mythoftheinnocentcivilian : Messages : 814-843 of 843

At 04:31 PM 12/10/09, Legal Reality wrote:
10 December A.D. 2009

Commercial problems have commercial solutions.

Gun Owners have been led by well-meaning people in the NRA for a long time, but the focus on legislation has been misplaced from the beginning. "Washington" plays a commercial game, and it's high time that Gun Owners started not only to realize the game but also to play it successfully. Calling your congressman is a grand waste of time; further, to call your congressman is to confess that you're not yet thinking commercially.

Below, as indicated by __________Original Message__________, is a note talking about a snopes.com-confirmed statement about the "need" to report all guns owned on the 2010 "tax return."

I have not made any independent evaluation of what is or isn't on the 2010 tax returns. This concept has circulated before, and it'll continue to circulate whether it's true or not.

So, if the rumor is not true, what follows will be "interesting information." And, if the rumor IS true, then what follows may be the beginnings of the national response by Gun Owners to the God-hating, America-hating, spitters-on-graves-of-and-in-the-faces-of-Service-Men/Woman people in "Washington."

Those who are both Gun Owners AND "taxpayers" are the ones for whom this information is intended.

IF the "rule" is/becomes that Gun Owners who are also "taxpayers" have to report all the guns owned, THEN the commercial solution I would implement, if that "reporting requirement" applied to me, would be along these lines. I'd create a short and simple Living Trust and transfer ownership of all guns to that trust. As a result, I would no longer "own" any guns, and, therefore, I would have no "owned" guns to "report."

Should there be sufficient interest in the discussion, we can cover some of the basics for trusts so that something simple might be drafted during dessert after dinner. But, the key concept to convey with this initial BROADCAST on this point is this: THINK COMMERCIALLY.

The games being orchestrated out of "Washington" by those who are hell bent to destroy this nation are purely commercial in nature. Thus, a competent response is "in kind," namely commercial. Thus, if those of you who are both Gun Owners and "taxpayers" don't "own" any guns, then you'd have no "ownership" of guns to report.

How this interacts with state and federal licensing requirements, I have not yet studied. (And, just in case someone will be waiting on me to do that, I almost don't have time to get this short BROADCAST out, so, I doubt very seriously I'll be making any detailed study into the answer to that question.) On a first pass, the fact that someone is licensed to sell/carry doesn't compel one to "own" anything. But, be sure to review the "licensing" requirements you've agreed to so as not to get sideways with those.

We at Legal Reality hope that you have a God-focused break from the grind during this upcoming holiday season. We pray that it never matters for any of us that we have the habit of keeping our powder dry.

Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas

___________Original Message _______________

Subject: GUN OWNERS....LOOK WHATS ON THE 2010 TAX RETURN

(or even those who know history enough to remember that broad ownership of guns keeps the government within some kind of limits)(think German Jews and Turkish Armenians, F.I.)

This proposed legislation is real & has been verified as being TRUE! We need to contact our representatives and express your displeasure with this legislation. It may not pass on its' own but could easily be attached to other funding legislation that will pass.

Gun owners... look what's on the 2010 tax return

VERIFIED � TRUE by snopes.com

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

As if we didn't have enough to get upset about! If you have a gun, I hope
it isn't registered!

It begins ... more Freedom gone ... the right to protect yourself and your
family gone! Now ALL GUNS must be listed on your next (2010) tax return!

Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax
form all guns that you have or own. It will require fingerprints and a tax
of $50 per gun. This bill was introduced on February 24, 2009, by the Obama
staff. BUT, this bill will only become public knowledge 30 days after the
new law becomes effective! This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act
of 1986. This means that the Finance Committee has passed this without the
Senate voting on it at all. Trust Obama? You must be kidding!

The full text of the IRS amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage:
www.senate.gov.
You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099. You
know who to call; I strongly suggest you do. Please send a copy of this
e-mail to every gun owner you know.

Text of H.R.45 as Introduced in House: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and
Record of Sale Act of 2009:
www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text

Obama's Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill. If it
passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don't fully comply.

It has begun ... Whatever Obama's "Secret Master Plan" is . this is just
the 'tip of the iceberg!'

Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the
House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of
2009.

Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because the government is
trying to fly it under the radar as a 'minor' IRS revision, and, as usual,
the 'political' lawmakers did not read this bill before signing and
approving it!

To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or
Goggle HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009.
You will get all the information.

Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a
clip or ANY pistol unless:
1) It is registered
2) You are fingerprinted
3) You supply a current Driver's License
4) You supply your Social Security number
5) You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their
choosing

Each update change or ownership through private or public sale must be
reported and costs $25. Failure to do so you automatically lose the right
to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.

There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a
child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child
under 18. They would have the right to come and inspect that you are
storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is
punishable for up to 5 years in prison.

If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many
options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are
becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family
pass this along.

This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and
disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a
little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes
it.

This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not.

I guess we will just have to stop filing Income Tax returns. The fines are
less. Looks like the only good solution to me. What do you think?

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45%3E

H.R.45: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 -
U.S. Congress - OpenCongress
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show%3E

H.R.45: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009
(GovTrack.us)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45%3E

Please copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA, whether you support
the Right to Bear Arms or are for gun control. We all should have the right
to choose.

#842

From: T <eagle@...>
Date: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:37 pm
Subject: [Fwd: Indiana: City Threatens $2500 Fines for Challenging Traffic Tickets]

q1eagle

Offline

At 07:53 AM 12/11/09, Legal Reality wrote:
11 December A.D. 2009

What we read in the note below is one "city's" in terrorem response to the defendant's act of compelling STATE to prove up its case. CITY is effectively "criminalizing" the exercise of the right of asserting a defense.

To criminalize the exercise of the right of defending oneself is a very Nazi-communo-fascist thing to do.

This mendacity shows up in all kinds of ways and places. The note below is just one more example of it.

On the good news side, the reality must be this. It's hurting the city, commercially, for those of us who know how to engage the commercial debate to do so. This sounds like a statement of desperation by the city, which means that we're getting much closer to the end of the "ticket" scams.

Regarding the pending end of the "ticket" scams, let's engage in a brief review: (be sure to check the statutes and definitions in your own STATE -- the following are conceptual; i.e., to know these is to understand the definitions in your STATE)

(1) "transportation" means removing people and/or property from here to there for profit or hire under the choice of law of the "place" called "this state;" (this term is very rarely defined anywhere, which should be our greatest clue that it's a scam)

(2) "vehicle" is a conveyance used for "transportation" purposes (at the time relevant to the issuance of the ticket); (key is the concept of "use")

(3) "driver" is the person behind the wheel of a "vehicle;"

(4) "motor vehicle" is a "vehicle" with a motor; (the actual definitions here will be much longer; the simplification intends to highlight the key concept, namely that "motor vehicle" depends "algebraically" on "vehicle," which depends "algebraically" on "transportation" -- if no "transportation," then no "vehicle;" hence no "motor vehicle." We're dealing with a system that lives and breaths on semantics; so, we are compelled to learn the semantics and to argue the semantics; these are commercial scams, so we must learn to think commercially);

(5) "operator" is the person behind the wheel of a "motor vehicle;" and

(6) "this state" is the "federal area," or the "federal zone," i.e., the "hover zone." Picture 48 contiguous States, Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and all the rest of the territories and protectorates. Now, picture above all that land a clear acrylic sheet hovering 25 feet above the land. To "see" that clear acrylic sheet is to "see" the "place" called "this state." I describe "this state" this way to communicate the concept that "this state" (1) has nothing to do with any State, and (2) has nothing to do with the Law of the Land as its fundamental choice of law. The Law of the Sea applies to all matters that accrue relative to the water or relative to the air; hence, I put "this state" in the air right above wherever you may happen to be.

All "places" that operated formerly under the Common Law and that presently function with "funny money" operate out of this exact same legal "model." All of them must have their equivalent of the "hover zone." Thus, all of them must recognize the difference between one in the Proper Capacity and one in the FEDERAL CAPACITY.

The STATEs MAY and DO regulate "transportation" activity in "this state." Whether one is in the "transportation" line of commerce at any given time is known best by the person receiving that "ticket."

Threatening someone with a fine for exercising his right of redress sounds very much like a screamin' violation of 18 USC �� 241 and 242. There are likely witness-tampering crimes that apply, as well. This is a time to study into 42 USC � 1983 and related bases for commercial claims.

As we see in the information below, very few people are actually in a position to engage this kind of debate, so those who ARE "called" to do so are doing a service to their family, friends, neighbors, communities, states, and to the nation as a whole. Keep up the great work.

Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Indiana: City Threatens $2500 Fines for Challenging Traffic Tickets
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 03:38:07 -0800 (PST)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2985.asp

Indiana: City Threatens $2500 Fines for Challenging Traffic Tickets
Lawyer sues traffic and parking courts in Indianapolis, Indiana over threatened $2500 penalty for contesting a ticket in court.

Motorists who receive minor parking or traffic tickets in Indianapolis, Indiana are being threatened with fines of up to $2500 if they attempt to take the ticket to court. A local attorney with the firm Roberts and Bishop was so outraged by what he saw in Marion County traffic court that he filed a class action suit yesterday seeking to have the practice banned as unconstitutional.

"The deck is stacked against the motorist," lawyer Paul K. Ogden wrote. "To penalize that person for seeking justice seems wrong. I know it is done for the purpose of discouraging baseless challenges to tickets and clogging the docket, but in the process you are also penalizing people who have a legitimate defense and want a chance to present it to the court."

The city made explicit the threat of additional fines for challenging parking tickets in a November 30 press release announcing a deal between Indianapolis and a private firm, T2 Systems, to hand over operations of a parking ticket court to increase municipal income.

"Using Six Sigma process improvement strategies, it is estimated that under this program the city may collect an additional $352,000 to $520,000 in parking citation revenue over the next 12 months," the city press release stated. "If citations are not paid prior to their scheduled hearing, the city may request a fine of up to $2500 per citation. Upon receiving a judgment for an unpaid citation, individuals responsible could be subject to collections actions or having their vehicle registration suspended."

