Those articles I posted have no connection to the ACLU, or any leftist inclinations.

As far as there not being any attacks on this country since 9/11, I feel required to remind everyone that Al Qaeda are CIA assets, bought and paid for. Obama's numbers are going to continue to fall, lets just see what happens when those tank and his pet projects continue to not pass.

Lets see what happens when the Audit the Fed bill moves forward.

Now, would anyone like to discuss what this Professor has had to say, the one thing that caught my attention the most was this:

Since 1998, Panarin has been warning of a future disintegration of the United States and the collapse of the dollar. The recent election victory for Japan’s Democratic Party is another sign that the economic collapse of the U.S. is imminent, according to Panarin.

“Today I received another confirmation that the collapse of the dollar and the US is inevitable. Japan’s Democratic Party won the election, and I’d like to remind you that its leader [Yukio Hatoyama] has the snubbing of the dollar among his economic plans. In plainer words, he plans to transfer Japan’s monetary reserves from US dollars into another currency. The move will seriously accelerate the dollar’s exchange slump as early as this November. Disintegration will follow shortly,” he said, adding that next year China would also begin to massively dump the dollar and that Russia would begin to sell oil and gas for roubles."

They already unveiled that IMF supercurrency, is it possible that becomes the world reserve currency, which would lead to a complete collapse of the federal reserve note?

2 things, first, what exactly is so nuts about writing articles about what's going on in the world, what prominent people in other countries are saying about this one?

Secondly, Alex Jones and those people who listen to him are nuts and over the top? Seeing how you'd be describing me with that blanket statement, would you care to qualify it? Are you calling me a nut?

To say Alex and the people who listen to him are the ones that would start a war is absolutely a piece of crap statement, Jones advocates nonviolence, he gets mad as hell, but I personally can tell you that he repeatedly makes it clear that violence is only going to begat violence and that he (and I agree) thinks those scumbags that are at work inside our government working hard to bring it down would love, indeed, plan on there being a violent reaction to the death of the dollar, the destruction of the middle class, tyrannical legislation being ramrodded through congress to the detriment of the average american citizen and the planned implementation of marital law.

If anyone starts a damn war it'll be those people with armies to command.

Why swine flu vaccines just don’t add up: Doing the (fuzzy) math

Mike Adams
Natural News
Tuesday, Sept 1, 2009

Here’s a seventh grade word problem for you: If swine flu has infected one million people and killed 500, how many people might be expected to die if it infects 150 million people (assuming no major changes in the virus)? The correct answer, of course, is 75,000 people, and that’s within the range of the number of swine flu deaths now being publicly predicted by the White House.

But there’s another part to this word problem: How many vaccine shots and hand washings does it take to boost vitamin D levels in the average person?

The question, of course, makes no sense. Vaccine shots don’t boost vitamin D levels any more than eating pork infects you with swine flu. So why is the official advice on swine flu protection essentially limited to “wash your hands, get your vaccine shot and cough into your elbow?” (Seriously. I’m not making this up.)

The Associated Press has distilled swine flu advice to “10 things you need to know.” None of those ten things include boosting your nutrition, getting more vitamin D or taking anti-viral medicinal herbs. They do, however, include hilarious explanations like “If you develop breathing problems, pain in your chest, constant vomiting or a fever that keeps rising, go to an emergency room.”

Emergency room in a pandemic?
Whatever for? They don’t bother to mention that in a pandemic scenario that strikes you with constant vomiting, the entire emergency room is likely to be overrun with other people joining you in a hospital room vomit fest.

Nor do they mention some other important math: The very limited number of anti-viral medication courses available in the U.S. The last time I checked, that was roughly 50 million courses. If the U.S. population is roughly 300 million people, and there are 50 million courses of anti-viral meds available, how many Americans will have no access to those meds? (Ahem… 250 million people…)

Here’s an even more interesting brain buster for you: If each vaccine shot generates $25 in revenue for drug companies, and the U.S. government orders the production of 160 million vaccines, how much money is Big Pharma making off the pandemic? That answer is roughly $4 billion in net revenues.

But even that doesn’t count all the repeat business from the future victims who suffer neurological side effects from the vaccines and have to be institutionalized and subjected to high-dollar medical care for years on end. In all, a mass vaccination program could end up generating over ten billion dollars in revenues for drug companies.

These numbers just don’t add up
Now let’s look at some serious statistics: If one million people have already been infected with swine flu, and 500 have died, that’s a fatality rate of 1 out of 2000 people. Depending on which research you believe, vaccines might at most be credited with preventing 1% of flu deaths during any given flu season (and that’s being very generous to the vaccine). So here’s the question:

How many people have to be vaccinated with the new swine flu vaccine to save ONE life from a swine flu fatality?

