Monday, December 22, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Destroying Companies For Profit
Monday, October 27, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Naked short selling & the super crimes of Wall Street
If you ever wondered how or why a stock price suddenly drops like a rock on incredible volume, or why executives battle damaging reports in the NY financial press and in analyst reports, see this video - but only if you want to know how Wall Street really works.
Wall Street has a profitable trading strategy that it has been carefully hiding, because it involves the destruction of companies. Just recently Deutsche Bank was found by the NYSE to have been selling massive amounts of shares it did not have nor deliver over a period of 22 months. This floods the market with "shares" and sucks out investors money - unbeknown to investors - and damages the companies - the more the better. This trading scheme is called "Naked Short Selling". And it is very profitable for those who do it. The more a company goes down - the more they make.
NYSE spokesman Scott Peterson said that Deutsche Bank sold "A LOT."
But this is just one example of many instances. Wall Street firms and hedge funds carefully hide this activity because it is amoral and illegal. But it is made possible because the regulators, while they know about it, do nothing and journalists and analysts help put out the needed messages.
Companies that need access to the markets or bank on their good reputation are choked off this way. It's easy money. Collect investor money, then kill the company.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
CNBC Admits Illuminati Running America! 10/24/08
World Exclusive: E. Howard Hunt Details JFK-Plot on Video
World Exclusive: E. Howard Hunt Details JFK-Plot on Video
In exclusive, never-before-seen footage, former CIA operative E. Howard Hunt discusses his knowledge of and participation in the plot to kill Kennedy in a video testimony he gave shortly before his death. Alex Jones’ upcoming film will fully analyze the CIA-shadow government coup that occurred inside the United States 45 years ago.
Rolling Stone and a few other publications have covered Hunt’s audio confession (released in April 2007), but no one has yet seen the information the infamous White House ‘plumber’ left behind to shed light on the figures involved in the plot. Here, Howard Hunt discusses LBJ, who saw Kennedy as an ‘obstacle’ to the presidency. According to Hunt, LBJ consorted with top CIA officials Cord Meyer and William K. Harvey to carry out the plot.
Rebels of America Blogspot
You Lose, Soros Wins
Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.
This article appeared in The Washington Times on October 24, 2008.
Have you ever wondered why billionaires like George Soros financially support politicians who say they will "increase taxes on the rich"?
The answer quite simply is that the tax increases are most often put on people trying to become rich, not those already rich. Hence, the rich, big government advocates can gain far more by "buying" the politicians. The "bought" politicians then provide them with confidential information about administrative decisions, which these donors then use to place big bets in the market, making themselves much richer. If you have deep financial pockets and inside information, you can make huge amounts of money when markets drop.
Mr. Soros, the Democrats' financial angel, is often referred to as the "man who broke the bank of England" in the 1992 Sterling crisis. During that episode, he made $1 billion in one day at the expense of British taxpayers. The relevant question is, did Mr. Soros bet a couple of billion dollars on mere guesses of what the German, French and British officials would do, or did he have inside information?
A member of the British Parliament, who was a close adviser to the British chancellor at the time, told me he believes "Soros was acting on insider information obtained from the French central bank and the German Bundesbank." The insider information was that they would not support the British pound, despite a pre-existing arrangement to do so. Others familiar with the situation have made similar charges.
Given that Mr. Soros is no fool, the British believe it is highly doubtful he would have made such a colossal bet without knowing with great certainty that the Germans would not reduce their interest rate.
Mr. Soros has a reputation for trading on confidential information obtained from political sources. For instance, he was convicted by a French court of having insider knowledge about a takeover attempt of a major French bank. His conviction was upheld in 2006, and he had to pay a multimillion-dollar fine.
The hypocrisy of George Soros is often noted. He is a man who voices many left-wing and even socialist ideas and has been a major critic of the United States for years. Yet, his actions in his own financial interest, using highly questionable tactics and insider information, have made him billions. His modus operandi is to do political favors for left-wing politicians and then use them for his own advantage
For example, he gained influence with left-wing forces in the United Nations and with anti-U.S. groups by paying for a $10 million townhouse for Mark Malloch-Brown (now a lord and a U.K. Foreign Office minister) to use as the latter's home. Baron Malloch-Brown was former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's deputy and spent much time voicing Mr. Soros' anti-American statements. Capital Research Center has done extensive reporting on the activities of George Soros.
Mr. Soros is often referred to as the man who owns the Democratic Party because of his huge contributions to party committees and individual politicians. It is known that many of his Wall Street friends have been major donors to key Democratic committee chairmen and members in the House and Senate.
As recently as this past spring, House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, and Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee chairman Chris Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, were claiming both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (for which they had oversight responsibility) were fiscally sound and needed no additional regulation. At the same time, many independent financial experts were sounding the alarm about these two government-sponsored behemoths.
It would be in the public interest to know which members of the Democratic leadership, members of Congress, and their financial contributors were selling shares of (or shorting) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac this year, and of other financial institutions overseen by the congressional Democrats. (Note: In the private sector, if someone with insider knowledge - as Mr. Frank and Mr. Dodd had access to - makes misrepresentations about the health of a company, that person is subject to criminal penalties.) The press should demand full disclosure before Election Day, given the hundreds of billions of dollars the misrepresentations by Messrs. Frank, Dodd, etc. are costing taxpayers.
Note that the Bush administration's ill-thought-out "bailout" scheme was both greatly altered and then endorsed by the congressional Democrats, in part, it appears, because it will give even more opportunities for profit-making by Democratic financial supporters. The forced, partial (and probably unconstitutional) nationalization of the big banks by the seemingly unprincipled Bush Treasury will provide many opportunities for self-dealing politicians and their financial supporters when it comes time to sell the government stakes.
Those who bet against the foolish policies and actions of governments provide a public service by exposing the stupidity, provided they are not using inside information given them from politicians and other government officials. But when people like George Soros and other big financial backers of politicians use confidential inside information or their ability to manipulate the political class for their own ends, it hurts everyone else. The larger the government and the more discretion government officials have regarding issues that can damage or benefit private parties, the more opportunities there will be for abuse and corruption.
If Barack Obama wins with big Democrat majorities in the House and Senate, you know from their statements that they will increase capital gains and business taxes. But they have already said, there "will be exceptions," - which will be worth billions of dollars to those with prior knowledge of what the exceptions will be. Who do you think will have that prior knowledge?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
David Icke:"The Biggest Secret"(Full E-Book)
Friday, October 17, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Blatant Banker Manipulation Of Gold Prices
Blatant Banker Manipulation Of Gold Prices
One ounce bullion still being sold $200-300 above spot value, proving official spot price is divorced from reality
Despite the dramatic fall in gold prices from Friday’s high of around $930 an ounce to today’s current low of $830, sales of actual physical gold continues to trade for anything up to $300 over spot price, proving again that official COMEX gold future numbers are completely divorced from reality and banker manipulation is rife.
Panic buying of physical gold has gripped Europe as consumers fear their savings accounts are no longer safe in light of numerous bank failures, prompting dealers to run dry on gold bullion which in turn is driving up premiums.
Since buyers are finding it near impossible to get gold bullion from recognized dealers, many are turning to Ebay where auctions for one ounce Krugerrands and Maple Leafs are fetching anything up to £150 ($260) over spot price.
Over the weekend, when gold was around £500 an ounce, a Krugerrand went for £645.75. A one ounce bullion bar, with nearly 3 days of the auction still to run, has already attracted a bid of £670 - a whopping $336 above current spot price, despite the fact that bars are usually subject to lower premiums than gold coins.
Respected bullion dealers who charge lower premiums because they are able to buy gold in bulk are still slapping customers with $150+ premiums - and judging by the continued dearth of one ounce coins such as the American Eagle and the Austrian Philharmonica - people are perfectly willing to pay the exorbitant premiums.
