Categories » ‘Democracy’
April 24th, 2012 by olddog
By Pete Papaherakles
Could gaining control of the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran (CBI) be one of the main reasons that Iran is being targeted by Western and Israeli powers? As tensions are building up for an unthinkable war with Iran, it is worth exploring Iran’s banking system compared to its U.S., British and Israeli counterparts.
Some researchers are pointing out that Iran is one of only three countries left in the world whose central bank is not under Rothschild control. Before 9-11 there were reportedly seven: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. By 2003, however, Afghanistan and Iraq were swallowed up by the Rothschild octopus, and by 2011 Sudan and Libya were also gone. In Libya, a Rothschild bank was established in Benghazi while the country was still at war.
Islam forbids the charging of interest, a major problem for the Rothschild banking system. Until a few hundred years ago, charging interest was also forbidden in the Christian world and was even punishable by death. It was considered exploitation and enslavement.
Since the Rothschilds took over the Bank of England around 1815, they have been expanding their banking control over all the countries of the world. Their method has been to get a country’s corrupt politicians to accept massive loans, which they can never repay, and thus go into debt to the Rothschild banking powers. If a leader refuses to accept the loan, he is oftentimes either ousted or assassinated. And if that fails, invasions can follow, and a Rothschild usury-based bank is established.
The Rothschilds exert powerful influence over the world’s major news agencies. By repetition, the masses are duped into believing horror stories about evil villains. The Rothschilds control the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the IMF, the World Bank and the Bank of International Settlements. Also they own most of the gold in the world as well as the London Gold Exchange, which sets the price of gold every day. It is said the family owns over half the wealth of the planet—estimated by Credit Suisse to be $231 trillion—and is controlled by Evelyn Rothschild, the current head of the family.
Objective researchers contend that Iran is not being demonized because they are a nuclear threat, just as the Taliban, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar Qadaffi were not a threat.
What then is the real reason? Is it the trillions to be made in oil profits, or the trillions in war profits? Is it to bankrupt the U.S. economy, or is it to start World War III? Is it to destroy Israel’s enemies, or to destroy the Iranian central bank so that no one is left to defy Rothschild’s money racket?
It might be any one of those reasons or, worse—it might be all of them.
Anyone who has read my two sites and newsletters already knows what I think about the Rothschild family, but for the benefit of any new reader let me make it short and sweet. The whole family should be exterminated, along with the other seven families that comprise their cartel. If that offends anyone’s sensibilities, tough shit!
Any person with more than one inch between their ears can find volume’s of information about them to justify their extermination. Let their entire blood line be wiped from the face of the earth, and their souls be tormented in hell for eternity.
If I were President of the United States Corporation which is owned lock stock and barrel by the members of the International Investment Banking Cartel, I would gather together the leaders of the earth’s governments and demand their support in the elimination of the entire Cartel. Shortly, there would be peace on earth, as the major cancer of human societies would be gone forever.
Read all of the articles on http://anationbeguiled.com and http://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com before you decide I am a loose cannon and report me to your hero’s in DC.
Let this be a warning to all on planet earth. You will shortly see atrocities on earth beyond your imagination, if you don’t do your home work and conclude that I am right, and demand from your leaders their extermination.
This is the single most important thing you will ever do in your lifetime!
The atrocities this family is directly responsible for in the history of their existence is mind numbing and irreputable proof of humanities stupidity.
The banking cartel should have been eliminated centuries ago and prohibited from ever coming back.
To kill a snake, cut off it’s damn head,
and usuery is the most most poisoness vipor of humanity.
April 23rd, 2012 by olddog
Economic Collapse Blog
There has been no society in the history of the world that has ever been 100% safe. No matter how much money the federal government spends on “homeland security”, the truth is that bad things will still happen. Our world is a very dangerous place and it is becoming increasingly unstable. The federal government could turn the entire country into one giant prison camp, but that would still not keep us safe. It is inevitable that bad stuff will happen in life. But we have a choice. We can choose to live in fear or we can choose to live as free men and women. Our forefathers intended to establish a nation where liberty and freedom would be maximized. But today we are told that we have to give up our liberties and our freedoms and our privacy for increased security. But is such a trade really worth it? Just think of the various totalitarian societies that we have seen down throughout history. Have any of them ever really thrived? Have their people been happy? Unfortunately, the U.S. federal government has decided that the entire country needs to be put on lock down. Nearly everything that we do today is watched and tracked, and personal privacy is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Many of the things that George Orwell wrote about in 1984 are becoming a reality, and that is a very frightening thing. The United States is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. Sadly, we are rapidly becoming the exact opposite of that.
I don’t know about you, but I never signed up to live in North Korea. When I was growing up I was taught that repressive regimes such as North Korea are “the bad guys” and that America is where “the good guys” live.
So why do we want to be just like North Korea?
When they put in the naked body scanners at U.S. airports and started having TSA agents conduct “enhanced pat-downs” of travelers, I decided that I was not going to fly anymore unless absolutely necessary.
Then I heard about how “random bag checks” were being conducted at Metro train stations in the Washington D.C. area, and I was glad that I was no longer taking the train into D.C. anymore.
But now the TSA is showing up everywhere. Down in Houston, undercover TSA agents and police officers will now “ride buses, perform random bag checks, and conduct K-9 sweeps, as well as place uniformed and plainclothes officers at Transit Centers and rail platforms to detect, prevent and address latent criminal activity or behavior.”
So now I have another thing to add to my list of things that I can’t do anymore.
No more riding buses for me.
But the truth is that you can’t escape this expanding security grid no matter how hard you try.
In fact, TSA “VIPR teams” conduct approximately 8,000 “unannounced security screenings”every year at bus terminals, train stations, ports and highway rest stops throughout the United States.
Look, every society needs some level of security. There are always bad guys out there that want to harm innocent people.
But in the United States we must demand that those in charge of our security do their jobs in a way that does not compromise our dignity, our liberties or our freedoms.
Does having TSA thugs touch the private parts of old women and young children before they get on their flights keep us any safer?
Of course not.
But it does move our country in a very dangerous direction.
The reality is that this “Big Brother control grid” that is being constructed all around us is expanding in a thousand different ways.
For example, a new bill before the U.S. Congress would require black box data recorders to be installed in all new vehicles starting in 2015. These black box data recorders will be able to constantly transmit data about everything that your car is doing to the government and to the insurance companies. The following is from a recent article by Eric Peters….
And naturally, they – the government, insurance companies – will be able to track your every move, noting (and recording) where you’ve been and when. This will create a surveillance net beyond anything that ever existed previously. Some will not sweat this: After all, if you’ve got nothing to hide, why worry? Except for the fact that, courtesy of almost everything we do being either “illegal” or at least “suspicious” we all have a great deal to hide. The naivety of the Don’t Worry, it’s No Big Deal crowd is breathtaking. Did the average Soviet citizen also “not have anything to hide,” and hence why worry?
But the last possibility is probably the creepiest possibility: EDRs tied into your car’s GPS will give them – the government and its corporate **** ******* (edited for language) – literal physical control over (hack) “your” vehicle. This is not conspiracy theorizing. It is technological fact. Current GM vehicles equipped with the same technology about to be mandated for every vehicle can be disabled remotely. Just turned off. All the OnStar operator has to do is send the appropriate command over the GPS to your car’s computer, which controls the engine. It is one of the features touted by OnStar – of course, as a “safety” feature.
In the future, it will be used to limit your driving – for the sake of “energy conservation” or perhaps, “the environment.” It will be the perfect, er, vehicle, for implementing U.N. Agenda 21 – the plan to herd all of us formerly free-range tax cattle into urban feedlots. So much easier to control us this way. No more bailing out to the country or living off the grid – unless you get there (and to your work) by walking.
Even when you are sitting at home you are still being watched and monitored in countless ways.
For example, every single call you make on your cell phone is intercepted and monitored by the government.
Your Internet activity is tracked and monitored by a whole host of government agencies as well. If you doubt this, just read this article.
Now CISPA would expand government surveillance of the Internet even further. The following description of CISPA comes from the Electronic Frontier Foundation website….
CISPA creates an exception to all privacy laws to permit companies to share our information with each other and with the government in the name of cybersecurity…. CISPA’s ‘information sharing’ regime allows the transfer of vast amounts of data, including sensitive information like internet use history or the content of emails, to any agency in the government including military and intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency or the Department of Defense Cyber Command. Once in government hands, this information can be used for any non-regulatory purpose so long as one significant purpose is for cybersecurity or to protect national security.
Frightening stuff, eh?
I want you to imagine a scenario for a moment. Imagine that the government assigned two “watchers” to you that followed you everywhere you went and stared directly into your face the entire time.
Would you feel comfortable?
You don’t have anything to hide, do you?
Well, of course the truth is that none of us would like having our privacy constantly invaded. It is not pleasant to constantly feel like you are being watched.
That is why all of these new “security measures” are so alarming. A system is being set up where all of us are being constantly watched and monitored 24 hours a day.
And most Americans have no idea how fast the transition to full martial law could potentially be.
Barack Obama recently updated an old executive order that has been around for decades that would enable him to take charge of all food, all energy, all health resources and all transportation resources in the United States with the stroke of a pen. This new update would allow him to do it even in “non-emergency” situations.
The following is what U.S. Representative Kay Granger recently had to say about this executive order….
This means all of our water resources, construction services and materials (steel, concrete, etc.), our civil transportation system, food and health resources, our energy supplies including oil and natural gas – even farm equipment – can be taken over by the President and his cabinet secretaries. The Government can also draft U.S. citizens into the military and force U.S. citizens to fulfill “labor requirements” for the purposes of “national defense.” There is not even any Congressional oversight, only briefings are required.
Later on in her letter, Representative Granger even used the phrases “martial law” and “government takeover” to describe the power that Barack Obama potentially has under this executive order….
It is still unclear why this order was signed now, and what the consequences are for our nation – especially during times of peace. This type of Martial Law imposes a government takeover on U.S. citizens that is typically reserved for national emergencies, not in a time of relative peace.
Do you trust Barack Obama with that kind of power?
Unfortunately, considering the really bad decisions that all of our government officials regularly make, it is really hard to trust any of them to do the right thing at this point.
The American people need to let their voices be heard on these issues. If not, the federal government will continue to strip away our privacy, our liberties and our freedoms until everything is gone.
Do you want your children to grow up in a country that has been turned into a giant prison camp and that more closely resembles North Korea than it does the nation that our forefathers originally founded?
If not, please do what you can to speak out against these abuses.
The truth is that the federal government does not really even care about our national security anyway.
If they did, they would secure our borders. Just today I read that the National Guard is withdrawing 900 troops from the U.S.-Mexico border. Our border security is already a total joke and now it is going to be even worse.
Over the past several decades, tens of millions of people have crossed that border illegally. Every single day, terrorists, drug dealers, gang members, sexual predators and a whole host of other “bad guys” could be crossing that border and we would never even know about it because we aren’t doing anything to stop it.
For nearly 60 years, the U.S. government has successfully protected the border between South Korea and North Korea, but the U.S. government flatly refusesto protect our own borders.
Until the federal government decides to do what the U.S. Constitution requires them to do and start protecting our borders, then the federal government should not be asking any of us to make a single sacrifice in the name of “security”.
The truth is that we can have a reasonable level of security in this nation without giving up the liberties and the freedoms that millions of Americans have shed their blood to protect.
We do not need to turn the United States into a giant prison camp. America is supposed to be the land of the free, and we need to work hard to get that dream back.
The internet gives plenty of evidence that there are thousands of people like me who are spending 80 to 100 hour weeks searching for, and publishing information on how and why America is going down, but the difficulty in provoking the average citizen into participating seems to be getting harder. This seems to me to be against the human instinct for survival, and supports the claims some make that we have been chemically assaulted in various ways until the majority of American’s are now intellectually euthanized. They are faced with so many conflicting ideas that their brains cannot process them. It is like watching thousands of people taking a short cut home through a swamp full of alligators and remain unaware of the danger, because they are too tired to take the long way. I have never encountered anything so frustrating in my 71 years. Even my family ignores my warnings. They do so because they are aware of my pit-bull character when someone bites me, and I remain unable to understand how they could let someone bite them and not take their head off. Another analogy would be an army of one thousand facing an army of one million and deciding to surrender, when they have seen with their own eyes how that army brutalizes their prisoners. How can one account for such mind numbing cowardice? If we cannot inspire fifty million citizens to get educated and infuriated from their new knowledge, all that is left is to charge the million-man army with our bare hands, because they are intent on disarming us. Please folks, for the love of sanity, get educated, and get really pissed off. Being a slave is NOT AN OPTION FOR THIS OLDDOG, AND YOU WON’T LIKE IT EITHER. I’m beginning to feel like a Marine recruiter in a kindergarten.
Police State Indoctrination of the Young
A police officer walks into a middle school classroom. No, this is not the opening line of a joke, this actually happened at a local school and maybe happening in a school near you. The police officer proceeded to tell the class that, disrupting the class was a felony and she would have no problem arresting a kid, taking them directly to jail, and not even calling the kids' parents. This from an officer said to have expressed her desire for something to happen at school since she misses patrolling the street.
Another interesting point is that this teacher had, only a few months back, covered The Constitution and Bill of Rights in her classes. The same teacher then brought in a uniformed officer to tell kids their rights would be trampled if they dared disrupt the class. During my time in school it was not uncommon that a class would have 36 students, some of them unruly, to one teacher. Yet, I don't remember a teacher ever calling an officer in to handle their classroom for them.
What of the officer attempting to help the ineffective teacher? We the people delegate our power to a select few public servants to keep order in our community. We trust these individuals to be of good character and sound judgment. Threatening school kids with violating their civil rights seems to be outside the scope of what these "officials" (public servants) are paid to do. If an officer ever decides to act in this manner with a child, the taxpayers will be on the hook for trial expenses in defense of he officer and a settlement for a violation of civil rights.
To further bring this issue into focus, consider the following: Say you're on your lunch break, at work, talking to a co-worker as you walk to the restroom. Just then, a police officer stops you and asks where you are going. How would you feel? How would you feel if you were a child? Just another action, the above-mentioned officer, is said to routinely take.
The National Association of School Resource Officers had this to say about their own surveys, which are significant to expanding the program and obtaining funding: "NASRO surveys are intentionally not designed as… long-term scientific academic studies." Basically they ask hundreds of SROs, while at a conference (paid vacation) if they see reasons why the program should continue (or why they should get another paid vacation when the next conference comes around). Think I may be reaching on this fact? The 2012 conference is July 15-20th at the Peppermill Resort Spa Casino in Reno, Nevada.
According to the U.S.D.J. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention-, "The perception of imminent danger in the school environment has become common place in many communities, leaving parents, students, and school personnel with, at best a tenuous sense of security. The School Resource Officer concept offers an approach to improving school security and alleviating community fears."
According to the reasoning of a combat veteran, having seen the frailty of human life first hand, I perceive danger to be imminent in almost all aspects of daily life. Should we have police at our workplace, doctors office, grocery store, and in our homes to alleviate possible fears? Our schools are turning into conditioning camps for the thriving police state our nation is quickly becoming. Parents, please talk to your children; You may find this to be common place in many schools across the land of the free and home of the brave. Doesn’t that make you sick?
April 22nd, 2012 by olddog
an excerpt from The Obama Timeline
By Don Fredrick
Obama was hired by Miner, Banhill and Galland, a law firm which specializes in negotiating government contracts to develop low-income housing, and that dealt with Tony Rezko’s firm Rezar. Obama’s specific duties at the law firm are not known. (He refuses to provide a list of his clients.)
Obama was also a law lecturer at the University of Chicago during these years, but is believed to have never published even a single work of legal scholarship. (No Obama documents appear in the HeinOnline database of law journals.)
Obama likely remained on the payroll of the Miner law firm until his 2004 Senate campaign, although his law license became inactive in 2002. He worked only during the summers after 1996. It is believed that Obama never tried a case in court; he instead worked on teams with other lawyers to draw up briefs and contracts. Arguably, Obama never tried a case because he is perhaps unable to think on his feet… as is required in a trial setting. There is no teleprompter between the lawyer and the jury, and attorneys need skills beyond reading or memorizing stump speeches, sound bites, and talking points.)
