Obama Win Will Not Change Rigged Economy

Ludicrous CNBC anchor tells economic expert “Gold has no inerrant value”, describes dire financial warnings as “fun”

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, Nov 4, 2008




In an incredulous display of ignorance symptomatic of the underlying causes of the financial crisis, CNBC anchors laughed their way through an interview with respected economist Peter Schiff yesterday as he attempted to explain how an Obama presidency would negatively impact the U.S. economy.
Erin Burnett and Mark Haines of CNBC’s Squawk on The Street persistently interrupted Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, barely allowing him to finish sentences or even complete thoughts as he sought to explain how ‘Obamanomics’ will not address the problems at the core of the crisis and will instead perpetuate them.
“If we have stronger Democratic control of congress, which certainly looks likely, I think that is going to make matters worse, because not only does it make it easier for Obama to get his agenda through, but it also makes it easier for the Congress to get their stuff through. There’s no checks and balances whatsoever.” Schiff explained.
“As an American I think it is a disaster. Not that I’m a big pro McCain supporter, I think McCain’s policies would also make the situation worse, but unfortunately, I think if we get Obama in there we get a much bigger mandate. When he comes into office, it’s going to be as if capitalism has been repudiated and the new mandate is that we need more government,” he continued.
“It wasn’t the free market, ” Schiff urged, referring to the cause of the economic crisis.
“Remember, if it wasn’t for the Federal Reserve, which is a government entity, keeping interest rates much too low, we never would have had a housing bubble, we never would have had a subprime market. If it wasn’t for Fannie and Freddie, which are creatures of government, we never would have had the moral hazard necessary to allow Americans to borrow more money than they can repay.” asserted Schiff, who served as an economic advisor to Congressman Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign earlier this year.
Schiff attempted to explain how returning the economy to the way it was a few years ago, as Obama has promised to do, is not feasible because it was based on a bubble of borrowing and spending vast amounts of money.
“Getting Americans spending and borrowing again, as Obama has urged, is not the cure, it is the disease… He’s going to try and create bigger government, borrow a lot more money from foreigners, and spend it on government programs designed to encourage even more consumption, and of course, he is going to raise taxes…” Schiff urged.
Schiff then had to explain once more that he was not endorsing McCain by criticizing Obama, much to the confusion of the anchors who clearly struggled to stretch their imaginations beyond a right-left political paradigm.
“What you’re proposing is never going to fly politically,” Mark Haines spluttered, underlining perfectly how neither candidate in this election is offering any real change, and only represents a continuation of the entrenched and failed system of big government intervention.
Switching gears to talk of investment, Erin Burnett then made perhaps the most inane statement possible for a financial journalist;
“Gold has no inerrant value, unlike oil which does. Gold only has any value in so far as I want to believe it has value.” she stated.
The fact that gold has maintained inerrant value since the dawn of civilization seems to have washed over Ms Burnett, who clearly believes that paper money, essentially an IOU based on the perception of its worth, is more valuable than a rare and precious metal.
Peter Schiff attempted to interject and explain that Burnett’s logic was totally backwards, that it is fiat money that only has value as long as you want to believe it has, but the anchor simply spoke over the top of him commenting “This is a fun conversation”.
“It’s provocative if nothing else.” added Haines dismissively.
Schiff has repeatedly warned that America is on the brink of a long and deep recession, the root causes of which are continually being touted as solutions by both Presidential candidates. To describe his warnings as “fun” is astoundingly twisted.
Schiff is well respected amongst the major financial publications, primarily due to the fact that almost three years ago he accurately forecast that the U.S. housing market was a bubble that would soon come to bust, and also that the crisis would extend to the credit lending industry.
Perhaps if more people had listened to voices like his several years ago, instead of laughing at them, which as we have seen is still the case, then the economy would not be in such a dire mess today and we may have a presidential candidate who speaks of enacting change and actually means it.
Instead the so called free world is today lumbered with a choice of voting for a phony messiah or a dead duck, both representative of the fortified and irradicable Washington elite punch and judy show.

The Complete Idiots Guide To The New World Order

E. Howard Hunt JFK Confession

Third Party Presidential Debate

Why the hell wasn't this aired on every fucking channel like they did with the fake debates between Obama and McCain? God damnit this election has done nothing but made me so fucking pissed off at the system i could pull my hair out! Go Nader! I really believe if they let the American people actually have a choice by having the third parties participate in the debates we wouldn't be stuck with just Obama and McCain, Coke and Pepsi.
AHHH!! The system is so corrupt and fucked up i could throw up!

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"- George Orwell


I recently a few days ago actually changed the saying at the top of my blog to that George Orwell quote, and how fitting to what happened to me a few days later.
Ha, it's really not a big deal but i guess in the overall bigger picture it is, cuz i've noticed this consistently with the Obama supporters.
Let me use the example of the Obama people in Missouri who were using the cops to arrest people who talked shit about Obama. No judge, no jury, your just bad and going to jail if you talk bad about Obama. Which is a total violation of the first amendment, if Obama thought it slanderous or a right out a lie on whatever is being said about him he has the right to take it to a court of law, not to just hire cops to go out and arrest people! That's called a fascist state, that's what Benito Mussolini or Hitler did.

Anyhow, I had two ObamaNation's come to the house looking for me the other day and were asking me if i was voting for Obama and Mark Udall. (Why the Colorado Democrats keep bugging me i have no idea, i left the Democratic Party over a year ago.) I told them no, and one guy gasped and said,"How dare you!" and the ladies jaw dropped open like i had just told her to go fuck herself and then she was like,"You have two kids and your not voting for Obama?" I said no again and then shut the door.
What the fuck? So they basically called me in so many words unAmerican for not voting for Mr. Fisa/Bankster Bailout/Brzezinski Obama.
These so called "liberals" should really practice what they preach.
Just thought it was funny to see the hypocrisy of the liberals in action.

Union Sundown
By Bob Dylan

Well, my shoes, they come from Singapore,
My flashlight's from Taiwan,
My tablecloth's from Malaysia,
My belt buckle's from the Amazon.
You know, this shirt I wear comes from the Philippines
And the car I drive is a Chevrolet,
It was put together down in Argentina
By a guy makin' thirty cents a day.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Well, this silk dress is from Hong Kong
And the pearls are from Japan.
Well, the dog collar's from India
And the flower pot's from Pakistan.
All the furniture, it says "Made in Brazil"
Where a woman, she slaved for sure
Bringin' home thirty cents a day to a family of twelve,
You know, that's a lot of money to her.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Well, you know, lots of people complainin' that there is no work.
I say, "Why you say that for
When nothin' you got is U.S.-made?"
They don't make nothin' here no more,
You know, capitalism is above the law.
It say, "It don't count 'less it sells."
When it costs too much to build it at home
You just build it cheaper someplace else.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Well, the job that you used to have,
They gave it to somebody down in El Salvador.
The unions are big business, friend,
And they're goin' out like a dinosaur.
They used to grow food in Kansas
Now they want to grow it on the moon and eat it raw.
I can see the day coming when even your home garden
Is gonna be against the law.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Democracy don't rule the world,
You'd better get that in your head.
This world is ruled by violence
But I guess that's better left unsaid.
From Broadway to the Milky Way,
That's a lot of territory indeed
And a man's gonna do what he has to do
When he's got a hungry mouth to feed.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Is the Federal Reserve Engaged in Acts of Economic Warfare Against America?
Wednesday, October 08, 2008 by: Mike Adams
(NaturalNews)