(Notice, carefully, this question has never been asked in the mainstream media. That’s because the answer isn’t exactly what most people want to hear…)

This question is easy to answer, actually. If the vaccine were 100% effective (that is, they prevented every death that would have otherwise occurred), they could be credited with saving 1 life out of 2000, right? Because that’s the normal death rate for this particular virus (these figures are widely quoted by AP, Reuters and the White House, by the way).

But no vaccine is 100% effective. As I mentioned above, seasonal flu vaccines might — at a stretch — be credited with preventing 1% of the deaths that might otherwise have occurred. With this 1% effectiveness factor calculated back into the formula for swine flu (assuming the same 1% effectiveness factor), it turns out that you would have to vaccinate 200,000 people to save ONE life from swine flu.

That puts a whole new perspective on the vaccine push, doesn’t it? 200,000 vaccines costs taxpayers roughly $5,000,000, and it subjects 200,000 people to the potential side effects of these vaccines which have never been subjected to any long-term testing whatsoever.

It all begs the question: Is it really worth it?

Is it worth spending $5 million and exposing 200,000 people to potentially dangerous vaccine side effects in order to prevent ONE death from swine flu? And why isn’t anybody breaking down the numbers on this issue and providing a serious cost / benefit analysis as I’m doing here?

Let’s be generous to the vaccine…
Vaccine pushers might argue that the vaccine is far more than 1% effective at preventing swine flu deaths. In their wildest dreams, they might imagine a death reduction rate of, say, a wildly optimistic 10%. But even considering that, is it worth it? If the vaccine stops 10% of deaths that would have otherwise occurred, that still means you’d have to vaccinate 200,000 people to prevent the deaths of ten people.

I’m going to throw out a wild guess here and suggest that far more than 10 people will be killed by the vaccine itself, completely nullifying any net reduction in total deaths. Mathematically, you see, mass swine flu vaccinations make absolutely no sense given the very low rate of fatalities being observed right now.

Just do something!
Of course, public health policy is never based on sense. It’s based on politics. And the politics demand that “they DO something!” That’s what the public wants: Do something! It doesn’t matter if doing something is worse than doing nothing… they just want to see some action.

It’s the same story with breast cancer screenings (almost completely useless), prostate cancer screenings (now proven to be far more harmful than helpful) and of course ADHD screening tests (which are only designed to trick parents into drugging their kids). Much of western medicine, it turns out, is complete hokum. We would all be better off without the screenings and without the vaccinations altogether.

There’s a highly credible book on this subject by authors Gerald E. Markle and Frances B. McCrea. It’s called What if Medicine Disappeared? (http://www.amazon.com/What-Medicine…)

This book argues quite persuasively (and with the citation of many convincing studies) that western medicine offers virtually no net gain in quality of life to the very people it claims to serve. Doctors, hospitals, vaccines and cancer clinics could all disappear tomorrow and most people would actually be far better off. Of course, no one disputes the value of having emergency rooms to handle acute trauma and accidents, but when it comes to preventive medicine and protecting quality of life, western medicine is a near-total failure.

When it comes to swine flu vaccines, any honest look at the math reveals that 200,000 people will have to be vaccinated with a largely untested experimental vaccine in order to prevent the death of one person (or ten people, if you really believe in vaccines). Remembering that more than one person in 200,000 will almost certainly be killed by the vaccine itself, it really makes you wonder: What’s the point of all this?

The point, of course, is to sell vaccines. It’s the one math problem that everybody understands: To make money, you have to sell a product, and there’s no better way to sell vaccines to 160 million people than to scare them into begging for injections that are statistically opposed their own self interests. But I suppose anything is possible in a country where state governments can punitively tax the poor by convincing them to play the lottery. People who play the lottery are very likely to be the same people getting vaccine shots: It’s like a lottery on your health, except that your odds of “winning” are far worse than your odds of winning something in a state lotto.

Let’s see: You have a 1 in 1 chance of being injected with foreign viral matter, and yet you only have a 1 in 200,000 chance of your life being saved by it.

Allow me to put this into perspective: You have a 40 times greater chance of being struck by lightning at some point in your life than having your life saved by the swine flu vaccine. (Source: National Weather Service statistics.)

Mathematically speaking, getting a swine flu injection and hoping it will save your life is more foolish than buying a lotto ticket with your last dollar and hoping you’ll scratch off a multi-million dollar winning ticket.

