Truth Addicts Anonymous

Are you filthy rich, or honestly rich?

2011-11-06T22:26:00.004-05:00

I have nothing against someone who has an overabundance of money. I have everything against someone who obtains an overabundance of money at the expense of others via corruption, dishonesty, and selfish intentions.

VOTE UPPER CLASS!!

2011-11-04T20:11:00.002-04:00

Let's get something clear here: Democrats and Republicans are both the parties of the upper class. Their voting records prove that beyond any shadow of a doubt. They both are owned by the upper class and constitute one half of the powers that be (owners of central banks, mass media conglomerates, energy conglomerates, the military industrial complex, etc., etc., etc.). The goal of each party in the long run is to make sure that at least 25% of the nation hates them and will vote for the other so they don't win. In this way the upper class has maintained control of the government for hundreds of years with only a 50% voting rate. and some don't vote because we realize that you cannot win unless you vote democrat or republican. if you want to "acknowledge" class warfare, then sure, vote for the upper class... but to go so far as to actually end class warfare, you simply cannot vote for democrats or republicans. they are waging class warfare against those who are not super-rich like their owners are.

Controlled Opposition Can't Fight Honesty and Forthrightness

2011-11-04T00:03:00.010-04:00

If history is any indicator, i think it's reasonable to believe that the occupy movements have been infiltrated by counter-insurgents, agent provacateurs, however you want to say it. Having been a close observer on the inside of the Green Party in 2000, I can confirm that counter-insurgents use the concept of "democracy" to dilute the substance of arguments with the process of consensus. So much so that at this point the "unofficial official demands of Occupy Wall Street" may not even be known amongst all the people who have been sleeping in tents in the cold to prove a point. I'm not there, so i guess i really don't know... but to me, it's the point that is the important part.

The point is that honesty, forthrightness, forethought, and respect for the long-term sustainability of our culture (and i'm not talking natural resources, but actual society and culture here) are qualities we lack in our current system of government. In fact these things are not even just "lacking a little bit", they are nowhere to be found... If you scroll back through this blog's history you will see that I've been trying to make this point for years, sometimes indirectly and sometimes directly. The signs have been clear for a while.

Forget trying to pass laws... a system of laws that has already been usurped by the greedy and power-hungry cannot be fixed by passing laws.

To simply introduce the concept of forthrightness is a revolutionary act. But it's the simple things like honesty and forthrightness that we need most in government right now. And there are far too few people in government--regardless of how much money they make or which corporate boards they sit on--that represent these basic qualities that we should demand of every public servant. And until this really is a movement of the 99%, a campaign slogan of "honesty and forthrightness first" won't get you too far...

I would estimate that currently most Americans either don't give a damn about about any of this beyond what they hear on the news and they would perceive that i am taking a contrary viewpoint to that of the dominant social order and call me a nut job and dismiss anything I say without any real consideration. and this is by design. Our system of education is a myth, our televisions are keeping us quite occupied, thank you, and our money system is a pyramid scheme which we all worship.

Not even a full 99% of us would need to realize this and act on it to right the ship... I think honestly, a vocal minority of 30 or 40% could do some real good! And we're not quite there yet. But at least there may be fewer of you these days that think I'm crazy for saying so...

Suggestion for an Internet Search

2011-11-03T00:29:00.002-04:00

Try this one on for size: "occupy movement controlled opposition". You're going to find a lot of complete and utter BS, but buried in the hundreds and hundreds of articles, videos, and blog posts, you're going to find pretty compelling evidence that like the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street (and elsewhere) started as a legitimate grass-roots movement but has been usurped and infiltrated by the establishment. Don't be surprised, they've been doing it for decades...

Hey Occupiers: Demand Repeal of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act!

2011-10-17T20:38:00.007-04:00

I'm going to guess that 99% of the so-called 99% doesn't know what the Gramm-Leach-Blily Act is. Most people who haven't read the entire newspaper every day for the past 15 years probably don't either. I certainly hadn't heard of this act until recently... Like most legislation, we were all purposefully distracted towards other things when it was proposed and passed. Unless you watch C-SPAN on the regular or you are a banking/economics junkie, you just didn't hear about it. And if you did hear about it when it was passed in 1999, you might not have realized that it would be solely responsible for creating the worst financial crisis since the 30s. It overturns a law that was passed in 1933 (in the wake of the depression) and explicitly allows the same corporations to operate commercial banks, investment banks, and insurance companies. If we were to overturn this law and break up the companies that are "too big to fail", it would not fix the ridiculous inequality of wealth in the world today. But it would surely help to stabilize our economy.

Without clear demands, what good are protests, really?

Occupy Yourself

2011-10-09T17:25:00.003-04:00

Happy Sunday, folks. Hope this finds you well, which I know is still possible but less and less likely in earnest these days... The economic conditions are shrinking the middle-class and punishing the poor. What should be our right as sovereign beings (to purchase property, raise a family, take care of them and educate them) now requires at least two full-time incomes and a mountain of debt. our job in society, really, is to keep the money flowing. of course--money makes the world go round... well, money being nothing more than the issuing government's debt to the central bank (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544 | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking), debt makes the money go round. i think most of us would be ok with the compromise of a great quality of life in exchange for participation in this system. however, the quality of life we should be receiving in exchange for our participation in the "money-is-debt" system has quickly eroded, while--as is now popular to note--1% of the world owns the overwhelming majority of the world's money. those who are less effective at creating large amounts debt (ironically, the poor) are being pushed out of the possibility of their right to experience a life of dignity and productivity.

Which brings us to the "product" in productivity. Money. In the 21st century--currency is a product. just like the businesses that compete to gain market share of any other product, the makers of currency (central banks) will have healthy competition in their market, and as we have seen, the larger banks will buy out the smaller ones and we will eventually end up with enough diversity in our banks to count on one hand. Governments will have little say in the matter, as they are beholden to the central bank to honor that the bonds that they print will be turned into money. America's history of bank-favored monetary policy is living proof of this truth. And this isn't an America-centric issue, of course. Take the Euro for example.

at some point, there was a deal or set of decisions amongst the owners of Europe's banks that all European countries will consolidate their debt and funnel it all to one central bank that would issue one currency... Public consent was manufactured by the mass-media, and this bank deal manifested itself as the European Union. central banks are are holding trillions of dollars of debt over all of the world governments' heads. so yes, democratic countries will have votes and the talking heads in the mainstream media will advise you to think one of two ways about it and there will be spirited debate amongst those in the world governments--those who are bought and sold by the same central banks. the medium for such debate and discussion will of course be the mainstream media, which is owned by the same corporations and banks that own our governments. The best part is, those who sit on the boards that oversee each of these central banks have been appointed only at the explicit approval of the bank itself (this is true, read the Federal Reserve Act or any other Central Bank's charter with the government(s) it does business with)... and in the end--the corporate merger on the currency market in Europe takes place, and the Euro is born.

we will probably see the same sort of thing happen all around the world, slowly. central banks, being companies like any other only dealing in currency and selling to governments, will compete with each other. the stronger companies will buy out the weaker ones (this is happening in droves in America right now) and in the end, you end up with one world currency. This is not some grand new world order conspiracy theory. it's the truth. it's already well under way. the evidence is all around us, hidden in plain sight.

the good news is that lately more people have recognized what's going on. we here are we are willing to fight, but can we be patient enough to win? i for one am hopeful... to stop the central banks from consolidating our governments and our currency thus dissolving our sovereignty as a free people, we have a few vital tasks to accomplish, none of which are tenable without a major commitment from a majority of the population. 1) end corporate personhood. 2) re-wrte the federal reserve act, give our government the power to issue currency without a central bank if the people so choose. 3) end corruption in government and big business.

yes, without all three, we more of less have no power to alter this course. even if we can muster the will and selflessness necessary to accomplish the first two, the third one is going to be tricky... people who seek the vast amounts of power afforded to the rulers of the world's great corporations, banks, and governments tend to be power-hungry, extremely intelligent, and highly successful. that's the profile of a diabolical genius if i ever heard of one... and while not everyone in power is a sociopath, there are certainly a fair amount of people that fit this profile. so you can see the terrible amount and the almost infinite degree of difficulty of the work ahead of us if we are going to stop this train from going down its current track.

and to make matters more complicated, in order to survive we MUST use means that do not involve derailing the train. the sad truth is we are all on this train of our own accord by participating in the money system. non-violence--even in the face of what the police have already done and what the army is likely to do when we continue the fight--is the only method that will work. and there are plenty of options for you to contribute positively that don't involve sit-ins or protests at all. making personal choices like buying local, participating in CSAs, investment in small-scale renewable energy and local energy cooperatives, getting involved in your local governments, and keeping your money and your debt in the hands of credit unions rather than banks--all of these things will help our society to push the train onto the right track.

stay hopeful. stay positive. be proactive. if we ever really do get 99% of Americans to get "down with the program," we will prevail.

Banking Legislation Passed 12/11/2009

2010-01-22T20:39:00.008-05:00

HR 4173

This is just the summary... Passed without nary a word...

------------

Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 - Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009

Directs the Comptroller General to audit and report to Congress on all actions taken by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve Board) and the Federal Reserve Banks during the current economic crisis pursuant to specified authority granted under the Federal Reserve Act. Establishes a Financial Services Oversight Council, consisting of the heads of specified federal financial regulatory bodies and chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury, to:

(1) resolve a dispute among two or more federal financial regulatory agencies in specified circumstances;

(2) subject a financial company to stricter prudential standards; and

(3) require a financial holding company to undertake one or more mitigatory actions to address any grave threat its activities pose to the financial stability or economy of the United States.

Directs the Federal Reserve Board to impose stricter prudential standards on a financial holding company in certain circumstances. Authorizes the Council to subject a financial activity or practice to stricter prudential standards for financial stability purposes. Amends the Home Owners' Loan Act to establish a Division of Thrift Supervision within the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Abolishes the Office of Thrift Supervision and transfers its functions and personnel to the Division. Amends the Revised Statutes of the United States to direct the Secretary to appoint up to five Deputy Comptrollers of the Currency, including a Senior Deputy Comptroller for National Banks and a Senior Deputy Comptroller for Thrift Supervision. Amends the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA) to place the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board on the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in lieu of the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision. Amends the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 to prescribe requirements for the treatment of industrial loan companies, savings associations, special purpose holding companies, and certain other companies. Prohibits certain conversions of troubled banks and thrifts. Amends the FDIA to revise requirements for calculating a depository institution's assessment.

Credit Risk Retention Act of 2009 - Amends the Securities Act of 1933 to direct the appropriate federal financial regulatory agencies to prescribe regulations to require any creditor to retain an economic interest in a material portion of the credit risk of any loan the creditor transfers, sells, or conveys to a third party, including for the purpose of including such loan in a pool of loans backing an issuance of asset-backed securities.

Dissolution Authority for Large, Interconnected Financial Companies Act of 2009 - Prescribes a procedure under which the Secretary shall appoint the FDIC as receiver for one year to resolve, liquidate, or take other specified emergency stabilization actions with respect to a financial company whose imminent or actual default would have serious adverse effects on financial stability or economic conditions in the United States. Requires the FDIC Inspector General, if the Secretary appoints the FDIC as receiver for a financial company, to establish an Office of Resolution to audit and investigate the activities of the FDIC in its capacity as receiver for that company. Amends the Federal Reserve Act to prescribe requirements for financial crisis management actions by the Federal Reserve Board in the event of a liquidity event that could destabilize the U.S. financial system. Establishes a Council of Inspectors General on Financial Oversight. Amends the International Banking Act of 1978 to authorize the Federal Reserve Board to terminate the activities of the U.S. branch, agency, or subsidiary of a foreign bank that presents a systemic risk to the United States.

Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act of 2009 - Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require a separate, non-binding shareholder vote to approve the compensation, including golden parachute compensation, of corporate and financial institution executives. Requires each member of the compensation committee of the board of directors of an issuer of securities to be independent.

Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets Act of 2009 - Amends the Commodity Exchange Act to require joint regulation of swap markets by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Requires swap repositories, swap dealers, major swap participants, and swap execution facilities to register with the CFTC. Repeals the exemption from CFTC regulation of derivatives transaction execution facilities and boards of trade. Revises requirements for foreign boards of trade. Authorizes the CFTC and the SEC to ban:

(1) abusive swaps; and

(2) access to the U.S. financial system of any entity domiciled in a foreign country whose regulation of swaps or security-based swaps markets in that country undermines the stability of the U.S. financial system.

Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to repeal the prohibition on regulation of security-based swaps and applies specified requirements to such swaps.

Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009 - Establishes the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) as an independent agency to regulate the provision of consumer financial products or services. Prescribes related requirements for examination and enforcement for small insured depository institutions (with total assets of $10 billion or less) by the FDIC and credit unions (with total assets of $1.5 billion or less) by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA). Directs the CFPA to develop risk-based programs to supervise nondepository covered persons. Authorizes the CFPA to take actions to prohibit unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in connection with any transaction with a consumer for, or any offering of, a consumer financial product or service. Specifies prohibited acts. Requires the CFPA Director to lead a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee to promulgate appraisal independence requirements for residential loan purposes. Specifies the preservation of the civil enforcement powers of state attorneys general. Prescribes standards for federal preemption of state law regarding national banks and subsidiaries and federal savings associations. Specifies CFPA enforcement powers. Transfers to the CFPA the consumer financial protection functions of the Federal Reserve Board, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the FDIC, the Federal Trade Commission, the NCUA, and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Prescribes requirements for the collection and use by the CFPA of deposit account and small business data. Requires the CFPA Director to conduct an annual financial autopsy regarding bankruptcies and foreclosures, including any specific financial products or services that have caused substantial numbers of them.

Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2009 - Amends the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to require private fund investment advisers to register with the SEC and maintain records and make reports on systemic risk data. Exempts venture capital fund advisers from the registration requirements. Directs the SEC to exempt from registration requirements any investment adviser of a private fund with assets under management in the United States of less than $150 million.

Accountability and Transparency in Rating Agencies Act of 2009 - Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to revise requirements for regulation of nationally recognized statistical rating organizations (NRSROs). Requires the SEC to examine NRSRO credit ratings to review whether an NRSRO has established a system of internal controls and adhered to it. Directs the SEC to:

(1) establish an office to administer SEC rules with respect to NRSRO practices; and

(2) eliminate the exemption of NRSROs from the Fair Disclosure Rule. Directs the SEC to establish a Credit Ratings Agency Advisory Board.

Investor Protection Act of 2009 - Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to establish an Investor Advisory Committee to the SEC. Authorizes the SEC to engage in consumer testing. Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to direct the SEC to promulgate rules to prescribe a fiduciary standard of conduct for a broker or dealer when providing personalized investment advice about securities to a retail customer. Authorizes the SEC to prohibit or limit agreements that require customers or clients of any broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer to engage in pre-dispute arbitration. Establishes within the SEC a Capital Markets Safety Board. Directs the SEC to report to specified congressional committees on the implementation of SEC reforms in the wake of the discovery of fraud by Bernie Madoff.Authorizes the SEC and the CFTC to form and operate a joint advisory committee. Prescribes or revises prohibitions and requirements relating to:

(1) securities lending;

(2) lost and stolen securities; and

(3) fingerprinting of personnel of registered securities information processors, national securities exchanges, and national securities associations.

Declares that any condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person to waive compliance with any rule of a self-regulatory organization shall be void. Directs the Comptroller General to study and report to Congress on the SEC revolving door. Establishes a Financial Reporting Forum to discuss immediate and long-term issues critical to financial reporting. Directs the SEC Chairman to appoint an SEC Ombudsman. Amends the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 with respect to, among other specified items, an increased:

(1) assessment paid by Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) members;

(2) borrowing limit on Treasury loans; and

(3) cash limit of protection. Amends the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 with respect to:

(1) the Public Company Accounting Oversight (PCAO) Board oversight of auditors of brokers and dealers; and

(2) foreign regulatory information sharing, and related matters.

Directs the PCAO Board to appoint an ombudsman. Directs the SEC to establish a program of grants to states for enhanced protection of seniors from misleading and fraudulent marketing of financial products. Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require municipal financial advisers to register with the SEC.

Federal Insurance Office Act of 2009 –

Establishes in the Treasury the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) to:

(1) monitor the insurance industry;

(2) recommend to the Financial Services Oversight Council that it designate an insurer as one subject to stricter standards;

(3) assist in administering the Terrorism Insurance Program; and

(4) perform other related duties. Preempts a state insurance measure only to the extent it:

(1) directly results in less favorable treatment of a non-U.S. insurer domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction that is subject to a covered agreement than a U.S. insurer domiciled, licensed, admitted, or otherwise authorized in that state; and

(2) is inconsistent with such a covered agreement. Requires the FIO Director to study and report to specified congressional committees on:

(1) the global reinsurance market; and

(2) how to modernize and improve the system of insurance regulation in the United States.

This is who is auditing the Fed

your money is in his hands.

Reflect Refract, War in Iraq

2009-12-06T13:45:00.011-05:00

I now disagree with some of what I've written in the past--or at least feel like I have a better understanding of some of the big picture and have stopped focusing so much on specific conspiracies. Though I still do think it's important always to recognize that the conspiratorial view of history is factually accurate.

People in power do indeed conspire to keep that power, they always have and they always will. Their first tactic is to become invisible via their ownership of mass media. Banks and monied incorporations own the world's governments, religions, and also ALL of the public's supposedly independent mass media news sources. Governments are subsidiaries of international corporate conglomerates. Follow the money, you'll see that this is 100% true. Their product is complicity in the consumer culture and their consumer is the world population. Wars are nothing but hostile business transactions. Different companies (vis a vis their ownership rights to governments) sacrifice "consumers" (people) to each other for larger market share. Typically in wars, those sacrificed in greater numbers are those who are less active consumers.

Example: In the early 90s, an estimated 100,000 Iraqis were killed in Desert Storm. About 200 American troops were sacrificed in that same conflict.In 2001, 3,000 Americans die in a brutal and tragic attack on the twin towers (regardless of you think who or what was responsible, we will not argue that it was indeed brutal and tragic). Between 2003 and 2009, an additional 5,000+ US soldiers are sacrificed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Between 2003 and 2009, as few as 100,000 and as many as 600,000 Iraqi civilians are sacrificed in war.

After some simple math, we now know that since 1990, in the two major Middle East wars, we've got at least 200,000 dead Iraqis (probably closer to 500,000, so let's go with 300K dead Iraqis and Afghans for the sake of argument), and less than 10,000 American casualties, and probably another 5,000 Western European casualties (data sources available in previously linked articles). In my view, the loss of one life is no less tragic if the human who owned that life was born in Baghdad or Brooklyn... The sheer loss of life in these wars is simply mind-boggling. It feels kind of morbid to break it down with objective analysis... but... The percent loss breaks down like this:

Casualties since 2003, sources above

Now let's consider the global GDP distribution by country, considering the % share for the involved parties.

(source)

The analysis, while morbid, does paint a pretty clear picture. The companies that own the US military (and use the financial system to funnel money to themselves via the their co-ownership of governments with the other international mega-conglomerate companies) are winning in their offensive against the people of the world in their endeavor to control more of our money by sacrificing vastly larger amounts of life of those people who are accustomed to consuming less.

Seems fairly clear to me... Loss of life is HUGELY skewed towards nations with lower GDP. Weapons manufacturers and military contracting companies being mostly international entities, which nation loses life is not their concern. Their concern is which nations' government and bank can they extract money from easily and in high volume. Makes sense that those nations which can keep funneling hundreds of billions of dollars per year to these companies always win the wars, and that those in power of multinational mega-conglomerate corporations profit in either case.

War is a cut-and-dry example of corporations asserting their power over nations and using human life as a bargaining chip. People/entities in power use that power to remain in power. Corporations continue to live by eating and breathing money. Many trillions of dollars in the world today exists solely due to banks and governments having created that money out of debt. Money, power, war.

Welcome to the Thomas Jefferson's nightmare: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
(source)

The Financial Sector Has Five Lobbyists for Every Congressperson

2009-10-25T14:57:00.001-04:00

Think about it...
(source)

Swine Flu Death Rate 0.08% of total Flu Death Rate in US over past 2 weeks

2009-05-05T21:09:00.006-04:00

Death rate extrapolations for USA for Flu: 63,729 per year, 5,310 per month, 1,225 per week, 174 per day, 7 per hour, 0 per minute, 0 per second. Note: this extrapolation calculation uses the deaths statistic: 63,730 annual deaths for influenza and pneumonia (NVSR Sep 2001); estimated 20,000 deaths from flu (NIAID)
Source: http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/f/flu/stats.htm

Swine Flu, US, 2009: 2 deaths
Source: Mainstream TV News Caster, May 5, 2009

Math:
2 swine flu deaths / 2450 total flu deaths = 0.08%
(1225 total flu deaths per week * 2 weeks)

The Direction We're Not Moving In

2008-10-10T17:47:00.001-04:00

I heard something on the mainstream news last nite that actually made sense. This recent crisis is more about fear than any sort of underlying economic problem... When prices are kept artificially high for years, people panic when they start to come down. that panic leads to "SELLSELLSELL!!" which leads to prices coming down even more, which leads to more "SELLSELLSELL!" If there were no bailout, eventually the panic would subside and things would stabilize at a sustainable level. The % of our GDP that is tied up in the financial sector would shrink, and the % of our GDP related to manufacturing, technology, etc would increase. The hundreds of billions in evaporated wealth due to the stock market crash would not magically reappear--it would be gone (not that it ever really had any right to exist in the first place), wages might come down a bit, values of savings would decrease, and that obviously would suck for a lot of people... But homes would be affordable. Energy would be affordable. Food would be affordable. And we could move forward in a slightly more sustainable fashion. Too bad, we're not moving in that direction... Not yet at least.

PLEASE CALL YOUR CONGRESSPERSON

2008-10-09T09:18:00.001-04:00

Demand that Congress immediately redress and pass this bill. It's our only hope.

---------------
HR 2755 IH

110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2755

To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks, to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 15, 2007
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

A BILL
To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks, to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act'.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD ABOLISHED.

(a) In General- Effective at the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and each Federal reserve bank are hereby abolished.
(b) Repeal of Federal Reserve Act- Effective at the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Reserve Act is hereby repealed.
(c) Disposition of Affairs-
(1) MANAGEMENT DURING DISSOLUTION PERIOD- During the 1-year period referred to in subsection (a), the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System--
(A) shall, for the sole purpose of winding up the affairs of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks--
(i) manage the employees of the Board and each such bank and provide for the payment of compensation and benefits of any such employee which accrue before the position of such employee is abolished; and
(ii) manage the assets and liabilities of the Board and each such bank until such assets and liabilities are liquidated or assumed by the Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with this subsection; and
(B) may take such other action as may be necessary, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, to wind up the affairs of the Board and the Federal reserve banks.
(2) LIQUIDATION OF ASSETS-
(A) IN GENERAL- The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall liquidate all assets of the Board and the Federal reserve banks in an orderly manner so as to achieve as expeditious a liquidation as may be practical while maximizing the return to the Treasury.
(B) TRANSFER TO TREASURY- After satisfying all claims against the Board and any Federal reserve bank which are accepted by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and redeeming the stock of such banks, the net proceeds of the liquidation under subparagraph (A) shall be transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury and deposited in the General Fund of the Treasury.
(3) ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITIES- All outstanding liabilities of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks at the time such entities are abolished, including any liability for retirement and other benefits for former officers and employees of the Board or any such bank in accordance with employee retirement and benefit programs of the Board and any such bank, shall become the liability of the Secretary of the Treasury and shall be paid from amounts deposited in the general fund pursuant to paragraph (2) which are hereby appropriated for such purpose until all such liabilities are satisfied.
(d) Report- At the end of the 18-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall submit a joint report to the Congress containing a detailed description of the actions taken to implement this Act and any actions or issues relating to such implementation that remain uncompleted or unresolved as of the date of the report.

Money as Debt

2008-10-05T22:43:00.004-04:00

I've said this before... but in light of our nation's most recent exhibit of obvious control of government by central banks, I'm going to say it again, and say it loud:

Everyone knows that money makes the world go round... So what makes the money go round?!?!

Very very few individuals know how money is created, much less how it came to be this way. There isn't one class taught in any of our public schools that explains it. Even in our institutions of higher learning in degree tracts such as economics, business and finance, etc., the simple and fundamental truths about how today's monetary system operates or how it originated is not explained. There's almost no way to get access to this information via the regular channels. One must seek the answer to this question themselves.

The video below is about as accurate, simple and concise as you can get. I highly recommend it.

Welcome to the U.S.S.A.

2008-10-03T16:18:00.001-04:00

Welcome to the U.S.S.A.

The Bailout Bill DOES NOT Restrict Executive Pay!!

2008-10-02T15:08:00.002-04:00

You've all heard one of the selling points of the bailout bill... that it would restrict the compensation of executives in companies who accepted the bailout. This is a half-truth. It does not restrict their compensation. It restricts the amount that is tax deductible to the company... Read the bill below...

"SEC. 302. SPECIAL RULES FOR TAX TREATMENT OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION OF EMPLOYERS PARTICIPATING IN THE TROUBLED ASSETS RELIEF PROGRAM.
(a) DENIAL OF DEDUCTION.—Subsection (m) of section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(5) SPECIAL RULE FOR APPLICATION TO EMPLOYERS PARTICIPATING IN THE TROUBLED ASSETS RELIEF PROGRAM.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an applicable employer, no deduction shall be allowed under this chapter—
(i) in the case of executive remuneration for any applicable taxable year which is attributable to services performed by a covered executive during such applicable taxable year, to the extent that the amount of such remuneration exceeds $500,000, or ‘‘(ii) in the case of deferred deduction executive remuneration for any taxable year for services performed during any applicable taxable year by a covered executive, to the extent that the amount of such remuneration exceeds $500,000 reduced (but not below zero) by the sum of—
‘‘(I) the executive remuneration for such applicable taxable year, plus ‘‘(II) the portion of the deferred deduction executive remuneration for such services which was taken into account under this clause in a preceding taxable year.

In The Meantime...

2008-10-02T13:19:00.002-04:00

While we wait for this new version of the hyperinflation--I mean Bailout Bill to pass the House on Friday... Will you just look at that nice, sustained positive trend in the US dollar index! It's almost as if... the dollar gets stronger when we don't FLOOD THE WORLD WITH $700 BILLION OF THEM!! Imagine that...

Does Someone Who's Bleeding to Death Need a Transfusion or a Tourniquet?

2008-09-30T08:51:00.002-04:00

I see a bailout as a blood transfusion for a patient that is bleeding to death. sure, it'll let the patient live longer, but why not stop the bleeding rather than just adding more blood?

The global economy is fucked not because we wouldn't pout 700 billion into the raging inferno to keep in burning, but because our politicians didn't have the balls in 1913, 1944, 1971, and don't have the balls now to stop the financial sector from adopting irresponsible and reckless practices as their common, everyday way of life. I don't see any bailout as a solution. I see it as more inflation... because the money is coming, essentially, from nowhere. No equal exchange of labor, just 700 billion from the central bank to continue to fuel the fire. as long as the fire continues burning, it's business as usual...

We have been operating on a completely unsustainable system since the dismantling of the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1971. Fiat currencies tend to do things like this (implode) when they are largely unregulated. But to actually fix it, what's needed is not more fiat money, but a serious amount of restraint, regulation, and hopefully an end to the commonplace irresponsible and reckless behavior of the financial sector.

Hopefully there will be a smaller bailout, because in that way the mainstream media is right--at this point we need it to survive in the short-term. But unless it's coupled with serious ass-kicking economic reform, it's just going to prolong the situation and make it even worse when the inevitable crash does come. A bailout without meaningful changes/reforms will set the stage for another bailout in a few years--this time by the IMF/World Bank.

But I don't think things are quite as bad as the Dow Jones reports would make them to be. People are still buying things (on credit even). Many companies are still profitable and still hiring. The financial sectors will feel a lot of hurt and they will pass it down through the rest of the economy and some innocent companies will likely go under... But companies that actually provide a useful service or produce a useful product will probably be OK. And the American people are quite resilient... We'll be OK too...

Bailout Failed! Or at least postponed...

2008-09-29T15:03:00.001-04:00

The Bailout Bill was overturned by Congress. Given my economic/political biases... I think this is pretty good news. A bailout is a short-term fix to the long-term problem of gross fiscal irresponsibility practiced by our financial sector. The derivatives market has turned Wall Street into Las Vegas. And guess what--we, the American people, are the house. And the house always wins... Things may get worse before they get better. But if we want real and lasting economic stability, we can never let the government and the federal reserve print money out of thin air (or use our tax dollars) to bail out big business and finance.