How the Fed creates money out of nothing




In 1942, German intelligence officers rounded up skilled Jewish prisoners and launched Operation Bernhardt, a clever scheme designed to counterfeit hundreds of millions of dollars worth of British Pounds and destroy the British economy by flooding it with counterfeit money. Located in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, Operation Bernhardt was, even by modern standards, a runaway success that resulted in the creation of forged bank notes worth 132 million British Pounds.
This "economic warfare" operation resulted in a devastating economic effect on the British economy. You can read the true history of this operation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_...
It is important to note that Operation Bernhardt was an act of war, specifically pursued for the purpose of destroying Britain's economy by creating so much new money that the value of the money already in circulation would plummet. This was considered a strategic attack, just as effective as carpet-bombing tank factories or mowing down soldiers on the field with German-made MG42 machine guns.
What does all this have to do with the Federal Reserve?
Today, the Federal Reserve is engaged in an eerily similar operation, counterfeiting trillions of dollars in U.S. bank notes and flooding the U.S. money supply with money created from nothing. The result, of course, is the same as was intended by Operation Bernhardt in 1942: The economic destruction of the target nation. Only this time, the target is the United States of America.
Hilariously, the Fed claims it's doing this to save the economy. Yet the laws of economics tell us that flooding the money supply with trillions of dollars in new money actually harms the economy. And the Fed has been hard at work causing this harm: $250+ billion two weeks ago, $600+ billion last week and $900 billion earlier this week! It's beginning to crank up the printing presses to the tune of a trillion dollars a week, and by doing so, it's contributing to the destruction of the U.S. economy at a pace the Third Reich could have barely imagined.

Has the Fed declared war on the working class?

If the actions pursued by the Federal Reserve were being masterminded by Al-Qaeda, they would be denounced as acts of war. In World War II, such actions were deliberate acts of war. Targeting the economy for destruction by flooding the money supply with counterfeit currency is, by any measure, a threat to any nation.
So why is the Federal Reserve engaged in actions that, if committed by other nations, would warrant a military response? This is not an idle question. I'm not asking this in a satirical way. I'm quite serious about this: Why is the Fed committing acts of economic warfare against the United States of America? (The Fed, by the way, is a private company. It is not, as you've been led to believe, part of the U.S. government.)
The answer is obvious. You've probably already figured it out: The Federal Reserve is at war with America. It's an economic war, of course, not a bombs-and-bullets war. The casualties, though, are just as real: Savings accounts, retirement funds, bank accounts, jobs, businesses, pensions and much more.
By counterfeiting trillions of dollars like a Sachsenhausen operation on steroids, the Fed is carpet-bombing the U.S. economy with an unprecedented flood of fiat currency, causing the exact same economic destruction intended by the Nazis in World War II (but on a much more devastating scale). And it's doing this as part of a new economic war.

Class warfare has begun

What war? The war between the wealthy elite and the working class. The Fed is working hard, of course, to protect the wealthy elite. Over a trillion dollars of taxpayer money has already been earmarked to bail out the rich, elite bankers who lost other people's money in a series of idiotic bets on fictitious financial instruments.
And what are these bankers doing with this taxpayer money? According to an Associated Press report published yesterday, executives of the failed insurance company AIG were sent on a $440,000 retreat "to a posh California resort" less than one week after the U.S. government bailed them out. At the spa, AIG executives enjoyed spa treatments, massages, organic food buffets and bodywork therapy, all while the American taxpayers footing the bill were slaving away in real jobs, doing real work. Want to see the invoice for yourself? View it here: http://www.naturalnews.com/images/AIG-i...
That's how this new class warfare is taking shape: YOU (the working class) get all the debt, all the losses, and all the financial burden. THEY (the wealthy elite) get all the profits, all the luxury spa treatments, all the tax breaks and billions of dollars in free money from the Federal Reserve.
In the 1942 Operation Bernhardt, the Germans literally planned to load hundreds of millions of dollars in British Pound bank notes and air-drop them over London. The resulting chaos, it was believed, would shut down the British economy, halting the flow of money needed by Britain to fund its war effort. In the United States today, the Fed is taking a different approach: Air-dropping trillions of dollars into the laps and bank accounts of wealthy bankers and financial institution CEOs, concentrating the massive creation of fiat currency into the hands of less than 1% of the population.
And just to make sure the economic carpet-bombing is a complete success, the Federal Reserve and U.S. government are conspiring to create more than a trillion dollars in new money each week, then flood those funds into banks, businesses and insurance companies. This will, of course, devastate the value of the dollars being saved, held or earned by the wage slaves who labor their lives away under this economic regime. (That would be you and me.)
It's a brilliant plan... if you're interested in destroying a nation. This kind of attack would bring almost any nation to its knees. It's an act of war that requires no violence, no bombs and no destruction of real infrastructure. And yet it achieves what every war in history has ever sought to achieve: The transfer of power from the hands of the many to the hands of the few.
The Federal Reserve, in effect, has become a modern-day economic Third Reich, and it has set its sights on the U.S. economy.

Acts of economic terrorism?

The Federal Reserve is now doing to the U.S. what the terrorists could never have accomplished: The destruction of a large portion of its economy, its currency and the savings of its people.
The economic losses of 9/11 pale in comparison to the financial destruction that has been unleashed onto America by the Federal Reserve.
Yet, amazingly, it wasn't "terrorists" who put this plan into place. Who was it, exactly? Your Congressional representatives played an important role in allowing this to happen. In a grand, historical betrayal of the American people, members of your own U.S. House of Representatives and Senate voted to initiate a massive economic coup in America, violating the wishes of 99% of the American people (who are aligned against bailing out the rich on the backs of the poor).
Of course, to hear them explain it, their actions are meant to save the taxpayers. Yep, that's their plan: To save YOU, the taxpayer, by confiscating your money and handing it over to the wealthy elite. And whatever money can't be stolen from the taxpayers will be counterfeited by the Fed's money-creation machine.

The Real Agenda: A Massive Transfer of Wealth

We are not watching an economic rescue, friends. We are watching an economic coup. Creating and dumping trillions of dollars into the money supply is an act of war. But it's a war with a specific purpose.
What's happening right now is that the United States is being taken over by King Henry and his accomplices. More than fifty percent of the housing and nearly twenty percent of the entire U.S. economy is now controlled by one person -- Henry Paulson -- and that person answers to no one. He isn't elected, he can't be removed from office, and he's subject to no law.
King Henry controls unlimited funds. He can print any amount of money, or confiscate any amount from the taxpayers (by spending taxpayer dollars to bail out his rich friends). If the Federal Reserve is the new Third Reich, King Henry is its Hitler.
The economic war has already been lost by the People. It was lost on September 30, 2008, when Congress surrendered the U.S. economy to King Henry. The People now own nothing but paper money and ephemeral digital account numbers, all of which could be turned into worthless digits overnight by a single decision from King Henry.
In this economic bailout and the Fed's unlimited creation of new money, America has suffered the greatest act of economic warfare in our nation's history. Note carefully that it wasn't conducted by the Nazis, Saddam Hussein or Al Qaeda. It was, in fact, put into place by 172 Democrats and 91 Republicans in the House, and a similar majority in the U.S. Senate.

