Search This Blog

Saturday, 19 October 2013

JFK Vs The Federal Reserve

JFK Vs The Federal Reserve
By John P. Curran
On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.
When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy - the author of Profiles in Courage -signed this Order, it returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency -money - without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy's Executive Order 11110 [the full text is displayed further below] gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America.
"United States Notes" were issued as an interest-free and debt-free currency backed by silver reserves in the U.S. Treasury. We compared a "Federal Reserve Note" issued from the private central bank of the United States (the Federal Reserve Bank a/k/a Federal Reserve System), with a "United States Note" from the U.S. Treasury  issued by President Kennedy's Executive Order. They almost look alike, except one says "Federal Reserve Note" on the top while the other says "United States Note". Also, the Federal Reserve Note has  a green seal and serial number while the United States Note has a red seal and serial number.
President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the nation. According to the United States Secret Service, 99% of all U.S. paper "currency" circulating in 1999 are Federal Reserve Notes.
Kennedy knew that if the silver-backed United States Notes were widely circulated, they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve Notes. This is a very simple matter of economics. The USN was backed by silver and the FRN was not backed by anything of intrinsic value. Executive Order 11110 should have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level (virtually all of the nearly $9 trillion in federal debt has been created since 1963) if LBJ or any subsequent President were to enforce it. It would have almost immediately given the U.S. Government the ability to repay its debt without going to the private Federal Reserve Banks and being charged interest to create new "money". Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S.A. the ability to, once again, create its own money backed by silver and realm value worth something.
Again, according to our own research, just five months after Kennedy was assassinated, no more of the Series 1958 "Silver Certificates" were issued either, and they were subsequently removed from circulation. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to all future presidents not to interfere with the private Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. It seems very apparent that President Kennedy challenged the "powers that exist behind U.S. and world finance". With true patriotic courage, JFK boldly faced the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt:
1) war (Viet Nam); and,
2) the creation of money by a privately owned central bank. His efforts to have all U.S. troops out of Vietnam by 1965 combined with  Executive Order 11110 would have destroyed the profits and control  of the private Federal Reserve Bank.
Executive Order 11110
AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289 AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:
SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended - (a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j): "(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption," and (b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof. SECTION 2. The amendment made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.
Once again, Executive Order 11110 is still valid. According to Title 3, United States Code, Section 301 dated January 26, 1998:
Executive Order (EO) 10289 dated Sept. 17, 1951, 16 F.R. 9499, was as amended by:
EO 10583, dated December 18, 1954, 19 F.R. 8725;
EO 10882 dated July 18, 1960, 25 F.R. 6869;
EO 11110 dated June 4, 1963, 28 F.R. 5605;
EO 11825 dated December 31, 1974, 40 F.R. 1003;
EO 12608 dated September 9, 1987, 52 F.R. 34617
The 1974 and 1987 amendments, added after Kennedy's 1963 amendment, did not change or alter any part of Kennedy's EO 11110. A search of Clinton's 1998 and 1999 EO's and Presidential Directives  has also shown no reference to any alterations, suspensions, or changes to EO 11110.
The Federal Reserve Bank, a.k.a Federal Reserve System, is a Private Corporation. Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as: "Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves." Privately-owned banks own the stock of the FED. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said: "Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors".
The Federal Reserve Banks are locally controlled by their member banks. Once again, according to Black's Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money:
"Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising  banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.)".
The privately owned Federal Reserve (FED) banks actually issue (create) the "money" we use. In 1964, the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is: "The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine. It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving to print them".
Any one person or any closely knit group who has a lot of money has a lot of power. Now imagine a group of people who have the power to create money. Imagine the power these people would have.  This is exactly what the privately owned FED is!
No man did more to expose the power of the FED than Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. In describing the FED, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932:
"Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it".
Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions, departments, or agencies. They are private credit monopolies which  prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully placed upon this country by bankers who came here from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by  undermining our American institutions.
The FED basically works like this: The government granted its power to create money to the FED banks. They create money, then loan it back to the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the interest on the debt. On this point, it's interesting to note that the Federal Reserve Act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible power of the FED over the economy is universally admitted. Some people, especially in the banking and academic communities, even support it. On the other hand, there are those, such as President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, that have spoken out against it. His efforts were spoken about in Jim Marrs' 1990 book Crossfire:"
Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy's attempt to reform American society involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency.
Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that  were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks".
In a comment made to a Columbia University class on Nov. 12, 1963,
