The problem with the internet is that it apparently gave every paranoid half-baked moron with faulty logic a voice...and it provided an equally paranoid throng of idiotic sheep with the inability to register a rational thought or the ability to use common sense and figure things out on their own (in a rational manner) as an audience.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
The problem with the internet is that it apparently gave every paranoid half-baked moron with faulty logic a voice...and it provided an equally paranoid throng of idiotic sheep with the inability to register a rational thought or the ability to use common sense and figure things out on their own (in a rational manner) as an audience.
Not to mention that it also gave you the ability to feel better about yourself by talking down others.....
Originally posted by NuclearWinter
It probably would be. The title is not where the substance is found. It's catchy though, I'll give you that.
With 100% certainty, sir. Conspiracy nutters will always find a [rediculous] conspiracy. Just like 4-8 years from now, the 45th US president will have a conspiracy this, or that.
Edit: Wait, will there be a 45th president in 4-8 years, or will Obama (and Co) seize power completely and set himself as the US emporer, like Bush was supposed to?
To be honest I think the American people are getting fed up with the two headed snake system we have in place at the moment. I see big changes coming for our government and it's entire structure. The American people simply don't have much faith left in it all anymore. I am sure that the people will eventually force the government to come up with a more efficient way of governing.
Originally posted by NuclearWinter
To be honest I think the American people are getting fed up with the two headed snake system we have in place at the moment. I see big changes coming for our government and it's entire structure. The American people simply don't have much faith left in it all anymore. I am sure that the people will eventually force the government to come up with a more efficient way of governing.
True enough. People inevitabley tire of any form of government after long enough. Some times it isn't even long at all. You only need to look at Thailand over the last few years to see it.
The problem, from the people's point-of-view is that it's now virtually impossible to effect change through revolution because the physical power that the government can bring down upon those who do revolt is in massive disparity with what protesters can bring. A stark example of which is shown below.
So I think forcing government to change has to be done from the inside.
Originally posted by NuclearWinter
Not to mention that it also gave you the ability to feel better about yourself by talking down others.....
People had the ability to do that long before the Internet. As for me "feeling better" for talking down to others, it's just the opposite. I find it stressful that such people exist "to talk down to". But it would stress me out more if people just sat back and let them prattle on.
Originally posted by jaden101
True enough. People inevitabley tire of any form of government after long enough. Some times it isn't even long at all. You only need to look at Thailand over the last few years to see it.The problem, from the people's point-of-view is that it's now virtually impossible to effect change through revolution because the physical power that the government can bring down upon those who do revolt is in massive disparity with what protesters can bring. A stark example of which is shown below.
So I think forcing government to change has to be done from the inside.
True enough, but in cultures with a little more wealth and a little more education, I like to think that change can be brought on through other means. It's just finding those with the forethought and testicular fortitude to not only enact change, but enact positive changes.
Originally posted by NuclearWinter
To be honest I think the American people are getting fed up with the two headed snake system we have in place at the moment. I see big changes coming for our government and it's entire structure. The American people simply don't have much faith left in it all anymore. I am sure that the people will eventually force the government to come up with a more efficient way of governing.
that will only come when there is a revolution and we get a third party created.Whats encouraging though is people are finally starting to see that congress is ignoring what the people want and that they dont serve the people like the constitution says they are suppose to.It was all over the front page of my newspaper yesterday how on freaking tax day when the government steals our money we make,their were hundreds of people photographed outside the federal reserve bank protesting the IRS with signs that said-end the fed.some had some great ones that read-"end the fed,kennedy tried and died." thats why their were millions of people all over the country on tax day protesting income tax because its illegal against the constitution their starting to learn.How much further proof do people around here need that the government does not serve the interests of the people and only the elite in the fact that they are ignoring and HAVE been ignoring the american people to get rid of the federal reserve? 🙄
Its nausiating for me seeing all these OBAMA BIDEN bumper stickers everywhere I go.All those idiots in chicago dont realise he is no different than Bush or Clinton like they want to believe.People are finally waking up-although it might be too late,that the government is not here to serve the people and that we have a two headed snake system that doesnt work.That neither party is for the people.Thats why I was glad to see Obama get elected because everybody thinks he is going to bring great changes when he has proven he has lied about everything he has said he was going to do.
