

So emerges possibly the biggest consulation against libertarian designs, that:

1) in a free store world there is insufficient disunion of powers and mechanisms to keep them separated

2) this is risky in that human motivation is not just about getting happy through manufacture more money (and manufacture trickle down economics work in deranged minds of some propagandists)

3) only democracy through some sort of proportional representation creates enough of a split and balance in the middle of power elites by creating a strong legislative branch that can check the feudalistic desires of many oligarchs

The biggest dangers affecting many "civilized" and "developed" nations are thus not too much government but a government that is too weak to stand up against private financial interests. Proportional representation democracy is not perfect of policy but it seems like a step send than backward at the moment for most of the population of any given country.

question of Defining Self-Interest For Libertarian community

A mouth that prays, a hand that kills.

- Arabian proverb

Trickle Up Poverty

"How do you find a lion that has swallowed you?" asked Swiss psychologist, Carl Jung, commenting on the moral dilemma posed by the "shadow," his insightful term for the dark, private side of the human psyche.

George W Bush and the Dark Side of Religious Fundamentalism

The acknowledge to Jung's questions is "you can't find or see that lion"--not as long as you are inside the beast. And therein resides the important dilemma of a group's dark side or shadow: it is nearly impossible for those caught inside a group's belief system to see their own dark side with any clarity or objectivity. This private side grows over time, regressing, becoming more and more aggressive. It's the "long bag we drag behind us," says poet Robert Bly--where, as individuals, we dispose of all those things that are too uncomfortable to look at. "The long-repressed shadow of Dr. Jekyll rises up in the shape of Mr. Hyde, deformed, an ape-like frame glimpsed against the alley wall." Now dream millions of Mr. Hydes and you have a sense of the group shadow of fundamentalist, right wing extremists dressed up as "compassionate conservatives," led by George W. Bush. It's like shifting from a hand gun to a nuclear bomb. And it began long ago in both the Moslem and Christian worlds.
The invasion of American Democratic institutions by fundamentalist, historically militant (as in crusades, witch hunts, inquisitions, and withhold of slavery) Christianity has significantly increased the stench advent from the already disturbing dark side of U.S. Politics. It's like a nightmarish replay of the Christian crusades--politics with a militant, convert-the-heathens dark side. Potent, cult-like group dynamics merge with unacknowledged and unseen shadow qualities to honestly overwhelm the individual's sense of right and wrong, often unleashing pure evil en masse.

As the political world and the media divided the U.S. Into red and blue states, I found myself feeling uncomfortable even mental about driving through one of those "red" states. I would dream that every red-state person must be a card-carrying, right wing fundamentalist. From the other side of the mountain, those "blue" states are full of liberal, soft-on-terrorism, big government socialists. Both are examples of projecting our group's shadow onto the "enemy." And both views prevent us from "seeing" individual human beings. We see only that group, those people. With fine ease, we slide into a "programmed," either-or, group-think: we're the good guys, they're the bad guys. It's like finding all through red or blue-tinted glasses that color all we see and think--we've been "swallowed."

Group shadow dynamics can shift the focus of our beliefs with stunning speed to other "evil" enemy. Petty dictators are convenient "hooks" on which groups often hang their group shadow, their dirty laundry; a perfect example being Saddam Hussein who, in 1990-1991 magically transitioned from being a relatively obscure U.S. Ally (receiving soldiery aid, weapons, satellite intelligence, and high tech equipment) into an incarnation of evil and a dire threat to humanity that we had to eliminate. Such is the hypnotic power of group paranoia combined with propaganda in stirring up a nationalistic, lynch mob mentality. In 1986, an narrative about Don Rumsfeld in the Chicago Tribune listed helping "re-open U.S. Relations with Iraq" as one of his vocation achievements when he served as Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East. The State department reported that while Rumsfeld was occasion relations with Iraq, Saddam Hussein was murdering thousands of Kurds using chemical weapons.

Once a belief system gains control, those beliefs are much more likely to move us to action, drive us into roles and show the way we would never scrutinize on our own. Voltaire warned, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Moreover, under the influence of any fundamentalist ideology, beliefs (often paranoid and delusional) tend to override facts--a very perilous mental environment for making life and death decisions, or declaring war. Independent important mental and logic--qualities that are most threatening to any destructive group--expose absurdities. Think this excerpt from a speech by the Nazi Party leader Rudolph Hess on June 30, 1934: "The National Socialism of all of us is anchored in uncritical loyalty..." (my italics). "What good fortune for those in power that population do not think," observed Hitler, who knew that thinking citizens were a real danger to his political ambitions.