Ten days before his assassination, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy allegedly said:
"The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of this plight."
In this matter, John Fitzgerald Kennedy appears to be the subject of  his own book... a true Profile of Courage.
This research report was compiled for Lawgiver. Org. by Anthony Wayne
What is the Federal Reserve Bank?
What is the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) and why do we have it?
by Greg Hobbs November 1, 1999
The FED is a central bank. Central banks are supposed to implement a country's fiscal policies. They monitor commercial banks to ensure that they maintain sufficient assets, like cash, so as to remain solvent and stable. Central banks also do business, such as  currency exchanges and gold transactions, with other central banks. In theory, a central bank should be good for a country, and they might be if it wasn't for the fact that they are not owned or controlled by the government of the country they are serving. Private central banks, including our FED, operate not in the interest of the public good but for profit.
There have been three central banks in our nation's history. The first two, while deceptive and fraudulent, pale in comparison to the scope and size of the fraud being perpetrated by our current FED. What they all have in common is an insidious practice known as "fractional banking."
Fractional banking or fractional lending is the ability to create money from nothing, lend it to the government or someone else and charge interest to boot. The practice evolved before banks existed. Goldsmiths rented out space in their vaults to individuals and merchants for storage of their gold or silver. The goldsmiths gave these "depositors" a certificate that showed the amount of gold stored. These certificates were then used to conduct business.
In time the goldsmiths noticed that the gold in their vaults was rarely withdrawn. Small amounts would move in and out but the large majority never moved. Sensing a profit opportunity, the goldsmiths issued double receipts for the gold, in effect creating money (certificates) from nothing and then lending those certificates (creating debt) to depositors and charging them interest as well.
Since the certificates represented more gold than actually existed, the certificates were "fractionally" backed by gold. Eventually some of these vault operations were transformed into banks and the practice of fractional banking continued.
Keep that fractional banking concept in mind as we examine our first central bank, the First Bank of the United States (BUS). It was created, after bitter dissent in the Congress, in 1791 and chartered for 20 years. A scam not unlike the current FED, the BUS used its control of the currency to defraud the public and establish a legal form of usury.
This bank practiced fractional lending at a 10:1 rate, ten dollars of loans for each dollar they had on deposit. This misuse and abuse of their public charter continued for the entire 20 years of their existence. Public outrage over these abuses was such that the charter was not renewed and the bank ceased to exist in 1811.
The war of 1812 left the country in economic chaos, seen by bankers as another opportunity for easy profits. They influenced Congress to charter the second central bank, the Second Bank of the United States (SBUS), in 1816.
The SBUS was more expansive than the BUS. The SBUS sold franchises and literally doubled the number of banks in a short period of time. The country began to boom and move westward, which required money. Using fractional lending at the 10:1 rate, the central bank and their franchisees created the debt/money for the expansion.
Things boomed for a while, then the banks decided to shut off the debt/money, citing the need to control inflation. This action on the part of the SBUS caused bankruptcies and foreclosures. The banks then took control of the assets that were used as security against the loans.
Closely examine how the SBUS engineered this cycle of prosperity and depression. The central bank caused inflation by creating debt/money for loans and credit and making these funds readily available. The economy boomed. Then they used the inflation which they created as an excuse to shut off the loans/credit/money.
The resulting shortage of cash caused the economy to falter or slow dramatically and large numbers of business and personal bankruptcies resulted. The central bank then seized the assets used  as security for the loans. The wealth created by the borrowers during the boom was then transferred to the central bank during the  bust. And you always wondered how the big guys ended up with all the marbles.
Now, who do you think is responsible for all of the ups and downs in our economy over the last 85 years? Think about the depression of the late '20s and all through the '30s. The FED could have pumped lots of debt/money into the market to stimulate the economy and get the country back on track, but did they? No; in fact, they restricted the money supply quite severely. We all know the results that occurred from that action, don't we?
Why would the FED do this? During that period asset values and stocks were at rock bottom prices. Who do you think was buying everything at 10 cents on the dollar? I believe that it is referred to as consolidating the wealth. How many times have they already done this in the last 85 years?
Do you think they will do it again?
Just as an aside at this point, look at today's economy. Markets are declining. Why? Because the FED has been very liberal with its debt/credit/money. The market was hyper inflated. Who creates inflation? The FED. How does the FED deal with inflation? They restrict the debt/credit/money. What happens when they do that? The market collapses.
Several months back, after certain central banks said they would be selling large quantities of gold, the price of gold fell to a 25-year low of about $260 per ounce. The central banks then bought gold. After buying at the bottom, a group of 15 central banks announced that they would be restricting the amount of gold released into the market for the next five years. The price of gold went up $75.00 per ounce in just a few days. How many hundreds of billions of dollars did the central banks make with those two press releases?
Gold is generally considered to be a hedge against more severe economic conditions. Do you think that the private banking families that own the FED are buying or selling equities at this time? (Remember: buy low, sell high.) How much money do you think these FED owners have made since they restricted the money supply at the top of this last current cycle?