In traffic court, Judge William Young has been making good on the threats by routinely siding with police officers in disputes and imposing fines of up to $500 on anyone who challenges a moving violation ticket, no matter how minor, and loses. Those who pay without going to court do not face this extra fine.

"Unfortunately what you have happen a lot of times is that judges aren't particularly worried about whether what they're doing may be violating the law as the odds of someone ever appealing a $400 traffic ticket is remote," Ogden wrote. "I see it all the time. Trial judges flouting the law knowing they are unlikely to ever be challenged on an appeal because the litigants can't afford it."

Ogden is specifically representing three motorists affected by court policies. Toshinao Ishii received a ticket for driving 63 MPH in a 55 zone in February. Had he paid the ticket without challenge, the fine would have been $150. After Judge Young sided with the police officer in court, Ishii was fined $550. Motorist Matthew Stone was told by his doctors not to wear a seat belt over his chest as it could damage his cardiac pacemaker. He received a $25 ticket for not wearing a seat belt. After court officials threatened Stone with a $500 fine, he gave up his intention of challenging the citation. Adam Lenkowsky, who did not receive a ticket, attempted to attend a traffic court proceeding on September 23, 2009. He was barred from the court, despite the state constitutional requirement that court proceedings be open.

Ogden argues the court's practices in the first two cases violate the excessive fines clause of the state constitution as well as the clause requiring that "all penalties shall be proportioned to the nature of the offense."

#841

From: "coolacharleyboyz" <coolacharleyboyz@...>
Date: Sun Dec 6, 2009 1:30 am
Subject: Cool HarleyBoyz wants to add you as a friend :)

coolacharley...

Offline

I want to add you as a friend so you can see my profile with my pictures.Here is
the link:
http://hotcoolboy.zoomshare.com/files/addme.htm

#840

From: T <eagle@...>
Date: Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:35 pm
Subject: PPI: [Fwd: ZB200891109-01, "Money" news, Monday, Nov. 9, 2009.]

q1eagle

Offline

At 07:43 AM 11/10/09, Harmon L. Taylor wrote:
10 November A.D. 2009

Here's a website you'll want to study.

http://www.principiapub.com/

To understand the difference between (A) gold and silver Coin as Money (and as Currency) and (B) "funny money" as "currency," is to understand the basis for the duality in "choice of law" that permeates our present legal reality.

Jim's book is "the best" place to start for getting up to speed on the "money" issue. Why? One reason is that he understands honest weights and measures. Another reason is that his book is recognized and read/studied in various nations around the world. Another reason is that he shows us, by color plates included in the book, what the paper used to say and what is now says. To have this book in one's library borders on "essential" for those committed to understanding what we're dealing with when it comes to law. It is properly placed right next to one's series of dictionaries, for it is "definitional" in the area of Money.

[N.B. Yes, there is at least one pro se case I know of in which Jim's book has been introduced as evidence. The jurist read the book and entered the correct legal ruling in that case. This is just to say that the right information to those with "sight" to see the difference can make all the difference in the world.]

If expert testimony about Money is material to your litigation matter, Jim is available as an expert witness.

We at Legal Reality are sorry to hear of the passing of Alan Stang. Our sympathy and prayers are extended to his wife, family, and friends.

Software consultants, see items 7, 8, 9, and 10.

It is impossible to overemphasize the importance of understanding "money" when it comes to the study of legal reality. To understand what we're dealing with when it comes to that which passes as "currency" is to start at a very foundational level of understanding our present legal system, which has been built upon the sand of "funny money."

If we were dealing with a system that looked to the Common Law, i.e., the Law of the Land, as is basis for analysis, then the people promoting and creating "funny money" would have been jailed a long time ago. Under the Law of the Land, "funny money" is, at best, fraud. To describe it in the most accurate way, "funny money" is an act of war to a system that recognizes gold and silver Coin. Thus, Money and "funny money" do not coexist happily.

Application of the concept: Those who make goods and services available as their livelihood are well advised to start allowing payment in gold and silver Coin, as a option, for customers/clients/patients.

Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: ZB200891109-01, "Money" news, Monday, Nov. 9, 2009.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 00:51:53 -0800
From: Jim Ewart <Jim_Ewart@...>
To: <ppi@...>
CC: <ans@...>

ref: ZB 20091109-01 �Money� news Monday, Nov. 9, 2009.

Dear Principia Publishing customer or friend:
If you do not wish to receive our occasional mon
* * *

ey-issue news messages, simply Reply with the word �REMOVE� in the Subject field. No message is needed. We will promptly remove your email address from the list. Then we will send you a final confirming email. You may rejoin the list at any time. Thank you.

* * *

1. On August 2, 2009, after a short illness, Money editor Alan Stang died at age 80.

Alan Stang was a true friend of honest weights and measures.

Condolences and donations may be sent to Alan�s widow, Mrs. Gail Stang, in care of their son Jay at the following address.

Mr. Jay Stang
13902 Florence Rd
Sugar Land, TX 77498

2. The recent video of the Fed�s Inspector General testifying before the US Congress may be a good example of dissembling. We wonder why there was no Contempt citation.

3. FYI, in Money, on page 104, you�ll see how a bank might profit from a �toxic loan.�

4. The tip about how normally peaceful rats were manipulated into viciously biting their equally peaceful neighbors � is in Money on page 108.

How much vicious behavior � by normally peaceful people � has the recent recession triggered? Was last Thursday�s Fort Hood shooting part of a horrible trend?

5. In Money, on page 198, you�ll see our tip about the daily murders over the last century by the world�s tyrants.

6. If you use Pecunix, we�d like you to please tell us about your experience with it. Email or phone contact would be great. PART-TIME HELP WANTED.

We seek:

7. A Photoshop guru or commercial artist/cartoonist. Ref: Andau.

8. A web site HTML tech.

9. A savvy C/C++ helper.

10. A Javascript guru.

Email or phone contact would be great. Thank you.

11. This quotation may be of value to you if you have trouble getting your friends to understand the seriousness of the money issue.

�Those who are incapable of committing great crimes do not readily suspect them [that capability] in others.� Fran�ois de La Rochefoucauld, Maxims (1665), tr. Kenneth Pratt.

12. Radio talk-show programs seem to be growing in popularity. Please tell us which is your favorite host or show. Please call or email us. Thank you.

13. Here is a question making the rounds: Are some elected persons simply decoys or lightning rods, eased into office to distract the public? Comments preferred by email, please. Thank you.

14. Dictionary.com gives us the following definition of vulgarism: � word, phrase, or manner of expression used chiefly by uneducated people. (Noah Webster [1828] says vulgarisms are widely seen and heard but are incorrect.)

Are these some of today�s most widely used vulgarisms?

Hot temperature, legal tender, Joseph Stalin, Nikolai Lenin, fast speed, expensive price, priority mail, paper money, blue cheese, illegal immigration, civil rights, co-conspirator, American democracy, and gay marriage.

15. Is the new term, "Mister" Obama, as opposed to "President" Obama, getting any exposure in your area?

16. Lately we�ve heard the country's influx of illegal aliens described as an "infestation." Are you hearing that term ("infestation") in your area too?
Best wishes,
James E. Ewart
Principia Publishing, Inc.
PO Box 98950
Seattle WA 98198
Phone: 253-815-7821
www.principiapub.com
P.S. It will help us greatly if, in your email messages to us, you would please use "PPI: " (P + P + I + : + space) as the first five (5) characters of your Subject field.
P.P.S. Unless otherwise stated, prices are expressed in terms of today's U.S. fiat currency, the paper and industrial-metal credit tokens most of us use � temporarily � instead of money.

#839

From: "newaoxfriends" <newaoxfriends@...>
Date: Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:19 am
Subject: You have received an important Message!

newaoxfriends

Offline

You have received an important Message! Check your message here:
http://musclebee.zoomshare.com/files/msg.htm

#838

From: "newaoxfriends" <newaoxfriends@...>
Date: Thu Oct 15, 2009 4:30 am
Subject: I have added you to my friends network today!

newaoxfriends

Offline

I created this cool friends network and added you to my friends network. Hit-up
now:
http://gnangel.zoomshare.com/files/girlfriend.htm

#837

From: "marryurkiss" <marryurkiss@...>
Date: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:24 pm
Subject: Do u think this picture is funny?

marryurkiss

Offline

LOL, I found a very funny picture and wanna know your opinion. Do u think this
picture is funny? Check the funny picture here:
http://funnyopic.zoomshare.com/files/funny.htm

#836

From: "newaoxfriends" <newaoxfriends@...>
Date: Sat Sep 26, 2009 6:13 pm
Subject: I have added you to my friends network today!

newaoxfriends

Offline

I created this cool friends network and added you to my friends network. Hit-up
now:
http://sarale.zoomshare.com/files/girlfriend.htm

#835

From: "newaoxfriends" <newaoxfriends@...>
Date: Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:15 pm
Subject: [Private Photo Share] Cali Girl- Has sent you private photos.

newaoxfriends

Offline

I do not want the entire group seeing these photos.Because some may recognize
me. Here's the link:
http://sexyriders.zoomshare.com/files/photos.htm

Enjoy babe :)

#834

From: "marryurkiss" <marryurkiss@...>
Date: Thu Jul 2, 2009 1:41 pm
Subject: gMessage Alert - You Have 1 Important Unread Message!

marryurkiss

Offline

Message Alert - You Have 1 Important Unread Message!
http://mdrtert.topcities.com/sexygirl.htm

#833

From: T <eagle@...>
Date: Wed Jul 1, 2009 9:39 pm
Subject: "Secrets of the Founding Fathers."

q1eagle

Offline

History Channel show called "Secrets of the Founding Fathers." 7:00pm Central
July 3rd.