And buying a lotto ticket doesn’t risk the health of your nervous system, by the way. You can always earn back a buck, but restoring your nervous system after it’s attacked by a rogue vaccine can take years or decades. Some never recover. (Thousands died from the 1976 vaccines.)

Pop quiz: What’s the actual cost of vaccinating 160 million Americans with an unproven, experimental swine flu vaccine?

Answer: $1.6 billion plus countless victims with strange neurological disorders, comas and sudden death — all of which will be written off as “coincidence” by the vaccine pushers.

Free flu shots for the unemployed
As this article was about to go to press, I couldn’t help but notice a new announcement by CVS and Walgreens pharmacies. The powers that be are so desperate to get all Americans injected with this experimental vaccine that CVS and Walgreens are now offering free swine flu vaccine injections to anyone who doesn’t have a job!

That’s right: Just show up, prove you’re unemployed, and you get jabbed at no charge. (Who said losing your job didn’t have some benefits, huh?) Conspiracy theorists might suggest this is a clever way to clear the streets of “useless eaters.” Just lure the jobless into some experimental vaccine program, inject them and send them on their way. Next, will retailers start handing out free Soylent Green too?

Additional sources for this story include:

National Weather Service:
http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov…

Associated Press:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap…

Newsday:
http://www.newsday.com/business/cvs…

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/07/15/hersh/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/22/iraq.usa1

http://web.archive.org/web/20060427131713/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/05/09/wtort09.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/05/09/ixnewstop.html

“Some of the worst things that happened you don’t know about, okay?” said Hersh."

Right here where I live they are playing up the hype and fear in order to convince parents to let these companies and the Government test the H1N1 swine flu vaccines on children.

Russian Professor: Collapse Of America Could Begin In Two Months

Doomsday author says Obama is doing nothing to forestall disintegration



Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Russian Professor Igor Panarin says that events are continuing to confirm his doomsday prediction first made over 10 years ago, that the United States will completely collapse like the Soviet Union before the end of 2010, and warns that the chaos could begin to unfold in as little as two months.

Panarin, doctor of political sciences and professor of the Russian Diplomatic Academy Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told journalists during the unveiling of his new book yesterday that President Obama has done nothing to forestall the fast approaching crisis and that it could begin to properly unfold in November.

“Obama is “the president of hope”, but in a year there won’t be any hope,” said Panarin. “He’s practically another Gorbachev – he likes to talk but hasn’t really managed to do anything. Gorbachev at least had been a secretary of a regional communist party administration, whereas Obama was just a social worker. His mentality is totally different. He’s a nice person and talks nicely – but he’s not a leader and will take America to a crash. When Americans understand that – it will be like a bomb explosion.”

Since 1998, Panarin has been warning of a future disintegration of the United States and the collapse of the dollar. The recent election victory for Japan’s Democratic Party is another sign that the economic collapse of the U.S. is imminent, according to Panarin.

“Today I received another confirmation that the collapse of the dollar and the US is inevitable. Japan’s Democratic Party won the election, and I’d like to remind you that its leader [Yukio Hatoyama] has the snubbing of the dollar among his economic plans. In plainer words, he plans to transfer Japan’s monetary reserves from US dollars into another currency. The move will seriously accelerate the dollar’s exchange slump as early as this November. Disintegration will follow shortly,” he said, adding that next year China would also begin to massively dump the dollar and that Russia would begin to sell oil and gas for roubles.

Panarin previously stated that the dollar would eventually be replaced with “a common Amero currency as a new monetary unit”, referring to the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

He foresees the U.S. breaking up into six different parts, roughly along lines similar to those of 1865 during the Civil War, “The Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong,” according to Panarin.

Longer term, Panarin predicts that the breakaway states will eventually be taken over by the European Union, Canada, China, Mexico, Japan and Russia and America will cease to exist altogether, as depicted in the illustration above.

Panarin blames the collapse on a “political elite that implements an absurd and aggressive policy that aims to create conflicts around the planet” and warns that increasing firearms sales in the U.S. are a sign that people are preparing for “chaos” in the aftermath of a total financial meltdown.

“In my opinion, the probability of the US ceasing to exist by June, 2010 exceeds 50%. At this point, the mission of all major international powers is to prevent chaos in the US,” Panarin concluded.

Watch a clip from Russia Today below.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/russian-professor-collapse-of-america-could-begin-in-two-months.html

A false flag event? An Inside job?

There was a court case between Fox and 2 of it's regional reporters about a story concerning Monsanto. The judge ruled that any of these news outlets can in fact tell whatever lies that they want to, regardless of how it's presented, because it's their channel.

