Main points: 2 parties are a joke, believe in freedom, believe in the Constitution and know the 2 parties by and large don't.

Teasing... who me? would I tease a beautiful woman? Naa, couldn't be...

Filing charges for words?

Words can't hurt you unless you let them.

There's quite a few referenced in the article above.

Estulins take on the housing bubble was spot on.

Believe in freedom, that’s what built this country!
May 6th, 2009

By: George @ 11:09 AM - EST

Rachel Maddow interviews Ron Paul about the current state of the Republican Party and Newt Gingrich’s failed Republican revolution of 1994.

Video: Ron Paul on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow May 5th, 2009



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDR0OxVdsAo&feature=player_embedded

The Einstein/Gene Simmons almagation cracks me up!

I post these leaked agenda's whenever they come out, because I like to see how many of them come true.

Estulin has a record of stunning accuracy, time will tell.
Just remeber that they're here.

These websites have the responsibility to create policy designed to protect people against this type of crap, allowing government to regulate speech is a extremely slippery slope and it will not end well.

Your Blog is a Weapon? House Bill suggests Hurting Feelings illegal

Journal-Post
Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Law prof Eugene Volokh blogs about a U.S. House of Representatives bill proposed by Rep. Linda T. Sanchez and 14 others that could make it a federal felony to use your blog, social media like MySpace and Facebook, or any other web media “To Cause Substantial Emotional Distress Through “Severe, Repeated, and Hostile” Speech.” Oh lordy, there goes 4chan.

Here’s the relevant text:
Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both….

["Communication"] means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; …

["Electronic means"] means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.

Sources: BoingBoing.net, Volokh.com

Here’s the bill in its full context.

——————————————————————-

Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act (Introduced in House)
HR 1966 IH

111th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 1966
To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to cyberbullying.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 2, 2009

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California (for herself, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. YARMUTH, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HARE, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. CLAY, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. COURTNEY, and Mr. KIRK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to cyberbullying.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Four out of five of United States children aged 2 to 17 live in a home where either they or their parents access the Internet.
(2) Youth who create Internet content and use social networking sites are more likely to be targets of cyberbullying.
(3) Electronic communications provide anonymity to the perpetrator and the potential for widespread public distribution, potentially making them severely dangerous and cruel to youth.
(4) Online victimizations are associated with emotional distress and other psychological problems, including depression.
(5) Cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide.
(6) Sixty percent of mental health professionals who responded to the Survey of Internet Mental Health Issues report having treated at least one patient with a problematic Internet experience in the previous five years; 54 percent of these clients were 18 years of age or younger.

SEC. 3. CYBERBULLYING.


(a) In General- Chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
Sec. 881. Cyberbullying

(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
(b) As used in this section–
(1) the term ‘communication’ means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; and
(2) the term `electronic means’ means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
881. Cyberbullying.’.

Leaked Agenda: Bilderberg Group Plans Economic Depression

Elitists divided on whether to quickly sink economy and replace it with new world order, or set in motion long, agonizing depression

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, May 6, 2009

On the eve of the 2009 Bilderberg Group conference, which is due to be held May 14-17 at the 5 star Nafsika Astir Palace Hotel in Vouliagmeni, Greece, investigative reporter Daniel Estulin has uncovered shocking details of what the elitists plan to do with the economy over the course of the next year.

The Bilderberg Group meeting is an annual confab of around 150 of the world’s most influential powerbrokers in government, industry, banking, media, academia and the military-industrial complex. The secretive group operates under “Chatham House rules,” meaning that no details of what is discussed can ever be leaked to the media, despite editors of the world’s biggest newspapers, the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Financial Times, being present at the meeting.

According to Estulin’s sources, which have been proven highly accurate in the past, Bilderberg is divided on whether to put into motion, “Either a prolonged, agonizing depression that dooms the world to decades of stagnation, decline and poverty … or an intense-but-shorter depression that paves the way for a new sustainable economic world order, with less sovereignty but more efficiency.”

The information takes on added weight when one considers the fact that Estulin’s previous economic forecasts, which were based on leaks from the same sources, have proven deadly accurate. Estulin correctly predicted the housing crash and the 2008 financial meltdown as a result of what his sources inside Bilderberg told him the elite were planning based on what was said at their 2006 meeting in Canada and the 2007 conference in Turkey.