Crash course on Gold, The Fed and how our currancy works

Ten Reasons Not To Bail Out Wall Street
Catherine,
Geopolitical, Life and News & Commentary,
October 1, 2008 at 6:10 pm
by Catherine Austin Fitts and Carolyn Betts, Esq.

(1) Crime that pays, is crime that stays.
There is reason to believe that Wall Street and those they represent are holding loans without collateral, multiple loans secured by the same properties, and other fraudulent instruments among the “troubled assets.” Based on the secret “Treasury Conference Call” with 800 Wall Street insiders, we know the deal proposed to be passed by Congress isn’t the real deal promised to Wall Street.
(2) This smells like obstruction of justice.
Bail-out without due diligence of so called “troubled assets” is a perfect way to hide documentation of financial crimes. It is also a perfect means to launder both the past ill-gotten gains and new federal money spent recklessly and without necessary safeguards and oversight mechanisms. Be very suspicious when they tell you “we just can’t tell what’s in these troubled assets.” We can assure you the federal government has field offices all across the country that deal with significant amounts of real estate and mortgage assets. If Treasury refuses for more than a decade to comply with the laws, with approximately $4 trillion missing (and counting), it is not competent to manage $700 billion of taxpayer money while its arm is twisted by Wall Street.
(3) Wall Street owes the federal government money.
We need to get stolen money back from the banks that served as depositories for the US government (including trillions for which the Pentagon and HUD could not account) and punish them, not create another opportunity for them to game the system and engage in criminal enterprises to rob consumers. To the extent there has been regulatory wrong-doing, let’s not let the miscreants leave town with the evidence.
(4) Good guys are shut out.
A bail-out provides no way for honest leaders to come to the fore and use their creativity and expertise to restore balance and integrity to the system or for unproductive and poorly-managed banks that contribute to current over-capacity to die a dignified death.
(5) More investment in the “bubble economy.”
Spending massive amounts on non-productive uses (“buying” worthless credit default swaps, mortgages with no collateral, other derivatives, that could even include the derivatives used to manipulate the precious metals markets ) as opposed to productive uses (repairing infrastructure, creating alternative energy systems, supporting inventing and production of “green” products) is inflationary.
This bail-out will drive prices of food, water and energy up for the people who can least afford it.
(6) Does not result in capital circulating in healthy ways.
The bail-out of Wall Street and too-big-to-fail banks and insurance companies that are getting bigger by the minute by swallowing up other failing financial institutions (and creating more institutions that are “too big to fail”) does not result in trickle-down to those whose money was stolen in recent swindles (S&L, dot.com, current housing crisis), i.e., the taxpayers/middle class and working poor.
(7) Arrangements that result in more corruption.
Centralized “fixes” are sure to result in black holes, no-bid contracts and other scandals.
(8) Drains the real economy, rather than invests in the real economy.
The US economy can’t be productive or grow if consumers don’t have jobs and can’t afford to purchase goods and services. Real stimulation of Main Street is accomplished through investment in productive investment, not bail-outs that shift money to unproductive sectors. We should use all of our precious resources to reinvest in our people in the real economy.
(9) It props up sectors which need to downsize and consolidate.
There is significant overcapacity in the financial and banking sectors. Brainpower and talent needs to stop blowing financial bubbles and shift to economic activities that create real value.
(10) It is a temporary “fix” to keep Wall Street afloat until after the election.
These resources are better invested in permanent, long-term solutions. This bail-out will not fix anything. Rather, it will help the perpetrators get away and ensure that the ultimate day of reckoning is worse.
The Administration wants to drain the real economy to bail out Wall Street. Seems to us that the more appropriate plan would be to require Wall Street to return $4 trillion plus that is missing and use that to rebuild the real economy.
We think the time has come to reverse the flow. Go to any business school in the country. That is what they teach. Money should move out of unproductive sectors into productive sectors. The bail-out does just the opposite.
“Just say NO!”

Jim Marrs on the Bailout and Suspension of election

Oh my god, I'm in the middle of reading Jim Marrs new book "The Rise Of the Fourth Reich" and G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature From Jekyll Island". Right now with the events going on as i speak, these are probably the two most scariest books i could be reading at the moment.
After listening to Saturday nights Coast To Coast show with Jim Marrs during the first hour i'm really starting to get a weird feeling. Cuz the chips seem to be all falling into place so to speak. Ian Punnet had Jim Marrs on to talk about the bailout and possible suspension of the election in the name of our financial crisis.

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all

Common Dreams April 24, 2007
Naomi Wolf


Last autumn, there was a military coup in Thailand. The leaders of the coup took a number of steps, rather systematically, as if they had a shopping list. In a sense, they did. Within a matter of days, democracy had been closed down: the coup leaders declared martial law, sent armed soldiers into residential areas, took over radio and TV stations, issued restrictions on the press, tightened some limits on travel, and took certain activists into custody.

They were not figuring these things out as they went along. If you look at history, you can see that there is essentially a blueprint for turning an open society into a dictatorship. That blueprint has been used again and again in more and less bloody, more and less terrifying ways. But it is always effective. It is very difficult and arduous to create and sustain a democracy - but history shows that closing one down is much simpler. You simply have to be willing to take the 10 steps.

As difficult as this is to contemplate, it is clear, if you are willing to look, that each of these 10 steps has already been initiated today in the United States by the Bush administration.

Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a hard time even considering that it is possible for us to become as unfree - domestically - as many other nations. Because we no longer learn much about our rights or our system of government - the task of being aware of the constitution has been outsourced from citizens' ownership to being the domain of professionals such as lawyers and professors - we scarcely recognise the checks and balances that the founders put in place, even as they are being systematically dismantled. Because we don't learn much about European history, the setting up of a department of "homeland" security - remember who else was keen on the word "homeland" - didn't raise the alarm bells it might have.

It is my argument that, beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society. It is time for us to be willing to think the unthinkable - as the author and political journalist Joe Conason, has put it, that it can happen here. And that we are further along than we realise.

Conason eloquently warned of the danger of American authoritarianism. I am arguing that we need also to look at the lessons of European and other kinds of fascism to understand the potential seriousness of the events we see unfolding in the US.

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

After we were hit on September 11 2001, we were in a state of national shock. Less than six weeks later, on October 26 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by a Congress that had little chance to debate it; many said that they scarcely had time to read it. We were told we were now on a "war footing"; we were in a "global war" against a "global caliphate" intending to "wipe out civilisation". There have been other times of crisis in which the US accepted limits on civil liberties, such as during the civil war, when Lincoln declared martial law, and the second world war, when thousands of Japanese-American citizens were interned. But this situation, as Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda notes, is unprecedented: all our other wars had an endpoint, so the pendulum was able to swing back toward freedom; this war is defined as open-ended in time and without national boundaries in space - the globe itself is the battlefield. "This time," Fein says, "there will be no defined end."