Thomas Jefferson on Banking

2008-09-29T09:02:00.001-04:00

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”

--Thomas Jefferson

A tidbit from the Bailout Bill

2008-09-25T09:03:00.006-04:00

Financial institutions are “designated as financial agents of the Government.”

“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

The fact that America is not a free market economy has been obvious to me for a while. I think now, it's not even debatable anymore... In a free market, when bubbles burst--PRICES FALL! It's natural, it's healthy, and it leads to a SUSTAINABLE economy. When, in order to keep prices of stocks, housing, and energy artificially high, the government pays TRILLIONS (and it well get well into the trillions) to bail out FAILED BANKS that wrote STUPID LOANS--that is called STATE CAPITALISM, and it leads to HYPERINFLATION. When I went to Russia in 1993, they were in the middle of a hyperinflationary period brought about by their State Capitalist economic practices (yes, they officially became a "democracy" in 1991, but c'mon...). When I got there, the exchange rate was 700 rubles to the dollar. When I left, 8 days later, the exchage rate was 800 rubles to the dollar. We are pointing ourselves down the same road.

Is this the USA? Or the U.S.S.A.?

This is proof that neither the democrats nor the republicans (save maybe one or two individuals) have any inkling of what the Constitution actually means. They are pawns of the corporate banking state and CLEARLY enemies of the people of the United States. Within the next several years, the IMF/World Bank as opposed to the US Government will be bailing out the American economy, our dollars will be worth next to nothing, and then we will be part of the 3rd world economy. Time to start thinking about what you're going to do with your first million dollar bill.

A matter of perception

2008-07-29T21:31:00.005-04:00

Perception is the basis of how human beings form their concept of reality. As our perceptions are sometimes incorrect, sometimes based on faulty information, sometimes formed without any real and direct experience at all, reality is not always reflective of truth... The difference between truth and reality is a matter of perception. I will, of course, use mass media and psychological warfare as an example...

Reality--Islamic fundamentalist terrorists hate your freedom and want to kill you and your family. Our government is policing and regulating large corporations for our protection. Democrats and Republicans represent the only two sides of every political argument, and when one of them wins, the other one loses. Reality TV? 'Nuff said.

Truth--Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are manufactured as a tool for political gains. Our government and large corporations are the same thing. They present a set of complicated and seemingly serious issues that pit the interests of one against the interests of others--but in truth they are symbiotic and one would die without the other. Democrats and Republicans are also the same thing. They are two arms of the politicorporate establishment that share one overarching agenda--the continuance and growth of the state-capitalist debt-slavery system. Reality TV is stupid.

It is much easier to perceive reality than truth. Reality is paraded in front of you all the time. Reality is force-fed. All your friends are doing it... Truth requires independent thought, research, and often results in ostracism... And so we live in reality--a place where truth is often lost--because it's easier.

Sad but okay in the long run...

2008-05-18T10:17:00.004-04:00

It is sad that it requires major currency and natural resource manipulation to force the price of petroleum up enough to the point where large automobile companies can finally start to develop and deploy technology that could have and should have been developed in the 70s to bring electric cars to market. The chart above shows that as of 2005, transportation accounts for almost 67% of US petroleum usage. And the until very recently, the trend has been bigger cars, lower fuel economy. It is truly and deeply sad that the oil shock of the 70s didn't wake American up to the fact that we needed to start to move away from petroleum as a fuel source for our vehicles, and to convince the auto industry by sheer force of numbers that we wanted much better fuel economy, and alternatives to gasoline powered cars. Why such a thing required 30 more years of status-quo is beyond me, and truly sad.

But it does seem that the solution that should have been developed in the 70s and brought online in the 80s is being developed in the 00s and will be brought online in the 10s. And so yeah, it's sad that it took this long, but it's going to be OK in the long run. No, we're not going to change the global power structure. No, we're not going to topple the military industrial complex or the central banking cartel. But yes, we are going to have affordable zero-emissions vehicles that do not use petroleum. Here is the early news on offerings by several major auto manufacturers and some not so major ones: Chevy, Nissan, Th!nk, Tesla Motors, Volvo, Green Vehicles... It just makes so much sense... and it's coming. The cost of charging them will be WAY less than filling a gas tank. If you really give a shit, you can set up a solar or wind-powered recharging system for your electric car.

Within the next 5-10 years, you won't need to rely on oil, coal, etc to drive a car. Long long long overdue. But it's one big step in the right direction that this idea is being brought to market...

Just in case you weren't feeling thoroughly screwed

2008-05-02T10:59:00.004-04:00

A graph of crude oil prices since 1946. Data gathered from the US DoE. If you think that changes in the price of oil are NOT created by political and economic tinkering and that they have ANYTHING to do with supply or demand... Think again. Yes, we use more than we discover. But no, the relationship between what we use vs what we produce does not change in proportion to the changes in price. Iran has recently started selling crude oil for Euros or Yen--truly bucking the Petrodollar for the first time--but the price of oil on NYMEX or IPE (where the vast majority of it is still sold) is closely proportional to the value of the dollar. And the dollar is TANKING. This is no accident. Ask your local friendly neighborhood globalist central banker all about it...

The Perfect Way to Spend Your Stimulus Check

2008-05-01T09:47:00.006-04:00

Looking for the right way to spend your "stimulus" check? Gold has gone down by about 10% lately. Buy low, remember? What better way to use the money that the Federal Government is "returning" to you than to buy precious metals that they cannot tax and that are immune to inflation? Or you could pretend you're an important politician and write "pay to the order of high priced prostitute" on the back of your check. Personally, I'm going to go for the gold... and silver.

Illusion of truth in elections

2008-02-05T22:14:00.001-05:00

It used to be that we had our choice of corporate-owned white men to vote for president. Now, we have our choice of corporate-owned white men, and they've even thrown in a corporate-owned white woman and a corporate-owned black man! What a great and truly free society we have, where we vote for the corporate-owned ethnicity and gender of our choice. What? They all spew nothing but rhetoric and talking points? FEH!!! You have a CHOICE!!! You want a GOOD choice? Why do you hate America so much?!?!

Well seriously... fuck that. I voted for Ron Paul in today's primaries because while he may be a rich white man, he's not corporate-owned and he doesn't spew rhetoric or talking points. He takes issues head-on, he values freedom and personal responsibility for that freedom, and he would uphold the Constitution, which protects those freedoms and enforces those reposibilities on us all.

Like voting makes a difference anyway... oh well, it was something to do on a Tuesday nite...

GM actually does something cool...

2007-10-13T23:56:00.000-04:00

GM is going to resurrect the electric car that it killed several years ago when it recalled all of the Saturn EV1's that it had ever made. The EV-1, a first generation electric vehicle, got 60-70 miles per charge, which is 50% more than the 40 miles per charge GM is advertising for their new Volt... And considering the technology to build an affordable highway-speed electric car that can get 300 miles per charge absolutely positively exists, Chevy's boasting about 40 miles per charge? Well it's really not very impressive at all...

But the volt will also accept gasoline, E-85 Ethanol, or biodiesel as well. That's pretty cool for a couple of reasons. First, it gives you more choices. Second, it's truly practical (fuel it up anywhere, plug it in from a regular wall outlet). And third, it doesn't threaten the oil industry... If you wanted to you could pour 15 gallons of gasoline into it go about 600 miles.

Unreliable sources are saying Chevy wants to sell it for $20,000 (dollars are imaginary anyway, see below...), but actually getting it to be profitable at that price is a totally different story and they have not officially released price estimates. But if it's anywhere near that $20,000 price tag, I might just have to get one. My daily commute is 9 miles round-trip... so... it certainly makes sense for me...

Monetary Policy

2007-10-13T09:08:00.000-04:00

We all know that money makes the world go round, but what makes the money go round? That's the more important question, I think... And it's a question that you could take many different approaches to answer... For my approach here, I'll keep it very high-level and generalized, hence the Wikipedia links... If you'd like a more detailed analysis, I suggest you search for the same topics I've linked to here in the United States Legal Code.

How is money created?

All money is created from debt. It's very important to understand that seemingly contradictory statement... But it's really very simple, and absolutely true. The money that we use today is known as Fiat Currency. And our banks operate on the Fractional Reserve Banking system. In short, this means that our dollars, euros, pesos, yen, yuan, rubels, etc. are not backed in any way by precious metals. There is no guarantee that you can bring your paper currency to the bank that issued it and get gold or silver in return. And furthermore, a bank is not required to physically posess any more than 10% (our current reserve ratio) of the money that it issues.

So with those guidelines in mind, here is how money is created from debt in the USA... The Federal Reserve Bank and the United States Government work in perfect harmony to handle the finer points of the process. The Fed is what's known as a Central Bank. Despite the .gov web address on the Federal Reserve web link, it is not solely owned and controlled by the US Governent. The Federal Reserve Bank is a private corporation with a US Government Oversight board that was founded in 1913 with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. If you read the text of this act carefully, you will see that the State does not own the Bank, but rather they are separate entities. The Federal Reserve Act is their contract to a mutually exclusive relationship in the business of creating currency. Well--not exactly mutualy exclusive, thanks of course to the World Bank. But I digress...

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank is selected by the President and the Senate. However, if you read deeper into the United States Legal Code (Title 12, Chapter 3), you learn that the bank itself has a good deal of influence over the selection process. As a result, the pool of nominees that the President and Senate have to choose from are more-or-less selected together by the bank and the government to serve their mutual interests, which mainly involve the transumation of debt into money.

The actual debt-to-money conversion is very simple. The US Government issues bonds to the Federal Reserve Bank, and in turn, the value printed on those bond are deposited into the US Government's Treasury. This is more or less a loan from the Federal Reserve bank--which mind you is not required to retain any precious metals to back the currency which it offers--to the Government at low interest. The Government of course is free to do more or less what it pleases with this money. A large portion of this money is granted to a small number of private corporations otherwise known as the Military Industrial Complex, and the rest of it is dispersed to other corporations or used for the purposes of public welfare.

Where do our taxes come in to play?

The Government then levies a tax on the income of US Persons (meant in the contractual sense, not the individual sense, that's why it's Persons and not people) in order to repay the interest on its debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.

What about the rest of the banks? How do they get money?

The Federal Reserve bank enjoys special status as the Central Bank in the US Fractional Reserve System. Like other banks, it only has to retain 10% of it's assests in any sort of physical form. Unlike other banks, the only assets it is required to hold are US Government Bonds. It esentially creates paper or digital money with nothing but the authority of our Legal Tender Laws to back it.

As a Fractional Reserve bank the Fed is free to loan 9 times the value of the bonds it holds out to other banks at low interest at its Discount Window. Private banks "buy" this money from the Central Bank and loan it out at slightly higer interest than the Fed charges them. The majority of the loans issued by private banks at this stage in the chain are issued to large corporations and to other private banks. The corporations use these loans to do things like meet their payroll, develop their businesses, etc. And the other private banks issue higher-interest loans, like mortgages, credit cards, etc.

What if the loans can't be repaid?

Not to worry, most of the loans written in this first stage of the game described above are insured by the Federal Government. This might seem odd since the Government itself cannot get any money to actually pay the loans back without taking more loans from the Fed itself... But regardless, they do indeed insure many large-scale loans. And there are many instances of large scale corporate bailouts by the government. You'd think that in a free-market economy, poorly managed corporations that could not repay their loans and poorly managed banks that wrote too many risky loans would be allowed to fail and corporations that were run better would absorb their business and succeed. Well, in a free-market economy, that's what happens. But, as is evidenced by the information above, we do not operate a free-market economy.

But I work for my money! It doesn't come from thin air!!

Of course! I work hard for my money too... On our level of the chain, we do have much more of a free market, and much more freedom to make our own breaks. The part of the economy that most of us participate in involves an equal exchange of labor for the money that we are paid by our employers--or if you're in business for yourself, from your customers or clients.

But, regardless of how hard you work or what your salary is, our money itself does not require the same equal exchange of labor to produce. It does not require x number of hours or labor to produce x number of dollars. It requires nothing but the issuance of US Government Bonds to the Central Bank. Invariably, the money that gets deposited into your bank account was created as a result of US Government debt. US Dollars cannot be created in any other fashion. Our money supply is not constrained by the laws of supply and demand. This is unfortunate, because a monetary policy that operates within the constraints of the laws of supply and demand does a pretty good job of keeping the majority of the money in the hands of the many and in keeping the value of the currency stable, while a monetary policy that does not operate within the constraints of the laws of supply and demand has led to the majority of the money being concentrated in the hands of the few. Not to mention the dollar is highly unstable...

What about preciuos metals?

Why are precious metals precious? Simple--because demand for them is high. Gold and silver have very high value in many different sectors of the economy, ranging from electronics manufacturing to jewlery making to demand by investors and beyond... By rule, precious metals require x number of hours to produce x amount. By "produce," I mean extract from the gound, divide into equal and accurately measured portions, and place some sort of seal on them to guarantee the accuracy of the measurements...

Precious metals are not exactly money in the modern world... Not anymore at least. There is no guarantee that you can go into a store and plunk down a silver coin and get whatever value that coin holds in the form of goods or services. Instead we have the aforementioned Legal Tender Laws to impose the US Dollar as issued by the Federal Reserve Bank as acceptable for all debts, public and private.

A hundred years ago or so, many shopkeepers wouldn't take paper money but would gladly accept a Government issued silver coin... While people could use precious metals to transact commerce in the days before Legal Tender Laws (1965 in the US) were passed, most people stopped using them when paper money was introduced en masse by the Federal Resreve system. Up until 1933 when private ownership of gold was made illegal, this paper money was backed by precious metals--meaning you could go to the bank and demand gold in exchange for your paper money.

In the years that followed the 1933 gold confiscation, the price of gold has become completely disconnected from the value of gold. And thus, banks and governments can issue as much currency as they want without the constraint of having to actually posess anything of real physical value. Over the years, things like the Bretton Woods Agreement, and then the Nixon Administration's dissolution of the Bretton Woods Agreement have removed any sort of influence of supply and demand from our money system.

By disconnecting our money supply from precious metals and therfore supply and demand, we have enabled vast amounts of industrial and technological growth, which in many cases is a really wonderful thing. Unfortunately, decoupling the money supply from the laws of supply and demand has also made it highly unstable and has led to concentration of that money in the hands of the few.

So whose money is it?

The currency we use today belongs to the Federal Reserve bank. It is not our money, it's theirs. We use it because our government is kind enough to tax us in order to repay the interest on the debt it incurrs to produce said currency and also to pass a Legal Tender Law to force us to use it even though it has no real physical value beyond the paper it was printed on. We use the money because we have little choice. And the power to create and regulate the creation of said money is concentrated in the hands of those who benefit the most from it--the Federal Reserve Bank and the US Government. So if you trust the government and banks and you don't think there's any corruption, well then great... But I don't share that trust, and I would think that anyone who's done any objective research into it wouldn't either.

the political manipulation of science

2007-09-05T00:17:00.001-04:00

you are aware of The Climate Crisis. you are concerned. how did you learn of The Climate Crisis?
• did you study the data and come to the conclusion yourself?
• did you read scientific papers, Published by the researchers?
• did you read about it in a Science Journal?
• did you read about it in a Major Syndicated Science Newsweekly?
• did you read about it in a Major Syndicated Newspaper?
• did you hear about it on Network or Cable Television?
• did you hear it from a friend?

what do you know about The Climate Crisis? the information you have consumed says that:
• there is a Great Looming Climate Crisis
• our energy sources are dirty
• our coal power plants and cars emit Pollution into the atmosphere
• our factories and industries emit Pollution into our water, our air, our food
• the Carbon Dioxide that we humans are emitting is causing Global Warming

• in fact, it may already be too late to reverse the trend
• our natural resources have been misused
• we have been shortsighted in our pursuit for a better life for our Nation, and for The World
• unless--and perhaps even if--we undergo A Dramatic Shift in the Way We Live, our Climate will Change, causing Catastrophes and Civil Unrest

or

• Global Warming is a crazy Left Fringe
• They are hell-bent on Controlling Our Lives
• They hate Technology
• They want us to reverse the industrial revolution
• Their Science is bogus

what do you know about the source you received your information from? are you sure what you know is correct? are you sure because you trust the source you received the information from?

• Climate Change is fact
• climage change is fact
• Carbon Dioxide is Pollution
• carbon dioxide is not pollution
• Carbon Dioxide causes Global Warming
• carbon dioxide does not cause global warming
and, most importantly...
• Global Warming has been politicized

who can you trust, when it comes to information that has been politicized? when politics and Money manipulate the interpretation of science... who do you trust? who have you given yourself the option of choosing amongst?

They say that We must implement a Global Carbon Tax to dissuade Our Corporations from emitting Pollution into our atmosphere and Causing Global Warming. without this Money, We may not be able to Stop Global Warming

but...
• there is no man-made global warming
• warming causes more carbon dioxide, more carbon dioxide does not cause warming
• fluctuating concentrations of carbon dioxide have been recorded all throughout history
• the earth's temperature has fluctuated all throughout history
• changes in carbon dioxide concentrations follow changes in temperature by several hundred years
• there is a correlation between carbon dioxide concentrations and climate change
• changes in carbon dioxide concentration does not cause climate change
• climate change causes changes in carbon dioxide concentration
• carbon dioxide is amongst the least effective greenhouse gases, pound for pound
• carbon dioxide makes up about 0.03% of our atmosphere
• water retains heat much better than air
• the sun emits a slightly fluctuating amount of heat energy throughout the course of time
• the water in our oceans absorbs and retains that heat far better than our air does
• as water warms, it emits water vapor and water soluble gasses, such as carbon dioxide,
as water cools, it absorbs water vapor and water soluble gasses, such as carbon dioxide
• over the course of time--many hundreds of years--the ocean's average temperature, in reaction to the changes in the energy emitted by the sun, changes enough to effectively alter the amount of carbon dioxide that is in our atmosphere
• water vapor is responsible for warming shifts in our atmosphere on a short-term scale (season to season)
• the sun is responsible for warming shits in our atmosphere on a long-term scale (century to century)

our energy sources are indeed dirty, but carbon dioxide itself is not pollution. the problem here is neither pollution nor carbon dioxide nor global warming. it is the politicization of science, and the corruption of our Global Corporate Government System, which is telling us to believe that Truth is truth

exposing the dishonesty inherent in society

2007-07-11T18:33:00.000-04:00

i'm still here. maybe going to start writing again, too...

i'm not advocating revolution, or even rocking the boat if you don't want to. i only implore you to live your life with curiosity, integrity, and respect for the pursuit of unbiased truth. what you choose to believe is up to you.

On the DJI

2007-05-01T10:31:00.001-04:00

The Dow Jones Industrial average is near its all-time high and the dollar is near its all-time low.

The gains in the Dow look a wee bit more modest when you consider the loss in value of the currency that we use to trade the stocks of the 30 companies that make up the Dow... Not to mention, using the performance of only 30 companies to measure the strength of the economy is nonsensical. From what I've heard, most financial professionals don't even look twice at the Dow... And neither should you. It paints a picture that is not an accurate representation of anything other than that the richest 30 companies continue to get richer while the rest of the country is stagnating at best.

Meaninglessness

2007-04-18T12:11:00.001-04:00

I've gone about as far down this rabbit hole as I care to go. Basically what I found was meaninglessness and despair. When meaninglessness makes sense, it's time to unplug. Time to appreciate the small things in life. To take joy in friends, family, music, creativity, expression, love, coffee, going for walks, having food to eat, traveling, a good sleep, cooking, living next to the water, etc.

It is at this juncture that I draw the line between taking responsibility for those things that I can change and accepting those things that I cannot change, and also where I exercise the wisdom to recognize the difference between the two and not let those things that I cannot change draw me and those around me into a sense of meaninglessness and despair.

9-11 Truth: is it really Truth or is it "truth"?

2007-04-06T11:53:00.000-04:00

It is more important now than it ever has been to be able to recognize the difference between Truth and "truth." There is more disinformation spewed forth by the mass-media/CIA propaganda machine on 9-11 than conceivable. And the Internet (except my blog, of course) is the main pathway for this disinformation. The vast majority of what's out there has been planted and even honest and good researchers can't always tell the difference.

Case in point: Who Killed John O'Neill. A great movie in my opinion. Very well researched. Gripping. But unfortunately, it contains some major disinformation re: Mohammed Atta. Amanda Keller claimed that she was a stripper and she was dating him and he was a coke-head and a major partier. WKJO ran with this info. Then a couple of years later, Amanda Keller says she made the whole thing up, she was dating some "other Mohammed," and then she gets married, changes her name, and disappears forever... If you watch the original interview between her and Daniel Hopsicker--it should have been obvious all along that is it faked. Staged. Phony. She didn't make it up--she was reading a godamned script.

SO MUCH of 9-11 "truth" information falls under this category... Yes, we are reaching a tipping point where the floodgates will open and 9-11 "truth" will enter the mainstream--but we still must fight to be sure that it tips in the direction of TRUTH, instead of "truth."

As the Orwellian police-state continues to develop, our best chance at resistance is to study the art of psyops and disinformation and thusly disarm their only weapon... In order to get you started, I highly recommend this podcast on the topic of 9-11 truth disinfo. The Art of 9-11 Disinfo: This is Fintan Dunne of BreakForNews.com on the Jim Fetzer show.

What Television is Doing to You

2006-12-09T17:41:00.000-05:00

Several years ago an article was published by Scientific American titled "Television Addiction Is No Mere Metaphor. It basically states that TV viewing is addictive, and people who watch excessive amounts of TV (as most American's currently do--our national average is 4+ hours per day) exhibit the same behaviors as those addicted to physical substances, gambling, sex, etc. Indeed the shift from left- to right-brain dominance that television viewers undergo releases endorphins into the nervous system. More interesting to me in that article was the mention of a 1986 study done by Byron Reeves of Stanford University, Esther Thorson of the University of Missouri and their colleagues that looks into the brain-wave patterns of people before, during, and after television viewing. I also found talk about a study done by Herbert Krugman, a psychologist and manager of public-opinion research at GE (owner of NBC) which monitored human brain waves to discover what the effects were when watching television.

Here's another a quote from another interesting article entitled "The Nature of Television," which speaks of the effect of the endorphins released into the nervous system by TV viewing.
"These opiates are structurally identical to heroin and opium and just like the drugs themselves, endorphins are habit forming and addictive. Krugman observed that whilst watching television, right brain activity is at least twice as potent as left brain activity. As with many other scientists, psychophisiologist, Dr. Thomas Mulholland, arrived at the same conclusions, notably that alpha waves appear just after thirty seconds of television viewing and that whilst watching television the viewer's brain falls into a virtual trance."

Seems that television viewing moves the brain from a beta-wave state, where it is active in cognitive processing, deep into the alpha-wave state where it is passive, free-associating, no cognitive activity to speak of. Basically, what this tells us is that during television viewing, your cognitive mind is more-or-less turned off and you have no process of rational judgment or filters between what you are seeing and hearing on the TV and what enters your subconscious mind.

Here's another quote from "The Nature of Television": "all relevant research points to the fact that whilst watching television the brain is in a similar state as when under hypnosis."

So our adults and kids are sitting in front of the TV for 4 hours a day, brains in an alpha-state, susceptible to subconsciously absorbing anything they see and hear. Images are flashing in front of the brain, scenes are changing every 5 seconds, celebrity worship is implanted, programmed news is implanted, desire for intrinsically useless products is implanted, political opinions are implanted, gender, ethnic, religious, and racial stereotypes are implanted, etc., etc.

It's not just a waste of your time, it's putting you in a trance and programming your subconscious mind. The television is called the idiot box for a reason. Read the above research again... The General Electric Corporation, owner of a major media network, NBC, and a large cog in the military-industrial complex, funded a study in the 60s that shows that the television is a hypnotic device.

For fuck's sake, turn the fucking thing off.

addendum:
"The fact that TV is a source not actively or critically attended to was made dramatically evident in the late 1960s by an experiment that rocked the world of political and product advertising and forever changed the ways in which the television medium would be used. The results of the experiment still reverberate through the industry long after its somewhat primitive methods have been perfected.

"In November 1969, a researcher named Herbert Krugman, who later became manager of public-opinion research at General Electric headquarters in Connecticut, decided to try to discover what goes on physiologically in the brain of a person watching TV. He elicited the co-operation of a twenty-two-year-old secretary and taped a single electrode to the back of her head. The wire from this electrode connected to a Grass Model 7 Polygraph, which in turn interfaced with a Honeywell 7600 computer and a CAT 400B computer.

"Flicking on the TV, Krugman began monitoring the brain-waves of the subject What he found through repeated trials was that within about thirty seconds, the brain-waves switched from predominantly beta waves, indicating alert and conscious attention, to predominantly alpha waves, indicating an unfocused, receptive lack of attention: the state of aimless fantasy and daydreaming below the threshold of consciousness. When Krugman's subject turned to reading through a magazine, beta waves reappeared, indicating that conscious and alert attentiveness had replaced the daydreaming state.

"What surprised Krugman, who had set out to test some McLuhanesque hypotheses about the nature of TV-viewing, was how rapidly the alpha-state emerged. Further research revealed that the brain's left hemisphere, which processes information logically and analytically, tunes out while the person is watching TV. This tuning-out allows the right hemisphere of the brain, which processes information emotionally and noncritically, to function unimpeded. 'It appears,' wrote Krugman in a report of his findings, 'that the mode of response to television is more or less constant and very different from the response to print. That is, the basic electrical response of the brain is clearly to the medium and not to content difference.... [Television is] a communication medium that effortlessly transmits huge quantities of information not thought about at the time of exposure.'

"Soon, dozens of agencies were engaged in their own research into the television-brain phenomenon and its implications. The findings led to a complete overhaul in the theories, techniques, and practices that had structured the advertising industry and, to an extent, the entire television industry. The key phrase in Krugman's findings was that TV transmits 'information not thought about at the time of exposure.'" [p.p. 69-70]

"As Herbert Krugman noted in the research that transformed the industry, we do not consciously or rationally attend to the material resonating with our unconscious depths at the time of transmission. Later, however, when we encounter a store display, or a real-life situation like one in an ad, or a name on a ballot that conjures up our television experience of the candidate, a wealth of associations is triggered. Schwartz explains: 'The function of a display in the store is to recall the consumer's experience of the product in the commercial.... You don't ask for a product: The product asks for you! That is, a person's recall of a commercial is evoked by the product itself, visible on a shelf or island display, interacting with the stored data in his brain.' Just as in Julian Jaynes's ancient cultures, where the internally heard speech of the gods was prompted by props like the corpse of a chieftain or a statue, so, too, our internalized media echoes are triggered by products, props, or situations in the environment.

"As real-life experience is increasingly replaced by the mediated 'experience' of television-viewing, it becomes easy for politicians and market-researchers of all sorts to rely on a base of mediated mass experience that can be evoked by appropriate triggers. The TV 'world' becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: the mass mind takes shape, its participants acting according to media-derived impulses and believing them to be their own personal volition arising out of their own desires and needs. In such a situation, whoever controls the screen controls the future, the past, and the present." [p. 82, Joyce Nelson, THE PERFECT MACHINE; ., 1992, 800-253-3605; ISBN 0-86571-235-2 ]

Operation Singularity

2006-11-27T09:26:00.000-05:00

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

2006-11-09T15:22:00.000-05:00

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?

2006-11-06T10:23:00.000-05:00

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

2006-11-01T22:15:00.001-05:00

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.

Transition to a Just Society III

2006-10-18T18:32:00.000-04:00

Just a quick question, looking for some feedback and discussion with the readers of my blog. Please chime in if you have any sort of opinion about this issue.

Is justice possible in a heirarchical system?

While those of you who know me or at least are familiar with my blogs probably already know what I think... I'll chime in with my thoughts later once some other people have had the chance to express their opinions. I'm looking to learn from you all on this and foster the collaboration that I was talking about with this series of blogs.

The Legality of US Citizen's Relationship with Their Government

2006-10-14T11:45:00.000-04:00

For the real deal on income tax laws and your true legal relationship to the United States Government, check out Invisble Contracts by George Mercier. Mercier lays out all of the things that most every one of us does that--without our knowledge--make us subjects of the Federal Government and legally obligated to pay tribute in the form of income tax. You have a bank account? A drivers' lisence? Own property? A car? These things all involve "invisible contracts" that bind you to the Federal Government in a serf-king relationship. It's much more complicated that you might think...

Below is a letter from Mercier to Armen Condo (read below for explanation of who Condo is), which serves more or less as an introduction to the introduction of Invisible Contracts.

----------------------------------------------------

In August, 1984, Armen Condo, Founder of Your Heritage Protection Agency ("YHPA") was being prosecuted by the Federal Government under numerous tax related statutes, as well as other collateral charges such as mail fraud.