Details of the economic agenda were contained in a pre-meeting booklet being handed out to Bilderberg members. On a more specific note, Estulin warns that Bilderberg are fostering a false picture of economic recovery, suckering investors into ploughing their money back into the stock market again only to later unleash another massive downturn which will create “massive losses and searing financial pain in the months ahead,” according to a Canada Free Press report.

According to Estulin, Bilderberg is assuming that U.S. unemployment figures will reach around 14% by the end of the year, almost doubling the current official figure of 8.1 per cent.

Estulin’s sources also tell him that Bilderberg will again attempt to push for the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty, a key centerpiece of the agenda to fully entrench a federal EU superstate, by forcing the Irish to vote again on the document in September/October despite having rejected it already, along with other European nations, in national referendums.

“One of their concerns is addressing and neutralizing the anti-Lisbon treaty movement called “Libertas” led by Declan Ganley. One of the Bilderberger planned moves is to use a whispering campaign in the US media suggested that Ganley is being funded by arms dealers in the US linked to the US military,” reports CFP.

Daniel Estulin, Jim Tucker, and other sources who have infiltrated Bilderberg meetings in the past have routinely provided information about the Bilderberg agenda that later plays out on the world stage, proving that the organization is not merely a “talking shop” as debunkers claim, but an integral planning forum for the new world order agenda.


Indeed, just last month Belgian viscount and current Bilderberg-chairman Étienne Davignon bragged that Bilderberg helped create the Euro by first introducing the policy agenda for a single currency in the early 1990’s. Bilderberg’s agenda for a European federal superstate and a single currency likely goes back even further. A BBC investigation uncovered documents from the early Bilderberg meetings which confirmed that the European Union was a brainchild of Bilderberg.

In spring 2002, when war hawks in the Bush administration were pushing for a summer invasion of Iraq, Bilderbergers expressed their desire for a delay and the attack was not launched until March the following year.

In 2006, Estulin predicted that the U.S. housing market would be allowed to soar before the bubble was cruelly popped, which is exactly what transpired.

In 2008, Estulin predicted that Bilderberg were creating the conditions for a financial calamity, which is exactly what began a few months later with the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Bilderberg has routinely flexed its muscles in establishing its role as kingmaker. The organization routinely selects presidential candidates as well as running mates and prime ministers.

Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were both groomed by the secretive organization in the early 1990’s before rising to prominence.

Barack Obama’s running mate Joe Biden was selected by Bilderberg luminary James A. Johnson, and John Kerry’s 2004 running mate John Edwards was also anointed by the group after he gave a glowing speech at the conference in 2004. Bilderberg attendees even broke house rules to applaud Edwards at the end of a speech he gave to the elitists about American politics. The choice of Edwards was shocking to media pundits who had fully expected **** Gephardt to secure the position. The New York Post even reported that Gephardt had been chosen and “Kerry-Gephardt” stickers were being placed on campaign vehicles before being removed when Edwards was announced as Kerry’s number two.

A 2008 Portuguese newspaper report highlighted the fact that Pedro Santana Lopes and Jose Socrates attended the 2004 meeting in Stresa, Italy before both going on to become Prime Minster of Portugal.

Several key geopolitical decisions were made at last year’s Bilderberg meeting in Washington DC, again emphasizing the fact that the confab is far more than an informal get-together.

As we reported at the time, Bilderberg were concerned that the price of oil was accelerating too fast after it hit $150 a barrel and wanted to ensure that “oil prices would probably begin to decline”. This is exactly what happened in the latter half of 2008 as oil again sunk below $50 a barrel. We were initially able to predict the rapid rise in oil prices in 2005 when oil was at $40, because Bilderberg had called for prices to rise during that year’s meeting in Munich. During the conference in Germany, Henry Kissinger told his fellow attendees that the elite had resolved to ensure that oil prices would double over the course of the next 12-24 months, which is exactly what happened.

Also at last year’s meeting, former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice formalized plans to sign a treaty on installing a U.S. radar base in the Czech Republic with Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg.

Rice was joined at the meeting by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who reportedly encouraged EU globalists to get behind an attack on Iran. Low and behold, days later the EU threatened Iran with sanctions if it did not suspend its nuclear enrichment program.

