See other Resistance Articles
Title: The 'Second American Revolution' Has Begun
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.rense.com/general87/second.htm
Published: Aug 13, 2009
Author: Gerald Celente
Post Date: 2009-08-13 08:39:12 by Horse
Keywords: None
Views: 888
Comments: 83
KINGSTON, NY -- The natives are restless. The third shot of the "Second American Revolution" has been fired. History is being made. But just as with the first two shots, the third shot is not being heard. America is seething. Not since the Civil War has anything like this happened. But the protests are either being intentionally downplayed or ignorantly misinterpreted. The first shot was fired on April 15, 2009. Over 700 anti-tax rallies and "Tea Parties" erupted nationwide. Rather than acknowledge their significance, the general media either ignored or ridiculed both protests and protestors, playing on "tea bagging" for its sexual innuendo. Initially President Obama said he was unaware of the tea parties. The White House later warned they could "mutate" into something "unhealthy." Shot #2 was fired on the Fourth of July, when throngs of citizens across the nation gathered to again protest "taxation without representation." And as before, the demonstrations were branded right-wing mischief and dismissed. The third volley, fired in early August, was aimed point blank at Senators and House members pitching President Obama's health care reform package to constituents. In fiery town hall meetings, enraged citizens shouted down their elected representatives. It took a strong police presence and/or burly bodyguards to preserve a safe physical space between the politicians and irate townspeople. The White House and the media have labeled protestors "conservative fringe elements," or as players in staged events organized by Republican operatives that have been egged on by Fox news and right-wing radio show hosts. In regard to this latest wave of outbursts, health industry interests opposed to any reform are also being blamed for inciting the public. But organized or spontaneous is not the issue. While most protestors exhibit little grasp of the complex 1000 page health care reform document (that nary a legislator has read either), their emotion is clearly real and un-staged. Rightly or wrongly, the legislation is regarded as yet another straw on the already overloaded camel's back. A series of gigantic, unpopular government-imposed (but taxpayer-financed) bailouts, buyouts, rescue and stimulus packages have been stuffed down the gullet of Americans. With no public platform to voice their opposition, options for citizens have been limited to fruitless petitions, e-mails and phone calls to Congress all fielded by anonymous staff underlings. Now, with Congress in recess and elected representatives less than a stone's throw away, the public is exploding. The devil is not in the details of the heath care reform, the devil is the government mandating health care. Regardless of how the plan is pitched or what is being promised, to the public the legislation is yet another instance of big government taking another piece out of their lives and making them pay for it; again telling them what they can or cannot do. Though in its early stages, the "Second American Revolution" is underway. Yet, what we forecast will become the most profound political trend of the century the trend that will change the world is still invisible to the same experts, authorities and pundits who didn't see the financial crisis coming until the bottom fell out of the economy. Trend Forecast: Conditions will continue to deteriorate. The global economy is terminally ill. The recession is in a brief remission, not the early stages of recovery. Cheap money, easy credit and unrestrained borrowing brought on an economic crisis that cannot be cured by monetary and fiscal policies that promote more cheap money, easy credit and unrestrained borrowing. Nevertheless, Washington will continue to intervene, tax and exert control. Protests will escalate and riots will follow. Fourth Shot of the "Second American Revolution": While there are many wild cards that could light the fuse, The Trends Research Institute forecasts that if the threat of government-forced Swine Flu vaccinations is realized, it will be the fourth shot. Tens of millions will fight for their right to remain free and unvaccinated. Publisher's Note: The power of the Internet and new technologies is inexorably fermenting the "Second American Revolution." However widespread and emotionally charged, had the tax rallies, tea parties and healthcare reform protests occurred in years past, they might have been covered by the local media, but might not have made national headline news and thus would have died stillborn. Now, with the ubiquitous camera-equipped cell phone, universal access to YouTube, and millions of twitters and tweets, the uprisings cannot be ignored, contained, managed, spun or edited down. The revolutionary fervor will prove contagious. Can anything stop it? Trend Forecast: Before the momentum of the "Second American Revolution" becomes unstoppable, it could be derailed through some false flag event designed to deceive the public, or a genuine event or crisis capable of rallying the entire nation behind the President. In a worst-case scenario, according to Trends Research Institute Director, Gerald Celente, "Given the pattern of governments to parlay egregious failures into mega-failures, the classic trend they follow, when all else fails, is to take their nation to war." A false flag attempt, a genuine crisis, or a declaration of war, may slow the momentum of the "Second American Revolution," but nothing will stop it.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-14) not displayed.