The true value of gold is what people are prepared to pay to obtain it, and judging by that criteria, the actual value of gold is currently around $1,100 an ounce based on a conservative estimate.
The official spot price of gold is currently around $830, but this merely represents a rush by investors to sell their paper contracts in search of liquidity and as a means of jumping back on the stocks and shares bandwagon.
As Alex Wallenwein at The Market Oracle points out, “Gold is gold, paper is paper, and “Comex gold” is nothing but paper masquerading as gold while simultaneously pretending to be the price-setting medium for actual gold in the world. Now, finally, Comex-gold is in the process of being unmasked. ”
“Real investors in real gold are enjoying their shopping spree – except that the spree turned into a treasure hunt as the shelves and display cases of gold dealers look more and more like the supermarket shelves in the old Soviet Union - bare. ”
“With this split, this disconnect, between Comex illusion and gold reality, one thing or the other will have to give, and it won’t be physical gold that gives. ”
Numerous fund managers and top investors like Jim Rogers are now predicting that global central banks’ insistence on printing their way out of economic turmoil is setting the stage for a hyperinflationary holocaust, a knock-on effect of which will be gold’s acceleration towards $2,000.
But as many have pointed out, gold price manipulation is rife as central banks desperately attempt to stem the flight from paper currencies into gold, a process that anecdotal evidence strongly suggests is happening across Europe at an alarming pace.
Rebels of America Blogspot
Aldous Huxley’s Mind Control and Depopulation Interview
Rebels of America Blogspot
If it graduated from an "ivy league" university, then it's probably a PARASITE living ENTIRELY off of EVERYONE ELSE'S LABOR!!
Friday, October 10, 2008
A HISTORY OF JURY NULLIFICATION
"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states, then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty."
(1788) (2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267)
"Jury nullification of law," as it is sometimes called, is a traditional right that was rigorously defended by America's Founding Fathers. Those great men, Patriots all, intended the jury to serve as a final safeguard – a test that laws must pass before gaining sufficient popular authority for enforcement. Thus the Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power – representatives, senate, executive, judges – and finally juries. Each enactment of law must pass all these hurdles before it gains the authority to punish those who may choose to violate it.
Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
From Magna Carta To Edward Bushell
The power of the jury to judge the justice of the law and to hold laws invalid by a finding of "not guilty" for any law a juror felt was unjust or oppressive, dates back to the Magna Carta, in 1215. At the time of the Magna Carta, King John could pass any law any time he pleased. Judges and executive officers, appointed and removed at his whim, were little more than servants of the King. The oppression became so great that the nation rose up against the ruler, and the barons of England compelled their king to pledge that he would not punish a freeman for a violation of the law without the consent of his peers.
King John violently protested when the Magna Carta was shown to him, and with a solemn oath protested, that "he would never grant such liberties as would make himself a slave." Afterwards, fearing seizure of his castle and the loss of his throne, he reluctantly signed the Magna Carta – thus placing the liberties of the people in their own safe-keeping. Echard's History of England, p. 106-107 [Spooner])
The Magna Carta was a great step forward in the control of tyrannical leaders. But its sole means of enforcement, the jury, was often met with hostility. By 1664 English juries were routinely being fined for acquitting defendants. Such was the case in the 1670 political trial of William Penn, who was charged with preaching Quakerism to an unlawful assembly. Four of the twelve jurors voted to acquit – and continued to acquit even after being imprisoned and starved for four days. Under such duress, most jurors paid the fines. However, one juror, Edward Bushell, refused to pay and brought his case before the Court of Common Pleas. As a result, Chief Justice Vaughan issued an historically-important ruling: that jurors could not be punished for their verdicts. Bushell's Case (1670) was one of the most important developments in the common-law history of the jury.
Jurors continued to exercise their power of nullification in 18th-century England in the trials of defendants charged with sedition, and in mitigating death-penalty cases. In the American Colonies, jurors refused to enforce forfeitures under the English Navigation Acts. The Colonial jurors' veto power prompted England to extend the jurisdiction of the non-jury admiralty courts in America beyond their ancient limits of sea-going vessels. Depriving "the defendant of the right to be tried by a jury which was almost certain not to convict him [became] . . . the most effective, and therefore most disliked" of all the methods used to enforce the acts of trade.
(Holdsworth, A History of English Law (1938) XI, 110)
John Hancock, "the wealthy Massachusetts patriot and smuggler who as President of the Continental Congress affixed his familiar bold signature to the Declaration of Independence" was prosecuted via this admiralty jurisdiction in 1768 and fined £9,000 – triple the value of the goods aboard his sloop "Liberty" which had been previously forfeited. (U.S. v One 1976 Mercedes Benz 280S 618 F2d 453 )
John Adams eloquently argued the case, chastising Parliament for depriving Americans of their right to trial by jury. Adams later said of the juror, "it is not only his right, but his duty – to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." (Yale Law Journal, 1964:173)
Earlier in America, jury nullification decided the celebrated seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger. (Zenger's Case, 1735) His newspaper had openly criticized the royal governor of New York. The current law made it a crime to publish any statement (true or false) criticizing public officials, laws or the government in general. The jury was only to decide if the material in question had been published; the judge was to decide if the material was in violation of the statute.
Zenger's defense asked the jury to make use of their own consciences and, even though the judge ruled that the truth was no defense, they acquitted him. The jury's nullification in this case is praised in history textbooks as a hallmark of freedom of the press in the United States.
At the time of the American Revolution, the jury was known to have the power to be the judge of both law and fact. In a case involving the civil forfeiture of private property by the state of Georgia, first Supreme Court Justice John Jay, instructed jurors that the jury has "a right to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." (Georgia vs. Brailsford, 1794:4)
The Fugitive Slave Law
Until the middle of the 1800s, federal and state judges often instructed the juries they had the right to disregard the court's view of the law. (Barkan, citing 52 Harvard Law Review, 682-616) Then, when northern jurors began to refuse to convict abolitionists who had violated the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law, judges began questioning jurors to find out if they were prejudiced against the government's position and dismissed any who were. In 1852 Lysander Spooner, a Massachusetts lawyer and champion of individual liberties, complained "that courts have repeatedly questioned jurors to ascertain whether they were prejudiced against the government. ... The reason of this ... was that 'the Fugitive Slave Law, so called' was so obnoxious to a large portion of the people, as to render a conviction under it hopeless (if the jurors were taken indiscriminately from among the people)." Modern treatments of abolitionism praise these jury-nullification verdicts for the role they played in helping the anti-slavery cause – rather than condemning them for "undermining" the rule of law and the uniformity of justice.
Labor Versus Big Business
In 1895, the Supreme Court, under pressure from large corporations, rendered in a bitter split decision that courts no longer had to inform juries they had the power to veto an unjust law. The giant corporations had lost numerous trials against labor leaders trying to organize unions. Striking was against the law at that time. "Juries also ruled against corporations in damage suits and other cases, prompting influential members of the American Bar Association to fear that jurors were becoming too hostile to their clients and too sympathetic to the poor. As the American Law Review wrote in 1892, jurors had 'developed agrarian tendencies of an alarming character.'..." (Barkan, Jury Nullification in Political Trials, 1983)[emphasis added]
Despite the courts refusal to inform jurors of their historical veto power, jury nullification in liquor-law trials was a major contributing factor in ending alcohol prohibition. (Today in Kentucky, jurors often refuse to convict under the marijuana-prohibition laws).