Alan Greenspan has said publicly on several occasions that he thinks the market is overvalued, or words to that effect. Just a hint that he will raise interest rates (restrict the money supply), and equity markets have a negative reaction. Governments and politicians do not rule central banks, central banks rule governments and politicians. President Andrew Jackson won the presidency in 1828 with the promise to end the national debt and eliminate the SBUS. During his second term President Jackson withdrew all government funds from the bank and on January 8, 1835, paid off the national debt. He is the only president in history to have this distinction. The charter of the SBUS expired in 1836.
Without a central bank to manipulate the supply of money, the United States experienced unprecedented growth for 60 or 70 years,  and the resulting wealth was too much for bankers to endure. They had to get back into the game. So, in 1910 Senator Nelson Aldrich, then Chairman of the National Monetary Commission, in collusion with representatives of the European central banks, devised a plan to pressure and deceive Congress into enacting legislation that would covertly establish a private central bank.
This bank would assume control over the American economy by controlling the issuance of its money. After a huge public relations campaign, engineered by the foreign central banks, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was slipped through Congress during the Christmas recess, with many members of the Congress absent. President Woodrow Wilson, pressured by his political and financial backers, signed it on December 23, 1913.
The act created the Federal Reserve System, a name carefully selected and designed to deceive. "Federal" would lead one to believe that this is a government organization. "Reserve" would lead  one to believe that the currency is being backed by gold and silver. "System" was used in lieu of the word "bank" so that one would not  conclude that a new central bank had been created.
In reality, the act created a private, for profit, central banking corporation owned by a cartel of private banks. Who owns the FED?  The Rothschilds of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers of Paris; Israel Moses Seif of Italy; Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of Germany; and  the Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Sachs and the Rockefeller families of New York.
Did you know that the FED is the only for-profit corporation in America that is exempt from both federal and state taxes? The FED takes in about one trillion dollars per year tax free! The banking families listed above get all that money.
Almost everyone thinks that the money they pay in taxes goes to the US Treasury to pay for the expenses of the government. Do you want to know where your tax dollars really go? If you look at the back of any check made payable to the IRS you will see that it has been endorsed as "Pay Any F.R.B. Branch or Gen. Depository for Credit U.S. Treas. This is in Payment of U.S. Oblig." Yes, that's right, every dime you pay in income taxes is given to those private banking families, commonly known as the FED, tax free.
Like many of you, I had some difficulty with the concept of creating money from nothing. You may have heard the term "monetizing the debt," which is kind of the same thing. As an example, if the US Government wants to borrow $1 million ó the government does borrow every dollar it spends ó they go to the FED to borrow the money. The FED calls the Treasury and says print 10,000 Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) in units of one hundred dollars.
The Treasury charges the FED 2.3 cents for each note, for a total of $230 for the 10,000 FRNs. The FED then lends the $1 million to the government at face value plus interest. To add insult to injury, the government has to create a bond for $1 million as security for the loan. And the rich get richer. The above was just an example, because in reality the FED does not even print the money; it's just a computer entry in their accounting system. To put this on a more personal level, let's use another example.
Today's banks are members of the Federal Reserve Banking System. This membership makes it legal for them to create money from nothing and lend it to you. Today's banks, like the goldsmiths of old, realize that only a small fraction of the money deposited in their banks is ever actually withdrawn in the form of cash. Only about 4 percent of all the money that exists is in the form of currency. The rest of it is simply a computer entry.
Let's say you're approved to borrow $10,000 to do some home improvements. You know that the bank didn't actually take $10,000 from its pile of cash and put it into your pile? They simply went to their computer and input an entry of $10,000 into your account. They created, from thin air, a debt which you have to secure with an  asset and repay with interest. The bank is allowed to create and lend as much debt as they want as long as they do not exceed the 10:1 ratio imposed by the FED.
It sort of puts a new slant on how you view your friendly bank, doesn't it? How about those loan committees that scrutinize you with a microscope before approving the loan they created from thin air. What a hoot! They make it complex for a reason. They don't want you to understand what they are doing. People fear what they do not understand. You are easier to delude and control when you are ignorant and afraid.
Now to put the frosting on this cake. When was the income tax created? If you guessed 1913, the same year that the FED was created, you get a gold star. Coincidence? What are the odds? If you are going to use the FED to create debt, who is going to repay that debt? The income tax was created to complete the illusion that real money had been lent and therefore real money had to be repaid. And you thought Houdini was good.
So, what can be done? My father taught me that you should always stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand up alone.
If "We the People" don't take some action now, there may come a time when "We the People" are no more. You should write a letter or send an email to each of your elected representatives. Many of our elected representatives do not understand the FED. Once informed they will not be able to plead ignorance and remain silent.
Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution specifically says that Congress is the only body that can "coin money and regulate the value thereof." The US Constitution has never been amended to allow anyone other than Congress to coin and regulate currency.
Ask your representative, in light of that information, how it is possible for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and the Federal Reserve Bank that it created, to be constitutional. Ask them why this private banking cartel is allowed to reap trillions of dollars in profits without paying taxes. Insist on an answer.
Thomas Jefferson said, "If the America people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
Jefferson saw it coming 150 years ago. The question is, "Can you now see what is in store for us if we allow the FED to continue controlling our country?"
"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he breaks, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt."
John P. Curran