Sometime in 1993, Michelle Obama’s law license was suspended. The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) reported her malpractice insurance status as “No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status.” The ARDC is an agency of the Supreme Court of Illinois (not the Illinois Bar) which investigates attorney malpractice complaints. The inactive status is court ordered—it is not the result of a voluntary request by Michelle Obama (who had failed to pass the bar on her first attempt). The reason for the court’s suspension of the license has not been made public.
In addition to paying old parking fines, Obama relinquished his law license in early 2007 to avoid the possibility of punishment for lying on his Illinois bar application. Obama’s application failed to disclose the fact that he had used different names in the past (Barry Soetoro, and perhaps Barry Dunham), had used drugs, and had unpaid parking tickets of approximately $400. A complaint against Obama was filed on March 13, 2007, but because he had just relinquished his license, he escaped an investigation and possible punishment (such as disbarment).
It is virtually unheard of for an attorney to give up his law license, even if he goes into politics. Obama likely gave up his to avoid losing it over charges that he lied on his application. Michelle's was taken away. She did something improper but no one is talking. I assume the stories will come out after they are evicted from the White House.
One never knows when or how they will stumble onto good fortune and today after a series of emails I was receiving from a discussion group, I read the above excerpt of Dons and asked for permission to republish, which he graciously granted.
It was a comment of mine in an email, mostly taken from my Obama Timeline at www.colony14.net. Feel free to use it; just mention The Obama Timeline.
After several hours on www.colony14.net I am an addicted fan of this extraordinary author. Please find time to enjoy this site. You will be glad you did.
The Obama Timeline
The following timeline presents the important aspects of Obama’s life, from birth to the present. Every attempt has been made to present accurate information, names, and dates. If errors or significant omissions are noted, please feel free to contact the author at firstname.lastname@example.org.
NOTE: Thousands of hours of effort have gone into the research and creation of this timeline. This work is the intellectual property of the author and is fully protected by copyright law ©. Any non-profit re-posting or re-printing of this timeline without crediting the author (Don Fredrick at ( www.colony14.net ) and without the consent of the author is prohibited. Any for-profit re-posting or re-printing of this timeline is prohibited.
The Obama Timeline is now available in book form and can be ordered on-line from bookseller sites like Amazon.com, BAMM.com, BN.com, etc. An electronic version of the book is available directly from the publisher.
04 21 12 A Very Simple Job Description
By Jim Yardley
President Obama complains constantly that his job is made harder because of the negative slant of the Constitution. The job description of the president of the United States, as described in the Constitution, consists of only 322 words (Article II, Sections 2 and 3). That's it. Three hundred and twenty-two words.
Not 322 pages, not 322 paragraphs, not 322 sentences. Three hundred and twenty-two words. Period.
More than twice that many words (664, to be exact) are used in Article II, Section 1 just to define the process of choosing the president, and they include even the exact language of his oath of office.
This short job description covers only five areas:
- The president is the commander-in-chief of the military.
- The president is responsible for insuring that the laws passed by Congress are executed and enforced as written.
- The president is allowed to grant pardons for crimes other than impeachment.
- The president can also make treaties, but only if two-thirds of the Senate agrees to the terms of those treaties.
- The president can nominate ambassadors, Supreme Court justices, and other officers (most commonly cabinet secretaries and federal judges). But he can only nominate them. Again, the Senate has final approval on any nominations.
That's it. That is all the person who is president is allowed to do by law. He or she can persuade, lecture, and speak publicly, using, in Teddy Roosevelt's phrase, his "bully pulpit" to encourage Congress to act. In fact, he is required by the Constitution to do exactly that. The theatre which is the State of the Union address made annually by the president is specifically required in Article II, Section 3, which begins:
He shall from time to time give to the Congress the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient[.]
It should be noted that governance of the nation by executive order or by administrative regulation is not mentioned in those 322 words.
There was a very understandable rationale for the members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to describe very limited powers invested in the president. A major source of contention between the colonies and Great Britain which led to the War of Independence was the behavior of King George III. George believed that as king, he was an absolute monarch rather than a constitutional monarch. As far back as the year 1215, with the Magna Carta, the absolute authority of the British sovereign was purposefully limited. King George, with support from a majority of Parliament, who agreed that the king's authority should be effectively absolute, aided and abetted this set of circumstances against nearly 600 years of precedent establishing limited sovereign authority.
With George III providing such a powerful example of what not to allow the head of government to do, the Constitutional Convention was adamant in limiting the unilateral scope of action of the president. With the inauguration of Barack Obama, we can see clearly that these men were not paranoid, but prescient.
Obama has acted in a way that is very similar to actions taken by George III in ignoring hundreds of years of tradition and legal precedent to enforce his whims. This is particularly ironic behavior from a man who has written that he was greatly affected by his biological father's anti-colonialist and anti-monarchal attitudes. One has only to look at Obama's own behavior to see that he himself tries to rule like a monarch in the mold of George III or Louis XIV, who famously said. "I am the State." (Of course, ol' Louis actually said "L'état, c'est moi," but then he was French, after all.) Obama governs as if Washington, D.C. was the mother country and the 50 states are just colonies that he too can rule according to his whim while ignoring hundreds of years of our history, tradition, and legal precedent.
Perhaps Barack Obama should examine what he is actually allowed to do and what he is actually supposed to do, and limit himself to those only. If not, there is a very strong chance that history will repeat itself, as it does from time to time. Over two centuries ago, the American people threw off a despot, and there is a high likelihood that such might be repeated on November 6. One hopes this second removal from power will be accomplished with significantly less violence and loss of life than the first one was in 1776.
I would also like to hear from all the remaining Republican candidates a list of what they guarantee they will not do if they become president. For example, they will not kill American citizens without arrest, indictment, and trial. They will not try to allocate resources within the economy because they feel that the market's allocation of those resources is not as efficient as they might like. They will not sign legislation that is of questionable constitutional validity. If each of these candidates made a speech telling Americans what they will not do, not only would it be one helluva speech, but it would draw a strong contrasting picture of how they see the job as president when compared to how Barack Obama sees it.
Jim Yardley is a retired financial controller for manufacturing firms, a Vietnam veteran, and an independent voter. Jim blogs at http://jimyardley.wordpress.com, or he can be contacted directly at email@example.com .
More From American Thinker
From Around the Web
April 20th, 2012 by olddog
Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."
attributed to Captain John Parker, Massachusetts militia, on Lexington green, 4/19/1775
I want to ask you to do me a favor. Mark your calendar for this coming Thursday the 19th. I'm sure that most of your calendars don't highlight that day. I know for sure the left and the media will not remind you.
On that day, April 19 1775, 237 years ago, a group of patriots decided they had had enough and stood their ground at Lexington and Concord. They had had enough of tyranny, abuse by their government, and over bearing taxes. Sound familiar?
Take a moment on Thursday and reflect on the meaning of that day. Think of the risks those patriots were willing to take in order to win their freedom. I believe the most important freedom is that of 'Freedom of Choice.' Also, think of what has happened to this great Republic in the last few generations. Let us all endeavor to ensure that their sacrifice, and of those since, was not in vain.
BTW: Don't forget that the mission of the British that day was to confiscate weapons.
When the Spartans at Thermopylae were ordered by the Persians to surrender their weapons, they responded Molon Labe — "Come and Take them"
That is my response to anyone who would disarm me and mine.
To a warrior, the golf course is a willful and deliberate misuse of a perfectly good rifle range!
The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.
Visit Constitutional Emergency at: http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network
Food for thought! Would you stand with me if we faced our own troops? Do you understand WHO our real enemy is?
I know some of you reading this have not been doing your home work and are unaware of what has happened to America, and to you I will be perceived as another hot headed old man unwilling to merge with the newer generation, to that, I say you still have your head up your ass, you are too lazy to do the research, too cowardly to accept reality, and too stupid to recognize the danger imposed on us by our own government. Surely, if you knew what is really going on in DC, you would be burning up the phone lines to Congress, writing letters to them daily, and telling them what you really think of them, and you are not going down without a fight. Look around your neighborhood, do you not see a lack of activity, are you staying home more so than in the past? Are you even aware of how much America has changed in the past three years, let alone the past generation? Do you have any idea of how you are going to live in the next decade? Why are you not infuriated all the time? Do you really believe that shit just happens, and does not require a purposeful action to instigate it? Mark these words, we will not be able to go to the store and buy food, without permission in the near future, or afford the gas to drive there, and the only way this is going to stop is for you to become aware of reality, get really pissed off, and get on the governments ass, and stay there until they squeal. We need fifty million pissed off American’s to stop this, and you need to be one of them! Start learning! Get mad! STAND UP! Be prepared to die fighting for our freedom!
Let me know if you don’t know where to start! firstname.lastname@example.org
April 17th, 2012 by olddog
April 16, 2012
Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka Barry Dunham aka Barack Dunham – all known aliases of the occupant in the White House. I will refer to him as Barry Soetoro since that appears to be the last known legal name of the mystery man.
Over the past four years I have followed every case filed, read every brief submitted and a million words on the constitutional meaning of 'natural born citizen'. Only those in denial or whose ideological agenda depends on Barry staying in office refuse to acknowledge that Soetoro was born with dual citizenship. He was ineligible in 2008 and he's still ineligible in 2012.
In the only oral arguments to actually take place out in Georgia, the end result has been the same. Two weeks ago, the Georgia Supreme Court checked their manhood at the door and ruled against all the plaintiffs. Those judges followed the cowardly path taken by Judge Mahili in his original decision to allow Barry on the Georgia ballot despite the undeniable legal facts presented by plaintiffs during the original hearings. However, what the Georgia Supreme Court did was even more reprehensible according to Van Irion, Liberty Legal Foundation, who represented David Welden:
"Both LLF and Georgia Representative Mark Hatfield pointed out to the Court the date on which the Secretary of State planned to certify the election. Yet the Court sat on our filings for seven days, then ruled on the day certification had been planned. If we had been given one or two days we could have filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court. Currently the Justice assigned to review such motions from Georgia is the most Constitutional originalist, Justice Clarence Thomas. I'm sure that the Georgia Supreme Court is aware that Justice Thomas would have been our next step, had we had time to file another motion. The Georgia Court ensured that such review was not possible by waiting until the last day to rule before our motion became moot. It is possible that this timing was nothing more than a busy court not being able to rule faster, but after what we have seen in Georgia, do you believe that? Even if that is true, what does it say about this Court's level of respect for the importance of this case? The Court didn't even bother to spell our client's name correctly! I believe that this latest ruling proves that Georgia law does not apply to the powerful."
As I have written in many columns, Barry cannot be impeached. He usurped the office of the presidency. The only legal method to remove him is through the Quo Warranto statute. A proper QW was filed on January 3, 2012, by presidential candidate, Montgomery Blair Sibley. He filed a Certified Petition for Writs Quo Warranto and Mandamus in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the proper legal forum. The judge, Amy Jackson Berman, apparently doesn't have the courage to address this issue because she has refused to respond.
Forty days after Sibley's filing, the District Court Judge had not ruled on any part of the suit, so he filed a petition for mandamus with the Circuit Court of Appeal. The Appeals Court then ruled: “The district court's delay in ruling on the petition for writ of quo warranto is not so egregious or unreasonable as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.” Sibley then filed with the U.S. Supreme Court: "On April 20, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to fast-track the determination of Obama's constitutional eligibility to be President."
Unfortunately, a new effort is underway and being heavily promoted by popular talk show hosts like Alex Jones. 'Impeach 2012' is a project by Sean Stone, son of movie producer, Oliver Stone. Another wasted effort by someone who, while his intentions may be from the heart, apparently has zero understanding of the constitutional problem of impeaching someone who never held the office. THAT is the meat of the legal issue. Alex Jones has had Dr. Edwin Vieria on his show several times and I believe he respects Edwin's undisputed status as an expert on constitutional issues. Edwin addressed this issue back in 2008:
"Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest himwith physical force, if he would not go along quietlyin order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.
"Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.
"The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non) citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.”
I can't tell you how many emails I've received over the past few years from "patriots" who say they don't care whether or not he can't be impeached from a constitutional prospective, "we" have to impeach him anyway to get him out of office!
That position is no different than those we battle against who care nothing for the U.S. Constitution regarding Barry and his ineligibility. Two wrongs do not make a right. Don't people get it yet? Don't they understand if you play the game by their rules you will lose every time?
There will be no impeachment by the Outlaw Congress. Fact challenged, U.S. Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., [R-NC] has introduced a resolution to impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors except that as a usurper, Soetoro never had legal authority to act as Commander-in-Chief.
The Republicans know such a resolution will go no where. It was introduced March 7, 2012, and has a grand total of 2 co-sponsors. As Bush was to Pelosi, Barry is to the GOP for the 2012 elections. The deal makers in the Outlaw Congress are fully aware that we the people know they are responsible for allowing the electoral college vote to proceed on January 9, 2009, installing an impostor president in the White House. Jones' resolution is simply throwing scraps to the peasants to appease. Keep them herded in the wrong direction which protects the gross negligence by every incumbent on January 9, 2009.
Those who continue to spend time and money on an impeachment are working for the wrong side whether they know it or not. If Soetoro's "presidency" is allowed to stand as legitimate, again, it will set one of the worst legal precedents in the history of this country. I hope that people like Alex Jones will stop promoting that effort.
While Sheriff Joe's Cold Posse continues their investigation, is there any other legal method to remove Barry from the White House? You can't say remove him from office since he was never eligible to run in 2008. Because Barry was never eligible to be on the ballot in any state, no one had the right to vote for him in 2008.
There's no question Soetoro's Selective Service Registration Card is a forgery. I don't believe there's doubt any longer he has been using someone else's social security number. The birth certificate he has presented to the world is a forgery. But, how do we legally deal with it as we wait to see what the U.S. Supreme Court decides on April 20, 2012, and beyond?
By demanding a special prosecutor be appointed to deal with only one issue: The forged birth certificate. The role of a special counsel is to investigate wrong doing by the Executive Branch. Barry Soetoro released a forged document in his "official" capacity on April 27, 2011. He "owns it" now and for that alone, a special counsel could be appointed.
Why not include the forged Selective Service (SS) card and use of someone else's social security number (SSN) to a special counsel? Because the SS card forgery was committed before he was "elected". I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say whether or not Barry can still be indicted and prosecuted under federal law for forging his SS registration form. The statute of limitations might have already run.
As for using someone else's SSN, Soetoro can weasel out of that one by saying his deceased mother applied for the number while he was a minor and he never had reason to question it. (Smirk)
Second, and I didn't believe it until I read the cases, courts have now given the green light in promoting identify theft. In 2010, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that a man who used his real name but someone else's Social Security number to obtain a car loan was not guilty of "criminal impersonation," overturning convictions by lower courts. That followed a ruling the prior year by the U.S. Supreme Court, quote: "A Mexican man who gave a false SSN to get a job at an Illinois steel plant could not be convicted under federal identity theft laws because he did not knowingly use another person's identifying number. The ruling overturned an opinion by a federal appeals court in St. Louis — and contradicted earlier findings by circuit courts in the Southeast, upper Midwest and the Gulf states."
Oh, that's right. That thief used someone else's SSN to get a job, but didn't commit a crime because he "did not knowingly use another person's identifying number". Well, just whose number did that thief think he was using since it wasn't his own? Those judges should be thrown off the bench for literally opening the door for more identity theft ruining people's lives.
Soetoro can be indicted and prosecuted after he leaves "office" for carrying out a "scheme to defraud" the public via his "dishonest services"; United States v. Frega, 179 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 1999). He most certainly can be indicted, and hopefully convicted, under the wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. §1343. That is not idle speculation. The impostor president, knowing he was ineligible, solicited campaign funds via television, radio and the Internet to the tune of about $700 million dollars. Those charges alone, if convicted, would put him in federal prison for a long time.