As time went on fewer incidences of jury-veto actions occurred as the courts began concealing jurors' rights from American citizens and falsely instructing them that they may consider only the facts as admitted by the court. Researchers in 1966 found that jury nullification occurred only 8.8 percent of the time between 1954 and 1958, and suggested that "one reason why the jury exercises its very real power [to nullify] so sparingly is because it is officially told it has none." (California's charge to the jury in criminal cases is typical: "It becomes my duty as judge to instruct you concerning the law applicable to this case, and it is your duty as jurors to follow the law as I shall state it to you . . . You are to be governed solely by the evidence introduced in this trial as the law as stated to you by me.") Today, no officer of the court is allowed to tell the jury of their veto power.
The Vietnam War
Counsels for Vietnam War protest defendants tried to introduce moral and political arguments on the war to gain jury sympathy. Most often the jury was given instructions such as "You must apply the law that I lay down." (Conspiracy trial of Benjamin Spock et al., 1969) Jurors receiving such instructions usually convicted, while feeling the pang of conscience expressed by the typical responses from Spock trial jurors: "I had great difficulty sleeping that night – I detest the Vietnam War. ... But it was so clearly put by the judge." And "I'm convinced the Vietnam War is no good. But we've got a Constitution to uphold. ... Technically speaking, they were guilty according to the judge's charge." But in the few anti-Vietnam war trials where juries were allowed to hear of their power, they acquitted.
Jury acquittals in the colonial, abolitionist and post-Civil War eras helped advance political activist causes and restrained government efforts at social control. Legal scholar Steven Barkan suggests that the refusal of judges during the Vietnam War to inform juries of their power to disregard the law frustrated the anti-war goals.
As Lysander Spooner pointed out regarding the questioning of jurors to eliminate those who would bring in a verdict according to conscience (a practice effectively accomplished today through the juror's oaths and voir dire) "The only principle upon which these questions are asked, is this – that no man shall be allowed to serve as juror unless he be ready to enforce any enactment of the government, however cruel or tyrannical it may be. ... A jury like that is palpably nothing but a mere tool of oppression in the hands of the government."
Those whose interests lie in maintaining government control of social behavior may argue that the Constitution provides the necessary protection of liberties. But legislative bodies will always confirm the constitutionality of their own acts. And the oaths sworn to uphold the Constitution by judges and public servants have historically been only as good as the power to enforce such oaths. Nor are free elections adequate to prevent tyranny without jury veto power, because elections come only periodically and give no guarantee of repealing the damage done. Additionally, the second body of legislators are likely to be as bad as the first, since they are exposed to the same temptations and use the same tactics to gain office.
Protecting Minorities From The Majority
Further, the jury's veto power protects minorities from "the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority." (James Madison, June 8, 1789) Twelve people taken randomly from the population will represent both friends and opponents of the party in power. With fully-informed juries, the government cannot exercise its powers over the people without the consent of the people. Trial by jury is trial by the people. When juries are not allowed to judge law, it becomes trial by the government. "In short, if the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law." (Lysander Spooner,"Jury Power" by L. & J. Osburn)
For more information on
The Fully Informed Jury Association contact:
FIJA, P.O. Box 5570, Helena, MT 59604
Tel: (406) 442-7800.
Web site: www.fija.org
This pamphlet was revised June 2001. It is part of ISIL's educational pamphlet series. Click here for the full index of pamphlets online.
All ISIL educational pamphlets are available in hard copy for 5¢ each. Click here for the ISIL Store.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Conscious Media Network Interview with David Icke
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Straight from their OWN library -- Why our American-"israeli" dual-citizen neocons are psychopaths
9/11 The explosive reality
Friday, October 3, 2008
The People Betrayed By The Government
By William Cox
On this date, October 3, 2008, the American people were betrayed by those whom they had elected to represent them. The members of Congress who voted for the Wall Street "bailout" violated their oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution" ... "that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same" ... "and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: ..."
Without holding any meaningful hearings or public discussions and listening only to those most responsible for the economic disaster, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Congress abdicated its responsibility to the American people.
Locking out most members from all discussions, the congressional "leadership" emerged from their backrooms with legislation that grants Secretary Paulson the ability to spend at least $700 billion to "take such actions as [he] deems necessary" ... " to promote financial market stability."
Entrusting tremendous political and financial power (and a ton of borrowed money that taxpayers will have to repay with interest) into Paulson’s sole discretion, members of Congress must have been aware that, prior to his cabinet appointment in 2006, Paulson worked for 32 years at Goldman Sacks, one of the Wall Street firms that stands to benefit greatly from his "actions."
Paulson, who cashed out his Goldman stock valued at $575 million to become the Secretary of Treasury (without having to pay any taxes on the sale), earned more than $53 million in pocket change during just his last two years at Goldman Sacks for innovations such as a new line of "Mortgage Backed Securities." Gambling more than a trillion dollars on risky subprime second mortgages, Paulson cleverly converted them into AAA-rated "secure" investments by purchasing guarantees from the American International Group.
AIG, coincidentally, was just "bailed out" two weeks ago by Secretary Paulson for $85 billion (of borrowed money that taxpayers will have to repay with interest), averting a devastating loss by Goldman Sacks, who was holding more than $20 billion in otherwise worthless second mortgages.
Is it surprising that Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman’s current CEO, was present with Paulson when the decision was made to bailout AIG?
The bailout’s $700 billion price tag is only an arbitrary guess by Paulson and is most likely just the first installment of many more to come. Other economists, with more successful track records, believe the total will be much greater, perhaps $5 trillion, as concealed losses are uncovered and foreign companies dump their toxic investment waste into their American offices.
In passing the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008," Congress ignored the "great concern" expressed by almost two hundred of the nation’s leading economists who pleaded with Congress "not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action,..." In addition to its ambiguity and long-term effects, the economists believed the bailout plan to be "a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense" and to be "desperately short-sighted." Ultimately, more than 400 top economists, including two Nobel Prize winners, voiced opposition to the bailout.
The economists were not alone in being ignored by the politicians. It is widely reported that calls and emails to Congress from constituents were running as high as 300 to one against the bailout. Mike Whitney reports one analyst saying that "the calls to Congress are 50 percent ‘No’ and 50 percent ‘Hell, No’." The percentages adjusted as the stock market tumbled, but public opposition to the bailout remains strong.
An AP poll only identified 30 percent of the public in favor of the bailout, and a CNN Money opinion poll found 77 percent of the people believing the bailout would benefit those most responsible for the economic downturn.
The Latin adage, Cui bono, asks "to whose death are you going?" Law enforcement investigators quickly learn that the guilty party can usually be found among those who stand to gain from a murder or other crime.
There is no doubt the bailout will most benefit some of the richest and highest paid individuals in the American economy. But, why did the politicians betray the wishes of those who elected them in favor of the criminals who committed the fraud? Perhaps the answer can be found in another Latin phrase, quid pro quo, meaning "what for what; something for something."
Individuals working for Wall Street finance, insurance and real estate companies and the companies’ political action committees have contributed more than $47 million to the campaigns of Senator Obama (three of top five sources) and Senator McCain (top five sources), both of whom voted for the bailout.
More to the point, Wall Street has contributed more than $1.1 billion dollars to congressional candidates since 2002. Nine of the top ten House recipients of Wall Street largesse, who each received an average of $1.5 million, are on the financial oversight and taxation committees.
Even more telling, the bipartisan Congressional "leaders" most responsible for pushing the bailout through Congress, Senators Dodd and Gregg and Representatives Frank and Blunt have taken almost $20 million from Wall Street sources during the last 20 years. Dodd recently received $6 million in contributions during his presidential primary campaign, and Frank has collected $720,000 this year.
Other key players also have been well compensated this year: Congressman Kanjorski received $755,000 and Congressman Bachus banked $704,000.
The ordinary, hard-working voters, who were opposed to the bailout, and their children and grandchildren, will be the ones who will ultimately have to repay, with compound interest, the money that will have to be borrowed to give away to Wall Street bankers.