There was also widespread speculation that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s “secret meeting,” which was accomplished with the aid of cloak and dagger tactics like locking journalists on an airplane to keep them from tracking the two down, took place at the Bilderberg meeting in DC.

It remains to be seen what kind of mainstream media press coverage Bilderberg 2009 will be afforded because, despite the proven track record of Bilderberg having a central role in influencing subsequent geopolitical and financial world events, and despite last year’s meeting being held in Washington DC, the U.S. corporate media oversaw an almost universal blackout of reporting on the conference, its attendees, and what was discussed.

Once again, it will be left to the alternative media to fill the vacuum and educate the people on exactly what the globalists have planned for us over the coming year.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/leaked-agenda-bilderberg-group-plans-economic-depression.html

Torture and Mr. Obama

WILLIAM BLUM
Counterpunch
Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Okay, at least some things are settled. When George W. Bush said “The United States does not torture”, everyone now knows it was crapaganda. And when Barack Obama, a month into his presidency, said “The United States does not torture”, it likewise had all the credibility of a 19th century treaty between the US government and the American Indians.

When Obama and his followers say, as they do repeatedly, that he has “banned torture”, this is a statement they have no right to make. The executive orders concerning torture leave loopholes, such as being applicable only “in any armed conflict”. What about in a “counter-terrorism” environment? And the new administration has not categorically banned the outsourcing of torture, such as renditions, the sole purpose of which is to kidnap people and send them to a country to be tortured. Moreover, what do we know of all the CIA secret prisons, the gulag extending from Poland to the island of Diego Garcia?

How many of them are still open and abusing and torturing prisoners, keeping them in total isolation and in indefinite detention? Total isolation by itself is torture; not knowing when, if ever, you will be released is torture. And the non-secret prisons? Has Guantanamo ended all its forms of torture? There’s reason to doubt that. And what do we know of what’s happening now in Abu Ghraib and Bagram?

And when Obama says “I don’t believe that anybody is above the law”, and then acts in precisely the opposite fashion, despite overwhelming evidence of criminal torture — such as the recently leaked report of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Bush Justice Department “torture memos” — it’s enough to break the heart of any of his fans who possess more than a minimum of intellect and conscience.

It should be noted that a Gallup Poll of April 24/25 showed that 66 per cent of Democrats favored an “investigation into harsh interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects”. If the word “torture” had been used in the question, the figure would undoubtedly have been higher.

Following the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003, President Bush went on TV to warn the people of Iraq: “War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, I was just following orders.”

“Objectively, the American public is much more responsible for the crimes committed in its name than were the people of Germany for the horrors of the Third Reich. We have far more knowledge, and far greater freedom and opportunity to stop our government’s criminal behavior,” observed James Brooks in the Online Journal in 2007.

On February 10, the Obama Justice Department used the Bush administration’s much-reviled “state secrets” tactic in a move to have a lawsuit dismissed — filed by five detainees against a subsidiary of Boeing aircraft company for arranging rendition flights which led to their torture. “It was as if last month’s inauguration had never occurred”, observed the New York Times.

And when Obama says, as he does repeatedly, “We need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards”, why is it that no one in the media asks him what he thinks of the Nuremberg Tribunal looking backwards in 1946? Or the Church Committee of the US Senate doing the same in 1975 and producing numerous revelations about the criminality of the CIA, FBI, and other government agencies that shocked and opened the eyes of the American people and the world?
We’re now told that Obama and his advisers had recently been fiercely debating the question of what to do about the Bush war criminals, with Obama going one way and then another and then back again, both in private and in his public stands. One might say that he was “tortured”.

But civilized societies do not debate torture. Why didn’t the president just do the obvious? The simplest? The right thing? Or at least do what he really believes.

The problem, I’m increasingly afraid, is that the man doesn’t really believe strongly in anything, certainly not in controversial areas. He learned a long time ago how to take positions that avoid controversy, how to express opinions without clearly and firmly taking sides, how to talk eloquently without actually saying anything, how to leave his listeners’ heads filled with stirring clichés, platitudes, and slogans. And it worked. Oh how it worked! What could happen now, as President of the United States, to induce him to change his style?