The House Judiciary Committee has the power and authority to demand a special counsel. The conundrum is not an easy one to overcome. Current law allows the U.S. Attorney General to appoint a special counsel. The thoroughly corrupt, Eric Holder, will never appoint one to investigate the putative president's deliberate release of a forged document. A forged document that allegedly reinforces his eligibility. The House Judiciary Committee could take the extraordinary step of going to the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC and demand a special counsel be appointed.
If Rep. Jones feels so strongly about impeachment, perhaps some of his constituents can educate him on why that cannot and will not happen and to support appointment of a special counsel. To not support such an appointment will speak volumes.
If the millions of Americans who are putting their efforts towards impeachment would flood the House Judiciary Committee with letters demanding a special counsel, it would raise the stakes to a new level. It would also make Barry's situation so untenable he "resigns" or his handlers force him to leave; we know how issues "grow legs". The question of why would Barry use a forged birth certificate raises the one legal issue for which he can be removed from the White House: his dual citizenship at birth, not where he was born. A special counsel would be forced to address that issue. It's called motive.
At this time we don't know what Sheriff Joe will do with his final investigation as far as a legal enforcement body. But, every member of the U.S. House of Representatives is up for reelection this November. Remind members of the Judiciary Committee and your incumbent that if they don't stand up for the U.S. Constitution now, look for a new job. Hit your incumbent at every town hall meeting, every fund raiser and any where else he/she appears. Republicans desperately want this to go away, but we the people can show them it isn't and we will not stop until Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama is brought to justice for his crimes.
1- The conundrum of removing Obama/Soetoro from office (5.11.2011)
2- Follow up on Quo Warranto as it relates to removing Obama/Soetoro (5.12.2011)
3- Why Obama cannot be impeached (7.14.2011)
4- Obama could be removed by his own signature (7.22.2011)
April 16th, 2012 by olddog
By James Corbett
“War is a racket. It always has been.” These words are as true now as they were when Major General Smedley Butler first delivered them in a series of speeches in the 1930s. And he should have known. As one of the most decorated and celebrated marines in the history of the Corps, Butler drew on his own experiences around the globe to rail against the business interests that use the U.S. military as muscle men to protect their racket from perceived threats. From National City Bank interests in Haiti to United Fruit plantations in Honduras, from Standard Oil access to China to Brown Brothers operations in Nicaragua, Butler pointed out how intervention after intervention served the business interests of the well-connected even as American taxpayer money went to foot the bill for these adventures. The names and places may have changed, but the old adage holds: the more things change, the more they stay the same.
The National Transitional Council that is nominally in charge of what is left of Libya announced this week that they are beginning a probe of foreign oil contracts brokered during Gaddafi's reign by his son, Saif al-Islam. Libya is sitting on the largest oil reserves in Africa, and it is no coincidence that within weeks of the start of the NATO campaign last year the rebels had already secured the country's oil ports and refineries on the Gulf of Sidra and established their own national oil company for negotiating contracts with the invading forces. Although the oil contract probes are supposedly meant to show the transparency of the new “government” and their willingness to root out the graft and kickbacks inherent in the old regime, it's quietly acknowledged that the process will be used to reward the nations that most visibly supported last year's invasions and punish those who were more reticent.
Surprising, then, that the first companies on the block are Italy's Eni and France's Total. Both countries fostered close ties with the NTC last year and France was the first country to officially recognize them as the government of Libya. But now Libya's general prosecutor is reviewing documents related to these companies for possible financial irregularities. The SEC is getting in on the act, too, requesting documents relating to both companies' Libyan operations to check for suspected violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The potential blow to the European giants' share in the Libyan market is especially painful in light of the upcoming Iranian oil embargo that threatens to squeeze the crude imports of Greece, Italy and Spain. Now, as Libya ramps up oil production to pre-war levels the obvious potential winners in the probe are the American and British majors, who could end up eating up some of Eni and Total's share in Libya's oil production should the investigation lead to charges.
China may also have reason to be wary of their standing with the new government. Chinese-Libyan ties were increasingly close in the years leading up to Gaddafi's ouster, with trade volume having reached $6.6 billion in 2010. In 2007, as the US was beginning to put AFRICOM together and the competitive scramble for African resources was heating up, Gaddafi delivered an address to the students of Oxford University where he praised China's hands-off approach to investment in Africa. At the time, Gaddafi suggested that Beijing was winning the hearts and minds of Africans with its reluctance to interfere in local politics, while Washington was alienating the population with their heavy-handed interventions. In the wake of the NATO bombing the would-be government of Libya is singing a different tune and relations with China have cooled down. Last August a senior NTC official suggested that China would be punished when it came time to award reconstruction contracts in Libya because of their initial reluctance to support the rebels. Although the statement was downplayed, it was revealed earlier this month that Chinese companies are still waiting to begin negotiations on losses to frozen and outstanding contracts worth $18.8 billion. Relations are still cordial, though, and the Libyan government is assuring China that the contracting companies will be in a better position to resume negotiations after national elections in June.
These latest moves from Tripoli may be as much about projecting the idea that the NTC is actually functioning as a government than anything else, though. Armed militias are still waging violent turf wars throughout the country, with 26 people dying in fighting between rivals in the western town of Zwara earlier this month and 150 dying in skirmishes last month in the southern city of Sabha. One militia stormed a hotel in Tripoli and opened fire, then beat and kidnapped the manager after he told a militia member to pay an outstanding room bill. Last week hundreds marched in Benghazi to call for an end to the violence between the armed gangs. The country is deeply divided along tribal lines and armed militias still occupy government buildings and openly flaunt the pronouncements of the erstwhile government. The idea that the NTC is actually functioning as a government is a pipe dream at this point, but as long as they keep the oil pumping and the victors of last year's humanitarian love bombing get their spoils, there's hardly a peep out of Washington, Paris, or London. Smedley Butler would not be surprised.
Meanwhile in Syria, the racketeers' plans for a Libyan repeat are proceeding apace. Last week we reported on the so-called “Friends of Syria” and their agreement to begin openly funding the rebels to the tune of millions of dollars. This week we have been watching the inevitable, pre-scripted “break down” in Annan's UN-brokered ceasefire. Exactly on cue, unverified reports from unnamed activists have begun rolling in to the usual media mouthpieces via foreign-based NGOs proclaiming so many people have died in continued fighting. The unacknowledged elephant in the room, however, is that, exactly as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has been attempting to point out all month, it's impossible to expect a cessation in fighting when you are openly arming, training and funding an insurgent proxy army that is hell-bent on toppling the government. However, Lavrov is banging his head against a brick wall. The ceasefire was never meant to be a ceasefire and it's all political theater at this point anyway. Any and every unverified rumor of fighting or violence in the country will now be taken as a sign that Assad has broken the agreement and the pressure to get Beijing and Moscow to acquiesce to the toppling of the Syrian government will intensify.
In the end, this will not be a carbon copy of Libya. There will be no NATO-led bombardment or large-scale military intervention, because Russia couldn't allow that to happen. Besides, Syria has Russian supplied surface-to-air missiles and no compunction about using them. Instead, political pressure will increase for Assad to step down and the funds and arms to the rent-a-rebel force will continue increasing until the government is toppled. The dangerous factor in this equation is that neither the west nor China/Russia have blinked yet and there is a significant amount of face to lose for one side or the other in this proxy struggle. The one with the most to lose is clearly Iran, which all things being equal would be a dominant power player in regional politics. All things, however, are not equal. With their oil increasingly embargoed, the sanctions getting progressively tighter, and one of their key allies in the region threatening to topple in favor of a hostile Sunni insurgency, Iran has to know that when and if the Syrian domino falls, it falls on them.
At the same time, attention is turning once again to another of the war racketeers' key interests: Pakistan. There has been newfound congressional interest in the so-called “Free Baluchistan” movement seeking independence for Pakistan's Baluchi nationals. Citing human rights violations, Rep. Rohrbacher (R-California) has introduced a resolution calling on Pakistan to recognize Balochi self-determination. He has even written an op-ed in the Washington Post where he begins his argument with recourse to human rights and switches seamlessly in the fourth paragraph into noting with evident glee the region's natural gas, gold, uranium, and copper reserves.
Interestingly, Russia agreed last week to pony up $1.5 billion in financing and technical assistance for a proposed Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline. The projected course of the pipeline? It would start in Iran’s southern Assalouyeh Energy Zone and enter Pakistan from the west, crossing straight through Baluchistan. Coincidence, surely. The IP pipeline has had a tumultuous history, complete with plans to run the pipeline all the way to India (an idea from which India has distanced itself but never completely abandoned) and the potential involvement of China, which has flirted with the idea of incorporating the pipeline into a planned logistical network running from the port of Gwadar in Pakistan's southwest all the way to Xinjiang province. Now, with a proposal for Russian funding on the table the pipeline looks closer than ever to becoming a reality.
From the outset, the US has used every bit of leverage it has to get the parties involved to scrap the idea. Diplomatic pressure has been brought to bear on China, Pakistan, and India, with Beijing and New Delhi both appearing to buckle under the pressure and pull out of the project. The US has backed its own alternative pipeline, a Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India route, but that idea is looking less feasible by the day. Iran has nearly completed its share of the proposed IP pipeline, but Pakistan has been hesitant. Now along come the racketeers to fund yet another rebel movement in another geostrategically vital corridor, and before you know it “Free Baluchistan” might derail the project altogether. Look for US pressure on the Pakistani government regarding Baluchistan to increase as the pipeline comes closer to completion.
Butler was right. War is a racket, after all. These days the muscle men are rent-a-mobs and insurgents more so than the U.S. military, but the idea is the same: fund, arm and train the fighters to secure the resources and control the strategic areas. In Libya the NATO-backed rebels wrested the oil spigot from the unpredictable Gaddafi. In Syria the “Friends of Syria” are overthrowing a key Iranian ally and taking over an important square on the geopolitical chessboard. In Pakistan, American-backed rebels may succeed in driving a wedge through a key Iran-Pakistan pipeline. And the racket continues. One would do well to remember the grand finale of Butler's speech: “To hell with war!”
In order to access the Corbett Report: http://www.corbettreport.com
April 14th, 2012 by olddog
By Floyd Brown
Western Center for Journalism
He stopped trying to hide the fact that he believes that he's our king and dictator long ago. And now, it's even worse… some of his minions and supporters are no longer trying to hide the fact that THEY
believe that Obama is our king and our dictator.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words and the sick and repulsive "novelty item" to the right is now being flown by Obama's minions across the country. Even the see-no-evil-Obama-media has taken notice of people flying this desecration in various places across the country, including a Democratic Headquarters in Florida.
The fact that people would desecrate the flag in such a manner should make you angry, but it's also a symptom of a deep sickness. You would have expected to see such a cultish display in Mao Tse Tung's China or in Soviet Russia… but never here… never in the good ol' USA.
But it's flying here and that means that the cult of personality is alive and well in what used to pass for the United States of America. It can no longer be ignored. We are now being ruled by a tin-pot, de-facto dictator and it's about time that someone, other than Obama's minions who fly that desecration with pride in their hearts, has the courage to admit it.
The Obama Regime is a full-grown malignancy… a horrendous disease afflicting this great nation; and the picture above proves it more than any words can ever express. And there is only one cure for what ails this great nation. The time for Congress to IMPEACH BARACK OBAMA is upon us. It is now!
He's Declared Congress Irrelevant. Now, He's About To Declare The Courts Irrelevant Too.
For months, Barack Obama telegraphed that he would deem Congress irrelevant. No one believed it. When Obama adviser Josh Earnest, said working with Congress is "no longer a requirement," our elected officials simply dismissed the statement as a figure of speech.
But Obama was as good as his word. When he clearly violated Article 2, Section 2 of the United States Constitution and decreed, without the advice and consent of the Senate, that Richard Cordray would be the head of his so-called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he made it official.
Through this seemingly insignificant but illegal act of defiance, Barack Obama stopped sticking his toe in the water and finally took the plunge. He essentially declared himself dictator, and no one in Congress lifted a finger to stop his tyrannical usurpation of power!
And now, he's about to do the same to the Supreme Court and no one can say he didn't warn us. With totalitarian audacity and dictatorial arrogance, Barack Hussein Obama recently DARED the Justices of the United States Supreme Court to cross him and strike down his precious ObamaCare. From on high, he proclaimed that any ruling, not to his liking, would constitute "judicial activism."
And in spite of the back-tracking from Eric Holder's Department of Injustice, Obama still managed to successfully telegraph his chilling and totalitarian message. It doesn't really matter what actually constitutes "judicial activism" because only Barack Obama defines "judicial activism" and what Barack Obama, defines as "judicial activism" will NOT BE TOLERATED. Essentially he's saying: Go ahead, rule against me; I'll simply declare you irrelevant and continue to implement ObamaCare anyway!
The pundits will try to tell you that such a thing is not possible… that it can't happen. They're fools. What's to stop Barack Obama from declaring the Supreme Court irrelevant? What's to stop him from doing again what he has already done? He's violated the Constitution and usurped power on far too many occasions already and no one has stopped him.
Why, after all that has already transpired, is it so hard for the politicians and pundits in Washington to get their heads around the concept that Barack Obama will YET AGAIN usurp authority he does not have and rule this nation as he pleases? He's already declared himself to be above the law… beyond the law. What's Congress going to do? Impeach him?
Our answer? Hell yes! Our founders knew that such a thing could happen. They knew that a self-styled dictator could, one day, take control of the Executive Branch of the federal government, and they ratified Article 2, Section IV of the Constitution of the United States to safeguard our great nation against such an eventuality.
The Obama Regime is a disease. Impeachment is the cure!
Enough Is Enough.
How many times will Barack Obama violate his oath of office before conservative in Congress, say enough is enough? What will it take for our so-called conservative leaders to stop hiding behind their desks and do what must be done to save our country?
Something must be done and you're not the only one saying it.
When Obama commanded the United States Supreme Court not to strike down his precious (and unconstitutional) ObamaCare, Breitbart.tv wrote that Obama had "declared war on the Supreme Court" and Dan Collins with Conservativecommune.com wrote: "This thug needs to be impeached and thrown out of office for a seditious violation of the Constitution." And yet, no one in Congress has lifted a finger.
Tony Katz, in TownHall.com, writes: "Obama’s pronouncement about the Supreme Court was so disingenuous and divisive as alone to warrant impeachment proceedings." And yet, no one in Congress has lifted a finger.
Obama was caught in an open mic moment and actually told Russia's Dmitry Medvedev that he would have "more flexibility" after the November election to put our national security on the back burner, Katz called it a "stunning statement… worthy of a conversation about treason." And yet, no one in Congress has lifted a finger.
The Obama Regime is telling the Catholic Church and other institutions of faith, in direct violation of the 1st Amendment, that they are now REQUIRED to pay for the birth control, sterilizations and abortions of others. And yet, no one in Congress has lifted a finger.
And in spite of the constitutional requirement that the President of the United States enforce all the laws of the land, Barack Obama decreed that he would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and that he would not defend the Act in court. It was a clear violation of the Constitution. Peter LaBarbera with AFTAH rightly called it "another shocking act" by "the most arrogant and Constitution-abusing president in America’s history." And yet, no one in Congress has lifted a finger.
It's time for our elected officials in Congress to understand what the American people already know. Our nation is under attack from within and the source of those attacks must be removed.
Tyranny Has Become A Pattern Of Behavior With The Obama Regime.
Let's face facts; tyranny has become a pattern of behavior with Obama and he's no longer making an effort to even conceal his tyrannical abuses of power. Obama has essentially said… one too many times… I'll do as I please and I dare anyone to stop me.
Ironically, a man who is probably not constitutionally eligible to hold the office in the first place has seized powers that go far beyond those that a legitimate President would wield.
But Barack Obama is not a king or a monarch. He is not our dictator and when the man or woman occupying the Oval Office violates the Constitution, the remedy is IMPEACHMENT!
There can be no other remedy. Obama has gone too far too many times. The Obama Regime has become bold as brass.