The bailout was "sweetened" in the Senate by another $110 billion in tax relief and renewable energy incentives to get enough House votes for passage; however, only the temporary one-year slowdown of the Alternative Minimum Tax offered any succor to the middle-class workers affected by it.
The bailout raises the debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion, or about $37,524 for each man, woman and child in the United States. How is this burden ever going to be repaid? Workers already know their wages are falling, their jobs are at risk, their health care, food and fuel costs are skyrocketing, and they are being kicked out of their apartments and homes because they can’t pay the rents and mortgages.
Didn’t each member of Congress have a sworn duty to rescue the millions of Americans suffering from the reckless gambling of Wall Street moguls, rather than to reward an obscene excess of greed?
Foreclosure Rescue. At least six million homeowners will probably default on their mortgages this year and next, and millions more will have their equity wiped out by declining property values. More than 770,000 homes have been seized by lenders since 2007, and 91,000 families were just kicked out of their homes in August.
These American homeowners were betrayed by their elected representatives!
The only provision in the bailout legislation to remotely "benefit" homeowners whose homes are being foreclosed upon only "encourages" mortgage service companies to modify mortgages. Paulson is required to "maximize assistance for homeowners ... and minimize foreclosures"; however, he also has to ensure that the government doesn’t incur any additional costs. Thus, there’s little or no hope of any meaningful benefit to distressed homeowners resulting from the bailout.
The legislation could have required the government to directly purchase the defaulting mortgages and to adjust them to the reduced value of the property, as was done in the Great Depression. Instead, Paulson is authorized to purchase the complex derivatives (Wall Street’s gambling debts) piled on top of the original mortgages. The difference is whether homeowners or Wall Street receives the benefit of the bailout.
Bankruptcy Rescue. More than 4,476 Americans filed for bankruptcy every day during August, the highest number since changes in the law in 2005 made it much more difficult, and even impossible in many cases, to obtain debt relief. More than a million, increasingly elderly, people will petition for bankruptcy this year.
These destitute Americans were betrayed by their elected representatives!
Under the current law, bankruptcy judges do not have the power to modify mortgages of a petitioner’s primary residence, irrespective of how the mortgages have been sliced, diced and repackaged. The bailout could have provided judges with the authority, in appropriate cases, to adjust the amount secured by the mortgage to the value of the property and to adjust the interest rate to a reasonable percentage.
Unemployment Rescue. New claims for unemployment benefits rose to 493,000 last week, the highest level in seven years. The economy has already lost 605,000 jobs thus far this year, and it dumped 159,000 payroll jobs just during September, the greatest drop in five years.
These unemployed Americans were betrayed by their elected representatives!
Although the House of Representatives passed an economic stimulus bill that would fund job creation and extent jobless benefits for long-term unemployed workers on September 26th, the Senate failed to pass its own stimulus bill on the same day. President Bush has promised to veto the legislation if passed.
The bailout legislation could have provided for an extension of jobless benefits, but it didn’t.
Homeless Rescue. More than 750,000 and as many as a million Americans are homeless today, and the numbers are increasing dramatically. The National Coalition for the Homeless reports that homelessness is growing because of foreclosures, loss of jobs, and the rising price of fuel and food.
These homeless Americans were betrayed by their elected representatives!
Homeless sites are appearing all across the country as people with no place to stay are pitching tents and huddling together for support and protection. Their plight did not receive any consideration by the Congressional leadership that rammed the bailout through Congress.
Hunger Rescue. The most recent report by the Department of Agriculture found that in 2006, 35.5 million Americans lived in households with insecure food supplies and the numbers were increasing. At risk children numbered more than 12.6 million, and African Americans and Hispanic Americans suffered at higher rates than the national average.
In 2006, 9.6 million Americans had to frequently skip meals or eat too little, and often had to go without food for a whole day. Today, as members of Congress voted to reward the richest and most greedy members of our society, they ignored those without the most basic necessity for survival. This morning, they rewarded the most powerful and best-fed members of our society, and gave no thought to the helpless children who will go to bed hungry tonight.
Food banks who serve as the last resort for the hungry are running out of food. They are having to reduce rations and to dip into emergency supplies of staple items. There are reports of a 40 percent increase in requests for food assistance and a 30 percent drop in supplies.
These hungry Americans were betrayed by their elected representatives!
The bailout could have increased the amount of federal assistance for food banks in the Emergency Food Assistance Program, but it didn’t.
The real estate bubble that has been driving the United States economy has now popped, and there is no replacement engine to transport America’s consumer society down the highway to happiness. Americans are facing the mother of all depressions; it will be hard and it will last a long time.
What are all of these homeless, hopeless, and hungry people going to do?
Many have already exercised their First Amendment right to petition their government for the redress of grievances. A majority of the members of Congress, the two presidential candidates, and the President paid no attention to the economic experts and the thousands and thousands of voters who protested the bailout and who begged them to rescue the people rather than the rich and powerful.
The people can always take to the streets in protest, and they probably will do so in growing numbers as the economic circumstances become more harsh.
The U.S. government is already planning for the eventuality – not with the helping hand of supplemental legislation to help with mortgages, jobs, shelter or food, but with the mailed fist of military suppression. The Army Times reports the current deployment within the United States "homeland" of an "on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies or disasters, including terrorist attacks." The Army acknowledges that the Northern Command may call upon the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team to help with "civil unrest and crowd control."
With almost a trillion dollars picked from their pockets to reimburse reckless Wall Street gamblers, many Americans righteously feel betrayed tonight. A majority will elect a new president one month from tomorrow, and most will wait to see who it will be, and what if anything he can or will do to alleviate their suffering.
There are others, undoubtedly, who agree with the Supreme Court’s recent decision that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is individually held, and who believe that the use of their personal weapons is justified to overthrow a government that betrays them and which destroys their very means of existence. The right of legitimate self defense is recognized by every criminal law in America.
Perhaps democracy in the United States is not dead; if not, it’s on its deathbed. Resuscitation in the form of responsible representation is possible, but time is growing short.
William John Cox is a retired supervising prosecutor for the State Bar of California. As a police officer he wrote the Policy Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department and the Role of the Police in America for a national advisory commission. Acting as a public interest, pro bono lawyer, he filed a class action lawsuit in 1979 on behalf of every citizen of the United States petitioning the Supreme Court to order the other two branches of the federal government to conduct a National Policy Referendum; he investigated and successfully sued a group of radical right-wing organizations in 1981 that denied the Holocaust; and he arranged in 1991 for publication of the suppressed Dead Sea Scrolls.
His 2004 book, You’re Not Stupid! Get the Truth: A Brief on the Bush Presidency is reviewed at http://www.yourenotstupid.com, and he is currently working on a fact-based fictional political philosophy. His writings are collected at http://www.thevoters.org, and he can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org
Americans Could Freeze to Death This Winter
The Long Emergency: Surviving Catastophies of the 21st Century - James Howard Kunstler
Gas shortage persists in Southeastern US Sept 30 2008
GOVERNOR: PEOPLE COULD FREEZE TO DEATH
Friday, September 26, 2008
http://www. whynam560. com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle. html?feed=189062&article=4304667
(AP) Governor Patrick says there's a real possibility that people in America could freeze to death this winter due to the soaring cost of home heating fuel. Patrick met with members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation on Capitol Hill and later testified before a House panel on the need for heating aid in cold-weather states.
Patrick said the cost of heating a home -- whether by electricity, gas or oil -- is expected to cost between 20 and 31 percent more than a year ago. He said that will have an impact on many families, and not just those who are defined as low-income.
The House has approved legislation to double the government's Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program to 5.1 billion dollars for the coming winter. According to the Associated Press, Massachusetts would receive 163 million dollars under the plan, an increase of 36 million dollars from the last fiscal year. The Senate must still sign off on the measure. Meantime, Maryann Covalanski, who runs the Springfield Fuel Assistance Program says that it will help...but even more is needed.