Investigates the history and symbology so prominent in the creation of the
United States, and traces the intricate connections of the Founders with
Freemasonry, other secret organizations and between each other. How did the
trademarks of the highly secretive Masons become integrated into the Great Seal,
and on the dollar bill containing the All-Seeing Eye? Did the grid design of the
nation's capital--commissioned by George Washington and completed by Pierre
L'Enfant--contain occult symbols embraced by the Illuminati in 1776? Did
Benjamin Franklin and George Washington deliberately enlist 33 Freemason
generals from France to grow the fraternal brotherhood among Masonic nations?
Explore the secret (and secretly dark) sides of the men responsible for laying
the foundation of the United States.

At 11:15 AM 7/1/09, Big Al wrote:

>Why is it that people fell in love with the constitution that was for a
>corporation and not the people that are outside the corporation?  How can
>they be so stupid is beyond me, especially when the court in the
>Padlerford case in 1857 said the people were not the creators of the
>constitution and can't complain of it's breach because they were not a
>party to the contract called the constitution.
>
>Erk called and said to watch the History Channel on July 3 at 8pm.  He
>said it is a repeat of what he saw and said it validates everything I said
>in the book that the founding farters never created the con job.  It shows
>who did and they were under direct control of the black Pope.  I don't
>know if they mention the black Pope, Erk didn't say. This is so great
>because those that rebuked me that I was a Lunatic when I wrote the book
>can now eat crow as it validates the whole book as true in my research.
>We don't have the cable to get the History Channel so if you can tape it
>for Me and send it to me I will send you a blank tape to replace the one
>you use.
>Al
>
>
>--

--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 4/30/09 5:53
PM

#832

From: T <eagle@...>
Date: Mon Jun 8, 2009 2:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Weekly Update: Judge Sotomayor's Radical Connections]

q1eagle

Offline

At 09:02 AM 6/8/09, Legal Reality wrote:

8 June A.D. 2009

Edited note from Judicial Watch is below.

We do realize, of course, that any Supreme Court Justice's political background, and even his/her political/religious agenda, is 100% irrelevant to everything that happens.

100% irrelevant.

To everything that happens in any particular case.

Some who read this are already laughing, and this is a huge part of the problem. Where we buy into the popular mindset that the Supreme Court is as much a political institution as the congress and the executive branch, then we're saying that the system is 100% lawless, operating purely on thinly veiled political agendas, i.e., tyranny. The reality is that the Supreme Court are the reason that tyranny has been held in check for going on 220+ years, now.

IF there's a "preference" for a political agenda, and we know there is, THEN the political branches need a cover story. The reality is that nothing about this or that Supreme Court candidate's political/religious affiliation or "agenda" changes the "law" of "this state," a/k/a "United States." All that this candidate's political/religious affiliation or "agenda" does is announce what has already occurred. Therefore, to document this idea in this early stage of the matter, as this Sotomayor matter keeps getting kicked around in these discussions, IF (1) Sotomayor should be the next Supreme Court justice, and IF (2) the rulings she authors start to look like her political/religious affiliation or "agenda" have one iota of influence on the WHOLE COURT's rulings, THEN the legislative policies have long since been in place AND AGREED TO by those litigants; hence, the political cover story.

Keep in mind that for so long as we "believe" that it's a political mechanism, we will continue to try to influence the politicians, which influence has long since been out of "our" hands. Thus, for so long as we see nothing but political activity as the solution to a political problem, we face a very helpless and hopeless circumstance. Also keep in mind that once we realize that it's a purely commercial mechanism under a very thin political vernier, then we will realize that we have 100% control over these various matters. The legal reality is the last thing that the "new world order" types want us to realize, much less act on. For so long as we're victims, "they're" "in control." The minute we stop being victims, "we're" in control.

The folks with Judicial Watch do great work, but they're promoting the very agenda they say they're against. They're promoting, however subtly, the very agenda that perpetuates the problems. They perceive, and thus teach and propagate, the idea that a Supreme Court candidate's political agenda is relevant to the legal decisions that will be entered. I'm not saying that it's not relevant. Quite to the contrary. What I'm saying is that the information serves as nothing but an announcement of the political agenda we've long since already been asked to agree to commercially, and which is, in fact, already in place, and already agreed to by those who will be made examples of by the judicial rulings in the near future. And, what Judicial Watch is saying is that there will be no change unless or until Sotomayor takes office. Thus, as well-meaning as they are, and as pro-America as they are, the Judicial Watch folks confess not understanding our present legal reality.

The "new world order" agenda was in place before barry sotero, a Kenyan (Brit) by birth, was asked to masquerade as president under the name of obama. He's purely a cover story. The agenda was in place before the Supreme Court position was to become available. So, Sotomayor's political affiliations are purely a cover story. The political/religious affiliations these two individuals promote are irrelevant to the question of whether the individual being dragged to or through the judicial process has an enforceable "gotcha agreement" to be used against him/her.

No legislative branch member, no executive branch member, no judicial branch member, and no bureaucrat, state or federal, can ever in a million years COMPEL us to enter into any agreement, especially the "gotcha agreements." So, those matters that get to the Supreme Court intact enough for them to address them at all and that receive a published (national teaching tool) opinion that takes us into the appearance of a "new world order" political agenda are matters that were "over" the minute they got through (and perhaps even to) the trial court. Where we continue to view the "governmental" systems as having authority independently from our commercial agreement (consent), not political consent, but commercial agreement (consent), we labor in vain. Yet, where we learn that "their" authority depends first and foremost upon our signature, there are a lot of things that can be ended before they begin. This is called the preventative remedy.

If Sotomayor is the poster child for the "new world order," so be it. The reality is that there is no "new world order" unless and until those who want/like that agenda sign up for it. Thus, should the "new world order" leaning agenda and pattern get all the more accelerated with Sotomayor on the Supreme Court, just know that the cases have to be agreement-based, and that the agreements were formed (1) before the matter ever got to the trial court or (2) during the trial or other trial-substitute administrative process.

Those who need constantly to blame something else or someone else are the ones who need to play the role of victim. Victims may be controlled, for they are constantly looking for change in the abuser. Abusers don't change. (Yes, of course, the exception proves the rule at the human level. We're talking about systemic, institutionalized abuse by the label of "government.") They exist to abuse. The only way to stop the abuse is to stop agreeing to be subject to it.

Where are the "gotcha agreements?" They are everywhere. That's the whole point. They are everywhere. Every interaction with "government" and the financial institutions being protected by this "government" may/can form the basis for a "gotcha agreement." And, where there is no agreement when the interaction starts, and where that is not the very first point raised in that interaction, i.e., "Where's the agreement on which you're basing your claim/authority?", then an agreement gets formed as a result of that interaction.

What are the administrative processes for? One thing: forming the agreement for whatever relevant time period to be used against us from that point forward (relative to that time period).

Thus, it's critical that we understand that "regulatory" authority exists by one and only one mechanism: our commercial consent to being regulated. Once the agreement is in place, other than recognizing a few procedural matters that might be to one's advantage, there's very little that any judge can do to help. And, where that agreement-based dispute makes it to the Supreme Court, where the discussion tends to affect "everyone's" perspective on the matter, then the result of one agreement becomes the result of millions of identical agreements. (Take the Kelo case for example, regarding the appearance of eminent domain by non-governmental entities for non-governmental purposes. Not one bit of any of that could happen without a solid commercial agreement basis.) At the exact same time, where there is no agreement as the matter leaves the trial court (or administrative process that is the equivalent of the trial court), i.e., there was no agreement going into the discussion, and there was no agreement formed during the discussion, then it'll be impossible for there to be exploitation of any particular "new world order" agenda, for there was no agreement on which to vex that party, much less to try to use that circumstance to kid others into thinking that there's "law" and "power" "out there" to compel us into this or that direction.

In sum, the "law" is commercial (agreement is required), and the "power" being used against us is in our hand. It's called a pen. If we like the political agenda, all we have to do is keep agreeing with it commercially. If we don't like the political agenda, all we have to do is to stop agreeing with it commercially.

Thus, should Sotomayor be the next Supreme Court justice, all she can do is all that any other Supreme Court justice can do, and that is enter a ruling on the facts of the case before them. Where the facts show that the political agenda long since in place has been agreed to, then it won't be Sotomayor that has changed one single thing. It'll be (1) an entire Court decision (by at least a majority) regarding (2) an agreement that was entered into long before the case ever arrived on the desk of the Clerk of the Court to be presented to the Court for a ruling. The choice of law for the deal is part of the deal. Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 213 (1827). (Very long opinion discussing, essentially, "what is law?").

Sotomayor's political agenda is 100% irrelevant to the legal decisions. It's 100% RELEVANT in one way only: it's an announcement of the policies already in place and working their way through the court system to the Supreme Court. All that will matter is whether the parties to the suit have agreed to be regulated. If so, then they're probably going to get toasted pretty good. If not, then they've taken sufficient personal responsibility to put an end to the "new world order" agenda in their own lives. That's the only way that agenda progresses, namely one individual at a time. And, it's the only way that it will end, namely one individual at a time.

The FEDERAL system tells us its operating mechanism in its name. "Federal" means "federal." It doesn't mean "national," and it most certainly doesn't mean "constitutional." "Federal" means "federal." At the level of a state, "federal" means "by compact" or "by treaty." At the level of the individual, "federal" means "by private obligation."

Epilog. As the Court-bashers prepare themselves to engage in more of the same, so shall we at Legal Reality be prepared to bash the Court-bashers. Those who have to blame someone else are the victims, and they enjoy their victimhood. They are the political equivalent of the abused spouse. Their security comes from their "beatings." Those who are sick of the "beatings," sick of the control being used against them, which is commercial, not political, but commercial control, and sick of the totalitarian agenda growing before our very eyes as a result of that commercial mechanism, will be the ones who start taking personal responsibility. The problem is in the signature; i.e., the problem is commercial. There are no solutions in the ballot boxes. The electronic ones are pre-programmed to the "new world order" result. There are no solutions by "Calling your congressman." There are no solutions in political meetings or gatherings or protests. I'm not saying that such activities should stop. I'm saying that there's no solution gained from that activity. I'm saying that if that's all that the activists are doing, they are wasting their time, "money," and energy. Commercial problems don't have political solutions. They have commercial solutions, and that means that we have to do something on our own rather than trying to make someone else stop trying to sucker us into these bad deals. Where we do what we're "told" to do, and where we act like good little Prussians, we will most assuredly wake up one morning in the middle of the Fourth Reich. It has NEVER been a matter of "Lookie what the Court is doing to us and our rights now!" It's has ALWAYS been a matter of "Lookie what we've been suckered into agreeing to now!" This started well before FDR.

