His weed eater doubles as a love toy.

Only knows because he's a fulltime geisha

Spitzer: Federal Reserve is ‘a Ponzi scheme, an inside job’


By Daniel Tencer

Published: July 25, 2009



The Federal Reserve — the quasi-autonomous body that controls the US’s money supply — is a “Ponzi scheme” that created “bubble after bubble” in the US economy and needs to be held accountable for its actions, says Eliot Spitzer, the former governor and attorney-general of New York.

In a wide-ranging discussion of the bank bailouts on MSNBC’s Morning Meeting, host Dylan Ratigan described the process by which the Federal Reserve exchanged $13.9 trillion of bad bank debt for cash that it gave to the struggling banks.

Spitzer — who built a reputation as “the Sheriff of Wall Street” for his zealous prosecutions of corporate crime as New York’s attorney-general and then resigned as the state’s governor over revelations he had paid for prostitutes — seemed to agree with Ratigan that the bank bailout amounts to “America’s greatest theft and cover-up ever.”

Advocating in favor of a House bill to audit the Federal Reserve, Spitzer said: “The Federal Reserve has benefited for decades from the notion that it is quasi-autonomous, it’s supposed to be independent. Let me tell you a dirty secret: The Fed has done an absolutely disastrous job since [former Fed Chairman] Paul Volcker left.

“The reality is the Fed has blown it. Time and time again, they blew it. Bubble after bubble, they failed to understand what they were doing to the economy.

“The most poignant example for me is the AIG bailout, where they gave tens of billions of dollars that went right through — conduit payments — to the investment banks that are now solvent. We [taxpayers] didn’t get stock in those banks, they didn’t ask what was going on — this begs and cries out for hard, tough examination.

“You look at the governing structure of the New York [Federal Reserve], it was run by the very banks that got the money. This is a Ponzi scheme, an inside job. It is outrageous, it is time for Congress to say enough of this. And to give them more power now is crazy.

“The Fed needs to be examined carefully.”

Spitzer resigned as governor of New York in March, 2008, after news reports stated he had paid for a $1,000-an-hour New York City call girl.

At the time, Spitzer had been raising the alarm about sub-prime mortgages. In the wake of the economic meltdown triggered last fall by sub-prime loans, some observers have suggested that Spitzer may have been targeted by law enforcement because of his high-profile opposition to Wall Street financial policies.

Investigative reporter Greg Palast wrote that federal agents’ revealing of Spitzer’s identity as a call-girl customer was no coincidence.

Palast wrote that the principle of “prosecutorial discretion” is often used to keep the names of high-profile persons out of the media when they are tangentially linked to a criminal investigation. In the case of Spitzer, the Justice Department chose not to invoke prosecutorial discretion.

Funny thing, this ‘discretion.’ For example, Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, paid Washington DC prostitutes to put him in diapers (ewww!), yet the Senator was not exposed by the US prosecutors busting the pimp-ring that pampered him.

Naming and shaming and ruining Spitzer – rarely done in these cases - was made at the ‘discretion’ of Bush’s Justice Department.
Spitzer recently told Bloomberg News that President Obama’s regulatory reforms of the financial sector are “irrelevant” because regulatory agencies have not been enforcing corporate laws to begin with.

“Regulatory agencies already had the power to do everything they needed to do,” he said. “They just affirmatively chose not to do it.”

– Daniel Tencer

The following video was broadcast on MSNBC’s Morning Meeting, Friday, July 24, 2009, and uploaded to YouTube July 25, 2009:

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/25/spitzer-federal-reserve-is-a-ponzi-scheme-an-inside-job/

Did 'Blue Dog' bash his liberal constituents as conspiracy nuts?


A Democratic congressman may have some explaining to do to his constituents after telling Politico that a quarter of them back a crazy conspiracy theory.

In an article entitled "GOP headache: The birther issue," Lisa Lerer and Daniel Libit report on how Republicans are finding out that "there’s no easy way to deal with the small but vocal crowd of right-wing activists who refuse to believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States."

But it's this part in which the Democratic chairman of the House Agriculture Committee is quoted which might have the largest impact:

Out-party politicians have long had to deal with conspiracy theorists on their side — the people who think that the Clintons killed Vince Foster or that the Bush administration helped orchestrate the Sept. 11 attacks.

“Twenty-five percent of my people believe the Pentagon and Rumsfeld were responsible for taking the twin towers down,” said Rep. Collin Peterson, a Democrat who represents a conservative Republican district in Minnesota. “That’s why I don’t do town meetings.”
While there are certainly thousands upon thousands of Americans with legitimate questions about what really happened on 9/11, only the fringe elements have internally convicted Bush officials for "taking the twin towers down."

No doubt, Peterson has his own questions, since in 2002, as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, he said of FBI whistle-blower Coleen Rowley, "It took a lot of guts to do what she did."