The YHPA is still (the record holds to this day), the largest organized tax protester group to ever have existed in the United States (with respectful deference to our Founding Fathers and innumerable fellow unsung "tax protester" patriots living and laying their lives on the line in the 1700s for our benefit today). In its heyday in the 1970s/1980s, the YHPA's dues-paying membership reached well into the 20,000 to 30,000 range, before it was ultimately brought into a state of non-existence through the intervention of strongly persuasive federal influences.

The YHPA published a fairly thick newspaper, and continued on in their efforts for several years, with their primary focus based upon the illegitimacy of Federal Reserve Notes, contending thereon that receipt of said Federal Reserve Notes did not constitute "income," therefore, no one receiving said notes was liable under federal income tax statutes. Although additional proprietary "tax protester" positions were routinely addressed, the YHPA's primary focus remained centered around Federal Reserve Notes.

Curiously, as a side note, individuals choosing to join the YHPA (usually in the context of a dinner/seminar setting), were guided through a "joining process" at the conclusion of the seminar, where dual ID photos were taken (the YHPA kept one photo, and you received the other, using a dual-photo camera similar to the dual-photo cameras used at your local Department of Motor Vehicles or local passport photo vendor) and slick, professional looking "ID cards" were processed on the spot and given to each new member at that time.

In hindsight, the stated reasons given at these dinner/seminars with respect to the "necessity" of having/creating a photo ID card were rather specious at best, and in fact, there was some additional hindsight talk that perhaps the YHPA was a Federal "Tax Protester" Sting Operation all along, designed to attract and then identify. [For example, in the U.S.S.R., the KGB is known to have secretly "created" (sponsored is more like it) -- various protester groups for the sole purpose of throwing out some attractive philosophy designed to attract a certain type of individual, and then having "extracted" those individuals from society, and having thus identified them -- then shutting down the organization and arresting the members. This practice is a utilization of the principle known as the "Doctrine of False Opposition."]

After all, it is rather suspicious, if not ironic, that an organization purporting to be highly critical of "government," and taking a relatively "radical" approach to same (non-filing tax protesters "sign up here..."), and having an orientation favoring the individual over government in general, would in fact so closely emulate "Big Brother" tactics such as requiring a photo ID card for all of its new members, and for reasons that would not normally hold up to intellectual scrutiny or inspection except for the fact that within the context of the actual joining process, those people were not concerning themselves at the time with such incongruities, but were instead swept up in the excitement and impetus of the "I'm Mad As Hell and I'm Not Going To Take Anymore" sentiment generated at typical YHPA recruitment seminars.

Against this backdrop, George Mercier wrote a thoughtful advisory letter to Armen Condo in August of 1984, seeking to correctively alter the course Condo was then pursuing vis-a-vis his federal case, with the objective of the letter being oriented towards keeping Armen Condo out of a federal cage. And with respect to Armen Condo, the letter was a wash, as Armen Condo was highly unreceptive to its contents (being in an unteachable state of mind, and so he rejected it "in toto"); however, the letter did not stop there with Armen Condo. In fact, it somehow "exploded" into the general patriot pipeline/network, and was widely copied and circulated all across the country. (Although Armen Condo reacted adversely to the letter, it found a very receptive and appreciative audience amongst patriots across the nation).

One such copy of the letter found its way into the hands of Frank May, who subsequently wrote an intelligent and thoughtful letter to George Mercier, seeking an expansion of the enticing data contained in the Armen Condo Letter. Expansion he wanted -- expansion he got, because George Mercier in turn wrote a reply letter to Frank May -- a 745-page letter, which then became a privately published book entitled "Invisible Contracts - The Frank May Letter" (dated December 31, 1985).

So, without further commentary, what follows is the original letter to Armen Condo, the letter which started it all...

August, 1984

Dear Mr. Condo:

I just received your periodical "YHPA" for March, 1984, which I had requested from your organization for the purpose of contemplating subscribing to it.

In analyzing the contents of your magazine, I found that the United States is apparently trying to:

1. Get a restraining order to shut down your operation;
2. Trying to get some incarceration out of you as well.

In trying to get a feel for your sentiments towards the United States for doing these things to you, I detected underlying feelings of anxiety and some resentment on your part. Therefore, what I have to say will only be of value to you to the extent that you are in a teachable attitude. I know that I am taking a shot in the dark by telling you things which follow, but I think it is important that someone inform you why you are on the "left side" of the issues and why and how the United States is on the "right side" of the issues -- and that the Federal Judge is merely enforcing private agreements that you continue to maintain in effect with the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.

By the time you receive this letter in August, the Judge may already have taken some action on the government's petition for a restraining order against you -- I do not know the present status of that action, but the information you need to know will be important to you either way the Judge rules. If the restraining order has been granted, I can show you how to get it reversed next January.

Before I identify the private agreement you continue to maintain with the Secretary of the Treasury (which agreement places you into a written, equity relationship with the United States), there is a fundamental principle underlying American jurisprudence you must be aware of as background material to understand what follows. This principle is a hybrid corollary and consistent extension of the evidentiary doctrine that specificity in evidence will always overrule generalities in evidence, even when they are in direct conflict with each other. For example, the statement by one witness to a crime that...

"I saw a woman run around the corner, it wasn't a man..." (and therefore the defendant, who is a man, isn't the criminal).

That statement would be overruled by this statement from another witness...

"The person I saw run around the corner had long hair, a beard, and something like a tatoo on his neck..."

Hence, conflicts in testimony are always resolved by giving the greater weight to the most specific statements. This is also the way equity grievances in contract disputes are settled -- the most specific, detailed clause governing the disputed circumstance is construed to be the statement meant to govern the disputed circumstances -- even though broader, more general statements can be found in the contract and may favor the other party.

The principle that applies to your relationship with the King (the King being the United States -- the Constitution being essentially a renamed enactment of English Common Law as it was at that time, with only additional restrainments being placed on the King) is the principle that private agreements will always overrule the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Thus, specific agreements governing individual circumstances will always overrule broad general clauses found in the

Constitution. Or expressed in other words, it is irrational to allow someone to enter into a private agreement with someone, and then allow him to take a clause out of the Constitution -- off point and out of context -- and allow him to take that clause and use it to weasel, twist and squirm his way out of the agreement, all while retaining the financial gain the agreement gave him in the first place. This is irrational, and judges won't allow it.

For example, let's say that I hired you to come work for me as a computer design engineer for my computer company. When you started work for me you signed an agreement agreeing that all company information that you were exposed to while employed here, and all knowledge you acquired regarding impending new products and technologies being worked on here -- you had agreed not to disclose, release or disseminate any such confidential information to any other person for a five year period after you left my employ for any reason. So let's say that you have now left my company, and you start publishing and disseminating information you learned while here to my competitors. Your excuse for violating the agreement you signed earlier with me is that...

"Well, the First Amendment says I got freedom of speech and press..."

So now I take you in front of a judge and ask for a restraining order. Question: Does the First Amendment apply? The answer is no, it doesn't. Restraining order granted. Reason: Private agreements overrule the Bill of Rights. In other words, one does not get to use the Bill of Rights to weasel out of private agreements, while retaining the gain that the agreement gave him in the first place. In the back of the judge's mind is the following logic:

"Well, Mr. Condo... you entered into an agreement with Mr. Mercier to be an engineer for him, and under which you experienced financial gain or profit. Now that you don't feel like honoring the agreement any longer, you want to take a clause out of the Bill of Rights to work your way out of your agreement with Mr. Mercier, all while keeping the money he gave you under the agreement by working for him. This is irrational. Restraining order will have to be granted."

Another example is this: Say that you are a convict sitting in a prison. The warden calls you upstairs and offers to let you go free if you sign an agreement. That agreement calls for parole checking, warrantless entry of your residence at any time, and you agree not to carry any guns. You sign the agreement and clear out of prison. A month later your car is stopped for speeding and a gun is seen half covered in the back seat. The officer charges you with possession of a

concealed weapon. You argue Second Amendment rights during pretrial motions. The trial judge ignores your motions and sets a trial date. Question: Is the judge a fifth column commie pinko? No, he isn't; he is merely enforcing private agreements. Here you signed an agreement and you experienced a gain (premature freedom). Now you want to take the Second Amendment, and use that to weasel and twist your way out of an agreement, all while retaining the gain (freedom) that the agreement gave you. This is irrational, and judges will not allow it, properly so.

You probably have heard it said that Federal Judges will tell defendants and counsel in Section 7203 -- Willful Failure To File criminal trials that...

"...the Constitution does not apply here."

That statement shocks most people up a wall -- but it is an accurate and correct statement. The Judge will never tell you why, though. Of all of the different Judges that I know who have blurted out that statement, none of the criminal defendants have ever pressed the Judge for an explanation as to why the Constitution does not apply. The reason why the Constitution does not apply is because the Judge is merely enforcing private agreements the defendant signed with the Secretary of the Treasury. The Judge is not a fifth column commie pinko. The agreement the Judge has in front of him is not the defendant's 1040 or the defendant's W-2/4; those are merely declarations of facts and no profit or gain is experienced by them. The real reason is as follows:

When new Federal Judges are hired (nominated by the President and later confirmed by the Senate) after hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee -- after they go through that hiring procedure in Washington -- they are taken back to Washington and are taken into private seminars that are sponsored by the United States Department of Justice. It is in these seminars that new Federal Judges are taught and trained "how to" manage their criminal proceedings so as to avoid reversible error, i.e., absence of counsel and trial procedure, etc. They are taught and trained what the Supreme Court of the United States wants for perfecting due process. They are given Supreme Court cases to study --and sitting next to that new Judge in these seminars is their Appeals Court Justice (who will be auditing appeals coming out of their trial court), confirming that the information being taught and presented by Justice Department lawyers is true and correct and that "Things will be done this way."

They are given a "Bench Book" to take with them, giving the new Judge guidance on handling problems as they arise on the bench. Finally, the interesting part comes: They are taught how to manage "Tax Protester" trials -- violations of Title 26. Federal Judges have been instructed that the Supreme Court ruled in 1896 in a case called Davis vs. Elmira Savings, 161 U.S. 275 that banks are instrumentalities of the Congress.

In other words, the interstate system of banks is the private property of the King. This means that any profit or gain anyone experienced by a bank/thrift and loan/employee credit union -- any regulated financial institution carries with it -- as an operation of law -- the identical same full force and effect as if the King himself created the gain. So as an operation of law, anyone who has a depository relationship, or a credit relationship, with a bank, such as checking, savings, CD's, charge cards, car loans, real estate mortgages, etc., are experiencing profit and gain created by the King -- so says the Supreme Court.

At the present time, Mr. Condo, you have bank accounts (because you accept checks as payment for books and subscriptions), and you are very much in an Equity Relationship with the King.

In the words of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter:

"Equity is brutal, but we are merely enforcing agreements."

Or in other words, Judges don't like the idea of being thought upon as being mean gestapo agents -- doing the dirty work for the King. They consider themselves as being struck between a rock and a hard spot -- being asked to enforce agreements and without being given any valid reason as to why you should be let out of it -- other than you just don't feel like being incarcerated.

So what happens during these Willful Failure to File trials is that:

1. The Intelligence Division of the IRS surveys the local banks in the vicinity of the tax protester, and obtains copies of the protester's signature card and financial transactions statements from the bank.

2. At the time the U.S. Attorney requests the Judge to sign the Summons, the Judge has been presented with your bank account information. So now during the prosecution the Federal Judge is sitting up there on the bench with your agreement with the King in front of him while the tax protester argues:

"Well, Judge, the Fourth Amendment says..."
"Judge, the Fifth Amendment says I don't gotta..."

Are you beginning to see why the Judge is prone to experience frustration and blurt out "the Constitution does not apply here!"?

Meanwhile, the Judge is ignoring all Constitutionally related arguments and denying all motions.

If you would go back to your bank and ask the manager to show you your signature card again, in small print you will see the words:

"The undersigned hereby agrees to abide by all of the Rules of this Bank."

Have you ever asked to see a copy of the bank rules? If you have, you will read and find out that you agreed to abide by all of the administrative rulings of the Secretary of the Treasury, among many other things.

What is really happening in these Willful Failure to File prosecutions is that the Judge is operating on the penal clause to a civil contract. And since you have agreed to be bound by Title 26, what difference does it make whether or not Title 26 was ever enacted by the Congress? A contract does not have to be enacted by Congress -- in whole or in part -- in order to make it enforceable.

As for the actual taxation itself, what happens is that the King creates a "juristic personality" at the time you open your bank account. And it is that juristic personality (its income and assets) that the King's Agents are "excising" back to the King. But in any event, the taxing power of the Congress attaches by contract or use of the King's property. The Congress does not have the jurisdiction to use the police powers to raise revenue.

That is the proper way (the ideal Alice in Wonderland way actually) to collect taxes, and that is the procedure by which Federal Judges are enforcing the law -- not by ruling over gestapo Star Chambers.

(I have some reservations on the modus operandi of Federal Judges to the extent that the Supreme Court mentions over and over again that:

"Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice." [Offutt vs. U.S., 348 U.S. 11] and that when a man is thoroughly convinced that he is on the right side of an issue -- a man like Irwin Schiff -- that justice has not satisfied the appearance of justice unless the criminal defendant is aware that he did wrong. And on these tax protester trials, that requires a sentencing hearing lecture by the judge to the defendant on why and where the defendant did err. So I disagree with the modus operandi of Federal Judges to this extent).

I am not going to spend any more time on this subject just right now -- other than you should be cognizant by this point in the letter that you are on the left side of the issue -- and that the King's Agents are not working a great evil by going around the countryside asking people to stop defiling themselves by dishonoring their own agreements with the King.

So, in conclusion on this issue, if the 16th Amendment were somehow repealed tomorrow morning at 9:00am -- it would not change a single thing (other than the IRS would have to start giving people a correct presentation of the law to justify the taxes). The IRS and the excise tax on juristic persons would continue on as usual.

As it pertains to the proposed restraining order the King's Agents are trying to get against you and your alter ego, please get a copy of the Complaint filed by U.S. Attorney Charles Magnuson dated January 31, 1984 -- and turn to page 9. Examine the last five words in paragraph "b":

"...under the Court's equity powers."

This petition by the United States for a restraining order against you is legitimate to the extent that you are in written contractual equity with the King.

When you trace back the genealogy of your signature on your bank card, you will find that you agreed to be bound by Title 26, and under Section 7202 you agreed not to disseminate any fraudulent tax advice. And the concept that Federal Reserve Notes are not taxable instruments of commerce -- for any reason -- when the person has a written agreement with the King saying that FRN's are taxable -- this concept is in fact fraudulent.

I would encourage you, Mr. Condo, to prove me wrong. You can prove me wrong by asking the Judge:

"Please identify the instrument I signed, Judge, which creates an attachment of equity jurisdiction between the United States and me."

The Federal Judge probably is not going to want to disclose what document it is that you executed which created the attachment of equity jurisdiction. They have been asked not to let the cat out of the bag. The IRS handles this "bank account = equity relationship" on a military style "need-to-know" only type basis. You can file a Mandamus in the Circuit Court of Appeals or petition for a Subpoena Duces Tecum returnable against the U.S. Attorney to compel discovery of what it is that you signed that created the attachment of equity jurisdiction the King's Agents are now acting under in trying to get a restraining order against you. This type of equity jurisdiction always attaches by written consent.

If this restraining order has already been granted by now -- then get rid of your bank accounts and file a petition for reversal next January -- your arguments being then that you are not in an equity relationship with the King anymore. Then the First Amendment would apply then, but it does not apply to you now since you are in an equity relationship with the King -- and private agreements overrule the Bill of Rights.

Read Invisble Contracts.

Elections as Psychological Warfare

2006-10-04T21:01:00.000-04:00

the only problem with voting--outside of elections in America and elsewhere being outright rigged--is that only the candidates that the mainstream media decides are acceptable can win. and who controls the mainstream media? the same people--nay, i think it's disingeuous to call them "people"... let's say the same moneyed interests that control governments.

all the media has to do when they talk about a third party candidate is say "but she/he has no realistic chance of winning the election." and if you listen, you will hear that NUMEROUS times on every type of news station--from NPR to FoxNews. the media presents and candidates who are not heavily influenced by the money that funds the rest of the 2-headed one-party system (save one or two "renegades" such as Ron Paul) like "well, they have these one or two issues to discuss... they're trying to raise awareness... they're trying to build a movement... but they don't have a realistic chance of winning the election."

we have the corporate media... the 4th arm of government (or is government the 4th arm of the media?) is telling you that your vote is wasted if you cast it for anyone but a republican, democrat, or independent who is controlled by the system (i.e. Joe Lieberman). they are telling you that the only way your voice will count is if you choose who they tell you to choose (either or, it doesn't matter, they own them both).

you have been intimidated into voting for someone that you know, deep down inside, will not represent your best interests, but rather the interests of moneyed incorporations. that is psychological warfare. plain and simple.

Excellent 9-11 Podcasts

2006-10-04T12:51:00.000-04:00

These Podcasts are by one of our generations keenest thinkers: Fintan Dunne. They do not analyze the minutia of 9-11 "evidence" that keeps us all running around in circles, but they do provide contextual understanding of WHO, HOW, and WHY... 9-11 was a PsyOp. 9-11 Truth is also a PsyOp... Listen to these podcasts, gain understanding...

----------------------------

Part 1: 9/11 Without Tinfoil - The Coup

Topics in this Show:

- 9/11: New Coup by the Old Coup
- The 35 Year Dictator of the USA
- COINTELPRO and the Black Panthers
- The Psywar Game Post 9/11

DSL Mp3 Audio
Dialup Mp3 Audio

Part 2: 9/11 Without Tinfoil - The Deception

Topics in this Show:

- Current Echoes of 9/11
- The Real Powerbrokers
- "Bush-Bush-BinLaden-Clinton-Bush-Bush"
- The Key 9/11 Issues
- 9/11's Next Level

DSL Mp3 Audio
Dialup Mp3 Audio

Part 3: 9/11 Without Tinfoil - The Next Level

- The Threefold 9/11 PsyWar Plan
- Group 1 Mainstreamers: Repression, tension
- Group 2 The Middleground: Uncertainty, Powerlessness
- Group 3 Conspiracists: Intimidation, Emotionalism
- Pushing the Populace Buttons
- Concealment Dynamics Don't Apply
- Context - Not Detail

DSL Mp3 Audio
Dialup Mp3 Audio

HR 6166: The end of political freedom?

2006-10-01T15:13:00.001-04:00

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109MYYntq::

HR 6166, recently passed, says: "Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance of duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct"

This means that if you dare to be bold enough to take action to oppose the exponentially growing monster that your government has become since the Reagan Administration, you will be punished as a war criminal. This may be, effectively, the end of opposition to the policies of the capital elites in America.

Understand that this legislation is one piece in a long term plan that has been in place for a long, long time... This is not a conspiracy theory, it's a conspiracy. The goal of the current phase is to totally dominate any opposition to itself, while also dominating both sides of the argument in support of its general policies. Has true opposition to the capital elites just become illegal in the United States??

Transition to a Just Society II

2006-09-30T18:14:00.000-04:00

So I've been an explosion of ideas, and I've realized of course that there is A LOT to think about, and a lot to write. I have been trying to balance getting the ideas out on paper with keeping the ideas organized. But... There's a few pages so far that I might as well share. There are unfinished raw ideas. i've started an outline at the end, but it is of course no where near complete.

there are just notes. just brainstorming. just ideas. it may seem unrealistic or overly idealistic to remove corruption from society altogether, but i believe it's our only option for a truly just and fair society...

so without further adue, here it is:
-------------------------

transition to a just society

selfless government. mandate honesty and forthrightness in all public affairs. private affairs are not regulated.

know right and wrong. knowing yourself means, among other things, knowing your fear. you must know it to be able to ignore it. difference between fear, common sense, and concern...

total outlaw of corruption what is corruption? modern government is corruption as de facto law.

millitary shutdown?

voted upon by every world citizen--represented by a government or not. one person. one vote. those who could not vote or chose not to have complete immunity from whatever society to exist on their own, of their own free will. adequate land for all such people who wish to organize an anarchist society will be declare global cease fire. how many square miles is earth? (57,500,000 sq mi, 150,000,000 sq km) how many people? 6.5 billion. devide it equally. have your share to claim as your own. communities may pool contiguous land at will.

how to adjust for arable land and climate?

Teach children hydroponic farming and gardening.

Land is not owned by people. People share land. Land does not belong to anyone. What belongs to people is sovereignty, and the right to use land and have privacy and freedom must include fair use land access rights.

.0088 sq miles per person of land surface area. 1 sq mile = 25 acres. 25 acres * .0088 square miles = .22 acres per person. this is not really enough to be self sustaining on. we must account for urban populations. people who live in cities voluntarily give up their land to the community. all cities are declared sovereign states. cities have sliding scale of population density. maximum is 1000 sq feet per person living space. minimum is 400 sq feet per person. two bedroom apartment -- 800 thru 2000 sq feet.

how to deal with who gets bigger or smaller spaces? trade offs with convenience? larger spaces are in less desireable locations? how to divide/allot commercial/industrial space?

contained anarchist society. true neutral. land area = total anarchists * .22 acres. land must be resource rich. how do we deal with changes in population over time in relation to land allotment? anarchists get approximately the amount of land per person at the onset, and if they choose to perform a yearly census, land allotment will be adjusted. must have "neutral zone" for this to work.

this could lead to sects of people purposefully overpopulating in order to get more land for their own group. the only thing i can think of now as a defense against this is total population re-education. which is scary big brother like. transition will take a couple of generations, so rules will have to be flexible.

Education: Children must primarily be taught right from wrong, and how to recognize them in different situations. Secondly, they must be taught how to survive self-sufficiently. Knowledge of self. Knowledge of technology. Today..s children are taught this by teachers, parents, and religious figures. The problems with this currently are that not all adults know the difference between right and wrong, and the social conditioning system (mass media, subtleties in education, television, ..entertainment,.. corporate music marketing, etc) does a very good job of blurring the lines between right and wrong, and often encouraging wrong behavior. Especially hip-hop culture. So if children are taught right and wrong, and everything in society is focused on upholding honesty and forthrightness in public affairs, commerce, business, inter-state/international relations, etc., the conflicting messages they receive as far as what is right and what is wrong

no rules that infringe upon personal liberties may be passed on anything larger than a community- or city-wide level. a fascist community with a totalitarian leader is perfectly acceptable as long as participation is voluntary, and as long as the leader is honest and forthright. imperialism is NOT acceptable.

people can negotiate for land trades. immediate familes have the option of contiguous land. no regulations on land trades other than total land area (.0088 sq miles) per person. land with natural resources becomes public, pay-per-use "fair tax". pay tax only upon usage. tax goes 100% to support the operation in terms of infrastructure and employees.

in order to be just, participation must be voluntary and ALL rules must be easily understood. overregulation leads to corruption and innefficiency.

perception of need vs actual need

most of the perception of need of a complex society stems from lack of center. most people do not learn the ability to find their centers. this pursuit alone is not only fruitful but all that almost anyone could need to lead a happy and fulfilled life. that and food clothing and shelter, of course. those being the only neccessities of life. the persuit of self knowledge should be balanced 50/50 with self / society knowledge. x

people need to let go of the love of money. that is what jesus christ has failed to teach us. not that he hasn't tried...

the big picture view:

the lorax explains it well... to an extent. but of course it is a children's book. people need to have a complex society because our brains are complex. do we need a complex society, or do we just think we do? should we strive for complexity in our social organization? should we strive for rigidity? should we strive for profiteering on any level? should we strive for dishonesty? should we strive for corruption? should we tolerate it?? EVER??? no. we will not tolerate it. we outlaw corruption. punnishment for corruption is permanent exile. no pardon. one appeal. (exile to where? Isolation of .22 acres? Given means to procure food clothing shelter?) all people within the person's home and work community MUST vote to convict of corruption. when someone is accused of corruption--total commerce shutdown upon thorough and impartial investigation. the investigation also must be corruption free and so solve this... we must re-educate our children and our children's children. and theirs. and on and on for generations. but we could theoretically be the overwhelming majority opinion

the actual transition:

5 year total commerce shutdown banking system dismantled. fractional reserve banking banned. honest history and purpose of fractional reserve banking is written not only by the bankers. During this time, no one goes to ..work...

During this time, anyone 16 or older who wishes to be a citizen must participate in the ratification of a world constitution.

..mother.. status.

How to deal with the tyranny of the majority? (alexis de toqueville

Health care industry is also ..fair tax.. pay per use. Not a profit making system. No board of anything. Drugs must prove efficacy in in vivo tests on volunteers. Efficacy rates are public. Doctor provides patient with efficacy rates, known side effects, and recommendation. Patient has final say. In case of emergency doctors have discretion to do what they can.

Energy is not a profit making industry Food is not a profit making industry Clothing is not a profit making industry. Building shelter is not a profit making Industry. There is no such thing as a profit making industry. Leadership is co-operative. Leaders do not earn more money. They earn prestige. Social status. Workers are paid fair wage per amount of time on the job. For each day on the job, very small incremental pay increases are accrued

main problems:

fair distribution of land.

effecient organization and implementation without over-regulation.

re-education without being "big brother"...

Dealing with crime / criminals on the short term. There must be a system for those that cannot act honestly and with respect for the rights of others. Focus on rehabilitation.

Military. With essentially no ..state,.. what to do with current military personnel and arms? Without corruption, there is no need for war. Militia to uphold fairness, honesty, and forthrightness? The threat of force is not an effective method for encouraging peace and justice. I move to destroy all military equipment and technology, and all firearms which are designed for person-to-person use. Unsure as to what to do about groups of citizens that choose to form militias? This problem can largely be solved by re-education, but again.. have to be careful to leave the ..big brother.. aspects out of education.

Write an outline. Pose questions to public (some questions are interspersed throughout above text. they have not yet been
complied/completed).

Selfless Government
Knowing the difference between right and wrong
Eliminate corruption

Let go of the love of money/material things

Honesty and forthrightness are mandated in all areas of public life
Equal division of arable land per person

Urban vs rural
Total earth land area divided by total earth population = 0.22 acres per person
How to deal with groups of people that purposefully overpopulate to acquire more land? Zero population growth?

Hydroponic farming
There is no such thing as a profit-making industry
Fair tax, pay-per-use

Since there are no profit-making industries, all monies paid towards use of public services is accounted for in terms of employee salaries and actual expenses of operations. To eliminate corruption, all accounts are public, all money is accounted for.

to start the transition, a 5 year total commerce shutdown

(can't seem to fix what's below... don't have the patience/time to right now)
10. Categories

i. Healthcare

ii. Energy

iii. Food

iv. Clothing

v. Shelter

vi. Education

vii. Law enforcement/courts

viii.Public administration (not government)

1. water, energy infrastructure, etc

2. most public administration is provided by local/community-based groups.

3. national governments as we know them are gutted, largely discarded

4. No rules that infringe upon personal liberties may be passed on anything larger than a community- or city-wide level.

ix. Transportation

x. Police/Military??

xi. Courts?

xii. Commerce/money

11. those who choose to live as anarchists

12. contribution to society vs compensation

Transition to a Just Society I

2006-09-29T01:19:00.000-04:00

this is the first in an indefinitely long series of blog entries that will hold the title transition to a just society. it's also not going to have proper punctuation so get used to that too. no i am not a fan of ee cummings it's just faster to type this way....

and on we go then, typing quickly... because it's late and i should be asleep.

i've started doing some writing. (this is not what i started writing. you'll all get that at a later date...) not sure what medium or form it's going to take, but it's going to be called transition to a just society. i've decided that to make a positive contribution towards a just and free society (which i do not feel we live in almost anywhere on this planet) it is not going to be by huffing and puffing and playing with the bait left for me by the brilliant architects of our overly complex and corrupt society. they must certainly be credited with brilliance. the smartest cookies in the box, for sure... in any case, if what we want is justice, we must know the difference between good and evil. my friend micah (emcee of my band universal truth) told me tonite that he doesn't believe most people really and truly always know the difference between good and evil. i would go a step further and say that we have been taught not to really know the difference. oh, sure, we know it from jesus and moses and mohammed and buddah and confuscious and vishnu and even the lorax... but do we really know it as individuals, in our daily lives, all of the time, 100%? of course not. our society is very complex.

i would go one more step further and say that our society is very complex on purpose. it's important to realize that our world's rules and infrastructure have been organizaed by a minutely small percentage of the population. and i would go one step further than that and say that even a minority of the minority of people who own the vast majority of the money are corrupt. that's how they got the money. they were corrupt. not to say that they also weren't brilliant, intelligent, even kind and nice people at least outwardly. i will provide documentation to show what i find in my research even if it doesn't support my conclusions. in a complex society, this is a near impossible task, so i feel stating this intention before i undertake the task is important. i admit my own biases. i will try to identify them along the way. of course my opinion will come in to play, but i think there are some universal truths that we all must recognize and abide by... clearly and honestly defining these universal truths is vitally important in all areas of life. the founders of our religions gave us the answers but over thousands of years, those answer have been obfuscated by the modern institutions that now control our mainstream religions and the texts that we base them on. but certain concepts are universal trths, and people must simply learn the difference between right and wrong, strive to do what is right, and be accountable for your actions if you do what is wrong...

my initial "thesis statement" is that in order to transition to a just society, we must eliminate corruption. i will first analyze what corruption is. i will then offer my suggestions as to how to elimiate corruption; and thus, as we honor the US constitution and its first ten amendments, transitioning to a just and peaceful society is possible.

if anyone finds that i'm not being honest with myself or feels i am biased towards my onw preferences, please call me out and tell me where i'm wrong. tell me what you think is right, and why. eventually i do hope this will turn into a shared project (the transition to a just society), society cannot possibly be just if i am the only one thinking or writing about it... i will arrange all of my writing into some sort of reasonable and grammatical prose and then publish it all here. i welcome suggestions for editing and re-thinking.