.
.
.
#15. To: PaulCJ (#10)
If he has the "right" why was it necessary to pass a law so declaring?
--I Brake For The Invisible
Horribly, something like "Jericho" on some unknown scale might occur. Remember, in Jericho, Halliburton/KBR, Blackwater and the DHS were the bad guys.
I don't watch Mainstream Media [Tel avivision], but sounds like they have some of the enemies figured out correctly.
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces. De La Boétie
That is silly. Why would they destroy the country they already control? They'd simply get us in world war III if they wanted a false flag event. Someone like the Chinese. Big enough to scare the shit out of us all, but easily handled in a real war.
I doubt it's that high. And it's easy to be against something when it's been wholly misrepresented...e.g....the end of private insurance...Death Panels... The problem of course is the serial dishonesty regarding Obamacare®. And who is doing the misrepresentation? Obama's words and claims do not match what is written in the actual bills that are now circulating. Oh'bummer can claim that it provides Green Cheese for All and if that is not in the bill it ain't going to happen. Conversely if Oh'bummer claims that some thing that is opposed is not what he is supporting BUT it is in the bill then that is the way it will be. What we are seeing now is some sophisticated tap dancing with rigged "Town Halls" full of plants, and eliminating opposition voices, set up to toss softballs to Oh'bummer. In other words Oh'bummer, and his "crew", are seeding disinformation and intentionally confusing the criticisms of the hellthcare plan by adding inapplicable references and data. So as the right hand does one thing while the left hand distracts the rubes the actual bill will be very (Surprise!) different from the Liar-in-Chiefs calming platitudes. In other words the level of opposition is so strong that they cannot pass it claiming that it is supported by the citizenry and it becomes obvious that someone else is driving the agenda. To be fair I would oppose ANY National Socialist Hellthcare plan but the level of dishonesty surrounding the current Trojan Horse is really quite stunning. National Hellthcare means the government decides who gets what when and that it turn is controlled by those who control the government i.e., the usual suspects the Banksters and their Pyschiatrists. It is really that simple. In the current mix the Pipers dictating the tune are the Pharmaceutical Oligopoly, the Big Insurance companies, and a covert Eugenics/Population reduction Program. Any bill that emerges under the current circumstances will be for their - the elites - benefit not ours. As it stands now it would enshrine the AMA quacks, and Pharmaceutical based medicine as the ONLY approved forms of hellthcare thus eliminating those pesky Chiropractors, Naturopaths etc., ... with their low cost (and minimal to no side effects) alternatives to Big Pharma (again owned by the Bankster Familia). And people are increasingly CHOOSING those alternatives thus cutting into their profits and eventual control of ALL hellthcare for their eugenics programs. (The last estimate I heard was that approximately 51 percent of all discretionary health spending by consumers was upon alternatives to the AMA/Big Pharma combine.) The real point of the National Socialist Helltcare program is CONTROL. By controlling Hellthcare they control what the public can receive, when they can receive it, and who can receive it. It also provides a vector for seeding population reduction toxins (sterilizing agents, disease, selectively withholding care, suppressing low cost non-pharma cures, etc., ...) all under the guise of "Public Hellth" and "cost reduction". Of course once installed if you don't cooperate it means you're insane and for your own safety and that of others you will have to be put on forced Psychiatric Drugs as only the insane would oppose forced drugging, deadly vaccinations, and population reduction through covert "medical" programs. Lost in the debate, intentionally, is whether this is even an area which the controlled National Government has any right to be in. But of course "it's for the children." (After all they have to kill off enough of the little bastards to cement their control.)