The president and the Director of the CIA both insist that no one at the CIA who was relying on the Justice Department’s written legal justification of methods of “enhanced interrogation” should be punished. But the first such approval was dated August 1, 2002, while many young men were arrested in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the previous nine months and subjected to “enhanced interrogation”. Many were sent to Guantanamo as early as January 2002. And many others were kidnaped and sent to Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and other secret prisons to be tortured beginning in late 2001. So, at least for some months, the torturers were not acting under any formal approval of their methods. But they still will not be punished.

I love that expression “enhanced interrogation”. How did our glorious leaders overlook calling the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki “enhanced explosive devices”?

Lord High Dungeon Master Richard Cheney is upset about the recent release of torture memos. He keeps saying that the Obama administration is suppressing documents that show a more positive picture of the effectiveness of interrogation techniques, which he claims produced very valuable information, prevented certain acts of terrorism, and saved American lives. Hmmm, why am I skeptical of this? Oh, I know, because if this is what actually happened and there are documents which genuinely and unambiguously showed such results, the beleaguered Bush administration would have leaked them years ago with great fanfare, and the CIA would not have destroyed numerous videos of the torture sessions.

But in any event, that still wouldn’t justify torture. Humankind has aspired for centuries to tame its worst behaviors; ridding itself of the affliction of torture has been high on that list. There is more than one United States law now prohibiting torture, including a 1994 law making it a crime for US citizens to commit torture overseas. This was recently invoked to convict the son of former Liberian dictator Charles Taylor. There is also the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, ratified in 1949, which states in Article 17:

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
Thus it was that the United States has not called the prisoners of its War on Terror “prisoners of war”. But in 1984, another historic step was taken, by the United Nations, with the drafting of the “Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” (came into force in 1987, ratified by the United States in 1994). Article 2, section 2 of the Convention states:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

Such marvelously clear, unequivocal, and principled language, to set a single standard for a world that makes it increasingly difficult for one to feel proud of humanity. We cannot slide back. If today it’s deemed acceptable to torture the person who supposedly has the vital “ticking-bomb” information needed to save lives, tomorrow it will be acceptable to torture him to learn the identities of his alleged co-conspirators. Would we allow slavery to resume for just a short while to serve some “national emergency” or some other “higher purpose”?

If you open the window of torture, even just a crack, the cold air of the Dark Ages will fill the whole room.

“I would personally rather die than have anyone tortured to save my life.” - Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, who lost his job after he publicly condemned the Uzbek regime in 2003 for its systematic use of torture.

With all the reports concerning torture under the recent Bush administration, some people may be inclined to think that prior to Bush the United States had very little connection to this awful practice. However, in the period of the 1950s through the 1980s, while the CIA did not usually push the button, turn the switch, or pour the water, the Agency …

encouraged its clients in the Third World to use torture;
provided the host country the names of the people who wound up as torture victims, in places as bad as Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram;
supplied torture equipment;
conducted classes in torture;
distributed torture manuals — how-to books;
was present when torture was taking place, to observe and evaluate how well its students were doing.
I could really feel sorry for Barack Obama — for his administration is plagued and handicapped by a major recession not of his making — if he had a vision that was thus being thwarted. But he has no vision — not any kind of systemic remaking of the economy, producing a more equitable and more honest society; nor a world at peace, beginning with ending America’s perennial wars; no vision of the fantastic things that could be done with the trillions of dollars that would be saved by putting an end to war without end; nor a vision of a world totally rid of torture; nor an America with national health insurance; nor an environment free of capitalist subversion; nor a campaign to control world population … he just looks for what will offend the fewest people. He’s a “whatever works” kind of guy. And he wants to be president. But what we need and crave is a leader of vision.

Don't tell me for one second they didn't know this would cause terror.

Then, it's a photo op, but no one wants to release the pictures?

It was an "Op" alright.

Just like Nafta was great for our economy?

Just like the SPP was great for our Soveriegnty?

Just like the UN has really done any of the things they are supposed to, like they aren't up to their neck in tyranny, sex slaves, oil for food, rascism and other crap, but we will end up having to trust them that they are doing the right things with this info.

If only we could get the Republicrats to turn their distrust of the other wing of the bird on the system as a whole.