And why shouldn't Obama and his apparatchiks be bold? At every turn our so-called Republican leaders in Congress have given him inches, and each time he has taken miles. When will these tyrannical abuses stop? How far will Barack Obama go? When will they draw a line in the sand and say: the tyranny stops today!
History doesn't paint a pretty picture. Until patriotic Americans take action and lean on our elected representatives to expose Obama's dictatorial, illegal and unconstitutional behavior, the sky is the limit.
But it's not too late. To those who may be saying that pushing for impeachment is "impractical" with an election less than year away, we respectfully ask: how much damage can Barack Obama do in one year? How much power can he tyrannically usurp in a year? How much damage can he do to this great country and our Constitution in a year?
Pending elections DO NOT trump the Constitution and at this point, patriotic Americans should not be asking WHETHER Barack Obama should be impeached but rather, need to be asking WHEN will Barack Obama be impeached!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Faxes to the Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
If button above does not work, please use this hyperlink.
P.S. Even if you can not join us in this effort right now, you can still help us expose Barack Hussein Obama by sending this e-mail to at least 10 of your friends.
The Western Center for Journalism is a 501©3 educational organization. Contributions are tax-deductible as allowed by IRS regulations. Personal and corporate contributions are allowed.
The Center for Western Journalism
42104 N Venture Drive Suite B-122, Anthem, AZ 85086 (202) 370-6366
April 12th, 2012 by olddog
By Marti Oakley Copyright 2012 All rights Reserved
Vote all you want, the flight plan does not change no matter who wins. We got us a big election coming up and of course the country is dividing itself right down the middle at least in some areas. For most of us out here this coming election means nothing. The usual arguments over whether we are flying headlong into socialism or, if we are in fact in the throws of fascism seem to have lost their appeal. Most have realized that whether socialism or fascism the end result is the same; a ruling class and the rest of us servants. It just depends on which sales pitch appeals to you. For most of us, we have had it with the snake oil politicians and their ever changing sales pitch’s. over Fascism, the overtaking of government by corporations, is hidden behind euphoric, glorious terms; Free markets, free trade, globalism and the world economy. Most who subscribe to this pitch appear to be fearful of being cut out of the action, maybe not getting a piece of the global pie or at least a piece as big as they thought they should get. Socialism, the plan for the common people, will see many fall never to rise again.
In 2010, even many hard-core Republicans were relieved to see the end of the Bush/Cheney neo-cons and the unending assaults on freedom and our rights. Eight years of what was, in my opinion, the most treacherous, murderous, pathologically evil cabal that had seized control of our country, was finally over. What we were to find out was that it would only be continued under the new president, and taken so much further.
The election of Obama gave the country its first sense of hope after eight years of massive walls of lies, deceit, manipulation and some of the most corrupt individuals to ever find their way into our government. We replaced the neo-cons with Obama/Biden. We should have listened more closely to that victory speech, but we didn’t. We were too relieved, too hopeful and far too enthralled with this new president and the promises made; promises we thought meant a return to liberty, to integrity and honor. We should have listened more closely and not allowed our emotions to cloud our critical thinking.
Obama asked in his acceptance speech if we were ready to join him in fundamentally changing our country. What did we think he meant? Did any one of us think to ask….fundamentally change it how? No, we did not. It would appear the fundamental changes Obama promised were comprised of restructuring state and local governments to accommodate the United Nations and one world government. Along the way we [fundamentally changed] Libya, Egypt, parts of Pakistan and are now looking towards fundamentally changing Iran and a few other places where the global bankers had been unable to sink their parasitic claws into, and the global oil cartels had not been able to rob and plunder the oil fields. Obama has simply picked up the one world government mantra and moved forward at great speed deconstructing the United States
We are watching in horror the fundamental changing not only here at home but around the world as the one world government begins to be assembled.
The Flight plan
The plan has been for many decades to totally deconstruct the sovereign United States, reducing us to third world status so that no matter how hard we have worked in the past, or how hard we work in the future we will never regain our former stature. We will never be as free or empowered as a population as we once were.
The coming presidential election means nothing. Mit Romney, who does not stand a remote chance of even coming anywhere close to winning the election has now been assured the Republican nomination. This only affirms what I have said in the past: No one wants Obama re-elected more than the GOP does.
Our economy is virtually dissolving before our eyes. We have 25 million legal American workers out of work with more American jobs leaving the country by the thousands each and every month, never to return. The whole structure is going to collapse under the weight of ever-increasing and senseless federal spending and we are faced with a debt so massive, so incomprehensible, that it can never be paid off. The last thing the GOP and Republicans want is for the impending total collapse to be steered by a Republican president.
Obama must be re-elected.
What better way to make sure Obama is re-elected than to run what possibly is the most lack-luster, uninspiring, unpopular candidate possible? The really frightening part of this is that with the exception of Ron Paul, the other candidates that came and went; Gingrich, Santorum, Trump, to name a few, were bordering on lunacy or gross immorality. And these were the best the GOP could come up with? And they want to win the presidential election? Really? Then why didn’t they support Ron Paul?
As it is, we can only look forward to more of the same. Even if Romney stood a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected, not one of the egregious assaults on the constitution, the expanded power grabbing by the federal government, the construction of unconstitutional councils, czars offices, or even the unlawful expansion of federally owned sub-corporations like the EPA, USDA, FDA, will be reversed. The deconstruction of the Republic of the United States will continue as if we never voted at all. Romney would not correct even one thing. If he would or could, he would never get the nomination.
So vote all you want, not one thing will change. Not one job will be saved, not one Wall Street crook will go to jail, not one corrupt banker or politician will ever face charges. While you are busy punching those buttons congress will still be busy with insider trading and Dempsey and Panetta will be dining with their new masters at the United Nations. Agenda 21 mandates will continue to be implemented in your state and city and eventually your right to own property, unfettered by federal interference and UN edicts, will have disappeared.
We do not elect presidents: We elect the Chief Executive of the corporation known as “the United States, a.k.a. The USA” and this corporation is not bound by our Constitution and does not believe we should or do have any inalienable rights. We are being controlled by a hostile foreign government.
As one very great lady said:
“If voting could change anything, they would make it illegal”.
April 10th, 2012 by olddog
R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences
Freelance Investigative Science Reporter
NOTE: the GOP took your money to run fake campaigns and they knew all along that it would go to a brokered convention…that is how the game is played in the GOP…TOTAL CONTROL. Those of us who have studied this monster from inside the political field understand how it works. Money is king. Vote counters control the winners. Let me be absolutely clear…every candidate running today in the GOP is destined to be a loser….and they have agreed…for a price…to play the game as it is dictated from the national level of the GOP…which will never admit to any of it. After the 2012 elections, watch who is appointed to what for the details.
FACT: You can continue to use "basket ball rules" on the "political football field"…or you can learn the real rules. Choose….either CONTROL or BE CONTROLLED. By the way…NO, you are not "free"…. but, you don't have to be stupid.
READ the definition of a Brokered Convention, and then read the recent article about the most unfavored candidate in the GOP race. He refused to play their game, and he is totally ignored by the media, because they are forcing him out of their game. He is playing by the basketball rules…and he is losing….will you?
QUOTES: Definition of "brokered convention" and an ARTICLE
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A brokered convention is a situation in United States politics in which there are not enough delegates 'won' during the presidential primary and caucus elections for a single candidate to have a pre-existing majority, during the first official vote for a political party's presidential candidate at its nominating convention.
Once the first ballot, or vote, has occurred, and no candidate has a majority of the delegates' votes, the convention is then considered brokered; thereafter, the nomination is decided through a process of alternating political horse-trading, and additional re-votes. In this circumstance, all regular delegates (who, previously, were pledged to the candidate who had won their respective state's primary or caucus election) are "released," and are able to switch their allegiance to a different candidate before the next round of balloting. It is hoped that this 'freedom' will result in a re-vote resulting in a clear majority of delegates for one candidate.
Superdelegate votes are counted on the first ballot. Although the term "brokered convention" is sometimes used to refer to a convention where the outcome is decided by superdelegate votes rather than pledged delegates alone, this is not the original sense of the term. Like a brokered convention, the potentially decisive role played by superdelegates can often go against the popular vote from the primaries and caucuses.
 Brokered conventions
Before the era of presidential primary elections, political party conventions were routinely brokered. The Democratic Party required two-thirds of delegates to choose a candidate, starting with the first Democratic National Convention in 1832, and then at every convention from 1844 until 1936. This made it far more likely to have a brokered convention, particularly when two strong factions existed. The most infamous example was at the 1924 Democratic National Convention (the Klanbake), where the divisions between Wets and Drys on Prohibition (and other issues) led to 102 ballots of deadlock between frontrunners Alfred E. Smith and William G. McAdoo before dark horse John W. Davis was chosen as a compromise candidate on the 103rd ballot. Adlai Stevenson (of the 1952 Democratic Party) and Thomas Dewey (of the 1948 Republican Party) were the most recent "brokered convention" presidential nominees. The last winning U.S. presidential nominee produced by a brokered convention was Franklin D. Roosevelt, in 1932.
 Conventions which were close to being brokered
Since 1952, there have been many years when brokered conventions were projected but did not come to pass:
- The Democratic Party's 1968 convention might have been brokered. Robert F. Kennedy won most of the primaries held before his assassination, though at the time not enough delegates were selected by primaries to determine the presidential nominee. President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had decided against running for a second term, still controlled most of the party machinery and did use it in support of Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who did not contest the primaries. Had Kennedy not been assassinated, that would have meant that the convention may have been divided between him and Humphrey's supporters.
- In 1976, the Republican primaries gave President Gerald Ford a slight lead in the popular vote and delegates entering the Republican National Convention but not enough delegates to secure the nomination. A brokered convention was predicted but Ford managed to receive the necessary support on the first ballot to edge Ronald Reagan. This is the last time a Republican presidential convention opened without the nominee having already been decided in the primaries.
- In 1980, Senator Ted Kennedy, challenging incumbent President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination, fell short in the primaries, but was still angling for delegates to switch over to him when he arrived at the Democratic convention in August. It was to no avail: Carter won handily on the first ballot, and Kennedy finally dropped out of the running a few hours later.
- In 1984, as a result of the Democratic primaries, former Vice President Walter Mondale was the clear frontrunner though he remained 40 delegates short of clinching the nomination. This had to be formalized at the convention, being the last time that any presidential convention opened without the nominee having already been decided in the primaries. However, a convention fight was unlikely as rival Gary Hart was lobbying for the Vice Presidential slot on the ticket, being resigned to the likely possibility that Mondale would receive the nomination. Mondale indeed received the overwhelming support of superdelegates on the first ballot to become the Democratic presidential candidate.
- In 1988, a brokered convention was predicted for the Democrats. There was initially no clear frontrunner since Gary Hart had withdrawn. Also, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and Jesse Jackson each won multiple primaries on Super Tuesday. Dukakis was named the frontrunner by the media, as he drew support from all sections of the nation while other candidates' support was largely limited to their native regions, so he maintained the momentum to secure the nomination in the next round of primaries.
 2008 presidential election
For the 2008 election there had been speculation that the Democratic Party's national convention might be brokered, or at least that the convention might commence without a presumptive nominee.
For the Democrats a brokered convention was considered possible, as it was unclear for a time whether either of the two frontrunners, Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton, would be able to win a majority of pledged delegates before the convention. The only other candidate with pledged delegates was John Edwards, with 0.5% of the delegates.
The provisos given above do not consider the fact that Michigan and Florida's delegates were originally excluded, since they held their primaries too early in violation of party rules. However, through a compromise by the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee, Michigan and Florida delegates were seated and receive 0.5 votes per delegate. Clinton's Michigan campaign chair James Blanchard, argued that both states should have their full delegate slates restored; David Bonior who was now on Obama's team pointed out that these primaries were not proper contests – Clinton was the only presidential nominee that campaigned and therefore won most of the popular vote in these states – and that the DNC compromise was a concession on their part.
While falling behind Obama in the popular vote and delegates won through primaries and caucuses, Clinton initially enjoyed a large lead in superdelegates and maintained that they believed that she was the stronger candidate in the general election. Nonetheless, Obama criticized Clinton's rationale saying that the superdelegates' decisive role could be seen as undemocratic if it went against the popular vote. During the last week of primaries, DNC Chairman Howard Dean was also pressuring undecided superdelegates to commit to either remaining presidential candidate, in order to avert the potentially divisive contest carrying on in the summer. Clinton opposed Dean's initiative, because she planned to continue all the way to the convention where the undecided superdelegates would be her last chance to get the nomination, knowing that she could not overtake Obama's lead in the remaining primaries. With Obama taking North Carolina by double digits and almost winning the crucial blue-collar state of Indiana on Super Tuesday III, ensuring him the majority of delegates and popular vote from the primaries, more and more superdelegates began committing to him leading up to the June 3 contests. As a result, on June 3, Obama was declared the presumptive nominee that evening, with pledged delegates from Montana and South Dakota. Clinton conceded on June 7, urging her supporters to support Obama in the general election, and so no brokered convention resulted for the Democrats in 2008.
For the Republicans, a brokered convention was also forecast because of the number of strong candidates and their different geographic bases. The number of "winner take all" states benefits candidates with strong regional support. In addition, the weakened power of President Bush to force candidates out of the race results in fewer levels of influence for them. With John McCain winning the majority of delegates on Super Tuesday and the subsequent withdrawal of his strongest challenger, Mitt Romney, the brokered convention was averted.
 Brokered conventions today
Several factors encourage a clear and timely decision in the primary process.
First, candidates tend to get momentum as they go through the process because of the bandwagon effect. Thus, one or two candidates will be portrayed by the media to voters as the front runner(s) as a result of their placement in the first primaries and caucuses, and as also-ran candidates drop out, their supporters will tend to vote for the leaders. Theorists have identified two types of political momentum, piecemeal and all-at-once, with different impacts on front-runners and those right behind them.
Secondly, political parties wish to avoid the negative publicity from a brokered convention as well as to maximize the amount of time the nominee has to campaign for the presidency itself (there are barely two months between the major parties' conventions and Election Day).
Especially on account of the desire to foster party unity in the months leading up to Election Day, it is considered possible if not probable that any "brokering" that may be required for a future presidential convention will actually take place in the weeks and months leading up to the convention, once it becomes clear that no candidate will likely secure a majority of delegates without an agreement with one or more rivals. Such an agreement would likely commit the front runner to make some form of concession(s) in return, such as selecting the former rival as his/her vice presidential nominee.
 Brokered conventions in popular culture
The movie The Best Man depicts the brokered convention of an unnamed political party, with two candidates vying for the support of a previous President.
In the last two episodes of season six of The West Wing, the Democratic party fought through a brokered convention, with dark horse candidate Matthew Santos (Jimmy Smits) eventually prevailing.
In the Hold Me in Paradise episode of Boardwalk Empire, "Nucky" Thompson is the de facto leader of the New Jersey Republican delegation during the 1920 Presidential Election held in Chicago. In the episode, Nucky commits his delegation to Warren G. Harding in exchange for an unfavorable outcome for an instate rival.
1. ^ Paul, Katie (2008-02-07). "Convention Wisdom". Newsweek.
2. ^ Eun Kyung Kim (2008-02-10). "Convention Q & A". Gannett News Service (Detroit Free Press).
3. ^ Clift, Eleanor (2008-02-06). "A Ticking Clock". Newsweek.
4. ^ Gold, Jeffrey (2008-02-09). "Post-primary questions answered". Associated Press (Courier-Post).
5. ^ Madonna, G. Terry (2007-12-06). "What If the Conventions Are Contested?". RealClearPolitics.
6. ^ Bai, Matt (2008-02-03). "Back-Room Choices". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-04-27.
7. ^ "Late Primary Keeps State Role Intact". States News Service (The New York Times). 1988-03-20.
8. ^ "A Brokered Convention" (video). 60 Minutes (Yahoo! News). 2008-02-08.
9. ^ Freddoso, David (2007-12-10). "Convention Wisdom". National Review.