The myth of Abraham Lincoln's national unity
Well, yes we all were. But it doesn’t take much digging to destroy the myth. As a start, I would recommend the book Desertion During the Civil War by Ella Lonn, first published in 1928 and re-published in 1998 by Bison Books. In the 1998 introduction the author, William Blair, writes that "public memory considers the war largely a popular one, with a united public supporting its loyal fighting men who sacrificed all for the cause." But Professor Lonn, who taught at Goucher College in Baltimore, proves that this "public memory" is all a lie by documenting that some 200,000 Northern men, one out of seven in the entire U.S. Army, deserted. Her "perfect source," says Blair, was the U.S. government publication, The War of the Rebellion: Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies.
Professor Lonn caused quite a stink in her day, as one would expect. Not only did she document massive desertion in the Union army, but she also portrayed "the Southern cause as attempting to win independence from an oppressive, centralized government," writes William Blair. Nevertheless, her book was still very well received. Totalitarian political correctness had not yet infected all of American society as it does today.
How and why tens of thousands of Northern men said "no" to Lincoln’s military invasion of his own country in the name of "national unity" is told in chapter and verse. Some men "deliberately enlisted in the Union forces in order to be carried South on to Confederate soil in order more easily to cross the lines and join the Confederates." In the border states about half of the men in the U.S. Army deserted. Many took advantage of sick leave and furloughs to leave the army for good. An entire Pennsylvania regiment simply refused to go to West Virginia when ordered. After being coerced onto a train, over 100 of them jumped off. Many Northern men refused to cross their state lines, seeing it as a violation of their enlistment agreements, and eventually deserted.
There were thousands of "bounty jumpers" who, because of "the large and numerous bounties given to volunteers," were induced "to desert for the purpose of reenlisting, or to enlist when the recruit knew that he had no intention of remaining in the field." Many of the bounty jumpers were from "the large Eastern cities" where many of the men in the Union Army were "raked in" by the Lincoln regime despite the fact that they were "criminals, bullies, pickpockets, and vagrants." A great many of them "enlisted under fictitious names, such as Abe Lincoln, Johnny Boker, or Jim Crow."
There were also secret organizations in the Northern states that discouraged enlistment (Lincoln's abolition of free speech in the North required secrecy of all dissenters to the war). "The existence of disloyal organizations through the North is notorious," wrote Professor Lonn. The massive desertions by Union solders were "disgusting to the rebels themselves," wrote one Union soldier.
Although General McClellan had 180,000 men on his official roster prior to the Battle of Antietam (a.k.a., Sharpsburg), he had no more than 90,000 during the battle itself, Professor Lonn remarks. General Sherman reported 70,000 men missing during the Battle of Shiloh.
In June of 1862 General Buell reported from Tennessee that 14,000 officers and soldiers were "absent" from his command. When General Hooker took command of the Army of the Potomac in January of 1863, "desertions were occurring at the rate of several hundred a day." About 25 percent of his army was "absent" according to the Official Records. There was still massive desertion taking place as late as the spring of 1865.
"Tender-hearted" Lincoln oversaw a government in which "executions [of deserters] were taking place almost daily in the Army of the Potomac." General Halleck complained to Lincoln that "hundreds of officers were almost continually absent from their commands" and that about 200 more were absent without leave every month.
According to the Official Records there were 100,000 deserters from the Union Army in 1862 alone. When General Hooker took control of the army he found that 2,923 commissioned officers were missing along with 82,188 non-commissioned officers and privates. General Halleck computed that one-third of the entire army was "absent." The largest numbers of deserters were from New York, followed by Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Jersey.
Among the methods used by Union soldiers to desert were: taking advantage of the confusion of battle; purposeful capture by the Confederates; escaping while on the march; jumping from trains; riding off on their cavalry horses; deserting the picket line; hiding in suttler’s wagons; pretending to be teamsters; and posing as telegraph repairmen.
Once the conscription law was passed and enforced in 1863, draftees were "held like veritable prisoners . . . so as to prevent their untimely departure." They were enslaved, in other words. The kind, gentle, tender-hearted, and long-suffering Lincoln ruled over a government "that had no compunctions about shooting or hanging deserters" who "resisted arrest." After a cabinet meeting on February 3, 1863 at which desertion was discussed, General Hooker temporarily "repressed desertion" with mass executions of deserters in front of the troops. "Why did they not begin this process long ago?" questioned General Meade.
The mass murder of deserters apparently achieved Nazi-like efficiency. "A gallows and shooting-ground were provided in each corps and scarcely a Friday passed during the winter of 1863–64 that some wretched deserter did not suffer the death penalty in the Army of the Potomac." Moreover, "the death penalty was so unsparingly used that executions were almost daily occurrences in most of the armies."
Soldiers were forced to watch these daily executions of their friends and comrades in the form of an official ceremony. "The condemned men marched out between the two ranks of the regiment, preceded by the musicians, playing a funeral march. The provost guard, as an escort, carried the coffin. The victim was conducted to the edge of the grave, which had already been dug. After the sentence was read, he was seated, blindfolded, and placed upon a board at the foot of the open coffin, into which he fell backwards when the firing squad had discharged its sad duty." The "method of execution" was "generally shooting [but] hanging seems to have been used occasionally."
Even Professor Lonn herself was apparently deceived during her education by the myth of national unity. "It is hard for us today to realize," she wrote, "how much disunion and division of sentiment there was in the North during the war."
Taken from Lewrockwell.com
Economist Michael Hudson, author of "Super Imperialism," believes that this entire bailout scheme could be a once in a century rip-off.
Does the Bailout Bill Mark the End of America as We Know It?
The Derivatives Market is Unwinding
Empire of the City Part 2 of Ring of Power
NO TO THE PAULSON-BERNANKE DERIVATIVES BAILOUT
Bailout: Biggest Financial Rip-Off Of All Time
USA Military Officers Challenge Official Account of September 11, 2001
Twenty-five former U.S. military officers have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. They include former commander of U.S. Army Intelligence, Major General Albert Stubblebine, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Col. Ronald D. Ray, two former staff members of the Director of the National Security Agency; Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, and Major John M. Newman, PhD, and many others. They are among the rapidly growing number of military and intelligence service veterans, scientists, engineers, and architects challenging the government’s story. The officers’ statements appear below, listed alphabetically.
Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD "A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible,” said Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret). With doctoral degrees in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Col. Bowman served as Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.
“There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up,” continued Col. Bowman. “Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible. Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.”
Thursday, October 2, 2008
IRS Loses: Unrecorded deed beats IRS.
A couple deeded real estate to their son shortly before the IRS tried to put a lien on the real estate to collect their past-due taxes. The IRS argued that the deed was invalid because it had not been recorded in the county courthouse as the law required.
A deed is recorded to give notice to third parties of a property's status. But because an IRS agent who had been dealing with the couple had been aware of the transaction, such notice was not required for the IRS. Thus, the deed was effective. Because it conveyed the property before the IRS issued the tax liens, the property escapes the liens. Arthur D. Dalessandro, M.D. Pa., No. 3 :CV-93-00105.
IRS Loses: Fifth Amendment rights preserved.
The IRS selected John Berry for a random audit, but he refused to comply, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The IRS then summoned all of Berry's tax records.
The summons against Berry was invalid because the IRS didn't know that the summoned records existed. Forcing Berry to produce records would in effect make him testify against himself by admitting that the records did exist.
IRS Loses: Late amended claim is allowed.
A refund claim was filed just before the filing deadline. After the deadline, the taxpayer discovered that the refund had been underestimated and filed an amended claim for a larger amount. But the IRS said it was too late.
The new claim was simply an adjustment of the original, timely claim, so it was allowed.
