Yes, the winds of change are blowing.  To the pleasure of many and to the dismay of some, they are predominately leftward in nature.  In the religious world, we live in a post-modern society where moral relativism is the flavor of the day.  Without moral absolutes, society is free to act in whatever manner can be rationalized as good.  In our political world, trans-nationalism is the new threat to national sovereignty for our country and every other.  As if it wasn't bad enough to have the Supreme Court justices move from determining constitutionality of laws, to interpreting the Constitution as they see fit, to legislating from the bench, we now see them considering international law in their determinations.  There is a familiar pattern that has emerged for those seeking societal change.  If legislative efforts fail, go to court to have change dictated.  If the courts offer no help, make it an international issue to pressure change.  The Constitution has been on its deathbed for quite a few decades now.  It is to be referred to by politicians when necessary for their ends and it is to be ignored when it is in their way.  This includes all three branches and all political parties.

Such it is with global this and global that, crisis this and crisis that.  Remember the bailouts that couldn't wait until Monday without catastrophic consequences?  The weekend came and went without complete collapse of society as we knew it.  The crisis to pass bailout and stimulus packages caused our legislators to vote on bills they admittedly didn't read.  Now we are trapped with burdens we didn't want.  Spending now and billing future generations is not moral, it is generational theft.  It is our version of the federal Poncy scheme known as Social Security.

• One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

• But probably the BIGGEST KEY benefit to developers cloaked in this "Stimulus Bill" is the ability to carry back losses for 5 years instead of 2. They tried to push this in the Housing stimulus in September but got so much blow back from citizens that they took it out. Now its back, hidden under the guise of helping ALL businesses.

  "The legislation also would allow businesses to carry back net operating losses for five years, instead of the current limit of two years. This provision would generate cash through tax refunds for companies that now are losing money but previously were profitable." (Note the use of the words "cash tax refunds". This is cold hard cash in the billions coming to these guys from us)

• Sen. Daniel Inouye says $198 million for Filipino war veterans was included in the $787 billion “stimulus” bill to preserve the “honor” of the United States. What’s the logic?

  Don’t those 18,000 Filipinos, who fought alongside America GIs in World War II, deserve a vote by U.S. Congress on their own merits? I think they do. Why hide the cash in a bill 4,000 times bigger than the $198 million?

• What else? Are there 3,999 similar items in the “stimulus” bill? Is it a stimulus bill, or is it just an excuse to pay everyone that Congress has ever dreamed of paying?

How about the international transfer of wealth known as Climate Change.  In the 1970's the news magazines had the dramatic cover stories of Global Cooling and the impending ice age.  In the 1990's the same magazines, and grant recipients that promote such issues to keep the cash flowing, were declaring Global Warming and the certainty of melted ice caps and flooded coast lines.  Waking up to the fact that it can't be both, the situation was created for both to be working together in Global Chaos for the early 2000's.  School children have now been indoctrinated from early years through "higher" education as to the "fact" that it exists and that we are indeed the guilty party.  This farce will succeed in transferring our wealth to developing countries as a guilt complex continues to be placed upon our citizenry.  When the carbon tax, or cap and trade, failed to gain traction in the Legislature, the administration simply had the EPA declare carbon dioxide a pollutant and a danger as a green house gas.  Nancy Pelosi says that the legislation will be reintroduced.  Meanwhile, the federal government has started the tax ball rolling by laying the groundwork for forcing industry to start measuring the very thing every human exhales and every plant transforms into the oxygen we breath.  Why not start with the largest green house gas element, water vapor?  The cap and trade system is an artificially created commodity market that will transfer money from industry to others.  It is taking from one and giving to another, or as President Obama said in his campaign, spreading the wealth.  Do you think you are unaffected?  Everything a producer spends, including taxes, is a cost in production and added to the price of goods and services for the consumer.  Think about this when your energy rates double and triple.

This country has never been stupid until the education system was nationalized.  We allowed the government to dictate the agenda for what was needed to be learned by our youth.  We allowed the responsibility to be moved from our households, to the states, and eventually to the federal government.  We allowed the unionization of the teachers to prevent us from making sure that the best teachers were rewarded and that the poorest were removed.  We allowed the basics to be pushed aside for social issues.  We allowed the majority to be imposed upon by many minority stakes.  We have allowed the dumbing down of America.  There is no need to wonder why our schools are failing and our kids are in trouble.  What federally run operation is ever successful?  The military could be one exception, at least until the politicians get involved and weaken it by revealing things that our enemies should not know or by slashing the budgets and pointing fingers later when a crisis arises.  It was communist revolutionary Lenin who said, Give me one generation of youth, and I will transform the entire world (Microsoft Encarta Encyclopaedia 2002).

Ronald Reagan said, "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them."  "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."  "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."  "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!"

In a quote attributed to Nikita Khrushchev, former Soviet dictator, "When you are skinning your customers, you should leave some skin on to heal, so that you can skin them again."  This is what is happening to the "middle class".  The turnip is being squeezed dry.  Class warfare has been employed as never before.  During the past election cycle I heard the terms rich and greed more than ever before.  Profitability and wealth were demonized relentlessly to garner votes from the lower income levels including those who are dependent upon the welfare state we have created.  The powers to be seem to be stopping just short of taking over industry, leaving skin to heal so they can continue to garner cash flow for social reconstruction. By completely taking over the banking, auto or energy sectors, the politicians would have no one to blame when the inevitable failures occur.  By influencing them with tax dollars and regulations, they can continue to blame others for mismanagement and corruption while appearing to be the white knight that is only seeking to protect the interests of the American public.  It is much like passing a bill with the support of only a couple members of the opposing party and then calling it a bipartisan effort.  It is merely cover for the eventual blow back from the public as they endeavor to share and even shift the blame to someone else.