10. ^ Baker, Peter (2008-01-15). "A Brokered Convention? Consider the Possibilities". The Trail (The Washington Post).
11. ^ Kornacki, Steve (2007-12-20). "About That Brokered Convention…". The New York Observer.
12. ^ Cost, Jay (2007-12-30). "The Iowa Fallout: A Primer on Momentum, Part 2". RealClearPolitics.
Ron Paul Is Being Cheated Out of the Republican Nomination
The GOP establishment has resorted to vote fraud in almost every state
Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Despite his runaway success in terms of straw poll victories, campaign contributions and grass roots energy, a plethora of evidence strongly indicates that Ron Paul is being cheated out of winning any of the Republican caucuses, with the GOP establishment desperate to prevent the Texan Congressman from building any kind of momentum that the likes of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have been afforded.
Even the establishment media is now being forced to report that “Ron Paul Might Have Won Maine,” with evidence of potential vote fraud targeted against Ron Paul prompting the state’s GOP chairman Charles Webster to ask for a recount.
With just 84 per cent of the votes being counted, and with many towns and counties showing strong support for Ron Paul having not yet cast their votes, the media along with the Republican establishment brazenly declared Mitt Romney to be the winner, despite him having just a 194 vote lead over Ron Paul.
Erroneous reports of a snowstorm were cited as a pretext to cancel the caucus in Washington County, an area heavily dominated by Paul supporters, delaying the vote for a week. Voters in the county are still waiting to cast their ballots.
“That’s right. A prediction of 3-4 inches–that turned into nothing more than a dusting–was enough for a local GOP official to postpone the caucuses just so the results wouldn’t be reported tonight,” spokesman Gary Howard wrote in an E-mail to supporters, adding that even the local Girl Scouts’ meeting survived the weather.
Local reporters in Maine also revealed how the vote for most Waldo County towns was entered as “0”, as if no one had turned out to vote.
Rachel Maddow expanded on the reports in a feature on MSNBC, pointing out that when one town in Waldo attempted to call in its results, State officials said they already had results from the town showing Romney had won, when in reality that wasn’t the case and in fact Ron Paul had won.
The controversy in Maine follows the admitted mistake in Iowa where Mitt Romney was announced as the winner and yet a later recount found that Rick Santorum had actually beaten him. The kind of momentum Santorum was allowed to build as a result of that revision is unlikely to be afforded to Ron Paul in Maine.
The vote in Iowa was labeled by one observer as the “biggest fraud since Kennedy stole the West Virginia Primary”.
Before the vote took place, in a state where pre-primary polling showed Ron Paul in with a good chance of taking top spot, Republican strategist Dee Dee Benkie told a radio show that GOP insiders had resolved to prevent Ron Paul from winning the primary.
“They’re not going to want him to get number one, it’s very bad for Iowa, it’s terrible,” said Benkie, confirming the host’s claim that Iowa District Chairmen are organizing voting blocks to sabotage Paul’s chances by offering them sweetheart deals in return for voting against Paul.
After votes were counted at a secret undisclosed location, it was announced that Ron Paul, despite pre-primary polls showing the Congressman was in with a good chance of winning, had finished third.
The debacle in Nevada also clearly indicates that Ron Paul was cheated out of victory in the SIlver State. Despite results from every other state primary showing Ron Paul at least doubling his vote tally compared to 2008, for example climbing from 16,000 to 78,000 votes in South Carolina, In Nevada Paul received just a few hundred more votes than he achieved in 2008, leaving him with a third placed finish.
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
“Ron Paul who took second in Nevada in 2008 with 6,087 votes, only increased his support by 1.4% to just 6,175 in the 2012 results, despite all of the excitement, all the money spent, which was a lot more,” reports Money Trends Research. “In fact, the Paul campaign had brochures and volunteers almost knock on every door in Nevada this time around. Nevada is also very fertile ground for a candidate like Ron Paul, many people in Nevada just want to be left alone by the government, Ron Paul opposes taxing tips, seeing that they are not really income, but gifts, you would think this would go over real well in Las Vegas.”
As we documented before the Nevada primary, Paul’s campaign, after having finished second in the state behind Mitt Romney in 2008, poured huge amounts of energy and funding into the 2012 race, whereas Romney hardly had any ground campaign at all, and yet Romney ended up taking the state by a landslide.
Massive evidence of vote fraud subsequently emerged. News networks had announced Romney as the landslide winner before votes from Clark County – the largest county in Nevada representing more than 60 percent of the state’s voters – had even been counted. When CNN aired live footage of the votes being counted from one of the caucuses in Clark County, it was clear that Ron Paul had handily defeated Romney, and this in a “precinct full of Jewish and extremely Christian voters, two of Ron Paul’s worst demographics.”
“For five minutes, CNN sat in silence as the Republican precinct captain shouted out each vote while dozens of tabulators sat nearby keeping track,” wrote Mark Wachtler. Unfolding one sheet at a time, the man yelled, “Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul.”
The final tally showed that Ron Paul had defeated Romney by 183 to 45, in a precinct dominated by a demographic that wouldn’t even be expected to support Paul. Extrapolating this result statewide would have given Paul a clear victory, and yet Mitt Romney’s “landslide” victory vote figure barely changed throughout the whole night of ballot counting and was confirmed after a “private” vote count by the GOP establishment.
“Many had watched the results being tabulated live on national TV just as this author had,” writes Wachtler. “We all saw Ron Paul’s overwhelming victory in that part of Clark County. It’s unimaginable to believe that in the same county, a candidate could win overwhelmingly when the votes were counted live on TV, but lose so badly when the votes were counted by the Party establishment behind closed doors.”
This compendium of evidence, and the information presented above is merely scratching the surface, illustrates the fact that Ron Paul’s failure to win any of the primaries despite his massive financial backing and grass roots support, is almost certainly a result of vote fraud on behalf of the GOP establishment, which has conspired in almost every state to cheat Ron Paul out of building the kind of momentum that would have provided him the opportunity to challenge Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination.
Watch the clips below in which Alex Jones summarizes the case for vote fraud being used to target Ron Paul.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.
Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-is-being-cheated-out-of-the-republican-nomination
April 3rd, 2012 by olddog
“I have had long conversations over the past two weeks with contacts at the Army War College, at the Headquarters Marine Corps, and I have made it absolutely clear in both cases that it is 100 percent certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation. Period,” Alan Sabrosky, writer and consultant specializing in national and international security affairs, said in a clip appearing on the public video-sharing website You Tube.
Sabrosky said his colleagues who are still serving in uniform initially react with incredulity to his assertions but upon his explanations regarding the controlled demolition of the buildings their disbelief gives way to rage.
“First is disbelief, and what I show them immediately afterwards is an interview with a Danish demolitions expert named Danny Jowenko, and it shows the third building at the World Trade Center going down – WTC7.”
“The thing that’s necessary is to tell people: three buildings went down; the third was not hit by a plane, it was wired for controlled demolition, therefore, all of them were wired for controlled demolition. And at that point the reaction is rage. First disbelief, and then rage,” he added.
Sabrosky said if the Americans were apprised of the truth behind the attacks, they would not hesitate to eliminate Israel without any consideration for the costs involved.
“If Americans ever know that Israel did this, they are going to scrub them off the earth,” he said.
On September 11, 2001, a series of coordinated attacks were carried out in theUnited States, reportedly leaving nearly 3,000 people dead.
The US government claimed that 19 terrorists, allegedly affiliated with the shadowy,Afghanistan-based al-Qaeda group, had hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners to carry out the attacks.
The official US account of the September 11 events has, however, been widely challenged by various quarters in the US and worldwide.
The US, under the administration of former President Bush, invaded Afghanistan in 2001 after claiming that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by the members of al-Qaeda harbored by the then Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
The US also attacked Iraq in 2003, insisting that the oil-rich country was in possession of weapons of mass destruction(WMD).
In his September 22, 2011 address to the UN General Assembly, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for an independent international probe into the 9/11 incident, saying the attacks provided the US with a convenient excuse to wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“The Zionists are playing this as truly an all-or-nothing exercise, because if they lose this one, if the American people ever realize what happened, they’re done,” Sabrosky concluded.
Click the link at the top of the page for the video.
April 2nd, 2012 by olddog
By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh
Let the influx of money be ever so great, if there be no confidence, property will sink in value…The circulation of confidence is better than the circulation of money.” —James Madison, Speech, Virginia Convention, June 20, 1788
According to data from the University of Illinois professors Lawrence H. Officer and Samuel H. Williamson, the value of the dollar had depreciated so much by 2008 that it took $5.31 to buy what it cost $1 in 1971 when Nixon decided that the dollar would no longer be backed by gold. Until then, $35 could buy a troy ounce of gold every day. Our dollar today is worth less than 19 cents when compared to 1971 and the price of gold fluctuates between $1,500-1,700 per ounce.
Between February 2002 and December 2004, the value of the dollar dropped against the euro by 40 percent, a significant decline that was largely ignored by the media. (William J. Baumol and Alan S. Blinder)
The U.S. dollar has continued its decline in spite of the rosy economic picture presented by the MSM in the last four years.
Members of Congress cannot claim ignorance about the declining trend of the U.S. dollar because Craig K. Elwell, a specialist in Macroeconomic Policy, wrote a report on February 23, 2012 for the Congressional Research Service, “The Depreciating Dollar: Economic Effects and Policy Response.”
Any currency, including the dollar, is affected by demand from foreign governments, foreign nationals, or foreign corporations who wish to purchase goods, services, and assets from the country that issues the currency.
In order to buy our stocks, bonds, real estate, goods, and services, foreigners must first buy our currency, thus creating a demand for it.
The supply of dollars comes from the Federal Reserve System (the Fed) who prints money or issues electronic credit to its member banks. Transactions are made directly in cash or electronically in the form of debit and credit through the bank of the buyer and seller of currency.
If we have a large trade deficit with other nations, and we do because we usually import more goods than we do export, the value of the dollar decreases. The dollar decreases in value as a direct response to the “net increase in the supply of dollars on the foreign exchange markets.” (Craig K. Elwell)
A net increase in the demand for dollars on foreign exchange markets can increase the value of the dollar.
According to Craig K. Elwell, in 2007, “at the peak of the last economic expansion, the U.S. capital account recorded $1.5 trillion in purchases of foreign assets by U.S. residents (representing a capital outflow) and $2.1 trillion in purchases of U.S. assets by foreign residents (representing a capital inflow).”
Congress cannot affect exchange rates directly, but the value of the dollar “can be affected by decisions made on policy issues facing the 112th Congress, including decisions related to generating jobs, raising the debt limit, reducing the budget deficit, and stabilizing the growth of the federal government’s long-term debt.” (Craig K. Elwell)
In other words, stop regulating the remaining U.S. industry to death while destroying small businesses that create jobs. Stop the non-existent man-made global warming nonsense. Everyone knows that politicians want power; it is not about the environment. Stop catering to the United Nations third world dictatorships. Stop wasting taxpayers’ dollars on solar panel black holes, invest in natural gas, clean coal, nuclear, and fossil fuel generated energy. Stop the non-existent green job creation lie, the Tesla “brick,” and the GM Volt electric car that nobody wants to buy. We want mobility. Stop sending our jobs overseas. Stop building corporate headquarters and entire industrial cities in China or India with U.S. dollars. Stop spending money we do not have. Stop borrowing money from China in order to spend it on wars, welfare, policing the planet, and supporting third world dictatorships who wish us harm. We are not Don Quixote de la Mancha “tilting at windmills,” attacking an imaginary enemy. We want to build a successful future, not the pipe dream of progressives.
Investors look for countries with a stable government, a high rate of return, good economic growth, and low inflation rates to park their excess capital. During the period of 1994-2003, U.S. had an expected rate of return of 8.6 percent (International Monetary Fund).
Current low interest rates in the U.S., kept so by Fed policy, give the U.S. no interest rate advantage over other developed countries. It is thus in the better interest of investors to move their capital to emerging economies, putting a further strain on the U.S. dollar.
If the dollar was expected to depreciate further due to a weak economy and out-of-control government spending, dollar assets would not be attractive to investors, they would seek new ways to diversify. By doing so, the value of the dollar would be eroded even more. “Diversifying to other currencies would be troublesome for the $11 trillion in U.S. securities held by foreigners.” (Craig K. Elwell)
The dollar is currently holding on because U.S. has a high degree of liquidity (securities can be turned quickly into cash with a daily turnover of $588 billion) and a variety of assets such as the bond market ($32 trillion total, $11 trillion government bonds).
Although the United States has been a safe bet in the past for foreign investors, as the largest debtor in the world, the federal government is now a default risk because of its lavish spending, which can downgrade Treasury securities and thus weaken the dollar.
Long-term assets are no longer seen as safe in the U.S. The dollar dropped 17 percent in value during 2009-2011. The European Union debt crisis in 2011-2012 with the potential default of Greece, its two bailouts, Italy’s bailout, Spain and Ireland, and the austerity measures demanded by Germany and France, gave the U.S. dollar a boost in value of 5 percent.
Central bank holdings are propping the U.S. dollar for the time being, in particular China with $3.2 trillion in exchange reserves, and Japan with $1.3 trillion.
The rising inflation rate in this country is depreciating the dollar as well. The purchasing power of the dollar is falling. All you have to do is take a trip to Italy. Prices are 44 percent higher not necessarily because of higher manufacturing costs, but simply because the exchange rate of the dollar against the euro is so weak.
A depreciated dollar will indirectly cause interest rates to go up. Current Federal Reserve policy is to keep interest rates low as a “monetary stimulus.” Despite low interest rates, demand for loans by small businesses and households is low because so many people are unemployed and businesses do not wish to expand in an economy burdened by expensive regulations and the specter of Obamacare liabilities. The Fed policy cannot successfully control both exchange rates and interest rates.
“The IMF study estimated that if the dollar had remained at its peak of early 2002, by the end of 2007, the price of gold would have been $250 per ounce lower, the price of a barrel of crude oil would have been $25 a barrel lower, and nonfuel commodity prices would have been 12 percent lower.” (Craig K. Elwell)
When the President says that nothing that we do can affect the price of oil, even if we drill everywhere, he is disingenuous. We can start by repealing the unfortunately named Affordable Healthcare Act that is bankrupting the country. We can drill on our own soil. We can implement logical and sane energy policies that restore the health of the U.S. economy and foreign investors’ trust in our government. The dollar is still the world’s “reserve currency.” China and Russia are trying to replace the dollar with another currency as trust in our government’s fiscal responsibility is waning.
Just maybe, after it’s too late, some of you will believe this is a planned depreciation of the dollar to remove it as a reserve currency and transfer economic leadership to china’s currency. Or, just a step in the process of a global currency from the BIS
March 30th, 2012 by olddog
Posted by truther
In a recent statement put out by “Planet Under Pressure” several scientists call for denser cities in order to mitigate worldwide population growth. When in doubt that UN’s Agenda 21 is not the Mein Kampf of our day, one should consider yet another in-your-face confession from yet another certified biocratic control freak
According to an MSNBC article one of the scientists while speaking about human populations worldwide, stated:
“We certainly don’t want them strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together].”
Insisting the world’s population be locked up within the confounds of mega-cities, the elite realizes that if the herd is to be properly controlled walls are needed- thick walls, and by constructing these walls, making the masses go this or that way will be made easier..
Chief scientist Michail Fragkias involved with “Planet under Pressure” told MSNBC that “the answer (to population growth) is denser cities.”
The conference, co-sponsored by NASA and UNEP by the way, released its statement calling for denser cities to mitigate “worldwide population growth” ahead of the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development taking place in June of this year.
“If cities can develop in height rather than in width that would be much more preferable and environmentally not as harmful”, Fragkias said.
People who know anything about history know that the creation of mega-cities in which the masses may be rounded up and enclosed, is identical to the Nazi principle of the “ghetto” as a means of managing the masses. Every student of history may also know what happens to those masses shortly after.
