Saturday, October 31, 2009

Audit The Fed Bill Gutted!

By Bob Ivry | Bloomberg

Oct. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Representative Ron Paul, the Texas Republican who has called for an end to the Federal Reserve, said legislation he introduced to audit monetary policy has been “gutted” while moving toward a possible vote in the Democratic-controlled House.

The bill, with 308 co-sponsors, has been stripped of provisions that would remove Fed exemptions from audits of transactions with foreign central banks, monetary policy deliberations, transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee and communications between the Board, the reserve banks and staff, Paul said today.

“There’s nothing left, it’s been gutted,” he said in a telephone interview. “This is not a partisan issue. People all over the country want to know what the Fed is up to, and this legislation was supposed to help them do that.”

The Fed, led by Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, has come under greater congressional scrutiny while attempting to end the financial crisis by bailing out financial firms and more than doubling its balance sheet to $2.16 trillion in the past year. The central bank is also buying $1.25 trillion of securities tied to home loans.

Paul, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, said Mel Watt, a Democrat from North Carolina, has eliminated “just about everything” while preparing the legislation for formal consideration. Watt is chairman of the panel’s domestic monetary policy and technology subcommittee.

Keith Kelly, a spokesman for Watt, declined to comment and said Watt wasn’t immediately available for an interview. Watt’s district includes Charlotte, headquarters of Bank of America Corp., the biggest U.S. lender.

Original Language

Paul said he intends to introduce an amendment to the bill when it comes to the House floor for a vote restoring the legislation’s original language.


Excerpted from pp. 44-46 of The Great Derangement

[W]hen you’re looking at the process by which any bill gets passed into law, on the House side at least there are only a few people who really matter. Those people are the majority leader, the chairman of the relevant “committee of jurisdiction” (i.e. Energy and Commerce for the oil industry, Financial Services for Wall Street firms, etc.), the chairman of the Rules Committee, the chairs of the House-Senate conference committee, the House Speaker and perhaps a few other members of the conference committee.

These people are important because this small group can essentially ram a bill into law all by themselves. If you control all of these seats, you control every space on the congressional Monopoly board within which the bill can be written or altered unilaterally.

There are four main way stations on the road to a bill’s passage. There’s the committee of jurisdiction, where the bill, after being introduced, goes through what is called a markup process. In a markup, the committee decides what goes in the bill and what does not. The markup process is supervised by the committee chairman. Theoretically the markup process is put to a general vote by the committee, but in this Congress the reality is that the chairman puts in what he wants and chucks what he doesn’t want out the window.

He then sends the bill to the Rules Committee, where other House members from outside the committee – usually freaked-out minority members desperate to stop this or that criminally insane provision cleverly hidden in the committee version – have a chance to submit amendments to the bill. The Rules chairman tries not to laugh, somberly nukes every meaningful amendment request with a pained, regretful expression, and then takes the bill behind closed doors, where it can be rewritten (usually in the middle of the night) to include all the shit the House leadership knew was way to evil to survive public discussion in the original committee of jurisdiction.

Rules then puts the finishing touches on the bill’s language and sends it to the floor the very next morning. The version that leaves the rules committee is now called not a bill, but a rule. The Rules Committee is supposed to give House members three days to read the rule before it goes to a vote, but the three-day period can be waived in case of emergency. The “emergency” has been in place for five consecutive years now; virtually every bill that has passed through the house in the Bush era has been voted on just hours after emerging from the hairy womb of the Rules Committee.

After the House passes the rule, which of course no one voting on it has read, the world then waits for the Senate to pass its own hideous version of the legislation. But alas, the bill cannot be sent to the president until the differences between the House and Senate versions – consisting generally of differing sets of campaign donor hand-jobs hidden in the two bills – can be ironed out. This ironing out is done in the conference committee.

The mechanism of conference committee is a special voodoo all unto itself, a monstrously complex bureaucratic maze whose diabolical scheme is known to a select few congressional practitioners. But for the moment, only two facts are important.

The first is that the bill can again be completely rewritten here, rewritten from top to bottom, rewritten even so that it has a completely opposite meaning from the bills that passed the two houses – in a word, re written in such a fashion as to render the whole process up to now meaningless.

The second is that a majority vote of conference committee members, called “conferees,” is not even required for passage. Again, the conference committee chairs are the key players here. Whatever the top dogs from the House and the Senate want generally occurs. They redo the bill according to whatever swinish commercial dynamic happens to govern this back-room deal (for the conference hearings are almost always conducted out of the public eye), then send the final version for a vote, again giving the members just a few hours’ notice before they make an essentially blind decision on the by-now completely revised legislation.

Somewhere along the line, campaign donors apparently figured out that by a careful stewarding of their contributions, they could – instead of spending gargantuan sums to buy the wide majority of House and Senate members necessary for an open vote on the floor – instead target those members who could simply rewrite the important parts of the bill in secret.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Funny Dogs!

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Monday, September 21, 2009

The Day the SWAT Team Came Crashing Through My Door

I remember thinking, as I kneeled at gunpoint with my hands bound on my living room floor, that there had been a terrible, terrible mistake.

An errant Prince George's County SWAT team had just forced its way into our home, shot dead our two black Labradors, Payton and Chase, and started ransacking our belongings as part of what would become a four-hour ordeal.

The police found nothing, of course, to connect my family and me to a box of drugs that they had been tracking and had delivered to our front door. The community -- of which I am mayor -- rallied to our side. A FedEx driver and accomplice were arrested in a drug trafficking scheme. Ultimately, we were cleared of any wrongdoing, but not before the incident drew international outrage.

This was 14 months ago. We have since filed suit, and I am confident that we will find justice more quickly than most.

Yet, I remain captured by the broader implications of the incident. Namely, that my initial take was wrong: It was no accident but rather business as usual that brought the police to -- and through -- our front door.

In the words of Prince George's County Sheriff Michael Jackson, whose deputies carried out the assault, "the guys did what they were supposed to do" -- acknowledging, almost as an afterthought, that terrorizing innocent citizens in Prince George's is standard fare. The only difference this time seems to be that the victim was a clean-cut white mayor with community support, resources and a story to tell the media.