Liberalism 1789-To the modern Day

Liberalism 1789-2009

city_at_nightFor some time on this blog, we’ve been talking about the idea that a sea change confronts humanity. In this big change, we realize that the last 224 years were spent on a mistaken direction launched by the French Revolution of 1789.
This direction, liberalism, is destructive because it leads to denial of reality. Its roots are in a broader philosophy called crowdism, which places individual perception above reality itself, and thus bonds together individuals to enforce this shared illusion.
When humanity embarked on this direction, way back in 1789, it seemed like we were onto something good. Our older orders were under assault by rising population and the discovery of new lands, and with that, a shift in social order. Instability breeds opportunity for the opportunistic.
At the time, it seemed like we were trading slavery for freedom. We were casting aside the old rigid rules. We were discovering new ground. And as if they believed it, the old guard clamped down on the oldest rules they could find, but seemingly were unable to understand the reason for them.
But now, much like during the end of WWII or the fall of the Soviet Union, we’re experiencing a watershed event. These happen when a big system fails, and in such a profound way that we realize the problem is the assumptions behind the system and not some transient error.
This event will debunk liberal democracy as other forms of government have been debunked. It will also bring down the idea of centralized government, even representative government, because these clearly lead to outcomes in which mob rule takes over.
It’s stupid to blame this on Barack Obama, but his election was a signal. With that, democracy gave up the pretense of electing people based on anything but the whims of the crowd and the media who goad them on. The best-looking candidate and the one who promised the easiest lies got in.
With 2012, and the re-election of a man who was clearly out of his depth and pursuing unrealistic Marxist policies at the expense of the historical majority, it was clear that these “new voters” — the young, women, minorities, self-hating white males, LGBT, etc. — were forming a coalition not for their own interests, but to destroy the majority.
However, this isn’t entirely surprising. Liberalism is based on the idea of equality and freedom, both of which are open-ended and defensive ideas. If you don’t have equality, there’s no way to get it, except to pull others down. In the same way, you need freedom — from what? From anything but your own whims, apparently. This is how these philosophies boil down over time.
It’s popular to say that liberalism is an ideology and conservatism is not, but really, an ideology is a political values system. The liberals have the advantage because theirs is simple and unifying. It is the idea of the Revolution itself: the marginalized band together and overthrow the “fortunate” ones in power.
As our more astute thinkers noticed, however, this is a self-consumptive ideology. It doesn’t find solutions; it finds targets. And when it has no legitimate enemies, it attacks its own. Sadly, this was played out in the French Revolution, and the Russian revolution after it, which became prolonged orgies of murder that descended into infighting.
Conservatism has been fighting a rearguard action because it’s impossible to mobilize a majority. Not hard, impossible. The majority doesn’t recognize its own shared interests and, in the classic form of people not united by strong leadership or compelled by immediate risk, it descends into individualism. Everyone does what is convenient. None but a few grasp the severity of the problem and work to arrest it.
Everyone else figures that they “win” by having a good time and not getting locked into any kind of ideology at all. But that approach leads to them being marginalized and, marooned in their own desires, losing out on any sense of community. Thus they become self-hating, despising themselves for their indulgences which turn out — over repetition — to be banal, unsatisfying and childish.
Thus the long wait began for liberalism, like Communism before it, to show its hand and detonate itself. Now it has. Both the USA and Europe have spent themselves into debt through “Great Society” cultural Marxist social programs, and not only that, have trashed themselves socially through disorder. In rebelling against commerce, they have made it stronger, and now all parts of our lives are for sale.
As a result, slowly, very slowly, the minds of people begin to turn. That is to say they are turning away from the liberal-defined political scope and worldview, which is narrower than the world itself. They are turning toward possibilities outside the narrow band they have been told is safe.
Modern people are entirely self-censoring. They are able to think until they run up against a socially-unpopular idea. Then they panic and retreat, and lash out at whatever made them think such a taboo thought. But that, too, provokes a backlash, and one that simmers underground with legitimate ire at the forces that hold it back from being expressed.
Multiple systems are failing at once. Society is chaos; economies are trashed; governments are corrupt; elites are self-serving cowards; the environment is getting progressively wrecked; we can’t trust the media, or even science. All have become submerged in the Crowdist lie.
Some are even suggesting a radical re-design of society itself, without shops or factories. Others think civilization itself will collapse suddenly, and we’ll get a period of Mad Max style anarchy before restoration of order.
Many of us however are looking at this more simply. We should backtrack to the point of error, and turn away from that decision. That means no more liberal democracy. No more PACs, no more internationalism/diversity, no more large corporations and interest groups buying the vote.
Unlike the “revolutions,” this is a revolutionary idea: one thing by thinking outside the box, fixes our problem. It’s worth trying. Even if right now it’s social taboo.