Geez, why is it that folks always think I haven't read these pieces of crap, that erode our soveriegnty?

CIFTA would bury the Second Amendment under “pertinent resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly.” It would criminalize ammunition reloading (defined as explosives manufacture) and gun assembly (including firearm kits and presumably breaking down weapons for cleaning or transport).

Obama has promised Mexican President Felipe Calderon that he would urge the Senate to take up CIFTA. After repeating the lie that 90% of the weapons seized in Mexican raids were purchased from U.S. gun shops and a reason why the U.S. needs to ratify this treaty. In fact, — only a mere 17% of guns found at Mexico crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.


Language contained in the CIFTA treaty insists it respects “the principles of sovereignty, nonintervention, and the juridical equality of states.” Not mentioned is the fact the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties has a superior rank to national laws. If the CIFTA treaty is ratified without exception, it would kill U.S. sovereignty and lead the way to destroying the Second Amendment.

Have Americans Lost All Control Over the Federal Government?

Mark R. Crovelli
Lew Rockwell.com
Monday, May 4, 2009

Over the last sixteen months, many Americans have watched with despair as the Federal government has wrested virtually despotic control over the American economy away from both individual Americans and private enterprise. They have observed the Federal government’s frantic (and totally unsuccessful) attempts to prop up banks that have revealed themselves to be completely incompetent and bankrupt. They have watched the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board printing more money than has ever been created in the history of these United States. They have watched their so-called “representatives” handing out unimaginable sums of their own hard-earned tax money to scores of bungling companies, like AIG, General Motors, and Chrysler. They have watched in cynical amazement as their newly elected president almost instantaneously broke his promise to end the most un-winnable of two un-winnable wars that they specifically elected him to terminate. They have watched him similarly break his promise to investigate the myriad grisly crimes of the claque that used to claim to be their rulers. And they have watched the American economy steadily slipping further and further into depression.

The ordinary Americans who have observed the unfolding of this tragic and ridiculous charade can perhaps be forgiven for thinking that the Federal government is now completely outside of their control. After all, they have made their collective opinions known to their so-called rulers time and again, and yet they have been completely ignored. Moreover, they now find themselves confronting an economy on the brink of inflationary ruin and outright socialization, a government considering at least three new costly military adventures, and a surveillance and police state with virtually unchecked powers over them.

Fortunately for the fate of this nation, however, the despairing idea that Americans have lost all control over the Federal government is very much mistaken. While it is indeed true that the Federal government has scorned their opinions and seized virtual despotic control over their private lives and the economy at large, ordinary Americans have not lost even a farthing’s worth of control over the Federal government. Their capacity to rein in their so-called rulers and set this nation back on the path to peace, prosperity and respect for individual property rights remains very much intact – and in some ways has actually been strengthened by the events of the past sixteen months.

The key to understanding why Americans still retain the capacity to reign in their behemoth government (and even the ability “to alter or abolish it“) lies in recognizing that there are more of us than there are federal agents, tax collectors, central bankers, congressmen, and regulators. For every central banker tinkering with the value of our money, there are tens of thousands of ordinary Americans who will soon be watching their savings evaporate. For every tax collector forcing us to hand over our money to the U.S. Congress, there are tens of thousands of ordinary Americans just scraping by – hoping to keep what they earn instead of working for the benefit of Goldman Sachs’ crooked managers. For every regulator seeking to control how we live and work, there are tens of thousands of ordinary Americans who do not feel particularly inclined to having every aspect of their lives counted, managed, arranged, and dictated according to the whims of faceless bureaucrats. For every crooked congressman (or congresswoman) selling out to or cowering before the far-right Israeli government and its American apologists, there are hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans who prefer to keep completely out of the terrible and murderous game called “Middle East politics.” Nothing that has occurred over the past sixteen months has altered the crucial fact of our superiority in numbers
Now, it is true that superiority in numbers does not necessarily translate directly into victory for individual liberty over “omnipotent government.” The barbaric slaughter of over 38 million innocent people by the vastly outnumbered communist Chinese government attests to this fact, for example. What our massively overwhelming numbers do give us, nevertheless, is the undeniable ability to take back our individual liberty and free our economy whenever we are sufficiently motivated to do so. Their diminutive numbers, coupled with the fact that all of their income is solely parasitically derived from us, means that no matter how large and powerful the Federal government might appear, its henchmen will never, ever, be able to keep our liberty from us if we decide to take it back.