"I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
Brilliant - thanks.
Thank you. "I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
So you are saying the Bill of Rights is unnecessary? If you believe so, then you are ignorant of history.
You misunderstand what I am stating. I was saying is that communist leaders will not say, nor allow to be said in the nation they are controlling, anything that looks bad for the communist leaders and their agenda. We already known there have literally been thousands of labor strikes and riots in China over work conditions. Now, do you understand?
It is also shocking politicians defend the fact that they refuse to read the bill.
It is also shocking politicians defend the fact that they refuse to read the bill. As long as they refuse then they can fall back on their old mea culpa trick to mollify the sheeple "that's in there? Why I had no idea."
"I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
No, the Bill of Rights were those guarantees which were required by the states before they would ratify the Constitution. They rank above any other amendments legally and the Constitution itself loses a substantial portion of its own legitimacy. The Constitution has no legal moorings without the Bill of Rights. And you have no rights with it. And you sure sound like someone who desires the repeal of the Second.
Incorrect. The Constitution (and BOR) guarantee rights we already posess as individuals. They do not provide us with those rights, they are not the source of rights. They simply recognize the rights we have inherent in us, and promise to act as a guarantor of said rights. Without that piece of paper, you'd still have every right listed in the BOR.
Let's cut to the crux here...if that is so why is the STRONGEST and FIERCEST opposition coming from the BEST COMPENDATED segment of corporate health care?
--I Brake For The Invisible
Wha...huh?
--I Brake For The Invisible
No, the Bill of Rights were those guarantees which were required by the states before they would ratify the Constitution. They rank above any other amendments legally and the Constitution itself loses a substantial portion of its own legitimacy. The Constitution has no legal moorings without the Bill of Rights. And you have no rights with it. And you sure sound like someone who desires the repeal of the Second. While repealing the bill of rights would be a slap in the face to Americas legacy, it is possible to repeal them legally. No part of the constitution is uneditable. The first amendment could be repealed as easily as the inauguration was change from march to January, legally speaking.
That isn't the law that he, himself cited.
--I Brake For The Invisible
Which would affect our rights in no way whatsoever. We'd simply have to guarantee them ourselves as individuals. We'd still, however, continue to hold those rights. They're inalienable, you see. :)
The only rights you have the rights you fight for, or we collectively fight for. Pretending you have inherent rights does nothing in the real world to give you real rights. In this Locke and Jefferson were being wrong or naive. Rights are an man made creation. Nature has no need for rights as it has no will.
They rather clearly are not inalienable. Nature doesn't care about you or your rights. In fact it doesn't care about anything, nor can it care.
I don't live by the law of the jungle, sorry. All abstract concepts are human constructs. That does not mean that the abstraction of objective reality falls into the realm of fantasy. 1 + 1 = 2, even though math is an abstraction of objective reality created by the human mind. Law exists to protect rights. Law does not instill rights. Any other view, leads to tyranny and law of the jungle in short order. A world of brutes and thugs, rapes and murder and wanton slaughter for the joy of pain. You are free to believe as you will. But if you (and a lot of friends) ever manage to repeal the BOR, I'm still acting according to the notion that I posses rights inalienable to my being. And so will most people.
Nonetheless, I posses rights inalienable to my being. They're not yours to give or take, no matter how many guns you have. This is axiomatic. You can fight me till you're blue in the face about it, end of the day, my rights are mine and mine alone and always mine, regardless of what you or others think about it. Make laws, repeal laws, hold a gun to my face, it doesn't matter, you simply cannot remove what cannot be removed. I am, we all are in fact, better than the brute animals and beasts of this universe. :)
The reality of the universe isn't subject your wishes and whims. What you mean is you think there should be inalienable rights. Math is a way of modeling the real world. Your views on rights are you subjective opinion and they are in no way objective. What reason do you believe that? Irrelevant, but also not true. Sounds like the real world to me. I don't want to repeal the bill of rights, I believe they are the source of my rights. Like I said your rights are coming from your willingness to assert them. Not nature.
