Before the tinfoil hat insult comes out, have you even looked at what the victims families have had to say, what their questions are? Or are you calling the 9/11 survivors and family who lost loved ones Tin Foil hat wearers?

Hey, someone else knows about that.

Any coincidence that since our invasion of Afghanistan, Herion has tripled?

Yeah, I think technically it would.

Fact is the idea behind our government, is that We The People are the boss. But once these jokers take their oath, they disrespect the people and the integrity the office is supposed to hold.

As far as some profanity, if it was in there for the sake of it, then I might not agree, but if someone were to single out corrupt congressmen and give them an appropriate name modifier, then I'd probably applaud.

The costs in currency pales in comparison to the costly effects on the lives this so called "war" touches.

On “Respecting the Office”
Friday, September 18th, 2009
Yesterday’s post on insulting politicians reminds me of a conversation I had a couple years ago shortly after I testified before Congress on the online gambling issue.

I can’t remember if it was a Capitol Hill staffer or a former staffer who was then working for the Poker Players Alliance, but a guy came up afterward and complimented me on my testimony. He said he’d never heard someone be so direct with Congress while giving testimony. I responded that I’d never really bought into the sanctimony of Congress—the idea that congressmen by default deserve reverence because they hold a political office.

That apparently went too far. The guy was offended, even though he was on my side on the poker issue. He said something to the effect of, “But you have to respect the office and the institution.”

I don’t see why. Members of Congress sure as hell don’t respect the office or the institution. They regularly pass laws that aren’t authorized by the Constitution. And that’s just the stuff they do proudly. Never mind the corruption, exempting themselves from the laws they pass, pork spending, and . . . the list goes on.

I don’t agree with Sen. Jim Webb on much when it comes to economic policy. But the guy became a hero in my book when he refused to shake then-President George W. Bush’s hand at a White House ceremony a few years ago. Bush had sent Webb’s son off to fight in what Webb thought was a feeble excuse for a war. If anything, a politician who uses his power to achieve ignoble ends ought to be held in higher contempt than the rest of us. He certainly isn’t entitled to genuflection simply by virtue of his position.

I was talking about all of this a couple of weeks ago with some D.C. folks. What would happen if someone came to testify before Congress, and just ripped into the members present with a richly-deserved, profanity-laced tirade? There is such thing as “contempt of Congress,” but as far as I know it concerns not showing up for testimony, not insulting an individual congressman, or not showing the appropriate deference to political power.

I’m sure our ranter would be subject to thorough tongue-lashings by David Brooks, David Broder, David Gergen and the phalanx of Washington’s other crusty guardians of decorum not named David. But could you be arrested? Just wondering.


http://www.theagitator.com/2009/09/18/on-respecting-the-office/

Is the War on Drugs More Costly Than It's Worth?
Some Law Enforcement Officials Support Decriminalization of Drugs
By PATRIK JONSSON
Sept. 19, 2009


Every 18 seconds, an American is busted for drug possession, according to Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) crime statistics released Monday.

After years of fighting the war on drugs, some law enforcement officials think it may not be worth the cost.
(Getty Images)The new statistics point to a continued emphasis on drug interdiction -- otherwise known as the "war on drugs" -- that more and more law enforcement officers are now questioning.

While many experts hold the anti-drug campaign to be the key reason for the decline in the crime rate in the US, especially violent crime, since the 1990s, these police officers, as well as current and retired judges and prosecutors see, instead, thousands of American lives ruined for small drug infractions in a costly and possibly unwinnable "war."

"Not only do these officers see the terrible results that their work has had on individuals' lives, but a lot of what I hear from beat officers and undercover narcotics agents is they've seen colleagues die in the line of fire trying to enforce laws that have no positive impacts," says Tom Angell, a spokesman for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) in Washington. "For a lot of them, this is about trying to keep good cops alive by repealing stupid prohibition laws."


According to the latest FBI figures, 82.3 percent of all drug arrests in 2008 were for possession, and 44.3 percent of these for possession of marijuana. Arrests totaled more than 1.7 million.

"You can get over an addiction, but you will never get over a conviction, said Jack Cole, a retired undercover narcotics agent and LEAP director, in a statement Tuesday about the "collateral consequences" of the war on drugs.

Changing Attitudes
The emergence of frontline officers speaking out against the war on drugs is helping to kindle a debate about legalization of drugs across the US, says Mr. Angell. It is even driving a Congressional bill written by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virigina ,to establish a new Blue Ribbon justice system panel that would take a serious look at drug legalization.

The US could gain $77 billion in revenue a year by legalizing -- and taxing -- marijuana, cocaine and heroin, says LEAP.

