Operation Singularity

You may have been told this is called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" or some bullshit like that... But I think "Operation Beginning of the End of National Sovereignty and Freedom" would be more accurate for this phase of it. And the whole shebang? What all of this is leading up to (and has been for thousands of years)? "Operation Endgame." Yes, the actual co-conspiring families that run the world will eventually consolidate and conquer each other. Their eventual goal being that one bloodline controls the past, present, and future of all of humanity. Singularity. The opposite of diversity in all ways, shapes and forms.

The links that follow all should help to substantiate what I'm saying here. But understand that by linking, I am not necessarily endorsing the views of the authors.

As for "Operation Beginning of the End of National Sovereignty and Freedom" we are most certainly not losing this war, but it's about a lot more than oil. We have established 14 permanent military bases in Iraq and we are building an embassy the size of the Vatican. We have killed 650,000 Iraqis by some estimates, and over 50,000 by conservative estimates. We have effectively conquered Iraq and we are beginning a permanent occupation. The Iraqi army may take over the bases we build at some point, but that will happen if and only if we control their currency first.

The Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA), which oversees and regulates the banking system, is the only Middle Eastern central bank that has been invited to be a member and shareholder of the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland. This means that all of the other central banks in the Middle East are not members and shareholders in the Bank for International Settlements. This means they are outside of its sphere of influence. Out of its control... Competition. What does business seek to do? Eliminate competition and dominate the market share. In this case the business is international banking. And legally, today's "governments" are merely corporate entities, so who controls the money controls the governments.

The ultimate goal of the occupation of Iraq is the subversion of the independent Middle Eastern central banking system. Notice Paul Wolfowitz, hot-shot Neo-con and the former US Secretary of Defense, is now the president of the World Bank... The same small cartel of bankers that own the Bank for International Settlements and the World Bank want to have the oil-rich Middle East under their thumbs like they have the rest of the world (it is definitely about oil at least a little bit). Their goal is to implement one world currency. Understand that debt and currency rule nations, not people, so with one unified currency (most likely paperless) under their complete control (see Fractional Reserve Banking and Fiat Currency) and all of the world's governments nothing more than international corporations with contractual obligations to the central bank, the corporations that now act as our governments will be consolidated (see European Union, North American Union, African Union, The South American Community of Nations, Asia Cooperation Dialogue, etc). As will happen with all great industries in our society, there will eventually be one owner of the world's governments.

That is the endgame. That is the point of all of this. Banks competing to own all of the world's money and in effect control all of the world's governments vis a vis their currency. The war on terror is a PR campaign to this end. Islamic fundamentalism is a PR campaign to this end. Religion is a PR campaign to this end. Public education is a PR campaign to this end. Mass media is a PR campaign to this end. The name of the game is Operation Singularity.

"There can be only one..."

The New Bush

I believe this excerpt below from the Washington Post should be enough to reveal to you that both American political parties have the same agenda, and "elections" are nothing but a game and a distraction...

----------
The New Bush

Said New Bush: "I truly believe that Congresswoman Pelosi and Harry Reid care just about as much -- they care about the security of this country, like I do. They see -- no leader in Washington is going to walk away from protecting the country. We have different views on how to do that, but their spirit is such that they want to protect America. That's what I believe."

Q. "Just a few days before this election, in Texas, you said that Democrats, no matter how they put it, their approach to Iraq comes down to terrorists win, America loses. What has changed today?"

Bush: "What's changed today is the election is over, and the Democrats won."

The Tax Freedom Movement - Establishment Controlled?

I think Aaron Russo's film America: Freedom to Fascism is an excellent exposé on the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax system, and the near-future plans of the NWO.

However...

The income tax is legal. It is not constitutional, but it is perfectly legal. How is this possible?? Simple--it's contract law, as is evidenced by George Mercier's "Invisible Contracts".

A contract does not have to be constitutional to be legal. For instance, a non-disclosure agreement violates your first amendment rights to free speech. But regardless, if you break this contract, you are liable to pay damages to the other party involved. The income tax is enforced by a myriad of "invisible" contracts that 99% of all Americans have signed, mostly without their knowledge. When you opened your bank account, did you read all of the fine print and then read all of the fine print on all of the documents referenced in the original fine print? I doubt it. Same thing goes with your driver's license. Your mortgage, etc., etc. These contracts all include language that requires you to pay the Federal Income Tax. It matters not if the tax itself is legal or not, and the lower courts have--on a regular basis--ignored the Supreme Court's decision that the 16th Amendment gave no new powers of taxation to the Federal Government.

So... if a regular dude like me can find and understand this information, how is it that it evaded every single one of the "tax law experts" that Russo interviewed? I actually have had some correspondence with G Edward Griffin on the matter. I told him that based on what I'd read on his web site, I assumed that he was not aware of the information presented in "Invisible Contracts" and I gave him this link to read it. He responded and asked what that I had read led me to believe that he wasn't aware of this. I told him it was the simple omission of said information from his site. He wrote back saying "You had me worried there for a minute." I wrote him back and asked him specifically if he was aware of this information and if he presented it to Aaron Russo when he was interviewed for Freedom to Fascism. And if he did, did Russo edit this part out? I have received no reply from Griffin so far on this matter...

So there are two possibilities here to consider:
1) Aaron Russo was not aware of this information regarding the contracts that make the income tax legal.
2) Aaron Russo was aware of this information, but chose not to use it in his movie for whatever reason.