Do we really think that the Supreme Court enjoy entering the rulings that are "allowing," even "encouraging," the activity that is destroying this nation?? IF there's a relevant factor in any candidate's political/religious affiliation, then, yes, some jurists may be more inclined to enjoy destroying this nation than others. But, that's the only difference, for the law is the law is the law. If we don't see those opinions as Notice to us that we need to do something different, that the normal political activities are meaningless, that we need to rethink our understandings, then we're missing the entire point of the exercise.

There are few things in this particular area more appealing to me than the thought of a Court that is highly and constantly marketed to us as "new world order" oriented having to put an end to that very agenda because the "suckers" are no longer "suckers." Where we figure out that we just flat out don't have to agree to be "regulated," and where we put that reality into practice, where, then, would be the agreements to be used against us in the courts?!

Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas

------------------
Original note follows:

June 5, 2009

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

Judge Sotomayor's Radical Connections

Judicial Watch's investigation of Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor continues. This week, our investigations team unearthed some interesting and disturbing information related to Sotomayor's connection to the radical organization, Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund (PRLDF). Sotomayor served on the Board from 1980 until 1992, which is a significant period of time.

According to The American Spectator: "Among radical left-wing groups, [the PRLDF] has a fairly garden-variety agenda. A captive of identity politics, it pushes for enforced multiculturalism, diversity, bilingual public education, race-based gerrymandering of electoral districts, race-based employment quotas, tenants' rights, and illegal immigrants' rights."

Check out some of the group's activities during Sotomayor's tenure as the "top policy maker" on the PRLDF's Board of Directors:
In 1988, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund engaged in a battle with the New York City Police Department over its "racist" promotion exam, ultimately presiding over a radical redesign to allow more minorities to achieve a passing grade. According to The New York Times: "The new test, a four-part exam prepared with the help of an expert designated by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund...involved changes in format, including the addition of open-book questions and a video portion."
In 1990, the PRLDF attacked then-New York Mayor David Dinkins after the mayor labeled three Puerto Rican "nationalists" who shot five members of Congress in 1954 " assassins." The radicals were members of a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN (Fuerzas Armadas de Liberaci�n Nacional). The PRLDF said the mayor's comments "lacked sensitivity." Reuben Franco, President of the PRLDF said: "[Mayor Dinkins] doesn't recognize that to many people in Puerto Rico, these are fighters for freedom and justice, for liberation, just as is Nelson Mandela, who himself advocated bearing arms."
In 1981, the PRLDF filed a complaint against New York City Mayor Thomas Dunn following a City Hall directive requiring staff to speak English while on the job. In 1990, the organization also opposed a law to require merchants to post an English sign in the storefront explaining the nature of business.

Trust me, this is a very small sampling of a very large universe of radical activity by PRLDF during Judge Sotomayor's tenure. I've reviewed her responses to the U.S. Senate questionnaire in preparation for her nomination. The judge does not disclose much at all about her significant work the PRLDF. We aim to help fill in the gaps. And I will have much more for you in the coming weeks as we continue to delve deeply into Judge Sotomayor's history and affiliations.

Judicial Watch Probes Overseas Trips by DC Mayor

Judicial Watch Briefs: Border Security and Bailouts

Until next week...

Tom Fitton
President

Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, click here.

This message was sent from Tom Fitton to 2dominion@.... It was sent from: Judicial Watch, 501 School St. SW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20024. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below.

Email Marketing by

Manage your subscription

Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 4/30/09 5:53 PM

Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 4/30/09 5:53
PM

#831

From: T <eagle@...>
Date: Fri May 29, 2009 12:33 pm
Subject: The Houston Homestead Case -- doj's Pyrrhic victory

q1eagle

Offline

At 06:09 AM 5/29/09, Legal Reality wrote:

29 May A.D. 2009

The Houston Homestead Case is an irs (Notice of) lien "foreclosure" case.

The trial court allowed the sale, and "the fifth" (think cheap whiskey) affirmed. The Supreme Court docketed the case as of 15 April and denied cert as of 18 May (and it took a few days for the mail to arrive).

While the sale may go through (it's still under challenge in the trial court), doj's and irs's days are now very clearly numbered. How so? Attached are three .pdf documents. One is the Notice to Buyers filed and circulated relevant to that sale. One is doj's knee-jerk motion to strike and request for an injunction to prevent the circulation of that Notice. Note the date: 30 March. And, one is the order denying doj's motions. Note the date: 31 March.

The reality that "taxpayer" means "fiduciary" has been in active litigation for going on six years, now. The first record-setting sanctions case against the law came out of "the fifth," to be followed shortly by what may still be the national award winning sanctions case in the "income tax" area. In other words, the published policy in "the fifth" is one of RICO-level extortion, witness tampering, retaliation, and criminal violation of rights, to hit the highlights. Those with "the fifth" feel that it is their duty to violate criminally those who are arguing the law, thus to defy their various oaths of office to uphold the law of the "United States."

IF "taxpayer" means "fiduciary" were merely just one more version of "tax protestor rhetoric," as is the position argued by the "tax court," the comm'r of the internal revenue service, doj, "the fifth," the 8th Circuit, the 9th Circuit, the 11th Circuit (indirectly), and the DC Circuit, then (1) it's inconceivable that the "tax protestor" page at irs.gov would still be as thunderously silent on the point as they are, and (2) it's inconceivable that doj's request for an injunction in The Houston Homestead Case would be denied.

What is so significant about the denial of injunctive relief? The names of Irwin Schiff, Larken Rose, Bill Benson, and Bob Schulz may be familiar. The positions asserted by each has led to the issuance of injunctive relief against them. The courts have ordered them to stop presenting their legal theories about the "federal income tax system." They are just a few of the many, many people who have been ordered to "shut up." Thus, IF "taxpayer" means "fiduciary" were just more tax protestor rhetoric, the trial court WOULD have issued an injunction in The Houston Homestead Case. Since the injunction was not only denied, but also denied very promptly, the rag is off the bush all that much more clearly.

And, as we also learn in this case, asserting the reality at the time of the "foreclosure suit" may be too late. So, we've got to assert the reality at the earliest opportunity. And, there are few other judicial proceedings involved in that system: (1) the challenge to the 90-day letter, on the civil side, and (2) the defense to the criminal charges, on the criminal side.

The Lord willing, we'll accomplish the goal of putting the irs out of business by Thanksgiving, 2011. It starts with understanding the legal reality, namely that "taxpayer" means "fiduciary," and that has to be asserted at what may be the one and only time to compel "them" judicially to prove up the basis for their purported claim, namely the necessary trust agreement on which their claim depends.

Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas

Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 4/30/09 5:53
PM

3 of 3 File(s)

DOJ_mStrike.pdf

Ntc2Buyers.pdf

O_strike_inj_denied.pdf

#830

From: T <eagle@...>
Date: Tue May 26, 2009 9:10 pm
Subject: Employer's gold, silver payroll standard may bring hard time

q1eagle

Offline

http://www.lvrj.com/news/46074037.html#blogcomments?submitted=y
May. 26, 2009


Employer's gold, silver payroll standard may bring hard time

'This is a case about money, greed and fraud'

By JOAN WHITELY
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

Robert Kahre, who owns numerous construction businesses in Las Vegas, is
standing trial on 57 counts of income tax evasion, tax fraud and criminal
conspiracy. If convicted on most counts, he could live out his life in prison.

But attorney William Cohan paints Kahre as an American "hero" who believes his
payroll system helped keep the U.S. monetary system sound, and was also a form
of legal tax avoidance.

A self-made entrepreneur, Kahre, 48, paid his workers in gold and silver coin,
and said they could go by the coins' face value -- rather than the much higher
market value of their precious metal content -- for federal tax purposes. He did
not withhold taxes from their wages, and he provided the same payroll system to
35 outside clients, which were other local businesses.

Judge David Ezra is presiding over the criminal trial, which began May 19 in
U.S. District Court. Joining Kahre as defendants are his longtime girlfriend, a
sister who works in his businesses, and a former business assistant.

Three of the four present defendants were among the nine people tried on similar
charges two years ago, but no convictions resulted. In the 2007 trial, four
others of the nine defendants, including Kahre's mother, were entirely
acquitted. Two individuals were only partially acquitted, but dropped from the
indictment that forms the basis for the trial before Ezra.

This time around, the only new defendant is Danille Cline, Kahre's girlfriend of
19 years, and the stay-at-home mother of his four children. The government
claims she obstructed the Internal Revenue Service by allowing Kahre to place
several homes in her name, thus attempting to conceal his assets.

Cline's former brother-in-law, Thomas Browne, also was indicted this time, for
his role as broker in some of the real estate transactions, but has since
reached a plea bargain. He is expected to testify against the defendants.

"This is a case about money, greed and fraud." The line appeared on screen in
court during the government's opening statement by Christopher Maietta, a trial
lawyer from the Washington, D.C., office of the Department of Justice.

According to the government, Kahre and others concocted a fraudulent cash
payroll "scheme" and then peddled it to other Las Vegas contractors. Defendants
did not report to the IRS any payments made to workers, "either at the true
amount or at the bogus amount, ... being the face value of the coin or coins,"
according to the indictment.

The now-suspended payroll service handled about $114 million over six years,
according to court records. Between 17 and 25 percent of that went to Kahre or
his workers; the rest went to the 35 client businesses to pay their workers,
court records show.