Wednesday, 16 October 2013

Syria; Chemical Weapons and lies by the Cameron regime

Syria; Chemical Weapons and lies by the Cameron regime

Prime Minister David Cameron, Tory MP Brooks Newmark and US sources claim that chemical weapons have been used in Syria. This 'fact' is then used to ramp up the call for military action to ensure that Assad is overthrown. But are the chemical weapons fact and where is the evidence?
Brookes Newmark

Brooks Newmark is a former banker and financial man - apparently Shearson Lehman Brothers, Newmark Brothers Ltd, Stellican Ltd and Apollo Management LP. Now a Conservative member of parliament, Newmark wrote a full page article for the Sunday Mail 9 June 2013 calling for the rebels in Syria to be armed and Assad removed. The headline led... "I know Assad - and I know it is time to arm the Syrian rebels and bring him down, says Tory MP who visited dictator's house for tea." Of course we can be sure that Mr Newmark won't be putting himself near the front line nor engaging in the fighting alongside his 'rebel friends' - others can do the fighting and dying. Newmark is obviously well in bed with Tory Prime Minister David Cameron who promotes the same hypocritical and cowardly agenda.
Newmark claims to have met both Assad and his wife on a one to one basis over many years. Significantly he does not say in what capacity, and it is unlikely to be as a friend, since he quickly identifies himself as abhorring the Assad regime and its hostility to Israel. Newmark ramps up the rhetoric "Assad is willing to destroy Syria and kill its people, Syria is a mafia state, Assad is only interested in his survival, Assad is bipolar." Really and when was Newmark qualified to give medical opinion. Could it be that the the man showing mental deficiency is Newmark for trying to suggest that putting arms into a conflict will assist a peaceful resolution?
But the real sting in Newmark's article is the statement that..."This is not Iraq: in Iraq there were no chemical weapons. In Syria, we know for sure that Assad has used them." A simple telephone call to Brooks Newmark to ask where his evidence was  for the 'certain' use of chemical weapons by Assad resulted in bluster and obfuscation. It has been reported by the UN was the first line. The second line was he had been told this was the case by an individual in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. "Really, who was that individual", we asked. Mr Newmark did not want to say. He blustered on ... Portland Down has reported it ...
In fact all of the UN reports to date only refer to the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria, and indeed the alleged use of chemical weapons where there is no clear evidence as to the use by any perpetrator - Assad, the government or the rebel forces. On 21 March 2013 Ban Ki-moon states that "he received a letter from the governments of France and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland requesting an investigation into the alleged use of chemical weapons in the location of Khan al-Asal in Aleppo and Ataybah in the vicinity of Damascus, as well as Homs on the 23 December 2012. Other member states have also written to me or made public statements calling for the above-mentioned investigation mission to look into all allegations of the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic." The key word 'allegations' is mirrored in UNDOC/GEN/NE12/494/32/PDF/N1249432 which demands full and unfettered access to the investigation of the Secretary-General into all 'alleged uses of chemical weapons.' In fact one UN report suggests that there is greater evidence that the rebels have used chemical weapons - but again no certainty. When the UK Column suggested to Mr Newmark that the government had lied to the public over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and appeared to be doing so again in respect of Syria he became somewhat flustered. The conversation ended soon after.
To date there no factual substantiated evidence has been released by the US, UK or the UN that chemical weapons have been used by anyone in Syria. Claims to this effect rely on assessments but no substantive fact. So why did Newmark attempt to mislead the public by claiming that "we know for sure that Assad has used them?"  Could it be a statement designed to ramp up the British and US policy to 'remove Assad' at whatever cost? On Friday 14 June, Guardian writers Patrick Wintour and Nicholas Watt produced a disingenuous article claiming that a 'candid assessment' by the US that Assad has used chemical weapons is shared by the UK. Reading the small print however we find arch political liar David Cameron quoting that "We share their view [the US] that, as we put it growing levels of information about chemical weapons used by the regime and no firm evidence that chemical weapons have been used by the opposition."
So in plain english no hard factual evidence of use by Assad - simply 'growing levels of information.' Britain unleashed a war of death and destruction in Iraq based on the lie of the existence of weapons of mass destruction; there is a similar smell about the UK US stance on Syria. Should we trust Cameron - no. Should we trust Brooks Newmark? No. Both men have, after all, declared their support is to Israel rather than the the British nation. Aside from the smell of death in Syria there is an even greater smell of fraud and corruption in British politics. Whose agenda is Cameron's rotten government promoting and should we trust their claims of chemical weapons in Syria? We don't think so.  In Syria, truth is the important issue and we are seeing little of it. Is Cameron's blatantly dishonest propaganda on weapons of mass destruction in Syria designed to depose another sovereign Head of State who is on the Bilderberg international hit list?

