Conservatives & Progressives Agree: #OccupyWeed

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com

While I pondered the possibilities of the #OccupyWeed movement,
someone else evidently beat me to the punch.  Damn stoners.
Follow me on Twitter @PurpleSerf.

On June 17th, 1971 President Richard Nixon declared the War on Drugs, since that time our country as well as our neighbors have suffered, not from the use of drugs, but from the fact they are an artificially rare, unprotected and extremely valuable commodity.  Imagine the world of the late 50s and early 60s before the wars began, it was a different world by every measurement.  In 2011 are we as a nation safer, freer or happier because of the War on Drugs?


          The Occupy Wall Street movement has many facets, much of it is misguided, naive and offers no solutions other than benighted calls for more democracy and regulation, however, as we all know there is much the mainstream media (MSM) doesn't cover.  At Occupy Phoenix we found people from every corner of the political spectrum as we have documented and in this segment we'll show a sharp contrast between both ends of what is increasingly being viewed as our false political paradigm.


          The left and the right apparently agree on one thing in the Occupy movement - End the War on Drugs.  Apparently big banks can't Just Say No, violence rages on both sides of the boarder, but evidently it has subdued Northern Mexico into fearful submission. At Occupy Phoenix we got a taste of what people were thinking when it came to America's lost war.

         This country is much different since the 1960s.  We have more crime, the most people incarcerated as a percentage of our population on the planet and a bountiful cornucopia of exotic drugs.  The corruption one faces at the hands of a joint of marijuana is nothing compared to the market distortions caused by the billions upon billions of dollars and lives wasted in the War on Drugs.  The Obama administration may have stopped using the phrase because they feel its "counterproductive", but it's still illegal and we're no closer to ending it.

How is Ron Paul like a Chevy Commercial?

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com

Poll averages since November 2010 for the 2012 GOP
presidential nomination.
Image Source: RealClearPolitics.com

He's like a rock, ohh like a rock!  Dependable, long lasting and hard working a true and tested 2012 Ron Paul at a poll near you!  Maybe Bob Seger could endorse Ron Paul, I can just see the campaign ad now...


          Throughout the campaign, much like his career, Ron Paul has been the consistent conservative; like his policies his support has remained unwavering.  With the exception of two candidates whom were essentially dead-on-arrival, Ron Paul has had the lowest poll swings among all the candidates.  The GOP presidential nomination has resembled the stock market more than it has a traditional campaign.  Just look at those coasters, it could make an Imagineer blush!


          There have been lots of hares in this race from Rick Perry's meteoric rise and crash to Herman Cain's sharp ascension, but Ron Paul's slow and steady pace may indeed win him the race.  While a massive swing into the positive would of course be welcomed by the Ron Paul campaign and his ardent Paulistas, it may be better to save his growing war chest for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida.


          The Drudge Report linked "New Polls Show: Romney Ahead in First Four States", but the article also mentioned something not widely accepted, the fact that it looks as though Ron Paul is beating not only Newt Gingrich, but Rick Perry as well.  Moreover, as Bachmann's summer star continues to fade Rick Santorum and John Huntsman look more than ever, irrelevant.  Once all three have finally sung their last song all attention will undoubtedly be on three others: Cain, Romney and Perry, but Ron Paul will evidently be in 3rd regardless of who is paying attention.  

1000 Nations: The Most Progressive Movement on the Planet

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com

Pictures of Dubai before and after becoming a special economic
zone (SEZ) and undergoing substantial legal reform. See
also pictures of Schenzhen, China - amazing!
Image Source: AThousandNations.com

Small governments are the most effective political bodies in the world.  You often hear or see the phrase "Think Globally, Act Locally" most often in reference to climate change, however, if we applied this concept to governance, the world would be a much better place.  


          People often talk about competition making businesses better, but how can competition make governments more accountable, more useful and more responsive to the needs of their people?  The answer: create more of them!  Governments by definition cannot survive without their citizens, therefore, it would seem to benefit us if we force them to compete over our tax dollars.