"We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism".  Nikita Khrushchev

So here we are watching liberty and sovereignty die.  Our new global society will require the death of our dollar, the death of our uniqueness, and the death of our individuality.  We are now servants to the system, the federal machine.  We are a long way from the people and the states creating the limited Federal government to serve very specific needs of the citizens.  Consider the following quotes from Joseph Stalin and see how closely they apply to our time.
"Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed"
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas."
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."
"Mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division; and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts."
"When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use."
And finally, "America, is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
Mission accomplished, almost.

As we worry about bail outs and trillion dollar spending bills as our economic system devolves further into a socialistic system, Henry Kissinger is talking about the opportunity for a global response.  Will President-elect Obama listen to him and believe he has the correct solution?  I remember being told in the campaign that we are global citizens.  We are being told the economic recession is a global crisis.  We have been inundated with stories of global warming, which interestingly is being morphed into climate change which would maintain the crisis and the transfer of control to a global solution.

In Kissinger's op-ed he states, "Even the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being. It will fragment disastrously if the various priorities cannot be reconciled."   He goes on about the number of transformations occurring at one time including political and financial events.  The result, he says, is either chaos or a new international order.  He cites institutional and economical global reach combined with the speed of communication as reasons of the current globalization phenomenon.  He states that global order is now needed, replacing policies driven by domestic politics.

Kissinger says that rescue packages have done little to solve the problems at hand and have mainly served to stem panic among the populations.  He continues, "International order will not come about either in the political or economic field until there emerge general rules toward which countries can orient themselves."  He says only one of two ways can harmonize the political and financial systems.  The first is "by creating an international political regulatory system", the second "by shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures" perhaps into regional units.  He writes, "Not since the inauguration of President John F. Kennedy half a century ago has a new administration come into office with such a reservoir of expectations. It is unprecedented that all the principal actors on the world stage are avowing their desire to undertake the transformations imposed on them by the world crisis in collaboration with the United States.  The extraordinary impact of the president-elect on the imagination of humanity is an important element in shaping a new world order. But it defines an opportunity, not a policy."

Will this be the next rush to fix it now just as we saw in the financial system crisis when we had to throw 350 billion dollars at the problem immediately to prevent a complete melt down?  Is another catastophic event looming on the horizon?  Kissinger adds, "The cooperative mood of the moment needs to be channeled into a grand strategy going beyond the controversies of the recent past."  Apparently no time can be wasted due to the current popularity of the incoming President.  The United States has held onto sovereignty so far which contrasts Europe, which is in limbo between nationalism and the evolving union of states.

Kissinger is not a lone voice on the matter.  In his article Obama to put world ahead of America, Henry Lamb writes, "Much of the world sees Obama not simply as the first black president, but as the first president to accept global governance to be more important than U.S. governance. His Berlin speech last July promised "a new global partnership" and a new "global commitment" to "save the planet."  To implement his commitment to global governance, Obama has nominated Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state. In addition to her book, "It Takes a Village," Hillary is on record in support of the World Federalist Association's efforts to establish a world government, and publicly applauded Walter Cronkite's receipt of the WFA "Global Governance" award".  Obama's globalist wish list , an article by Phyllis Schlafly, caught my attention with the threat of the elimination of Mother's Day.  The article actually speaks to the U.N. treaty that would lead to its elimination, as well as the accompanying international taxes that could be levied.  Then there is the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.  The following is from the article

Gordon Brown wants to rewrite the rules of capitalism of October16, 2008.  "The Prime Minister wants dozens of world leaders to meet for a major one-off summit where they would rewrite the rules of international capitalism that have stood since 1944."  And, "Speaking at a summit of European Union leaders in Brussels, Mr Brown said the recent crisis proves the need for much more international co-operation on the regulation of banks and other financial insitutions.  He said: "We now have global financial markets, global corporations, global financial flows. But what we do not have is anything other than national and regional regulation and supervision." "

So goes the world of international finance.  Watch for news headlines involving the international monetary fund and any other global banking and finance issues.

Isn't it just a bit disingenuous for a Senator to look at the financial meltdown and say that Washington hasn't done enough?  A Senator who is part of the legislative body that writes the laws, makes the rules and basically has the control over whether something gets done or not?

In this age where any curious individual can research history, that being statements and records, why are so many things lied about and twisted out of context?  Are politicians so disconnected that they think they won't be found out?  It's like the combatants in a bitter divorce case that poison the children with lies and exaggerations about the former spouse.  Pretty soon either one is believed over the other without question or neither is listened to anymore.  Oh, the frustration.

Has it happened to you yet, it has to me, that your favorite party is hitting a rock solid point about the lies and exaggerations of the opponent, and next thing you know, here it comes right back.  In judgmental thought, I condemn the lies.  How could you!  How can I believe or trust you!  But then, here it comes back.  How could you!  How can I believe or trust you!  Now who to believe?  How do we even discuss the pros and cons of our candidates when they all take the low road?

I guess it finally goes to the record of each candidate for each issue of concern and watch the chips stack on whichever side of the issues we stand on.  And about that opening line, as everything gets blamed on President Bush, research who made the rules, who fought against them, who warned about this potential problem and who shot it down.  Of course, I suppose it depends on who we trust for the information we readily accept as truth.