Creating a terrifying threat - hydra-like, secretive, evil - is an old trick. It can, like Hitler's invocation of a communist threat to the nation's security, be based on actual events (one Wisconsin academic has faced calls for his dismissal because he noted, among other things, that the alleged communist arson, the Reichstag fire of February 1933, was swiftly followed in Nazi Germany by passage of the Enabling Act, which replaced constitutional law with an open-ended state of emergency). Or the terrifying threat can be based, like the National Socialist evocation of the "global conspiracy of world Jewry", on myth.

It is not that global Islamist terrorism is not a severe danger; of course it is. I am arguing rather that the language used to convey the nature of the threat is different in a country such as Spain - which has also suffered violent terrorist attacks - than it is in America. Spanish citizens know that they face a grave security threat; what we as American citizens believe is that we are potentially threatened with the end of civilisation as we know it. Of course, this makes us more willing to accept restrictions on our freedoms.

2. Create a gulag

Once you have got everyone scared, the next step is to create a prison system outside the rule of law (as Bush put it, he wanted the American detention centre at Guantánamo Bay to be situated in legal "outer space") - where torture takes place.

At first, the people who are sent there are seen by citizens as outsiders: troublemakers, spies, "enemies of the people" or "criminals". Initially, citizens tend to support the secret prison system; it makes them feel safer and they do not identify with the prisoners. But soon enough, civil society leaders - opposition members, labour activists, clergy and journalists - are arrested and sent there as well.

This process took place in fascist shifts or anti-democracy crackdowns ranging from Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s to the Latin American coups of the 1970s and beyond. It is standard practice for closing down an open society or crushing a pro-democracy uprising.

With its jails in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, of course, Guantánamo in Cuba, where detainees are abused, and kept indefinitely without trial and without access to the due process of the law, America certainly has its gulag now. Bush and his allies in Congress recently announced they would issue no information about the secret CIA "black site" prisons throughout the world, which are used to incarcerate people who have been seized off the street.

Gulags in history tend to metastasise, becoming ever larger and more secretive, ever more deadly and formalised. We know from first-hand accounts, photographs, videos and government documents that people, innocent and guilty, have been tortured in the US-run prisons we are aware of and those we can't investigate adequately.

But Americans still assume this system and detainee abuses involve only scary brown people with whom they don't generally identify. It was brave of the conservative pundit William Safire to quote the anti-Nazi pastor Martin Niemöller, who had been seized as a political prisoner: "First they came for the Jews." Most Americans don't understand yet that the destruction of the rule of law at Guantánamo set a dangerous precedent for them, too.

By the way, the establishment of military tribunals that deny prisoners due process tends to come early on in a fascist shift. Mussolini and Stalin set up such tribunals. On April 24 1934, the Nazis, too, set up the People's Court, which also bypassed the judicial system: prisoners were held indefinitely, often in isolation, and tortured, without being charged with offences, and were subjected to show trials. Eventually, the Special Courts became a parallel system that put pressure on the regular courts to abandon the rule of law in favour of Nazi ideology when making decisions.

3. Develop a thug caste

When leaders who seek what I call a "fascist shift" want to close down an open society, they send paramilitary groups of scary young men out to terrorise citizens. The Blackshirts roamed the Italian countryside beating up communists; the Brownshirts staged violent rallies throughout Germany. This paramilitary force is especially important in a democracy: you need citizens to fear thug violence and so you need thugs who are free from prosecution.

The years following 9/11 have proved a bonanza for America's security contractors, with the Bush administration outsourcing areas of work that traditionally fell to the US military. In the process, contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars have been issued for security work by mercenaries at home and abroad. In Iraq, some of these contract operatives have been accused of involvement in torturing prisoners, harassing journalists and firing on Iraqi civilians. Under Order 17, issued to regulate contractors in Iraq by the one-time US administrator in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, these contractors are immune from prosecution

Yes, but that is in Iraq, you could argue; however, after Hurricane Katrina, the Department of Homeland Security hired and deployed hundreds of armed private security guards in New Orleans. The investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill interviewed one unnamed guard who reported having fired on unarmed civilians in the city. It was a natural disaster that underlay that episode - but the administration's endless war on terror means ongoing scope for what are in effect privately contracted armies to take on crisis and emergency management at home in US cities.

Thugs in America? Groups of angry young Republican men, dressed in identical shirts and trousers, menaced poll workers counting the votes in Florida in 2000. If you are reading history, you can imagine that there can be a need for "public order" on the next election day. Say there are protests, or a threat, on the day of an election; history would not rule out the presence of a private security firm at a polling station "to restore public order".

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

In Mussolini's Italy, in Nazi Germany, in communist East Germany, in communist China - in every closed society - secret police spy on ordinary people and encourage neighbours to spy on neighbours. The Stasi needed to keep only a minority of East Germans under surveillance to convince a majority that they themselves were being watched.

In 2005 and 2006, when James Risen and Eric Lichtblau wrote in the New York Times about a secret state programme to wiretap citizens' phones, read their emails and follow international financial transactions, it became clear to ordinary Americans that they, too, could be under state scrutiny.

In closed societies, this surveillance is cast as being about "national security"; the true function is to keep citizens docile and inhibit their activism and dissent.

5. Harass citizens' groups

The fifth thing you do is related to step four - you infiltrate and harass citizens' groups. It can be trivial: a church in Pasadena, whose minister preached that Jesus was in favour of peace, found itself being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service, while churches that got Republicans out to vote, which is equally illegal under US tax law, have been left alone.

Other harassment is more serious: the American Civil Liberties Union reports that thousands of ordinary American anti-war, environmental and other groups have been infiltrated by agents: a secret Pentagon database includes more than four dozen peaceful anti-war meetings, rallies or marches by American citizens in its category of 1,500 "suspicious incidents". The equally secret Counterintelligence Field Activity (Cifa) agency of the Department of Defense has been gathering information about domestic organisations engaged in peaceful political activities: Cifa is supposed to track "potential terrorist threats" as it watches ordinary US citizen activists. A little-noticed new law has redefined activism such as animal rights protests as "terrorism". So the definition of "terrorist" slowly expands to include the opposition.

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

This scares people. It is a kind of cat-and-mouse game. Nicholas D Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, the investigative reporters who wrote China Wakes: the Struggle for the Soul of a Rising Power, describe pro-democracy activists in China, such as Wei Jingsheng, being arrested and released many times. In a closing or closed society there is a "list" of dissidents and opposition leaders: you are targeted in this way once you are on the list, and it is hard to get off the list.

In 2004, America's Transportation Security Administration confirmed that it had a list of passengers who were targeted for security searches or worse if they tried to fly. People who have found themselves on the list? Two middle-aged women peace activists in San Francisco; liberal Senator Edward Kennedy; a member of Venezuela's government - after Venezuela's president had criticised Bush; and thousands of ordinary US citizens.

Professor Walter F Murphy is emeritus of Princeton University; he is one of the foremost constitutional scholars in the nation and author of the classic Constitutional Democracy. Murphy is also a decorated former marine, and he is not even especially politically liberal. But on March 1 this year, he was denied a boarding pass at Newark, "because I was on the Terrorist Watch list".

"Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that," asked the airline employee.

"I explained," said Murphy, "that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution."