What confounds me is the unmitigated refusal of county leaders to challenge law enforcement and to demand better -- as if civil rights are somehow rendered secondary by the war on drugs.

Let me give you three specific concerns underscored by our case.

First, the Prince George's Police Department's internal affairs function is broken. When the Justice Department released the county police from federal supervision in February, internal affairs was the one area that was not cleared. Internal affairs division (IAD) investigations were required to take no longer than 90 days. More than a year after our ordeal, my family awaits the IAD report on what happened at our home. The statute of limitations for officer misconduct is 12 months, which means that any wrongdoers are off the hook.

Next, there is significant evidence that the county is broadly violating the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. After initially claiming that they had a "no-knock" warrant to forcibly enter our home, county police acknowledged that they did not have one. But they went on to contend that there is no such thing as a "no-knock" warrant in Maryland. But this isn't true. A statewide "no-knock" warrant statute was passed in 2005. Effectively, the county is denying the existence of state law. We can't get the county to say whether it has ever followed the law or, at a minimum, even acknowledges it.

Finally, and perhaps most disturbing of all, county police may be lying to cover up their civil rights violations. A county officer on the scene told Berwyn Heights police a fabricated tale to justify the warrantless entry into our home. The lie disappeared after police learned that I was the mayor. Charges of a police coverup are hardly unusual, but there is significant evidence that county law enforcement engaged in a conspiracy on our lawn to justify an illegal entry. Nothing strikes at the heart of police credibility like creative report writing and false testimony to cover up a lie or even put innocent people behind bars. Swift and serious consequences are the best deterrent.

In fairness, some good has come from the incident. State leaders have passed legislation that will provide statewide oversight of SWAT teams -- a first-in-the-nation law that will shine a light on the troubling trend of paramilitary policing.

Yet, the wagons have circled in Upper Marlboro. The response is textbook: Law enforcement stands its ground and concedes no wrongdoing -- and elected officials bury their heads in the sand.

As an imperfect elected official myself, I can understand a mistake -- even a terrible one. But a pattern and practice of police abuse treated with utter indifference rips at the fabric of our social compact and virtually guarantees more of the same.


Sunday, September 20, 2009

The Real Astroturf

click on each arm to see what hand they play in the whole net neutrality issue.

Freedom Watch

Friday, September 11, 2009

Anne Wortham

Fellow Americans,

Please know: I am Black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul's name as my choice for president. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a Black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth living. I do not require a Black president to love the ideal of America.

I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph in my eyes. For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and survival - all that I know about the history of the United States of America, all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician.

I would have to deny the nature of the "change" that Obama asserts has come to America.

Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine depend. I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million Blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that Blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared "progressive" whites who voted for him because he doesn't look like them.

I would have to wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration - political intellectuals like my former colleagues at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

I would have to believe that "fairness" is the equivalent of justice. I would have to believe that man who asks me to "go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice" is speaking in my interest.. I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the "bottom up," and who arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of government force. I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.

Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago irrationally chanting "Yes We Can!" Finally, I would have to wipe all memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers and intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead - and no one, including, and, especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.

So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a Black man to the office of the president of the United States , the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over - and that Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men. Jimmie Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like. The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a Black person.

So, toast yourselves: 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, Black America . Shout your glee Harvard, Princeton , Yale, Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley. You have elected, not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a Black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to - Do Something! You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine - what little there is left - for the chance to feel good.

There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Why Obama’s Address to Schoolchildren Is Objectionable

As I read the many editorial columns and articles in support of Obama’s speech, I can see that many writers are very upset and emotional over criticism of Obama’s action. They also are clueless concerning the reasons why his address is unwelcome. They are name-calling. They are not bothering to mention, much less rebut, the reasoned objections of people like me.

I can at least articulate my reasons for objecting.

Such a speech blurs or crosses several boundaries that I believe there are good reasons to have in place.

The President’s constitutional powers are explicit. They include the "executive Power." They include being "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States" and a few more listed in the Constitution, including preserving and protecting the Constitution. They do not include addressing schoolchildren.

If the President were to live up to his oath to preserve and protect the Constitution, he would request that Congress repeal all its laws regarding education. Section 8 of Article I lists the powers of Congress. Education is not on that list. So when the President addresses schoolchildren, he breaks his oath in several ways. He does not have that power, and he affirms and solidifies a power assumed by Congress that Congress does not have. The President is failing in his sworn duty. Those who think that the President’s speech is helpfully teaching civics are mistaken. His speech is conveying and confirming anti-civics and anti-Constitutional lessons.

The President is a political leader. He is not in office to be an educator. His duties are clearly laid out, and they do not include educating children. By the same token, the President is not the parent of all these children. He is not their teacher. He is not their religious leader. The reason for these boundaries is so that political figures do not use their power and influence to dominate our social lives.

It is a special danger to liberty and society when national powers are developed. These are powers in which the national leadership directly controls or influences individual citizens, while bypassing or circumventing other local sources of governance and influence such as parents, families, churches, schools, and local governments.

An Obama address to schoolchildren is an instance of the further development of national power and influence. It breaks new ground in the influence of State over society. Public education already is under the influence of objectionable forces, but this establishes a new precedent that can be extended. If one political leader addresses youth, other leaders are more likely to address youth. The content of their speeches can be enlarged. Their influence can be enlarged. Government will be given more play and support than it already has. Such a speech is inescapably political. Such a precedent can eventually lead to further dangerous developments, such as a Presidential Youth or an Obama Youth.

The President is a politician. Any address he might make, no matter how nonpartisan it may seem, is bound to be political. It cannot be neutral. The very fact that he is President and making such a speech will be taken in by school children. He will be conveying his authority to these children, with the blessings of their parents and school teachers. They will be taught by the speech itself, regardless of its content, to look to the national government in matters relating to their lives. After all, is he not addressing them about very personal and civic matters? His speech is necessarily a political act.

The President is the leader of a particular political party, so that the very fact that he is a Democrat who is President and making such a speech influences his listeners. Children grow up to be voting adults.

In any speech, what the President says lies beyond the control of those who allow that speech to enter the classroom. The teachers have control over the subsequent discussion, if they choose to have it. But the President will already have made his impact. Children do not fully possess the capacities to judge political matters.