Some of the organizers of “Planet under Pressure” are founding their plea on the notion that we (as humanity) have entered the “Anthropocene”: a new geological era in which humans- not natural conditions- are the main drivers of geological and meteorological processes. Citing a website devoted to this concept, Martin Rees of the Royal Society stated at the conference:
“This century is special in the Earth’s history. It is the first when one species — ours — has the planet’s future in its hands,” reports the AFP news agency. “We’ve invented a new geological era: the Anthropocene.”, he stated.
This echoes yet another scientist, a professor at the University of Colorado, who in recent times also mentioned this new era in relation to a call for population control when he stated:
“Scientists now speak of humanity’s increased demands and impacts on the globe as ushering in a new geological epoch: the Anthropocene. Such selfish and destructive appropriation of the resources of the Earth can only be described as interspecies genocide.”
In addition, the professor said: “Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers (emphasis added) may be necessary in order to do so.”
The call for compact cities, filled to the brim with humans, is part of the UN’s depopulation agenda for sure. Within these proposed mega-cities, humans will be allowed to use RFID technology so they can be kept in check. The rest of the world, the “countryside” as one of the scientists told MSNBC, is reserved for the elite.
March 29th, 2012 by olddog
Barack Obama actually plans to do it. He actually plans to neuter America by unilaterally dismantling most of the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal. In fact, Barack Obama says that the United States has a “moral obligation” to disarm as we lead the way to “a world without nuclear weapons”. Sadly, a “world without nuclear weapons” is a fantasy that will not be possible any time soon. Nuclear weapons technology is getting into more hands with each passing year, and geopolitical tensions are rising all over the globe. If the United States did not have nuclear weapons, anyone with just a handful of nukes would constitute a massive threat to our national security. An overwhelming strategic nuclear arsenal helps keep us safe because every other nation on the planet knows that it would be national suicide to attack us. If you take that overwhelming strategic nuclear arsenal away, the entire calculation changes.
Many out there claim that even if the U.S. only has a few hundred nuclear warheads that it will be more than enough to be an effective deterrent. Sadly, that simply is not true.
If an enemy knows that we only have a few hundred warheads, and if they know exactly where those warheads are located for verification purposes, then a first strike which would take out the vast majority of our operational warheads becomes very plausible.
That is why what Obama wants to do is so incredibly dangerous. If he reduces our strategic nuclear arsenal down to almost nothing, the odds of a nuclear first strike against the United States someday will go up dramatically.
The following is what Fox News reported that Obama said during a speech in South Korea the other day….
“American leadership has been essential to progress in a second area — taking concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons,” Obama said yesterday during a speech in Korea. “I believe the United States has a unique responsibility to act — indeed, we have a moral obligation.”
A moral obligation to do what? A moral obligation to neuter America? Obama also said the following in South Korea during his speech the other day….
“Even as we have more work to do, we can already say with confidence that we have more nuclear weapons than we need.”
March 22nd, 2012 by olddog
By Brandon Turbeville
In a stunning move, on March 16, 2012, Barack Obama signed an Executive Order stating that the President and his specifically designated Secretaries now have the authority to commandeer all domestic U.S. resources including food and water. The EO also states that the President and his Secretaries have the authority to seize all transportation, energy, and infrastructure inside the United States as well as forcibly induct/draft American citizens into the military. The EO also contains a vague reference in regards to harnessing American citizens to fulfill “labor requirements” for the purposes of national defense.
Not only that, but the authority claimed inside the EO does not only apply to National Emergencies and times of war. It also applies in peacetime.
The National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order exploits the “authority” granted to the President in the Defense Production Act of 1950 in order to assert that virtually every means of human survival is now available for confiscation and control by the President via his and his Secretaries’ whim.
The unconstitutionality of the overwhelming majority of Executive Orders is well established, as well as the illegality of denying citizens their basic Constitutional and human rights, even in the event of a legitimate national emergency. Likewise, it should also be pointed out that, like Obama’s recent Libyan adventure and the foregone conclusion of a Syrian intervention, there is no mention of Congress beyond a minor role of keeping the allegedly co-equal branch of government informed on contextually meaningless developments.
As was mentioned above, the scope of the EO is virtually all-encompassing. For instance, in “Section 201 – Priorities and Allocations Authorities,” the EO explains that the authority for the actions described in the opening paragraph rests with the President but is now delegated to the various Secretaries of the U.S. Federal Government. The list of delegations and the responsibility of the Secretaries as provided in this section are as follows:
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.
One need only to read the “Definitions” section of the EO in order to clearly see that terms such as “food resources” is an umbrella that includes literally every form of food and food-related product that could in any way be beneficial to human survival.
That being said, “Section 601 – Secretary of Labor” delegates special responsibilities to the Secretary of Labor as it involves not just materials citizens will need for survival, but the actual citizens themselves.
Obviously, the ability of the U.S. government to induct and draft citizens into the military against their will is, although a clear violation of their rights, not an issue considered shocking by its nature of having been invoked so many times in the past. Logically, this “authority” is provided for in this section.
However, what may be shocking is the fact that Section 601 also provides for the mobilization of “labor” for purposes of the national defense. Although some subsections read that evaluations are to be made regarding the “effect and demand of labor utilization,” the implication is that “labor” (meaning American workers) will be considered yet one more resource to be seized for the purposes of “national defense.” The EO reads,
Sec. 601. Secretary of Labor. (a) The Secretary of Labor, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of other agencies, as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, shall:
(1) collect and maintain data necessary to make a continuing appraisal of the Nation's workforce needs for purposes of national defense;
(2) upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services;
(3) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order, consult with that agency with respect to: (i) the effect of contemplated actions on labor demand and utilization; (ii) the relation of labor demand to materials and facilities requirements; and (iii) such other matters as will assist in making the exercise of priority and allocations functions consistent with effective utilization and distribution of labor;
Notice that the language of the EO does not state “in the event of a national emergency.” Instead, we are given the term “purposes of national defense.” This is because the “authorities” assumed by the President have been assumed not just for arbitrary declarations of “national emergency” but for peacetime as well. Indeed, the EO states this much directly when it says,
The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 107(b)(1) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2077(b)(1), to take appropriate action to ensure that critical components, critical technology items, essential materials, and industrial resources are available from reliable sources when needed to meet defense requirements during peacetime, graduated mobilization, and national emergency.
Presidential Executive Orders have long been used illegally by Presidents of every political shade and have often been used to destroy the rights of American citizens. Although history has often come to judge these orders as both immoral and unconstitutional, the fact is that the victims of the orders suffered no less because of the retroactive judgment of their progeny. It is for this reason that we must immediately condemn and resist such obvious usurpation as is currently being attempted by the U.S. government.
Nevertheless, some have no doubt begun to wonder why the President has signed such an order. Not only that, but why did he sign the order now? Is it because of the looming war with Iran or the Third World War that will likely result from such a conflict? Is it because of the ticking time bomb called the economy that is only one jittery move or trade deal away from total disintegration? Is it because of a growing sense of hatred of their government amongst the general public? Is there a coming natural disaster of which we are unaware? Are there plans for martial law?
Whatever the reason for the recent announcement of Obama’s new Executive Order, there is one thing we do know for sure – “It wouldn’t happen here” has been the swan song of almost every victim of democide in modern human history.
Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions. Turbeville has published over one hundred articles dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville is available for podcast, radio, and TV interviews. Please contact us at activistpost (at) gmail.com.
Many of the comments I receive indicate there are people out there that just simply refuse to believe what is going on in our National government.
To those people I say this, you will rue the day you refused to prepare for the coming total destruction of our way of life, and once lost, this generation will not have the ability to reconstruct it. Since I am a mere man I cannot predict the future, but the evidence before me is too overwhelming to refute, and if we do not unite and fight back NOW, our future is cut and dried. Are you ready to die of starvation, or slaughtered by vandals? Are you prepared to die standing up and fighting like a man, or are you going to beg for your life and serve the tyrants? These are your choices, make them now. The alternative is to have fifty million citizens demanding our military take out the International Banking Cartel, and redistribute their assets globally. Then start up State Banks like North Dakota, with a commodity backed dollar. Takeout the stud ducks and the flock will disperse. We can keep them from repeating this by having an honest currency. There is no other way to stop this insane suicide.
March 12th, 2012 by olddog
by David L. Goetsch
By promoting an entitlement mentality, liberals in Congress and the White House are sowing the seeds of America’s destruction. Because of an ever-growing list of social programs, subsidies, and entitlements, more than half of all Americans now look to the government for at least a portion of their sustenance. As a result, many American’s have come to view government as the solution to their problems rather than the cause of them. The principles of limited government that undergirded Ronald Reagan’s Republican Revolution are being steadily undermined by the seductive allure of government handouts. This dangerously misguided trend promotes an entitlement mentality in a country that has long been known for its positive work ethic. The entitlement mentality, in turn, encourages the growth of government and the cycle continues, creating a downward spiral toward disaster.
America became an economic superpower not by accident, chance, or luck but because it was established with a free-market economy and people who thrived in an environment of economic freedom. These two pillars of America’s economic success—a free-market economy and economic freedom—hold the key for reversing America’s descent into insolvency. The only contributions to an economic recovery needed from government are: 1) get out of the way, 2) get out of the pockets of Americans, and 3) stop over-regulating businesses and the lives of American citizens. Sharp reductions in spending, taxation, and regulation will do for America’s economy what the government can never do: unleash the power of the free market, encourage entrepreneurship, and reinvigorate America’s work ethic.
After decades of prosperity, America’s economy is being undermined by a rapidly mutating government that devours initiative, drive, innovation, and the capital needed to seed an economic recovery. Too many Americans have bought into the increasingly discredited philosophy of the left that the government is the answer to all problems. No one exemplifies this misguided philosophy more than Maxine Waters, the Democrat Congresswoman from California. During the height of the budget reduction debate in August and September 2011, Waters indulged in a flight of fantasy and proposed increasing government spending rather than cutting it.
What is ironic about the tax-and-spend philosophy of the left as exemplified by Maxine Waters and President Obama is that not only do they fail to understand economics they don’t even know their own history. The worst tax-and-spend Democrat before Barack Obama was Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ). But even LBJ knew that cutting taxes was the best way to stimulate a weak economy. In his book, American Business, 1920-2000: How it Worked, Thomas McGraw wrote this about LBJ: “Johnson continued Kennedy’s efforts to use aggressive tax policies to stimulate the economy. The Revenue Act of 1964 cut taxes by $11.6 billion–$9.2 billion for individuals and $2.4 billion for corporations. In anticipation of more money flowing into the economy, businesses increased their inventory levels. As personal incomes swelled, consumer spending increased, and by 1965, the U.S. gross national product had expanded by over 25 percent …During the same period, industrial production increased by 27 percent, and corporate profits grew by 64 percent. The prosperity resulted in the unemployment rate’s dipping below 4 percent in 1966—a rate not seen since 1953.”
In spite of evidence like this that is readily available from the history of their own party, President Obama, Maxine Waters, and their fellow liberals continue to view the solution to America’s economic problems as spend, spend, and spend some more. In spite of the demonstrated failure of the hugely expensive stimulus bills, Obama, Waters, and their colleagues on the left still propose that Congress stop shooting the American economy in the foot and start shooting it in the head. All that this kind of thinking has brought America is an entitlement mentality that will make it increasingly difficult to do what is necessary to bring about an economic recovery.
March 6th, 2012 by olddog
By Dr. Mercola
Above, ABC's "Nightline," Bill Weir talks with Microsoft founder Bill Gates about his charitable endeavors.
Gates' latest plan is to try to end world hunger by growing more genetically modified (GM) crops.
He's already invested $27 million into Monsanto Company—leading some countries to reject his charity due to the high risks, such as:
· New disease vectors
· Mutated pesticide-resistant insects
· Resistant "superweeds"
· Contamination of surrounding non-GM crops
We already know how deeply entrenched the U.S. government has become with Monsanto.
For a visual illustration of their 'revolving-door-relationship' with the governmental regulatory agencies, see the graph toward the bottom of this article.
It is this type of government infiltration that allowed genetically engineered alfalfa to be approvedwithout any restrictions at all, despite the protests of the organic community and public comments from a quarter of a million concerned citizens.
In Bill Gates, Monsanto also has one of the wealthiest and most influential "philanthropists" supporting their agenda and spreading misleading propaganda about their products.
In recent years, it has become disappointingly clear that Gates may be leading the pack as one of the most destructive "do-gooders" on the planet… His views on what is required to make a difference in poverty- and disease-stricken third world nations are short-sighted and misinformed at best. A recent article in the Seattle Times1 joins me in arguing that Bill Gates' support of genetically modified (GM) crops as a solution for world hunger is based on unsound science. A team of 900 scientists funded by the World Bank and United Nations, investigated the matter over the course of three years, and determined that the use of GM crops is simply NOT a meaningful solution to the complex situation of world hunger.
Instead, the scientists suggested that "agro-ecological" methods would provide the most viable means to ensure global food security, including the use of traditional seed varieties and local farming practices already adapted to the local ecology.
"Philanthropy is the Enemy of Justice"
In a recent article with the same headline, "Philanthropy is the Enemy of Justice", Robert Newman criticizes2 the choice of Bill Gates as the designated "voice" of the world's poor at the World Economic Forum, held in January.
"Am I saying that philanthropy has never done good? No, it has achieved many wonderful things… But beware the havoc that power without oversight and democratic control can wreak," Newman writes.
"The biotech agriculture that Lord Sainsbury was unable to push through democratically he can now implement unilaterally, through his Gatsby Foundation. We are told that Gatsby's biotech project aims to provide food security for the global south. But if you listen to southern groups such as the Karnataka State Farmers of India, food security is precisely the reason they campaign against GM, because biotech crops are monocrops which are more vulnerable to disease and so need lashings of petrochemical pesticides, insecticides and fungicides – none of them cheap – and whose ruinous costs will rise with the price of oil, bankrupting small family farms first. Crop diseases mutate, meanwhile, and all the chemical inputs in the world can't stop disease wiping out whole harvests of genetically engineered single strands.
Both the Gatsby and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundations are keen to get deeper into agriculture, especially in Africa. But top-down nostrums for the rural poor don't end well."
I agree. Donating patented seeds, which takes away the farmers' sovereignty, is not the way to save the third-world poor. As reported by Netline last year3, Monsanto and other biotech companies have collaborated with the Gates Foundation via the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) to promote the use of genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa. The Gates Foundation has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to AGRA, and in 2006 Robert Horsch was hired for the AGRA project. Horsch was a Monsanto executive for 25 years. In a nutshell, the project may be sold under the banner of altruism and 'sustainability', but in reality it's anything but. It's just a multi-billion dollar enterprise to transform Africa into a GM-crop-friendly continent.
Conflicts of Interest Abound
Gates' philanthropic methods came under scrutiny back in August 2010, when it was discovered that The Gates Foundation had purchased 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock; dramatically increasing its previous holdings—and hence its financial conflicts of interest—in the biotech firm. AGRA-Watch commented on the ties stating4:
"The Foundation's direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two primary levels," said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering.
"First, Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast serious doubt on the Foundation's heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an enormous conflict of interests."
It would be naive to think that all these philanthropic collaborations are designed to solve any problem besides how to help Monsanto monopolize the world's food supply with expensive patented GM seeds, and the herbicides to go with them.
In the interview above, Gates claims the seeds would be donated to the impoverished areas in question. But seriously, how long would the seeds remain free? There's rarely such a thing as a free lunch anymore, and it appears highly unlikely that Monsanto is poised to "feed Africa" indefinitely… And since you cannot save Monsanto's seeds from year to year, they will literally own the areas and the people they temporarily donate their seeds to. And once you own the rights to all the food grown around the globe, youliterally rule the world.
That appears to be the goal. And only sane, rational, thinking people can stop them. It's really too bad that Gates has signed up as a lackey for "the Dark Side," as it were, instead of using his unfathomable wealth to really create positive, sustainable change.