"That'll do it," the man said.

Anti-war marcher? Potential terrorist. Support the constitution? Potential terrorist. History shows that the categories of "enemy of the people" tend to expand ever deeper into civil life.

James Yee, a US citizen, was the Muslim chaplain at Guantánamo who was accused of mishandling classified documents. He was harassed by the US military before the charges against him were dropped. Yee has been detained and released several times. He is still of interest.

Brandon Mayfield, a US citizen and lawyer in Oregon, was mistakenly identified as a possible terrorist. His house was secretly broken into and his computer seized. Though he is innocent of the accusation against him, he is still on the list.

It is a standard practice of fascist societies that once you are on the list, you can't get off.

7. Target key individuals

Threaten civil servants, artists and academics with job loss if they don't toe the line. Mussolini went after the rectors of state universities who did not conform to the fascist line; so did Joseph Goebbels, who purged academics who were not pro-Nazi; so did Chile's Augusto Pinochet; so does the Chinese communist Politburo in punishing pro-democracy students and professors.

Academe is a tinderbox of activism, so those seeking a fascist shift punish academics and students with professional loss if they do not "coordinate", in Goebbels' term, ideologically. Since civil servants are the sector of society most vulnerable to being fired by a given regime, they are also a group that fascists typically "coordinate" early on: the Reich Law for the Re-establishment of a Professional Civil Service was passed on April 7 1933.

Bush supporters in state legislatures in several states put pressure on regents at state universities to penalise or fire academics who have been critical of the administration. As for civil servants, the Bush administration has derailed the career of one military lawyer who spoke up for fair trials for detainees, while an administration official publicly intimidated the law firms that represent detainees pro bono by threatening to call for their major corporate clients to boycott them.

Elsewhere, a CIA contract worker who said in a closed blog that "waterboarding is torture" was stripped of the security clearance she needed in order to do her job.

Most recently, the administration purged eight US attorneys for what looks like insufficient political loyalty. When Goebbels purged the civil service in April 1933, attorneys were "coordinated" too, a step that eased the way of the increasingly brutal laws to follow.

8. Control the press

Italy in the 1920s, Germany in the 30s, East Germany in the 50s, Czechoslovakia in the 60s, the Latin American dictatorships in the 70s, China in the 80s and 90s - all dictatorships and would-be dictators target newspapers and journalists. They threaten and harass them in more open societies that they are seeking to close, and they arrest them and worse in societies that have been closed already.

The Committee to Protect Journalists says arrests of US journalists are at an all-time high: Josh Wolf (no relation), a blogger in San Francisco, has been put in jail for a year for refusing to turn over video of an anti-war demonstration; Homeland Security brought a criminal complaint against reporter Greg Palast, claiming he threatened "critical infrastructure" when he and a TV producer were filming victims of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. Palast had written a bestseller critical of the Bush administration.

Other reporters and writers have been punished in other ways. Joseph C Wilson accused Bush, in a New York Times op-ed, of leading the country to war on the basis of a false charge that Saddam Hussein had acquired yellowcake uranium in Niger. His wife, Valerie Plame, was outed as a CIA spy - a form of retaliation that ended her career.

Prosecution and job loss are nothing, though, compared with how the US is treating journalists seeking to cover the conflict in Iraq in an unbiased way. The Committee to Protect Journalists has documented multiple accounts of the US military in Iraq firing upon or threatening to fire upon unembedded (meaning independent) reporters and camera operators from organisations ranging from al-Jazeera to the BBC. While westerners may question the accounts by al-Jazeera, they should pay attention to the accounts of reporters such as the BBC's Kate Adie. In some cases reporters have been wounded or killed, including ITN's Terry Lloyd in 2003. Both CBS and the Associated Press in Iraq had staff members seized by the US military and taken to violent prisons; the news organisations were unable to see the evidence against their staffers.

Over time in closing societies, real news is supplanted by fake news and false documents. Pinochet showed Chilean citizens falsified documents to back up his claim that terrorists had been about to attack the nation. The yellowcake charge, too, was based on forged papers.

You won't have a shutdown of news in modern America - it is not possible. But you can have, as Frank Rich and Sidney Blumenthal have pointed out, a steady stream of lies polluting the news well. What you already have is a White House directing a stream of false information that is so relentless that it is increasingly hard to sort out truth from untruth. In a fascist system, it's not the lies that count but the muddying. When citizens can't tell real news from fake, they give up their demands for accountability bit by bit.

9. Dissent equals treason

Cast dissent as "treason" and criticism as "espionage'. Every closing society does this, just as it elaborates laws that increasingly criminalise certain kinds of speech and expand the definition of "spy" and "traitor". When Bill Keller, the publisher of the New York Times, ran the Lichtblau/Risen stories, Bush called the Times' leaking of classified information "disgraceful", while Republicans in Congress called for Keller to be charged with treason, and rightwing commentators and news outlets kept up the "treason" drumbeat. Some commentators, as Conason noted, reminded readers smugly that one penalty for violating the Espionage Act is execution.

Conason is right to note how serious a threat that attack represented. It is also important to recall that the 1938 Moscow show trial accused the editor of Izvestia, Nikolai Bukharin, of treason; Bukharin was, in fact, executed. And it is important to remind Americans that when the 1917 Espionage Act was last widely invoked, during the infamous 1919 Palmer Raids, leftist activists were arrested without warrants in sweeping roundups, kept in jail for up to five months, and "beaten, starved, suffocated, tortured and threatened with death", according to the historian Myra MacPherson. After that, dissent was muted in America for a decade.

In Stalin's Soviet Union, dissidents were "enemies of the people". National Socialists called those who supported Weimar democracy "November traitors".

And here is where the circle closes: most Americans do not realise that since September of last year - when Congress wrongly, foolishly, passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 - the president has the power to call any US citizen an "enemy combatant". He has the power to define what "enemy combatant" means. The president can also delegate to anyone he chooses in the executive branch the right to define "enemy combatant" any way he or she wants and then seize Americans accordingly.

Even if you or I are American citizens, even if we turn out to be completely innocent of what he has accused us of doing, he has the power to have us seized as we are changing planes at Newark tomorrow, or have us taken with a knock on the door; ship you or me to a navy brig; and keep you or me in isolation, possibly for months, while awaiting trial. (Prolonged isolation, as psychiatrists know, triggers psychosis in otherwise mentally healthy prisoners. That is why Stalin's gulag had an isolation cell, like Guantánamo's, in every satellite prison. Camp 6, the newest, most brutal facility at Guantánamo, is all isolation cells.)

We US citizens will get a trial eventually - for now. But legal rights activists at the Center for Constitutional Rights say that the Bush administration is trying increasingly aggressively to find ways to get around giving even US citizens fair trials. "Enemy combatant" is a status offence - it is not even something you have to have done. "We have absolutely moved over into a preventive detention model - you look like you could do something bad, you might do something bad, so we're going to hold you," says a spokeswoman of the CCR.

Most Americans surely do not get this yet. No wonder: it is hard to believe, even though it is true. In every closing society, at a certain point there are some high-profile arrests - usually of opposition leaders, clergy and journalists. Then everything goes quiet. After those arrests, there are still newspapers, courts, TV and radio, and the facades of a civil society. There just isn't real dissent. There just isn't freedom. If you look at history, just before those arrests is where we are now.