The Devil's in the Details

2006-09-07T13:19:00.000-04:00

I want to bring up three issues where it seems at least on the surface that the will of the people has been served by our elected officials or the court system. The first two: the Dubai Ports deal being struck down and the NSA's Domestic Warrantless Wiretapping program being declared unconstitutional appear to be victories for the American public. However, if we keep our eyes on these issues over the course of time, an entirely different picture unfolds... I don't mean to suggest that there is nothing positive here, but only that we must widen our focus in terms of the amount of time we are willing to pay close attention to a particular issue. While our news cycles constantly morph from one issue into the next like an MTV video, there are people in power that would undermine the will of the people who have patience and aren't afraid to wait it out until the news media is bored with the issue.

IN the late winter of 2006, the hot issue was the sale of port management businesses in six major U.S. seaports to a company based in Dubai, and whether such a sale would compromise port security. The proposed sale was widely opposed by both sides of the mainstream American political machine. More importantly, it was opposed by most of the American people... It would seem that this time justice was served, as the US House Committee voted to block the deal and it was modified so that a company from the UAE--which is known to have allowed the harboring and funding of terrorism related to the 9-11 attacks--was not allowed to purchase American ports. Most Americans know this, and they would probably cite it as an example of our government representing the will of the people.

What the American people said, loud and clear, was that we don't support unchecked globalization. We have some national pride and we'd like to keep our country in some state of relative sovereignty and security. We were led to believe that our government understood that message and had acted on it... This could hardly be further from the truth.

What most Americans don't know, is that the same government that voted to block the sale of American ports to a nation that harbors terrorism is working on the Middle East Free Trade Area Initiative and has already passed a multitude of NAFTA-style free trade agreements with many other Middle Eastern nations--including the UAE. Not to be a protectionist... But does it really make sense to open up our ports, not necessarily to be managed by, but to be used openly by nations that have a documented history of funding and supporting the very terrorism that our government claims to be fighting?

This is where the hidden agenda of the round-table groups that really run the USA (the inner circle of the Council on Foreign Relations, the WTO, IMF, and World Bank, the Fabian Society, etc.) clash very obviously with the publicly perceived foreign policy agenda of the USA that is sold to us by the mass media. On one hand, we are told incessantly that we must fight terrorists abroad so we don't have to fight them at home. But then our ports are opened in trade to nations that fund and support this terrorism. What do you think might end up coming through these ports that are now freely accessible to companies with a history of funding terrorism? We must fight terrorism... But not where it is actually being funded, we must fight it in Iraq, where it didn't even really exist until we got there and starting bombing the crap out of them. Where it's actually being funded we must sign free trade agreements and open these nations up to further participate in a free and open global marketplace. Seems kinda backwards to me...

And what is the mass media telling us? Has any of you heard thing one about the US-Oman Free Trade Agreement? The US-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement? The US-UAE Free Trade Agreement? No, of course not. It's already been established that the people of the US would not support such things, so exposing the fact that they are happening anyway in the mass media is just not part of the plan. Doesn't it make you mad that you have to rely on muckracking yellow journalists like me to hear about this stuff? Well, now that you know about the Middle East Free Trade Area Initiative, I suggest you contact your congresspeople and demand to know what the hell they are doing selling out American sovereignty. If they claim they don't know what you're talking about, you can give them the link above. And while you've got them on the ropes, as them about the upcoming North American Union, and how they could possibly think that the average American would want something like that to happen...

And when you hang up the phone with your elected officials in the House of Representatives, call your Senators and demand that they firmly oppose Senate bill S. 2453, which would enshrine in federal law the presidents claim of inherent, exclusive power to wiretap Americans at will without a warrant or any independent check and also S. 2455, which also would make judicial review of each individual wiretap optional, destroying our fundamental Fourth Amendment rights. Didn't they get the memo that a Federal Judge has declared this unconstitutional?

I mentioned three issues in my introduction... So what's the third? Let's go back to 1913 and the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. At the time, the public was staunchly opposed to a central banking system. The hot button issue of the day was "breaking up the money trust." The Federal Reserve Act was sold to the people as being the legislation that would take the power over our money system from the private banks and give it to the people vis-a-vis the Federal Government. In reality, the bill was written by the world's most powerful bankers and sold to congress by a relative of the Rockefeller family, Congressman Nelson W. Aldrich. As it was first passed, it did exactly what the people were told it would do. But over the years, the Federal Reserve Act has been amended hundreds of times... And what is does today is creates a cartel between the government and the central bank owned by private interests and gives this cartel complete control over the nation's money supply.

The original text of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was called the Aldrich Bill, and was trounced seriously by the Senate, who realized it was creating a central bank--exactly what the people had made clear that they did not want in America. To explain how this situation was resolved, I turn to a passage from a speech given by G Edward Griffin (source).

...at the insistence of Paul Warburg who was forever the master strategist, they added several very sound provisions to the Federal Reserve Bill. By that I mean they added some provisions which seriously restricted the ability of the Federal Reserve to create money out of nothing. Warburg's associates said, "Paul, what are you doing? We don't want those in there this is our bill." And his response was this, he said, "Relax fellas, don't you get it? Our object is to get the bill passed. We can fix it up later." Those were his exact words. "We can fix it up later." He was so right. It was because of those provisions that they won over the support of William Jennings Bryan the head of the Populist Movement, the last hold-out against the bill. Bryan was concerned that this would be an instrument for ruining the nation's money supply but when he saw those provisions he said, "Oh well, those are good provisions, I guess I can support the bill now" never dreaming that this was temporary. Everything is temporary in politics. When people go to sleep things can get changed.

How many more direct contradictions between what we're told is going on in our best interests and what is really going on in the best interests of moneyed incorporations need to be made apparent before people start doing something about it? I'm not talking marching in the streets. I'm not talking revolution. I'm talking about a phone call or even a simple e-mail to your own elected officials. Go to www.house.gov and www.senate.gov and find your local representatives. Call them. Send an e-mail. Tell them that Americans do not wish to sacrifice our national sovereignty to the globalist capital elites (maybe not in so many words). You now have two specific non-partisan issues that you can raise with your elected officials. This will let them know that someone other than me realizes that the devil is in the details, and they are going to have to STOP dismantling our Constitutional Republic. We the people can make a difference... But we must act now, and we must act together.

My Technorati Profile

2006-09-05T10:54:00.000-04:00

Sounds like a race of benevolent cyborgs. But it's actually the recognized authority on what's going on in the world of weblogs.

My Technorati Profile

Remember what peace really means?

2006-09-01T17:18:00.000-04:00

They would have us believe that the only way to find peace is to kill all those who don't support our imperialism.

That is not peace. It's world domination...

And we vote these people (Democrats and Republicans) into office each and every year... Truly sad...

I'm Not Terrified

2006-08-11T10:14:00.000-04:00

Most Americans are not terrified... We're just seriously annoyed...

This most recent "terror plot"... I don't believe there was going to be a terror attack on those airplanes. I believe that phony incidents like this are now necessary for the cultivation of the culture of fear that is enabling the evisceration of the bill of rights to be allowed to continue unfettered by the would-be righteous indignation of the American people... And likewise for the people of Great Britain... Remember we are pretty much the only two nations involved in the offensive on this great "war on terror." And coincidentally, the "rogue nations" that we are fighting this "war" against are the only seven nations left in the world that do not have central banks controlled by England and/or America.

We've been told that "they" hate our freedoms... And in response to "their" terror attacks and the continual supposed threat of more terror attacks, our government has systematically been stripping us of these freedoms. Doesn't that mean that "they" are winning? Who are "they" anyway? And let's not just blame this on the psychos in the right-wing... Remember the Democrats voted overwhelmingly for the first Patriot Act and voted overwhelmingly in support of re-authorizing the Patriot Act...

Don't think this "foiled plot" could be phony?

* Terrorist Attack on US Soil is Imminent Importance: High, October 2004
* Fake Terror
* Phony Mossad/Al-Qaeda caper
* Here's the PR spin for this latest phony attack.

The London conspiracy is "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation," the president said on a day trip to Wisconsin. "It is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America," he said. "We've taken a lot of measures to protect the American people. But obviously we still aren't completely safe."

Wait a second... Who here is demanding that our civil liberties sacrificed for a sense of security? Who here is demanding that they be completely safe? That is totally unrealistic... Who here is asking to live in a cage? I mean that would be just about the only way to be perfectly safe, right? To live in a cage? With no freedom? No liberty? Well, that is the road we are heading down. And it is not really true freedom... It's freedom from. But the nature of American freedom is freedom to. The government's role is to provide freedom from outside forces compromising our inalienable rights (life, liberty, happiness) in order to protect our freedom to excercise those inalienable rights. Its role is not to infringe upon our inalienable rights in order to protect them... That's a paradox. If they take away our liberty in order to protect our lives--our lives cease to be our own.

If an Islamo-fascist feels the need to knock me off because he hates my freedom, well, that would really suck. But I'd rather surrender my life than my liberty--because I'm a proud American and that's what I stand for. And I maintain that most of the fear being drummed up about Islamo-fascist terrorists is a hoax.

It used to be quintessentially American to say "Give me Liberty or give me Death." But that is now morphing into "Give up your Liberty or you're all going to Die!!!" And that, my friends, is not American... It is bullshit. And I, for one, refused to be terrified.

p.s.

More evidence against the "foiled terror plot" is that it is physically impossible to mix liquid explosives onboard an aircraft. Unless of course they let you bring your titration pipettes on board... So it simply could not have happened the way they said it did. Mass murder in the skies: was the plot feasible? Granted "The Register" has about as much journalistic integrity as the New York Post, but chemistry is chemistry...

Manufacturing Desire

2006-08-01T10:05:00.000-04:00

In a recent Microsoft booklet aimed at computer manufacturers pushing them to go for more creative and appealing design of actual computers:

"We want people to fall in love with their PCs, not to simply use them to be productive and successful. We want PCs to be objects of pure desire."

People using your products in the manner in which they were intended is not enough? Your products must now be objects of pure desire?!?! The very idea of that is the wrongest ever. Also, in an ad for a luxury car that is broadcast on the wall of the subway tunnel (wrong enough in and of itself), the question is posed: "is it possible to engineer desire?" am I wrong or should desire and love be reserved for things that have intrinsic value...

This makes me fume when I see it. Of course it's possible to engineer desire!! The prevailing trend in America is to go into large amounts of debt to drive cars that are too big for ones needs, to live in houses that contain hundreds upon hundreds of unused square feet, to buy piles and piles of useless consumer products and techno-gadgetry that distracts people from participating in their communities and in reforming their corrupt government... Yes, people should have the freedom of choice to tune out their communities and submerge themselves in material extravagance if they want to... But people seem to be doing this en masse. And the desire to do so is manufactured by those with something to sell. The results of that desire are detrimental to our communities and our culture.

If desire for these items has not been purposefully engineered and manufactured, well... I don't know where it came from. It's certainly not an inmate human desire to be gluttonous and wrapped up in material extravagance or to want to stare at an LCD panel all day and all night... The attempt by marketing strategists to manufacture desire for non-essential products is deplorable. If marketing your product requires psychology of this level, either your product ain't worth it or you're trying to oversell. In either case you are diffusing people's attention from things that matter (kids, community, government, etc), to things that don't.

Money: Not the Root of All Evil

2006-07-24T13:37:00.000-04:00

There is nothing intrinsically bad about people using money. A unit of money is simply that which everyone in the community accepts as having value. It is something that the vast majority of the community is willing to accept in trade for goods or services that they have produced--knowing that someone else will also accept it for the same. Money is the item which is most widely accepted as a form of exchange in commerce. I'm sure this point is arguable, but I see no way in which using a commonly accepted medium of exchange in commerce is in any way bad, wrong, evil, detrimental, etc.

So where then do we get the expression, "Money is the root of all evil"? The saying originated in the New Testament. "For the love of money is the root of all evil." Timothy, 6:10. It is my view that the current usage of that expression arose to describe the modern money system. But it is not the money at all which is the root of the problem. It is the greed, corruption, and dishonesty which is inherent in the money systems which we have come to accept globally.

Before we get to examining the corruption of our current monetary systems, let's step back for a moment and remember how those systems evolved... This is going to be a rather lengthy history, but without it, we really have no context where we can say "this is corrupt and dishonest." So bear with me. It's actually rather interesting.

The first form of commerce was the barter system. People who wished to do business together would find a suitable trade. The problem with this system is that the pieces don't always fit. Just because you have something I need doesn't mean that I have something that you need. Also, how am I supposed to know that what you are trading me is quality? About ten thousand years ago, people started to use livestock and grain as a common medium of exchange, because these were things that everyone needed, and they were things that required work to produce. Yes, grain and cattle do grow naturally, but to keep a herd of domestic cattle and/or to raise a crop of grain takes human work. Therefore, with livestock and/or grain as money--you can't create money without exerting an equal amount of labor.

As people evolved, their systems of money evolved as well. Throughout the course of history different cultures have used different items as money... And different institutions of banking arose. These were mainly businesses that provided storage and protection of individual's money for a fee. They did not issue loans.

As these different cultures started to interact and trade with each other, a universally accepted medium of exchange was sought. Precious metals--mainly gold and silver--began to be used as money about five thousand years ago. They are generally accepted by everyone to have value, and it requires a good amount of labor to extract and refine them into usable product. Around 2200 BC, Cappadocian rulers began to guarantee the quality of their silver ingots, which led to their wider acceptance as money. Around 600 BC, the Lydian state began producing round coins, and the Chinese and Greeks quickly picked up on this practice. Eventually, round base metal coins became a global standard.

As mentioned, the banks that arose to protect people's money did not loan out money... They simply stored it and protected it from theft--a pretty valuable service in days of yore when there was no such thing as a police force. These ancient banks would issue a paper receipt to a depositor--stating that x amount of gold had been deposited and could be withdrawn on demand. Eventually these paper receipts came to be traded amongst the people--to save them the trouble and danger of having to go to the bank, withdraw their gold, and make a physical exchange. This is a very important development--for it gave birth to our modern form of money, as obviously today we trade paper--not gold or silver.

These receipts given to depositors by the bank were a guarantee that this amount of gold actually existed in the bank and could be redeemed. This is called receipt currency. It is as good as gold. And it is an honest way to make trading large sums of money much easier. However, the bankers had become rich and powerful by charging fees to protect people's money. Eventually they were able to use this power to change the tried and tested rules (Hamurabi's code had laws about banking) of banking that had come to be accepted throughout all of humanity.

Bankers wanted the right to loan out the money that they held in deposit, and also to charge interest on it. The bankers had realized that people would never try to redeem all of their gold receipts at the same time. So they had these huge stores of gold that were just sitting there, doing nothing... Why not loan it out to other people and charge them interest? It seemed perfectly safe, as their records had shown that at any given point in time, only about 10% of the gold they possessed was ever physically out of the bank at one time. Much greater profits could be realized if the other 90% of the gold they held was working for them... So banks began to loan receipts to people for other people's gold--and charge the borrowers interest. In effect, banks began to issue multiple receipts for the same piece of gold, on the faith that people would, for the most part, leave their gold in the bank.

This system is called fractional reserve banking--and THIS, my friends and readers, is the root of all evil. It is inherently corrupt and dishonest. Banks were loaning your gold to someone else, and the banks--not you--were making a profit on it... The institutions that physically controlled the vast majority of wealth were able to create new paper receipts where no actual money existed. This made all of the money that did exist become worth less and less. Well, economies being a conglomerate of human activity, the laws of supply and demand tend to work pretty well... The supply of money had been inflated. Money was being produced without an equal exchange of labor. Prices everywhere were going up and up. People realized that the goods and services themselves had not gotten more valuable--but the money itself had become less valuable. And who now possessed the extra value that their paper money no longer did? The bankers did... This led to the people marching down to the bank in anger and demanding their physical gold, which led to many many banks falling into insolvency or simply refusing to produce the gold--as they realized they could not honor everyone's request.

One would think that once this scam was revealed, it faded into non-existence... But no. That's not the way it happened, as bankers had already amassed unimaginably vast sums of money. Instead of being phased out of existence, fractional reserve banking became endorsed by the state. It became law. By instituting what is known as a Central Bank, bankers were basically able to buy governments... Since the bank could issue loans on gold that it did not posses, the state could then create virtually any sum of money they needed. And since the state had the power to pass Legal Tender Laws which required their people to accept the central bank's paper currency, this dishonest banking system became law. And to make things worse, in 1933, the Roosevelt Administration confiscated everyone's personal stores of gold.

And it gets even more dishonest--when states decide that instead of issuing receipts for a physical amount of gold that people can theoretically redeem their paper money for at the bank--they will issue the receipts but not allow the money to be redeemed for gold. This is what is known as Fiat Currency, and it is the evil that fractional reserve banking created multiplied by many thousands of levels of evil. Not only do banks (and governments--via central banks) have the power to create more currency than they have physical gold to back up--but now they can create any amount of currency they want, and they don't have to posses one ounce of gold to back any of it up. Between 1933 and 1971, Americans were not allowed to own gold, and only foreign investors could trade their dollars for gold. The price of gold was fixed at $35 per ounce. Then in 1971 the Nixon Administration separated the dollar from gold completely. The dollar no longer needed any gold at all to "back" its value. Thus making it a true Fiat currency. And in the early 70s, more new money was introduced into the economy than ever before. Why did the people stand for this? Legal tender laws, remember? Also--by design, the average person is never taught anything about the realities of this system, so really, what do they know? There are "experts" in every newspaper telling them about the growing economy... It is growing--it's growing more diffuse. As more and more new money is introduced into the system, the money that is there becomes worth less and less. Consumers feel this in the form of inflation.

The current inflation rate is somewhere around 3%. This doesn't sound like all that much. But at 3% inflation, it takes about 23 years for the value of your money to be cut in half. Don't believe me? Pull out your trusty calculator. Type in "100", then multiply that by 1.03 (this is the same as adding 3%). Do this 23 times. By adding 3% 23 times, You now have 197. What does this mean in relationship to money? Well, at 3% inflation, the money supply doubles every 23 years. Which means, more or less, that your money is worth half as much. Of course it's not quite that simple, but a quick look at the Consumer Price Index shows this to pretty much be the case.

So to sum things up... First, there was money. And it was good... Then banks came around to protect people's money--and that was good too. People had less to worry about, and a new industry came about to provide jobs and wealth for more and more people. Where things start to go wrong is with the introduction of Fractional Reserve banking. This is where bankers issue more than one paper receipt for each physical piece of gold in their stores. And then, the evil multiplies exponentially with Fiat Currencies, when banks and governments collaborate to separate paper money from gold, to enforce this new money on the people, and to create whatever amount they want--mostly to fund wars.

Fractional Reserve banking and Fiat Currencies are inherently dishonest and corrupt systems, and they--not money itself--are the root of a great deal of the world's evil. As long as these systems are allowed to exist, there will never truly be peace, justice, or freedom. I anxiously await the day when the world proves me wrong...

Addicted to Oil. And Going to Stay That Way... For A While... Unless...

2006-07-12T09:52:00.000-04:00

So let's turn back the page a few months to Mr. Speechgiver... I mean Mr. President... saying "We are addicted to oil and we need to break that addiction." He's calling for Americans to break this addiction, right? But what is his administration doing?

The Bush administration allowed the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to have a $28 million budget shortfall and lay off 32 employees... Then gave them an extra $5 million when it was publicized that the administration was maybe sending "mixed signals." We can spend $85 Billion and burn massive amounts of fossil fuels each year on an illegal war, but we can only muster up $5 million for renewable energy research? And this is supposed to help us break our oil addiction how exactly??

The Bush administration's energy plan aims to replace 30% of gasoline use with ethanol by 2030. Archer Daniels Midland, the world's largest producer of Ethanol from corn, has donated over $3 million to politicians since 2000. Ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline so cars get lower gas mileage running on Ethanol. So we're using more fossil fuel energy to produce this new fuel than we get from burning it, and we're using more of it to power our vehicles... According to a recent Cornell University study, the process of growing and then processing corn into ethanol burns 29% more fossil fuel energy than the amount of energy that is produced. We burn more fossil fuel energy to make this new--less effecient--fuel than the energy that burning this new fuel creates. That is called wasting fuel...

Raising fuel economy standards to 40 mpg over the next decade would save about 4 billion barrels of oil by 2012... But shockingly... Fuel economy standards are 5% lower today than they were in the late 80s... And Archer Daniels Midland continues to receive corporate welfare, subsidies, and line its pockets while we sink even deeper into oil addiction. And this is supposed to be progress?

This is not progress, this is collusion. Plain and simple. Archer Daniels Midland is a multi-billion dollar business. They do favors for the government, the government does favors for them, and the people get screwed. (These favors are accomplished by another little secret called central banking. Through the obfuscation that lives within banking regulations that even very well educated people generally are not taught about in school, lies fiat currency that is not backed by any precious metals, a fractional reserve commercial banking system that can multiply the money supply by issuing credit with assets that they do not technically posess, the central bank, the Federal Reserve, that can create new money at will from thin air, and finally the government, which can issue bonds (which are nothing more than government debt) to borrow whatever sum they want from the Fed. Most of the time, they borrow money for war and corporate bailouts.)

In this case, money is being thrown at a problem, but the solution being funded is known by science to be not the best solution. The public is given little capacity to find or understand this science, and those who do don't have anyone to vote for, really... So no, ethanol from corn is anything but progress. It's closer to corruption dressed up in progress' clothes... What would progress be then? Cellulosic Ethanol from switchgrass would be nice. It can be produced now, and with enough investment, production could be ramped up very quickly. A new industry could be created, good jobs along with it... Also, it's possible to make Biodiesel from algae would be nice. How about Biodiesel produced locally in small-medium quantities and used in the communities that it is created in? That would be nice... Plug-in hybrids or straight electric vehicles would be nice. Some more wind and solar farms would be nice. $300 Billion for renewable energy research instead of for making dead Iraqis would be nice.

There are two simple ways we can make progress in eliminating our dependency on oil ourselves, as people. 1) Buy more fuel efficient vehicles. 40mpg and up only!! 2) Walk more, bike more, take public transportation (those of us who have viable options) more, drive less, buy compact flourescents, or just turn the lights off when you leave the room, recycle... It's really that simple...

But it seems Americans can't win for trying... We're told by the president that we have to get off of oil, but his administration is not enacting policies that give any credence to his words!! And Americans don't have very many palatable choices as far as taking things into our own hands is concerned... Public transportation is a joke in most of the country. Finding a good job close to home is very difficult. Let's face it--"breaking the oil addiction" is nothing but lip service. The power-brokers and money-makers who run the world have no interest in energy independence for Americans or any other people. We're in a tough spot...

The New World Order Minus the Conspiracy Theory BS

2006-07-07T13:20:00.000-04:00

It's rare that I post an article that was not written by me... So you'd better believe this one is worth reading, and the links I've provided to spice things up are worth clicking on, as well... This piece by Wiliam Blase may be a bit dated (it's 10 years old) but it chronicles a very very deep and dangerous conspiracy (not a theory, mind you, but an actual conspiracy) that all Americans should really be wary of. Here is a history of the New World Order free from talk about aliens, illuminati, the anti-christ, etc... Just the facts. Cold, hard, documented, facts...

Rowan Gaither, President, Ford Foundation,1954, stated to Congressional Reese Commission investigator Norman Dodd: We operate here under directives which emulate from the White House... The substance of the directives under which we operate is that we shall use our grant making power to alter life in the United States so that we can comfortably be merged with the Soviet Union."

For those who may be confused by the controversies surrounding the "New World Order", a One-World-Government, and American concern over giving the UN more power; those unaware of the issues involved; and those wishing more background, I offer the following. Originally presented for an Honors Class, "Dilemmas of War and Peace," at New Mexico State University, the paper was ridiculed and characterized by Dr. Yosef Lapid, (an acknowledged and locally quoted "expert" on Terrorism and Middle Eastern affairs) as "paranoid... possibly a symptom of mental illness." You may judge for yourself. Citing source data is the "scientific method," but does not seem to apply to "Conspiracy Theories." A thousand sources may be quoted, yet will not convince the "skeptics," the "realists." It seems to me the "symptoms of mental illness" are on their side, if they refuse to look at evidence ("There are none so blind as those who WILL not see"); or perhaps something more sinister is at work, such as a knowledge of the truth, that does not want YOU to know.

To be paranoid means to believe in delusions of danger and persecution. If the danger is real, and the evidence credible, then it cannot be delusional. To ignore the evidence, and hope that it CANNOT be true, is more an evidence of mental illness. The issue involves much more than a difference of philosophy, or political viewpoint. Growing up in the midst of the "Cold War," our generation were taught that those who attempted to abolish our national sovereignty and overthrow our Constitutional government were committing acts of treason. Please judge for yourself if the group discussed is guilty of such.

If one group is effectively in control of national governments and multinational corporations; promotes world government through control of media, foundation grants, and education; and controls and guides the issues of the day; then they control most options available. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the financial powers behind it, have done all these things, and promote the "New World Order", as they have for over seventy years.

The CFR is the promotional arm of the Ruling Elite in the United States of America. Most influential politicians, academics and media personalities are members, and it uses its influence to infiltrate the New World Order into American life. Its "experts" write scholarly pieces to be used in decision making, the academics expound on the wisdom of a united world, and the media members disseminate the message.

To understand how the most influential people in America came to be members of an organization working purposefully for the overthrow of the Constitution and American sovereignty, we have to go back at least to the early 1900s, though the story begins much earlier (depending on your viewpoint and beliefs). That a ruling power elite does indeed control the U.S. government behind the scenes has been attested to by many Americans in a position to know. Felix Frankfurter, Justice of the Supreme Court (1939-1962), said: The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes." In a letter to an associate dated November 21, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt wrote, "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson." February 23, 1954,

Senator William Jenner warned in a speech: "Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government, a bureaucratic elite which believes our Constitution is outmoded."

Baron M.A. Rothschild wrote, "Give me control over a nation's currency and I care not who makes its laws."

All that is needed to effectively control a government is to have control over the nation's money: a central bank with a monopoly over the supply of money and credit. This had been done in Western Europe, with the creation of privately owned central banks such as the Bank of England. Georgetown professor Dr. Carroll Quigley (Bill Clinton's mentor while at Georgetown) wrote about the goals of the investment bankers who control central banks: "... nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole... controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences."

The Bank of the United States (1816-36, pictured to the right), an early attempt at an American central bank, was abolished by President Andrew Jackson, who believed that it threatened the nation. He wrote: "The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government, the distress it had wantonly produced...are but premonitions of the fate that awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it."

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "The Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution...if the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Does that not describe the situation in America today?

The U.S. managed to do without a central bank until early in this century, when, according to Congressman Charles Lindbergh, Sr., "The Money Trust caused the 1907 panic, and thereby forced Congress to create a National Monetary Commission." Headed by Senator Nelson Aldrich, father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., the Commission recommended creation of a central bank.

Though unconstitutional, as only "The Congress shall have Power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof..." (Article I, Section 8, U.S. Constitution) the Federal Reserve Act was passed in December 1913; ostensibly to stabilize the economy and prevent further panics, but as Lindberg warned Congress: "This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth...the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust investigation, will be legalized." The Great Depression and numerous recessions later, it is obvious the Federal Reserve produces inflation and federal debt whenever it desires, but not stability. Congressman Louis McFadden, House Committee on Banking and Currency Chairman (1920-31), stated: "When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by international bankers and industrialists...acting together to enslave the world...Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers but the truth is--the Fed has usurped the government."