It's an undisputed fact at this point that the introduction of genetically engineered crops lead to diminished biodiversity, which is the direct opposite of what the world needs. Truly, in order to save the planet and ourselves, small-scale organic and sustainable farming must not only prevail but flourish, and GM crops do not help, but rather threaten their existence. Seeds have always been sold and swapped freely between farmers, preserving biodiversity, and without that basis, you cannot have food sovereignty. And with fewer farmers, "feeding the hungry with GM crops" is nothing but a pipe dream.
Both Genetically Engineered Seeds and Herbicides Pose Risks to Environment and Human Health
Besides the threat to the environment and to agricultural practices, GM crops also bring a whole host of health concerns; not just from the GM seeds, but also from the herbicide used: Monsanto's Roundup. It's the world's best-selling herbicide, which is designed to be partnered with genetically engineered "Roundup Ready" crops.
According to a shocking report5, regulators were aware as early as 1980 that glyphosate, the active chemical ingredient of Roundup, caused birth defects in lab animals. However, the information was not made public. Instead, regulators misled the public about glyphosate's safety, and with the introduction of Roundup Ready crops, the use of Roundup has skyrocketed.
According to Monsanto. NO6:
"Dr. Andres Carrasco, a lead embryologist at the University of Bueno Aires Medical School and the Argentinean national research council, discovered that glyphosate-based herbicides like Monsanto's Roundup formula caused deformations in chicken embryos that resembled the kind of birth defects which where reported in areas like La Leonesa, where big agribusinesses depend on glyphosate to treat genetically engineered crops."
Golden Rice: a "Trojan Horse"
The idea that you can end world hunger with genetically engineered crops is simply not very well thought through. Last summer, I reported on The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's donation of $20 million toward the development of so-called "golden rice"—yet another untested GM crop that risks bringing economic and ecological disaster. Golden rice has been genetically engineered to produce beta-carotene, which your body can convert to vitamin A. It's been promoted as a way to alleviate vitamin A deficiency, which is common in developing countries where people don't have regular access to beta-carotene-rich foods, like vegetables and fruits.
However, while this sounds all well and good in theory, the reality of a beta-carotene producing rice may not be all it's cracked up to be. According to Food Freedom7:
"Golden rice is a Trojan horse for pushing through GE-friendly biosafety regulations under the guise of humanitarian aid. Once in place, these regulations open the door for the biotech industry to bring in commercial, patented GE crops; USAID and Monsanto accomplished exactly this in Kenya with their sweet potato project."
It may be easier to see why so many people question this kind of philanthropy once you understand a bit more about the product itself, and why it likely cannot ever live up to its own hype. In this case, your body can only convert beta-carotene to vitamin A under certain conditions. Specifically, beta-carotene is fat-soluble, which means dietary fat is required for your body to convert it into vitamin A. But many people in developing countries eat very low-fat diets, as they simply do not have access to animal foods or other fat on a regular basis. Furthermore, malnourished people might not be able to convert beta carotene to vitamin A efficiently, so taken as a whole, the actual usefulness of golden rice is debatable.
The soundness of the idea becomes even more questionable when you consider the unrealistic amounts of rice you'd have to consume each day to obtain the recommended amount of vitamin A. As stated in a golden rice case study from Iowa State University8:
"Even if golden rice is successfully introduced … a woman would need to eat 16 lbs. of cooked rice every day in order to get sufficient Vitamin A, if golden rice were her only source of the nutrient. A child would need 12 lbs." [Emphasis mine]
What people in the developing world need in order to receive ample dietary vitamin A is access to a diverse range of nutritious foods — including animal products like eggs, cheese and meat and vegetables such as dark leafy greens and sweet potatoes. This is the type of diet that is attained from biodiverse farming — the opposite of what will occur if GM crops like golden rice get planted on a large scale.
Learn More about Genetically Engineered Foods
Many Americans are still unfamiliar with what GE foods are, which is understandable when you consider that these foods do not need to be labeled in the U.S. We have a plan to change that, and I urge you to participate, and to continue learning more about genetically engineered foods and associated risks, and help your friends and family do the same.
To start, please print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. You can also download a free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
An even better strategy is to simply buy USDA 100% Organic products whenever possible, (as these do not permit GM ingredients) or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers. The majority of the GMO's (genetically modified organism) you're exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you're not inadvertently consuming something laced with GM ingredients. When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, as well as toxic herbicide residues.
To learn more about GM foods, I highly recommend number of great films and lectures available, including:
· Hidden Dangers in Kid's Meals
· Your Milk on Drugs – Just Say No!
· Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods
Does Monsanto "Own" the U.S. Government?
Is sure seems like it at times. Genetically engineered seeds are now banned in Hungary, as they are in several other European countries, such as Germany and Ireland. Peru is also following the precautionary principle, and has even passed a law that bans genetically modified ingredients within the nation for 10 years9.
In the U.S., however, the opposite to consumer protection is taking place, with certain states actually passing legislation that protects the use of GM seeds and allows for unabated expansion! To date, 14 states have passed such legislation and Michigan's Sen. Bill 777, if passed, would make that 15.
The Michigan bill would prevent anti-GMO laws and would remove "any authority local governments may have to adopt and enforce ordinances that prohibit or regulate the labeling, sale, storage, transportation, distribution, use, or planting of agricultural, vegetable, flower or forest tree seeds." Bills like these are obviously music to Monsanto's ears, which spends millions of dollars lobbying the U.S. government at the federal level for favorable legislation that supports the spread of their toxic products. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, Monsanto spent $1.4 million on lobbying the federal government — a drop from the year before, when they spent $2.5 million during the same quarter.
If we all had several million to spend on lobbying efforts, the world would undoubtedly be a very different place… If you aren't familiar with the power of lobbying please view the recent 60 minutes expansion on it, which is one of the best 60 Minute episodes I have seen in 40 years.
Not only that, but once you realize just how many of Monsanto's employees have simply shifted into positions of power within the federal government, it suddenly becomes easy to understand how this biotech giant has managed to so successfully undermine common sense within the U.S. government.
March 3rd, 2012 by olddog
No matter what you think, or what anyone say's, this man will bring all of the power of the BUSH Cartel right back to finish destroying the United States of America. If he manages to weasel his way to the nomination, pack up and get the hell out of America, because if he manages that, the dumb asses among us will be just as thrilled as the obama groupies were. The Bush family is the scum of the earth, with billions of our money in off-shore accounts, property in countries with no extradition, and the backing of the International Banking Cartel. WTF!
Bush has fanned the flames himself, possibly to whet his party’s appetite for a 2016 run. | AP Photo
By GLENN THRUSH and MAGGIE HABERMAN | 2/29/12 7:06 PM EST
Mitt Romney’s tortured triumph in Michigan put him back in the GOP driver’s seat — but that hasn’t quelled the desire among some Republicans to trade up.
Yes, Republicans are still pining for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush despite his repeated and vehement refusal to be sucked into the 2012 Republican vortex.
And Democrats continue to cast a wary eye on a guy they see as more dangerous — and capable of connecting with middle-class and Latino voters — than Romney.
The Bush murmurs persist, even as a resilient Romney marches toward Super Tuesday with a commanding lead in cash, delegates and momentum over a sagging Rick Santorum.
“I have the perfect candidate — Jeb Bush. But he’s not running,” former George W. Bush chief of staff Andy Card told Charlie Rose on CBS on Wednesday, echoing the sentiments of many in his party.
“What Democrat would not worry about a popular leader from a critical state who sounds pretty moderate and can rescue the GOP from its anti-Latino death grip?” asked former Bill Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry, who said he’s yet to find a Democratic elder who thinks the GOP is truly “unhinged” enough to consider ditching Romney for Bush.
Bush — who has refused to endorse Romney in 2012 as he did in 2008 and whose son endorsed Jon Huntsman — has fanned the flames himself, possibly to whet his party’s appetite for a 2016 run. After keeping a low profile during the hotly contested Florida primary in January, he popped up last week at the height of the Romney-Santorum duel in Michigan to declare his problems with the GOP presidential field.
“I used to be a conservative and I watch these debates and I’m wondering, I don’t think I’ve changed but it’s a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people’s fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective,” Bush told a gathering in Dallas last Thursday, according to FOX News.
“I think that changes when we get to the general election — I hope,” added Bush, who has personally urged Romney to moderate his rhetoric on illegal immigration for fear of completely alienating Hispanic voters in states like Florida, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona.
That got the attention of conservatives including Ann Coulter, who slammed him of prepping for a campaign, and Obama campaign officials who found his timing curious.
Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist and a friend of Bush, said she saw the former governor last Sunday and he laughed off any idea that he’ll jump in the game.
But even Navarro couldn’t resist indulging in a little starry-eyed speculation of what might have been.
“Why is he a fearful figure? You know, anybody who knows Jeb Bush and who’s heard Jeb Bush understands there’s a certain inspirational quality to him,” she said in an interview.
“He is smart, he is scary smart, and he has got a national network of supporters that he could turn on with the flip of a switch. And nobody could hold Obama’s feet to the fire in the Latino community like Jeb Bush.”
That opinion has considerable bipartisan support. “Don’t buy the bulls—- about us not being worried about Jeb,” added a veteran Democratic operative. “He’s a tough matchup even if his last name is Bush.”
Bush has said repeatedly that he isn’t running and the people around him say he couldn’t pull it off at this late date even if he wanted to. (“If Jeb had any intention of competing for the Republican nomination, he would have been at it from day one,” Navarro said. “Jeb does not play games.”)
Karl Rove, another Bush fan, recently wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed declaring the possibility of a brokered convention — a scenario that could theoretically result in a Bush candidacy — comparable to finding life on Pluto, although he didn’t rule out a contested convention where delegates shift their votes.
But Bush has said no to anyone who asked whether he’s interested, including his son George P. Bush.
Operatives in both parties say he’d be crazy to jump in now instead of waiting four years, when his Democratic opponent won’t have the benefits of incumbency.
But if 2012 has proven anything, it’s that logic isn’t always the most important thing. Republican operatives, speaking to POLITICO on condition of anonymity, talk about Bush in the glowing tones of a potential spouse who got away — and seems perfect in comparison to the person they stare at across their coffee every morning.
Likewise, Democrats have been gaming out the possibility of an Obama-Bush face-off, just as they have with other no-thanks Republicans, including Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels.
One third-party Democratic group was so concerned about Bush that it recently paid for a poll to gauge his performance in a head-to-head matchup against Obama, according to a Democrat briefed on the poll.
The survey revealed nothing that public polling hasn’t already covered — that Obama enjoys a substantial lead and that the Bush surname is still toxic.
That it was undertaken at all shows the extent of the concern over a possible Bush candidacy and, more important, a lingering uncertainty — even a touch of anxiety — in Democratic circles about Romney’s ability to make it over the finish line.
The Obama campaign loves watching Mitt Romney squirm in the spotlight — but they don’t want to see him so irretrievably damaged that it draws better candidates into the fray.
And while many inside the Obama campaign are itching to see the race resolved — so they can target Romney exclusively and hone their fighting skills — the prevailing sentiment is that the GOP infighting is a gift from the political gods.
“On some level, I’d love to get this thing going,” said a senior party official, quickly adding, “I know that sounds crazy, but it would be nice to lock Romney in.”
Obama’s brain trust was rooting for a Santorum victory in Michigan and were disappointed that efforts by unions and local Democrats to coax party members into cross-registering to vote for Santorum fell short.
But they were pleased with the way the Michigan primary went down — Romney’s two-Cadillacs-and-just-right-trees speech to an empty football stadium, the embrace of the polarizing immigration crusader Gov. Jan Brewer in Arizona, the $4.2 million burn to win his home state.
And they have watched gleefully as Obama’s approval rating in the state has ballooned to 16 points in the latest Public Policy Polling survey — in part because of Romney’s opposition to the auto bailout.
“In 2008, the protracted primary allowed us to build our organization across the country and lay out an affirmative vision,” said Obama 2012 communications director Ben LaBolt.
“That’s not what the Republicans have done — they haven’t invested in organization and they’re leapfrogging to the right of each other on issues from Medicare to immigration,” he added. “Their primary has been an echo chamber where they have debated who is the most committed to tea party orthodoxy rather than laying out a plan to create jobs and restore economic security for the middle class, the issues most Americans are focused on.”
Romney, for his part, cast Tuesday’s 3-point win in Michigan as a narrow but important benchmark, another brick in the road to inevitability.
Despite a recent spate of good polls and encouraging economic data, Obama remains vulnerable, especially if Republicans get past their intraparty food fight to focus on the president’s inability to bring unemployment below 8 percent and a widely held belief that he pushed through health reform in lieu of working on the economy.
But Democrats, including those who sense Obama’s weakness, watched Romney’s speech Tuesday night with a sense of relief that Bush wasn’t the man at the podium.
“I think anybody who’s legitimate would make it a race with Obama at this point,” said a former adviser to Hillary Clinton in 2008. “If they did get someone who was reasonably grown-up now and — poof — we got a race. … And Jeb’s not just anybody, he’s got damned good skills, he can raise money and even people who hated his brother concede he’s the smartest Bush.”
March 1st, 2012 by olddog
After it was exposed that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the philanthropic brainchild of Microsoft founder Bill Gates, purchased 500,000 abundantly clear that this so-called benevolent charity is up to something other than eradicating disease and feeding the world’s poor. It turns out that the Gates family legacy has long been one of trying to dominate and control the world’s systems, including in the areas of technology, medicine, and now agriculture.
The Gates Foundation, aka the tax-exempt Gates Family Trust, is currently in the process of spending billions of dollars in the name of humanitarianism to establish a global food monopoly dominated by genetically-modified (GM) crops and seeds. And based on the Gates family’s history of involvement in world affairs, it appears that one of its main goals besides simply establishing corporate control of the world’s food supply is to reduce the world’s population by a significant amount in the process.
William H. Gates Sr., former head of eugenics group Planned Parenthood
Bill Gates’ father, William H. Gates Sr., has long been involved with the eugenics group Planned Parenthood, a rebranded organization birthed out of the American Eugenics Society. In a 2003 interview with PBS‘ Bill Moyers, Bill Gates admitted that his father used to be the head of Planned Parenthood, which was founded on the concept that most human beings are just “reckless breeders” and “human weeds” in need of culling (http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_gates.html).
Gates also admitted during the interview that his family’s involvement in reproductive issues throughout the years has been extensive, referencing his own prior adherence to the beliefs of eugenicist Thomas Robert Malthus, who believed that populations of the world need to be controlled through reproductive restrictions. Though Gates claims he now holds a different view, it appears as though his foundation’s initiatives are just a modified Malthusian approach that much more discreetly reduces populations through vaccines and GMOs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus).
Gates Foundation has invested heavily in converting Asian, African agricultural systems to GMOs
William Gates Sr.’s association with Planned Parenthood and continued influence in the realm of “population and reproductive health” is significant because Gates Sr. is co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/leadership/Pages/william-gates-sr.aspx). This long-time eugenicist “guides the vision and strategic direction” of the Gates Foundation, which is currently heavily focused on forcing GMOs on Africa via its financing of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA).
The Gates Foundation has admittedly given at least $264.5 million in grant commitments to AGRA (www.gatesfoundation.org/about/Documents/BMGFFactSheet.pdf), and also reportedly hired Dr. Robert Horsch, a former Monsanto executive for 25 years who developed Roundup, to head up AGRA back in 2006. According to a report published in La Via Campesina back in 2010, 70 percent of AGRA’s grantees in Kenya work directly with Monsanto, and nearly 80 percent of the Gates Foundation funding is devoted to biotechnology(http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_21606.cfm).
The same report explains that the Gates Foundation pledged $880 million in April 2010 to create the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), which is a heavy promoter of GMOs. GAFSP, of course, was responsible for providing $35 million in “aid” to earthquake-shattered Haiti to be used for implementing GMO agricultural systems and technologies.
Back in 2003, the Gates Foundation invested $25 million in “GM (genetically modified) research to develop vitamin and protein-enriched seeds for the world’s poor,” a move that many international charities and farmers groups vehemently opposed (http://healthfreedoms.org). And in 2008, the Gates Foundation awarded $26.8 million to Cornell University to research GM wheat, which is the next major food crop in the crosshairs of Monsanto‘s GM food crop pipeline (http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_21606.cfm).