If not from nature or programmed by God, from whom or what do you derive your "moral code"? Who should define "good"? "Evil"? "Right or wrong"? OR, does "Might = Right"? IS peace "logical," Spock? Afterall, according to The Church of Darwin, no one deserves to live but the strongest.
No you don't. You claim to. It is simply your opinion. And I'm saying your axiom is false.
Sorry, I don't live by the law of the jungle. You'll have to find somebody else to sell the notion to that rights come from government/law. I'm not buying it. Sorry.
The fastest road to the destruction of liberty was when the radical Marxist left went after the institution of religion. Whether one believes in a god or not, the fact is, that it is the foundational wellspring of most concepts of human freedom in the West, historically. It is only in the cold, harsh, atheist Marxist world that we find massive slaughter numbering in the tens to maybe hundreds of millions of individuals by governments who declared themselves supreme dictators of one's rights or lack thereof.
Not really, since our sole supplier of rare earth magnets used in ALL of our precision guided munitions is China.
The human mind. Very clearly you do as well since you probably don't support the slavery or child murder the Abraham god sanctions. Good and evil, right and wrong are person opinions just as beautiful and ugly. In my opinion no. In yours yes, because your view of morality is based upon what you think a God would punish you for. No, peace is not always logical. And morality is never purely logical, because it always requires a subjective starting point as an axiom. Though logic should be used to construct moral codes from subjective starting points. For example valuing human life isn't logical, it is a feeling. From there we can say murder is wrong in most cases since it takes away human life. How ignorant are you? Aside from your childish name for a scientific field of study, you make an extremely inaccurate claim about it. Anyone who thinks evolution says the strongest deserve to live, doesn't understand evolution in even the most basic level. The most adapted to their environment survive. That is a fact, not an opinion. And you can't get from is to aught.
You'll have to find somebody else to sell the notion to that rights come from government/law. I'm not buying it. Sorry. You still can't explain why you think rights are inherent. You just believe they are and argue why it would be bad if they weren't. You are engaging in wishful thinking.
Whether one believes in a god or not, the fact is, that it is the foundational wellspring of most concepts of human freedom in the West, historically. It is only in the cold, harsh, atheist Marxist world that we find massive slaughter numbering in the tens to maybe hundreds of millions of individuals by governments who declared themselves supreme dictators of one's rights or lack thereof. SPOT ON. We see the same road to destruction as secular humanist Europe has largely assaulted and purged Christianity - to its detriment. The void must be filled, whether by the vampires of the Marxist Left, or the Cult of Islam.
There isn't one single accurate fact in that ignorant paragraph. Religion has never asserted human rights. Jefferson's claims about natural rights are heresy to Christianity. The idea of rights, and natural rights were the invention of the Age of Reason, the enlightenment. And it was their rejection of religion and their adoption of logic and reason that led them there. You must not have read any Franklin, Jefferson, or Paine. They rejected religion almost entirely. Even today the agents of religion are the agents of tyranny.
Sorry. My rights are mine and inalienable. I don't have to justify them to you. You cannot take them by force, nor by persuasion. I'm a very frustrating individual, I'll bet. I could easily engage you in an in depth debate about the epistemology of my beliefs and how I've come to my set of axioms. We could debate the framework of morality I hold, and I could provide a thousand logical answers to a thousand questions. We could go over Locke, Hume, DeCartes, Aristotle, Socrates, Plato all line and verse for months I'll bet. Debate the nature of reality itself, of quantuum realities or non-reality or perception being reality versus perception being formed by reality. I used to do so quite a bit on other forums in years gone by actually. Ask around. But I'm sorry, that time has passed. The time of digging in has arrived. Debate the wind for all I care. No offense, I don't know you personally and have no history with you, it's nothing personal. I'm comfortable with my view on life now, and no longer feel the need to argue it. Now I'm all about getting ready to fight for that view of life. Force is required of course to fight for the ability to exercise one's rights, without question. But even without the ability to exercise a right, I still posses it innately. That's where things stand right now.