Although called "Federal," the Federal Reserve system is privately owned by member banks, makes its own policies, and is not subject to oversight by Congress or the President. As the overseer and supplier of reserves, the Fed gave banks access to public funds, which enhanced their lending capacity. Peter Kershaw, in "Economic Solutions" lists the ten major shareholders of the Federal Reserve Bank System as: Rothschild: London and Berlin; Lazard Bros: Paris; Israel Seiff: Italy; Kuhn- Loeb Company: Germany; Warburg: Hamburg and Amsterdam; Lehman Bros: New York; Goldman and Sachs: New York; Rockefeller: New York. The balance of stock is owned by major commercial member banks. According to Davvy Kidd, "Why A Bankrupt America?" The Federal Reserve pays the Bureau of Engraving & Printing approximately $23 for each 1,000 notes printed. 10,000 $100 notes (one million dollars) would thus cost the Federal Reserve $230. They then secure a pledge of collateral equal to the face value from the U.S government. The collateral is our land, labor, and assets... collected by their agents, the IRS. By authorizing the Fed to regulate and create money (and thus inflation), Congress gave private banks power to create profits at will. As Lindberg put it: "The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation...they can unload the stocks on the people at high prices during the excitement and then bring on a panic and buy them back at low prices...the day of reckoning is only a few years removed." That day came in 1929, with the Stock Market crash and Great Depression.

One of the most important powers given to the Fed was the right to buy and sell government securities, and provide loans to member banks so they might also purchase them. This provided another built-in mechanism for profit to the banks, if government debt was increased. All that was needed was a method to pay off the debt. This was accomplished through the passage of the income tax in 1913. A national income tax was declared unconstitutional in 1895 by the Supreme Court, so a constitutional amendment was proposed in Congress by none other than ...Senator Nelson Aldrich. As presented to the American people it seemed reasonable enough: income tax on only one percent of income under $20,000, with the assurance that it would never increase. Since it was graduated, the tax would "soak the rich", ...but the rich had other plans, already devising a method of protecting wealth. As described by Gary Allen in his 1976 book The Rockefeller File, "By the time the (16th) Amendment had been approved by the states, the Rockefeller Foundation was in full operation...about the same time that Judge Kenesaw Landis was ordering the breakup of the Standard Oil monopoly...John D...not only avoided taxes by creating four great tax-exempt foundations; he used them as repositories for his "divested" interests...made his assets non-taxable so that they might be passed down through generations without...estate and gift taxes...Each year the Rockefellers can dump up to half their incomes into their pet foundations and deduct the "donations" from their income tax."

Exchanging ownership for control of wealth, foundations are also a handy means for promoting interests that benefit the wealthy. Millions of foundation dollars have been "donated" to causes such as promoting the use of drugs, while degrading preventive medicine. Since many drugs are made from coal tar derivatives, both oil companies and drug manufacturing concerns (many Rockefeller owned or controlled) are the main beneficiaries. With the means to loan enormous sums to the government (the Federal Reserve), a method to repay the debt (income tax), and an escape from taxation for the wealthy, (foundations), all that remained was an excuse to borrow money. By some happy "coincidence," in 1914 World War I began, and after American participation national debt rose from $1 billion to $25 billion. Woodrow Wilson was elected President in 1913, beating incumbent William Howard Taft, who had vowed to veto legislation establishing a central bank. To divide the Republican vote and elect the relatively unknown Wilson, J.P. Morgan and Co. poured money into the candidacy of Teddy Roosevelt and his Progressive Party. According to an eyewitness, Wilson was brought to Democratic Party headquarters in 1912 by Bernard Baruch, a wealthy banker. He received an "indoctrination course" from those he met, and in return agreed, if elected: to support the projected Federal Reserve and the income tax, and "listen" to advice in case of war in Europe and on the composition of his cabinet. Wilson's top advisor during his two terms was a man named Colonel Edward M. House. House's biographer, Charles Seymour, called him the "unseen guardian angel" of the Federal Reserve Act, helping to guide it through Congress. Another biographer wrote that House believed: "...the Constitution, product of eighteenth-century minds...was thoroughly outdated; that the country would be better off if the Constitution could be scrapped and rewritten..." House wrote a book entitled Philip Dru: Administrator, published anonymously in 1912. The hero, Philip Dru, rules America and introduces radical changes, such as a graduated income tax, a central bank, and a "league of nations." World War I produced both a large national debt, and huge profits for those who had backed Wilson. Baruch was appointed head of the War Industries Board, where he exercised dictatorial power over the national economy. He and the Rockefellers were reported to have earned over $200 million during the war. Wilson backer Cleveland Dodge sold munitions to the allies, while J.P. Morgan loaned them hundreds of millions, with the protection of U.S. entry into the war. While profit was certainly a motive, the war was also useful to justify the notion of world government.

William Hoar reveals in Architechs of Conspiracy that during the 1950s, government investigators examining the records of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a long- time promoter of globalism, found that several years before the outbreak of World War I, the Carnegie trustees were planning to involve the U.S. in a general war, to set the stage for world government. The main obstacle was that Americans did not want any involvement in European wars. Some kind of incident, such as the explosion of the battleship Main, which provoked the Spanish - American war, would have to be provided as provocation. This occurred when the Lusitania, carrying 128 Americans on board, was sunk by a German submarine, and anti-German sentiment was aroused. When war was declared, U.S. propaganda portrayed all Germans as Huns and fanged serpents, and all Americans opposing the war as traitors. What was not revealed at the time, however, was that the Lusitania was transporting war munitions to England, making it a legitimate target for the Germans. Even so, they had taken out large ads in the New York papers, asking that Americans not take passage on the ship.

The evidence seems to point to a deliberate plan to have the ship sunk by the Germans. Colin Simpson, author of The Lusitania, wrote that Winston Churchill, head of the British Admiralty during the war, had ordered a report to predict the political impact if a passenger ship carrying Americans was sunk. German naval codes had been broken by the British, who knew approximately where all U-boats near the British Isles were located. According to Simpson, Commander Joseph Kenworthy, of British Naval Intelligence, stated: "The Lusitania was deliberately sent at considerably reduced speed into an area where a U-boat was known to be waiting...escorts withdrawn." Thus, even though Wilson had been reelected in 1916 with the slogan "He kept us out of war", America soon found itself fighting a European war. Actually, Colonel House had already negotiated a secret agreement with England, committing the U.S. to the conflict. It seems the American public had little say in the matter. With the end of the war and the Versailles Treaty, which required severe war reparations from Germany, the way was paved for a leader in Germany such as Hitler. Wilson brought to the Paris Peace Conference his famous "fourteen points," with point fourteen being a proposal for a "general association of nations," which was to be the first step towards the goal of One World Government-the League of Nations. Wilson's official biographer, Ray Stannard Baker, revealed that the League was not Wilson's idea. "...not a single idea--in the Covenant of the League was original with the President." Colonel House was the author of the Covenant, and Wilson had merely rewritten it to conform to his own phraseology. The League of Nations was established, but it, and the plan for world government eventually failed because the U.S. Senate would not ratify the Versailles Treaty. Pat Robertson, in The New World Order, states that Colonel House, along with other internationalists, realized that America would not join any scheme for world government without a change in public opinion. After a series of meetings, it was decided that an "Institute of International Affairs", with two branches, in the United States and England, would be formed. The British branch became known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, with leadership provided by members of the Round Table. Begun in the late 1800s by Cecil Rhodes, the Round Table aimed to federate the English speaking peoples of the world, and bring it under their rule. The Council on Foreign Relations was incorporated as the American branch in New York on July 29, 1921. Founding members included Colonel House, and "...such potentates of international banking as J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Paul Warburg, Otto Kahn, and Jacob Schiff...the same clique which had engineered the establishment of the Federal Reserve System," according to Gary Allen in the October 1972 issue of "AMERICAN OPINION." The founding president of the CFR was John W. Davis, J.P. Morgan's personal attorney, while the vice-president was Paul Cravath, also representing the Morgan interests. Professor Carroll Quigley characterized the CFR as "...a front group for J.P. Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group." Over time Morgan influence was lost to the Rockefellers, who found that one world government fit their philosophy of business well. As John D. Rockefeller, Sr. had said: "Competition is a sin"' and global monopoly fit their needs as they grew internationally.

Antony Sutton, a research fellow for the Hoover Institution for War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University, wrote of this philosophy: "While monopoly control of industries was once the objective of J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller, by the late nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to "go political" and make society go to work for the monopolists-- under the name of the public good and the public interest."

Frederick C. Howe revealed the strategy of using government in a 1906 book, Confessions of a Monopolist: "These are the rules of big business...Get a monopoly; let society work for you; and remember that the best of all business is politics..." As corporations went international, national monopolies could no longer protect their interests. What was needed was a one world system of government controlled from behind the scenes. This had been the plan since the time of Colonel House, and to implement it, it was necessary to weaken the U.S. politically and economically. During the 1920s, America enjoyed a decade of prosperity, fueled by the easy availability of credit. Between 1923 and 1929 the Federal Reserve expanded the money supply by sixty-two percent. When the stock market crashed, many small investors were ruined, but not "insiders." In March of 1929 Paul Warburg issued a tip the Crash was coming, and the largest investors got out of the market, according to Allen and Abraham in None Dare Call it Conspiracy.

With their fortunes intact, they were able to buy companies for a fraction of their worth. Shares that had sold for a dollar might now cost a nickel, and the buying power, and wealth, of the rich increased enormously. Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking Committee declared: "It was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence...The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all."

Curtis Dall, son-in-law of FDR and a syndicate manager for Lehman Brothers, an investment firm, was on the N.Y. Stock Exchange floor the day of the crash. In FDR: My Exploited Father-In-Law, he states: "...it was the calculated "shearing" of the public by the World-Money powers triggered by the planned sudden shortage of call money in the New York Market." The Crash paved the way for the man Wall Street had groomed for the presidency, FDR. Portrayed as a "man of the little people", the reality was that Roosevelt's family had been involved in New York banking since the eighteenth century. Frederic Delano, FDR's uncle, served on the original Federal Reserve Board. FDR attended Groton and Harvard, and in the 1920's worked on Wall Street, sitting on the board of directors of eleven different corporations. Dall wrote of his father-in-law: "...Most of his thoughts, his political "ammunition,"...were carefully manufactured for him in advance by the CFR-One World Money group. Brilliantly... he exploded that prepared "ammunition" in the middle of an unsuspecting target, the American people--and thus paid off and retained his internationalist political support." Taking America off the gold standard in 1934, FDR opened the way to unrestrained money supply expansion, decades of inflation--and credit revenues for banks. Raising gold prices from $20 an ounce to $35, FDR and Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. (son of a founding CFR member), gave international bankers huge profits. FDR's most remembered program, the New Deal, could only be financed through heavy borrowing. In effect, those who had caused the Depression loaned America the money to recover from it. Then, through the National Recovery Administration, proposed by Bernard Baruch in 1930, they were put in charge of regulating the economy. FDR appointed Baruch disciple Hugh Johnson to run the NRA, assisted by CFR member Gerard Swope. With broad powers to regulate wages, prices, and working conditions, it was, as Herbert Hoover wrote in his memoirs: "...pure fascism;...merely a remaking of Mussolini's "corporate state"..." The Supreme Court eventually ruled the NRA unconstitutional. During the FDR years, the Council on Foreign Relations captured the political life of the U.S. Besides Treasury Secretary Morgenthau, other CFR members included Secretary of State Edward Stettinus, War Secretary Henry Stimson, and Assistant Secretary of State Sumner Welles. Since 1934 almost every United States Secretary of State has been a CFR member; and ALL Secretaries of War or Defense, from Henry L. Stimson through Richard Cheney.

The CIA has been under CFR control almost continuously since its creation, starting with Allen Dulles, founding member of the CFR and brother of Secretary of State under President Eisenhower, John Foster Dulles. Allen Dulles had been at the Paris Peace Conference, joined the CFR in 1926, and later became its president. John Foster Dulles had been one of Woodrow Wilson's young protégés at the Paris Peace Conference. A founding member of the CFR...he was an in-law of the Rockefellers, Chairman of the Board of the Rockefeller Foundation, and Board Chairman of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. In 1940 FDR defeated internationalist Wendell Willkie, who wrote a book entitled One World, and later became a CFR member. Congressman Usher Burdick protested at the time on the floor of the House that Willkie was being financed by J.P. Morgan and the New York utility bankers. Polls showed few Republicans favored him, yet the media portrayed him as THE Republican candidate. Since that time nearly ALL presidential candidates have been CFR members. President Truman, who was not a member, was advised by a group of "wise men," all six of whom were CFR members, according to Gary Allen. In 1952 and 1956, CFR Adlai Stevenson challenged CFR Eisenhower.

In 1960, CFR Kennedy (who was probably killed because he had the courage NOT to go along with all their plans) CFR Nixon. In 1964 the GOP stunned the Establishment by nominating its candidate over Nelson Rockefeller. Rockefeller and the CFR wing proceeded to picture Barry Goldwater as a dangerous radical. In 1968 CFR Nixon ran against CFR Humphrey. The 1972 "contest" featured CFR Nixon vs. CFR McGovern. CFR candidates for president include George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Edmund Muskie, John Anderson, and Lloyd Bentsen. In 1976 we had Jimmy Carter, who is a member of the Trilateral Commission, created by David Rockefeller and CFR member Zbigniew Brezinski with the goal of economic linkage between Japan, Europe, and the United States, and: "...managing the world economy...a smooth and peaceful evolution of the global system." We have also had (though his name strangely disappears from the membership list in 1979) CFR director (1977-79) George Bush, and last but not least, CFR member Bill Clinton. They have all promoted the "New World Order," controlled by the United Nations. The problem is that "...the present United Nations organization is actually the creation of the CFR and is housed on land in Manhattan donated to it by the family of current CFR chairman David Rockefeller," as Pat Robertson describes it. The original concept for the UN was the outcome of the Informal Agenda Group, formed in 1943 by Secretary of State Cordell Hull. All except Hull were CFR members, and Isaiah Bowman, a founding member of the CFR, originated the idea. The American delegation to the San Francisco meeting that drafted the charter of the United Nations in 1949 included CFR members Nelson Rockefeller, John Foster Dulles, John McCloy, and CFR members who were communist agents--Harry Dexter White, Owen Lattimore, and the Secretary-General of the conference, Alger Hiss. In all, the Council sent forty-seven of its members in the United States delegation, effectively controlling the outcome. Since that time the CFR and its friends in the mass media (largely controlled by CFR members such as Katherine Graham of the "Washington Post" and Henry Luce of "Time, Life"), foundations, and political groups have lobbied consistently to grant the United Nations more authority and power. Bush and the Gulf War were but one of the latest calls for a "New World Order." Admiral Chester Ward, a member of the CFR for over a decade, became one of its harshest critics, revealing its inner workings in a 1975 book, Kissinger ON THE COUCH. In it he states "The most powerful cliques in these elitist groups have one objective in common: they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and national independence of the United States."

Most members are one-world-government ideologists whose long- term goals were officially summed up in September 1961 State Department Document 7277, adopted by the Nixon Administration: "...elimination of all armed forces and armaments except those needed to maintain internal order within states and to furnish the United Nations with peace forces...by the time it (UN global government) would be so strong no nation could challenge it." Within the CFR there exists a "much smaller group but more powerful...made up of Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in control of the global government ...This CFR faction is headed by the Rockefeller brothers," according to Ward. What must be remembered is that this is not some lunatic- fringe group...these are members of one of the most powerful private organizations in the world: the people who determine and control American economic, social, political, and military policy. Members' influence and control extends to "leaders in academia, public service, business, and the media," according to the CFR 1993 "Annual Report." Their founding they describe as: "American Participants in the Paris Peace Conference decided that it was time for more private Americans to become familiar with the increasing responsibilities and obligations of the United States...there was a need for an organization able to provide for the continuous study of U.S. foreign police for the BENEFIT OF ITS MEMBERS (emphasis mine) and a wider audience of interested Americans." They sponsor hundreds of programs, where members "exchange views with American and foreign officials and policy experts... discuss foreign policy issues...consider international issues of concern to the business community" (Corporate business), and "...affiliated groups of community leaders throughout the United states...meet with decision makers." The CFR states that it is "host to many views, advocate of none," and it "has no affiliation with the U.S. government." No, no affiliation at all, if you don't count: "A Council member was elected president of the United States...Dozens of other Council colleagues were called to serve in cabinet and sub-cabinet positions," as they describe it in "Foreign Affairs," along with many members of Congress, the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs, the Federal Reserve, and many other Federal bureaucrats. They are not AFFILIATED with government, they ARE the government, in effect.

One re-occurring view was stated in the 50th anniversary issue of "Foreign Affairs," the official publication of the CFR. In an article by Kingman Brewster, Jr. entitled "Reflections on Our National Purpose." Our purpose should be, according to him, to do away with our nationality, to "take some risks in order to invite others to pool their sovereignty with ours..." These "risks" include disarming to the point where we would be helpless against the "peace-keeping" forces of a global UN government. We should happily surrender our sovereignty to the world government in the interests of the "world community." Today we have the spectacle of Spc. 4 Michael New, a U.S. soldier in Germany who refuses to wear the uniform of the UN, facing an "administrative discharge." He states rightly that he swore an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution, not the United Nations. Many other Americans have taken that same oath, such as myself, and believe it is our sworn duty still to defend the Constitution. Meanwhile, others who attempt to destroy the Constitution and our sovereignty are given honors and position...At least they are not hypocrites...only supremely arrogant. "In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down...An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned assault..." in the opinion of Richard N. Gardner, former deputy assistant Secretary of State in "Foreign Affairs," April 1974. James Warburg, son of CFR founder Paul Warburg, and a member of FDR's "brain trust," testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17, 1950, "We shall have world government whether or not you like it--by conquest or consent."

Is this an AMERICAN speaking, or a dangerous lunatic? Who is this "We" who threatens to CONQUER us?

They are a group that actually has the power to do it, and is doing it every day, bit by bit.

CFR Members in the mass media, education, and entertainment push their propaganda of "humanism" and world brotherhood. We should all live in peace under a world government, and forget about such selfish things as nationalities and patriotism. We can solve our own problems. We don't need God, or morals, or values: it"s all relative, anyway, right?...Because if we actually had some moral character and values, we might be able to discern that these people are actually EVIL. They have lost all morality and conscience, and believe such concepts, as well as our Constitution, "outdated". THAT is insanity--to have more wealth than can be spent, and still it is never enough. They have to control governments, start wars, conspire to rule the world; least the "common people" wake up to how they have gained their wealth, take it away from them, and demand that they pay the price for their crimes. That is why they constantly pit us one against the other, with "Diversity," Affirmative Action, and other programs,...black against white, men against women, rural against urban, ranchers against environmentalists, and on and on...least we look in their direction. We The People are held to a much higher standard. If we threaten the President or a public official, we are charged with a crime...yet the One-World-Gang can threaten the Constitution and the liberties of We The People, the sovereign rulers of this nation, and nothing is said or done. Perhaps they do not fear what Man can do to them... they believe they have arranged everything, and their power and wealth will prevail in this world. However, those among them who have sworn an oath before God to uphold and defend the Constitution: the President, members of Congress, and the military; may find one day that they do indeed have something to fear.

Colonel House, the fallen angel, still has relatives controlling the CFR. Karen Elliot House is Chairman of the Membership Committee, and a member of the Nominating Committee, along with Jeane Kirkpatrick. David Rockefeller is now "Honorary Chairman of the Board", after serving as Chairman 1970-1985; and "Director Emeritus," after serving as a Director 1949-1985. Peter G. Peterson is Chairman, Admiral B. R. Inman is Vice Chairman, while Thomas Foley and Jeane Kirkpatrick are Directors serving on the Executive Committee. These "private citizens" have access to government officials and policy makers as often as they wish, yet the results of their meetings can only be given to other government officials, corporate officers, or law partners. Participants are forbidden to transmit an attributed statement to any public medium, such as newspapers or TV, where there is "risk that it will promptly be widely circulated or published," as the "Annual Report" puts it. Should not OUR public officials be forbidden to meet in secret with private groups? Public officials should only be allowed to discuss public business and policy in a public forum. The Public...remember US?

There is much more to say about this group and their plans for America. Gary Allen, in The Rockefeller File, states that they are behind the many regional government plans, which would abolish city, county, and state lines, leaving us at the mercy of federal bureaucrats; and behind the push for "land use" controls. They want "federal control of everything. Since they intend to control the federal government..." There are also the many allegations of involvement in gun running, drug smuggling, prostitution and sex slaves; and the many mysterious assassinations and "suicides" of witnesses and others who get too close to the truth...but that is another story.

REFERENCES
Bo Adelmann, 1986. "The Federal Reserve System." The New American, October 17.
Gary Allen, 1976. "The Rockefeller File". Seal Beach, CA: "76 Press.
Gary Allen with Larry Abraham, 1972. "None Dare Call it Conspiracy."
Rossmoor, CA: Concord Press.
"Congressional Record," December 22, 1913, Vol. 51.
Phoebe and Kent Courtney, 1962. "America's Unelected Rulers, The Council on Foreign Relations." New Orleans: Conservative Society of America.
Curtis B. Dall, 1970. "FDR My Exploited Father-In-Law." Washington D.C.: Action Associates.
A. Ralph Epperson, 1985. "The Unseen Hand." Tucson, AZ: Publius Press.
"F.D.R.: His Personal Letters," 1950. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce.
William P. Hoar, 1984. "Architects of Conspiracy." Belmont MA: Western Islands.
Herbert Hoover, 1952. "The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover, The Great Depression 1929-1941." New York: Macmillan.
Frederick C. Howe, 1906. "Confessions of a Monopolist." Chicago: Public Publishing Co.
Robert C. Johansen, 1980. "Models of World Order," in "Dilemmas of War and Peace."
Peter Kershaw, 1994. "Economic Solutions."
Devvy Kidd, 1995. "Why A Bankrupt America?" Colorado: Project Liberty.
Ferdinand Lundberg, 1938. "America's 60 Families." New York: Vanguard.
Louis T. McFadden, 1934. "The Federal Reserve Corporation, remarks in Congress." Boston: Forum Publication Co.
James Perloff, 1988. "The Shadows of Power." Appleton, WI: Western Islands.
Carroll Quigley, 1966. "Tragedy and Hope." New York: Macmillan.
Pat Robertson, 1991. "The New World Order." Dallas: Word Publishing.
Charles Seymour, ed., 1926. "The Intimate Paper of Colonel House." Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Colin Simpson, 1972. "The Lusitania." Boston: Little, Brown.
Arthur D. Howde Smith, 1940. "Mr House ob5 Texas." New York: Funk and Wagnalls.
Antony C. Sutton, 1975. "Wall Street and FDR." New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House.
George Sylvester Viereck, 1932. "The Strangest Friendship in History." New York: Liveright.
This document may be freely distributed or quoted in any medium, provided credit is given to the author and The Courier.

Copyright 1995
William Blase

Honest and Forthright vs Dishonest and Corrupt

2006-06-25T16:36:00.001-04:00

All Americans should question the legitimacy of the political concepts of the "left" and "right". The types of opinions expressed about the core philosophies of one side or the other in the mainstream media is just about all of the evidence anyone should need that the "left vs right" mode of American political thought is nothing but a social construction. "honest and forthright vs dishonest and corrupt" is a more meaningful distinction, and it has a great deal more relevance in the real world than "left vs right."

Few intelligent people actually agree with either of the prototypical "left" or "right" stances on a given issue (especially regarding the Iraq war). Real people have more nuanced political views... But in the socially constructed world view, the American political consciousness can be defined by the subjective and stereotypical definitions of what is said to be "left" or "right," "liberal" or "conservative." It's all a farce. Both sides of the argument present essentially the same proposed course of action: support the status quo, there is no option but Democrat or Republican, you may question one side or the other but to question the legitimacy of both sides makes you anti-American... This is a very elaborate ruse that most of the American people cannot see through, even thought it's really not all that difficult to do so...

Forget left vs right... Let's consider honest and forthright vs dishonest and corrupt. Most Americans themselves are honest and forthright. But our government and the corporate system that controls it are observably dishonest and corrupt. How many corporate/government scandals have been exposed showing that both the Democrats and Republicans are in bed with large corporations? Corporate moneys flows freely to BOTH parties. The practice of political and financial corruption is commonplace in the government that rules us and is currently eviscerating our bill of rights in the interests of "national security." Yet the vast majority of honest and forthright people are too afraid of "bucking the system" to break free from the social conditioning that has formed their way of thinking.

The US government has a history of telling bold-faced lies to the public. The Fed prints up all the money the government asks for out of thin air. Corporate corruption uses government to funnel billions of dollars into the hands of the already wealthy. Wars are fought for the financial gain of the military industrial complex and the central banking system.

Would anyone argue any part of the preceding list? You don't need to be a "conspiracy theorist" to believe any of that. It's a bit cynical perhaps but unfortunately it's all verifiably true. We still have the power to vote these people out of office. But what I fear we lack is the will to express our outrage against political and corporate corruption forcefully and consistently enough to make a real and substantive change possible.

Really, every American citizen would be justified to barge into their congressperson's office and scream "THIS IS BULLSHIT! THE PROCESS OF GOVERNMENT IN AMERICA IS CORRUPT!! WE DEMAND HONESTY AND FORTHRIGHTNESS!! WE DEMAND OUR FULL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!!" Perhaps if every American citizen did just that, and then voted to support their views in the "honest and forthright vs dishonest and corrupt" world view, things might actually get better... Perhaps...

Redefining the word "conventional"

2006-06-19T10:51:00.000-04:00

It has occurred to me recently that the definition of the word "conventional" has been usurped by the modern social conditioning mechanism that shapes our world views. The word itself, in certain contexts, is Doublespeak... The new meaning of "conventional" is "profitable."

Consider a few terms:
- Conventional Money
- Conventional Medicine
- Conventional Agriculture
- Conventional Energy

Conventional Money
The modern money system can be traced back to London in 1694 with the formation of The Bank of England. This was the world's first central bank--one where the State and the bank exist symbiotically. The State can order the bank to create money at will and the bankers can create money for export at interest to other States, companies, etc. that would be backed by the State. It is important to note that this money is now "fiat money," it has no backing in silver or gold (which, as we shall see, is truly "conventional" money) and is only considered "money" due to Legal Tender Laws which impose criminal penalties on those not accepting the State's currency. Also key to modern money is Fractional Reserve Banking. This practice lets banks hold only a fraction of the money that they are holding for people in reserve. Currently in America, a bank must only physically posses 10% of the currency that it holds for its depositors. This allows them to loan the other 90% out at interest. As you will surely find by reading some of the older posts on my blog, the policies of central banking and fiat currencies lead to massive inflation, the destruction of price stability, and the control of the State by those who control the currency.

Truly conventional money is commodity money--precious metals--gold and silver. Truly conventional money is what people will accept as a medium of exchange when not forced by legal tender laws to accept paper currency. It is more or less immune to artificial inflation--as the exertion of labor is necessary to create the money in the first place. The natural laws of supply and demand act upon both the money supply and the value of money. Under the gold standard, short-term fluctuations in the availability of gold will cause temporary fluctuations in the market, but overall price stability is a given. Of course corruption destroys this system, and other than the Byzantine Empire's several hundred years of price stability under an honest gold standard, there has always been greed and corruption in the money supply. This is unfortunate, but true. Perhaps it's human nature, and perhaps it's because people who seek political power generally have mental imbalances, but I digress...

New money, or fiat money, is debt. It is willed into existence by the central bank and "loaned" to the State in exchange for bonds--which are essentially IOUs. The most common thing that money is willed into existence for is so that the State can fund war without having to levy taxes on the people to cover the full cost. If the people had to pay for the TOTAL costs of war with taxation, they would surely not allow the State to put itself into a perpetual state of war, as most modern nations now are. Still more money is willed into existence by fractional reserve banks issuing credit cards, loans for mortgages, and the like with money that does not exist (remember, they only hold 10% of the money that they hold in reserves). Without the initial debt of the government to will the money into existence in the first place, and without the debt of individuals, fiat money would not exist. If all of the debt in the world was repaid, all of the paper currency in the world would be returned to the central bank. People have been using money for thousands of years. People have been using money in the way that we use it today for maybe a couple hundred years.

I urge you to scan the rest of my blog and to ask Uncle Google to educate yourself on "conventional" money. You will see that it is probably the most dishonest yet pubicly accepted "conventional" practice in the world. I believe this is due to the fact that most people don't understand how the modern money system really works...