          While there is of course a finite amount of land and little likelihood that the 188+ nations already established will part with theirs, there are efforts to create special economics zones if not radical open ocean platforms. These are the ideas espoused by organizations like FreeCities.org and Seasteading.org.


          Imagine a world in which governments had to compete for citizens from 1000 nations?  While central banks, politicians and technocrats more and more attempt to consolidate the world under one government, the ultimate goal of megalomaniacs over the millennia, the rights, liberties and needs of the many will factor less and less into the decision making of the few.


          Ever since the Declaration of Independence and the establishment of the US Constitution what were essentially several large spheres of influence operated by German, English, Russian, Spanish, French, etc. empires gave rise to a wave of independent nation states embracing democracy under popular sovreignity.  


          Since that time these formerly independent nation states have been slowly consolidated once again under the European Union, the Meditterenean Union, the African Union and ultimately the United Nations under the auspices of peace and prosperity.  If our current economic crisis and perpetual warfare has shown, this system which has operated over the past 50 years has not resulted in what was promised.


          These systems have been called "The Most Progressive Movement on the Planet" while libertarians refer to it as the most important step toward securing prosperity, personal liberty and peace.

BEWARE: Vatican Calls for Central World Bank

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com


Read: Vatican Calls for Central World Bank


Watch: The Money Masters (1996)

This movie is essential for beginning to understand why a private central world bank has the very real possibility of bringing on economic Armageddon.  This is not to be understated.

Purple Serf's Crystal Ball: Illiberal Revolutions Realized

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com

Last Feburary, at the beginning of what would later be referred to as the Arab Spring, Purple Serf through our patented Crystal Ball technology, predicted it would not resemble a liberal revolution.  Whatever occurred would be defined locally and radicalized, especially if foreign hands where seen as intervening.  What we have now is Middle East democracy: rough, Islamic and most often - illiberal.  Perhaps Americans can finally see there is no inherent redemptive qualities to democracy as such, after all it still may be called democratic when two wolves and a sheep vote over what's for dinner.


          Today, much to the chagrin of the naive among us and those working for western powers and NGOs who have meddled in the Arab Spring, the fears of Sharia law and rabid Islamism are being realized.  As secular approaches to Middle East governance are being maligned by more fundamentalist victories, the Middle East truly has experienced a revolution - ending up right where they started, exchanging a single tyranny for the tyranny of the majority.  

From "End of History for the Middle East?" Posted Feburary 19th, 2011 at PurpleSerf.com:

"In Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Mauritius, Jordan, Tunisia, Algeria, Bahrain, Iran, we hope to see the liberal democratic domino effect we never saw [from] Communism, but it seems the wrong dominoes are falling [referring to secular, albeit authoritarian, leaders].  After decades of handpicking dictators and sending in troops to secure "freedom" foreign policy hawks are dreading democracy once again.  The successful ousting of Egypt’s Mubarak and Tunisia’s Zine el Abidine ben Ali leads to what exactly?  This isn’t a calculated ideological uprising based on the violation of inalienable rights and liberties, it is merely because food prices are soaring, jobs are hard to find, and the future is bleak!  

This area of the world is very much in the throws of history, rife with ethnic division, religious intolerance, playboy leadership, and rampant tyranny (both private and public), only now budding with trappings of consumerism and a myriad of ideas regarding the future of their society as people connect to each other via cell phones, email, Twitter, Facebook, You Tube, and Google. Liberalism plays no current role in the Middle East and never has.  If Egypt is the “trend setter” everyone claims it to be then the Middle East will remain right where it is in history stagnating among awkward opinions regarding gender segregation, stoning adulterers, cutting off thieves hands, and capital punishment for those whom convert out of Islam.

It is highly dubious to believe billions of dollars in economic and military aid will soon deliver the Egyptians or anyone in the Middle East for that matter out of these bizarre notions of ideal society.  If the Protestant Reformation and the American Revolution taught us anything it is that real change requires a perfect storm, sometimes doesn’t come for generations, but most assuredly doesn’t come from foreign intervention." 