The government did not indict most of the outside businesses or their personnel
as co-conspirators with Kahre; although on May 6, Daniel McCartan of Action
Concrete, which was one of Kahre's payroll clients, was finally sentenced in
connection with a plea agreement reached in December 2006. McCartan received
five months in prison and five months of home detention for one count of tax
evasion.

Kahre contends his workers had agreed to be independent contractors, so he did
not have to withhold taxes for them. His six businesses are in the trades of
painting, drywall, tiling, plumbing, heating-cooling and electrical work.

Further, the $50 gold coins and the silver dollars Kahre used for payroll are
designated by Congress as legal tender, so people are entitled to value them at
their stamped denominations, he also contends. Taken at face value, each
defendant's annual coin income placed him below the threshold for filing a
federal tax return.

Earlier cases on the question of how to value gold or silver coins have focused
on collectible coins that had been pulled from circulation but still have value
as property, according to the defense. Kahre used coins minted after 1985, which
are allowed to circulate.

"It's not whether what Mr. Kahre did was legal under the law," defense attorney
Michael Kennedy told the jury in his opening statement. "It's whether he
believed what he did was legal," in the absence of explicit instructions by the
IRS -- on its Web site, in its publications or in response to written
correspondence from Kahre -- on how to value post-1985 gold or silver coins.

"We're not here to determine if moneys are owed," said Kennedy on behalf of his
client, Lori Kahre, who had relied on her brother's tax theory. A tax mistake is
different from a tax crime, so the IRS can still use administrative channels to
force the defendants to pay back taxes, Kennedy has noted in the past.

A sincere, but mistaken understanding of the tax-filing process is different
from adopting a "pretextual" belief system in order to dodge taxes, Ezra
acknowledged in court Wednesday.

Cohan described Kahre's payroll system as a "boycott of the Federal Reserve."
But when the lawyer attempted to elaborate on Kahre's view that the nation has
debased its paper currency by abandoning its former gold standard, Ezra added,
"We're not here to convince the jury that the ... (U.S.) monetary system belongs
to an international cabal."

Contact reporter Joan Whitely at jwhitely@... or 702-383-0268.



Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are
presented with a yellow background.

Richard wrote on May 26, 2009 01:39 PM: What is happening in the Country, first
there is no such thing as tax on Income, or regulation as far as I can see. I
hope they fight this and win it. Now they want to charge you for thinking or
what you might have been thinking, My God how do they know what you are thinking
in the first place. its like going to jail becaue you might commit a crime. We
must all fight, and fight back hard. And the paper money is worth only 5 cents.
we don't have any GOLD to back the paper.

Truth wrote on May 26, 2009 01:24 PM: Da Man,

Independent Contractors can agree to work for free or be paid in car parts or
gold coins or worthless paper notes or Enron Stock or GM stock. There is no
minimum wage laws on Independent Contractors and the States cannot interfere in
the right to contract.

And the State of Nevada says you must pay the sales tax on a Silver Dollar Coin
or a Gold $50 coin exactly at the rate on Federal Reserve Notes.

We could all reduce our Sales tax costs dramatically if a store would open that
allowed for ONLY gold or silver coins to be used to buy things there. You could
buy 4 EXPENSIVE new tires for your car for $50 and the tax would be $3.75 and
you could pay the tax in non-silver quarters.

A 980 dollar suit judged by FRNs would now be a $50 2007 US legal tender coins
is now just $50. So the tax would be about $3.75 instead of $73.50 and you could
pay the $3.75 in FRNS because the State of Nevada MUST accept BOTH at the same
face value.

Quite the scam, isn't it? A scam by the Banks and Congress that is.

You see this is what the government gets for NOT defining what a dollar is.

If they were honest then this would not even be a consideration. It is the
government fraud and the Federal Reserve Fraud that creates these discrepancies.
NOT Kahre.

Just have Congress tell us all what a dollar is and then all of the problems you
list GO AWAY. Blame your corrupt government for NOT following the Constitution.
Congress is REQUIRED to define the value of our money and they REFUSE to do so
so that they can bailout Banks with notes and not dollars.

You cannot just print up a silver dollar.

showmethemoney wrote on May 26, 2009 01:23 PM: Audit the Federal Reserve then
END THE FED.

Support HR 1207

I hope this man wins, I have seen on someone's website what that the state of
Nevada recognises what Kahre is doing paying his employees in this manner is
correct.

The Federal Reserve does not want COMPETITION! That is all this is about,
controlling the supply of money, and making us pay interest on the supply of the
money to the international bankers.

That is EXACTLY what this trial is about!

Matt wrote on May 26, 2009 01:10 PM: If they have to pay income tax based on the
value of the medium that their money is printed on, I'll be glad to pay my own
income taxes based on the value of the paper that my money is printed on.

recticuli wrote on May 26, 2009 01:04 PM: First and foremost Gold is the legal
monetary of the realm. the FRN 'fiat' curency has no intrinsic value.
I hope these people win!! They never should have been put on trial over such
phoney charges... They dropped paragraph (a) on the 1040 form years ago. If
someone has a 1040 from the sixties.. They should post it across the net...

Truth wrote on May 26, 2009 01:03 PM: Nice try Sue,

That was before 1986 and they were using gold coins no longer in circulation.
They were "property" and not "legal tender".

Coins since 1986 are legal tender and have the EXACT same value TO THE
GOVERNMENT at the Post office or Court or payment of a fine.

Do you know what you get for a silver dollar at the U.S. Post Office. TWO First
Class stamps and change.

Bobby Kahre paid the filing fee for his Bivens civil suit against the IRS
criminals in Federal Court in Gold and silver dollars and the COURT accepted
them at face value.

If the Court can accept them at face value why can't the Citizens (you
know...serfs) that Kahre's owes money too accept them at face value?

The IRS also accepts them at face value. So why can't I?

And what do I use to calculate the value of a 1899 gold $50 coin with? Do I use
silver dollars minted since 1986 or gold coins minted in 2007 or a Federal
Reserve Note printed in 1918?

When the government can tell me what a dollar is then I will tell them how many
dollars in income I have (if required by law which in most cases it is not).
Until they tell me I CANNOT tell them BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT A DOLLAR IS.

And neither do you.

Thomas Jefferson wrote on May 26, 2009 12:58 PM: I believe that banking
institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the
American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency,
first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow
up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their
children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing
power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it
properly belongs.
endthefed.com
infowars.com

recticuli wrote on May 26, 2009 12:52 PM: Pretty sad when this rogue IRS entity
is allowed, by a rogue criminal justice system to systematically extort money
from businesses and people. To this day I have yet to find where provisions were
made in the CONSTITUTION for such an entity called the IRS...I have yet to find
the LAW that a person, an individual must file a 1040 form.

Edward C. Noonan wrote on May 26, 2009 12:51 PM: None of this matters...Since we
have an illegal alien, a non-citizen, a non-American sitting in the White House,
the Constitution is DEAD!

We have no president so the Constitution cannot be enforced. Until we solve the
lack of leadership, all is for naught. This judgement is void since the the
Federal government is without a head. Chaos is what we have.

Barry Soetoroe (aka Barack Obama) (aka illegal alien) CANNOT BE A PRESIDENT if
he is NOT an American and is NOT a citizen!

He and his mom gave up their citizenship when the moved to Indonesia and did not
reapply for citizenship when Soetoro retuned to America. And he continually
refuses to prove his is a CITIZEN!

If the Constitution is now dead, whether we use gold or FRNs is a lesser matter.
Neither are Constitutional law at this point.

What is a dollar? wrote on May 26, 2009 12:50 PM: american made

"a dollar is still a dollar"? W T F?

REALLY? Which one. The FRN is not a dollar. It is a note that can be redeemed in
dollars but not gold or silver dollars.

So if a dollar is still a dollar then please give us the legal definition of a
dollar. NOT legal tender. Just the simple law that defines what a dollar is.

Five silver dollars have a different value than a $5 gold coin. If you have 4
$10 gold coins they weigh one ounce but so does 1 $50 gold coin. So which one is
a dollar? It takes about 17 FRNS to exchange them for a silver dollar minted
since 1986 and currently "legal Tender coins" but it takes 98 FRNS to exchange
for a $5 gold legal tender coin currently being minted by the US Mint.

So what is the value of a U.S. dollar since a "dollar is still a dollar." Is it
calculated in Euro? That would mean the EU defines what a dollar is and not
Congress. Is it a Canadian Dollar or a New Zealand Dollar?

It can be anything. Congress is not limited to gold or silver. Only the States
are. Congress could make a dollar 1 ten trillionth of the gross national product
as denominated on paper notes printed by Congress to be made redeemable in tax
credits or any part of the US Gross National Product.

CONGRESS IS NOT LIMITED.

So since you know that "a dollar is still a dollar" please let us know what a
dollar is.

Just give us the law written by Congress. They are the only ones that are
allowed to define what a dollar is in the USA and THEY HAVE NOT DONE SO FOR
DECADES.

SUE wrote on May 26, 2009 12:45 PM:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/26/26.F3d.923.92-16265.html

Da Man wrote on May 26, 2009 12:45 PM: I think it's a good idea but I see some
problems. For example, if you truly use the face value are then you paying below
minimum wage? A $50 gold coin for a week is only about $1 an hour. And then at
some point, the workers have to sell the coins at which point they should be
recognizing a gain between face and market. The IRS and states would mainly lose
just on social security / unemployment taxes on the face versus market value of
the coins.

Maybe it would be better to pay normally with market value dollars and do a
payroll deduction for the market value of the coins you give out.

Gold Coins wrote on May 26, 2009 12:38 PM: It's amazing that it continued for
six years.

Hope it's ok, but I've referenced part of this story on my site here. I've also
stumbled and bookmarked your article. It's very interesting. Thanks :)

Truth wrote on May 26, 2009 12:33 PM: Kim,

The Congress does allow this form of payment. The IRS doesn't but only after
what Kahre has done. These coins are 100% legal tender. The law even says the
modern One Ounce Silver coin has the "value" of a "dollar." So how can it be
MORE than a dollar?