The fact that we can take back our freedom whenever we can sufficiently motivate ourselves to do so ought to dispel any despairing thoughts we might entertain in the current economic and political environment. For, in the first place, the current crisis has created a massive number of Americans (an army, as it were) who are completely dissatisfied with their current position in this hyper-regulated, fascist, and hyper-belligerent state. A growing number of Americans are unemployed, and have no hope for finding new work, thanks to the blunderings and criminal actions of the Federal government and their cronies in the Federal Reserve System. A growing number of Americans are returning from wars their “rulers” concocted (or which were concocted by foreign governments) and refuse to end, only to find that the Federal government now considers them to be a “terrorist threat.” A growing number of Americans are graduating from college only to ruefully learn that they have been duped by the Federal government into taking out loans they cannot possibly pay back, and that they have no hope of finding good jobs. A growing number of Americans are now homeless, thanks to the mindless stupidity of the American congress and the appalling arrogance of certain members of the Federal Reserve Board. A growing number of Americans are now incarcerated for using or selling “drugs” by a government that has promoted massive trafficking in these substances itself. And a growing number of Americans are just plain sick and tired of paying year after year to kill Pakistanis, Iraqis, Iranians, Afghanis, Somalis, Serbs, Nicaraguans, Cubans, Angolans, Salvadorians, Chileans, Palestinians, et cetera ad nauseum.

What is more, this growing group of angry, disaffected and persecuted Americans is different in a critical way from the people that were slaughtered en masse by the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Unlike the poor peasants slaughtered in frigid Soviet gulags, for example, present-day Americans are armed – both literally and figuratively. In the figurative sense, Americans have at their disposal sources of information about the sordid activities of their so-called “rulers” like never before in human history. They have news outlets at their disposal that tirelessly chronicle the Federal government’s ongoing crimes on foreign and domestic soil. They have institutions at their disposal that make the acquisition of genuine knowledge about economic and political theory completely accessible to anyone with a computer. That not all Americans have taken advantage of these priceless sources of information is irrelevant – the very fact that they exist and continue to faithfully execute their individual missions means that the American public can arm itself with the truth whenever it so chooses. These institutions are rather like a grandfather’s M1 Garand stowed away in the attic of his flaccid grandson’s condominium. That the present owner does not know how to shoulder his grandfather’s rifle is irrelevant to the fact that, so long as he owns it, he could always choose to learn how to use it.

Add to this the fact that private Americans are literally armed to the teeth (and are continuing to arm themselves at a feverish pace today), and you have a people that could never, ever, be subjugated by the Federal government or any other menace – as long as Americans choose to refuse to allow themselves to be robbed or otherwise dominated by far-away places like Washington D.C.

Naysayers and pessimists can point all they want to the “sheepishness,” indolence and decadence of the American people. They can shout until they are blue in the face about how the American people have lost the proud sense of independence and individualism that marked their revolutionary forefathers. None of these objections, however, are relevant in the least to the question of whether Americans have lost control over the Federal government. On the contrary, these objections only point out that at the present moment relatively few Americans have chosen to stand up for themselves – they certainly do not prove that Americans cannot stand up for themselves and throw off this awful and deadly Federal yoke if they were to so choose. And, as long as the host creatures continue to vastly outnumber the parasites, any talk about lost control is fatalistic nonsense.

If anything, objections of this ilk should only prod us to say to ourselves and our neighbors “Go, thou, and do something to cast off this horrendous Federal yoke!”

That’s what I’m trying to do, and I hope I’ll see you at the barricades fighting for your liberty, instead of sitting at home in the dark, mired in self-defeating self-pity.

" Hi, I'm the spokesman for the Banking Oligarchy which seeks to dominate the planet. Please don't look behind the curtain, just place all your faith in "Change" and we'll get along just famously."

By the way, when we cap our emissions, whats stopping these business from simply moving off to the third world where there won't be any retarded cap and trade? By the way, who stands to make the most money off of cap and trade?

Do the research.