          Today Tunisia, ground zero for the Arab Spring, successfully completed its first democratic election.  This, in and of itself, is a positive step, however, as time will show democracy is no panacea for Tunisia's ills.  Many of the factors that led to the lurid self immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi still persist.  In fact, if the fears of liberals and secularists are confirmed, the election of an Islamist majority will do much to undermine freedom in what is generally considered a more liberal and moderate Tunisia than the rest of North Africa and the Middle East.  Democracy in the end may lead, as it so often does, to demagogues more interested in enflaming the old passions and fears of the people than freeing them from tyranny and dogma.            


          A poignant example of these lupine decisions in Middle East democracy comes from Libya.  Recently dispatched dictator, Mohammar Ghaddafi and his son haven't been buried within the 24 hours dictated by Islamic law and Ghaddafi's wish, to be buried in his hometown of Sirte, are highly doubted to be honored.  In its first opportunity to follow the rule law (in this case Islamic law) Libyan leadership has proven inept, that is however if you consider Ghaddafi a muslim (or human for that matter); according to the Libyan office of fatwas (religious decrees) Ghaddafi is not.  In the end, NATO has along with its rag-tag band of Al-Qaeda fighters and Libyan revolutionaries successfully ushered in, not a liberal democratic revolution, but Sharia law and this fact is growing more evident by the day.


          In Egypt we have the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood under a military junta which as of yet has not set a date for elections. In Iraq an emboldened and strengthened Moqtada Al-Sader recently returned to Iraq from Iran and partially through his party's influence managed to force Obama's hand in removing US troops.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unconvincingly attempted to save face by claiming that the removal of troops did not signal diminished hegemony or commitment in the region.  On the way out Secretary of Defense Leon Penetta reminded the world and the Middle East the US still maintains "40,000 troops" in the region.  Iraq similar to Tunisia insofar as it is another more moderate and secular state looks as though, under the guidence of men like Al-Sadar, may be well on its way back to the fundamentals.

Uganda, Bi-Partisanship Alive & Well in War

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com


Does Middle East intervention have you down?  Tired of burkas, camels, black gold and five-times-daily call to prayer?  Don't fret because a new exotic adventure into the heart of the Dark Continent will brighten your spirits! 


          Last Friday President Obama sent a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner to inform him 100 combat-ready advisors were to be sent to Africa.  By no means was this another seemingly brazen and unilateral decision on behalf of the Executive, to the contrary, Obama was merely fulfilling bi-partisan legislation under the authority granted to him by the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009.  


          What is most interesting about this event is it occurred under the ostensible left cover of the Occupy Wall Street protests, an occupied media (all puns intended) and under the right cover of the traditional neo-cons, which permeate many a Beltway think tank.

The emblem of AFRICOM
Image Source: Wikipedia

          Backed up by $28 million and 64 Senate co-sponsors (19 Republicans, 44 Democrats, 1 Independent), this new adventure into the heart of the Dark Continent is arguably more than a "disarmament" and "recovery act."  What was once, much to the chagrin of this author, a seemingly insignificant command as of its founding in 2006, US AFRICOM has since become a centerpiece of American foreign policy.


          In initial reports only the Uganda proper was mentioned in headlines, however, after reading into S. 1067 it is evident that this intervention is about much more than just Uganda.  The Commander in Chief will be responsible not only for the "Great Lakes Region", but "all areas affected by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA)" under the legislation.  Therefore, the operational theatre includes, at least officially, "Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Rwanda, [newly independent] Southern Sudan, Uganda, [and even] southeastern Central African Republic (CAR)."  That is a whole lot of terrain for 100 advisors.

            While neo-con cheerleader Rush Limbaugh have used this latest intervention as a political bludgeon to further wound an already unpopular president, the LRA is not (as Rush would have it) a purely revolutionary Christian militia merely espousing the 10 Commandments and a democratic republic tolerant of all political persuasions against an ostensibly fundamentalist Islamic government  


          In truth, although spokesmen for the LRA movement have called for "competitive multiparty democracy" and an end to "repressive" policies there is an ocean of far more more nefarious reports.  Evidently the LRA is responsible for 30,000 deaths over the last 10 years and enjoys recruiting young boys and girls into their ranks.  Moreover, the LRA reportedly uses the latter as sex slaves while pillaging the countryside, raping and maiming as they please.  A highly detailed and real-time tracking system documenting attacks, deaths, rapes, torture and abductions has been made available online at: LRACrisisTracker.com (a must see), something the militaries involved have taken notice of too. 