Will the opposition party demand equal time? Do we want politicians routinely competing with one another for the attention of and influence over children?

The President commands the airwaves. This is a dangerous and influential power when used with adults. Allowing this power to be extended to communication with every child in the country is even more dangerous.

School districts can opt out of the speech. In some districts, children may be allowed to opt out of the speech. These options are good ones. But they do not alter the reasons outlined above for objecting to a president making speeches in schools.

I’d like to add that I have seldom read stronger words in newspapers directed against those who object to Obama’s speechmaking to children. They are being called crackpots. They are being accused of demonizing the President. They are being accused of McCarthyism. They are being accused of being racist, completely insane, and members of the right-wing lunatic fringe.

These attacks are not called for. There are very good reasons to object to Obama’s speech. I’ll sum up the ones that bother me. There are no doubt others, but I have made no attempt to research them and find out what others are thinking on this matter.

1. The speech is beyond the President’s constitutional powers.
2. The President is supporting a national role in education, which also is unconstitutional.
3. The President is not supporting his oath of office, so he is conveying an anti-constitutional message to children.
4. The President is crossing a boundary between the political and social spheres. That boundary is in place in order to control government power and maintain a healthy free society.
5. The President is augmenting national power and influence.
6. The President is starting a new precedent that has dangerous implications.
7. The President’s speech cannot possibly be non-political. The very act itself is politically in furtherance of government and an enhanced government role.
8. The President also leads his party, and that fact may influence children.
9. The President may have an undue influence over children due to his position and power.
10. Will fairness considerations lead to equal time for opposition leaders?
11. Presidential access to communications is dangerous enough without extending it to youth.


Sunday, September 6, 2009

The Federal Reserve

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Chickens & Cows

The House of Representatives recently passed funding for a new federal mandate that threatens to put thousands of small farmers and ranchers out of business. The National Animal Identification System, known as NAIS, is an expensive and unnecessary federal program that requires owners of livestock – cattle, dairy, poultry, and even horses – to tag animals with electronic tracking devices. The intrusive monitoring system amounts to nothing more than a tax on livestock owners, allowing the federal government access to detailed information about their private property.
In typical Washington-speak, NAIS is “voluntary” – provided USDA bureaucrats are satisfied with the level of cooperation. Trust me, NAIS will be mandatory within a few years. When was the last time a new federal program did not expand once implemented?
As usual, Congress is spending millions of dollars creating a complex non-solution to a very simple problem. NAIS will cost taxpayers at least $33 million for starters.
Agribusiness giants support NAIS, because they want the federal government to create a livestock database and provide free industry data. But small and independent livestock owners face a costly mandate if NAIS becomes law.
Larger livestock operations will be able to tag whole groups of animals with one ID device. Smaller ranchers and farmers, however, will be forced to tag each individual animal, at a cost of anywhere from $3 to $20 per head. And NAIS applies to anyone with a single horse, pig, chicken, or goat in the backyard – no exceptions. NAIS applies to children in 4-H or FFA. Once NAIS becomes mandatory, any failure to report and tag an animal subjects the owner to $1,000 per day fines.
NAIS also forces livestock owners to comply with new paperwork and monitoring regulations. These farmers and ranchers literally will be paying for an assault on their property and privacy rights, as NAIS empowers federal agents to enter and seize property without a warrant – a blatant violation of the 4th amendment.
NAIS is not about preventing mad cow or other diseases. States already have animal identification systems in place, and virtually all stockyards issue health certificates. Since most contamination happens after animals have been sold, tracing them back to the farm or ranch that sold them won’t help find the sources of disease.
More than anything, NAIS places our family farmers and ranchers at an economic disadvantage against agribusiness and overseas competition. As dairy farmer and rancher Bob Parker stated, NAIS is “too intrusive, too costly, and will be devastating to small farmers and ranchers.”
NAIS means more government, more regulations, more fees, more federal spending, less privacy, and diminished property rights. It’s exactly the kind of federal program every conservative, civil libertarian, animal lover, businessman, farmer, and rancher should oppose. The House has already acted, but there’s still time to tell the Senate to dump NAIS. Please call your Senators and tell them you oppose spending even one dime on the NAIS program in the 2007 agriculture appropriations bill.
May 30, 2006
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

I’ll Give Up My Chicken When They Pry It From My Cold Dead Hands

Brush off your philosphy hat and ponder this

The Pathetic Argument for Prohibiting Drunk Driving
by Mark R. Crovelliby Mark R. CrovelliRecently by Mark R. Crovelli: What This Country Needs Is a 'Cash for Clunkers' Program for the Housing Sector