Rowley had alleged "that FBI headquarters rewrote Minneapolis agents' pre-Sept. 11 request for surveillance and search warrants for terrorism defendant Zacarias Moussaoui and removed important information before rejecting them," the Associated Press reported in 2002. "Agent Coleen Rowley wrote that the Minneapolis agents became so frustrated that they began to joke that FBI headquarters was becoming an 'unwitting accomplice' to Osama bin Laden's efforts to attack the United States, the officials said."

Liberal activists have been targeting 'Blue Dog' Democrats, partially because of their opposition to the Obama administration's plans to revamp health care.

At the Washington Independent, David Weigl highlights Peterson's "head-scratching quote" in a post called "Blue Dog Values."

"Asked about a problem in the Republican base, Peterson chooses to … bash liberals in his own district, which gave Obama a not-exactly-fringey 47 percent of the vote," Weigl blogs.

Peterson was recently hailed for "shedding the 'Blue Dog' label when he supported Obama’s deficit-saturated budget" in April and the Waxman/Markey global warming tax.

But many Minnesotans in the seventh congressional district may wonder why their Democratic representative thinks a quarter of them are so nuts that he won't go to town meetings anymore.

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/07/did-blue-dog-bash/

Actually it's neither.

It's becoming pretty obvious to anyone without some personal agenda, that pot can help people.

As for it causing cancer, it's only when you're burning it, if you use a vaporizer or eat it, no problem.

What’s the Establishment Got to Hide?

Peter Orvetti
Campaign For Liberty
Monday, July 27, 2009

In a puzzling editorial in Friday’s edition, the Washington Post blasted the Federal Reserve Transparency Act as “an unserious answer to a serious question.” The Post, which tends to be predictably liberal and quite bland in its editorial pronouncements, used unusually harsh language, calling the bill “wrongheaded in the extreme.” The Post fears the legislation “would destroy financial markets’ faith in the Fed and, by extension, the value of the U.S. dollar, just as surely as a political ‘audit’ of the Supreme Court’s deliberations would undercut public faith in the justice system.”

That’s rather like saying Postal Service letter carriers should drive around in tanks, because the Army does and they both consist of uniformed government employees. The Fed and the Supreme Court both have big marble buildings in downtown Washington, but that’s about all they have in common.

The bill, H.R. 1207 in the House and, under the name the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act, S. 604 in the Senate, would simply amend Title 31 of the U.S. Code to remove restrictions on how the Government Accountability Office can audit the Fed. The GAO would be able to examine the Fed’s discount window operations, funding facilities, open market operations, and agreements with foreign banks and governments, and would be required to tell Congress what it discovers by the end of 2010.

That’s it. It would not shut down the Fed, or fire the Fed’s Board of Governors, or overrule the Fed’s decisions. The current legislation would just let us know what is going on in that big marble building.

Strangely, this is what has the Post all in a dither. While the newspaper has rightly called for transparency and open government on many other matters, it believes the Fed should be exempt. Within the same editorial, the Post says the Fed has recently “expanded its role in the U.S. economy to an unprecedented extent,” and that current law provides “no clear mechanism to hold the Fed accountable.” The Post’s editorial board seems to see no contradiction in lamenting the lack of accountability while simultaneously trashing a basic attempt to merely gain information about possible misdoings.

A dollar today is worth less than one-twentieth what it was worth on the day the Federal Reserve was created 96 years ago. Yet over all that time, the unelected Fed has never had to face the full scrutiny of our elected representatives that other powerful agencies must. Even our intelligence agencies must report to Congress — but not the Fed, which has helped rack up an $11 trillion national debt, and an additional $13 trillion in dubious loans and bailouts.

The Fed will not say where that money is going. Chairman Ben S. Bernanke has refused to tell Congress, and why should he? There is no means to compel him, and no way to find out what he’s been doing. The Federal Reserve Transparency Act would change that.

As Rep. Ron Paul said in introducing the bill in February, “Since its inception, the Federal Reserve has always operated in the shadows, without sufficient scrutiny or oversight of its operations. While the conventional excuse is that this is intended to reduce the Fed’s susceptibility to political pressures, the reality is that the Fed acts as a foil for the government. Whenever you question the Fed about the strength of the dollar, they will refer you to the Treasury, and vice versa. The Federal Reserve has, on the one hand, many of the privileges of government agencies, while retaining benefits of private organizations, such as being insulated from Freedom of Information Act requests.”

Thankfully — and somewhat surprisingly — a majority of the House is tired of this century-long status quo. The Federal Reserve Transparency Act has 276 cosponsors — 177 Republicans and 99 Democrats. So far in the Senate, the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act, introduced by independent Sen. Bernard Sanders in March, has 17 cosponsors. While 14 are Republicans, including 2008 presidential nominee John McCain, two of the three Democrats, Russell Feingold and Tom Harkin, are along with Sanders among the most liberal members of the upper chamber.

The Post seems to think a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. These members of Congress know that a little sunshine is a powerful thing. This legislation is a first step toward reclaiming America’s economic freedom.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/whats-the-establishment-got-to-hide.html

Last time I brought this info up, I was told it was B.S. and that pot causes cancer...