If Mccain had been elected,the people would just go and say-well its the republicans,their still continuing to screw up america.Obama would have pulled us out of these wars. Well NOW they wont be able to say that,their now starting to see that Obama is no different than all those other corrupt presidents such as both Bush presidents,Reagan,Nixon,Clinton after making 21 of his 27 appointees former Clinton appointees,the same corrupt ones people voted out of office and of course keeping some Bush administration members on as well.their starting to see the light that NEITHER party -the reprocrats or the demopublicans are for the people and that congress is bought off and paid for and not here to represent the people either.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
same old dog as always.arrogant and disrespectful to everybody in the world who doesnt have his twisted logic and think like he does. 🙄
I should also add on-and childish in the fact that he has to stoop to name calling and childish insults when people dont share his twisted and warped logic.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
same old dog as always.arrogant and disrespectful to everybody in the world who doesnt have his twisted logic and think like he does. 🙄
I should also add on-and childish in the fact that he has to stoop to name calling and childish insults when people dont share his twisted and warped logic.
I don't think I really need to point out who that describes more than any other person in this forum.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
that will only come when there is a revolution and we get a third party created.Whats encouraging though is people are finally starting to see that congress is ignoring what the people want and that they dont serve the people like the constitution says they are suppose to.It was all over the front page of my newspaper yesterday how on freaking tax day when the government steals our money we make,their were hundreds of people photographed outside the federal reserve bank protesting the IRS with signs that said-end the fed.some had some great ones that read-"end the fed,kennedy tried and died." thats why their were millions of people all over the country on tax day protesting income tax because its illegal against the constitution their starting to learn.How much further proof do people around here need that the government does not serve the interests of the people and only the elite in the fact that they are ignoring and HAVE been ignoring the american people to get rid of the federal reserve? 🙄Its nausiating for me seeing all these OBAMA BIDEN bumper stickers everywhere I go.All those idiots in chicago dont realise he is no different than Bush or Clinton like they want to believe.People are finally waking up-although it might be too late,that the government is not here to serve the people and that we have a two headed snake system that doesnt work.That neither party is for the people.Thats why I was glad to see Obama get elected because everybody thinks he is going to bring great changes when he has proven he has lied about everything he has said he was going to do.
If Mccain had been elected,the people would just go and say-well its the republicans,their still continuing to screw up america.Obama would have pulled us out of these wars. Well NOW they wont be able to say that,their now starting to see that Obama is no different than all those other corrupt presidents such as both Bush presidents,Reagan,Nixon,Clinton after making 21 of his 27 appointees former Clinton appointees,the same corrupt ones people voted out of office and of course keeping some Bush administration members on as well.their starting to see the light that NEITHER party -the reprocrats or the demopublicans are for the people and that congress is bought off and paid for and not here to represent the people either.
Actually it was a quarter of a million people and they were organizing a "tea bagging" (guess they didn't know that meant putting your nuts on someones face). They were protesting the raise in taxes obama proposed...despite the fact that it only affects something like 8% of the U.S. Which is basically none of the people that were protesting. What's funny is that when asked if they knew that most of them didn't and still kept bashing Obama. Of course I do agree that congress and the like are grossly misusing tax money.
Housing Bubble Smackdown: Bigger Crash Ahead
Mike Whitney
Global Research
April 21, 2009
Due to the lifting of the foreclosure moratorium at the end of March, the downward slide in housing is gaining speed. The moratorium was initiated in January to give Obama’s anti-foreclosure program—which is a combination of mortgage modifications and refinancing—a chance to succeed. The goal of the plan was to keep up to 9 million struggling homeowners in their homes, but it’s clear now that the program will fall well-short of its objective.
Another 20 percent carved off the aggregate value of US housing means another $4 trillion loss to homeowners.
In March, housing prices accelerated on the downside indicating bigger adjustments dead-ahead. Trend-lines are steeper now than ever before–nearly perpendicular. Housing prices are not falling, they’re crashing and crashing hard. Now that the foreclosure moratorium has ended, Notices of Default (NOD) have spiked to an all-time high. These Notices will turn into foreclosures in 4 to 5 months time creating another cascade of foreclosures. Market analysts predict there will be 5 MILLION MORE FORECLOSURES BETWEEN NOW AND 2011. It’s a disaster bigger than Katrina. Soaring unemployment and rising foreclosures ensure that hundreds of banks and financial institutions will be forced into bankruptcy. 40 percent of delinquent homeowners have already vacated their homes. There’s nothing Obama can do to make them stay. Worse still, only 30 percent of foreclosures have been relisted for sale suggesting more hanky-panky at the banks. Where have the houses gone? Have they simply vanished?