Culturally, attitudes about drugs may be changing. A Zogby poll in May showed for that the first time a majority of Americans favor decriminalizing marijuana. States such as Massachusetts and California have already taken steps in that direction.

"[Most] drugs are more readily available at lower prices today than when Nixon declared a war against it," says Norm Stamper, a former Seattle police chief and a staunch proponent of drug legalization, referring in part to the lower price of marijuana.


However, White House "drug czar" Gil Kerlikowske recently said, "Legalization is not in the president's vocabulary and it's not in mine."


Sending the Wrong Message?
Pro-legalization groups are missing the forest for the trees, says Gregory D. Lee, a retired Drug Enforcement Administration agent. He says the dwindling crime rate across the US is directly correlated to the government's investment in border and street interdiction.

"Legalization sends a message that it's okay to do drugs when in reality these drugs have a tremendous impact on the future of the people who take them," he says. "[Under legalization], the crime rate would rise because of crimes committed by people under the influence of these substances."

Mr. Lee points to the rising price of cocaine in the US as a sign that domestic and international interdiction is working. "The war on drugs," he says, "is being won."

Well, a 3 front war?

Hitler lost his, because he was fighting a 2 front war, so historically, having enough troops isn't the question, the question would be: Are our leaders smarter than Hitler and his assistants?

Or are they just the same...

Let's be real here, It wasn't just "W", in fact I'd not be surprised if the former PR puppet for the Globalists didn't even have a clue.

If you really want to take them on, post them, I'll take them on with anybody.

Basically Government wants to control the internet.

That's right, the victims families are some of the biggest supporters of 9/11 truth.

So are the sick and dying first responders.

What's the conspiracy? Frankly it's a violation of posse comitatus and historically, these types of things always moves into tyranny. It's called incrementalism.

Gordon Brown urges EU to back new economic orderFrance and Germany square off against US and UK on action needed to reduce financial risk-taking


Ian Traynor in Brussels and Patrick Wintour The Guardian, Friday 18 September 2009 00.16 BST

Gordon Brown last night urged EU leaders to back an audacious plan for a new system of world economic government in which the G20 and IMF would be empowered to tell major economies how they should tailor their national policies to secure sustainable international growth.

Brown outlined his plan to EU leaders at a dinner in Brussels where an agreed strategy, including the governance of executive bonuses, was being hammered out ahead of the G20 summit in Pittsburgh next week.

The Brown proposal, known as the global compact is his latest attempt to urge world leaders, to recognise that international co-ordination of the major economies' fiscal policies is essential to prevent a repetition of the disastrous global slump. He also hopes the plan will help underscore his reputation as a respected world leader on economic issues.

Brown's plan appears to sanction new intrusions by a permanent G20 secretariat into the individual nation states. It is, though, seen by him as a way of addressing the global imbalances, including the surpluses and deficits of different nations, that have lain at the heart of last year's crisis.

Brown said: "We must be ready to commit to even greater levels of co-operation to meet the new challenges ahead. I believe the world's leading economies need not just a new policy, but a new way of making policies, not just a new programme of action, but a new way of managing the global economy."

He accepted his proposal requiring turning the G20 into a permanent body would need unprecedented political commitment from all G20 countries.

The global compact "would include an explicit agreement refreshed each year by the G20 on our common objectives of balanced sustainable and enduring growth, a commitment by each country to play its part, independent analysis and advice from the international institutions and a system of how we can agree to redress any problems that arise," he said. He also claimed there was now evidence that the world stimulus packages had saved 4m jobs in the major economies this year and may save a further 5m jobs next year.

Brown also insisted that the world economic recovery cannot be taken for granted and said the agreed programme of stimulus valued at 5% of world national income must continue next year.

Last night's dinner had been called by Sweden, the current EU president, to try to narrow differences between France and Germany on one side and the Obama administration on the other over bank risk-taking and remuneration.

The issue is seen as central to the international response to the financial crisis, with the exorbitance of the bonuses being paid to bankers believed to have encouraged recklessness and contributed strongly to the banking collapse.

I'm an American.

Ron Paul Q&A: Audit the Fed, Then End It

Sudeep Reddy
Wall St Journal
Thursday, Sept 17th, 2009

For three decades, Rep. Ron Paul has waged a lonely battle in Congress to abolish the Federal Reserve. But he has more foot soldiers across the nation today, particularly after the financial crisis, who are leading the drive for wider congressional audits of the central bank. (See today’s Journal story for more on their movement.)

In his new book — “ End the Fed” — released today, Rep. Paul walks through his critique of the central bank and lays out a strategy (briefly) for eliminating it. We sat down with the congressman to hear his views on a money system backed by gold, the Fed’s challenge of withdrawing its stimulus and his legislation to audit the central bank. Excerpts of the interview:

What would a world without the Fed look like?