"Conventional" Medicine
The foundations of the modern medical system have their roots in the rise of political power of "medical doctors" in the late 17th century in Europe. Prior to the medical profession claiming control and authority over the healing arts, astrologers had been looked at by communities as healers for thousands of years. They often prescribed small amounts of minerals or metals to treat sickness, and their treatments had the same success rates as those of the "medical doctors" who used their political influence to delegitimze the entire profession and practice of astrology. At the time that "medicine" superseded homoeopathy it was not any more effective at actually healing people. The change in the way that people have thought about health and healing was enacted via political and financial power--not due to the effectiveness of the new treatments.

Truly conventional medicine--as it has been practiced for thousands of years--includes herbal and mineral remedies, acupuncture, etc. Today's so-called "conventional" medicine is actually only about 60 or 70 years old. The FDA was formed in 1938 and the widespread use of anti-biotics began in 1944. This is not "conventional" medicine, but "new" medicine. The goal of new medicine is not the eradication of sickness, but rather the ability for corporations to profit from the treatment of sickness. Sickness is required to exist and grow in order for the medical industry to grow. Many truly conventional and actually effective remedies have been delegitimized and suppressed by the FDA because the medical industry cannot profit from them.

"Conventional" Agriculture
The foundation of the modern agriculture system has its roots in the "Green Revolution" of the 1940s and 50s where petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides were put into use worldwide. It is interesting to note that the Rockefeller Foundation was largely responsible for the initial funding to promote and actualize this change. Short-term crop outputs shot way up and farms worldwide began to corporatize and use these new methods of super-crop-production. Human-labor inputs went WAY down per amount of crop produced. However, famine continued, agriculture became heavily energy intensive and dependent upon the fossil fuels which Rockefeller controlled. The end result of new agriculture is that food production is heavily regulated, seeds are patented and withheld from local growers in the 3rd world, soils are leached of nutrients and become barren after several seasons, and large corporations' profits have increased greatly.

Truly conventional agriculture was re-labeled "organic" agriculture, and the USDA set up a new set of loose standards that a growers must meet to stamp "organic" on their food. They also must pay a heavy premium to the USDA for this privilege. Truly conventional agriculture has been practiced sustainably for thousands of years. The downside is a high human-labor input to crop output ratio, and a relatively low (as compared to new methods) ratio of crop yield per acre. The benefits include healthy food that is free from poisonous pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, and the power for communities to provide for their own sustenance.

Conventional Energy
"Conventional" energy is basically refined petroleum based energy, and is also a relatively new practice. It is different from the other examples I have presented because it has enabled a whole slew of new inventions and really--a new way of life that all people now accept as "conventional" that is totally dependent upon this new energy. A lot of these inventions are really pretty cool... I love technology as much as the next geek. Without new energy, I wouldn't be able to share these words with you. Without new energy, our lives would be totally different... slower, simpler, maybe a bit more physically demanding... We'd all be working for the sustenance of our own communities and families rather than for the "global marketplace." We wouldn't have iPods and Land Rovers and Laptops and Cellular Phones and Tupperware... But we would be self-sufficient.

Conclusion:
Since the rise to prominence of new money, we have seen a vast concentration of wealth, political power, and never-ending war. Since the rise to prominence of new medicine, we have seen the rapid spread of disease and viruses that quickly become resistant to anti-biotics. Since the rise to prominence of new agriculture, we have seen the greatest famine in the history of the world, the corporatization and de-localization of food production. Since the rise to prominence of new energy, we have seen massive amounts of greenhouse gases emitted into our atmosphere, local populations in places like Nigeria have been disenfranchised by big oil companies, people spend more time going back and forth from work to home and less time actually working or being with their families, etc.

Of course without these "new" practices, the tremendous boom in the human population and much of the progress made in the 20th and 21st centuries would not be possible. But I ask--the widening gap between rich and poor, famine, constant warfare, new and more deadly diseases developing their own immunity to the drugs that we invent to fight them--is this really progress? Is this really the world that we want? One based on inequality, worship of material possessions, needless squander of natural and human resources in the name of corporate profits? And perhaps most importantly--do we want a world where the meaning of our words can be stolen from us, turned upside down, and then forced back on us to justify the artificially manufactured problems of society? To make us believe that self-sufficiency is outdated and reliance upon corporations and the State is "conventional"?!?!

Let's not forget some "conventional" wisdom: "Society is a joint-stock company, in which the members agree, for the better securing of his bread to each shareholder, to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater. The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

I'm not a doctor, nor do I play one on this blog.

2006-06-12T15:31:00.001-04:00

here is an e-mail i received in response to my previous posting:

regarding your latest "silver" claims on your website, you can look at this http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/PhonyAds/silverad.html

I don't know if you are worried about your blog's credibility, but starting to post things about "snake oil" cures, will probably not help. I liked the macroeconomic stuff you were posting, but not this stuff. Giving health advice could be dangerous to the poor souls who actually may try it.

here is my reply:
Sorry you didn't dig it. Understand though that I am not giving medical advice but rather examining the deligitimization of a particular medical treatment and the politics that surround it. "Credibility" itself and the legitimization of knowledge in general are things that are controlled very heavily by the establishment via the process of social conditioning.

As for the quackwatch stuff... Yes, I read it before I posted this. The disinformation surrounding silver colloids runs pretty deep. On the one hand you have Rosemary Jacobs and the FDA saying that you will get Argyria and that silver colloids are junk medicine. Then on the other hand you have multi-level-marketing scams selling bullshit products that invariably do not contain what their labels say they do. Before there was an FDA or any "snake-oil" salesmen of bullshit silver products, isolted silver was used safely to treat disease and illness for thousands of years. I suspect that both sides of the disinformation (that it's not safe, and that it is the miracle cure-all) come from the same place--big pharma--becuase BOTH claims are unbelievable to anyone who takes the time to find accurate information.

As for Argyria--it is caused ONLY by taking A LOT more than the reccomended dosage. And most reported cases that have resulted from silver ingestion were caused by Mild Silver Proteins or silver nitrates, not pure isolated silver. Silver Proteins are known to be less safe and less effective than ionic silver or true colloidal silver. So when a reputable and safe product is taken as indicated--there is almost no danger of argyria. Also, supplementing one's diet with Vitamin E and/or Selenium will help to reduce the risk. These are facts that I would hope anyone seriously considering putting silver colloids into their bodies would research first...

Yes, there are bullshit products out there, but if you do any research (maybe follow some of those links I provided) it is pretty easy to tell the crap apart from the reputable and safe products. www.silvermedicine.org is a great resource--and they are not selling anything. Same with the Immunogenic Research Foundation--good information--no sales pitch...

Every unregulated industry will have its fair share of bullshit artists who are just out to make a buck. Silver colloids are no different. The "snake-oil" salesmen were used by the FDA on behalf of big pharma to deligitimize silver colloids--and I'd say by your reaction the FDA did a pretty good job. But this is no reflection on the actual safety or effectiveness of the product--only a reflection of the politics that surround the issue.

I think this should make it pretty clear:
http://www.silverpuppy.com/fda.html

It's a long page. Scroll to the bottom and read what Bruce Marx has to say about the FDAs 1999 ruling relegating colloidal silver products to dietary supplements. Yes, this web site does belong to a retailer, but despite their awful site design--they do sell a safe product that is what it says it is.

So let this serve as a disclaimer: I have not taken any colloidal metals. I am not reccomending that anyone try them before first doing your own research. I am simply trying to examine the process by which the ancient use of colloidal metals have been deligitimized in modern society.

"You Can't Eat Gold!" ... Or can you?

2006-06-09T12:05:00.003-04:00

So a few weeks ago a very random stream of thought popped into my mind... Why are precious metals so valuable? Sure, there is a very high demand for them in the jewelry industry, and also in the electronics industry (gold and silver are excellent conductors of electricity). But why are they revered by human beings in such a way? Do we really love the concept of money that much? Or do these substances have some intrinsic value?

This line of thought brought me to google, and various and sundry web searches about human ingestion of gold. I found a lot of junk, but there were a few things that I found that were quite interesting...

First, I found this interesting piece by Gary North entitled "You Can't Eat Gold!" It is an economic analysis, and it discusses the way in which slogans and propaganda are used in economic policy. Seems that around the time of the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944, the slogan "You can't eat gold" was popularized in the efforts to convince people that the gold standard was obsolete.

1944 was also the time when Penicillin came into vogue as the new "miracle drug" that would wipe out viruses and make the population healthier and live longer. Well, as we now know (and likely many scientists did back then as well), over time viruses become resistant to antibiotics. Basically what antibiotics have done is to create stronger viruses that are harder to cure and kill people with greater frequency. Also of note is the term "The Golden Age of Antibiotics."

So how does this relate back to precious metals? Well... as is the case with most good propaganda, "You Can't Eat Gold!" is entirely false. No, I'm not going to give you a recipe for gold and silver chowder with fresh chives... But people have been ingesting colloidal metals for thousands of years. From the late 1800's to the 1930's, colloidal silver was used in America and Europe to treat cold and flu-like maladies. And colloidal gold is purported to have positive effects on the mind, the psyche, and the body.

I'm not a big believer in the Old Testament, but in Exodus 32:20 Moses, upon finding his people worshipping the Golden Calf, "took the calf which they had made, and burnt it with fire, ground it to powder, and scattered it on the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it."

Modern science has shown that indeed colloidal silver does kill most viruses and bacterium. Yes, this research was done by people who are selling the products, but if you examine their studies I think you'll find them to be sound. This fact must have created quite a problem for the powers that be in trying to implement the modern healthcare system dominated by big pharmaceutical companies and the all-powerful FDA. If people had easy access to colloidal metals (you can make them at home) the medical establishment would have no way to control the world health care system--and I think it is obvious that social control is their most important priority.

So "You Can't Eat Gold!" was a very effective slogan, and it served two purposes: it enabled the establishment to take control over our commodity money and institute a fiat currency system, and it enabled the establishment to take control over our healthcare and institute a system of medical social control.

I have done a good deal of research on colloidal metals, and I suspect they may hold the key to unlocking more of our potential to grow, learn, think, and communicate. I found this web site which claims to sell the purest of pure colloidal metal suspensions (not to be confused with ionic solutions and silver proteins). Their web site contains a lot of technical information, but no medical information. It is also a very overtly phony marketing mechanism, but I let that slide, knowing that the FDA has been persecuting the producers of colloidal metals for decades and they have been delegitimized not by the lack of merit of their product but by the healthcare industry itself... I was curious though as to why in all of the scientific studies, no in vivo studies had been published. I e-mailed them, and as they did not include a name in their response or ask me to keep it private, I have no qualms in sharing this very interesting correspondence with you.

My first e-mail to them:

Comments: Hi,

Have there been any peer-reviewed in vivo tests on the effectiveness of Colloidal Silver in humans? I can't seem to find any. I'm interested in trying out true colloidal silver but I'm hesitant to do > so without first seeing the results of an in vivo test.

Thanks,
Andy

Their reply:

We do not (sic) such studies. The cost to commission such studies would run to several million dollars.

We doubt that any company that produces dietary supplements will have what you seek. Such testing is typically done on drugs but not supplements due to the cost.

See the user reports on the colloidforum.com here:
http://colloidforum.com/phpBB/index.php

My reply:

Thank you for taking the time to write back to me.

Your web site makes specific claims that your products have X, Y, and Z desired effects on people. Is word-of-mouth the only way to demonstrate these effects? I've been to your discussion forum. Very few of the topics contain any discussion at all. Most of the posts in the hundred or so topics you've created and most were made by "guests" who posted only that one message... Almost everyone on the board signing their name, city, and state on every post... It seems to me like one person did most of it themselves.

I understand that the FDA currently makes it very expensive to play by their rules, but silver colloids have been sold for many many years. They were only forced by the FDA to start branding themselves as supplements rather than OTC drugs in 1999. Surely at some point in history there has been at least some sort of study of the effects of colloidal metals on actual human beings... No? I should think that in today's business climate, a product that is as amazing as you say it is would have no problem securing a few million in venture capital to obtain FDA approval...

I can only deduce that either metal colloids do not work as well as you say they do, or they are being suppressed by the drug industry for some reason [for the record, I believed it was the latter]...

--Andy

Their reply to me:

The issue is not having money to do the studies. We have turned away dozens of offers for capital from investors.

Any supplement maker that performs those studies and publishes them would have their product declared by the FDA to be a drug. Then the FDA would take action against the company for selling unapproved drugs thus forcing the company out of business and putting the owners in prison.

The FDA has declared that any substance the cures a medical condition is a drug and can only be produced by a drug company. Our products are all elemental nanoparticles. The U.S. patent office will not permit a patent on an element, only a compound. For this reason, drug companies will only produce drugs that are compounds, never elemental nanoparticles. If a drug company will not make it, then it is not a drug and no claims can be made for it in the U.S.

The FDA and the U.S. government are the epitome of corruption beholden to the large pharmaceutical companies who pay huge bribes (contributions) to politicians to write laws that keep the drug companies protected in the market place. The purpose of doctors and drug companies to produce products to "treat" medical conditions, not cure the problem. A cured patient is not a returning customer. They want to treat you forever until you die or your medical insurance runs out, which ever comes first. Most drugs don't work. Most drugs treat symptoms, not the underlying cause. Health care in this country is second largest scam on earth and the politicians, doctors and big pharma want to keep it that way. Any product that cures a medical condition is a threat to their cash flow.

Any questions?

Nope... no questions here. It's all pretty clear to me...

Get unbiased information at www.silvermedicine.org. They are not selling a product, just providing information.

The Federal Reserve Act: Read it for yourself...

2006-06-07T13:07:00.000-04:00

Don't take my word for it. Don't take G Edward Griffin's word for it... Read the Federal Reserve Act yourself, directly on the Fed's web site.

Here's a brief breakdown of the first few sections:

SECTION 1. Short Title and Definitions

In this section, we see that "Wherever the word 'bankÂ' is used in this Act, the word shall be held to include State bank, banking association, and trust company, except where national banks or Federal reserve banks are specifically referred to." This means that the State is a banking institution, and it means that the State, in conjunction with private banks, run the Fed. This section--in defining "bank" as it does, sets up the Fed as a central banking monopoly and puts the State in the mix as a part of that monopoly.

SECTION 2. Federal Reserve Districts

This section serves to eliminate any power of the Branch banks and centralize it all in the Federal bank (which, of course, includes the State).

SECTION 2A. Monetary Policy Objectives

"The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates."

The Fed has most definitely failed miserably in their stated objectives. For instance--stable prices... A 1900-dollar is worth less than 3 cents today due to the Fed's inflationary policies. In the last 10 years, our dollar has lost 20% of its purchasing power.

SECTION 3. Branch Offices

This further centralizes power over the board of governors in the National and State bank and takes it away from branch banks. The Board of Governors of the Federal Bank, which is appointed by the State (a member of the monopoly) is given supreme power over all of the operations of the branch banks. Even the directors of the branch banks can be fired at will. "Directors of branch banks shall hold office during the pleasure of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System."

So let's see... so far we have a central banking cartel that includes the State... We have centralized and supreme power over the entire system in the hands of a few people who more or less appoint themselves, and they have failed in their stated objectives. Keep reading the rest of the act yourself.

If you can get through the lawyer-speak, you will also see that they can create and/or destroy money at will. They must issue a report to Congress but they are not bound to take any direction from Congress whatsoever. They may create 9 times the amount of money that is authorized by the Treasury for the the purchase of government bonds to sell at interest to private sector banks. In "unusual and exigent circumstances," the Federal Reserve bank may create money for any purpose whatsoever.

According to their own definition (this is not word-for-word from their site, but it's implicit in their language): the Federal Reserve System is a central banking cartel that includes several private banks and our own Federal Government.

What is the Real ID? Why we MUST fight it...

2006-05-30T13:47:00.000-04:00

What is the Real ID? This link provides a pretty good overview. The Real ID is a national ID card that will essentially continue the trend of federal government growth and expansion of centralized power. Starting two years from now as of the current date, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. Practically speaking, your driver's license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards.

The Real ID Act hands the Department of Homeland Security the power to set these standards and determine whether state drivers' licenses and other ID cards pass muster. Only ID cards approved by homeland Security can be accepted "for any official purpose" by the feds.

Why should we fight against it?

The REAL ID Act establishes a national ID card by mandating that states include certain minimum identification standards on driver’s licenses. It contains no limits on the government’s power to impose additional standards. Indeed, it gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to unilaterally add requirements as he sees fit.

Supporters claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary. However, any state that opts out will automatically make non-persons out of its citizens. The citizens of that state will be unable to have any dealings with the federal government because their ID will not be accepted. They will not be able to fly or to take a train. In essence, in the eyes of the federal government they will cease to exist. It is absurd to call this voluntary.

This bill establishes a massive, centrally-coordinated database of highly personal information about American citizens: at a minimum their name, date of birth, place of residence, Social Security number, and physical and possibly other characteristics. What is even more disturbing is that, by mandating that states participate in the “Drivers License Agreement,” this bill creates a massive database of sensitive information on American citizens that will be shared with Canada and Mexico!

This legislation gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to expand required information on driver’s licenses, potentially including such biometric information as retina scans, finger prints, DNA information, and even Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) radio tracking technology. Including such technology as RFID would mean that the federal government, as well as the governments of Canada and Mexico, would know where Americans are at all time of the day and night.

There are no limits on what happens to the database of sensitive information on Americans once it leaves the United States for Canada and Mexico - or perhaps other countries. Who is to stop a corrupt foreign government official from selling or giving this information to human traffickers or even terrorists? Will this uncertainty make us feel safer?

What will all of this mean for us? When this new program is implemented, every time we are required to show our driver’s license we will, in fact, be showing a national identification card. We will be handing over a card that includes our personal and likely biometric information, information which is connected to a national and international database. (source)

Convinced? Good, we only have 2 years before this is going to become a reality...

It should be obvious that the legislature is not going to stand up for us on this in any meaningful way. We cannot rely on the ACLU to do it for us, either. The only way to oppose it will be organized resistance on the part of the people. tens of millions of us must simply refuse to accept it, and pass a refferendum that overturns it.

In my view, what would be a helpful first step to convince people to oppose the Real ID is a description of what it is, the fact that it is inevitably going to happen, and a succint list of reasons why it is imperative to oppose the Real ID. Mass distribution a flyer/pamphlet with such information would be a good idea. Ron Paul made a speech in congress opposing the Real ID Bill. Some of that speech is posted above. I suggest using it to create bullet points.

Once a core group of people in your community are aware of the issue and concerned about it--the next step is organizing community action groups and holding public forums to continue to spread the word. This must happen in every community around the nation. Once the issue is known and the public is galvanized around it, a public refferendum must be proposed and voted upon nationally to overturn the bill. Isolated groups of people refusing to carry the Real ID will simply be ostracized, marginalized, and quite probably arrested and detained.

Without an organized grassroots effort to spread this information and enact a plant of resistance, there is nothing we can do but sacrafice ourselves to the internment camps that Halliburton is building for the Gov't to deal with "an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S." Those who refuse the Real ID will become "illegal immigrants" and most likely be sent to these internment camps.... Because you're either with us or against us. You're either a US citizen (as evidenced by your Real ID) or you're against the USA. Anyone failing to carry a Real ID card will, in the eyes of the federal government, cease to exist as a US citizen. This will become law in two years unless we act NOW.

I repeat: this resistance must happen in every community around the nation. Unfortunately, our society is set up to discourage people from taking this sort of action, as is evidenced by such common thought as... Activists are crazy granola crunching liberal hippies, you don't want to be a crazy granola crunching liberal hippy, do you!?!? Besides, there is just too much else to be concerned with. People are just too busy with their own lives, their jobs, their friends, their kids, their posessions, their television programs, etc... It's just too much of a sacrafice for people to dedicate themselves to grassroots community action. "It could never happen here" afterall... This is a free country! We must all see through this bullshit and take action. It can happen here. IT IS HAPPENING HERE. this is how what's left of our "democracy" works, and this might be one of the last fights left that it is still possible to fight and win. Are we up to the task? Time will tell...

How US Dollars are Created

2006-05-12T10:44:00.000-04:00

Most everyone would agree that money makes the world go round. But how many of us understand what makes the money go round? The text below is an excerpt from G Edward Griffin's The Creature From Jekyll Island. It describes a process that he calls "The Mandrake Mechanism," named after the cartoon character "Mandrake the Magician." Mandrake the Magician could make things appear out of thin air, and then cause them to vanish again on a whim. This is very similar to the way that the American money system works.

Many people categorize Griffin's views as "right-wing extremism." But what this boils down to to me is as follows: If humanity is to survive and prosper, honest people must prevail. No matter what your "ism" or your idealistic bent is, honest people must prevail in order for justice to be served. I think it's not too much of a stretch to suggest that most people would also agree that the powers that be do not rule with honesty as their highest principle. Most Americans think that all politicians lie--even the ones that they support. So this raises the question: what is the root of the dishonesty in our government? The answer: our monetary system.

So many people believe they are being lied to, but so few people understand that foundation for that lie... In fact I would be willing to venture a guess that many Americans still think our money is backed by gold or silver (which it hasn't been since 1933)... The text below explains the way in which most of the US Dollar money supply is created. It is factual and 100% verifiable as truth. The only conclusion that one can logically draw from this information is that our money system is based on lies and is the root of most of the dishonesty in our society.

---------------

THE MANDRAKE MECHANISM: A DETAILED VIEW

Start with...

GOVERNMENT DEBT

The federal government adds ink to a piece of paper, creates impressive designs around the edges, and calls it a bond or Treasury note. It is merely a promise to pay a specified sum at a specified interest on a specified date. As we shall see in the following steps, this debt eventually becomes the foundation for almost the entire nation's money supply. In reality, the government has created cash, but it doesn't yet look like cash. To convert these IOUs into paper bills and checkbook money is the function of the Federal Reserve System. To bring about that transformation, the bond is given to the Fed where it is then classified as a..

SECURITIES ASSET

An instrument of government debt is considered an asset because it is assumed the government will keep its promise to pay. This is based upon its ability to obtain whatever money it needs through taxation. Thus, the strength of this asset is the power to take back that which it gives. So the Federal Reserve now has an "asset" which can be used to offset a liability. It then creates this liability by adding ink to yet another piece of paper and exchanging that with the government in return for the asset. That second piece of paper is a..

FEDERAL RESERVE CHECK

There is no money in any account to cover this check. Anyone else doing that would be sent to prison. It is legal for the Fed, however, because Congress wants the money, and this is the easiest way to get it. (To raise taxes would be political suicide; to depend on the public to buy all the bonds would not be realistic, especially if interest rates are set artificially low; and to print very large quantities of currency would be obvious and controversial.) This way, the process is mysteriously wrapped up in the banking system. The end result, however, is the same as turning on government printing presses and simply manufacturing fiat money (money created by the order of government with nothing of tangible value backing it) to pay government expenses. Yet, in accounting terms, the books are said to be "balanced" because the liability of the money is offset by the "asset" of the IOU. The Federal Reserve check received by the government then is endorsed and sent back to one of the Federal Reserve banks where it now becomes a..

GOVERNMENT DEPOSIT

Once the Federal Reserve check has been deposited into the government's account, it is used to pay government expenses and, thus, is transformed into many...

GOVERNMENT CHECKS

These checks become the means by which the first wave of fiat money floods into the economy. Recipients now deposit them into their own bank accounts where they become..

COMMERCIAL BANK DEPOSITS

Commercial bank deposits immediately take on a split personality.

On the one hand, they are liabilities to the bank because they are owed back to the depositors. But, as long as they remain in the bank, they also are considered as assets because they are on hand. Once again, the books are balanced: the assets offset the liabilities. But the process does not stop there. Through the magic of fractional-reserve banking, the deposits are made to serve an additional and more lucrative purpose. To accomplish this, the on-hand deposits now become reclassified in the books and called..

BANK RESERVES

Reserves for what? Are these for paying off depositors should they want to close out of their accounts? No. That's the lowly function they served when they were classified as mere assets. Now that they have been given the name of "reserves," they become the magic wand to materialize even larger amounts of fiat money. This is where the real action is: at the level of the commercial banks. Here's how it works. The banks are permitted by the Fed to hold as little as 10% of their deposits in "reserve." That means, if they receive deposits of $1 million from the first wave of fiat money created by the Fed, they have $900,000 more than they are required to keep on hand ($1 million less 10% reserve). In bankers' language, that $900,000 is called..

EXCESS RESERVES

The word "excess" is a tip off that these so-called reserves have a special destiny. Now that they have been transmuted into an excess, they are considered as available for lending. And so in due course these excess reserves are converted into..

BANK LOANS

But wait a minute. How can this money be loaned out when it is owned by the original depositors who are still free to write checks and spend it any time they wish? The answer is that, when the new loans are made, they are not made with the same money at all. They are made with brand new money created out of thin air for that purpose. The nation's money supply simply increases by ninety per cent of the bank's deposits. Furthermore, this new money is far more interesting to the banks than the old. The old money, which they received from depositors, requires them to pay out interest or perform services for the privilege of using it. But, with the new money, the banks collect interest, instead, which is not too bad considering it cost them nothing to make. Nor is that the end of the process. When this second wave of fiat money moves into the economy, it comes right back into the banking system, just as the first wave did, in the form of..

MORE COMMERCIAL BANK DEPOSITS

The process now repeats but with slightly smaller numbers each time around. What was a "loan" on Friday comes back into the bank as a "deposit" on Monday. The deposit then is reclassified as a "reserve" and ninety per cent of that becomes an "excess" reserve which, once again, is available for a new "loan." Thus, the $1 million of first wave fiat money gives birth to $900,000 in the second wave, and that gives birth to $810,000 in the third wave ($900,000 less 10% reserve). It takes about twenty-eight times through the revolving door of deposits becoming loans becoming deposits becoming more loans until the process plays itself out to the maximum effect, which is..

BANK FIAT MONEY = UP TO 9 TIMES GOVERNMENT DEBT

The amount of fiat money created by the banking cartel is approximately nine times the amount of the original government debt which made the entire process possible. When the original debt itself is added to that figure, we finally have...

TOTAL FIAT MONEY = UP TO 10 TIMES GOVERNMENT

The total amount of fiat money created by the Federal Reserve and the commercial banks together is approximately ten times the amount of the underlying government debt. To the degree that this newly created money floods into the economy in excess of goods and services, it causes the purchasing power of all money, both old and new, to decline. Prices go up because the relative value of the money has gone down. The result is the same as if that purchasing power had been taken from us in taxes. The reality of this process, therefore, is that it is a..

HIDDEN TAX = UP TO 10 TIMES THE NATIONAL DEBT

Without realizing it, Americans have paid over the years, in addition to their federal income taxes and excise taxes, a completely hidden tax equal to many times the national debt! And that still is not the end of the process. Since our money supply is purely an arbitrary entity with nothing behind it except debt, its quantity can go down as well as up. When people are going deeper into debt, the nation's money supply expands and prices go up, but when they pay off their debts and refuse to renew, the money supply contracts and prices tumble. That is exactly what happens in times of economic or political uncertainty. This alternation between period of expansion and contraction of the money supply is the underlying cause of..

BOOMS, BUSTS, AND DEPRESSIONS

Who benefits from all of this? Certainly not the average citizen.

The only beneficiaries are the political scientists in Congress who enjoy the effect of unlimited revenue to perpetuate their power, and the monetary scientists within the banking cartel called the Federal Reserve System who have been able to harness the American people, without their knowing it, to the yoke of modern feudalism.

RESERVE RATIOS

The previous figures are based on a "reserve" ratio of 10% (a money-expansion ratio of 10-to-1). It must be remembered, however, that this is purely arbitrary. Since the money is fiat with no previous-metal backing, there is no real limitation except what the politicians and money managers decide is expedient for the moment. Altering this ratio is the third way in which the Federal Reserve can influence the nation's supply of money. The numbers, therefore, must be considered as transient.

At any time there is a "need" for more money, the ratio can be increased to 20-to-1 or 50-to-1, or the pretense of a reserve can be dropped altogether. There is virtually no limit to the amount of fiat money that can be manufactured under the present system.

NATIONAL DEBT NOT NECESSARY FOR INFLATION

Because the Federal Reserve can be counted on to "monetize" (convert into money) virtually any amount of government debt, and because this process of expanding the money supply is the primary cause of inflation, it is tempting to jump to the conclusion that federal debt and inflation are but two aspects of the same phenomenon. This, however, is not necessarily true. It is quite possible to have either one without the other.

The banking cartel holds a monopoly in the manufacture of money. Consequently, money is created only when IOUs are "monetized" by the Fed or by commercial banks. When private individuals, corporations, or institutions purchase government bonds, they must use money they have previously earned and saved. In other words, no new money is created, because they are using funds that are already in existence. Therefore, the sale of government bonds to the banking system is inflationary, but when sold to the private sector, it is not. That is the primary reason the United States avoided massive inflation during the 1980s when the federal government was going into debt at a greater rate than ever before in its history. By keeping interest rates high, these bonds became attractive to private investors, including those in other countries.15 Very little new money was created, because most of the bonds were purchased with American dollars already in existence. This, of course, was a temporary fix at best.