600,000 "DISAPPEARED HOMES?"
Here’s a excerpt from the SF Gate explaining the mystery:
"Lenders nationwide are sitting on hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes that they have not resold or listed for sale, according to numerous data sources. And foreclosures, which banks unload at fire-sale prices, are a major factor driving home values down.
"We believe there are in the neighborhood of 600,000 properties nationwide that banks have repossessed but not put on the market," said Rick Sharga, vice president of RealtyTrac, which compiles nationwide statistics on foreclosures. "California probably represents 80,000 of those homes. It could be disastrous if the banks suddenly flooded the market with those distressed properties. You’d have further depreciation and carnage."
In a recent study, RealtyTrac compared its database of bank-repossessed homes to MLS listings of for-sale homes in four states, including California. It found a significant disparity - only 30 percent of the foreclosures were listed for sale in the Multiple Listing Service. The remainder is known in the industry as "shadow inventory." ("Banks aren’t Selling Many Foreclosed Homes" SF Gate)
If regulators were deployed to the banks that are keeping foreclosed homes off the market, they would probably find that the banks are actually servicing the mortgages on a monthly basis to conceal the extent of their losses. They’d also find that the banks are trying to keep housing prices artificially high to avoid heftier losses that would put them out of business. One thing is certain, 600,000 "disappeared" homes means that housing prices have a lot farther to fall and that an even larger segment of the banking system is underwater.
Here is more on the story from Mr. Mortgage "California Foreclosures About to Soar…Again"
"Are you ready to see the future? Ten’s of thousands of foreclosures are only 1-5 months away from hitting that will take total foreclosure counts back to all-time highs. This will flood an already beaten-bloody real estate market with even more supply just in time for the Spring/Summer home selling season…Foreclosure start (NOD) and Trustee Sale (NTS) notices are going out at levels not seen since mid 2008. Once an NTS goes out, the property is taken to the courthouse and auctioned within 21-45 days….The bottom line is that there is a massive wave of actual foreclosures that will hit beginning in April that can’t be stopped without a national moratorium."
JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Fannie Mae have all stepped up their foreclosure activity in recent weeks. Delinquencies have skyrocketed foreshadowing more price-slashing into the foreseeable future. According to the Wall Street Journal:
"Ronald Temple, co-director of research at Lazard Asset Management, expects home prices to fall 22% to 27% from their January levels. More than 2.1 million homes will be lost this year because borrowers can’t meet their loan payments, up from about 1.7 million in 2008." (Ruth Simon, "The housing crisis is about to take center stage once again" Wall Street Journal)
Another 20 percent carved off the aggregate value of US housing means another $4 trillion loss to homeowners. That means smaller retirement savings, less discretionary spending, and lower living standards. The next leg down in housing will be excruciating; every sector will feel the pain. Obama’s $75 billion mortgage rescue plan is a mere pittance; it won’t reduce the principle on mortgages and it won’t stop the bleeding. Policymakers have decided they’ve done enough and are refusing to help. They don’t see the tsunami looming in front of them plain as day. The housing market is going under and it’s going to drag a good part of the broader economy along with it. Stocks, too.
http://www.infowars.com/housing-bubble-smackdown-bigger-crash-ahead/
Change you have been told to believe in: A closer examination of Barack Obama’s foreign policy
Freedom of Information
April 17, 2009
“What you want in a media system is ostensible diversity that conceals actual uniformity”
- Joseph Goebbels
The election of Barack Obama has been rightly heralded across the world as a defining moment in the history of the United States. The election of the nation’s first black president is symbolic of the progress made in terms of attitudes towards racial harmony and acceptance in a country where less than fifty years previously basic rights and entitlements were routinely denied to non-white people, and a dehumanising structure incorporating segregation and separation kept people permanently excluded from any sort of meaningful political representation according to their ethnicity.