Is an FRN a dollar? NOPE! It is to be redeemable in dollars. So W T F is a
dollar?

You can pay in chicken eggs or rocks if you want to and then the "value" is to
be judged by the "value" of DOLLARS?

W T F is a dollar?

Anyone? Anyone?

NO ONE KNOWS! So how can anyone be liable to pay a tax since the Supreme Court
said it had to be imposed in CLEAR and unequivocal language?

"Keeping in mind the well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation
unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the
construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of
those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid�" Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v.
McClain,192 U.S. 397 (1904)

The reason why is because the system is voluntary.

"Let me point this out now. Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary and your
liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now the situation is as different as day
and night. Consequently, your same rules just will not apply..." �Dwight E.
Avis, Head of ATF, IRS �House Ways and Means Subcommittee Hearings �1953

How do you volunteer? You get a voluntary Social Secuirty Number and you become
"federal personnel."

Unvolunteer yourself. Stop using THEIR SSN. Sue under the RFRA! Fight back. Stop
filing forms you DON'T UNDERSTAND.

Be men and not serfs. But most of you won't because slavery is safer. Until the
"voluntary" trains comes.

american made wrote on May 26, 2009 12:24 PM: The real problem for the
government here is the precendent it will set if in fact this man is found to be
operating under the "law". This is what they are afraid of. Legal Precendent.

The fundamental problem of a gold or silver standard is that there is not enough
gold or silver to back the required trillions of FRN's while still allowing for
required growth of GDP. Gold and silver would become extremely expensive as more
money is created than gold or silver is dug up.

The only thing that really gives value to American FRN's is the international
currency conversion rate. If the fed prints trillions. . a dollar is still a
dollar. . but when you convert it for goods overseas, you get a different
valuation based on the conversion rate.

Ultimately this guy is bringing to front and center the question of what is a
dollar? A $50 gold eagle is legal tender and although it says dollars. . Dollars
are not federal reserve notes.

In the big picture, the trick for the government is to define a dollars worth
based on "something" while still allowing for growth. Until this is done, fiat
money will forever be the the product of a "financial product" and not a product
of a tangible good. RL


Patriot2012 wrote on May 26, 2009 12:17 PM: Clearly...the time will come for WAR
against this criminal US Government. They have changed the laws for their own
good. I call out to all our Military branches to take over our government now!
Otherwise...you along with the Police and other criminal depts will be in the
line of fire when we march!

Warren Raftshol wrote on May 26, 2009 12:07 PM: An appeal to the jury to nullify
this nonsense should be made.

Kim wrote on May 26, 2009 12:03 PM: It amazes me that the US government has not
allowed this form of payment already. These coins are stamped with a dollar
value, are put out by law, and when adjusted for inflation come out to be the
actual amount of money we are making. Our system of money is designed to steal
wealth from the people of this nation in such a surreptitions manner as only a
few will be able to understand. I hope he wins in court and the Government has
to restore to him all that it has taken.

Kim

Don't protest at the court wrote on May 26, 2009 11:51 AM: Thomas Goss

DO NOT try to protest at the courthouse. You can be arrested. It is considered
to be jury tampering.

If you want to picket find out where prosecutor Greg Damm goes to a Mormon
church and protest there.

Protest at the IRS building.

Protest at the Tax Court building across the street. DON'T protest at the
courthouse!

Freedom of speech is NOT ALLOWED THERE.

If you REALLY want to protest then start writing letters to your
congresscritters DEMANDING to know what a dollar is.

Write to the governor and your State Assemblymen and Senators. Write the Nevada
Treasurer and the US Treasurer. You will be SHOCKED when you get the responses.
No one knows.

Look for the words: "legal tender" when they describe Federal Reserve Notes.
Watch how they NEVER call FRNs dollars but only "legal tender." Watch them point
to court cases saying you have to pay taxes WHEN YOU NEVER ASKED THAT QUESTION.
Watch them sidestep the issue by telling you you will have to contact your own
attorney or the Legislative Counsel Bureau. So contact them and you will find
out that NO ONE knows what a dollars is BECAUSE Congress has not defined what it
is and ONLY Congress can do that.

You know what a pound, an ounce, quart, inch, foot, yard and a centimeter are.

So WHAT IS A DOLLAR?! A dollar is to be a unit of measurement but is currently
undefined. It used to be a specific weight of silver. NOT ANY MORE. Now it is
NOTHING. Totally undefined. A FRAUD!

If a foot was not 12 inches and 1/3 of a yard but changed at a bankers whim then
what is a foot? Is it more or less than 12 inches and what if an inch is not
1/12 of a foot?

Write those letters! PROTEST!

Joel wrote on May 26, 2009 11:36 AM: Exactly! This is a case about money, greed
and fraud. By the US Government!!!

The government lets the banksters control the money (illegally according to the
Constitution). We taxpayers then borrow money from the banksters (the fed) and
pay interest! Absurd!

Money, Greed and Fraud - US Govt.

Read Pieces of Eight by Edwin Vieira for a great understanding of money and what
our Constitution intended.

Jury members wrote on May 26, 2009 11:34 AM: Mike,

The last jury did not convict him. This is the 2nd trial. NINE jury members
wanted to acquit him and only 3 GOVERNMENT employees on the jury voted to
convict.

Pray that this jury has a few honest members on it. The Defense thinks it is a
pretty good jury. The governemnt tried to remove a black man from this jury just
because he was black and the judge did not allow him to be removed. THANK GOD!
Naturally the prosecution does not want a black man on the jury because most
blacks understand how evil criminals run the government so they don't trust
them. Many whites are moronic serfs and don't understand the system is evil.

The government is desperate to convict Kahre because he is exposing their fraud.

WHAT IS A DOLLAR?

He is also suing them under a Bivens action. Kahre is suing DAMM the prosecutor,
IRS agents and FBI agents. They are scared to death because their crimes will be
exposed. The 9th circuit is allowing the civil trial to go ahead after the
criminal trial ends. THE IRS and DAMM ARE SCARED!

And the last trail Judge, Jones, was removed from the case by the 9th. He
criticized the jury for not convicting Kahre. Talk about NOT being impartial.
This judge is better and more fair.

By the way in the last trial the prosecutor DAMM was a Mormon. So was the IRS
agent and the Judge and the magistrate. The Mormon Mafia!

But there are also Mormons fighting against these evil Mormon Mafia government
members. At least one of the defense lawyers is a Mormon. So were some of the
researchers fighting these criminals IRS agents.

Please pray for God to open the minds of the jury to the TRUTH. The only
criminals in this case work for the government.

What is a Dollar? wrote on May 26, 2009 11:19 AM: RantNation.

Exactly! But what do we judge the value of the paper by? What do we judge the
value of the silver or gold or ANYTHING by?

If the U.S. monetary measurement AKA "Dollar" does not have an established value
(as required by the Constitution) then what do we use as a measurement?

Can you imagine if you were contracted to build a house 30 measurements by 40
measurements by 15 measurements but they would not tell you what the length of a
measurement was? HOW BIG IS IT? How small?

What is a dollar?

2. A coin or note worth one dollar.
The American Heritage Dictionary

So it is a not or coin WORTH a dollar?

Dollar is the STANDARD... A Measurement!

So a silver dollar minted since 1986AD is currently worth 18 Federal Reserve
Notes and 18 FRNs are worth 7.5 gallons of gas so a silver dollar is worth 7.5
gallons of gas?

Or is an FRN worth .4 gallons of gas?

So if I have income of paid with a $50 gold coin minted since 1986AD is it worth
$50 or 980 Federal Reserve Notes which I know are not dollars but only notes
because Senator Ensign AND the US Treasury told me that FRNs are NOT DOLLARS?

How do I claim, under penalties of perjury, that I have $980 in income if I was
paid just $50 when I KNOW that FRNs are NOT dollars?

To EVERY person that thinks I am a criminal because I don't file a 1040 tax
return well I think you ARE a criminal if you DO file because YOU are committing
perjury which is a felony.

You are also a traitor to America as you are supporting the enemies of America
and the #1 and #2 terrorists in the US today are the IRS and the Federal Reserve
Banksters.

Eric Nordstrom wrote on May 26, 2009 11:10 AM: IRS forcing a Federal Income Tax
on a man's wages is illegal. The illusion that paying taxes as a patriotic
activity is a fraud.

Constitution only affords Congress to COIN money. Any other form such as the
paper dollar is not money. It is a Federal Reserve Note. Paper, not COIN.

The Federal Reserve System and especially the IRS needs to be flushed down the
toilet. Now.

They are two of the greatest blemishes on America and to our Republic.

We should all take the IRS to court as the criminal, not the reverse.

goldmint wrote on May 26, 2009 11:10 AM: Wish somebody would pay me in gold!
Where do I sign up?

Mike wrote on May 26, 2009 11:05 AM: The sad thing is there are 12 dummies on
the jury who will convict him.They should be hung along with the feds

Thomas Goss wrote on May 26, 2009 10:56 AM: Organize Protests at the court house
to show the Jury there are others that support what this person has gone.

100% Legal...

Issue resolved. doesn't like what they are doing!

RantNation wrote on May 26, 2009 10:48 AM: If they want his employees to pay
taxes on the value of the gold he gave them, perhaps we should all pay taxes on
the value of the paper our paycheck is printed on.

God does not create fiction wrote on May 26, 2009 10:47 AM: The courts are a
complete fraud and operate in contrary to our creator's will.

Download, The Extortion System of the Ruling Elite.

www.freedomfiles.org/extortion.pdf

Courts are imaginary pirate ships afloat on an imagenary Sea. Your NAME is a
ship floating there for them to plunder. It is piracy on land.

libertea wrote on May 26, 2009 10:34 AM: Too bad he didn't buy a gun and some
ammo with his gold to defend his life, liberty, and property.
Google:
fiat currency
the creature from jeckyll island
money masters

What is a Dollar? wrote on May 26, 2009 10:26 AM: Captain Obvious,

If it was a crime to hire independent Contractors without licenses then why does
the Constitution of the USA say: Section. 10. No State shall... make...Law
impairing the Obligation of Contracts...?