10. Suspend the rule of law

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 gave the president new powers over the national guard. This means that in a national emergency - which the president now has enhanced powers to declare - he can send Michigan's militia to enforce a state of emergency that he has declared in Oregon, over the objections of the state's governor and its citizens.

Even as Americans were focused on Britney Spears's meltdown and the question of who fathered Anna Nicole's baby, the New York Times editorialised about this shift: "A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night ... Beyond actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or any 'other condition'."

Critics see this as a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act - which was meant to restrain the federal government from using the military for domestic law enforcement. The Democratic senator Patrick Leahy says the bill encourages a president to declare federal martial law. It also violates the very reason the founders set up our system of government as they did: having seen citizens bullied by a monarch's soldiers, the founders were terrified of exactly this kind of concentration of militias' power over American people in the hands of an oppressive executive or faction.

Of course, the United States is not vulnerable to the violent, total closing-down of the system that followed Mussolini's march on Rome or Hitler's roundup of political prisoners. Our democratic habits are too resilient, and our military and judiciary too independent, for any kind of scenario like that.

Rather, as other critics are noting, our experiment in democracy could be closed down by a process of erosion.

It is a mistake to think that early in a fascist shift you see the profile of barbed wire against the sky. In the early days, things look normal on the surface; peasants were celebrating harvest festivals in Calabria in 1922; people were shopping and going to the movies in Berlin in 1931. Early on, as WH Auden put it, the horror is always elsewhere - while someone is being tortured, children are skating, ships are sailing: "dogs go on with their doggy life ... How everything turns away/ Quite leisurely from the disaster."

As Americans turn away quite leisurely, keeping tuned to internet shopping and American Idol, the foundations of democracy are being fatally corroded. Something has changed profoundly that weakens us unprecedentedly: our democratic traditions, independent judiciary and free press do their work today in a context in which we are "at war" in a "long war" - a war without end, on a battlefield described as the globe, in a context that gives the president - without US citizens realising it yet - the power over US citizens of freedom or long solitary incarceration, on his say-so alone.

That means a hollowness has been expanding under the foundation of all these still- free-looking institutions - and this foundation can give way under certain kinds of pressure. To prevent such an outcome, we have to think about the "what ifs".

What if, in a year and a half, there is another attack - say, God forbid, a dirty bomb? The executive can declare a state of emergency. History shows that any leader, of any party, will be tempted to maintain emergency powers after the crisis has passed. With the gutting of traditional checks and balances, we are no less endangered by a President Hillary than by a President Giuliani - because any executive will be tempted to enforce his or her will through edict rather than the arduous, uncertain process of democratic negotiation and compromise.

What if the publisher of a major US newspaper were charged with treason or espionage, as a rightwing effort seemed to threaten Keller with last year? What if he or she got 10 years in jail? What would the newspapers look like the next day? Judging from history, they would not cease publishing; but they would suddenly be very polite.

Right now, only a handful of patriots are trying to hold back the tide of tyranny for the rest of us - staff at the Center for Constitutional Rights, who faced death threats for representing the detainees yet persisted all the way to the Supreme Court; activists at the American Civil Liberties Union; and prominent conservatives trying to roll back the corrosive new laws, under the banner of a new group called the American Freedom Agenda. This small, disparate collection of people needs everybody's help, including that of Europeans and others internationally who are willing to put pressure on the administration because they can see what a US unrestrained by real democracy at home can mean for the rest of the world.

We need to look at history and face the "what ifs". For if we keep going down this road, the "end of America" could come for each of us in a different way, at a different moment; each of us might have a different moment when we feel forced to look back and think: that is how it was before - and this is the way it is now.

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands ... is the definition of tyranny," wrote James Madison. We still have the choice to stop going down this road; we can stand our ground and fight for our nation, and take up the banner the founders asked us to carry.

Ron Paul: Greenspan, Bernanke Should Be Criminally Charged
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, September 26, 2008

Congressman Ron Paul says that the bailout bill is likely to pass, heralding a 10-year plus economic depression for America and the potential for martial law should civil unrest arise as the financial meltdown worsens.



The Congressman said that Greenspan and Bernanke should be criminally charged but that such an effort would be largely symbolic. “Morally speaking, they’re the culprits,” said Paul.
Speaking on The Alex Jones Show, Paul said of the bailout, “They want dictatorship, they want to pass all the penalties and suffering on to the average person on Main Street,” adding, “We will have a depression or recession, it’s locked in place due to previous Federal Reserve actions.”
“When they say that if we don’t do exactly as they say and turn over more of our money and more of our liberties and exempt themselves from any court in the whole nation, they’re trying to intimidate us and lead us into doing the wrong thing,” said Paul.
The Congressman added that serious problems would arise if nothing was done to address the problem, but that more serious consequences would follow should the bailout be passed.
Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show. Part 2.

Paul warned that the only question was whether the meltdown would last one year or ten years and how much liberty would be lost in that time frame.
“It looks like from I see in Congress, that they’re opting for a decade plus of depression rather than saying let’s correct our ways, let’s balance the budget, let’s bring our troops home,” said Paul, adding that the same course of printing money would continue - prolonging the agony and preventing a necessary correction.
Asked if civil unrest was a possibility in the midst of an economic depression, referencing a recent Army Times report concerning the use of active duty military being brought back from Iraq for “Homeland patrols” and “crowd control,” Paul questioned, “Are we going to have martial law or are we going to have more freedoms? The more problems that we have, the more likely it is that we’re going to have martial law, so I do think they anticipate and they plan for these things.”
Asked if criminal investigations and prosecutions of individuals on Wall Street should commence, Paul agreed but said that the main target of criminal inquiry should be the Federal Reserve board itself because, “That’s where the fraud is.”
“They want to be lawless, they don’t want to be held accountable,” he added.
Paul said that grand juries should be convened to take on prosecutions rather than the FBI becoming involved, stating, “We have proper authority with that and experience with it and the Enron case is a good example.”
The Congressman said that Greenspan and Bernanke should be criminally charged but that such an effort would be largely symbolic. “Morally speaking, they’re the culprits,” said Paul.
Asked what his solution to the crisis would be, Paul said, “I think the most important thing to do is to send the message that we’re going to quit living beyond our means and the president can set the standard for that and he has the most control under the Constitution on foreign policy - he can say no more wars, we’re done with the wars, we’re not going to take on the Russians, we’re not going to take on people in Venezuela, we’re going to start talking to the Cubans and bring our troops home and save hundreds of billions of dollars - that would send a powerful message that the dollar would respond to and oil prices would come down.”
Paul said that Americans had to accept a new idea of government that harked back to what the founders envisaged and that the welfare state would have to unravel along with aspirations of building a geopolitical empire.
“In the meantime the policy ought to be - shrink the size of government, decrease regulation, work towards sound money, remove the authority of the Fed to create money out of thin air and get tax reduction,” stated the Congressman. Paul added that eliminating the income tax would mean everybody becoming a lot richer and more money would be ploughed into the economy.
“It will not solve the problem, it just delays the inevitable,” said Paul of the bailout, adding that he expects the bill to pass in a move that would, “Defy the American people.”
“I think they get to the point where they think they’re like God and can control everything and they don’t realize that the market really is more powerful than all the bankers and all the politicians….Ultimately the underground economy is the real economy and I think they could over step themselves and hopefully we could come out with a better world afterwards,” concluded the Congressman.