Ignorance of the group shadow and its destructive consequences locks us into a mutually destructive embrace with our "enemies." In a perverse way each side needing the other--an ironic, group co-dependency on the others "evil" in order to perpetuate themselves. Thus the twisted rationale for a never-ending "War on Terror" that is the mirror image of the never-ending Islamic Jihad against the West. The president made this unending mission clear when he announced, "There's no telling how many wars it will take to accumulate freedom in the homeland." The understanding of permanent war against a designated "evil" or "tyranny" is a excellent dark side of Christian fundamentalism that mimics the Moslem worlds' fundamentalist philosophy that declares non-Moslem countries as "Dar-al-Harb," which means "The Home of War." It's no surprise to comprehend that George W's fundamentalist dark side also echoes Islamic fundamentalism's oft-stated goal of a global Moslem theocracy, which a prominent Iranian ayatollah made perfectly clear: "It will . . . Be the duty of every able-bodied adult male to volunteer for this war of conquest, the final aim of which is to put Koranic law in power from one end of the earth to the other."

Sounding a lot like a narrative of our current world situation, Erasmus (d. 1536), a peaceful, educated, psychologically savvy, Catholic humanist observed: "There is no injury, however insignificant it may be which does not seem to them [Christians] adequate pretext to start a war. They suppress and hide all that might say peace; they exaggerate excessively all that would lead to an outbreak of war." In his book, People of the Lie, author M. Scott Peck explains the slick nature of good and evil. He points out that "evil population are often destructive because they are trying to destroy evil. Instead of destroying others they should be destroying the sickness within themselves." This paradox is similar to Jung's notice that "a so-called good to which we succumb loses its ethical character," meaning that we paradoxically facilitate evil when we become one-sided, when we believe our group is on the side of goodness and virtue. When one-sided, a so-called quest for peace inevitably produces a group shadow filled with aggression and violence.

This one-sided, assumed superiority or "elitism" is at the core of the Bush administration's dark side, especially their pretentious, religious and political elitism. George W's elite base includes the wealthy and the powerful. They are the hidden population he honestly represents, those economically "elite," special interest bosses he described so accurately in a speech at one of his private, campaign fund raising dinners: "You're my base: the haves and the have mores." They must have been some of the population he was referring to at a 2002 meeting with his economic squad about a second round of tax cuts: "Haven't we already given money to rich people?"

You know a group's shadow is active when "...our belief is in the republic and the republic is declared endangered," explains author and psychologist James Hillman. "Whatsoever the object of belief--the flag, the nation, the president, or the god--a martial vigor mobilizes. Decisions are quick, dissent more difficult. Doubt which impedes activity and questions certitude becomes traitorous, an enemy to be silenced." "The many purveyor of violence in the world today... Is my own nation," observed Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., who practiced nonviolent group and political change. Shakespeare (in Julius Caesar) eloquently described the attractive facade of this fundamentalist, political shadow in his play about other "super power": And let us bathe our hands in . . . Blood up to the elbows, and besmear our swords. Then we walk forth, even to the market place, and waving our red weapons o'er our heads, let's all cry "peace, freedom and liberty!"

"There will never be world peace until God's house and God's population are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world," proclaimed Christian fundamentalist Pat Robertson. The Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams, contained this statement: "The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation." We've been here before. The fundamentalist invasion into contemporary politics has resurrected a nightmarish apparition in the form of Wilsonian political monotheism. We could summarize Wilson's foreign procedure as "the imperative of America's mission as the vanguard of history, transforming the global order and, in doing so, perpetuating its own dominance," guided by "the imperative of soldiery supremacy, maintained in perpetuity and projected globally"--all thinly veiled religious elitism and hubris, missionary theology masquerading as "peace, freedom and liberty." Similarly, in a much applauded speech in 1899, Theodore Roosevelt (just before becoming President) proposed "righteous war" as the sole means of achieving "national greatness." And, speaking through his group's fundamentalist "mouth that prays," Bush made his paranoid mission quite clear: "We will rid the world of the evildoers."