Obama’s victory has cued an outpouring of elation and hope both among the American people and abroad, which says much for the disastrous two-term presidency that preceded his victory. For many Americans and those of the younger generations in particular, the election of the Democratic candidate represents a rejection of eight years of George W. Bush’s neoconservative rule. The Bush administration was characterised by callous militarism, total disregard for international consensus on matters such as war and torture and policies that have progressively eroded civil and constitutional rights within the United States.
Bush left office with plummeting approval ratings, his hugely unpopular policies having engendered overwhelming anti-American sentiment internationally and created a climate of fear and intimidation in the United States that has undermined the preservation of freedom of speech and justice. The wars started by Bush’s administration have taken an enormous toll; an ORB survey estimates that more than a million Iraqis had died by August 2007 following the 2003 invasion of that country, in addition to the millions of displaced, and American military casualties since Bush took office now number more than 5,000, with over 100,000 soldiers estimated wounded.
Public opinion demanded an end to the wars of aggression, the torture and warrantless wiretapping. The American people cried out for an end to the no-bid contracts for Halliburton and a halt to the intimate relationship with the highest echelons of elected power enjoyed by big business. People had had enough of a government which seemed to revel in trampling on the country’s core values, and under whose rule those suspected of being enemies of the state are now guilty until proven innocent. It was in this context that Barack Obama was elected; indeed his campaign could be succinctly represented by one word: “Change”.
Those who elected Obama on anti-war grounds, however, had not read the small print. Indeed, Obama’s status as a champion of pacifism can be attributed in no small part to the stance taken by his Republican opponent during the campaign; compared to John McCain’s overt belligerence, Obama became the candidate of peace by default. Whereas McCain hypothesised that American military involvement in Iraq could continue for “a hundred years”, Obama affirmed in September 2007 that, “[t]here is no military solution in Iraq and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now.”
In July 2008, Obama said that a previous commitment and campaign pledge to complete a full withdrawal of combat troops within 16 months could be “refined” at a later date, and following his inauguration he indeed extended the timetable for the prospective pullout to between 19 and 23 months. Obama’s current position is that a “residual force” of up to 50,000 troops will be left in the country after this 23-month period has elapsed – giving rise to consternation from anti-war activists and from some within the Democratic Party. There are currently 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and therefore the proposed 50,000-strong residual force represents more than one third of the American forces currently serving in the country. Under an agreement signed between George W. Bush and the Iraqi government in 2008, all U.S. troops must be out of Iraq by December 31st 2011.
Aside from the somewhat confused stance with regards to the Iraq pullout, President Obama has been criticised by opponents of the ‘war on terror’ for pledging to almost double the number of U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan. His proposal to supplement the existing force of 36,000 with an additional 30,000 troops – presumably consisting in no small part of soldiers who have already served in Iraq – contradicts statements made in July 2008, in which Obama had suggested increasing the U.S. presence in Afghanistan by just 7,000. Since taking office, Obama has already dispatched an additional 17,000 U.S. troops to the country.
The newly elected President wasted no time whatsoever in continuing another policy inherited from his predecessor; attacks by unmanned drones inside Pakistani territory. In September 2008, Obama called the first attacks carried out by the government of George W. Bush inside Pakistan a “small step in the right direction.” Susan Rice, top foreign policy advisor to Obama’s campaign, said of the raids – undertaken without approval from Islamabad - that the U.S. had a right “Not to invade. Not to take over Pakistan’s sovereignty, but to take out that target as an act of self-defence”. Obama stated publicly as far back as July 2007 that he had no qualms whatsoever about using military force against “al-Qaeda” in Pakistan, even without consultation with the Pakistani government, provoking outrage in a country that has been a key strategic ally of the United States during the ‘war on terror’. Following his inauguration, Obama did not dawdle in making good on those threats.
The new President carried out the first such strike just three days into his term in office on January 23 2009, killing 22 people inside Pakistani territory and provoking huge protests in the tribal heartlands of North & South Waziristan. The total number of unauthorised U.S. raids inside Pakistani territory since August 2008 now stands at more than 30. Pakistani officials were quick to condemn these attacks as violations of their national sovereignty, pointing out that many civilians have been killed by missiles fired from unmanned drones since the raids began last summer, and emphasising that in terms of winning hearts and minds in the region such aggressions are counter productive to say the least.