For people who have grown accustomed to having the government monitor, regulate and enforce every facet of their miserable lives, it can be very difficult for them to conceive of the idea of legalizing drunk driving without at the same time picturing in their heads mangled cars, dead babies, and carnage generally. They have been told year after year by the government that created and enforces these laws, that drunk driving is one of the very worst crimes a man can commit, and that, were it not for the government’s ruthless pursuit of these dangerous criminals, there would indeed be unchecked slaughter in the streets.
Any arguments to the contrary, claiming that we could reduce both the incidence and danger of drunk driving by legalizing it, appear completely absurd to these people. They dismiss these arguments out of hand because they have adopted the government’s ridiculous conception of the drunk-driving issue, which looks something like this:
A) Drunk drivers are dangerous, and can kill other drivers
B) The government has outlawed drunk driving, and punishes drunk driving ruthlessly
Ergo, C) The government’s prohibition and punishments do actually reduce the incidence and danger of drunk driving
It does not take a professor of logic, however, to see that this type of argument is fallacious. The conclusion simply does not follow from the premises. We are not entitled to conclude that the government is successfully reducing either the incidence or the danger of drunk driving, just because they have prohibited it and are mercilessly punishing violators. It could be the case that the government’s prohibitions and punishments themselves are actually exacerbating the problem rather than ameliorating it.
The preceding point is exceedingly important, and is worth emphasizing with an analogous example from the so-called "War on Drugs." The federal government takes an analogous position with regard to drug trafficking and consumption, after all. The claim has always been that all the prohibitions and brutal punishments do reduce drug production and consumption (otherwise, what would be the point of the "war"?). Spokesmen for the drug warriors periodically appear in the news claiming that they have just busted a behemoth cocaine or marijuana smuggling ring, and that the bust will be a major blow to drug pushers and consumers. We all know what happens in the real world of drug production once the government cracks down on drugs in some way, however: the market participants adjust to the increased pressure by shifting their base of operation (e.g., from peaceful Caribbean beaches to the blood-drenched calles of Mexico), switching to more concentrated and dangerous drugs to produce and sell to avoid getting caught (e.g., switching from marijuana to cocaine and heroin), and the more vicious risk-takers among the drug producers take market share away from those who fear prison and God if they, say, cut off a police chief’s head.
Needless to say, the mere fact that the government has prohibited certain drugs, and has gone so far as to wage "war" against them, is insufficient to establish that the government is truly reducing drug consumption or production. If anything, the government’s prohibition of and "war" on drugs has itself caused drugs to become more potent, has created a drug gulag system in the United States (that is, ironically, itself rife with drugs) and a mafia state in Mexico – and yet has not reduced anyone’s ability to purchase coke, pot and meth in the slightest degree.
With regard to the drug "war," and all of its obvious failures and disasters, no one with half a brain would think of making an argument claiming that the government is actually reducing drug consumption, just because they have made them illegal and ruthlessly punish offenders. No one would offer an argument, like the one above, claiming:
A) Drug addicts are dangerous, and can kill or hurt themselves and others
B) The government has outlawed consuming or selling drugs, and punishes consumers and sellers ruthlessly
Ergo, C) The government’s prohibition and punishments do actually reduce the incidence and danger of drugs
No one would make such an argument because the conclusion obviously does not follow from the premises. Some sort of further argument or evidence is necessary to establish that the prohibition is working, or else the argument is question-begging. And, once one takes even the slightest peek at the evidence (i.e., the destruction, death and incarceration that the Drug War has delivered to this continent, and the ease with which anyone can buy virtually any drug in any city, school, or prison on this continent), the argument falls apart immediately.
The same ought to be true for what might be aptly called the "War on Drunk Driving." One ought not to simply assume that the government’s prohibitions and medieval punishments actually work to reduce drunk driving – unless there exist good arguments to that effect.
When one looks at the arguments about the efficacy of the government’s war on drunk driving, however, they all point to the opposite conclusion; namely, that the government’s prohibition and punishments are actually making things worse, rather than better. For example, the government’s prohibitions have created incentives for drunk drivers to drive much more dangerously than they otherwise would. They have resulted in a massive loss of income and freedom for hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of Americans who have been arrested, fined and imprisoned for drunk driving without ever hurting anyone. They have created an interlocking structure of incentives that actually encourage drunk driving. They have created a blatantly hypocritical standard for driving on the nation’s roads – with some dangerous drivers let off with a wag of the finger, while others are arrested, fined and incarcerated for doing exactly the same thing; namely, putting other people’s lives at risk. And they have created a police state on the nation’s roads and highways; with Israeli-like random checkpoints, a massive propaganda campaign to intimidate drivers, and mandatory removal of blood from people’s bodies.
The challenge, then, for people who believe in prohibiting drunk driving is to show that these laws do actually reduce drunk driving. Like proponents of drug prohibition, they must be able to show that all of the obvious suffering these laws inflict, billions of lost dollars spent in waging the "war," loss of individual liberties, and counterproductive incentives the laws create have actually reduced drunk driving.
For decades we have been waiting for the drug prohibitionists to give us some similar proof that their favored war has given us some tangible benefits besides millions of men in prison, ever-more potent and dangerous drugs, and a police state run amok. They have failed miserably. So, too, will the proponents of drunk-driving prohibition when we look back on decades of fighting a "war" against our own people, when they have never even hurt any other people.
September 2, 2009
Mark R. Crovelli [send him mail] writes from Denver, Colorado.

Monday, August 31, 2009

Freedom is Always Against the Law

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

In Honor of a Wise Man

Jim Traficant, Ohio lawmaker and Democrat will be released from Federal prison Wednesday. Here is a great speech he delivered on the House floor on March 17, 1993. He went up against the International bankers. Most get killed for this but he just went to Federal prison for his wise words. He was vilified in the media labeled a nut and sent to prison on some pretty ridiculous charges. He was ahead of his time!

"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in Chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization in world history, the U.S. Government.

We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future.

There are some who say it is a coroner's report that will lead to our demise.

It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. HJR 192, 73rd Congress in session June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments, and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.

The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.

All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under the Emergency War Powers.

With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government FOR the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America.

This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R.13955 reads in part:

'The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States.'

Gold and silver were such a powerful money during the founding of the united states of America that the founding fathers declared that only gold or silver coins can be 'money' in America. Since gold and silver coinage were heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions, they were stored in banks and a claim check was issued as a money substitute.

People traded their coupons as money, or 'currency.' Currency is not money, but a money substitute. Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in gold or silver money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises and are not 'money.'

A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the federal United States Government, not 'money.' The federal United States Government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been authorized by the Constitution for the united states of America to issue currency of any kind, but only lawful money - gold and silver coin.

It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money and paper money substitute. One cannot get rich by accumulating money substitutes, one can only get deeper into debt. We the People no longer have any 'money.'

Most Americans have not been paid any 'money' for a very long time, perhaps not in their entire life. Now do you comprehend why you feel broke? Now do you understand why you are 'bankrupt,' along with the rest of the country?

Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are unsigned checks written on a closed account. FRNs are an inflatable paper system designed to create debt through inflation (devaluation of currency). Whenever there is an increase of the supply of a money substitute in the economy without a corresponding increase in the gold and silver backing, inflation occurs.

Inflation is an invisible form of taxation that irresponsible governments inflict on their citizens. The Federal Reserve Bank who controls the supply and movement of FRNs has everybody fooled. They have access to an unlimited supply of FRNs, paying only for the printing costs of what they need. FRNs are nothing more than promissory notes for U.S. Treasury securities (T-bills) - a promise to pay the debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.