Like it or not we are stuck in a psychological dilemma fueled by the collision of two toxic groups--groups with deadly shadows created by literalized Christian monotheism and literalized Islamic monotheism--both fundamentalist, both virulent strains of group-think, both after mental territory, economic and political power. One of the symptoms of fanaticism is the belief that one's mission has been "blessed or even commanded by God," says Dr. Norman Doidge, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto. George W. Bush, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, told Palestinian Prime minister Mahmoud Abbas, "God told me to assault at Al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to assault at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East." In every sense of the word, destructive, group-based beliefs are the real weapons of mass destruction that we all need to be very worried about.

"God wanted me to be President," said George W. Bush. About Iraq, Lieutenant general Boykin recently declared that our "spiritual enemy will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus." "We are in a conflict between good and evil, and America will call evil by its name," Bush declared when announcing his "strategy" for his evangelical, political crusade" Thus, warfare is applied theology. And from either side of the bloody plain, "every war is a just war, a battle between the soldiery of good and evil," a ghastly, incurable, repetition--the darkness of utter evil created by what appear to be the noblest of ideals. It creates a culture of immorality governed by hypocrisy, which supplementary reinforces a group blindness. Hypocrisy, as Hillman points out, "holds the nation together so that it can preach, and custom what it does not preach. It makes inherent armories of mass destruction side by side with the proliferation of churches, cults, and charities"--the attractive "good" side covering a very destructive dark side.

This fundamentalist, political shadow has become ever more insidious as their ideological assault erodes the constitutional separation of church and state--a separation that marked a stunning acceleration of individual human freedom, establishing a nation that respected the tension between two old enemies: Enlightenment rationalism and organized religion. Americans lived no longer under religious totalitarianism. Instead they lived in an age of religious freedom and an age of reason. America embodied the revolutionary understanding that only a clean separation of church and state can warrant freedom from religious tyranny and true religious freedom.

In 1962 consummate Court Justice Black described the intent of the First Amendment's preparing Clause: Justice Black observed that history had demonstrated time and again that "a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion." The American historian, Clinton Rossiter wrote: "The twin doctrines of separation of church and state and freedom of individual conscience are the marrow of our democracy, if not honestly America's most magnificent contribution to the freeing of Western man."

When person shines a spotlight into a group's dark side it arouses, practically without fail, righteous indignation along with virulent, "kill-the-messenger" attacks. That is also why it is so utterly frustrating to have any meaningful, rational argument or collaboration with a shadow-bound individual; you can never quite reach the real person. Instead you are stonewalled; you keep getting programmed, group-speak jargon designed to abort any real scrutiny of the group's always secretive dark side. Exposing torture and gross violations of the Geneva custom means we are guilty of "not supporting our troops."

Mark Twain would have seen right through all this shadow-speak, language intended to "demonize" and kill any serious criticism. Twain once wrote: "Next the statesmen will produce cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to scrutinize any refutation of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."

"The population can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders," said Hermann Goring, at his trial in Nuremberg. He added: "This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." George W. Bush brings up Bin Laden and 9/11 over and over: "The only way our enemies can follow is if we forget the lessons of September 11." Constant repetition of confident ideas is a base formula of indoctrination used in destructive cults. "It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of group opinion," declared Josef Goebbles, the Nazi propaganda minister, who knew that tyrannical governments want brainwashed followers. And here's George W's not-quite-so-articulate, fundamentalist equivalent: "See, in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda," quipped our self-titled "War President" in a 24 May 2005 speech.

So the Bush management "fixes" brain reports, "fixes" scientific data on climate change and greenhouse gases, "fixes" reality on the ground in Iraq for the unthinking, uncritical, patriotic, loyal, citizens. These so-called "fixes" are honestly "lies"--the Bush group's schedule to "supervise the formation of group opinion," as Goebbles stated. Indeed, the purpose of all propaganda is to schedule individuals to act according to group beliefs and aims. Moreover, presidential scholar, Michael Genovese suggests that 9/11 helped to create a mass illusion: "The group needed to believe that [Bush] had grown," so "we chose to see him ...as bigger, better and dissimilar than he was." You could say that we temporarily projected a "savior" image onto the president; psychologists call this the "halo effect," the same sort of illusion that can make quite lowly population suddenly appear to be superhuman, until the truth rattles our projections and reality returns.