Sunday, 13 October 2013

All mainstream media networks leap on global warming fearmongering

All mainstream media networks 

leap on global warming fear mongering

after IPCC report release;

 No dissenting views allowed

Sunday, October , 2013 by: J. D. Heyes

Man-made, man-produced carbon dioxide is filling up the atmosphere, heating it to unsustainable temperatures that will ultimately melt the polar ice caps and flood the world.

That's the latest fear-mongering "report" from the United Nations' International Panel on Climate Change. Only, none of that is true, as other climatologists and experts, including those at NASA, reported as early as a few years ago [See also:].

Of course, none of this makes much difference to the alarmist mainstream media, most of which has bought into and reported verbatim disproven nonsense regarding nonexistent global warming crises that is still being espoused from people like former Vice President Al Gore, whose own predictions of melting polar caps have been seriously debunked [].

The mainstream media is still breathlessly reporting the lie

In response to the latest junk science reporting by the IPCC, the big networks and many of the cable news outlets breathlessly reported the coming end of the world. Indeed, the Media Research Center (MRC) notes that CBS News even aired a claim that temps had risen "more than 200 degrees" (a figure not conducive to life on this planet).

Per MRC:

Predictably, the evening news shows on ABC, CBS and NBC Sept. 27 repeated the IPCC's dire warnings without including any skeptics and without mentioning past failures such as their inability to accurately predict warming or sea level rise.

ABC's "World News with Diane Sawyer," NBC "Nightly News" and CBS "Evening News" all failed to include criticism of the IPCC with the exception of a swipe against "skeptics" on ABC. NBC continued to link weather events like Hurricane Sandy to climate change while CBS aired a statistic that one scientist called "meaningless."

The words "Big Warning" glaring on screen, ABC News said the report was "landmark," and that it came from "top scientists." Reporter Dan Harris went on to talk about events like superstorm Sandy, warning ominously that the "UN report says we will be seeing much more of these kinds of things in the coming decades as a result of climate change...." But of course, hasn't the IPCC been saying such things for years? Yes.

Harris acknowledged that others had differing viewpoints on the subject, but he immediately tore into them, mockingly saying that "skeptics have predictably accused the UN panel of being alarming, but Princeton climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer, who is on the panel, says this is a major wake-up call."

Yeah, about that Oppenheimer. He's been accused of engaging in activist junk science by other scientists, according to meteorologist Anthony Watts' website. Only, Harris didn't bother to mention that.

Changing the language to continue the false narrative

In addition to the tons of evidence that now exists debunking this stuff, there are other rather obvious things that should tip you off that the "global warming" crowd is full of it.

First off, why do they keep changing the language? For years the big scare was "global warming." When that wouldn't work, these alarmists changed it to "climate change." Now, it's morphing into "climate disruption." And all of this after the "global cooling" scares of the 1970s.

Further, since the hard data show that global warming hasn't really progressed over the past 15 years, wouldn't you think that guys like Gore and all the scientists and climatologists on the IPCC would be happy? But they're not; they're just as miserable and as dire as always. And their shtick hasn't changed one iota: "The world is still going to be swallowed up by the seas! I swear!"

Heck, if I were them, I would have come out and taken credit for being part of the global warning movement that saved the planet - but they're not doing that either. They are simply doubling down on the alarming nonsense.

It is painfully obvious now to all but the most ardent zealots that global warming/climate change is a sham. But you won't hear the mainstream media giving much coverage to the proof.

Saturday, 12 October 2013

The Revolution has failed. Tear it down and start over Again.