Another potential sphere of conflict following Obama’s electoral success is Iran. In a statement made before the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – widely considered to be the most powerful lobby group representing the interests of any foreign nation in Washington - in March 2007, Obama called Iran “a threat to all of us” and received a standing ovation from the crowd in attendance as he said global leaders must do “whatever it takes” to stop Iran from enriching uranium – refusing to rule out a recourse to force, and called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad “reckless, irresponsible and inattentive”.
In an address to the Iranian people given in March 2009, Obama appeared to change tack somewhat, declaring, “The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right - but it comes with real responsibilities.” This apparent reference to Iran’s nuclear programme, which the Persian state claims is purely for civilian and not military purposes, reiterates the line taken by the Bush administration. Earlier in the month Barack Obama had extended U.S. sanctions against Iran that began under Bill Clinton in 1995 and had been continued throughout the presidency of George W. Bush, claiming that Iran poses a threat to U.S. “national security”. The sanctions would have expired automatically had Obama not extended them for another 12 months. In an address to the U.S. congress, the new President stated, “The actions and policies of the government of Iran are contrary to the interests of the United States in the region and pose a continuing and unusual and extraordinary threat”. Obama’s refusal to rule out using force against Iran and his decision to extend American sanctions has not gone unnoticed in Tehran. “Unlimited sanctions which still continue and have been renewed by the United States are wrong and need to be reviewed”, said President Ahmadinejad in response to Obama’s message to the Iranian people. “By fundamentally changing its behaviour America can offer us a friendly hand,” he added. A fundamental change in behaviour does not look on the cards however, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates confirmed as much when he stated, “the opportunity for success in is probably more in economic sanctions [in Iran & North Korea] than it is in diplomacy”
One area of U.S. foreign policy that the newly elected President is coming under increasing pressure to act on is the United States’ controversial relationship with Israel, particularly in the wake of evidence that the Israeli military committed war crimes during the 23-day Gaza war. Barack Obama maintained a deafening silence throughout the Israeli onslaught, which was carried out in the period between his election and his inauguration, even though the then President-elect was vocal in his condemnation of the attacks in Mumbai, and gave numerous statements regarding the global financial crisis during the same period.
In his aforementioned address to AIPAC in March 2007, Barack Obama stated, “We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs”. The then senator’s performance at the forum received a rave review from the Washington correspondent of Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, who remarked that Obama “sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So he is pro-Israel. Period.”
Israel has been the largest recipient of foreign aid from the United States since the Second World War, receiving approximately $3 billion per year in grants since 1985. In August 2007 under the government of George W. Bush, the U.S. signed an agreement pledging Israel $30 billion in armaments over the next decade. 26.3% of the money may be spent on arms produced by Israeli manufacturers, with the rest being earmarked for the purchase of weapons and military equipment from U.S. arms producers. Nicholas Burns, the U.S. Undersecretary of State who signed the deal during Bush’s presidency called it an “investment in peace”, saying that, “peace cannot be made without strength”.
Some of the appointments the new President has made since taking office have also done little to assuage those who fear there is little difference between his policies and those of his predecessor. Obama decided to retain Robert Gates as Defense Secretary, who picks up where he left off in the same position to which George W. Bush appointed him. Obama has appointed Rahm Emanuel, a former investment banker and one-time volunteer in the Israeli army, as his Chief of Staff. Emanuel is a particularly polemic figure in the context of the economic downturn because of his strong ties to Wall Street – he has been one of Congress’ top recipients of Wall Street contributions since his congressional election in 2002. Indeed, Rahm Emanuel was the top House recipient in the 2008 election cycle of contributions from hedge funds, private equity firms and the securities/investment industry – putting him at odds with Obama’s frequent criticism of Wall Street’s financial institutions, although Obama himself also took large contributions from the securities and investment industries.
Despite Obama’s affirmation that none of his appointees would be placed in positions that, “directly and substantially related to their prior employer, for two years”, the new President has selected William J. Lynn III as deputy Defense Secretary. This has provoked outrage among peace campaigners and anti-war activists, as Lynn served as head of government relations for arms manufacturer Raytheon, where he was also a top executive, prior to his selection by Obama, prompting accusations of a conflict of interest. In November 2007, Obama announced that,
“I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.”