And here are 2 things that lead me to believe that option number 2 might be closer to the truth:
1) This information is easily available by doing a simple Google search. How is it that his researchers did not find this information?

2) In a talk that I saw Russo give to an audience, he mentions his relationship to Nick Rockefeller. He said that during his campaign for Governor of Nevada, Rockefeller tried to befriend him and bring him over to "the other side," offering him a position on the Council on Foreign Relations and other such things. Russo said he refused. How likely is it that someone could be that close to the Rockefeller family, and simply "refuse" their demands to stop pursuing information that criminalizes them? My guess would be that all those who refuse such demands do not live another day, and all those who accept such demands are not told to "come to the other side," but are told what they will and will not disclose in regards to the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax.

So it would seem to me, on the basis of the omission of the information presented in George Mercier's "Invisible Contracts", that said information is either false or it has been purposefully left out of the "Tax Freedom Movement" altogether, which would suggest that the "Tax Freedom Movement" itself is an establishment front. They do, afterall, control both sides of the argument...

My next step will be to research "Invisible Contracts" further, to try to get some lawyers that I know to take a look at it, and to obtain copies of the actual contracts that it claims enforce the payment of the Income Tax and verify that they do indeed say what Mercier claims they say. If I can validate the information in "Invisible Contracts," we can assume that the "Tax Freedom Movement" either hasn't found this information (a suggestion which I find to be highly unlikely), or the "Tax Freedom Movement" is itself controlled by the establishment.

If this is the case, why? My premature answer to that is that they are not giving us all of the information but they make the presentation so compelling that they are able to get more and more people riled up about the wrong thing. They get more and more people angry--this time at the right entities but presenting invalid arguments. They keep us fighting in exactly they way they want us to. They keep us thinking we are involved in real opposition to their agenda, but we're only opposing them in exactly the way that they want us to--yet again. They know that people like us are going to oppose them. So they create a story that we can believe but then make sure that our aggression is pointed in ever so slightly the wrong direction...

Iraq For Sale

My wife and I just watched Iraq for Sale tonite.

I thought it presented some good information, and personalized it just enough without it being overly sad or emotional. A brief summary... It shows that through "good old boy" connections, billions of dollars in contracts have been awarded to private companies to do work that should be carried out by the US military. these private companies not only mismanage this work with regularity, but also do not have the same accountability to the American people as the military does.

I did find one very important omission/misdirection inherent in its main argument. The money that is used to pay for much of the billions in contracts for the outsourcing of military services does not come from our tax payments. No, they already spent our taxes on their legitimate budget, which doesn't include much of the expenses of the war in Iraq. Y'all remember that much publicized "$87 billion" for the war that was debated in 2003... It is what's called extrabudgetary spending. Essentially, this money did not exist before it was "spent." To create the money, the Treasury gives a bond to the Federal Reserve and the Fed in turn makes an electronic deposit in the Gov't account, who delivers the money to one of several private companies. These companies then disperse this new money into the economy (money that was created without an equal exchange of labor) causing the value of the rest of our currency to go down. Hence part of the reason behind the 400% increase in the price of gold since the "war on terror" began... So yes, we taxpayers do pay for it, but via inflation and not increases in our taxes. If we had to pay for every cent of the war via taxes, there would surely be revolution because our tax bills would skyrocket across the boards.

One of the special features is summaries of the arguments in the House and Senate about several resolutions proposed by the Senator Leahy (D) and others regarding the elimination and/or oversight of private contractors for military services. I took the liberty of looking up the bills in question on Thomas, and I'm honestly not surprised that they didn't pass, or that the vote was strictly on party lines. As Senator Warner (R) notes, the legislation as it is written terribly vague and probably wouldn't get passed a first year law school course. So for the Democrats it looks good because the "evil" Republicans voted the anti-war profiteering legislation down, but when you look at the legislation itself, you probably couldn't in good conscience vote for it yourself because of the vagueries involved. so the Dems get to appear as if they are taking a hard line against war profiteering, when really if they had written legislation that was legally satisfactory, it probably would have passed...

Apparently the URL's for Thomas are static, so I won't link directly to it.

Leahy's bill: S.2356
Google it.

There were others too. There's a section in the special features titled "Important Votes" that shows most of the debate. Unfortanately, in many cases I think the Republicans "win" these arguments because they are attacking the structure of the legislation and its vagueries and the Democrats are just talking about what they intend for the legislation to do and how could you vote against that?? sadly, the answer is because it was very poorly worded.

Now this is all idle speculation, but I tend to think the Democrats have some pretty smart lawyers on their side... Which leads me to believe that they were poorly worded on purpose, so that they would be stricken down and the Dems could present the issue as the "evil" Republicans opposing legislation that cracked down on war profiteering. And--they don't really have to worry about offending the military industrial complex to which they are also beholden to because everyone realizes the legislation won't pass. The main problem, of course, being the money system allowing both parties to create billions in "new" money for the military industrial complex, pharmeceuticals, consumer products companies, argibusiness, etc., in exchange for a few million in "old money" political contributions from each of these companies. The two parties have all the money they need to make sure no one else ever wins an election, and the marriage between corporations and the government continues happily ever after...

Despite these critiques--which are minor in the face of the gravity of this issue in general--I highly suggest watching this film.