The Revolution has failed. Tear it down and start over.

the_revolution_has_failed_tear_it_downAround 1500 A.D. it became popular to think that we, the people, were oppressed by institutions like religion and kings, and if we just overthrew those, we’d reach a new Utopia.
Fast forward a half-millennium and it’s clear that not only is that not true, but also your society falls apart if you adopt these crazy ideas. What caused people to chase this crazy?
I’d suggest neurosis, or a confusion of cause and effect. It is always with us, and it’s why thinking used to be considered work. Then people came along who trivialized thinking and called it intellectualism, which is the process of looking at tiny correlations and deriving big metaphors from them.
The fact is that before neurosis, people thought in whole ways. They did not look at details; they looked at the whole. This isn’t big picture or little picture, but both at once. The details fit into the whole. The details were not presumed to be exceptions that debunked the rule and thus required analysis on their own.
Can you see what’s consistent about this thinking?
Whole-thinking does not favor the individual’s need to feel important. In it, we look at how everything fits together, not how one part impacts one person and how interesting that is (like spectators at a tragedy show). The neurosis is confusing the whole with that individual perspective.
This means the Revolution which culminated in 1789 has failed, and not because of external factors. It failed for internal reasons. Like the Edsel or reality television, it was simply a bad design. An unrealistic idea. An idea which didn’t even hold together.
We’re seeing it across the world now. People are currently in a panic because across the West, governments are in debt, ineffective and generally bungling everything. Even worse, citizens are in the grip of a mass delusion which makes them repeat “everyone is equal” like zombies again and again. They can’t think.
As a result, societies are dying not because of a single large factor like peak oil, global warming, war or technology making our jobs obsolete. Societies are dying because they’ve lost internal cohesion. People aren’t having kids. They aren’t doing much beyond the minimum. They are bored, lonely, angry and miserable.
All of this just shows the wisdom of our ancestors. “Liberalism is a dead path,” they said. It was mob rule, they pointed out. That won’t end well. But we tried it, and because disaster didn’t hit immediately, we thought we got away with it.
Two disastrous world wars and the global collapse of our political systems later, we’re starting to get the picture. Do your part — get out there and help tear it down. If it’s part of this social fabric, destroy it. Debunk it. Subvert it. Vandalize it. Overthrow it.
That which is our modern liberal democracy is poison to all that is good. If you love life, you love good things; if that’s true, you will realize that sometimes creation is destruction. This horrible old 1500s neurotic social order needs to burn and we can do it with just a little push where it’s weakest.
Posted in: Socialization.

Friday, 11 October 2013

The Israel Lobby Cowbird / Cuckoo

Israel Lobby Cowbird (2)

The Israel Lobby Cowbird

Israel lobbying organizations flit about Washington, hatching operatives into the U.S. federal government to pursue a solitary goal—advancing the interests of a foreign state without the obligation of registering foreign agents or working through properly credentialed diplomats as rest of the flock of nations must.


How is the Israel lobby like a swarm of cowbirds?  Cowbirds use the devious strategy of brood parasitism, arriving at the nest of more parentally-oriented birds to lay their own eggs.  Cowbirds then enjoy unburdened freedom to forage and thrive while their own young are raised, fed and protected by unsuspecting parents.  If an avian host dares remove the cowbird’s offspring, the host’s own eggs—if not the entire nest—will likely be destroyed by the watchful cowbird.  This coercive relationship is eerily similar to how Israel lobbying organizations flit about Washington, hatching operatives into the U.S. federal government to pursue a solitary goal—advancing the interests of a foreign state without the obligation of registering foreign agents or working through properly credentialed diplomats as rest of the flock of nations must.

 The sordid and occasionally illegal tactics used by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to intimidate Congress are well-documented.  But what precisely has all of AIPAC’s past nest-destruction bought?
Back when AIPAC got serious about launching economic warfare against Iran, it lobbied the Bush administration to create a new unit in the U.S. Treasury Department.  Into this nest it laid Stuart Levey.  Levey’s only observable qualification was an extreme commitment to Israel under the wing of ultra-Zionist Marty Peretz.  Leadership of this Iran economic warfare unit is now captured roost exclusively for Israel Lobby hatchlings.  Levey’s former law partner David Cohen simply flitted in when Levey departed the nest.
So too the lobby has tumbled out credible and experienced career diplomats and placed former AIPAC research director and AIPAC think tank founder Martin Indyk in charge of the on-going ruse known as the “Israel-Palestine peace process.”  Long on the payroll of Israeli-American media mogul and political operative Haim Saban, watchers have recently observed Indyk preening with his patron before winging off to the latest round of “peace negotiations.”
Perhaps the most secretive and dangerous Israel lobby cowbird policy egg was hatched in the National Security Agency in 2009 during the very months the Obama administration quietly dismissed espionage charges against AIPAC staff.  According to whistleblower Edward Snowden, the wholesale transfer of raw NSA intercepts on American citizens to Israel has been ongoing since that time.  The transfer is”authorized” by official doctrine that “the survival of the state of Israel is a paramount goal of US Middle East policy.”  This prime directive was secret because it is a blank check obligating American blood and treasure to a cause U.S. citizens never approved via any referendum or advise and consent process.  As in so many issues concerning Israel—from the U.S. criminal activities and cover-ups that enabled its clandestine nuclear program to funding for illegal occupation activities—the Israel lobby cowbird diligently rolled the eggs of U.S. interest right out of their federal nests.