However just weeks into his administration that is already starting to look like dated campaign rhetoric. Other notable lobbyists appointed to high-level positions by Obama include former lobbyist for investment banking giant Goldman Sachs Mark Patterson who has been selected as Chief of Staff at the Treasury, Attorney General Eric Holder who formerly lobbied for the now bankrupt telecommunications firm Global Crossing Ltd. and Mona Sutphen, who lobbied for a number of corporate clients including Angliss International, who has been selected as deputy White House Chief of Staff.
Finally, one of the first high-profile ‘changes’ Obama made after taking office was to sign an order that many media outlets reported would close the United States’ detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba within a year and return America to “the moral high ground” in the ‘war on terror’. Such reports were premature however, and skated over the fact that Obama has signed executive orders since taking office that preserve and protect the controversial practice of rendition; secret abduction and transfer of prisoners and ‘terror suspects’ to “countries that cooperate with the United States”. Current and former U.S. intelligence officials even stated that there might be an “expansion” of the practice of rendition given that other avenues for ‘interrogation’, such as the transfer of suspects to Guantanamo Bay, have been closed by the government. Obama administration officials confirmed that the orders to shut the CIA’s network of secret prisons “do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis”, according to the LA Times. Suspects who have been held in secret prisons have given harrowing accounts in recent years of brutal torture experienced at these ‘black world’ camps in countries such as Algeria and Poland, and under executive orders signed by Obama such treatment of detainees will be allowed to continue.
It is frequently stated that Obama and his administration must be given time before judgement can be passed; that perhaps Obama is holding back his more radical policies until he is able to gain a stronger grounding that will enable him to better implement real change. However, in the face of the available information, this looks like wishful thinking. Barack Obama has unquestionably softened the rhetoric used in comparison with his predecessor, who seemed unmoved by his overwhelming unpopularity and by consistent opposition to his unethical policy decisions. Obama is a much more palatable figure than the likes of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney; he is more charismatic, more charming and clearly more intelligent than the man he has replaced as president, and this has evidently endeared him to many in the U.S. and around the world. The underlying problem is that, as notorious neoconservative commentator Ann Coulter observed whilst commenting on Obama’s handling of issues of ‘national security’, “we ought to be gloating because he seems to be continuing the policies of George Bush”.
Smooth rhetoric aside, as of yet there is precious little that distinguishes President Obama from his Republican forerunner in terms of foreign policy and the rolling out of a draconian police state within the United States. It is looking increasingly unlikely with each passing day that those who were wooed by the most expensive presidential campaign in U.S. history and swept Barack Obama into the White House on an unprecedented wave of popular fervour will stand up and hold the new President to account for the flagrant violations of his campaign’s principles that are already piling up within the first hundred days of his term in office.
It's time for good people to stand up and do something.
What the World needs now more possibly than at any other time in history, is for good people to stand up and do something. As Edmund Berke once said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Think about that statement for a second. In order for Evil to triumph, Good people have to do nothing. The two go hand in hand. What the World, and all of the nations around the World need most right now, is REAL hope and REAL change. Not manufactured cope and change. Not hope and change promised to us from corrupt politicians. But the kind of hope and change that comes from inside of each and every single good hearted good natured person in the World.
When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle. Edmund Burke
The bottom line is, and we all know it's true, is that we have given too much power over to our governments and our politicians. And unfortunately these governments and politicians have become intoxicated by that power. And if we want things to change, we have to dissolve some of that power.
Those who have been once intoxicated with power, and have derived any kind of emolument from it, even though but for one year, never can willingly abandon it. They may be distressed in the midst of all their power; but they will never look to any thing but power for their relief. Edmund Burke
All who have ever written on government are unanimous, that among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot long exist.
The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts. Edmund Burke
People crushed by law, have no hopes but from power. If laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to laws; and those who have much to hope and nothing to lose, will always be dangerous. Edmund Burke
A man full of warm, speculative benevolence may wish his society otherwise constituted than he finds it, but a good patriot and a true politician always considers how he shall make the most of the existing materials of his country. A disposition to preserve and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my standard of a statesman. Everything else is vulgar in the conception, perilous in the execution. Edmund Burke