IRS Loses: Article By David Cay Johnston.
The Internal Revenue Service committed fraud by brokering secret deals with two airline pilots to let them escape taxes in return for testifying against 1,300 other pilots who bought into the same tax shelters, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said that the remedy for this "extreme misconduct" by the I.R.S. was to give all of the pilots the same corrupt deal that one of the pilots got.
That pilot, John R. Thompson, settled his taxes from the shelter for a dime on the dollar, but actually paid nothing, court papers show. Instead, Mr. Thompson received a $60,000 refund through falsified tax returns prepared with the help of the I.R.S. That money paid his legal fees. He also pocketed $20,000 in interest, court papers show.
The ruling will require the I.R.S. to pay tens of millions of dollars in tax refunds, interest and legal fees, said Michael Louis Minns, a Houston tax lawyer who represented some of the pilots. One pilot, who paid the disputed taxes more than two decades ago and then took the I.R.S. to tax court, is due about $6 million, Mr. Minns said.
Some pilots, who did not pay the taxes, will receive nothing, but will have tax liens removed from their homes, Mr. Minns said.
An I.R.S. spokesman, Terry L. Lemons, said yesterday that the agency had no comment.
The case involves tax shelters sold in the 1970's and early 1980's by Henry Kersting, who was a German U-boat commander in World War II. He sold tax shelters from his Honolulu office until he died three years ago.
The I.R.S. uncovered this Kersting scheme, which involved fabricating debt that clients could deduct on their tax returns. In 1981 it disallowed the deductions and sent bills to 1,300 pilots for additional taxes and penalties.
The appeals court said that rather than try the case honestly, two I.R.S. lawyers made a secret deal with Mr. Thompson and a second pilot that let them escape taxes in return for giving testimony favorable to the I.R.S. "The taxpayers have clearly and convincingly demonstrated fraud on the court and are entitled to relief," the judges wrote, noting that the fraud continued through two separate trials in tax court. "The I.R.S. had an opportunity to present its case fairly and properly.
Judge Michael Daly Hawkins criticized the I.R.S. for not taking serious action against its lawyers, Kenneth W. McWade, who tried the case, and his supervisor, William A. Sims. The court said the two lawyers "defiled the sanctity of the court and the confidence of all future litigants.
The I.R.S. "has done little to punish the misconduct and even less to dissuade future abuse," Judge Hawkins wrote. He noted that both lawyers received $1,000 bonuses from the I.R.S. for their work in the case. They also received two week suspensions, after which Mr. McWade retired. Mr. Sims continues as an I.R.S. lawyer.
Mr. McWade and Mr. Sims, in testimony, insisted that they had behaved properly at all times. Mr. Minns says that he wants both men disbarred, but cannot find a record of their law licenses. He said he wrote to the I.R.S., which replied that it was unaware of where they are licensed either, but noting that it only looked in a public directory of lawyers and not in its own files.
The court said it would be unfair to let the pilots escape the taxes they owed just because of the fraud by the I.R.S. So, instead, it directed the Tax Court to give each pilot a settlement "on terms equivalent to those provided in the settlement agreement" with Mr. Thompson.
IRS Loses: Can't collect interest after losing return for 11 years.
In 1987, an individual filed an amended tax return claiming a loss carryback that he thought paid off a prior year's tax. In 1998, during a later tax dispute, he received an in-explicable tax bill and asked the IRS about the amended 1987 return. The IRS then realized it had lost the return, found it, processed it-and added 11 years of interest to the tax bill. The individual protested. Court: The individual's tax in fact had been underpaid, but this was entirely due to the IRS's error in los-ing the amended return and not telling him the status of his tax bill even when he had asked. So the IRS must abate the interest charge.
Nicholas J. Pa/ihnich, TC Memo 2003-297.
IRS Loses: Conviction overturned due to abusive search warrant.
A tax professional was crimi-nally convicted of advising clients to cheat on their taxes. The IRS used evidence it obtained by seizing his computers, client files, correspondence, seminar videos, and many other business materials. But the adviser said the evidence had been obtained illegally and should be thrown out. Court of Appeals: The search warrant used by the IRS to seize the evidence was so expansive as to cover virtually anything in the adviser's office. Since it failed to be "reasonably specific" and state the activity being investigated, it was defective. So the ad-viser gets a new trial-without the ill gotten evidence.
Alfred G. Bridges. CA-9, No. 01-30316.
IRS Loses: Underreporting income isn't fraud.
John Maloney knowingly understated his income for a year. The IRS said this was fraud, so it could asses back taxes even though the status of limitations otherwise would have expired for the year.
While Maloney had underreported his income for the year, he believed this merely offset the amount by which he had over reported his income the prior year. He also kept good books and records, gave all necessary information to his accountant, and cooperated with the IRS. None of this indicated and intent to evade tax - so there was no fraud and the limitations period did protect his return.
IRS Loses: Occasional inventor doesn’t owe self-employment tax.
Melvin Levinson operated a retail store for more than 40 years, and in his spare time created and patented various inventions. On his tax return, he reported royalty income from patents and settlement payments he received from a business that had infringed his patents. The IRS imposed self-employment tax on his invention related income.
Levinson did not design inventions regularly or continuously, but only sporadically. Thus, he was not engaged in the “trade or business” of inventing, and does not owe self-employment tax on his invention-related income.
IRS Loses: Lack of fraud saves businessman from paying tax.
The IRS sent a tax deficiency notice to a businessman more than three years after he filled his tax return. It said the statute of limitations shouldn’t apply because he had committed tax fraud. It claimed his tax underpayments were consistent with acknowledged skill in business – and pointed out he previously been convicted of filing a false return.
Tax fraud consists of activity hiding income from the IRS, and the IRS had no evidence that the businessman had done that. Underpaying taxes is not fraud, and neither is filing a false return. So the three-year limit applied and the businessman was safe from tax.
IRS Loses: Must cooperate with request for information.
Louis Peyton filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the IRS for documents indexed under his name regarding a criminal case being investigated by an IRS agent in Virginia. The IRS refused, saying the request wasn’t specific enough and hadn’t been filed in the Richmond, Virginia office.
The IRS, like other government agencies, is capable of finding documents indexed under an individual’s name – so long as sufficient information has been provided to it. And the IRS is capable of forwarding the request to its Richmond Office itself. It was ordered to comply with the FOIA request.
IRS Loses: Taxpayer keeps excess refund.
The IRS mistakenly double-credited Raymond O’Bryant’s account for a $28,000 tax payment he had made. And they sent him a refund in the same amount, plus interest. Later the IRS realized its error, said the original tax bill remained unpaid, and put a lien on O’Bryant’s property.
The original tax debt was extinguished when O’Bryant made his payment. The problems that followed were the fault of the IRS. To recover the refund, it had to bring a separate action - and it had failed to do so before the stature of limitations ran out. So the lien was lifted and O’Bryant kept the refund.
IRS Loses: Must release its own valuation expert’s report.
Richard Bennett claimed a $236,000 deduction for items he donated to a charity, but the IRS said the items had no value and disallowed the entire deduction. Later, Bennett learned that the IRS initial appraisal of the items said they did have value – and that the IRS then obtained a second opinion form another appraiser who said they had no value. Bennett demanded that the IRS release its initial appraisal to him, but the IRS said that because it hadn’t used the initial appraisal it was irrelevant to the case.
The appraisal was relevant to the issue of the items’ value, so the IRS must produce it.
IRS Loses: Transposed street number voids notice.
The IRS mailed a deficiency notice to the wrong street number, “750” instead of “705”, but told the Tax Court that this didn’t matter because the local mail carrier knew the addressee and tried to deliver the notice to the correct address. However, the mail carrier did not testify.
The deficiency notice had been mailed to the wrong address, and the IRS had presented no evidence showing that it had actually delivered to the right address so the notice was invalid.