Source:  IRMEP

Friday, 4 October 2013

Porous borders turn Libya into radical sanctuary

Porous borders turn Libya into radical sanctuary

Source: DW
Libya has morphed into the Wild West of northern Africa just two years after the fall of the Gadhafi regime. In particular, the Libyan Desert has become a sanctuary for radical forces.
In the middle of nowhere in the Sahara Desert in the town of Isseyen, time seems to stand still. Now that voter registration is over for the upcoming municipal elections, tranquility has returned to the simple offices of the town hall. Visitors only come by for the satellite Internet connection, one of the very few public services provided in this remote area of post-revolution Libya.
But the calm is deceptive. Located southwest of the Tuareg town of Ghat, Isseyen is the last outpost before the Algerian border, a route used to enter the country by smugglers and Tuareg fighters from Mali, including members of AQIM, Al Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb.
“I saw al Qaeda vehicles there, but the authorities don’t want to have anything to do with it,” says Hassan Massafer, who belongs to an army unit stationed in Ubari, 400 kilometers further inland.
Locals in Isseyen are skeptical. “Recently there were rumors going around that a heavily armed al Qaeda convoy was moving north. But when we looked into it, it turned out to be a local border patrol,” says tour guide Abishini Aissa, adding that “as soon as people see Tuaregs with turbans they get scared.”
For the people of southern Libya Islamists are not the problem, but rather criminality and turf wars between the drug gangs. “In the desert, it’s the rule of the strongest, but in our communities, it is usually safe because we know each other,” say several residents of Ghat.
Tense security situation
On the other hand, nobody contradicts the general assessment that the security situation in the region is a disaster and that the Libyan authorities have no control over the border region.
Mohamed Abdelkader, the mayor of Ghat, does not beat around the bush when he says, “The borders are wide open. Drugs and weapons flow in and out and the army has no capacity to catch smugglers or extremists.”
An army, in the conventional sense, does not exist in Libya anyway. Out of fear there could be attempts to overthrow him, Gadhafi, when he was alive, kept the army weak. Currently, national security forces are still in the process of being built up. The transitional government chose to incorporate rebel forces into the military in an effort to demobilize revolutionaries. For the fighters – mostly untrained youngsters – this has brought prestige and a government salary, but they are still not capable of dealing with the demands of the job.
“There are not enough men for border guards and patrols. Normally, passports are not even checked,” notes Abdelkader.
Failed security strategies
Furthermore, the national government lacks authority. Most of the former rebels feel obliged to follow the orders of their direct superiors and the interests of their tribe, their clan and their community.
“The way the army was formed was a big mistake,” says Barka Wardougou, who heads the military council in Murzuk in southwestern Libya. He argues that a core forces should have been trained abroad and then distributed across the country to create a professional armed force.
But Wardougou does not only represent Libya; he also represents the interests of his tribe, the Tubu. Because of their cross-border family connections – most of them live in Chad – the Tubu are viewed by most Libyans as dangerous interlopers and often face harsh discrimination.
Colonel Wardougou spent decades fighting a rebellion in the Sahel region and was even the commander of the so-called Sahel Liberation Army in Niger. In his view, the government in Tripoli is a farce because radical forces from Benghazi, the second largest city, are pulling all the strings.
“They have sent us more Islamists [as reinforcements],” says Wardougou. “They want us to believe that they have the border region to Chad and Niger under control. But actually we are the only ones who provide a degree of order and root out the drug smugglers.” They never stay long anyway, he adds, because of the harsh conditions in the desert.
The frustration of the local government is palpable and, in Wardougou’s view, the national security strategies Tripoli likes to talk about are not worth the paper they’re printed on by the time they’ve reached southern Libya.

Barack Obama Is Holding AMERICA HOSTAGE..PERIOD. By Gregory Mannarino