Today, those bonds are continually maturing and are being replaced by still more bonds to include the original debt plus accumulated interest. Eventually this process must come to an end and, when it does, the Fed will have no choice but to literally buy back all the debt of the '80s -- that is, to replace all of the formerly invested private money with newly manufactured fiat money -- plus a great deal more to cover the interest. Then we will understand the meaning of inflation.

On the other side of the coin, the Federal Reserve has the option of manufacturing money even if the federal government does not go deeper into debt. For example, the huge expansion of the money supply leading up to the stock market crash in 1929 occurred at a time when the national debt was being paid off. In every year from 1920 through 1930, federal revenue exceeded expenses, and there were relatively few government bonds being offered. The massive inflation of the money supply was made possible by converting commercial bank loans into "reserves" at the Fed's discount window and by the Fed's purchase of banker's acceptances, which are commercial contracts for the purchase of goods.

Now the options are even greater. The Monetary Control Act of 1980 has made it possible for the Creature to monetize virtually any debt instrument, including IOUs from foreign governments. The apparent purpose of this legislation is to make it possible to bail out those governments which are having trouble paying the interest on their loans from American banks. When the Fed creates fiat American dollars to give foreign governments in exchange for their worthless bonds, the money path is slightly longer and more twisted, but the effect is similar to the purchase of U.S. Treasury Bonds. The newly created dollars go to the foreign governments, then to the American banks where they become cash reserves. Finally, they flow back into the U.S money pool (multiplied by nine) in the form of additional loans. The cost of the operation once again is born by the American citizen through the loss of purchasing power. Expansion of the money supply, therefore, and the inflation that follows, no longer even require federal deficits. As long as someone is willing to borrow American dollars, the cartel will have the option of creating those dollars specifically to purchase their bonds and, by so doing, continue to expand the money supply.

We must not forget, however, that one of the reasons the Fed was created in the first place was to make it possible for Congress to spend without the public knowing it was being taxed. Americans have shown an amazing indifference to this fleecing, explained undoubtedly by their lack of understanding of how the Mandrake Mechanism works. Consequently, at the present time, this cozy contract between the banking cartel and the politicians is in little danger of being altered. As a practical matter, therefore, even though the Fed may also create fiat money in exchange for commercial debt and for bonds of foreign governments, its major concern likely will be to continue supplying Congress.

The implications of this fact are mind boggling. Since our money supply, at present at least, is tied to the national debt, to pay off that debt would cause money to disappear. Even to seriously reduce it would cripple the economy. Therefore, as long as the Federal Reserve exists, America will be, must be, in debt.

The purchase of bonds from other governments is accelerating in the present political climate of internationalism. Our own money supply increasingly is based upon their debt as well as ours, and they, too, will not be allowed to pay it off even if they are able.

EXPANSION LEADS TO CONTRACTION

While it is true that the Mandrake Mechanism is responsible for the expansion of the money supply, the process also works in reverse. Just as money is created when the Federal Reserve purchases bonds or other debt instruments, it is extinguished by the sale of those same items. When they are sold, the money is given back to the System and disappears into the inkwell or computer chip from which it came. Then, the same secondary ripple effect that created money through the commercial banking system causes it to be withdrawn from the economy. Furthermore, even if the Federal Reserve does not deliberately contract the money supply, the same result can and often does occur when the public decides to resist the availability of credit and reduce its debt. A man can only be tempted to borrow, he cannot be forced to do so.

There are many psychological factors involved in a decision to go into debt that can offset the easy availability of money and a low interest rate: A downturn in the economy, the threat of civil disorder, the fear of pending war, an uncertain political climate, to name just a few. Even though the Fed may try to pump money into the economy by making it abundantly available, the public can thwart that move simply by saying no, thank you. When this happens, the olds debts that are being paid off are not replaced by new ones to take their place, and the entire amount of consumer and business debt will shrink. That means the money supply also will shrink, because, in modern America, debt is money. And it is this very expansion and contraction of the monetary pool -- a phenomenon that could not occur if based upon the laws of supply and demand -- that is at the very core of practically every boom and bust that has plagued mankind throughout history.

In conclusion, it can be said that modern money is a grand illusion conjured by the magicians of finance in politics. We are living in an age of fiat money, and it is sobering to realize that every previous nation in history that has adopted such money eventually was economically destroyed by it. Furthermore, there is nothing in our present monetary structure that offers any assurances that we may be exempted from that morbid roll call.

Correction. There is one. It is still within the power of Congress to abolish the Federal Reserve System.

by G Edward Griffin

The Implementation of Global State-Capitalism and the Destruction of the Free Market

2006-05-08T09:34:00.000-04:00

The IMF and its lending "arm," the World Bank, are responsible for enforcing state-capitalist regimes on third world nations, and destroying the free-market system on the global scale. With the dollar as the world's reserve currency--and the currency that most IMF loans are issued in--the Federal Reserve simply creates dollars electronically and "gives" them to the IMF and World Bank. Via their policies, nations are required to build government owned public utilities and nationalize agriculture, relocating millions of people into government built and controlled settlements. These public institutions operate at a loss, requiring further loans from the IMF to ensure that these nations can make the interest payments on the original loans. These new loans of course not only fund further government expansion, implementing more programs which operate at financial loss and siphon money away from the private sector, but also go to make interest payments to the IMF, who had the Federal Reserve create the money out of thin air in the first place. The cycle is never-ending, and ensures that a free-market system will not develop anywhere in the world, while at the same time what is left of the free-market in the US is eroded by inflation.

This system was conceived by Fabian Socialists and implemented via the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944 and the complete elimination of a gold standard from all fiat currencies in 1971. The goal is one world fiat currency, one world government, and enforced "equality" on the lower classes (99% of the world's population). The New World Order may indeed be controlled by dark brotherhoods of Satanists and/or reptilian alien creatures, but the core of who is implementing the means to their goals are Fabian "Socialists," the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the IMF and World Bank. These are institutions that the public can expose and destroy through the non-violent means of education.

People must become educated about the nature of central banking systems and how they are affecting our lives. This, to me, is the single most important message that anyone who opposes the New World Order can spread. These are tangible systems that have been thoroughly analyzed by people like G Edward Griffin. These systems can be understood by any reasonably intelligent person who has the will to learn. And when enough people understand how these systems are destroying the free-market and eroding freedom and liberty, these systems can be eliminated.

My call to action: educate yourself, educate others. Do not let corruption and state-capitalism (socialism without true equality, administered by a totalitarian state) destroy the American ideals of justice, freedom, and liberty for all. People must learn that governments worldwide are mired in corruption and are controlled by a central banking cartel whose aim is one world government, one world currency, and the elimination of national and personal sovereignty. In short--totalitarianism on the global scale.

Armed with this knowledge, the honest and good people of the world (most of us) must overthrow the wicked and corrupt (few of us). The knowledge is there, and justice is still alive. We must sieze it before it is too late.

Gasoline Prices--Part II

2006-04-27T10:27:00.000-04:00

I overlooked what is possibly the most important thing to consider when discussing the price of a commodity in a given currency: the value of the currency itself... A contributing factor in the rise in the price of oil and gasoline and energy in general is the fall in the value of the dollar.

The inner workings of the economy are purposefully shrouded in semi-secrecy and confusing language. For instance, when you hear some economist talking about "Monetization of the Debt," do you have any idea what that means? How about "Exporting Inflation?" Until recently, I had no understanding of these concepts, though I'd heard them before...

Monetizing the debt simply means printing more money. Or in the modern world, electronically creating deposits in the US Treasury accounts. Or to put it even more simply--inflation. Devaluing the currency. When you introduce more currency into the market, it debases the value of the currency that is already there. Monetizing the debt is happening in LARGE quantities. Much of which we will no longer be able to accurately track as the Federal Reserve has discontinued the M3 Index. We print or electronically create more money, and our own government uses it to pay its debts. The dollar's status as the world's reserve currency (thanks to the US monetary hegemony) allows us to run up debt and then pay the interest on that debt by... creating more money... Making the value of that money smaller and smaller.

Exporting inflation is when foreign countries buy US Government Bonds or US Federal Reserve notes themselves. When the IMF and World Bank (now headed by Neo-con elitist Paul Wolfowitz) issue loans to foreign countries to help them out of financial hard times, this is exporting inflation. We have created more money and put it into the world economy, we simply haven't put it directly into the US economy, so the US inflation rates are not affected. But the purchasing power of the dollar is definitely affected, as most of the goods that we consume are produced internationally--not domestically. And if there are more of our dollars on the world market, each one of them is worth that much less, since we have a highly negative net trade balance with the rest of the world...

Both of these things above lead to the debasement of our currency. And they are both happening with GREAT frequency and in GREAT quantities.

Before the M3 Index was discontinued on March 23, there was about $10 trillion publicly in circulation in some form in the world. In 1996, there was just about $4 trillion publicly in circulation. That is an annual inflation rate of about 10%. In just 10 years, we more than doubled the amount of dollars that exist (either in physical Federal Reserve notes or in electronic bank transactions). What does this do to the dollars that you and I own? It makes them less valuable.

And look at the price of gold in recent times: click for chart. Is gold getting more valuable? No. Currencies are getting less valuable.

So why is gasoline getting more expensive? Part of the reason is that currencies themselves (especially the US Dollar) are getting less valuable... "Back in the day" when the dollar was backed by silver (one dollar = one ounce of silver), you could go down to the local filling station and hand them a dollar and you'd get about 4 gallons of gas in return. Today, our dollars are no longer backed by silver. If you go down to your gas station today and hand them a dollar, you will get about 1/3 of a gallon instead of 4. One ounce of silver today? Worth over $12... The same amount of silver still gets you the same amount of gasoline. The gasoline is not more expensive, the dollar just buys less...

So don't be so quick to jump on the "big oil is evil" bandwagon. Yes, they probably are all a bunch of evil shape-shifting lizard-people who want nothing other than to feed on the blood of your children... But as for gasoline prices in the real world... Consider the EPA. And consider the currency with which you are buying the gasoline...

Why Are Gasoline Prices Going Up?

2006-04-26T13:40:00.000-04:00

Damn those big oil companies, gouging us for every last penny at the pump! Well... They are... But you might be surprised to hear that it's the EPA that is largely responsible for the gas price crunch. How?

In 1979, the EPA began to use a chemical called MTBE in our gasoline in order to make it burn cleaner and pollute the air less. In 1990, to fulfill the requirements set by Congress' Clean Air Act, they bumped up the amount of MTBE in our gasoline. And as far as cleaning the air up is concerned, MTBE works! Just what'd you'd expect from those "crazy liberals" over at the EPA--they had a plan to clean up the air and by golly they did it!

Here's the kicker--MTBE has been found in drinking water all over the place and it is a carcinogen. "Oh, it won't kill you that much..." the EPA says... The EPA should have perhaps done some more thorough tests before they decided to saturate us and out gasoline with MTBE. They cleaned up our air, but polluted our water... Robbing Peter to pay Paul, anyone?

So now they are phasing out the use of MTBE as a gasoline additive. They will be replacing it with Ethanol, which oxygenates gasoline and makes it burn cleaner. Why they don't use Acetone is beyond me... But anyway... What this will do it require that refineries do not use MTBE, and instead use Ethanol. We simply don't have enough Ethanol to create enough gasoline this way. So there will be a supply crunch. Google search for MTBE + gasoline + stock.

In addition to the MTBE-phase-out induced supply crunch, refinery capacity itself is limited by the EPA. Due to environmental restrictions set by the EPA, no new refineries have been built for the past 3 decades. Instead existing refineries have had to handle the extra load created by our increased demand for gasoline and other refined products. And they are operating at or near full capacity, and have been for years. Refining oil has never been a very profitable business. Refineries are basically the middlemen, and can only mark up their products so much... And the EPA has made it very difficult for them to do business, imposing regulations up the wazoo. Of course these regulations are meant to protect you and me, but we saw how good they did with MTBE...

When hurricane Katrina knocked out some refineries in the Gulf, gas prices shot up overnight and stayed high until the IEA told Europe to release 2mbpd (including refined products) to the US... We literally use gasoline as fast as we can make it... And that puts the market in a very tenuous position. So any disruption in the supply side (like phasing out MTBE) or increase in the demand side (like the summer driving season) will affect prices. And when both of these things happen simultaneously... Well... Prices may well top $4 per gallon this summer. Bush said he would release some oil from the SPR (a very modest amount). This had a small effect on oil prices, but doesn't do a thing to help refinery capacities...

So the EPA is looking like quite the culprit here. And I'll bet you're shocked that I would be trying to deflect the blame from big oil, but allow me to don my tinfoil hat and you will see how they are actually orchestrating the whole thing. Of course I can't prove this, and if I could I'd likely disappear rather quickly. The EPA is a government agency. And (here's the crazy part) the government is more or less a business agency. So if the oil lobby were to say "Hey EPA, we need more refineries, make it happen," it would magically happen. But they have not said this. Why? Because they have us exactly where they want us. Everyone is casting the blame at them, but of course all of the intelligent people know the EPA is to blame, so they're not worried.

In the mean time, Americans are totally addicted to their products. We see gasoline consumption as an integral part of our way of life, and we would rather believe in stupid hoaxes like this rather than realize that if we all just scaled back our usage, demand would go down, the supply crunch would be over, and high prices would ease up... But as Americans are addicted to their cars like crack rock, prices are going up and up and they will continue to do so. And big oil likes it that way, and they have engineered it to be that way. There IS a supply crunch and it IS due to EPA messups and regulations, but if big oil wanted it changed, it would be changed. They have one of the most powerful lobbies in the world.

Things are they way they are because that is they way big oil wants it. And until a majority of the people say "We are sick of this crap," and decide to start walking more, biking more, and/or using public transportation more--nothing is going to change.

Some Thoughts on Iraq

2006-04-16T11:07:00.000-04:00

Iraq is not really a country. It is a piece of land with arbitrary borders that contains three separate groups of people with different beliefs and different values. Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds... They have always resented having to accept one government for all three groups. They do not want the "democracy" that the US is trying to install there. Sure, there are people who live there that identify as Iraqi before they identify as Sunni, Shiite, or Kurd. But the civil war that is being fought there currently is atributable to the fact that many of them are sick and tired of having one nationality forced upon three different groups of people. Saddam enforced a dictatorial rule. The US installed "democracy" attempts to have the three groups share dictatorial rule. But the reason there is still violence in Iraq (other than that which is instigated by US presence) is because these three groups of people do not want to live under one government. And certainly not under pressure from a fourth group that has no stake in their lives but seeks to profit from military and oil company involvement in their "country."

Abolish the Federal Reserve System

2006-04-03T11:34:00.001-04:00

For now, a link. Later I will provide some commentary...

A Talk by Edward Griffin, Author of The Creature from Jekyll Island

Introduction:
Mr. Griffin is a graduate of the University of Michigan where he majored in Speech Communication. He is the recipient of the Telly Award for Excellence in TV Production. He is the founder of the Cancer Cure Foundation and has served on the board of directors of the National Health Federation and the International Association of Cancer Victims and Friends. He is a contributing editor for the New American Magazine and is President of American Media, a publishing and video production company in southern California.

http://www.bigeye.com/griffin.htm

Editor's Note: Despite how intensely interesting I find the content of this link, I take no responsibility for said content for am I vouching that any of it is "true". I've read that Mr. Griffin is also a gold dealer, so take this with a grain of salt as to his own intentions.

American Liberalism - McDissent

2006-03-22T10:38:00.000-05:00

The "Liberal vs Conservative" paradigm has been manufactured by the establishment. The two viewpoints are presented in the media and other places in our culture, and people are invited to subscribe to one of the two ideologies. The action proposed by either instrument of these ideologies (Democrats for Liberal and Republicans for Conservative) are all sanctioned by the establishment. So to be a Liberal in the sense that you support the Democrats and their policies as the lesser of two evils or even that you support them as a good choice in your mind, you have chosen the establishment sponsored version of dissent. When you subscribe to a particular ideology, you have made a purchase with your intellectual capital. You have purchased... McDissent.

As a McDissenter, you are entitled to disagree vehemently with the current administration. You are entitled to march in the streets and protest the war. You are entitled to question our president and call him a liar. You are even entitled to claim that he wasn't fairly elected in the first place (he wasn't) and that the Democrats are losers for not pressing the issue of election fraud. The most extreme McDissenter will claim that Bush is responsible for 9/11 and call for his Impeachment (or impalement). An emboldened McDissenter can even (gasp) Vote Green!! I know it sounds crazy, but yes, you can be a McDissenter and not vote for one of the two major corporate parties. As long as you don't question the fabric of the system, you can support any action taken within the system.

The one thing a McDissenter is not entitled to do is question the dominant social order. That would be actual dissent. No, a McDissenter questions the actions of government, pressuring them to go in a different direction. But they never question the ideas that the dominant social order is founded upon. McDissent is patriotic. Dissent is revolutionary.

Patience in watching the development of geopolitical issues

2006-03-15T09:00:00.000-05:00

I have made a lot of noise about the Iranian Oil Bourse, or Kish International Oil Bourse (KIOB), and I write this now to remind myself and others that despite my and others' intial alarm, the events that are now unfolding may not have immediate and dire consequences, but will most likely spur the beginning of a long road down for the dollar and an increasing role for the Euro as a world reserve currency.

In January of 2006, Iran had this to say about their upcoming oil exchange:

"At the meeting, Dr Asemipur, the executor of the oil exchange project, and Salehabadi, secretary-general of the country's stock exchange, spoke about the different stages and the progress of the oil exchange.... the structure has to be defined in a way in which it is not limited to Iran's 2.5m barrels of oil but should bring the oil of the regional countries into the exchange and to present up to a ceiling of 25m barrels."

Also on 17 January, Jam-e Jam newspaper quoted Kamal Daneshyar, the chairman of the Majlis Energy Committee, as saying:

"At meetings held with Oil Ministry officials, it was decided that the first phase of the oil exchange will become operational within three months. In the first phase, the oil exchange will operate on a short-term basis, but, in the second phase, the exchange will become international and its activities will become very extensive."

And from William R. Clark:

"It is true that the ECB has a staunch anti-inflationary bias, but international oil transactions do not result in inflation pressures if those euros are being used outside the eurozone for oil sales. That is precisely what the US does - it exports its inflation, but unlike the EU, the US runs huge trade deficits. To suggest that the euro money supply can not be raised therefore the Kish International oil bourse can not function sets up a false dilemma..."

The volume of sales on the KIOB will likely open quite small--and in the beginning no crude oil at all will be traded there--only oil derivatives. However, where the problem arises is when the volume of transactions rises towards the 25 mbpd ceiling that Dr Asemipur and Salehabadi have stated. The US dollar money supply is increased by about 20% annually. This means that the number of dollars in circulation doubles about every 3½ years... If/when even 10% of the world's oil transactions were conducted in Euros, the oil money that is bankrolling this massive inflation and US deficit spending will be reduced significantlyy, and the Federal Reserve's policy of massive currency inflation will no longer be feasible. And when that happens--well, that's going to present some problems...

And so it's no coincidence that the M3 Monetary Aggregate will cease to be published by the Fed... Investors would likely throw up all sorts of red flags if the money supply increases began to slow and eventually reverse themselves. I'm pretty sure that the last time that happened was the Great Depression...

So when on March 21st (one day after the Bourse opens) when the world doesn't fall apart, don't simply start to ignore this issue. It will take years to develop and many geopolitical events in the interim will be in some way connected... At the very worst--it could mean World War III with some very interesting alliances and enemies... At the very best--it could mean very hard times for the USA and the re-emergence of a bi-polar world power system. Any way you slice it, we're teetering on the edge of great change...

I Thought This Was About Abortion?!?!

2006-03-14T10:27:00.000-05:00

Pro-life does not mean what people think it means. What is commonly called pro-life would be more accurately described as "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice."

The abortion issue as it is now being raised is an attempt to challenge Roe v Wade and swing the pendulum back in favor of states' rights vs federal gov't hegemony. In theory I agree that states should have more rights and responsibilities and that the federal gov't should be eviscerated or at least greatly reduced in size and power.

A wedge issue (abortion) has purposefully been chosen by the establishment to raise the states' rights issue so that people will take sides according to how they identify themselves in terms of the left/right paradigm. The left will side in favor of the federal government and the right will side in favor of the states (just like the slavery issue), when in actuality, it is in neither side's best interests to side with the federal gov't. The left is being duped into opposing states' rights. It is being done this way by design, and purposefully being done at exactly this point in time.

Why now? Because America's economic situation is quickly worsening... And with the alleged opening of the Iranian Oil Bourse in just one week, it's most likely going to continue to worsen. The empire will be broken. And if the people are united, they would easily be able to reclaim their government from the corporate/financial powers that have usurped it. But instead, things will likely degenerate into a second civil war. Martial law will be imposed. Civil liberties will be completely trashed. The dominant paradigm of society will continue to shift and morph in horrible ways. The abortion issue is being used to re-enforce the federal government's supreme jurisdiction over all people who reside in any of the states within its union.

There is seemingly no way around this, as people will cling to their identities in the left/right paradigm so fiercely that they will not see the new paradigm being formed in front of their eyes nor the current situation that is developing behind the curtain of the left/right paradigm. So for now--the big wedge issue is abortion. It's obvious to any rational thinking person that to be anti-choice is anti-American in the fullest. To limit another person's freedom based on your own definition of "life" is in direct opposition to the bill of rights. So the left, in defense of the bill of rights, will defend the federal government's power over state governments. The left will think that they are fighting for the truth and for justice. And in some way, they are. But at the essence of it--they are being controlled as pawns...

So if the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v Wade and returns some power over and responsibility for its own citizens to the States, all Americans will have won a victory. It bothers me deeply that people may have to lose their rights to obtain a safe and legal abortion in their own states for this victory to happen, and half of us will feel enraged and defeated anyway. But as no ban on abortion is ever going to stop its practice, and given how high the stakes are I think it's a trade-off that I can live with.

If the Supreme Court upholds Roe v Wade (which I suspect it will) the left will see it as a great victory... In actuality, Roe v Wade shifts the balance of power firmly in favor of a centralized and highly corrupted hegemonic power, subservient to the interests of the global elites and planning a paradigm shift that will be very unpleasant for all human beings. We are teetering on the edge of a very dangerous situation and the best way to lean has been totally obfuscated by years upon years of social conditioning that amounts more or less to mind-control.

Talk about a complex probelm...

Corporate Personhood

2006-03-11T13:09:00.000-05:00

Corporate personhood has been legally established by the supreme court's interpretation that the 14th amendment rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property guaranteed to people should also be guaranteed to corporations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Personhood

In my view, this is a result of the influence of money on our legal system and on our government. Our particular form of capitalism has developed through large sums of money being funneled through corporate accounts and back out to people, who recycle the money at banks and by exchanging it with corporations for goods, and also paying the government in the form of taxes. Corporate entities have basically "purchased" the rights that people are entitled to based on the nature of their dominant share of the economic activity that takes place. This dominant share of the economy has translated to a dominant share of our government and our legal system.

To remove the right of personhood from corporate entities is not to limit their right to make money or do business in any way. It simply states that the individual and collective rights of human beings will not be superseded by the rights of corporations. I think the vast majority of Americans, if they could be brought to understand this without superimposing the left vs right paradigm over it and dismissing the idea as "leftist" or "communist", would support the elimination of corporate personhood.

The Two Party System: A Grand Success

2006-02-22T12:23:00.000-05:00

What? I'm sure you expected me to call the two party system a dismal failure! But no. I insist that it is one of our greatest successes...

I think you have to look at what the goal of the two party system actually is in order to determine if it's failed or not. If you assume that the goal is representing the people as a democratic republic, then yes, it's a failure. In fact its failure in this respect is so utterly complete, that it's hard to believe that this was ever the goal in the first place.

In my opinion, representing the people as a democratic republic is not--nor was it ever--the goal of the two party system. The goal is simple: social control. The two party system is a tool of the global financial elites to maintain power over currency, systems of social conditioning, the mass-media, education, etc. In that respect the two party system is a grand success.

H.R. 4694 is an endeavor to make that success unchallengeable. Please contact your congressperson and demand that this bill be struck down with a vengeance. Otherwise the two party system is doomed to success, and that would be bad for all of the American people...

Open Letter to Tom Ashbrook

2006-02-18T10:36:00.000-05:00

So I wrote a letter to Tom Ashbrook after listening to his program on NPR, "On Point." His guest was Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria "Torrie" Clarke. She's recently published a book called "Lipstick on a Pig : Winning In the No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the Game." The subject of the conversation was transparency in the War in Iraq. Hearing the show made me sick to my stomach (read below to find out why), but I couldn't turn it off... I wanted to call in and call her out on this BS, but I was in the car for most of the program and by the time I got home, there was only a few minutes left. And as I found out later, it wasn't being broadcast live... Anyway, here's an e-mail that I sent to Tom Ashbrook later that evening.

Dear Tom,

First of all, let me say that I really enjoy your show, and I listen whenever I get the chance. I like both the format and the subject matter of the show.

Now, on to my unfortunate disappointment with your recent segment with Torie Clarke... I am insulted that she sat there talking about "transparency" regarding the Iraq War, and neither you nor any of your guests or callers pressured her to talk about the underlying motivation for the USA to attack Iraq, and for the current building tension with Iran.

Weapons of Mass Destruction and a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were popularized as the justifications for attacking Iraq. The media and government officials such as Torie Clarke keep us busy with in depth analysis of the process by which these weapons were searched for and the validity of the information behind it. But I believe that those reasons are nothing more than a smoke-screen for the petrodollar issues that surround both the war with Iraq and the current tensions with Iran.

Saddam Hussein began selling oil for Euros in September of 2000 in response to US sanctions. While Iraq sells only a small portion of OPEC's total, the precedent of any OPEC nation bucking the petrodollar hegemony could not be allowed to be set, lest the dominoes be set up to fall... But there was no way to obtain public support for war with Iraq--because talking about the petrodollar is for some reason taboo in America.

After the horrific and tragic events of 9/11, the American people were rightfully scared, and the "weapons of mass destruction" claim was something that--in our state of fear--we viewed as an immediate and direct threat to our safety. WMDs were used to manufacture public consent for this war, while the petrodollar reasons for war, which are at least as much if not more of a threat to our way of life, were completely ignored by Torie Clarke, you, and the rest of the mainstream media. And she has the nerve to even say the word transparency...

We have an even more dangerous situation brewing in Iran--the imminent opening of the Iranian Oil Bourse. This new oil exchange, unlike NYMEX and IPE, the only two places where oil is currently available, will deal in Euros. This could be devastating to the US currency, as China and other nations could begin to diversify their reserve holdings and sell off hundreds of billions of dollars. Any nation will be able to buy or sell oil for Euros instead of dollars on this exchange. And this could bring the dollar down in flames. But this information has not been made available to the American people...

Instead we are led to believe that Iran is producing weapons of mass destruction, and the instabilities of the Middle East are laid out in front of us by the media morning, noon, and night, seemingly without reprise... Again, the US Government has the American people's consent to take aggressive action against Iran to protect the dollar without ever disclosing the main reason for this action. Transparency indeed... Opacity is more like it...

Of course, since neither the mainstream media nor our History textbooks ever mention the petrodollar or its importance to (or should I say singular responsibility for) the value of the Federal Reserve Note, it's possible that people may simply not understand even if told plainly and simply... But in order to be truly "transparent," Torie Clarke would be obligated to explain it all to us. The American people deserve to know, and yes--we can handle the truth. We are at war to protect our currency, and no one in the media or the US Government can make the claim of "transparency" until this is made public.

Sincerely,
Me

Iranian Oil Bourse Clarifications

2006-02-12T22:09:00.000-05:00

Some messages I've received from some people make me think that there is still some confusion over the Iranian Oil Bourse and its status as a threat to the Federal Reserve note (US Dollars).

Currently, oil is sold only on two commodities markets worldwise. They NYMEX in New York, and the IPE in London. Both of these exchanges deal in dollars only. Nations wishing to purchase crude must make these purchases in US dollars. This is what is known as the Petrodollar system. Nations buy large quantites of US dollars and hold them in their central banks as "reserve currency" to use for oil purchases. These dollars are funnelled through the IPE and NYMEX exchanges into mostly Saudi coffers, and then re-sold on the world market to the very same countries wishing to hold dollars in reserve for oil purchases.