IRS Loses: Deposit defeats levy.
An attorney held funds for a client who was being sued by several creditors who wanted the money, including the IRS. The IRS levied on the funds, but instead of turning them over, the attorney proposed to deposit them with the court and remove himself from the dispute. However, the IRS insisted on holding the attorney liable for the money.
For the attorney, it was reasonable for him to turn funds over to the court until the issue was decided. And because he never made any claim to the funds himself, it was reasonable to prevent - including the IRS - from holding him accountable for them.
IRS Loses: Conviction overturned.
When the IRS brought a criminal charge against Bernhard Manko for tax fraud, he tried to get into evidence the fact that
Court of Appeals:
in an earlier civil tax proceeding the IRS had agreed to a compromise settlement of the same tax bill that it now said was fraudulent. Mr. Manko said that by agreeing to the compromise the IRS had admitted that his tax position was at least partly legitimate. But the court barred the compromise agreement as evidence and Mr. Manko was convicted. He appealed. Court of appeals: For Mr. Manko. The agreement should have been admitted as evidence, so the conviction is vacated.
Dirty Secret Of The Bailout: Thirty-Two Words That None Dare Utter
Economics - Crash Course
Misplaced Trust - Part 1
September 14, 2008
People who rely on broadcast media and/or government education to formulate their perceptions often roll their eyes in exasperation and conspiracy-nut-contempt when exposed to reliable information that challenges their beliefs. For the majority, easy prey for predatory propagandists and history revisionists, the possibility that they have been blatantly deceived by their own government is unthinkable, despite the monstrous evidence of pandemic corruption. Denial is the proverbial mental comfort zone; it is an easy refuge. It requires nothing! Schopenhauer said: “All truth goes through three stages, first it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally it is accepted as self-evident.”
The U.S. Government lies, cheats, steals, misappropriates public funds, seizes and redistributes private funds, outsources middle-class jobs through phony trade agreements, succumbed to the privately-owned Federal Reserve, has given away or sold our technology and public lands to well-connected private citizens and/or foreign countries, has secretly initiated the North American Union, confiscates private property, kills and maims its own citizens, kills and maims foreign citizens and has established a Nazi-style police state. Individual citizens would receive prison terms for comparable crimes. However, criminal cronies shield each other in and out of office! They rationalize these insidious behaviors as necessary with ambiguous phrases – “national security,” or “national interests,” as if everyone in the nation had a common interest, when, in fact, the people’s government serves corporate interests. From extensive experience, they lie proficiently. Even more remarkable, our taxes pay for our own institutionalized indoctrination without our knowledge and certainly without our consent.
Why no dissent? Are we a nation of unthinking, consumer-driven, media-mesmerized, addicted-to-entertainment citizens who have abdicated personal responsibility and independence to the nanny state? Via alleged threats, orchestrated economic chaos through Federal Reserve currency gymnastics and long-term offensive war, we have relinquished our liberties and independence and look to government for safety and solutions – placing our trust in officialdom (arm of flesh) rather than the inspired foundational documents or the Christian scriptures so many warmongers claim to endorse. Where is any evidence of Christianity? Propagandists, playing on our religious beliefs, manipulate us and claim “a righteous cause” against “evildoers” to gain support. Military troops do not “fight for their country” or for God.
They fight for the government! Why no dissent?
The first advertising agency was founded in 1843 – thus began the age of propaganda and “clever deceptions.” Schools later offered classes on advertising and salesmanship. “It did not take long for the principles of advertising and marketing, developed to sell consumer goods, to be applied to the ‘sale’ of political ideas and candidates.” Decades ago, the lawbreakers in the congressional cesspool authorized propaganda for both wartime and peacetime. Propaganda, the art of mass persuasion, by definition, “involves lies, deceit, half truths, misinformation and exaggeration to control thoughts, beliefs and attitudes of others to influence world opinion." "Propaganda involves the dextrous use of images, slogans and symbols that play on our prejudices and emotions; it is the communication of a point of view with the ultimate goal of having the recipient of the appeal come to ‘voluntarily’ accept this position as if it were his or her own.”
Federal agencies were established, funded and approved to work with the news media, Hollywood film studios, and magazines – virtually every communication vehicle. Those friendly, smiling TV and radio personalities may, in fact, be on the government’s payroll. “Inspiring” “patriotic” pro-war movies or Disney’s animations evoke a predictable response. Many media personalities belong to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an organization devoted to destroying America.
Okay skeptics, time to roll your eyes, but wait, read on!
In April 1917, Woodrow Wilson, the 1916 peace candidate, created the Committee on Public Information (CPI) to garner support for the war which enriched the bankers of the newly-established, privately-owned Federal Reserve. The Director of the CPI was publisher George Creel. He had a staff of persuasive wordsmiths – journalists, writers, intellectuals and advertisers who later admitted they were quite willing to lie, would use emotional appeal and enemy demonization to generate hate and fear to elicit support for the government’s war. Popular phrases were: “Bleeding Belgium,” “The Criminal Kaiser,” and the always-useful slogan – “Make the World Safe For Democracy.” Propaganda posters and CPI pamphlets filled with fictitious atrocity stories proved useful in gaining support and recruiting troops. Howard Lasswell said: “If at first they do not enrage, use an atrocity. It has been employed with unvarying success in every conflict known to man.” “Unlike the pacifist, who argues that all wars are brutal, the atrocity story implies that war is only brutal when practiced by the enemy.”
The CPI staff distributed six thousand “news releases” during the course of the war. This emotionally-charged propaganda, disguised as “news,” was disseminated so successfully that the majority of citizens responded with nationalistic enthusiasm. George Orwell said this about nationalism: “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”
Austrian-born Edward Bernays, master of manipulation, was head of the CPI’s Export Section and co-head of the Latin American Section of the Foreign Press Bureau. Bernays, Sigmund Freud’s nephew, employed his uncle’s views on behavior to manipulate and manage people in the marketplace. Bernays became renowned as the “Father of Public Relations,” assisted by his experience with the government. Bernays contacted Ford, International Harvester and other U.S. firms to distribute pro-war literature to foreign contacts. He orchestrated propaganda in Germany to engender dissent and affect moral. He organized rallies and printed propaganda in other languages to be inserted into export journals. His tenacious persuasion skills changed America’s views toward a very unpopular war.
To give the right spin on America in the aftermath of the World War I, a CPI press team, including Bernays, attended the Paris Peace Conference in 1918. George Creel wrote a book in 1920 entitled How We Advertised America in which he defined how “he and his committee used the principles of advertising to convince Americans to go to war with Germany.”
Hitler (financed by Prescott Bush et al) and his cohort Goebbels controlled the Germans with the “Big Lie” theory – “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed” – (like the government’s version of 9/11). Americans were appalled by Hitler’s organized propaganda and stunned that the Germans fell for it. Actually, the Nazi regime adopted their techniques from the U.S. and Great Britain from their organized use of propaganda during World War I. In Mein Kampf (written on a Rothschild banker’s typewriter), Hitler says, possibly after reading Creel’s book: “But it was not until the War that it became evident what immense results could be obtained by a correct application of propaganda. Here again, unfortunately, all our studying had to be done on the enemy side, for the activity on our side was modest, to say the least…. For what we failed to do, the enemy did, with amazing skill and really brilliant calculation. I, myself, learned enormously from this enemy war propaganda.”
Joseph Paul Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister said the following: “Not every item of news should be published. Rather must those who control news policies endeavor to make every item of news serve a certain purpose.” And again: “It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion. Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.” Now I am not claiming that the U.S. homeland is exactly like the Nazi motherland. There are some differences! Germany’s hate-radio targeted Jews; America’s hate-radio targets Muslims. Both “civilized” countries, allegedly Christian, not only tolerate the sinister spew but, through our silence, assent to it.