Now they're saying he didn't say that... gotta love that Orwellian doublespeak.

Whatever, the fact is, that piece of country saving legislation has more than half of the Congress signed onto it, but we'll see what happens.

Rep. Frank: House will pass Ron Paul’s ‘audit the Fed’ bill this year


By Stephen C. Webster

Published: August 28, 2009

Powerful House Financial Services Committee chairman says central bank’s lending powers to be ‘curtailed’

Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), one of the most unabashed liberals in the U.S. House of Representatives, told a Massachusetts town hall recently that Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve bank will clear his chamber by October.

Over half of the House members, most of them Republican, have signed on to the bill, H.R. 1207.

Though Frank disagrees — as many proponents of the bill contend — that the Fed is the cause of the U.S. dollar’s shrinking value, he told a Massachusetts audience that he’s been a proponent of greater transparency at the nation’s central bank for some time.

“Here’s what we plan to do: I want to restrict the powers of the Federal Reserve in a number of ways,” he said. “First of all, they will be the major losers of power if we’re successful, as I believe we will be, setting up that, uh, financial product protection committee.”

The committee Frank mentioned was proposed by President Barack Obama during the campaign, as a way of protecting consumers. It was formally presented to Congress in the President’s financial regulatory reform white papers in July, noted law firm Wiley Rein LLP.

“The Federal Reserve is now charged with protecting consumers,” continued Frank. “They were supposed to do sub-prime mortgage restricted … Congress in 1994 gave the Federal Reserve the power to adopt rules to ban bad sub-prime mortgages. … They have the power to ban credit card abuses. They have the power to do most of it. They, under Greenspan, did nothing.

“Under Bernanke, they started to do things, but only after Congress started, when I became chairman of the [House Financial Services Committee], we began to act on these things: Sub-prime mortgages, credit cards, overdraft … And after we started, the Fed did. So, that’s why one of the reasons why in the new consumer protection agency we will take away from the Federal Reserve the power to do consumer protection.”

Frank added that Congress will reverse an action by the Democratic Congress of 1932 that gives the Fed authority to lend money at will.

“Under section 13.3 of the Federal Reserve Act, they can lend money to whoever they want,” he said. “We are going to curtail that lending power. We are going to put some constraints on it.”

He concluded: “Finally, we are going to subject them to a complete audit. I’ve been working with Ron Paul, the main sponsor of that bill …” Several in the audience applauded. “He believes that we don’t want to have the audit appear as if it is influencing monetary policy because that would be inflationary … One of the things that will show you is what the Federal Reserve buys and sells. That will be made public, but not instantly. If it were instant, you would have a lot of people trading off that and it would have too much impact on the market. Again, Ron agrees with that. So, we will probably have that data released after a time period of several months — enough time so it won’t be market sensitive.”

Danger in transparency?

The pervasive argument against transparency at the nation’s central banking institution was repeated by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner during a recent dialog with popular social bookmarking Web site Digg.com.

Geithner said that he’s sure “people understand that you want to keep politics out of monetary policy,” adding that auditing the Fed is “a line that we do not want to cross” because of the possible danger to the U.S. economy.

The argument is strikingly similar to one posed by the Federal Reserve’s legal counsel in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Bloomberg News in an attempt to force disclosure of the institutions that received billions in bailout money.

Loretta Preska, chief judge of the Manhattan U.S. District Court, ruled Monday that the Fed had “improperly withheld agency records” in response to the FOIA request, adding that the argument of danger to the economy was based merely on “conjecture” and not evidence.

“[The] risk of looking weak to competitors and shareholders is an inherent risk of market participation; information tending to increase that risk does not make the information privileged or confidential,” she wrote.

Opposition to Fed powers growing

Eliot Spitzer, the disgraced former Governor and Attorney General of New York — at one time known as the “sheriff” of Wall Street — has assaulted the bank bailouts as “America’s greatest theft and cover-up ever” and called the Federal Reserve bank a “Ponzi scheme” that must be held accountable for its actions.

Additionally, the House Domestic Policy Subcommittee plans to probe how the Troubled Asset Relief Program’s (TARP) funds were dispersed by the Fed. Expressing his frustration before the Government and Oversight Committee, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) suggested that the Federal Reserve may be paying banks to hoard money and avoid making loans, instead of using the TARP funds to keep people in their homes.

To support his assertion, Kucinich cited a Bloomberg report which noted that “banks’ excess reserves at the Fed rose to a record $877.1 billion daily average in the two weeks ended May 20, from $2 billion a year earlier.