Screen capture of LRACrisisTracker.com

            While Mr. Limbaugh is no stranger to making less than informed comments about international affairs his refusal to abjure the LRA and its activities in order to promote criticism of "the regime", as he often refers to the Obama administration, undermines the legitimate effort to criticize Obama's aggressive foreign policy. 


          While these atrocities may be reprehensible and no doubt the LRA should be brought to justice, if in fact what is reported is true, it is another question entirely whether or not the U.S. should compound its current commitments and intercede on behalf of these central African nations.  Mr. Limbaugh was right to question, what are our "national security interests" in the heart of the Dark Continent?


          This more libertarian objection is echoed by Gene Healy of the Cato Institute:

"The Obama team has embraced the U.N. doctrine known as 'Responsibility to Protect,' which holds that the 'international community' has an obligation to protect civilians from crimes against humanity—by force, if necessary—when their own governments cannot or will not.

That doctrine is at odds with the U.S. Constitution, which empowers Congress to set up a military establishment for the singular end of 'the common defence ... of the United States.'


Even so, the emerging Obama Doctrine reflects a fondness for feel-good 'humanitarian interventions,' through which we prove our nobility by putting blood and treasure at risk when there's nothing in it for us."  

          It may be argued, however, that there is very much in it for us - well at least for US multinational corporations.  Last year the New York Times reported the U.S. identified more than $1 trillion in mineral reserves throughout Afghanistan, but evidently the Chinese too were hot on the trail having already secured the development of the largest copper mine in the country, according to the NYT:


          "American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate
          the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, which could upset the United
          States, given its heavy investment in the region.  After winning the bid for its Aynak
          copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said."


The bid to win the contract was embroiled in an alleged scandal involving over $30 million, which resulted in the sacking of Afghanistan's Minister of Mines.  Imagine this: American soldiers attempting to win the "hearts and minds" of the Afghanis for nearly ten years to the tune of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives and China literally under U.S. Taxpayer protection is winning precious metals contracts!  This was nothing short of an embarrassment, one that was never fully acknowledged, at least publicly.    


          Considering China's rapacious appetite for minerals and Africa's abundance a less than altruistic motive for American involvement in Africa appears:

Video Source: RussiaToday

          

          The quite reasonable interpretation of Obama's intervention is tripartite in nature; to secure African minerals and fuel against Chinese competition (what I would term resource containment harkening back to a mercantilistic mentality), to combat pirates harassing ships in the Gulf of Aden and to support the Ugandan government whose military provides the bulk force supporting the transitional government in Somolia.  East African forces along with a growing number of secret and not-so-secret US drone bases proliferating throughout the Middle-East and Africa forms a coalition not dissimilar to that model exemplified between NATO and the revolutionaries in Libya.  It is this symbiotic relationship, which is fighting against Al Shabaab, the al Qaeda-linked Islamist militant group which still controls most of Somalia.


          In the end the new 100 man mission to central Africa is merely another thread in the  massive tapestry of intervention, nation building and adventurism that is American foreign policy.  Considering the fact this legislation and its execution has drawn little criticism, but in fact much support shows that although the American political class is in vociferous opposition at home and driving us nuts while they are at it are in bi-partisan fashion loath to abominate war abroad.


           

Occupy Phoenix: Guy Fawkes, Flat Tax & Black Walnut

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com


The mainstream and alternative media have been responding to the Occupy Wall Street movement like a poltical Rorschach test; at Occupy Phoenix we saw why.  Purple Serf was on the scene trying to figure out what ethos is truly driving the Occupy Wall Street movement, what should be referred to more appropriately as Occupy "Insert Your City Here", not as catchy I guess.