There is a fundamental difference between 'paying' and 'discharging' a debt. To pay a debt, you must pay with value or substance (i.e. gold, silver, barter or a commodity). With FRNs, you can only discharge a debt. You cannot pay a debt with a debt currency system. You cannot service a debt with a currency that has no backing in value or substance. No contract in Common Law is valid unless it involves an exchange of 'good and valuable consideration."

Unpayable debt transfers power and control to the sovereign power structure that has no interest in money, law, equity, or justice because they have so much wealth already.

Their lust is for power and control.

Since the inception of central banking, they have controlled the fates of nations.

The Federal Reserve System is based on the Canon law and the principles of sovereignty protected in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. In fact, the international bankers used a 'Canon Law Trust' as their model, adding stock and naming it a 'Joint Stock Trust' in 1873. The Federal Reserve Act was legislated post facto (to 1870), although post-facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3).

The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the federal United States government. The Federal Reserve is a maritime lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal United States operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender or underwriter bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific performance in paying the interest, or premiums, are the same.

Assets of the debtor can also be hypothecated (to pledge something as a security without taking possession of it) as security by the lender or underwriter. The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to be paid in Gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever paying the principal.

Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) 'hypothecated' all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a 'beneficiary' of the trust via his/her birth certificate.

In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets, and labor of their 'subjects,' the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.

In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit 'money substitute' it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan.

Since the federal United States didn't have any assets, they assigned the private property of their 'economic slaves,' the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national park forests, birth certificates, and non-profit organizations as collateral against the federal debt.

All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.

Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a Sovereign, and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property.

Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank.

We the People have exchanged one master for another.

This has been going on for over eighty years without the 'informed knowledge' of the American people, without a voice protesting loud enough.

Now it is easy to grasp why America is fundamentally bankrupt.

Why don't more people own their properties outright?

Why are 90% of Americans mortgaged to the hilt and have little or no assets after all debts and liabilities have been paid?

Why does it feel like you are working harder and harder and getting less and less?

We are reaping what has been sown, and the results of our harvest is a painful bankruptcy, and a foreclosure on American property, precious liberties, and a way of life.

Few of our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. have dared to tell the truth. The federal United States is bankrupt. Our children will inherit this unpayable debt, and the tyranny to enforce paying it.

America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit, and its reputation for courage, vision, and human rights.

This is an undeclared economic war, bankruptcy, and economic slavery of the most corrupt order.

Wake up, America! Take back your country."--James Traficant

Congressional record

never go up against the bankers...

CIA hired Blackwater to infiltrate Ron Paul & Mike Gravel Campaign

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Contrary to what Pelosi says, Americans are not for Obamacare

  • In Lorain County, Representative Sutton, turned a voter away because she did not support the huge health care spending bill. Then to avoid protest she staged a call with 9 constituents, six of which were against the bill. She also claimed she read the over 1,000 page bill. She may be the only Representative who has read it. I'm going to guess she skimmed it at best.
  • In a Town hall meeting in Tampa Florida, Kathy Castor was drowned out by screams of "you work for us" and "hear our voice". She had a voters beaten upa nd didn't take any questions, but left the meeting.

History in America

The Socialist Party candidate for President of the US, Norman Thomas, said this in a 1944 speech: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." He went on to say: "I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform.

They didn't resonate in the 1940s when Franklin Roosevelt, in the name of ending the Depression, exceeded all constitutional authority by approving new federal assistance programs.

They seemed a bit far-fetched to most of us in the 1960s when Lyndon Johnson vastly expanded the welfare state in his failed bid to end poverty in America.

They still didn't connect in the 1970s when Richard Nixon, in a bid to ingratiate himself with Democrats in Congress and stave off an impeachment, greatly increased spending on wealth-redistribution schemes.

And by the 1980s, with Ronald Reagan in power, it seemed this 40-year trend had finally been reversed.

Now comes an even grander proposal by Barack Obama. It's called the Global Poverty Act that would, in the next decade, transfer at least $845 billion of U.S. taxpayer money overseas. Think of Johnson's failed war on poverty going international – directed not by Americans but by the United Nations.

How we could even be debating ideas like this in the 21st century, after all of the climactic failures of socialism around the world, is amazing to me. But we're not really debating them. It seems we're not even capable as a people of debating them, reasoning over them, using our brains to consider them.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Obama has appointed Bernake to the Fed again

Watch as Senator Sanders asks Bernake to tell him how he spent our 2.2 trillion hard earned tax dollars and Bernake refuses. Obama appointed him again to the Fed and is asking for more power to go to the Fed. Obama and change are not even in the same room.

Mike Roger's on health care

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Bill of Rights

Common Sense 2009 by Larry Flynt

The American government -- which we once called our government -- has been taken over by Wall Street, the mega-corporations and the super-rich. They are the ones who decide our fate. It is this group of powerful elites, the people President Franklin D. Roosevelt called "economic royalists," who choose our elected officials -- indeed, our very form of government. Both Democrats and Republicans dance to the tune of their corporate masters. In America, corporations do not control the government. In America, corporations are the government.

This was never more obvious than with the Wall Street bailout, whereby the very corporations that caused the collapse of our economy were rewarded with taxpayer dollars. So arrogant, so smug were they that, without a moment's hesitation, they took our money -- yours and mine -- to pay their executives multimillion-dollar bonuses, something they continue doing to this very day. They have no shame. They don't care what you and I think about them. Henry Kissinger refers to us as "useless eaters."

But, you say, we have elected a candidate of change. To which I respond: Do these words of President Obama sound like change?

"A culture of irresponsibility took root, from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street."
There it is. Right there. We are Main Street. We must, according to our president, share the blame. He went on to say: "And a regulatory regime basically crafted in the wake of a 20th-century economic crisis -- the Great Depression -- was overwhelmed by the speed, scope and sophistication of a 21st-century global economy."

This is nonsense.

The reason Wall Street was able to game the system the way it did -- knowing that they would become rich at the expense of the American people (oh, yes, they most certainly knew that) -- was because the financial elite had bribed our legislators to roll back the protections enacted after the Stock Market Crash of 1929.

Congress gutted the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial lending banks from investment banks, and passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which allowed for self-regulation with no oversight. The Securities and Exchange Commission subsequently revised its rules to allow for even less oversight -- and we've all seen how well that worked out. To date, no serious legislation has been offered by the Obama administration to correct these problems.