Obviously you are only a captain and not some one actually in charge of the
obvious. Obviously the State of Nevada cannot make a law impairing the
obligation of contracts BUT IT TRIES TO.

Kahre just read the Constitution and believed it. And he was never charged with
that non-crime.

I have not filed in over 30 years. I have asked Senator Ensign, Assemblyman
Beers, the governor, the State Treasurer, the Secretary of State, the U.S. mint
etc. what the legal definition of a dollar is and GUESS WHAT? NO ONE KNOWS.

One thing they agree on: A Dollar is NOT a Federal Reserve Note. So please
Captain O tell me how I can sign a 1040 form under penalties of perjury saying I
had XXXX number of "dollars" in "income(?)" when I do not know what a dollar is?

Look up the statute in Nevada in NRS chapter 199 Nevada on PERJURY AND
SUBORNATION OF PERJURY and you will see that if you do not KNOW it to be true
then it is the same as knowing you don't know, and is, therefore, perjury.

Every Nevadan that files a 1040 return commits perjury. EVERYONE. I am not
allowed by my religion to commit perjury so I don't file, let alone the FACT
that it is voluntary anyway.

The entire IRS code is in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act for
anyone that does not want to be a member of the MARXIST RELIGION.

Bobby Kahre is a hero. Congress should be on trial for treason for allowing
America's greatest enemy to be in control of their FIAT monetary scheme. BAILOUT
TREASON!

Kane wrote on May 26, 2009 10:12 AM: Ms. Whitely amuses me trying to feign
outrage of her readers with "this case is about money, greed, and fraud". Lets
see, how many trillions of dollars did off shore bankers with their Fed govt
lackeys steal from American Taxpayers last fall. Such hypocrisy? How about the
Tim Geithner "honest mistake" defense not paying his taxes for years. Where's
his "hard time" Miss White-ly?

The Coming Depression wrote on May 26, 2009 09:47 AM: Just another tactic for
the government to have TOTAL control of their "workers". GOLD and SILVER are
legal tender coins. The Federal Reserve must be abolished. Its ok for the gov.
to make fake money though.

William wrote on May 26, 2009 09:44 AM: I hear ya mark! This man was doing a
good thing for his clients and this country, end the fed!

History Guy wrote on May 26, 2009 09:39 AM: Constitution for the United States
of America
Article 1, Section 10

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters
of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but
gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder,
ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any
Title of Nobility.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

There are crimes here - they're called Federal Reserve Notes and state Bills of
Credit aka state debt.

mark wrote on May 26, 2009 07:07 AM: "This is a case about money, greed and
fraud." The line appeared on screen in court during the government's opening
statement by Christopher Maietta, a trial lawyer from the Washington, D.C.,
office of the Department of Justice.
The lust for money, greed and fraud are traits of the US govt.

wake up wrote on May 26, 2009 07:00 AM:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjGy9gjcoIo

refresh your memory wrote on May 26, 2009 06:59 AM:
http://www.5min.com/Video/How-the-Federal-Reserve-Created-the-US-Recession-39529\
721

captain obvious wrote on May 26, 2009 06:13 AM: It is illegal for a contractor
to pay employees as sub-contractors. This would put all of his employees in
violation of working without a contractors lic, and he would be fined for hiring
unlicensed contractors. Just saying


--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 4/30/09 5:53
PM

#829

From: T <eagle@...>
Date: Tue May 26, 2009 8:54 pm
Subject: Court Says Suspects Can Be Interrogated Without Lawyer

q1eagle

Offline

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124334529081854421.html

     * MAY 26, 2009, 1:46 P.M. ET

COURT SAYS SUSPECTS CAN BE INTERROGATED WITHOUT LAWYER

Montejo v. Louisiana
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1529.pdf

The Supreme Court overturned a long-standing ruling that stops police from
initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, a move that will
make it easier for prosecutors to interrogate suspects.

The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned the 1986 Michigan v. Jackson ruling,
which said police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer
or has asked for one unless the attorney is present.

The Michigan ruling applied even to defendants who agree to talk to the
authorities without their lawyers.

The court's conservatives overturned that opinion Tuesday, with Justice Antonin
Scalia saying "it was poorly reasoned, has created no significant reliance
interests and [as we have described] is ultimately unworkable."

Justice Scalia, who read the opinion from the bench, said their decision will
have a "minimal" effects on criminal defendants. "Because of the protections
created by this court in Miranda and related cases, there is little if any
chance that a defendant will be badgered into waiving his right to have counsel
present during interrogation," Justice Scalia said.

The Michigan v. Jackson opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the
only current justice who was on the court at the time. He dissented from the
ruling, and in an unusual move read his dissent aloud from the bench. It was the
first time this term a justice had read a dissent aloud.

"The police interrogation in this case clearly violated petitioner's Sixth
Amendment right to counsel," Justice Stevens said. Overruling the Jackson case,
he said, "can only diminish the public's confidence in the reliability and
fairness of our system of justice."

The decision comes in the case of Jesse Jay Montejo, was found guilty in 2005 of
the shooting death of Louis Ferrari in the victim's home on Sept. 5, 2002.

He was appointed a public defender at his Sept. 10, 2002, hearing, but was never
indicated that he accepted the lawyer's help. Mr. Montejo then went with police
detectives to help them look for the murder weapon. While in the car, Mr.
Montejo wrote a letter to Mr. Ferrari's widow incriminating himself.

When they returned to the prison, a public defender was waiting for Mr. Montejo,
irate that his client had been questioned without him being present.

Mr. Montejo was convicted and sentenced to death. He appealed, but the Louisiana
Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence.

Michigan v. Jackson
http://supreme.justia.com/us/494/344/case.html
--------------------------------------------
COURT: STATES CAN'T BAR SOME RIGHTS SUITS

Haywood v. Drown
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-10374.pdf

Separately, the Supreme Court ruled that states may not prevent people from
filing civil-rights claims against government workers in state courts.

In another 5-4 vote, the court said people have a choice whether to file their
claims in federal or state courts. Filing fees are cheaper and courthouses often
are closer in the state system, potentially important factors for prison inmates
and the poor.

Justice Stevens said in his majority opinion that a New York appeals court was
wrong to throw out a lawsuit filed by state prison inmate Keith Haywood. Liberal
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, and
conservative-leaning Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the majority opinion.

The court's four conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel
Alito, Clarence Thomas and Scalia dissented.

Mr. Haywood is an inmate at the state prison at Attica in New York. He sued
state Department of Corrections employees for alleged violations of his civil
rights. New York courts dismissed his complaints, saying they lack jurisdiction
to decide complaints against corrections officers.

Meanwhile, the justices said that people who buy drugs over the telephone
shouldn't get more prison time than people who buy face-to-face from dealers.
The court Tuesday unanimously overturned a decision by the 4th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. The law makes it a felony to use a
communication device in "committing or in causing or in facilitating" a drug
purchase.
-------------------------------------------------------------

BUSINESS CASES: MERCK, DAIMLERCHRYSLER


Abuelhawa v. United States
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-192.pdf

The court agreed Tuesday to decide whether investors waited too long to file
securities lawsuits alleging that Merck & Co. misrepresented the safety of
painkiller drug Vioxx, which it removed from the market in 2004.

The investors are seeking billions of dollars in damages from Merck. A federal
trial judge in New Jersey said the investors' lawsuits weren't filed within the
allowable two-year time frame and dismissed them as untimely. An appeals court,
however, reinstated the lawsuits last year.

The Supreme Court, in a short one-line order, agreed to consider Merck's appeal
of the decision to allow the lawsuits to proceed.

Investors filed the first of several securities lawsuits against Merck in
November 2003, alleging the drug maker misled them by downplaying the
significance of clinical-trial results that appeared to show that patients
taking Vioxx faced an increased risk of heart attack.

Also at the court, justices turned away an appeal from DaimlerChrysler AG to
overturn a $13.4 million punitive damages verdict for a family whose child died
in a 2001 car accident in Tennessee.

DaimlerChrysler is a former partnership between Daimler AG and Chrysler LLC.

The family sued DaimlerChrysler alleging the auto company installed a faulty
seat design in their Dodge Caravan, leading to the death of their son when the
minivan was rear ended by another vehicle. A Tennessee jury originally awarded
$98 million in punitive damages, but that amount was reduced by subsequent court
actions. Actual damages in the case are $5 million, leaving the punitive damages
at three times compensatory damages.
�Mark H. Anderson and Brett Kendall contributed to this article.

Write to the Online Journal's editors at newseditors@...


--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 4/30/09 5:53
PM

#828

From: "Mit" <seizeliberty@...>
Date: Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:23 pm
Subject: Cops: Public Servants or Fascist Pigs? (Part 1)

seizeliberty...

Offline

Cops: Public Servants or Fascist Pigs? (Part 1)

Larken Rose once again expresses the sentiments that many of us have felt for a long time. PoLice of ANY jurisdiction have become the defacto enforcement arm of a fascist poLice state governmental system. They are seldom held accountable for their actions. When they are held accountable it is NOT commensurate with the CRIME that they have have perpetrated on the individual specifically and the public generally at large. See New Professionalism Roundup for the "slaps on the wrists" that the "Fascist Pigs" receive.
This will not stop until they are held personally accountable for their abuse by an extra lawful authority, in the Talion Law form of an Umpire of Justice. Those who are willing to take up the burden of being justices of Talion Law would be true heroes of the people.

Mit
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

It was not many years ago when I considered myself a supporter of "law enforcement." (I made donations, had the F.O.P. and Sheriff's department stickers and everything.) Cops were, I believed, the good guys, protecting the innocent and imposing justice upon evildoers. Oh sure, I knew there was corruption here and there, and scattered examples of police abuse--a few "bad apples" in the ranks- - -but all in all, I thought the cops were the good guys.