That's a typical view of somebody only a little studied in religion and a lot studied in the words of those who despise religion. I encountered exactly that kind of derision in college, mostly from profs and kids who had a superficial grasp of what they were talking about at best, and saw only what they wanted to see to justify their forgone conclusions about religion. You don't have to be a Christian to admire the base tenets of Christianity. Intellectual growth comes not from nihilism, you know.
Alright pretend whatever you want. Your inalienable rights are entirely indistinguishable from having no rights at all.
That's only your opinion, based on nothing but a faith in a lack of faith. :) Cheers.
Are you McCain_Rocks on LP?
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976 The purpose of the legal system is to protect the elites from the wrath of those they plunder.- Elliott Jackalope
That humans are worthless slaves who are born sick and commanded to evil (to steal a quote from the always eloquent Christopher Hitchens)? Have you read the New Testament with a critical eye? Its a mess of juvenile philosophy, mixed with stupidity, and the unbelievable. It preaches this world (the only one we actually get to live in) is useless, and we should wait around for the next. It is poisonous to the human soul. The only good thing I can say about it, is most christians don't actually take it seriously and ignore it, only to quote mine it to rationalize their own personal morality. Nihilism isn't just merely atheism you know.
You're free to hold whatever beliefs you wish. Even if others say you can't. ;) Cheers (that means later gator in this context)
Let's cut to the crux here...if that is so why is the STRONGEST and FIERCEST opposition coming from the BEST COMPENDATED segment of corporate health care? Not true. Big Pharma is rolling out an Ad Campaign IN SUPPORT of Obamacare®. From no less than the New York Times: Drug Industry to Run Ads Favoring White House Plan - NYTimes.com. This Hellthplan is corporate welfare, profit supports, for the existing dominant players in the Hellthcare Megaplex as well as key element of the Global Depopulation/Eugenics Programs.
"I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
Are you McCain_Rocks on LP? Fuck no. I was Rhino369, and then Rhino on LP. I believe humans have rights, but the idea that they are inherent in the universe is obviously not true. I believe the only way to secure rights to assert them in this world. Our rights come from a social contract, not a Jefferson's imaginary god. I love Jefferson's work, but his insistence on creating his own god to legitimize his points is quite embarrassing.
Comments (56 - 83) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#16. To: noone222 (#1)
A false flag attempt, a genuine crisis, or a declaration of war, may slow the momentum of the "Second American Revolution," but nothing will stop it. Spot on, Gerald !
#17. To: echo5sierra (#16)
Remember, in Jericho, Halliburton/KBR, Blackwater and the DHS were the bad guys.
#18. To: echo5sierra (#16)
Horribly, something like "Jericho" on some unknown scale might occur. Remember, in Jericho, Halliburton/KBR, Blackwater and the DHS were the bad guys.
#19. To: war, PaulCJ, christine, TwentyTwelve, JamesDeffenbach, bluegrass, Lod, Cynicom, farmfriend, CadetD, IndieTX, randge, all (#14)
(Edited)
According to a Times poll yesterday, 80 percent of the people are against Obamacare.
#20. To: Original_Intent (#19)
#21. To: Lod (#20)
#22. To: war (#15)
If he has the "right" why was it necessary to pass a law so declaring?
#23. To: Sam Houston (#12)
(Edited)
Ron Paul economic adviser Peter Schiff must be a Communist then. He has just launched a mutual fund to invest solely in mainland Chinese companies.
#24. To: Original_Intent (#19)
To be fair I would oppose ANY National Socialist Hellthcare plan but the level of dishonesty surrounding the current Trojan Horse is really quite stunning.
#25. To: PaulCJ (#24)
To be fair I would oppose ANY National Socialist Hellthcare plan but the level of dishonesty surrounding the current Trojan Horse is really quite stunning.
#26. To: war (#13)
Someone else - not sure who - once observed that "the Bill of Rights are just amendments" implying they could be repealed and repealed they can be and while I may not agree with the implied threat behind that observation I can tell you that I fear it.
#27. To: TooConservative (#26)
And you have no rights with it.