“Excess reserves — money available for lending that banks choose to leave with the Fed instead — averaged $743.9 billion in the first two weeks of this month,” the report continued.

“First, Congress was told that TARP was for the purchase of toxic assets, to help keep people in their homes,” the Congressman said. “Then the Bush Administration switched the program. Next, Congress was told that the TARP funds were instead needed to bail out the banks, in the form of a direct capital infusion, to keep credit markets alive.”

In a media advisory, Kucinich added: “If TARP isn’t about keeping people in their homes or providing credit to businesses, what is it for? I think the vast majority of Americans would be outraged to learn their tax dollars were facilitating hoarding at the Fed and increased profit making for banks.”

Kucinich’s Domestic Policy Subcommittee has also undertaken an investigation on the Fed’s bailout of the Bank of American-Merrill Lynch merger. “Specific documents subpoenaed include emails, notes of conversations and other documents,” his office noted.

“You look at the governing structure of the New York [Federal Reserve], it was run by the very banks that got the money,” said Eliot Spitzer told MSNBC’s Morning Meeting host Dylan Ratigan in late July. “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.”

Concluding his answer to the question of auditing the Federal Reserve, Rep. Frank told the Massachusetts audience: “The House will pass [H.R. 1207] probably in October.”

This video was uploaded to YouTube by user VegasBD on August 28, 2009.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/28/rep-frank-house-will-pass-ron-pauls-audit-the-fed-bill-this-year/

My position has always been, why make all the plans and put legislation in place to enact such a draconian plan?

I posted this because I found it interesting that Chuck Baldwin was talking about it.

More On Internment Camps

Chuck Baldwin
Friday, August 28, 2009

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a column questioning why it was necessary for our federal government to be constructing internment camps all over America. See the original column at

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090811.html

I felt it was time for someone such as me to publicly broach the subject. Needless to say, the response was overwhelming. Even more interesting is the fact that the web link to the National Guard Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) of “Internment/Resettlement Specialist” that I included in my column was removed shortly after the column was published. Was this a coincidence?

Of course, the U.S. Army still has their web site soliciting recruitment for “Internment/Resettlement Specialist” online. See it at

http://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=292

Readers might also want to familiarize themselves with this story out of Fort Leavenworth:

http://www.ftleavenworthlamp.com/articles/2009/04/16/news/news1.txt

Predictably, I heard from a sizeable number of readers who expressed concern about my “credibility.” Some were more direct: descriptions such as “conspiracy nut,” “lunatic,” “fringe,” etc., popped up quite often. Several readers dismissed the entire proposition on the basis that, apparently, the link I provided to a photo of one such camp that was reported in the Idaho Observer as a FEMA camp was actually constructed in another country. Which, if true, changes nothing, of course. Others pointed to a very shallow “exposé” published in Popular Mechanics that attempted (lamely) to debunk the whole notion of internment camps. (This was the same source Glenn Beck used to dismiss the idea.) See the report at

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4312850.html

Criticism and name-calling aside, after reading the responses from hundreds of readers (and examining the evidence they submitted), I am more convinced than ever that our federal government is, indeed, constructing large numbers of internment camps. And as one might expect, I heard from a large number of military and law enforcement personnel, which made the evidence even more compelling.

One statement from a retired Air Force colonel (who is still active in military associations and stays well-informed on military issues) was especially telling. He said, “The Indiana plant is an AMTRAK repair area–there are probably similar reasons for other facilities. [Which is, no doubt, true.] I was a primary member of ‘Continuity of Operations’ planning in my second tour in the Pentagon in the 1960s–such planning has continued apace! This country was–and to a large extent still is–totally unprepared for the after effects of nuclear exchange. The millions of casualties of humans and animals–notwithstanding the almost total loss of communications and government infrastructure like police, fire, emergency response, etc. THERE ARE AND SHOULD BE PLANS TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW to keep order, to provide assistance for food, shelter, medical, etc. FEMA was designed to do this work to fill the terrible losses in continuity of operations, which would keep this country viable. Katrina is a tiny example of how an emergency can destroy an entire geographical area–and Katrina is just a minor example of where we would be as a result of a nuclear exchange. As with all things military you plan for the worst and hope for the best.

“We remain vulnerable to massive catastrophes in this country–natural or man-caused. We need to be prepared and FEMA with all its faults–BACKED BY THE MILITARY–is charged with this job.” (Emphasis added.)