If you control agriculture, you control the populations of the world
The Gates Foundation‘s ties with Monsanto and corporate agriculture in general speak volumes about its real agenda, which is to create a monopolistic system of world control in every area of human life. Vaccines, pharmaceuticals, GMOs, reproductive control, weather manipulation, global warming — these and many other points of entry are the means by which the Gates Foundation is making great strides to control the world by pretending to help improve and save it.
Rather than promote real food sovereignty and address the underlying political and economic issues that breed poverty, Gates and Co. has instead embraced the promotion of corporately owned and controlled agriculture and medicine paradigms that will only further enslave the world’s most impoverished. It is abundantly evident that GMOs have ravished already impoverished people groups by destroying their native agricultural systems, as has been seen in India (http://www.naturalnews.com/030913_Monsanto_suicides.html).
Some may say Gates’ endeavors are all about the money, while others may say they are about power and control. Perhaps it is a combination of both, where Gates is still in the business of promoting his own commercial investments, which includes buying shares in Monsanto while simultaneously investing in programs to promote Monsanto.
Whatever the case may be, there is simply no denying that Gates now has a direct interest in seeing Monsanto succeed in spreading GMOs around the world. And since Gates is openly facilitating Monsanto‘s growth into new markets through his “humanitarian” efforts, it is clear that the Gates family is in bed with Monsanto.
“Although Bill Gates might try to say that the Foundation is not linked to his business, all it proves is the opposite: most of their donations end up favoring the commercial investments of the tycoon, not really “donating” anything, but instead of paying taxes to state coffers, he invests his profits in where it is favorable to him economically, including propaganda from their supposed good intentions,” wrote Silvia Ribeiro in the Mexican news source La Jornada back in 2010.
“On the contrary, their ‘donations’ finance projects as destructive as geoengineering or replacement of natural community medicines for high-tech patented medicines in the poorest areas of the world … Gates is also engaged in trying to destroy rural farming worldwide, mainly through the ‘Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa’ (AGRA). It works as a Trojan horse to deprive poor African farmers of their traditional seeds, replacing them with the seeds of their companies first, finally by genetically modified (GM).”
February 29th, 2012 by olddog
By Paul Walter
February 29, 2012
[Note: This article appeared as a full page ad in the Grants Pass “Daily Courier” newspaper on Saturday, January 28, 2012]
WHY I LOVE AMERICA
I immigrated to the United States with my family when I was 15 years-old. I was in awe to find a country where you could be anything you wanted to be as long as you were honest, moral and hard-working. This wasn't possible in the communist country from which my parents and I had escaped. There, government control was from the cradle to the grave. They kept the people poor, and controlled, while the aristocrats and politicians (gov't.) were living high on the hog with big benefits and salaries. They policed our every move and restricted our God-given freedoms.
America was the light of the world and it gave hope to the oppressed.
Now, there are forces at work destroying our nation, and our individualism for the sake of the world's collectivism. I'm not just talking about Obama; he is a minute player in the grand scheme of this fast approaching New World Order. Our very culture is being threatened; our way of life; our liberties; and the legacy that we are leaving our children, and theirs, is one of indentured servitude to a government that has wildly swung from being representative by design to being dictatorial in practice.
For the past 20 years I have been accurately predicting and fighting against what is now right around the corner. Sadly, this year, 2012, could be the last for this great nation. However, I owe a lot to this country and I will stand by my beliefs and fight to save my beloved America.
Why am I so seemingly fanatic about trying to save our country? It's simple… I know better than to let it travel down the path of socialism to communism, and if you had lived under the yoke of communism as I did, you wouldn't want it either.
Our country is teetering on a precipice about to fall completely away from the limited government upon which this country was founded, to being that of a truly communist country.
1. Starvation of Biblical proportions through contrived food shortages.
2. Under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), anyone who bucks the New World Order mentality of the government can be considered an enemy combatant.
3. Check points on the freeways to check your papers. We have already seen the start of this with the TSA check points – not just at airports but on buses, trains, and highways as well.
4. Censorship of the news and internet.
5. “Smart” meters will be placed on every home to control your utility consumption – including meters on wells. They have already begun installing “Smart” meters under the guise of “efficiency.” There is already a lot of information concerning these machines – not to mention lawsuits. Read Devvy Kidd’s column, “Update: My fight against the ‘smart’ meter.”
6. The federal government will further control our foods, natural medicines and vitamins. They will dictate what we can and cannot eat, drink, smoke, say, and do. Several health-food store owners in California already face jail time for the “crime” of selling safe, healthy life-promoting, raw unpasteurized milk.
7. Public schools will be used to indoctrinate your children into global citizenship as well as being used in the future as centers to reeducate the masses.
8. Government will encourage the public to spy on and report their neighbors for any “suspicious” behavior.
9. Those who have prepared for hard times will legally be considered hoarders. Recent legislation establishes guidelines for law enforcement to be sent in to confiscate their food.
10. Class and race warfare will be pushed in order to gain further control over the population.
The socialists in government are counting on the loyalty of the police and military to enforce these draconian and unconstitutional edicts. Stalin got the loyalty of his police and army. Hitler got it, too. A good example is Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad's police are following his orders killing their own citizens to keep their dictator that signs their paycheck in power. A dictator can not be a dictator by himself, he has to have loyal followers. Will the “new” America get their support?
We hope these men and women who have sworn to protect us will see that by doing what is morally right, and standing with their fellow citizens, it will help ensure the future of our country.
HOW DID WE ARRIVE IN THIS MESS?
For most local and state elections there is only a 35-40% voter turnout. The majority of the public doesn't even bother to vote, taking freedom for granted. Good people become bad citizens when they don't vote.
Instead of doing research and selecting the best candidate most keep voting for who is the most charming, best looking and the smoothest talker, or who gets the most coverage by the biased mainstream media. We end up voting-in candidates who don’t know what it means to represent their constituents; instead they end up representing the special interests that paid for their media coverage!
As we all saw on the news recently, 100k Russian people stood out in sub-zero weather demanding honest elections. Here in America, where people are free, people tolerate injustice and keep repeatedly voting-in the same scoundrels.
Be it Republican or Democrat at the highest levels, it makes little difference because they no longer work for the good of the American people. Instead they've all sold out to Goldman-Sachs and the Military-Industrial-Pharmaceutical complex.
1. Demand that our representatives hold true to their sworn oath of office, and uphold the Constitution.
2. Educate yourself on each candidate before voting for the most popular or best looking.
3. Get out and vote.
4. Hold all politicians accountable and get involved in public meetings.
5. Go to the web site www.newswithviews.comand sign-up for the free e-mail alerts.
This November’s election will go down in history as the most important our country has ever held and the hour is getting late. We only have a limited time to act, but I believe so much in this country and its people, that I know we can do it.
© 2012 Paul Walter – All Rights Reserved
Paul Walter escaped the slavery of communism at the age of 14 with his family in 1956 and immigrated to United States (legally) in 1959. He served 3 years in the U.S. Armed Forces, was honorably discharged and became a U.S. citizen in 1965. Owner of Walter Publishing & Research, Inc., he republished a 100 year old book titled:The Coming Battle, the true history of our national debt. The book is currently in its 5th printing.
Keep this circulating until SOMETHING is DONE
I challenge you to read this and NOT have the will to pass it on to your 20+ No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women serve in the U.S. Military for 20 years, risking their lives protecting freedom, and only get 50% of their pay. While Politicians hold their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, and receive full pay retirement after serving one term. It just does
not make any sense.
Monday on Fox news they learned that the staffers of Congress family members are exempt from having to pay back student loans. This will get national attention if other news networks will broadcast it. When you add this to the below, just where will all of it stop?
35 States file lawsuit against the Federal Government
Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.
This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.
This is an idea that we should address.
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress.
Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform… in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever.. The self-serving must stop.
If each person that receives this will forward it on to 20 people, in three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message.. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ." >
You are one of my 20+
"If you choose not to decide ~ you still have made a choice"
February 28th, 2012 by olddog
As long as the private banksters create money from nothing, i.e. legalized counterfeiting, and hide behind the shield of corporation personhood, LLC liability exemption and government guaranteed loans, expropriating from THE PEOPLE and again passing their liabilities on the taxpayers, the ordinary family will continue to be reduced to perpetual and permanent poverty.
Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile… Once a nation parts with control of its credit, it matters not who makes the nation’s laws… Usury once in control will wreck any nation.
William Lyon Mackenzie King
Federal Reserve is a Cache of Stolen Assets
The American Revolution, in no small part, was a repudiation of the central banking tyranny exported to the New World by the Bank of England. Few legacies have grown more despotic than the consequences of living under the rule of fractional reserve banking. Many good willed conservatives understand that the system is imploding. Some envision a second American Revolution that expels the remnant Tories that have hijacked our Federalism separation of powers form of government. Woefully, the prospects for a States Rights revolt are slim. However, the scenario of a domestic French Revolution style carnage is brewing with every escalation of the pompous arrogance worthy of a Jean-Joseph, marquis de Laborde or the manipulative usury of the House of Rothschild.
The eruption of populist outrage is long overdue. The lack of objective mainstream media coverage is expected. Their attempt to spin the natural disguise for a corrupt establishment in the hearts of sincere and persecuted citizens is typical. The elite’s message is that they will either control the movement, or at the very least, strip it from any positive synergism. Send in the clowns, like Michael Moore. Wall Street Capitalism: A Love Affair explains the hideous agenda of the clueless socialists that condemn all things Wall Street, while advancing the ultimate goals of the New World Order globalists.
Street theater no longer is enough. The peasants are rallying their pitchforks, as they storm the Bastille; however, they got their GPS coordinates wrong. The correct address is 33 Liberty Street, New York, NY. That is the location of the dominate Federal Reserve temple. When the public finally comes to grips with the real cause of the unsustainable debt, they will understand that the private central banking system bears the ultimate redress for their sins against America and all humanity.
A Privatised Money Supply, presents an informative analysis.
Assuming a reserve ratio of 1:10 [i.e. all commercial banks must have the reserve ratio on deposit at the private central bank, the mother of all banks] the table below shows how $100 of private central bank created money (GCM), i.e. cash, is used by the rest of the private banking system to create $900 of interest-bearing bank-created money (BCM) in the form of loans. The reserve ratio is the ratio of cash reserves (GCM) to deposits (mostly BCM). In our example the banking system consists of 50 banks, but the money creation process would be essentially the same for any number of banks from one to infinity.
Modern accounting uses double entry book keeping where liabilities and assets are kept exactly equal. A bank’s liabilities are its deposits. Its assets are its loans (including government bonds which are loans to government of money created from nothing by both the private central banksters and the private commercial banksters) and its cash reserves. Here is how the banking system creates money. In column 1 $100 of cash is deposited in Bank 1. Bank 1 creates a $90 loan in the form of a deposit as shown in column 2. This deposit is pure BCM and, because it must be paid back with interest, is an asset. With a reserve ratio of 1:10 the bank puts aside $10 in cash (column 3) to meet cash demands from the person who deposited the $100. The remaining $90 in cash covers the $90 loan. The borrower proceeds to write cheques on his $90 deposit and these cheques get deposited in Bank 2. For these cheques Bank 2 demands and gets cash from Bank 1 until eventually all $90 ends up in Bank 2. (Naturally in real life more than two banks are involved. Thus the transactions are not so simple and orderly as they must be here for explanatory purposes, but everything comes out in the wash to give exactly the same result.) However the original $100 deposit still stands to the credit of the depositor (a liability for Bank 1) even though $90 of it has moved on to Bank 2. And the $90 loan Bank 1 created when it first received the original $100 deposit also stands (an asset for Bank 1). Banks 2, 3, 4, etc. then repeat this process eventually creating $900 of BCM in the form of loans (as shown in column 2) and dispersing the original $100 as cash reserves throughout the banking system (as shown in column 3).
Note that $900 of the $1000 of deposits in column 1 is BCM, i.e. credit created by the banks in the form of loans. (Banks make loans by "depositing money" in your account which you must pay back with interest. Thus they are loan/deposits.) Only the original $100 cash deposit is GCM. One other point. As a loan/deposit gets spent, a deposit in some other bank grows in inverse proportion. Thus the banks have increased the money supply by $900 and not by $1800. That would be double counting. The important points, however, are as follows: this ingenious system is called fractional reserve banking; it creates debt for the sole purpose of enriching the banking class; it is a subtle form of theft; historically it was condemned as a form of usury.
Deposits (90% BCM)
Loan/Deposits (100% BCM)
Cash Reserves (100% GCM)
This method of theft operates as the normal course of business. What the banksters do with the money they obtain from debt created money is even more repulsive. All the financial speculative instruments of leveraged trading just compound the heist. So what do these outlaws do with all the money?
The end net result is that they buy, especially at rock bottom prices, all the real assets that the filthy money can purchase. When you think of Wall Street greed, go beyond the usual suspects and focus on the controllers of the assets that are under the hegemony of the central bank. Here lies the reason why the rebellion must remove the engine of enslavement from the landscape for any future financial system of commerce.
Think about who really owns the land, the buildings and the resources in our country. In order to really understand the scope and extent of the economy, the differential between actual Main Street enterprise, that feeds, clothes and shelters the population, is minuscule when compared to the financial assets, both liquid and real property, that is under the command and control of the central bank.
Most individuals do not own property encumbrance free. Most debt is owed to the banksters. The middle class is in a tailspin because the Fed has a zero interest rate policy that effectively diminished your return on capital of your savings to nothing. The same is not true for the banks. The fact that they have in excess of a 2 Trillion Dollars cash hoard on their balance sheets and refuse to lend out money to the general public, demonstrates that the inside money is waiting to pick up even more real assets, when the signal comes for the total collapse.
TARP, QE2 and the Twist are all ploys to enrich the selective banks that are part of the orthodox Fed fraternity. Technically all federal charted banks have an ownership interest in the Fed. Who among us are so naive to think that every bank is equal to the sacredly held corporate interlocking directorates that make and direct monetary policy?
Only when the middle class takes to the streets with a spontaneous civil disobedience commitment that dwarfs the Tea Party movement, will the central banking tyranny be eliminated. All the fraudulent debt that funded the asset acquisitions of crooks must be clawed back. As long as the banksters hide behind the shield of corporation personhood, LLC liability exemption and government guaranteed loans, the ordinary family will continue to be reduced to perpetual and permanent poverty.
What kind of revolution is coming to America? The lesson of the French élan of bloodletting to remove an aristocratic class is not pretty. However, a national discussion needs to concentrate on:
1) Methods of eliminating the Federal Reserve fraud and restoring an honest money system for commerce
2) Repudiation of the corporatist "Free Trade" global business model and a return to a merchant class free enterprise independent domestic economy
3) Confiscation of assets and wealth acquired through illegal systematic RICO style schemes that demand treble damages from their ill-gotten gain
Americans deserve property right protections from the criminal extortion and the cold-blooded offenses that the banksters used, to steal the national wealth. The expanding protest must result in a true restoration of a traditional upwardly mobile society, not an expanded nanny state. The suffocating debt and the profane system that spawned it must end. The term "Citizen" does not apply to elitist plutocrats. If Americans want to stave off a 21st century version, of the Committee of Public Safety, get behind the "Revolt against the Fed". Tear down the House of Rothschild. This is one time the concept of "Reparations" has standing in a legitimate court of law.
Just between you, me, and the outhouse, when you consider that there are very few honest judges left in America, and in particular I am referring to the Georgia judge who refused to indict Obama for contempt of court. Also, the fact that the Bankers now own our National and most State Governments, and our Military, I see very little possibility of anything less than an outright rebellion making any progress in stopping the Bankers. Now couple this with the fact that at least half of our citizens actually support fractional reserve banking. So, along with being at war with the governments of the United States, we would also be in a civil war. Conclusion: We who demand honest currency for a better life, will have to be willing to die to obtain it for our posterity. Our young brain washed soldiers have no problem with a willingness to die in intentionally provoked wars, what would it take for we who are aware to be willing to die?