This was awesome last night! Richard Gage is the shit! We went to see 9/11- Blueprint for Truth with Richard Gage last night.
Most of his presentation i've watched here on YouTube on the video i've posted below, but he's updated it since the new NIST report on Building 7 came out and NIST basically said a giant lie, that fire melts steel.
But Richard Gage also played a close up of i think it was the North tower falling and it showed floor by floor the building being blown up! That was crazy, i'd never seen that video before but you can see it plane as day and everyone in the crowd gasped. It was nuts, later i came home and watched the video again on his website, cuz i didn't get too good of a look cuz we were kind of in the back. Crazy! CLICK HERE TO SEE THE VIDEO
Not to mention a key eyewitness recently died mysteriously, Barry Jennings, about a month ago a few weeks before the new NIST report came out. Below also is my Fabled Enemies Sneek Peek where they interviewed Barry and he was inside of Building 7 when the second plane hit the WTC, and he witnessed dead bodies in the building and bombs going off. I have the entire interview but until i get a video editor i can't put it up on YouTube cuz it's too long. I'm really surprised at the Q&A last night nobody brought up Barry's death.







The Barry Jennings Interview

Swaying to the rhythm of the New World Order

Oh my god check out this old banned Disney video where Donald Duck is a Nazi and they sing about Hitler's New World Order. I read about this video but today is the first time i've watched it. Pretty shocking to see Donald Duck hailing Hitler!

The more i listen to Bob Dylan the more i love him!

Man Of Peace
By Bob Dylan

Look out your window, baby, there's a scene you'd like to catch,
The band is playing "Dixie," a man got his hand outstretched.
Could be the Fuhrer
Could be the local priest.
You know sometimes
Satan comes as a man of peace.

He got a sweet gift of gab, he got a harmonious tongue,
He knows every song of love that ever has been sung.
Good intentions can be evil,
Both hands can be full of grease.
You know that sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace.

Well, first he's in the background, then he's in the front,
Both eyes are looking like they're on a rabbit hunt.
Nobody can see through him,
No, not even the Chief of Police.
You know that sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace.

Well, he catch you when you're hoping for a glimpse of the sun,
Catch you when your troubles feel like they weigh a ton.
He could be standing next to you,
The person that you'd notice least.
I hear that sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace.

Well, he can be fascinating, he can be dull,
He can ride down Niagara Falls in the barrels of your skull.
I can smell something cooking,
I can tell there's going to be a feast.
You know that sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace.

He's a great humanitarian, he's a great philanthropist,
He knows just where to touch you, honey, and how you like to be kissed.
He'll put both his arms around you,
You can feel the tender touch of the beast.
You know that sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace.

Well, the howling wolf will howl tonight, the king snake will crawl,
Trees that've stood for a thousand years suddenly will fall.
Wanna get married? Do it now,
Tomorrow all activity will cease.
You know that sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace.

Somewhere Mama's weeping for her blue-eyed boy,
She's holding them little white shoes and that little broken toy
And he's following a star,
The same one them three men followed from the East.
I hear that sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace.

Flashback: Ron Paul Warned Us of the Economic Collapse
I posted this whole 4 part interview on here a while back. Great interview, someone posted it again pointing out how Ron Paul warned us. Yeah, well he had been warning us for 20 years and no one listened until now.

World Narrowly Avoided "Financial Armageddon" Last Week
Monday, September 22, 2008
by: Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) According to insider traders speaking to the New York Post, the global financial system was only 500 trades away from experiencing a global meltdown -- "Financial Armageddon" -- which was narrowly halted by a last-minute capital infusion by the Fed. In other words, the financial house of cards we've been warning readers about very nearly collapsed last week. Had the Fed been one hour later in its rescue, huge sectors of the global economy would have collapsed and the riots would already be under way.
But we've all been handed a temporary reprieve by the Fed. Through its emergency (and artificial) intervention in financial markets, we now have extra time before reality unravels our global system of multi-trillion-dollar debt. Remarkably, the Fed has just handed you more time to protect yourself and avoid a total loss of all investments and bank deposits.
They haven't altered the laws of economics, however. Bad debt must still be paid. It can't be swept under the rug, nor swept into a giant "debt rescue fund" and simply forgotten. Ultimately, it will all come back to you and me -- the taxpayers.
Socializing losses, privatizing gains
In bailing out these financial institutions and preventing a global financial meltdown, the U.S. government has done something truly bewildering: They've socialized the losses and privatized the gains from financial institutions.
In other words, they've allowed the wealthy elite criminals who created these problems to walk away with their pockets stuffed full of profits. All the losses, however, are being distributed among taxpayers, who are now burdened with a multi-generational debt bill that's thrown on top of the existing $9 trillion in debt the U.S. already owes to world investors.
How's that for smart economic planning? We the taxpayers get ALL the losses, NONE of the gains, and NONE of the ownership if the company is sold in the future. It's such a bad business decision to invest in this way that you'd have to be smoking crack, shooting up heroin or sitting in the White House to even propose such a system.
It also appears that our financial decision makers have snorted up one too many kilos of smack, because -- get this -- they are now proposing that U.S. taxpayers bail our FOREIGN banks, too!Yes, friends, it's not just wealthy elite American bankers who deserve to walk home with all their gains while scattering their hundreds of billions of dollars in losses among American taxpayers; now our federal government is proposing that American taxpayers pay for all the losses of British banks, French banks, German banks, Japanese banks, Chinese banks and any other bank that suffered lending losses operating in the United States. See: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13690.html
It just keeps getting more bizarre by the day...Before last week, I was already concerned about the financial future of America. During last week, I was astonished. Today I'm flabbergasted. I've never seen any government pull so many debt tricks out of their magician's hat and sell it to the People using such blatant misdirection.
As Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said on ABC's This Week: "That's a distinction without a difference to the American people. ...Remember, this is about protecting the American people and protecting the taxpayers, and the American people don't care who owns the financial institution. If the financial institution in this country has problems, it'll have the same impact whether it's the U.S. or foreign. "
That's funny, I actually DO care who owns the financial institutions. And I don't know about you, but I say that if the American people have to pay for the losses of these institutions, they should at least be issued common stock in those companies! Let's send home those financial crooks with their pockets empty, and then let's send all their stock shares out to the people actually footing the bill, shall we?
Oh, and by the way, just in case you thought it all wasn't crazy enough already, a U.K. newspaper (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/fury-at-25bn-bonus-for-lehmans-new-york-staff-937560.html) is now reporting that the top people at the now-failed Lehman Brothers will share a $2.5 billion bonus that was set aside before the investment house filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
How do you like that? A few billion in bonuses for the people who created a mountain of bad debt for the taxpayers! Think about that the next time you're punching the clock at your nine-to-five.
Friends, we almost witnessed the financial demise of the global banking system. But thanks to timely intervention, what we witnessed instead was a global financial swindle so grand, it's one for the history books. That giant sucking sound you heard was a financial vacuum pulling dollars out of YOUR bank accounts, and depositing them directly into the accounts of the very people who caused this problem: Rich bankers, greedy derivatives traders and economically-illiterate politicians who think debt doesn't matter and money is free.
This was all orchestrated by the greatest money thieves of all time: The Federal Reserve and your own government. No con artist in human history has even approached the scope of the swindle that just happened right before our eyes, in full view of the press, the public and the politicians.