(To learn more about “Continuity of Operations,” to which the good colonel referred, start with these web sites:

http://www.nextgov.com/the_basics/tb_20080623_2687.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Plan

http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/fpc-65.htm )

Notice that the retired colonel did not challenge the existence of internment camps, but rather linked them, and military-backed FEMA, with martial law–and he saw nothing wrong with that. (Please note: the colonel brought up martial law; I did not. Plus, the colonel was not adversarial with me, but on the contrary, expressed familiarity and favor toward me.) Several military men who wrote me shared the colonel’s sentiment. Some of them expressed concern about the impact these plans will have on freedom and constitutional government, while others seemed completely unconcerned regarding any potential encroachment that plans of military action against American citizens might have upon the Bill of Rights. What is enlightening, however, is the fact that, regardless of the personal position taken, none of the military personnel who wrote me discounted the existence of internment camps.

Since the colonel brought up martial law, U.S. Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA) recently indicated that he believed the U.S. government was intending to do just that. See his comments at

http://tinyurl.com/pandemic-martial-law

And last year, the San Francisco Chronicle published a major story regarding the potential for the federal government to suspend the Constitution and institute martial law. See the story at

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL

In addition, is it a coincidence that a bill was recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 645) called the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act, which directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish “not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations”? See the report at

http://tinyurl.com/cong-to-auth-fema-camps

Is all of this information simply to be discarded as hysteria?

On the other hand, several readers chided me for being “late” to discuss the subject. And to be sure, some of these folks have done quite a bit of personal research and have amassed a large amount of data on the subject.

For example, readers supplied me with a plethora of material to substantiate the existence of large numbers of internment camps throughout the United States. I invite readers to peruse some of the information provided below and draw their own conclusions:

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/08/11/p27662

http://www.bing.com/search?q=fema+camps

http://tinyurl.com/locate-fema-camps1 (This site requires JavaScript to be enabled.)

Of course, the above is merely a sample of the scores of resources that were forwarded to me by readers. I encourage people to do their own research.

Even Mr. Skeptoid himself, Brian Dunning, grudgingly acknowledges the probability of the existence of internment camps on U.S. soil. As with the retired Air Force colonel referred to above, Dunning senses nothing sinister about the existence of the camps, and he doesn’t address the numbers part of the story, but he does admit the plausibility of their existence.

Dunning wrote, “When I first heard the FEMA Prison Camp conspiracy story, it seemed ridiculous and paranoid at face value. But when I finally dug in to research it, I started by searching for the origins of the rumors, and found to my surprise that nearly all of the legal foundation and precedent for such a plan does in fact exist.”

(See Dunning’s blog at http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4145 )

As I was mulling over all this information, I remembered reading an interview that radio talk show host Geoff Metcalf had with author Ted Flynn regarding Flynn’s (then) new book, “Hope of the Wicked: The Master Plan to Rule the World.” According to Metcalf, “Flynn’s book provides a strong historical basis to show that there is a global elite working to end the sovereignty of nations and to place every person on earth under the authority of the United Nations.” This interview was conducted back in 2001, by the way.

In the interview, Metcalf asked Flynn, “Please explain what FEMA is. What is their authority and what is their job?”

Flynn replied, “The Federal Emergency Management Agency is probably going to be the enforcement arm of the New-World Order. Very few people could tell you that it is actually a cabinet position. By and large, a great percentage of their budget is ‘black ops.’ It’s really not on the books. You only hear of them a little bit when there are disasters. But there is a great agenda to gather information for the government in stealth.”

Metcalf then said, “I found it significant when Rep. Henry Gonzalez, D-Texas, clarified the question of the existence of civilian detention camps. In an interview a few years ago, he said, ‘the truth is yes–you do have these standby provisions, and the plans are here . . . whereby you could, in the name of stopping terrorism . . . evoke the military and arrest Americans and put them in detention camps.’ They DO exist.”

Flynn replied, “They do.”

(See the interview at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=8853 )

Again, that our federal government has built large numbers of internment camps seems undeniable. What has not been determined is the purpose for which these facilities have been constructed. No one wants to believe that our government is planning evil designs upon us. Then again, neither did German Jews want to believe that their government was up to no good.

America’s founders believed that a central government could not be trusted, which is why they tried to fence it in with the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Neither should citizens today trust the federal government. As President George Washington put it, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

Therefore, keep a wary eye out for anything that the federal government could use to encroach upon our liberties and freedoms–even reports of internment camps. If the reports are bogus, you’ve lost nothing; but if they are real, you could end up losing your liberty.

You call it a mistake, I call them the same.

How did the bailouts help the economy exactly? I don't recall banks just pouring forth with the cash recieved from the taxpayer, in fact it seems as if they are hording the majority of it.