Instead, Obama wants to increase the oversight power of the Federal Reserve. Never mind that it already had significant oversight power before our most recent economic meltdown, yet failed to take action. Never mind that the Fed is not a government agency but a cartel of private bankers that cannot be held accountable by Washington. Whatever the Fed does with these supposed new oversight powers will be behind closed doors.

Obama's failure to act sends one message loud and clear: He cannot stand up to the powerful Wall Street interests that supplied the bulk of his campaign money for the 2008 election. Nor, for that matter, can Congress, for much the same reason.

Consider what multibillionaire banker David Rockefeller wrote in his 2002 memoirs:

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

Read Rockefeller's words again. He actually admits to working against the "best interests of the United States."

Need more? Here's what Rockefeller said in 1994 at a U.N. dinner: "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order." They're gaming us. Our country has been stolen from us.

Journalist Matt Taibbi, writing in Rolling Stone, notes that esteemed economist John Kenneth Galbraith laid the 1929 crash at the feet of banking giant Goldman Sachs. Taibbi goes on to say that Goldman Sachs has been behind every other economic downturn as well, including the most recent one. As if that wasn't enough, Goldman Sachs even had a hand in pushing gas prices up to $4 a gallon.

The problem with bankers is longstanding. Here's what one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, had to say about them:

"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 the corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their father's conquered."

We all know that the first American Revolution officially began in 1776, with the Declaration of Independence. Less well known is that the single strongest motivating factor for revolution was the colonists' attempt to free themselves from the Bank of England. But how many of you know about the second revolution, referred to by historians as Shays' Rebellion? It took place in 1786-87, and once again the banks were the cause. This time they were putting the screws to America's farmers.

Daniel Shays was a farmer in western Massachusetts. Like many other farmers of the day, he was being driven into bankruptcy by the banks' predatory lending practices. (Sound familiar?) Rallying other farmers to his side, Shays led his rebels in an attack on the courts and the local armory. The rebellion itself failed, but a message had been sent: The bankers (and the politicians who supported them) ultimately backed off. As Thomas Jefferson famously quipped in regard to the insurrection: "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Perhaps it's time to consider that option once again.

I'm calling for a national strike, one designed to close the country down for a day. The intent? Real campaign-finance reform and strong restrictions on lobbying. Because nothing will change until we take corporate money out of politics. Nothing will improve until our politicians are once again answerable to their constituents, not the rich and powerful.

Let's set a date. No one goes to work. No one buys anything. And if that isn't effective -- if the politicians ignore us -- we do it again. And again. And again.

The real war is not between the left and the right. It is between the average American and the ruling class. If we come together on this single issue, everything else will resolve itself. It's time we took back our government from those who would make us their slaves.


Reality Folks, It's a Concept We All Need to Embrace!

Sunday, August 16, 2009

It Must Be Nice To Be Queen

Michele Obama, although not paid anything to be first lady nor does she perform any duties she can attest to the perks of the title. She's hired more than 20 attendants to cater to her every whim.

“In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much,” she said. “See, that’s why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, “ Michelle Obama

There has never been anyone in the White House at any time that has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President's own pocket. Sickening glut and arrogance. remind me again how this is change?

1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (CHIEF OF STAFF)

2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT

Jocelyn Frye serves as General Counsel at the National Partnership for Women & Families in Washington, DC. She directs the National Partnership’s Workplace Fairness Program and, in that capacity, focuses primarily on a wide range of employment and gender discrimination issues, with a particular emphasis on employment barriers facing women of color and low-income women.

Frye has extensive experience working on issues related to equal employment opportunity and workplace fairness. Her work includes monitoring and analyzing the effectiveness of federal equal employment enforcement efforts. She has testified before Congress and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on federal enforcement of employment discrimination laws. Ms. Frye received her undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan in 1985 with a double major in Political Science and English, and her law degree from Harvard Law School in 1988. After graduating from law school, she worked as an associate at Crowell & Moring, a Washington, DC law firm, concentrating in the white-collar crime and labor law practice areas. Ms. Frye is a native of Washington, DC, and is involved in a number of community and volunteer activities.




6. $90,000 - Medina, David S. (DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)David Medina currently works for the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign, a national coalition which promotes increased U.S. investments in development and diplomacy. Mr. Medina previously served as the political director of Senator John Edwards’ presidential campaign and as a legislative representative for the AFL-CIO. David has also served as the Deputy CEO of the 2004 Democratic National Convention, policy director for the Democratic National Committee, and legislative assistant for U.S. Senator Carol Moseley-Braun. David received his B.A. from the University of Chicago and M.P.P. from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (DIRECTOR AND PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)

8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND ADVANCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)Franny Starkey Sanguin joined the Obama campaign in February of 2007 as the Iowa Trip Director, where she oversaw all principal and surrogate travel in the state. She took a brief absence from the campaign to serve as the Director of the Colorado Convention Center, headquarters for the 2008 Democratic National Convention in her hometown of Denver, Colorado. Prior to the Obama 2008 presidential cycle, Sanguin worked in Minnesota as Director of Scheduling and Advance for Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s successful U.S. Senate campaign and as Communications Director for Terri Bonoff’s campaign for Congress in the3rd District. Sanguin’s experience includes stints as Director of Scheduling and Advance for Howard Dean’s 2003 Iowa Caucus campaign, for Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack’s 2002 reelection campaign and as the Deputy Director of Communications in Vilsack’s administration. Sanguin graduated with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Journalism and Mass Communications from Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. She is married to Ken Sanguin.


Trooper Sanders was a White House policy advisor and speechwriter to Tipper Gore, and a policy aide to former Vice President Al Gore. He most recently served as domestic policy advisor at the William J. Clinton Foundation. Trooper has served in a variety of program, communications and leadership positions for leading U.S. and international organizations advancing social progress ranging from the American Constitution Society to The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum. A native of Detroit, Michigan, he has lived in the United Kingdom and, as a Robert Bosch Foundation fellow, Germany. Trooper has an A.B., in Global Political Economy from the University of Michigan and an MSc., in Regulation (Financial and

Commercial) from the London School of Economics. He serves on the Board of Directors of the Forum for Youth Investment and the Northeast Regional Board of Operation HOPE.