"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws."-- Mayer Amschel Rothschild





Mobile phone use ‘raises children’s risk of brain cancer fivefold’
Geoffrey Lean
The Independent
September 22, 2008

Children and teenagers are five times more likely to get brain cancer if they use mobile phones, startling new research indicates.
The study, experts say, raises fears that today’s young people may suffer an “epidemic” of the disease in later life. At least nine out of 10 British 16-year-olds have their own handset, as do more than 40 per cent of primary schoolchildren.
Yet investigating dangers to the young has been omitted from a massive £3.1m British investigation of the risks of cancer from using mobile phones, launched this year, even though the official Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) Programme – which is conducting it – admits that the issue is of the “highest priority”.
Despite recommendations of an official report that the use of mobiles by children should be “minimised”, the Government has done almost nothing to discourage it.
Read article

Vintage Ron Paul

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. -Thomas Jefferson


I found an interview from 1988 where Ron Paul is interviewed about the American Power Structure. This is the first interview i've seen where he really gets into the CFR and the Trilateral Commission. The consistency is wonderful to see, he's wavered very little in his views in the last 20 years. It's a great view of what's happening today financially as well.

Masters Of War
By Bob Dylan


Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain

You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead

Ron Paul and Ralph Nader on CNN Sept. 10, 2008


How come when i watch CNN i never see shit like this?




Ron Paul Exposing Government Fraud in Russia Georgia Conflict

This is a scary video, the guy Ron Paul questions is a demon straight out of hell!




Ron Paul asked about reaction to the Congressional Hearing later at the National Press Club Conference...

Ron Paul holds press conference: Don't vote for the lesser of two evils, promotes write in

Thank god, this is what i've been arguing this whole time! I love Ron Paul!








Ron Paul Statement to the National Press Club

RON PAUL

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.
Carroll Quigley – Author of Tragedy & Hope
The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand distraction. This is not new, but this year, it’s more so than ever.
Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.
The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.
Influential forces, the media, the government, the privileged corporations and moneyed interests see to it that both party’s candidates are acceptable, regardless of the outcome, since they will still be in charge. It’s been that way for a long time. George Wallace was not the first to recognize that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties. There is, though, a difference between the two major candidates and the candidates on third-party tickets and those running as independents.
The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare state. They both are willing to abuse the Rule of Law and ignore constitutional restraint on Executive Powers. Neither major party champions free markets and private-property ownership.
Those candidates who represent actual change or disagreement with the status quo are held in check by the two major parties in power, making it very difficult to compete in the pretend democratic process. This is done by making it difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballots, enter into the debates, raise money, avoid being marginalized, or get fair or actual coverage. A rare celebrity or a wealthy individual can, to a degree, overcome these difficulties.
The system we have today allows a President to be elected by as little as 32% of the American people, with half of those merely voting for the “lesser of two evils”. Therefore, as little as 16% actually vote for a president. No wonder when things go wrong, anger explodes. A recent poll shows that 60% of the American people are not happy with the two major candidates this year.
This system is driven by the conviction that only a major party candidate can win. Voters become convinced that any other vote is a “wasted” vote. It’s time for that conclusion to be challenged and to recognize that the only way not to waste one’s vote is to reject the two establishment candidates and join the majority, once called silent, and allow the voices of the people to be heard.
We cannot expect withdrawal of troops from Iraq or the Middle East with either of the two major candidates. Expect continued involvement in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Georgia. Neither hints of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Do not expect to hear the rejection of the policy of supporting the American world empire. There will be no emphasis in protecting privacy and civil liberties and the constant surveillance of the American people. Do not expect any serious attempt to curtail the rapidly expanding national debt. And certainly, there will be no hint of addressing the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationship with big banks and international corporations and the politicians.
There is only one way that these issues can get the attention they deserve: the silent majority must become the vocal majority.
This message can be sent to our leaders by not participating in the Great Distraction—the quadrennial campaign and election of an American President without a choice. Just think of how much of an edge a Vice President has in this process, and he or she is picked by a single person—the party’s nominee. This was never intended by the Constitution.
Since a principled non-voter sends a message, we must count them and recognize the message they are sending as well. The non-voters need to hold their own “election” by starting a “League of Non-voters” and explain their principled reasons for opting out of this charade of the presidential elective process. They just might get a bigger membership than anyone would guess.
Write-in votes should not be discouraged, but the electoral officials must be held accountable and make sure the votes are counted. But one must not be naïve and believe that under today’s circumstances one has a chance of accomplishing much by a write-in campaign.
The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates—Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)
Yes, these individuals do have strong philosophic disagreements on various issues, but they all stand for challenging the status quo—those special interest who control our federal government. And because of this, on the big issues of war, civil liberties, deficits, and the Federal Reserve they have much in common. People will waste their vote in voting for the lesser of two evils. That can’t be stopped overnight, but for us to have an impact we must maximize the total votes of those rejecting the two major candidates.
For me, though, my advice—for what it’s worth—is to vote! Reject the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity to, based on the other issues.
A huge vote for those running on principle will be a lot more valuable by sending a message that we’ve had enough and want real change than wasting one’s vote on a supposed lesser of two evils.

Kucinich introduces comprehensive regulatory framework for GMOs

Kucinich.us
September 10, 2008

Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced three bills designed to protect consumers, defend farmers’ rights, and increase food safety. The bills collectively create a comprehensive framework to regulate GMOs.




• H.R. 6636, The Genetically Engineered Food Right To Know Act, would require mandatory labeling of all foods that contain or are produced with GM material.

• H.R. 6635, The Genetically Engineered Safety Act, would require that GE foods follow a food safety review process to prevent contamination of food supplies by pharmaceutical and industrialcrops. This Act would also require that the FDA screen all GE foods to ensure they are safe forhuman consumption.

• H.R. 6637, The Genetically Engineered Farmer Protection Act, places liability from the impacts of GM crops on the biotechnology companies that created the GMOs, and protects farmers from lawsuits by biotechnology companies.

Source: September 2008 The Organic & Non-GMO Report

www.Kucinich.us

I even own the DVD of this whole 8 hour lecture David Icke did and i don't remember him talking about GMO and aspartame. Coast To Coast recently did a whole show on aspartame, and i thought i knew a lot about it, but it turns out to be worse than what i had already knew! Ever since i heard that show i've been surfing the Internet a lot educating myself on it. It's almost like MSG where it's in almost everything. And the GMO food is awful as well. All the mice they fed the food that was grown from GMO seeds DIED! And we're eating it in our corn and potatoes! Please filter your water, buy organic!!! Read your labels, we're being killed slowly by soft kill weapons, and no main line environmentalist who worships Al Gore will touch the very serious issue of GMO seeds. It rots the soil that the seeds are planted in.