Government intervention caused this problem, now we are supposed to believe that Government intervention will solve it?

I'm reminded of something David Icke would say: First you cause the big problem and wait for the squabbling to start, once you get that reaction, you produce a prefabricated solution to the problem you caused, giving way for you to get at what it was you wanted in the first place.

Problem-Reaction-Solution.

Gee... I wonder what the end game for these globalists scumbags could be?

Geithner: Auditing the Fed is a "line that we don't want to cross"

Posted by Michael Salvi on 08/26/09 1:11 PM
Last updated 08/26/09 09:06 AM

In an interview released today by Digg and the Wall Street Journal, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was pressured about the growing popular movement to Audit the Fed spearheaded by Texas Congressman Ron Paul. A visibly uncomfortable Geithner attempts to dismiss the question by stating "I'm sure people understand that you want to keep politics out of monetary policy." When Geithner is again pressed on the issue, he makes the stunning assertion that conducting an audit of the Federal Reserve—something never before done in its 96 year history—is a "line that we don't want to cross," proclaiming that such a move would be "problematic for the country." Watch the interview in the player below:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=24278

Geithner's response that auditing the Fed would give politicians dangerous control over American monetary policy is mistaken at best and a deliberate lie at worst. Allowing the public to know what happened to their $24 trillion in bailout money does not give undue control of monetary policy to the people's elected representatives. Instead, such an audit would finally allow the public to see how their money has been spent in the midst of the largest spending binge in the history of the world's economy, hardly an unreasonable demand given the well-documented revolving door between the Treasury and Goldman Sachs, the main recipient of bailout funds. Ultimately, the Treasury Secretary is left spewing the absurdity that "I think even the sponsor of that bill recognizes how important it is to us to have the Fed independent of politics," which can only be said to be true insofar as Ron Paul—the sponsor of House Resolution (HR) 1207— wants to abolish the Federal Reserve system altogether.

That the Wall Street Journal would even pressure the Treasury Secretary on serious issues like the Audit the Fed movement may be surprising, given that the Wall Street Journal is a mouthpiece of the financial oligarchy and that editor Paul Gigot, like Geithner himself, is a Bilderberg attendee. Needless to say, this was not a typical inside-the-beltway interview. Instead, questions were submitted and voted on by the Digg community, with the top 10 questions being posed to Mr. Geithner.

As a result, the Secretary was bombarded by pointed questions about his documented tax evasion from 2001-2004, the wisdom of spending trillions of dollars in the light of long-term dollar devaluation and even, in the words of one particularly irate questioner, "Why are you running the Treasury Department?" Despite presumably having had time to prepare responses to each question well in advance, Geithner is still visibly discomfited by the entire exchange, picking at his shirt cuff and coughing nervously throughout the interview.

In one particularly telling moment, Geithner even admits "We have been forced to do just extraordinary things and, frankly, offensive things to help save the economy."

That these questions are only being asked now, almost a year into the bailout and several months after the new administration has taken office, further highlights how the controlled corporate media is doing everything in its power to keep to well-trodden and uncontroversial areas in their interviewing of key administration officials. This interview is testimony to the power of the citizen journalism movement that is attempting to hold those in power accountable for their actions. We can only hope that the Obama Administration lives up to their promise to be the "cyber" administration by allowing more such question-and-answer sessions in the future.

The Free Market as Regulator

By Ron Paul
Published 08/21/09

Since the bailouts last fall, lawmakers have been behaving as quasi-owners of the bailed-out banks and businesses, leading to calls for increased regulation of executive compensation and other wasteful expenditures. We have heard much about bonuses and executive pay packages that sound more like lottery winnings than an honest salary.

Many lawmakers voted in favor of these unconstitutional bailouts, believing that these corporations were too big to fail, and allowing them to go under would precipitate widespread economic disaster. This second wave of citizen outrage at the bailouts has left these lawmakers with a bit of egg on their face, and once again, they feel the need to "do something" to "fix" it. Shouldn't there be a regulatory structure in place governing executive compensation? Politically, it seems quite feasible. People are outraged that the system has once again gutted the many to make a few at the top fantastically wealthy. But they are incorrectly demonizing the free market.

What we need to realize is that there WAS a regulatory structure in place that was attempting to stop bad management, including overpaying executives. That regulatory structure is the free market, and when poor management brought these companies to the point of bankruptcy, Congress circumvented the wisdom of the free market, and inserted its own judgment at our expense. And now because of that intervention, we will burdened with massive new regulations. We can be certain this effort will fail.