#28. To: Original_Intent (#19)
bill that emerges under the current circumstances will be for their - the elites - benefit not ours.
#29. To: TooConservative (#26)
They rank above any other amendments legally
#30. To: TooConservative (#26)
#31. To: PaulCJ (#22)
So you are saying the Bill of Rights is unnecessary?
#32. To: Rhino369 (#30)
#33. To: SonOfLiberty (#27)
The Constitution (and BOR) guarantee rights we already posess as individuals. They do not provide us with those rights, they are not the source of rights. They simply recognize the rights we have inherent in us, and promise to act as a guarantor of said rights. Without that piece of paper, you'd still have every right listed in the BOR.
#34. To: SonOfLiberty (#32)
Which would affect our rights in no way whatsoever. We'd simply have to guarantee them ourselves as individuals. We'd still, however, continue to hold those rights. They're inalienable, you see. :)
#35. To: Rhino369 (#33)
#36. To: Rhino369 (#34)
#37. To: SonOfLiberty (#35)
I don't live by the law of the jungle, sorry.
That does not mean that the abstraction of objective reality falls into the realm of fantasy. 1 + 1 = 2, even though math is an abstraction of objective reality created by the human mind.
Law exists to protect rights. Law does not instill rights.
Any other view, leads to tyranny and law of the jungle in short order.
A world of brutes and thugs, rapes and murder and wanton slaughter for the joy of pain.
But if you (and a lot of friends) ever manage to repeal the BOR, I'm still acting according to the notion that I posses rights inalienable to my being.
I'm still acting according to the notion that I posses rights inalienable to my being. And so will most people.
#38. To: Rhino369, SonOfLiberty (#34)
Nature doesn't care about you or your rights. In fact it doesn't care about anything, nor can it care.
#39. To: SonOfLiberty (#36)
Nonetheless, I posses rights inalienable to my being.
This is axiomatic.
#40. To: Rhino369 (#37)
#41. To: F16Fighter (#38)
#42. To: Rhino369 (#18)
Big enough to scare the shit out of us all, but easily handled in a real war.
#43. To: F16Fighter (#38)
If not from nature or programmed by God, from whom or what do you derive your "moral code"?
Who should define "good"? "Evil"? "Right or wrong"?
OR, does "Might = Right"?
IS peace "logical," Spock?
Afterall, according to The Church of Darwin, no one deserves to live but the strongest.
#44. To: SonOfLiberty (#40)
Sorry, I don't live by the law of the jungle.
#45. To: SonOfLiberty (#41)
The fastest road to the destruction of liberty was when the radical Marxist left went after the institution of [Christian] religion.
#46. To: SonOfLiberty (#41)
(Edited)
The fastest road to the destruction of liberty was when the radical Marxist left went after the institution of religion. Whether one believes in a god or not, the fact is, that it is the foundational wellspring of most concepts of human freedom in the West, historically. It is only in the cold, harsh, atheist Marxist world that we find massive slaughter numbering in the tens to maybe hundreds of millions of individuals by governments who declared themselves supreme dictators of one's rights or lack thereof.
#47. To: Rhino369 (#44)
#48. To: Rhino369 (#46)
Even today the agents of religion are the agents of tyranny.
#49. To: SonOfLiberty (#47)
My rights are mine and inalienable. I don't have to justify them to you. You cannot take them by force, nor by persuasion.
#50. To: Rhino369 (#49)
#51. To: Rhino369 (#49)
Alright pretend whatever you want. Your inalienable rights are entirely indistinguishable from having no rights at all.
#52. To: SonOfLiberty (#48)
You don't have to be a Christian to admire the base tenets of Christianity.
Intellectual growth comes not from nihilism, you know.
#53. To: Rhino369 (#52)
#54. To: war, PaulCJ, christine, TwentyTwelve, JamesDeffenbach, bluegrass, Lod, Cynicom, farmfriend, CadetD, IndieTX, randge, all (#28)
bill that emerges under the current circumstances will be for their - the elites - benefit not ours.
#55. To: Hayek Fan (#51)
.
.
.