Prior to joining Mrs. Obama’s team, Ebs Burnough served as the Political Director for 1199SEIU in Maryland and the District of Columbia. Ebs has also worked for SEIU as a political analyst and director of operations in the New York office. During the 2004 Presidential Election, Ebs served as the Deputy Communications Director in Missouri, for America Coming Together. In addition, Ebs was the Executive Director of Congressman Jerry Nadler’s Political Action Committee.


Joe Reinstein has been marketing products, environmental awareness and social justice for 21 years. Among other achievements, Joe helped change perceptions of the United Way by redefining its brand from charity clearinghouse to community impact organization. Before joining the White House Social Secretary staff, Joe was VP Marketing at Medline Industries, the nation's largest privately held manufacturer and distributor of healthcare products. Joe was a founding board member of Cool Globes, a non-profit organization established to raise awareness of global warming and inspire individuals and community leaders to embrace solutions. Launched in Chicago, Cool Globes’ public art exhibit has traveled to San Diego and Washington DC and will appear in Houston, Los Angeles and London in 2009. Joe is also a board member and marketing committee chair of the Anti-Defamation League Midwest Region. Joe and his wife Hannah Higgins are proud parents of Zoe (age 13) and Nathalie (age 9).

12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND EVENTS COORDINATOR FOR THE FIRST LADY)Jennifer Goodman served as Michelle Obama’s Director of Scheduling on the Obama campaign and the Obama-Biden Transition Team. Prior to joining the campaign, Jennifer worked for Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) for more than five years, serving as Scheduler in his Senate office and Trip Director and Director of Scheduling on his 2007 presidential campaign. She has also worked on the media team for the public relations firm Hill and Knowlton. A native of New Hampshire, Jennifer began her career with the 2002 U.S. Senate campaign of Governor Jeanne Shaheen. She graduated with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in international affairs from the George Washington University.


14. Lewis, Dana M. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT AND PERSONAL AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY) Dana M. Lewis came to Washington, DC in 1993 to pursue a career in politics. Hailing from Weston, Connecticut, Ms. Lewis graduated with a Bachelors of Arts degree in Political Science from Hampton University in Hampton, Virginia. Ms. Lewis began her career as an intern with the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. Since then, she has worked for Members of both the House and the Senate, including Representative Bobby Scott, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Senator Barbara Boxer, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Her issue areas of expertise ranged from education, labor, civil rights, and criminal justice policy.

In May 2007, Ms. Lewis was hired by Obama for America to work on the advance team for presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama. After the President-elect’s victory in November 2008, Ms. Lewis was hired by the Presidential Inaugural Committee to work on the Congressional Relations team. In January 2009, she will serve as future First Lady Michelle Obama’s personal aide.


16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR SCHEDULING AND TRAVELING AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY) After graduating from Spelman College, Kristen began her political career working on the leadership staff of former Majority Leader of the United States Senate, Tom Daschle. Kristen then served as Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff to Senator Barack Obama in the United States Senate from 2004-2007. When Senator Obama announced his Presidential Bid, Kristen was tapped by the campaign to relocate to Nevada where she served as the State Scheduler for both Senator and Mrs. Obama, and Surrogate Scheduler for elected officials and celebrities traveling to Nevada on behalf of Senator Obama. When the Nevada caucuses concluded, Kristen joined the National Advance team as a Press Lead, coordinating press logistics for campaign town halls and rallies across the country. Kristen spent the remaining months on the campaign trail as the Body Person/Special Assistant to Michelle Obama where it was her responsibility to take care of all personal needs for Mrs. Obama.

17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE FIRST LADY) Tyler was a field organizer in Iowa during the campaign. Tyler Lechtenberg currently serves as Deputy Director of Volunteers for the Presidential Inaugural Committee. Prior to this, he worked on the Obama campaign as a Regional Field Director in Central Iowa for the General Election, proceeded by primary-season stops in Louisville, Kentucky; Youngstown, Ohio; Las Cruces, New Mexico; and Marshalltown, Iowa. He spent three years working as an award-winning sports writer for The Cedar Rapids (IA) Gazette and has worked as a writer for the Marketing Department at Portland (OR) Community College.


19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)Joe Boswell spent the last year and half working on the Obama Campaign most recently as Regional Field Director on the Campaign for Change in Ohio during the General Election. Joe began on the campaign as a Field Organizer in the Iowa Caucus before going on to organize in Texas, organize youth outreach at Arizona State University, and become a regional director Pennsylvania during the primary election. Before the campaign, Joe worked at Robinson, Lerer, and Montgomery, a strategic communications firm in New York. There he worked closely with the firm's senior management to develop communications strategy and learn about media consulting. Joe attended Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, where he studied government and played rugby. He grew up in Northern California.

20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (STAFF ASSISTANT TO THE SOCIAL SECRETARY) Sally Armbruster has 10 years of experience working in event planning and design. She recently founded a personal assistance and event management company with a special focus in charitable organizations. Sally received a Bachelor of Science in Art from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 2006. Sally hails from Lake Bluff, Illinois.

21. Bookey, Natalie (STAFF ASSISTANT)Natalie Bookey – Staff Assistant Natalie currently serves as the Managing Director of the Inaugural Finance Committee at the Presidential Inaugural Committee. Prior to this, she worked on the Obama campaign’s finance team in Chicago. Natalie is a native of Des Moines, Iowa and studied Journalism, Spanish Language and Women’s Studies at George Washington University. After graduating Natalie traveled to South America and returned to the U.S. to work at WGN News in Chicago where she researched, wrote, and edited video for news stories as well as conducted interviews and produced packages for broadcast.


Note most are already employed so they are double dipping while they collect tax dollars.

George Orwell's 1984

Read the book here


Ron Paul Documentary

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Friday, August 14, 2009

Obama's Health Care Bill Explained

Part 1

Part 2

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Name Calling in America

The names are flying; Liberal, Conservative, Socialist, Marxist and the effect is equal to a punch thrown with a paper fist. Why, because those being called names don't know what these terms mean in the true sense. They view the names as tactics and not what's behind them.