All I'm going to say is, if they didn't want this kind of crap to happen, then maybe they ought to not fire the HAARP array into our ionsphere and Carbons are good for life... Carbon based lifeform here... duh...

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Abraham Lincoln

Great point. I do however get amused when I'm pointed at as some tin foil hat wearer, when I'm just pointing out what these people in power have said and done, what they admit their intentions are.

Oh, yeah, the "Bin Laden" put options.

Interesting how this never made it to the T.V.

Well, be sure to enjoy your verichip and as far as your buddy the dark lord is concerned, trust me, I know full well that if the tiptoe towards totalitarianism in this country becomes a full run, I'm not going to be up for any awards from this government.

Is Obama's numbers being down an indication of this nations obsession with instant gratification or is it because he's really not much different than Bush in his policy?

I think it was just pointing out the most enduring of things to be declared a "Conspiracy theory".

Tell that to Biden and Micheal Savage.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1860871,00.html



Interesting...

As I believe we are a species with amnesia, I would use the machine to become a Observer, documenting the history of this planet, the important things that happen to bring us to the point we are now and make sure that it stays available for humanity.

Granted, that would completely change the way this planet operates, but It's a damned shame that we've lost so much memory of the road our ancestors have traveled.

Manufactured Crisis To Rescue Failing Obama Agenda?

Plunging approval ratings create fears of new Reichstag fire

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, July 22, 2009

New polls that show President Obama’s popularity has sunk to record lows should act as an alarm bell for the possibility that a manufactured crisis, just as was exploited by Bush and Clinton before him, is being prepared to reinvigorate support behind the government’s stalling agenda.

As far back as March controversial talk show host Michael Savage predicted that a “Reichstag fire-like event” would be concocted to reinvigorate support behind Obama but that was only two months into his presidency when his approval ratings were still relatively high.

However, Obama’s popularity has plunged rapidly as millions of Americans witness his pursuit of policies that are little different from those of George W. Bush, and in some cases even worse.

“Barack Obama’s honeymoon period appears to be coming to an end in America as polls have shown his ratings have fallen to their lowest point yet,” reports the Telegraph.

“A USA Today/Gallup survey suggested that six months into his presidency, his popularity was lower than George W Bush’s at the same stage of his tenure. Other polls by ABC News and the Washington Post also showed Mr Obama’s job approval falling below 60 per cent for the first time since he was sworn in as the nation’s first black president, with a marked drop in the last month.”

Both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton before him were able to seize upon crises relatively early into their tenures to ram through their political agenda.

Bush enjoyed approval ratings in the 90’s immediately after 9/11, which happened less than 8 months into his presidency, and exploited the tragedy to launch a geopolitical crusade, while the Oklahoma City bombing handed Clinton all the justification he needed to advance his domestic campaign to demonize and marginalize the growing patriot movement.

Recall that vice-president Joe Biden “promised” and “guaranteed” that there would be an “international crisis” within six months of Obama’s presidency that would cause him to make unpopular decisions. This crisis is now overdue since it’s just over six months since Obama took office.

What will Obama’s crisis be? A geopolitical flare-up that will act as a pretext for U.S. military involvement overseas? Or a terrorist attack that will create the perfect excuse for Obama to backtrack on promises that he is already stalling on, such as the closure of Guantanamo Bay? An attack on U.S. soil will also stoke accusations that the Democrats are “soft” on the war on terror by Republicans, providing another excuse to beef the police state and chill free speech at home.

Or will Obama act as the soothing savior when an engineered swine flu epidemic, promised to return deadlier than ever in the fall, or something even worse causes panic and chaos?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/manufactured-crisis-to-rescue-failing-obama-agenda.html

For the record, What the founding fathers did to pull this nation out from underneath the rule of England, would now get them classified domestic terrorists, their constitutional rights taken from them and they would find themselves locked in a brig somewhere enjoying some of that B.S. torture (enhanced interrogations).

I've seen that documentary too, the history channel one where they use a computer model to change the positioning of Connally from the position that JFK was in.


However, I've also seen E. Howard Hunts deathbed confession, where he freely admits that he participated in the op.

That aside, my point wasn't about the JFK assassination as a topic, but rather as a example of why questions need to be asked and answers demanded, or you end up with these kinds of conversations.

Seriously... if all you can come up with is to call me crazy and talk about how all I do is sit at this machine looking up 9/11 facts or that I'm toking the pipe.

Try answering any one of the questions I posted earlier.

Not with standing is the history this Government has with false flag events.

The events of 9/11 defied the laws of physics, Oswalds bullet defies physics, but I'm the crazy person when I question it.

Oh yeah, and Bill Maher, he's a stand up comic who talks about current events, that'd be like me coming back with "Rosie believes that it was an inside job too, so it must be true"

At the end of the day, I have this stupid thing I like to do, it's called thinking, I know that has a tendency to offend people and it sure seems to frighten government.