Bush honestly articulated his own treacherous dark side when he announced, "The United States of America will not permit the world's most perilous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." An thinkable, statement considering the current U.S. Nuclear weapons schedule and the decades-long "cold war" between Russia and the United States, the latter having created nuclear weapons technology while the previous copies it and both saunter to produce and infect the planet with over 60,000 nuclear bombs and warheads--enough destructive power to end all life on the planet many times over. Never mind the fact that the United States honestly dropped two atomic bombs on innocent civilian populations in Japan while the Second World War.

Perhaps the most insidious face of the ever-darkening shadow of evangelical, fundamentalist politics and its bright, shining slogan, "compassionate conservatism," is their in-humane, Compassionless disregard for the suffering of others. Of procedure war is not compassionate for either side. "Compassionate" conservatives care more about the welfare of corporate America than for human suffering. Hypocritical, shadow-laden "compassion" is not new. Hitler and Stalin were two of the most vigorous "pro-lifers" of all time, as were numerous other tyrants. They (Hitler and Stalin) also criminalized previously legal abortions immediately upon taking power. Dwight D. Eisenhower, as a soldier and then as the thirty-fourth President of the United States, knew firsthand the savage, inhumane consequences of warfare. "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

Looking closely at the whitewashed rhetoric of fundamentalism, we hear abundance of black magic--oft-repeated mantras like, "family values," the "right to life," and a "culture of life." But what about a trickle of compassion for the estimated 29,000 children under five who die on our planet each day from preventable neglect, starvation, disease, and abuse--a horrific "slaughter of innocents." What about their "right to life?" In Iraq (at this writing), well over 2,100 American soldiers have been killed and other 15, 000 wounded, many horribly crippled and disfigured for life. Incredibly brave young men and women--yet in reality victims of a fundamentalist/political cult's deadly shadow. The independent group database, http://www.iraqbodycount.net, reports over 27,000 innocent civilian deaths in Iraq resulting directly from soldiery activity by the United States and its allies--definitely not good for our "image." But this barely-seen slaughter by a "compassionate," hide-the-coffins Republican cult must be kept in the shadows because, as our President recently explained: "Those population (Iraqi insurgents) kill innocent civilians... Women and children."

Then we have the shadow travesty of religious fundamentalists' attempts to stop stem cell research. George W. Bush, replying to questions about proposed stem cell legislation, said "...the use of federal money, taxpayers' money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life -- I'm against that." Here's the shadow: No life-saving stem cell research but immense, treasury draining, scientific research into anti-missile systems, nuclear bunker-busting weapons and a whole new arsenal of mini-nuclear weapons--sounds a lot like "using science which destroys life in order to save life!" I hear that lion roaring! Over time, fundamentalist leaders tend to become increasingly paranoid, unpredictable, and treacherously impulsive. This toxic mix of fundamentalism, politics, and explosive shadow dynamics has settled civilization in serious jeopardy at best--a doomsday scenario at worst. Robert J. Lifton, the author of Thought Reform and the psychology of Totalism, explains that fundamentalism exists "always on the edge of violence because it ever mobilizes for an absolute confrontation with a designated evil, thereby justifying any actions taken to eliminate that evil."

So what can you and I do about this group shadow dilemma? Shadow work requires brutally honest self-examination, the courage to admit one's errors and mistakes, and the moral integrity to change policies, ideas, and opinions that have proven to be fallacious or harmful to others. It's time for civilized, compassionate, courageous population in any place to refuse to participate in sanctifying a morally bankrupt management hiding behind patriotic doublespeak. James Madison warned, "If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." In his book, Faces of the Enemy, Sam keen explains the "first rule" for comprehension our own shadow: "Listen to what the enemy says about you... Borrow the eyes of the alien, see yourself from afar. ...Look with suspicion on the rhetoric of your nation."

As for religious groups, the Dalai Lama has a uncomplicated strategy: "This is my uncomplicated religion," he says. "There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness." At some point, so-called moderate, non-violent Christians and Moslems must take accountability for the militant consequences of their beliefs systems. Like the German peoples' denial of Nazi death camps or the world's ongoing blindness toward genocide, every peace-loving Christian and every peace-loving Moslem who remains silent, has the blood of innocents on his or her hands, as does each and every politician who has cowardly fallen to their knees before the brutal gods of religious fundamentalism, fanaticism and war.

Unless we change, I see an increasingly perilous slide into the past, into a sinister dark side that poets recapitulate best: "And we are here as on a darkling plain...Where ignorant armies clash by night."

George W Bush and the Dark Side of Religious Fundamentalism