Citizens were required to show “their papers” to the SS in Germany. We will soon have to show our papers to the DHS. In Germany, the government took over big business. In the United States, big business has taken over the government – all of these circumstances, and others, including compulsory vaccinations, represent tyranny, all backed by the international banking cartel, not content with controlling a few countries but wish to supervise the entire world and the people who manage to survive the Power Elite’s Grim Reaper depopulation plans. We have more to fear from our own government and their benefactors than from any other entity.
Franklin D. Roosevelt created the Office of War Information (OWI) in June 1942 which focused on “winning the war.” Propaganda is devised to resemble independent legitimate news agencies, like the government-created United News, which produced newsreels for domestic and foreign distribution. One may purchase them or watch them here. These “newsreels” defined the violence of our “enemies” which stimulated distrust, revulsion, and indignation – effective recruiting tactics. At the same time, the newsreels incited a feeling of American superiority, elevating us to a higher moral ground. OWI also produced several radio series and persuaded Hollywood personalities to do their “patriotic” duty by endorsing government activities. Frank Capra’s film series Why We Fight was made for the War Department.
Hatred of Hitler and his Nazi accomplices erupted into intolerance and hatred of all German citizens – strangers! Demonized, dehumanized enemies are easier to kill. Our ethically-challenged government typically repudiates horrific war crimes while committing and concealing comparable offenses. Offenses committed by ordinary citizens, swayed by emotion-filled words and soul-stirring anthems (currently government-sponsored, pro-war TV commercials) to act against foreigners, cast as “evildoers” by power-seeking government officials who bomb citizens into “liberty” elsewhere while suppressing freedom at home.
To legitimize OWI efforts with Congress, Truman transferred propaganda operations to the Department of State on August 23, 1945 – conveniently timed to proliferate the nonsensical theory that it was necessary to incinerate the non-threatening citizens of Japan’s only two Christian cities, Nagasaki and Hiroshima*, in order to “save American lives,” as if 100,000 (Hiroshima) Japanese lives were inconsequential. Americans bought into that propaganda – and still do! (We never hear about Iraqi deaths which are now over a million.) Those non- military-target bombings took place after the Potsdam Conference and several months after the Japanese offered to surrender. Then the bombed cities were “off limits” to U.S. journalists “until mid-September.” Rather than expose American atrocities, Washington officials directed media focus on the Japanese POW camps in the north. Currently, only “embedded journalists” report any war “news.” The War Department further claimed “that scientists had ascertained that the residual radiation in Nagasaki did not merit concern.” Sheltered officials also assured Manhattan residents that 9/11’s deadly toxic dust was “safe.”
The firebombing of Tokyo in March of 1945 possibly killed as many as a hundred thousand people. The Dresden bombing and the resulting firestorm cost the lives of 80,000 to 100,000 residents of that city. Perhaps 600,000 civilians, men, women, and children, died in the indiscriminate bombings of Europe. An equal number died in the bombings of Japan. Americans have killed millions of apolitical foreign citizens to eradicate fascism, communism and terrorism. Those ideologies still exist! Have we failed to enforce “liberty?” The “fight for freedom” is a farce! “We cannot claim that there is a moral distinction between a government which bombs and kills innocent people and a terrorist organization which does the same.” Watch this 3 minute video to see the real victims.
The Washington DC-based Voice of America (February 24, 1942-present), a radio and television broadcasting system, is funded by the U.S. taxpayers: $166 million in 2006. VOA broadcasts more than 1,000 hours of simulating news, information, educational, and cultural propaganda every week to an estimated worldwide audience of more than 115 million people in 45 languages.” They do not use FCC issued call signs which are required by FCC rules for every broadcasting station on U.S. soil. The government apparently is not required to follow the rules imposed upon others. The FCC is the government agency that licenses and regulates “free speech.
” Regulation is control!
VOA is currently under the direction of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), an agency of the government, with nine members, eight of which are appointed by the president. “On October 1, 1999, the BBG became the independent federal agency responsible for all U.S. government and government sponsored, non-military, international broadcasting. This was the result of the 1998 Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (Public Law 105-277), the single most important legislation affecting U.S. international broadcasting since the early 1950s.”
The BBG’s current chairman is James K. Glassman, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (an assembly of Neo Cons) and a syndicated columnist who has subbed on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show. Other current members include: Joaquin F. Blaya, Blanquita Walsh Cullum, D. Jeffrey Hirschberg (Washington lawyer), Edward E. Kaufman (President of Public Strategies, a political and management consulting firm in Wilmington, Delaware), Mark McKinnon (Chief media adviser to Bush who directed his advertising propaganda for the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns.), Steven J. Simmons (Chairman and CEO of Patriot Media and Communications, LLC, a new company formed to purchase cable companies in the United States.), and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Rice was a Chevron Director from 1991 until January 15, 2001. The Broadcasting Board of Governors also supervises the following stations: Alhurra, Radio Sawa, Radio Farda, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia (RFA), Radio Marti and TV Marti So much for unbiased fair and balanced “news.”
* As reported by John Hershey in his book: Hiroshima, page 146, Robert Lewis, co-pilot of the Enola Gay wrote in the official log “My God, what have we done?” Other military personnel probably repeatedly ask that same question.
1, Gestapo raid on coin-producing enterprise By: Richard H. Timberlake, Jr., PhD, December 3rd, 2007
2, The Bush-Hitler Thing, A Holocaust Survivor Speaks Out
3, A Violent Cartography, Bomb After Bomb By Howard Zinn, December 15, 2007
4, Age of Propaganda, the Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion by Anthony Pratkanis and Elliot Aronson, pgs. 9-10
5, Propaganda-Politicians Use Our Money to Pay for Lying to Us by Mark Lowry, January 31, 2007
6, Age of Propaganda, the Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion by Anthony Pratkanis and Elliot Aronson, pgs. 9-10
7, Wartime Propaganda, World War I, “The War To End All Wars,”
9, War Propaganda: World War I, Demons, atrocities, and lies
10, The Rhetorical Presidency, Propaganda, and the Cold War, 1945-1955 by Shawn J.
Parry-Giles, Praeger Series in Presidential Studies, 2002, Introduction
11, George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism
12, The Father of Spin, Edward L. Bernays and the Birth of Public Relations by Larry Tye, pgs. 15-20
13, Age of Propaganda, the Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion by Anthony Pratkanis and Elliot Aronson, pgs. 9-10
14, 'Mein Kampf' - Hitler Used Rothschild Banker's Typewriter By Henry Makow PhD, July 8, 2007
15, Mein Kampf, Volume One - A Reckoning Chapter VI: War Propaganda by Adolph Hitler
16, Joseph Goebbels
17, Joseph Goebbels, Source: Diary, 14 March 1943
18, The Nazification of the United States by Norman Livergood
19, The Rhetorical Presidency, Propaganda, and the Cold War, 1945-1955 by Shawn J.
Parry-Giles, Praeger Series in Presidential Studies, 2002, Introduction
20, Why We Fight
21, The New World Order, Criminals and Their Camps by Deanna Spingola
22, Chicago Tribune History by Michael A. Hoffman II
23, Killing Our Own, The Disaster of America's Experience with Atomic Radiation 1945-1982 by Harvey Wasserman & Norman Solomon with Robert Alvarez & Eleanor Walters The First Atomic Veterans, Part 1
24, A Violent Cartography, Bomb After Bomb By Howard Zinn, December 15, 2007
25, Voice of America, A Trusted Source of News and Information since 1942
26, An Organization of U.S. International Broadcasters
27, Broadcasting Board of Governors
28, BBG Noard
29, Chevron named oil tanker the “Condoleezza Rice”
© 2008 Deanna Spingola - All Rights Reserved