You’d go back to the day that if you wanted to borrow money to build a house, somebody would’ve had to save some money. You wouldn’t have zero savings and all the credit in the world. That’s just a total distortion of capitalism. Capital comes from savings. The part you don’t use for everyday living which you have left over, you reinvest and you save or you loan it out. We were living with something absolutely bizarre that had nothing to do with capitalism. We had no savings whatsoever yet there was all the credit in the world.

So without the Fed, there wouldn’t be as much credit.

Yeah, it would be different. If you were selling me a car and the car was worth $10,000 and I didn’t want to pay cash, you could take credit from me. You’ve got to have something to measure it by. What is a dollar? We don’t even know what a dollar is. There’s no definition for a dollar. There’s never been a time in law that said a Federal Reserve note is a dollar. That’s the basic flaw. There’s no definition for money. We’ve built a worldwide economy on a measuring rod that varies every single day. That’s why it was fragile, and that’s why it collapsed. There was no soundness to it. So that’s why you have to have a stable unit of account.

If you live in a primitive society, you’d trade goods. And if you wanted to advance, then you would trade a universal good, which would be a coin. But we’ve become sophisticated and smart and say, ‘Oh, you don’t have to go through that. We’ll just print the money. And we’ll trust the government not to print too much, and distribute it fairly.’ That’s often just a total farce. People are realizing that it is.

Don’t you think the Fed has moderated the business cycle over the past century?

Yes, I think they did smooth things out. The market’s always demanding the correction of the malinvestment and the excessive debt. … Since Bretton Woods broke down, I think every recession has been moderated by the Fed. That’s why the trust kept being built. That’s all a negative. You have to get rid of the mistakes. Moderating it means that we have slowed up the correction. The fact that they have been successful is probably the worst part about it. They’re moderating the rapidity of the crash and the correction by holding the mistakes in place.

What if, years from now, we see that the Fed has returned its balance sheet to its old size and pulled that money back from the system? Would that not be a validation of its approach?

There has only been one time that I know of where they have done that significantly, to withdraw anything of significance. That was after the Civil War. They withdrew greenbacks to a degree, they quit printing greenbacks, and they balanced the budget. I don’t think you can find any other time in our history and probably the history of the world. Because it’s an addiction, and the withdrawal is always much more serious than the continuation. The immediate problem of continuing the inflation is always more acceptable than withdrawal symptoms. Politically there will be continued inflation until it self-destructs.

So you don’t think it’s possible to pull it off?

They might try a little bit. With a weak economy, they’ll say it’s better for the economy to have low interest rates. If we didn’t have a Federal Reserve today, interest rates might be market driven. A lot of people would go bankrupt, but it would benefit the people who save. Capitalism is supposed to benefit the people who save. Even though they’re cheating the people who save, they’re cheating those on fixed income and the elderly, they will not quit inflating. The pain will be too great. They’re smart enough to know? They weren’t smart enough to know when they printed. They created the bubble. All of a sudden they’re going to get smart enough to know when to withdraw this? There’s not one chance in a million that’s going to happen.

But if the Fed were to pull this off and return its balance sheet to a normal size, where would that leave you?

If they were able to shrink their assets by 50%, to a trillion dollars or so … I would say it would challenge a lot of people. But I think the economic laws are in place. It’s only going to be temporary. It’s not going to happen. The only way you could do that is what I’ve been advocating for these last several years. You’ve got to cut spending, you’ve got to balance the budget, you’ve got to stop fighting these wars, you’ve got to bring our troops home, you’ve got to quit expanding the welfare state here at home … But I just don’t think the conditions exist. In theory you could, but if you do that without shrinking the size of the government and shrinking the deficit, it will be disastrous. It won’t work.

How would an audit lead to ending the Fed?

It’s a stepping stone. I think what’s going to lead to the next step is the destruction of the dollar, just like economic events moved further ahead than my legislative process. I wasn’t getting anywhere. But the economic events demanded that we look into it. So even if this bill passes and we have more information and we’re talking about monetary policy reform, I don’t think that’s the way this system is going to be ended. I think it’ll be ended when it’s a total failure and then it’ll have to be replaced by something. It could be replaced with a more authoritarian government, a more socialistic government.

Do you think the Fed will be abolished during your career?

I always thought the day would come… This economy is going to get worse and this dollar is going to get a lot worse. It’ll take care of itself. My real goal is educating people to the nature of money so that when this system fails, that they’ll know what to do and not just say ‘Well, we need a better manager.’

The New World Order knew it needed a face lift... and that had to be a black one.

Professor Griff- Founding member of Public Enemy in Obama Deception.

The Judge is probably the only credible and honest person working on camera at fox. Thats why they don't give him his own show.

Gluttony or by design?