The Iranian Oil Bourse, set to open on March 20, 2006, will be an international exchange market. ANY NATION will be able to BUY OR SELL oil for EUROS INSTEAD OF DOLLARS. This is not about Iran selling their 2 million or so barrels per day for Euros... This is about Iran opening an international petroleum exchange that threatens the very fabric of how American currency retains its value. The Gold Standard was abandoned in 1933. But any time anyone wants to buy oil, they must first have dollars. The dollar is backed by international oil purchases. Without these dollar purchases by other nations, the dollar's value would drop like a stone--as we are running a $450 billion dollar annual budget deficit added to our already astronomical $8.2 trillion dollar debt. In short, our currency only retains its high value because other nations "buy" large portions of that debt and use the dollars to buy oil.

Most people are not aware of how the federal reserve currency system operates. Some people still believe their dollars are backed by gold. And most people probably don't give it a second thought. This is by design:

"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States" -- Sen. Barry Goldwater (Rep. AR)

"The few who understand the [Federal Reserve] system, will either be so interested from its profits or so dependant on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." -- Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

Money makes the world go round. And oil makes the money go round. And the less American citizens know about it, the better, as far as the Federal Reserve bank is concerned. If the president got on TV and said, "My fellow Americans... I regret to inform you that our economy is run by private banking institutions. We must now make war with Iran to prevent our money--which is printed and regulated by these private banking instutions--from loosing all of its value. I hope you understand that we are powerless against the will of the Federal Reserve system. Please continue to live in a perpetual state of debt. The most patriotic thing every American can do would be to take out a second mortgage on their home..." People would be outraged...

Well, people should be outraged. If Iran opens their Oil Bourse as planned, we are going to war with Iran to protect our currency. In that respect, this war with Iran is actually in the national security interests of the US. As for any other official "reason" you may hear for war with Iran--take it with a grain of salt... You--as an American citizen--have a job: spend more money than you earn. Hold large chunks of debt that accrue interest. Make money for the world elites who own the federal banks. Being informed is not in your job description. Well I think it's time for people to say--take this job and shove it.

We can't handle the truth--or can we?

2006-02-10T11:31:00.000-05:00

The US spent $441 billion on military expenditures in fiscal year 2006. The rest of the world combined spent about $500 billion... I think it's time for American citizens to stop thinking that there are any real and direct threats to our physical safety that can be prevented by more military expeditions or by military action. We have already won the game of "who can build the biggest army." We are about $375 billion per year ahead of our next closest competitor...
(source)

So then why are Americans so afraid?? Well, because of terrorism, of course... Ok, so let's take an honest look at the most horrific terrorist attack ever on US soil... Even if you buy the government's official story on 9/11--a nation didn't fly those planes into the towers. Terrorists did. US nukes and military spending offer no protection against acts of terrorism. Yet that is how the bush admin is trying to combat terrorism--with military aggression against nations, and unparalleled defense spending.

And if you look just slightly below the surface, 9/11 is not that hard to understand... Iraq started selling oil for Euros in September of 2000 in protest of US sanctions (source). The reprehensible 9/11 attacks manufactured sufficient consent amongst the public for the US to go to war with Iraq. The attacks were perpetrated by Saudis--15 of the 19 hijackers were saudis (source). The Saudis directly benefit from the petrodollar recycling system (source) and it was in both their and the US's best interests to stop Iraq from doing so--by removing Saddam from power. The organization that benefits most from the petrodollar recycling system is the Federal Reserve (source). They have vast influence over both the US and Saudi governments. The war in Iraq was made possible by a so-called terrorist attack on US soil perpetrated by a nation (Saudi Arabia) who was similarly economically threatened by Iraq's shift from the dollar to the Euro. The Federal Reserve--via Saudi Arabia and the US--had to send a message to other OPEC nations that a challenge to the petrodollar hegemony would not be tolerated. 9/11 was a horrific sacrifice made by the global elites of the New World Order in order to save the US dollar from total collapse.

Look at the current situation in Iran. They are preparing to open an oil bourse where ANY nation can buy or sell oil for Euros via the Internet (source). This is a vastly larger threat to the petrodollar hegemony than one nation (Iraq) selling oil for dollars. You'll notice that there is TONS of anti-Iranian sentiment in the news right now (and NO mention of the Iranian Oil Bourse). After this disgusting display of violent protest over the Danish-published Mohammed cartoon, I think even those on the left in America would feel that war with Iran is totally justified. Let's not forget: the Federal Reserve banks own a controlling share of the mass media (source, scroll down to 2.4). They are either engineering events and stories to manufacture consent for the next phase of the currency war in Iran or misreporting real events in such a way that Americans believe Iran is a direct and present threat to our physical safety. In actuality, they are a direct and present threat to our economic safety.

Thankfully (sort of)--we have their domestic nuclear program and their crazy-ass president (no doubt being over-represented as crazy by the global banking elites to drum up anti-Iranian feelings in the rest of the world) to scapegoat for this phase of the currency war, so another 9/11-type event will not be necessary to manufacture public consent for war. Media and geopolitical manipulation has been perfectly sufficient for that purpose...

Read Ed Haas' analysis of how we can stop this. I am in no way affiliated with him--we have come to the same conclusions based on our own independent research.

CNN Probably did not broadcast a black X over Dick Cheney's Face

2006-02-06T00:20:00.001-05:00

It was reported in the blogosphere that a CNN glitch caused a black "X" to flash over Dick Cheney's face--exactly at the moment when he was saying that criticizing the government is OK... that's more ironic than an Alanis Morisette tune... A little TOO ironic for me...

Did anyone actually see the black X with your own two eyes? On live television? i think this story was a hoax. it was either propagated by right-wing blogs, or the corporate media is all but denying that it ever happened. i will attempt to prove it.

according to the blogosphere, according to the major network newsmedia, it apparently never happened. the only place you will find coverage of this controversial event is in the blogosphere. search for "black x cnn dick cheney fox abc cbs nbc" on Google and in over 329,000 matches, it does not return but 3 or 4 links to a major news network... here are the top 10 URLs that the search returns on google:

dailypundit.com
worldnetdaily.com
drudgereport.com
thepoliticalteen.net
shopmetrospy.com
jokaroo.com
despardes.com
pandagon.net
www.katu.com
whatshappeningatcnn.blogspot.com

katu.com is ABC affiliate station from portland oregon broadcast cnn's "apology". they post no link to cnn.com substantiating the apology. there is no proof that cnn actually responded... KATU is owned by Fisher Communications, who does own several CBS and ABC affiliate stations and several AM and FM stations in the pacific northwest.

several thousand links down, there is a link to abcnews.go.com:
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=1340823
it's the same story as you'll find on katu.com--with no link to CNN.com to substantiate that CNN recognizes that this apology ever happened. http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=81349

whatshappeningatcnn.com only has the fabricated apology from CNN--no story about the original event... they link to broadcastingcable.com as the source for their information. however, the source that they provide: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA443557.html?display=Breaking+News&referral=supp -- provides no information whatsoever about the black X over cheney's face. it's talking about a CNN producer dropping the f-bomb during the democratic convention when some baloons didn't drop at the right time...

nothing on fox.com or foxnews.com, nothing on bbc.com, nothing on alternet.org. msn.com barely touches on it--also just returning ONE page that's just the bogus apology--which they claim is from the associated press. ap.org does not have anything listed for the story. perhaps it's in their pay archives, but even if it was there--the story has no link to a statement on cnn.com. the apology--the only thing the corporate news media reported on--is not substantiated by the broadcaster. don't you think that's the ONE thing they would want to get their proper PR spin on??

CNN doesn't even care enough to respond to it themselves. in all likelihood, they did not make the apology because the black X over cheney's face did not happen. unless someone credible saw it with their own two eyes and/or has video of the event, i think that either the entire thing did not happen at all... or the corporate news media is doing their best to pretend that it didn't.

State of the Union Clarifications

2006-02-01T09:44:00.000-05:00

Wow, what a complete load of crap... But as I don't have all day to dissect it, I'll offer two points of clarification--on energy. What Bush said was that we would reduce by 75% the amount oil that we get from the Middle East by 2025... Let's look at what this really means...

If he had said "we will reduce our oil imports by 75% by the year 2025" that would be something to talk about... But he did NOT say that we would reduce our oil imports by 75%. Nor did he say that we would aim to reduce consumption by even 1%.

Out of 14 million barrels per day of imported oil in 2005, approximately 3 million came from the Persian Gulf. EIA Source. That's about 20% of our total oil imports. So, by 2025, we are supposedly going to reduce that number by 75%. So in 20 years, we will only be importing 750 thousand barrels per day from the Middle East. However, domestic production will likely be in the realm of 6-7 million barrels per day or less by then and we will have to increase imports from elsewhere. Canada, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc... This move does nothing to break our oil addiction. It only says that we will buy less from the dealers that we don't buy that much from as it is...

Bush also said that he wants to replace much of our gasoline with Ethanol... Let's look at some Ethanol facts... You get approximately 35% more energy from Ethanol than it takes to produce the Ethanol in the first place. Or, if you want to use the numbers from Ethanol.org, you get 77% more energy than you put in. For the sake of argument, let's average out the two numbers, and say you get 50% more energy than you put in. Sounds pretty good. So lets say that we wanted to run a 90/10 gasoline/ethanol mix in the US. We use 146 billion gallons of gasoline each year (source). In order to replace 10% of that gasoline with ethanol, we would need 14.6 billion gallons of ethanol. This would require about 4.5 billion bushels of corn (one bushel of corn = about 3.25 gallons of ethanol (source). The US currently produces about 10 billion bushels per year. So we're talking about 45% of our domestic corn production (most of which feeds our cattle) now going towards energy... Other feedstocks will be used (sugarcane, switchgrass, wood, etc), but corn will be doing most of the work. So in this way we would displace 14.6 billion gallons of gasoline with ethanol (roughly speaking - a gallon of ethanol contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline).

Remember though--just because the net energy gain is positive doesn't mean it doesn't take fossil fuel energy to make the ethanol. So you can't just take that 14.6 billion gallons and write it off as energy profit... Assuming a 50% net energy gain on Ethanol, the net savings is about 5 billion gallons of gasoline if all of the gasoline we sold were sold as an E-10 blend. So this would correspond to about a 3.5% savings in total gasoline usage. To reduce 35% of our gasoline usage with ethanol, we'd have to increase corn, switchgrass, and sugarcane production by about 500%, and find something else entirely to feed our cattle with. We'd need what, about 2 or 3 times the amount of arable land that we currently have in all of the USA devoted to feedstock to replace just 1/3rd of our domestic gasoline usage with ethanol? Doesn't seem like a very good solution to me... A small step in the right direction at this point in the game is FAR too little and much too late.

Warrantless Wiretapping is Illegal and Unneccessary

2006-01-25T11:12:00.000-05:00

{i copied and pasted this entire thing. i will rarely do this, but this is a goldmine. i maintain that there is NO situation in which a warrantless wiretap is neccessary. wiretap all you want! but file a warrant... the FISA court lets us place a wiretap immediately and gives us 3 days after the tap has been placed to obtain a warrant. we must keep our government accountable for it's actions.}

1. Bush did not violate the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act)

TALKING POINT: Bush's secret, warrantless spying on Americans is consistent with FISA statutes.

FACT: Utterly and completely false. The administration has repeatedly admitted that what they did violates the FISA statutes (and so did some of its legal defenders).

TALKING POINT: The wording of the FISA statute allows the Bush administration to do what they did.

FACT: False.

TALKING POINT: FISA allows unlimited warrantless surveillance of American citizens and U.S. permanent residents ("U.S. persons").

FACT: False.

TALKING POINT: Bush's actions are not scandalous since the administration retroactively informed the FISA court about its spying.

FACT: False.

2. Bush did not break the law

TALKING POINT: Bush's secret, warrantless spying on Americans is constitutional and legal.

FACT: False and false. In fact, the administration's withholding critical information from Congress was also likely a crime, one that violated the National Security Act. Not to mention, it appears that the warrantless spying was started even without a Presidential Executive Order and possibly even before 9/11.

TALKING POINT: Bush did not violate the National Security Act by not briefing appropriate members of Congress.

FACT: False.

TALKING POINT: Warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence have been carried out previously.

FACT: First of all, the issue here is not foreign intelligence but intelligence on U.S. persons. Secondly, warrantless physical searches relating to foreign intelligence were not illegal per the FISA in 1994, but were made illegal subsequent to that through a Clinton-supported update to the FISA law in 1995.

TALKING POINT: The warrantless spying on Americans was legal since the Justice Department signed off on it.

FACT: Separate from the fact that the Justice Department is not the final legal authority in the US (the Supreme Court is), senior Justice Department officials objected to at least parts of the spying program and the special FISA judge complained about some aspect of the program. In fact, acting Attorney General James Comey objected to some provisions of the illegal spying in 2004 and the Bush administration went to John Ashcroft for his approval even though Ashcroft was in hospital. Apparently Ashcroft was also reluctant to give blanket approval and "in early 2004, about the time of the hospital meeting, the White House suspended parts of the surveillance program for several months and moved ahead with more stringent requirements on the National Security Agency on how the program was used."

TALKING POINT: The 9/18/01 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) by Congress gave the President the right to order secret, warrantless wiretaps and searches on U.S. persons.

FACT: False, false, false and false. Further, as Glenn Greenwald has noted: "In the case of Breuer v. Jims Concrete of Brevard, 538 U.S. 691 (2003), the Administration vehemently (and successfully) argued in a Brief to the U.S. Supreme Court (.pdf), signed by Bushs own Solicitor General, Theodore Olson, that a statute (such as FISA) cannot be "amended by implication" in the absence of clear Congressional intent to amend it."

TALKING POINT: Per Article II of the Constitution, Bush's spying program was legal.

FACT: False.

TALKING POINT: An Appeals Court (In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001) ruled that FISA could not encroach on the president's "authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

FACT: This is a grossly misleading point. FISA encroaches on the President's ability to violate FISA, but does not control what else the President can do in accordance with the Constitution, that is outside the scope of FISA. The Constitution, on the other hand, prohibits the President from doing warrantless spying on Americans. As Media Matters points out (emphasis mine): "Of course a law passed in 1978 would not trump the Constitution -- the supreme law of the land. The question is whether Bush, as president, has the constitutional authority to authorize warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and legalized aliens, notwithstanding FISA's restrictions. Contrary to [John] Schmidt's suggestion, the case he cited does not address that question."

TALKING POINT: An Appeals Court ruled in the Truong case that the Executive had the right to secretly wiretap or spy on Americans without a warrant.

FACT: False. The Truong case related to an incident that occurred before the FISA law was passed (and the court acknowledged that). Once the FISA law passed in 1978 such spying was declared illegal.

TALKING POINT: In the case United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan et al. (1972), the court ruled that warrantless spying on Americans is constitutional.

FACT: False. The court ruled exactly the opposite.

TALKING POINT: Based on historical (legal) evidence, Bush has the authority under the Constitution to spy on Americans without a warrant.

FACT: False. Moreover, since Bush's actions violated Congressionally enacted FISA statues, as Glenn Greenwald explains: "...The issue is not whether the President has this authority to eavesdrop without a warrant but whether it is legal for him to do so in the face of a Congressional law which makes it a crime to engage in such conduct. And none of the authorities they cite conclude that the President has such a royal power. Not one." In the case Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer (1952), the Supreme Court specifically held that: "the President does not have the right to exercise his "inherent executive authority" in contravention of Congressional law." As Justice Jackson said: "The Executive, except for recommendation and veto, has no legislative power."

TALKING POINT: Congress cannot authorize something that needs to remain classified.

FACT: False.

3. History shows American Presidents have the power to violate the law, especially in times of war

TALKING POINT: Courts have ruled that the limitations imposed by FISA on the President, especially in times of war, are unconstitutional.

FACT: False.

TALKING POINT: In a time of war, the President has a blank check to break the law in order to "protect the country".

FACT: This claim is completely false and has been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on more than one occasion.

TALKING POINT: Presidents should be allowed to break the law under certain circumstances.

FACT: If you are an America-hater, yes. But if you are an American, no. [Certainly if the President happens to be a Democrat, Republicans have a history of loudly saying NO.]

4. History shows that other Presidents like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter did the same by overriding FISA

TALKING POINT: Bill Clinton bypassed FISA to order warrantless physical searches of Americans.

FACT: False and false.

TALKING POINT: The Clinton administration's Jamie Gorelick claimed that the President has the "inherent constitutional ability to order wiretapped searches".

FACT: False.

TALKING POINT: Bill Clinton "exercised the same authority" as Bush.

FACT: False.

TALKING POINT: Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter authorized warrantless wiretapping/spying on Americans.

FACT: Totally and completely false.

TALKING POINT: Bill Clinton and Jamie Gorelick (who was in the Clinton Justice Department) argued that Clinton had the power to ignore FISA.

FACT: False and false. As Judd Legum (Think Progress) noted: "Both her testimony and in the Legal Times quote [sic], were about physical searches. In 1994, the FISA did not cover physical searches. She was explaining what the Presidents authority was in the absence of any congressional statute. She wasnt arguing that the President had the authority to ignore FISA. In 1995, with President Clintons signature, FISA was amended to include physical searches. That law prohibited warrantless domestic physical searches. No one in the Clinton administration, including Gorelick, ever argued that the administration could ignore the law, before or after it was amended."

TALKING POINT: Bill Clinton bypassed the FISA law when Aldrich Ames' house was searched without a warrant.

FACT: False.

TALKING POINT: Bill Clinton's top secret Echelon project violated FISA and spied on Americans.

FACT: False and false (see #10 in the link).

5. Secret warrantless spying of Americans was/is required for national security reasons, since FISA was inadequate, and secret spying could have prevented 9/11

TALKING POINT: Secret, illegal, warrantless spying on Americans enhances our national security.

FACT: Certainly no more than secret, legal, warrant-based spying; further, the illegal spying actually threatens America's national security because of the aid and comfort it gives to real terrorist supporters when they go to court (not Bush's kangaroo courts but the real court system in the United States). It also makes it easier to challenge Government prosecutions against alleged criminals.

TALKING POINT: The warrantless illegal spying was required to monitor calls from Al Qaeda affiliated individuals overseas and Americans on US soil.

FACT: False. As Glenn Greenwald notes: "...that defense makes no sense because eavesdropping on conversations involving al Qaeda members is exactly the circumstance in which it would be most unnecessary to bypass the FISA court. For that reason, the Administration's claim that it only eavesdropped on conversations involving al Qaeda members simply cannot be reconciled with the Administrations claimed need to operate outside of FISA, since if FISA allows anything, it would allow eavsdropping on al Qaeda."

TALKING POINT: The illegal spying program could have prevented 9/11 by helping us rope in two 9/11 terrorists in San Diego.

FACT: False.

TALKING POINT: The illegal spying program could have helped us pick up two 9/11 terrorists who flew a plane into the Pentagon.

FACT: False.

TALKING POINT: The illegal spying program could have roped in Zacarias Moussaoui or Mohammad Atta and prevented 9/11.

FACT: False and false, not to mention Moussaoui (and Atta) were foreign nationals to whom FISA already applied and a FISA warrant was not obtained in Moussaoui's case because the Justice Department was not asked by the FBI to obtain a FISA warrant.

TALKING POINT: There was insufficient evidence to get a FISA warrant in the case of Moussaoui. A federal judge barred the FBI from accessing Zacarias Moussaoui's computer.

FACT: False and false.

TALKING POINT: The FISA law was inadequate and led to the FBI's not inspecting Moussaoui's personal effects.

FACT: False.

TALKING POINT: FISA's "probable cause" standard prevented the government from getting warrants in the Zacarias Moussaoui and Wen Ho Lee cases.

FACT: False. It was the FBI's (and DOJ's) misunderstanding of the FISA standard that prevented them from even asking for a warrant.

TALKING POINT: FISA required reform which had not happened even after 9/11.

FACT: False. Even though experts felt FISA required reform after 9/11, that already occurred via the Orwellian "PATRIOT" Act.

TALKING POINT: The FISA statute requires getting a warrant even for emergencies and the administration did not have one or two days to put together the paperwork to get such a warrant or wait for a judge.

FACT: False. The truth is the opposite. FISA allows warrantless surveillaince for up to 72 hours.

TALKING POINT: The FISA process is not fast or agile enough to catch terrorists or prevent terrorism.

FACT: Totally and completely false. In fact, FISA actually allows secret, warrantless spying for up to 72 hours, which is more than sufficient for emergencies and the FISA court has almost never rejected a request for a warrant. If the Bush administration wanted an extension to that they could have asked Congress to pass a FISA amendment. [Not to mention, it appears that the warrantless spying was started even without a Presidential Executive Order and possibly even before 9/11. If it was indeed started before 9/11, it certainly didn't prevent 9/11].

TALKING POINT: "This is a different era, different war. It's a war where people are changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they're moving quick. And we've got to be able to detect and prevent."

FACT: Highly misleading considering that FISA actually allows emergency wiretapping. Also see this set of posts by former CIA officer Larry Johnson who explains how U.S. intelligence agencies have in the past very successfully caught terrorists who keep switching phones, using roving wiretaps without having to break the law.

TALKING POINT: Terrorism is such a fundamentally new and unprecedented threat that it calls for extreme measures including giving up civil liberties.

FACT: False and false. (Other than revealing the fact that those making this argument are more often than not cowardly "bedwetters") The fact remains that the threat of terrorism, while substantial and requiring serious efforts to thwart it (as opposed to Bush's unprecedented incompetence on the matter), does not compare to the constant threat of large scale decimation during the Cold War. As former CIA officer Larry Johnson notes: "The "neo-conservative imperialists" live in a fantasy world where terrorism is the most deadly, horrific threat we have ever faced. Heavens, it is far worse than anything we faced back in the good old days of the Cold War. Yes sir, we only had thousands of nuclear tipped missiles on a hair trigger pointed at each other. Let's not forget the B-52s that were aloft with bombs in their bellies."

6. Secretly spying on foreigners is legal and constitutional

TALKING POINT: It has long been agreed that secret, warrantless spying on foreigners is constitutional and legal.

FACT: This is a misleading talking point. The issue is not whether the US Government can spy on foreigners without a warrant (it can). The issue is Bush's unconstitutional, illegal, secret spying on Americans (on American soil).

7. The secret spying only focused on Al Qaeda, terrorists and their supporters and one end of the intercepted communications was always in foreign soil

TALKING POINT: The "physics" of Bush's illegal spying operation was such that it only captured two-way communications with one end inside "foreign soil".

FACT: False.

TALKING POINT: The spying was restricted to a "small" number of Americans who had links to terrorists.

FACT: False.

TALKING POINT: The illegal wiretapping occurred only on calls originating from outside the U.S.

FACT: False.

TALKING POINT: The illegal wiretapping did not catch any purely domestic calls within the U.S.

FACT: False.

TALKING POINT: The illegal spying was required to monitor "calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches"

FACT: False and false. If this were true, where is the list of people who blew up commuter trains, weddings and churches? Why are these monsters being hidden from public view and why were they only "monitored" and not arrested and tried in court (or deported if necessary)?

8. The leak to the New York Times, of Bush's secret spying on Americans, was a crime and had nothing to do with whistleblowers

TALKING POINT: The revelations about illegal domestic spying were not from whistleblowers.

FACT: False (also see here). In fact some NSA officials were disturbed when they got to know about the illegal spying.

TALKING POINT: Confirming the NYT story on Bush's illegal spying on Americans would compromise national security.

FACT: False, false, false and false. Not only did Bush himself subsequently confirm the story, as Glenn Greenwald notes: "...this same George Bush over the last two years -- as he campaigned for his own re-election and then as he campaigned for the permanent renewal of the Patriot Act has repeatedly talked about, in detail, how we engage in surveillance against terrorists, how we try to eavesdrop on their communications, and what methods we have created and now use to monitor what they are doing and saying...Bush has done so in far greater detail than anything the Times said. Worse, Bush has made similar public disclosures with regard to countless other intelligence and surveillance techniques which we use against terrorists...[more] "

William Arkin notes: " I doubt that there is a terrorist out there who doesn't assume that the NSA is listening in on their communications..."

Former CIA officer Larry Johnson notes: "The fact that the NSA has the ability to listen to electronic conversations, such as phone calls and emails, has been public knowledge since the 1970s. Al Qaeda has known this for more than ten years. The authors of the Al Qaeda training manual dealt specifically with the need to take precautions to prevent their conversations from being captured by U.S. listening posts. If we are dealing with terrorists who don't realize their conversations could be intercepted then we are after people who really must be living in a cave."

TALKING POINT: The leak to the New York Times of the illegal spying program was a crime.

FACT: False. As Glenn Greenwald has explained, not only is it actually a crime to classify information in order to hide Government wrong-doing (like Bush did in this case), leaks of classified information may or may not be crimes depending on the objective of the leak. A leak that exposes a crime (like the one to the NYT that exposed Bush's criminal actions) easily falls into the category of a whistleblower action that is not criminal.

Further, as former CIA officer Larry Johnson notes: "Too bad George Bush did not express the same outrage when Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and others in his employ, told eager journalists that Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA operative. I guess divulging secrets is okay if the White House needs to discredit Joe Wilson and his claim (subsequently proved true) that the President had misled the nation during his January 2004 State of the Union address...Remember the name of Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan? His name was leaked to the New York Times in August of 2004 while Khan was still cooperating with Pakistani, CIA, and British authorities as part of a sting operation against Osama bin Laden's network. On the eve of the Republican convention, unnamed senior NSC officials told New York Times reporters that Mr Khan was being used to send e-mails to al-Qaida members as part of a coordinated effort to identify and dismantle terrorist networks. Just because this leak destroyed the secret program's effectiveness was no big deal because he helped remind Americans that George Bush was the only one who could keep us safe."

TALKING POINT: The leak to the New York Times of the illegal spying program was a crime because it compromised national security just like when "news media published a U.S. government leak in 1998 about Osama bin Laden's use of a satellite phone, alerting the al Qaeda leader to government monitoring and prompting him to abandon the device."

FACT: False. The bin Laden story is completely false.

TALKING POINT: Such spying issues should have been settled in private rather than leak it to the New York Times.

FACT: Some people did try to settle some of the spying in private but were threatened with loss of jobs.

9. Bush's critics are just partisan political hacks

TALKING POINT: The critics of President Bush are just partisan Democrats who have an axe to grind.

FACT: Utterly false. (Also see here, here, here, here, here and here).

10. Top Democrats in Congress supported the illegal spying

TALKING POINT: The Bush administration "repeatedly consulted" with Congress, including Democrats.

FACT: False.

TALKING POINT: Democratic leaders were aware of all the details of the illegal spying and they did not express any reservations.

FACT: False, false, false, false, false. Moreover, as Glenn Greenwald notes: "The Administration forced these Congressional Democrats to remain silent and are now using that forced silence as evidence of their approval of this program. That reasoning is appallingly corrupt."

11. You can trust Bush 100% to not misuse the spying program

TALKING POINT: Bush and his senior staff have always been honest about wiretaps and court orders.

FACT: False, false, false, false, false. Bush in particular has lied brazenly and repeatedly about the true nature of the program.

TALKING POINT: The Bush administration can be fully trusted to not misuse its powers when it illegally spies on Americans.

FACT: False, false and false (to cite just a few examples).

12. The debate is between those who seek civil liberties and those who seek security

TALKING POINT: The debate is between those who seek civil liberties and those who seek security

FACT: False. In fact, it is a debate between those who know that achieving national security does not have to come at the cost of giving away some of the most fundamental liberties enshrined in the U.S. constitution, and those who, in cowardly fashion, are willing to surrender to the beliefs of totalitarian, communist or fundamentalist regimes that believe that national security is only possible by getting rid of fundamental civil liberties.

Patriot Act Reauthorization - Say Goodbye to Due Process

2006-01-25T10:42:00.000-05:00

The reauthorization of the Patriot Act carries with it some new provisions. Notably, Sec. 605, the Uniformed Division, United States Secret Service.
There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the `United States Secret Service Uniformed Division'.

...

Under the direction of the Director of the Secret Service, members of the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division are authorized to--

...
`(B) make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony...

Their jurisdiction is limited to include the entire universe, depending on circumstances that can be created in any situation... What we have here is a police force that can make a warrantless arrest of anyone in the USA for any reason they or their superiors deem worthy. This not only eliminates accountability of the government for its own actions, but eliminates the paper trail of who is being arrested and why. Sure, this measure will make it easier to "fight terrorism," but if you don't think this will also be used to augment the FBI's Cointel program in arresting political dissidents, protestors, and subversives, well... I guess we'll never know since no one will be accountable for anything anymore...

Don't stand for this! Write a letter to your congressperson and demand that they NOT REAUTHORIZE THE PATRIOT ACT until all such provisions which eliminate the accountability of the federal government in the arrest and detainment of US citizens are removed.