We'll start with the most common name being thrown out today, "Socialist". Obama in his own words said he would like to redistribute the wealth; a very common approach in Socialism. Socialism and Communism have similarities but it is said that Communism is arrived at by force while Socialism is something the people unknowingly usher in at their own demise.

The most common theme for both is that everything is owned by the state. All production is owned and controlled by those in leadership. In America today we are seeing government grow by leaps and bounds while legislating a stake in industry all in the name of economic recovery. The bailouts and the government's ownership in these businesses are a scary example of this trend, but lets put our focus for now on Socialism.

Socialism tries to equalize the class system. Only it never takes into account the class of people who are running things. It's a pseudo equalizer because those put put in charge of the redistribution can't have agendas, can't be controlled by lobbyist or industry. In America no politician like that exists except one lonely Congressman in Texas. Imagine giving the resources of our country to a select few and requiring them to honestly distribute this wealth to everyone fairly. We aren't yet fully a Socialistic society but we are riddled in our every day lives with monopolies that are already taking advantage of the wealth being given to them disappointingly by our politicians. We have only one source for many necessities in our every day life but if given an option we would gladly welcome competition which would usher in lower prices and better customer service. One only needs to talk to their local phone company or gas company to know things are not as they should be.

The promise is to right the class system as long as the masses trust them. In Socialism, property and wealth are owned by the state and then distributed accordingly. In our own government, we can see this system at work in the bailouts. Only the opposite occurred. The richest got the bailouts while the poor paid for them in inflation and higher prices for everything. And so go the promises of Socialism. The wealth is never distributed from the top down. Logically, why would these people in leadership choose us over money? Agenda is the only thing that needs to be looked at. If politicians do the bidding of the rich they get more money, the cycle of corruption is created. And we the free people think we are getting a government we elect and control.

When the bail out bill was presented, so many Americans called their elected officials to say no that not only did the phone switchboards crash but the government websites did as well. It was as as if the people were silent; big business and industry got trillions of dollars of our hard earned money and our elected officials didn't hear a word we said. Our elected officials proved with 100% clarity they are 100% corrupt. And we want to allow them to distribute the wealth of our country? I'm not a betting person but I'll bet we the lonely slaves never see a dime of it.

The richest resources are confiscated and owned by elected leaders and the people are left to share the leftovers. Socialism could work in an environment absent of corruption and greed but because of this, it's more of a fantasy than a reality.

Socialism becomes very attractive to the poor because they see it as a way out of their struggle. They see the unfairness of others having wealth where they do not. And this is the draw to grow the numbers to vote for Socialism. We all saw in the recent election where people were coming on the news and saying I can't wait for Obama to take office so I don't have to pay my mortgage any longer.

This is very telling of the propaganda people are being pulled in with. But the whole element of toil for that wealth is a concept they don't understand. Why should they if they are going to be given something for nothing. They see it more as a lucky game of cards rather than achievement from hard work. They see themselves getting an equal share of the wealth although they did nothing to achieve it. It becomes a disconnect for the concept of working hard to be successful. Truly this concept can only be learned by doing. And people have been made poor by the monetary policies in America. The Federal Reserve has been robbing the American people since 1913. The more money they print, the less the dollars in our pocket are worth until we are forced to go on government assistance. These voters were created out of dependency on their government, not freedom liberty or an ideology.

Socialist have an agenda when elected, to promise the people a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor only these leaders are backed by the rich. The only transfer that ever occurs is from the poor to the wealthy. Those in charge of equalizing are put in a position to be bought by the highest bidder for their ability to make things equal. But equal is relative to who is paying you the most money.

The election of Obama was at a tipping point. He's a Socialist, his change although never stated out right, is to bring in Socialism. The "powers that be" wagered that enough people in America were getting government handouts to support more welfare that the election would be a cinch. They gambled correctly. Everything he has said is the opposite of everything he has done. He's given more corporate welfare than any president in the history of America. And the sad part is his followers keep thinking he's going to also bail them out since he's bailing folks out only that bailout will never come.

Socialism isn't about making people equal, it's about power. Socialism has one function; to use the concept of equality to get into power. Once the people have given you permission to divvy things up you give everything to the people who paid for your campaign. Everything goes to the richest because they ran your ads, and they paid for your t-shirts and your logos and wrote your speeches about change. Once elected it's too late for citizens to do anything. He is their leader, they are stuck with the damage he does. And most will defend the insanity rather than realizing and admitting they were duped. Some never even realize it because they like their ignorant bliss. They don't want to believe their government would harm them or doesn't work for them.

Just one example of who Obama's in bed with and it ain't us.

Last week, after being reported in the Los Angeles Times, the White House confirmed it has promised Big Pharma that any healthcare legislation will bar the government from using its huge purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. That's basically the same deal George W. Bush struck in getting the Medicare drug benefit, and it's proven a bonanza for the drug industry. A continuation will be an even larger bonanza, given all the Boomers who will be enrolling in Medicare over the next decade. And it will be a gold mine if the deal extends to Medicaid, which will be expanded under most versions of the healthcare bills now emerging from Congress, and to any public option that might be included. (We don't know how far the deal extends beyond Medicare because its details haven't been made public.)

Let me remind you: Any bonanza for the drug industry means higher health-care costs for the rest of us, which is one reason why critics of the emerging healthcare plans, including the Congressional Budget Office, are so worried about their failure to adequately stem future healthcare costs. To be sure, as part of its deal with the White House, Big Pharma apparently has promised to cut future drug costs by $80 billion. But neither the industry nor the White House nor any congressional committee has announced exactly where the $80 billion in savings will show up nor how this portion of the deal will be enforced. In any event, you can bet that the bonanza Big Pharma will reap far exceeds $80 billion. Otherwise, why would it have agreed?

In return, Big Pharma isn't just supporting universal health care. It's also spending a lots of money on TV and radio advertising in support. Sunday's New York Times reports that Big Pharma has budgeted $150 million for TV ads promoting universal health insurance, starting this August (that's more money than John McCain spent on TV advertising in last year's presidential campaign), after having already spent a bundle through advocacy groups like Healthy Economies Now and Families USA.

Folks you are getting screwed and not even so much as a kiss.

What We Choose to Ignore