The free market is a naturally occurring phenomenon that can't be eliminated by governments, not even totalitarian ones like the former Soviet Union. It can be regulated, over-taxed and manipulated until it is driven underground. Lately it has been wrongly accused of doing so many things it just doesn't do, that are really the fault of crony corporatism and convoluted government policies that brought on the crisis. Too many people equate the free market with big business doing whatever it wants, but that is not the free market. Unconstitutional taxpayer funded bailouts are what allow giant corporations to run roughshod over the economy. The free market is what puts them out of business when they misbehave.

The free market is you and your neighbors working hard to produce what you produce, and exchanging goods and services voluntarily, in mutually agreeable arrangements. The free market is about respecting property rights and contracts. It is not about building up oligarchs and monopolies and confiscatory tax theft -- these are creatures of government.

We must watch out when government comes up with interventionist solutions to interventionist problems. The root of our problems lie in interventionism. Trusting the free market is the solution.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=175

The Devil We Know

Peter Schiff
Lew Rockwell.com
Thursday, August 27, 2009

Ayn Rand wrote, “when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed.”

America is not doomed, but the fellows in Washington are pushing for that outcome. It seems that all the characters that encouraged this financial crisis are being rewarded, and Ben Bernanke’s re-nomination is no exception to this rule. He was on the Board of Governors when Alan Greenspan grew our bubble economy. Known as “Helicopter Ben,” Bernanke was the most vocal supporter of low interest rates to combat the bogus threat of deflation, even if it meant dropping cash from helicopters. He succeeded in his aim – as it is hard for prices to decline while the money supply is growing by double digits.

Of course, much of that new money went into speculative bubbles, first in tech and then real estate. When the misallocation became too great to ignore, the credit markets froze and leveraged institutions started failing. Now, Bernanke says that he doesn’t want to preside over another Great Depression. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t want another Great Depression; he just doesn’t want to preside over it. His plan seems to be continuing to print money so that the depression isn’t apparent until after he leaves office. However, while Greenspan was able to get out of Dodge, Bernanke will probably not be so lucky, as his reappointment virtually guarantees that he will be in the middle of the action when the bullets start to fly. Left to clean up his own mess, Bernanke will soon regret not quitting while the going was good.

Bernanke is being praised for avoiding a collapse in the financial system. While he has forestalled some short-term pain, he has in turn forsaken long-term gain. The “green shoots” that set the pundits alight are nothing more than the direct effects of massive monetary expansion. What we have is nominal growth in the unproductive service and consumption sectors. In short, Bernanke is being praised by the drug addicts for not cutting them off. But the thing about addiction is that the longer you stay hooked, the more deadly the withdrawal.

What this country needs is a Fed Chairman that is immensely unpopular, backed by a courageous President. Under Paul Volcker and Ronald Reagan, this model proved effective at avoiding a complete economic collapse in the early 1980’s. In case posterity’s resounding approval has clouded anyone’s memory, Volcker was vilified and threatened with impeachment at the height of that crisis. Reagan’s decision to stand behind Volcker allowed the Chairman to persevere. It has never been popular to be responsible. Only after the markets settled and the country experienced twenty years of prosperity was history’s final judgment made about Volcker.

Greenspan undid the painful sacrifice we made in 1981. He grew a bubble in tech stocks and then refused to allow the economy to restructure after it burst, instead inflating a real estate bubble in its stead. Meanwhile, federal spending ballooned, along with unfunded liabilities and guarantees that distorted the capital markets. The Fed created moral hazard because the government assumed that any excessive debt would be monetized. When push came to shove, Bernanke did exactly that, perhaps even hiding his intervention by buying Treasuries through intermediaries. In doing so, he allowed our elected officials to avoid making the politically costly decisions that would have prepared the country for future growth.

To get a sense of Bernanke’s ultimate legacy, look no further than Argentina. Though many of the rich and powerful had moved their savings abroad, a currency collapse wiped out the middle class in that historically prosperous country. Is such an outcome worth the short-term comfort of avoiding the severe but temporary pain of unemployment and mortgage defaults?

Bernanke’s re-nomination is a politically safe decision for President Obama, and at least Bernanke is a devil we know. However, this lack of a “change” for the better should squash any “hope” for a genuine recovery. If the Bush years were as bad as the Democrats claim, then it is curious that they are mimicking and magnifying the same mistakes. No one has been held accountable for a financial crisis that the professors, pundits, and politicians told us would not come. All the same players are running the game, always changing the rules so they stay on top. Real “change we can believe in” would be a return to our roots in the rule of law and a system of sound money – but it’s hard to stay grounded when you’re throwing money from helicopters.

Very awesome!