Now I'm really darn embarrassed that I ever thought that.

This will be the first in a series of messages where we examine the question, are the American "law enforcers" of today noble public servants, or despicable fascist pigs?

First, we must define our terms. For example, someone having a short temper, or exercising bad judgment, even repeatedly, is not necessarily a fascist pig. No, a cop's level of "fascismo," if you will, must be measured by something other than just being stupid or even malicious. To truly be a fascist, a cop must demonstrate that he has the fascist mindset. So let's define what that is.

A NON-fascist cop, when he looks out at the world, would see lots of good people, whom he would want to protect, and would never want to harm, intimidate, or even inconvenience unnecessarily. His goal would be to find the nasty people in the world, and see to it that they are prevented from harming any of the decent people.

A FASCIST cop, on the other hand, would view everyone as his inferior, to be controlled, interrogated, or even abused at will. He sees himself, a representative of "authority," as having the right to forcibly impose his will on anyone he wants, whenever he wants, for any reason (or no reason) and the right to use outright violence against any who do not obey his every whim.

So, in this message and the ones to follow, we will examine examples of police conduct in this country, and rate the level of "fascismo" demonstrated by American "law enforcement." What we won't bother looking at are things like a car chase which ends with a cop with too much adrenaline in his blood, or a cop shooting someone with somewhat questionable justification. No, we are looking for ATTITUDE. The goal is to determine if American cops today think like defenders of justice, or like fascist pigs.

- ---<>---

As you may know, the feds now do internal "checkpoints," anywhere they want within a hundred miles of the border. If you haven't yet heard of this Orwellian absurdity, here are the basics:

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/37293res20081022.html

(Yes, I know the ACLU is very selective about which rights it cares about. It fights hard to defend the First Amendment, while fighting hard to VIOLATE the Second Amendment. But their site gives a good summary of the "Constitution free zones.")

With the "checkpoint" information in mind, here is the specific incident we're considering this time, with our "fascistometers" at the ready:

(See Baptist Pastor Beaten Tazed by Border Patrol posted below)

Once you've watched the entire video (it's less than nine minutes), consider a few things:

1) First of all, would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig take part in these warrantless, suspicionless searches at all? Well, no. To think you have the right to stop and interrogate anyone who happens to drive down a road, and the right to search through his stuff, is a classic symptom of being a fascist pig.

2) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig view someone's reliance on his Fourth Amendment rights (to not be subjected to an unreasonable and unjustified search) as a REASON to search his car? Put another way, would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig think that someone must be a criminal if he doesn't want to volunteer to let some jackboot rummage through his stuff? No. Again, this is a classic symptom of someone with a fascist pig world view. (Note that in the clip, the guy describes how the fascist pigs at one point admitted that everything the guy went through was because he wouldn't answer a question.)

3) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig FAKE "probable cause" in order to get around that pesky Fourth Amendment? No. They had no reason to suspect anything--to stop him at all, or to search him after the stop--and then they LIED about it to make up an excuse to do a search. Classic fascist pig behavior.

4) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig smash someone's car windows, taser him, and forcibly extract him from his car, without ANY "probable cause" to think the person had committed a crime? Again, no. (If you're finding these questions difficult to answer, please move to Cuba.)

5) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig grind someone's face into broken glass, throw him to the ground, stomp on his head, and otherwise assault him, when the person is unarmed and not resisting, and when there is still no evidence that the guy had committed any crime? No. (The clip doesn't say whether the cops ever knew that the guy is a pastor.)

6) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig openly delight in someone else's misery and suffering, while the person is handcuffed and bleeding profusely, mocking and insulting the guy, when there was still NO EVIDENCE that the guy had committed any crime? No. (I could make another item about not letting the guy go to the bathroom, but I'm trying to keep this relatively short.)

7) Here's an important one: Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig QUIETLY STAND BY while his fellow "officers" did what is described above? NO. If this was a case of one or two "bad apples" in law enforcement, wouldn't some other cop there have tried to stop it, or at least complained about it afterwards? So how often have you ever seen that? Where are the "good cops" speaking out about this stuff?

8) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig want to proceed to prosecute the VICTIM of all the abuse I described above, despite the fact that there is STILL no evidence that he committed a crime? No.

Okay, so what's the verdict for this example? Well, if the story above is an accurate reflection of what "law enforcement" in this country is like today, then American cops are indeed fascist pigs, who deserve our utmost contempt and condemnation. (And if it is NOT an accurate reflection of the attitudes and behavior of the police in this country, where are the GOOD cops speaking out against this?)

In closing, I'd like to say the following to Mr. C. Diaz, Mr. B. Griffiths, and Mr. E. Gomez, and any other Nazi swine who participated in the incident described above. If some day you pick the wrong target for your Gestapo crap, and the guy blows your damn fascist pig heads off, the world will be a better place.

Oh, and have a nice day.

Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

#827

From: "Mit" <seizeliberty@...>
Date: Thu Apr 9, 2009 1:45 am
Subject: Criticize by Creating

seizeliberty...

Offline

Freedom Shenanigan #35
Be the Solution

Following the sentiments expressed in the Declaration of Separation , here is what YOU can do to move toward freedom by exercising your liberty

Max Borders at TCS Daily - don't like something about the world? Want to make it better? Don't protest. Don't complain. Don't vote. Don't run for office. Start a business, and create the solution yourself. A review of Be the Solution, a book by Michael Strong of FLOW (Freedom Lights Our World).

"If not inspired, those who absorb Be the Solution may come away feeling a little sick. Our society wastes so much time and resources on tit-for-tat politics. I know. Game theory says `they force our hand.' But we must acknowledge that the decline of Tocqueville's America is due in large measure to diverting resources and manpower to titanic tug-o-wars over which party gets to be our masters. Be the Solution represents a radical new paradigm of social change�one that eschews politics. Apart from the title, that paradigm can be distilled into three words attributed to Michelangelo: `Criticize by creating.' "

#826

From: "Mit" <seizeliberty@...>
Date: Wed Apr 8, 2009 3:12 am
Subject: A Declaration of Separation

seizeliberty...

Offline

Why re-create the wheel? This says everything that I and many others believe, are doing and will continue to do, NO MATTER WHAT!

What do YOU believe and practice?

Nemo Me Impune Lacessit!

Carpe Libertas!!!

Molon Labe!

From Free and Unashamed, copied in its entirety because it says it all.

A Declaration of Separation

==== To The Governments & People of Earth: ====

We claim the right to exist, and we will defend it.

We do not seek to overthrow anything. We do not seek to control anything. We merely wish to be left alone.

All we ever wanted was to live in peace with our friends and neighbors. For a long, long time we bore insults to our liberty; we took blows, we did what we could to avoid injury and we worked through the system to get the offenses to stop. That has now changed.

We no longer see any benefit in working through the world's systems. At some point, working within a system becomes cowardly and immoral; for us, that point has arrived. Regardless of the parties in power, their governments have continued to restrict, restrain and punish us. We hereby reject them all. We hereby withdraw from them all. We hold the ruling states of this world and all that appertains to them to be self-serving and opposed to humanity.

We now withdraw our obedience and reclaim the right to strike back when struck. We will not initiate force, but we do reserve the right to answer it. We did not choose this � it was forced upon us.

==== To The Governments of Earth: ====

You are building cages for all that is human. In the name of protection, you have intruded into all areas of human life, far exceeding the reach of any Caesar. You claim ultimate control of our property and our decisions, of our travels and even our identities. You claim ownership of humanity far beyond the dreams of any Emperor of any previous era. Understand clearly: We reject your authority and we reject your legitimacy. We do not believe that you have any right to do the things you do. You have massive power, but no right to impose it upon us and no legitimacy. We have forsaken you. We are no longer your citizens or your subjects.

Your systems are inherently anti-human, even if all their operators are not. We are not merely angry young people. We are fathers and mothers; aunts, uncles and grandparents; we are business owners and trusted employees; we are mechanics and engineers and farmers. We are nurses and accountants and students and executives.

We are on every continent.

This is not a burst of outrage; this is a sober declaration that we no longer accept unearned suffering as our role in life. For long decades we sat quietly, hoping that things would turn around. We took no actions; we suffered along with everyone else. But after having our limits pushed back again and again, we have given up on your systems.

If our fellow inhabitants of this planet wish to accept your rule, they are free to do so. We will not try to stop them. We, however, will no longer accept your constraints upon us.

From now on, when you hurt us, we will bite back. If you leave us alone we will leave you alone and you can continue to rule your subjects. We are happy to live quietly. But if you come after us, there will be consequences. You caused this because of your fetish for control and power. The chief men and women among you are pathologically driven to control everyone and everything that moves upon this planet. You have made yourselves the judge of every human activity. No god-king of the ancient world ever had the power that your systems do.

You have created a world where only the neutered are safe and where only outlaws are free.

==== To The People of Earth: ====

We seek nothing from you. We do not want to rule you and we do not want to control you.

All we wish is to live on earth in peace. As always, we will be helpful neighbors and generous acquaintances. We will remain honest business partners and trustworthy employees. We will continue to be loving parents and respectful children.

We will not, however, be sacrificial animals. We reject the idea that others have a right to our lives and our property. We will not demand anything from you, and we will no longer acquiesce to any demands upon us. We have left that game. We reject all obligations to any person or organization beyond honesty, fair dealing and a respect for human life.

We will shortly explain what we believe, but we are not demanding that you agree with us. All we ask is that you do not try to stop us. Continue to play the game if you wish; we will not try to disrupt it. We have merely walked away from it. We wish you peace.

==== To Those Who Will Condemn Us: ====

We will ignore you.

We welcome and seek the verdict of a just God, before whom we are willing to expose our innermost thoughts. Are you similarly willing?

We would stand openly before all mankind if it were not suicidal. Perhaps some day we will have to accept slaughter for our crime of independence, but not yet.

Your criticism and your malice are much deeper than mere disagreements of strategy or philosophy. You do not oppose our philosophy, you oppose our existence. Our presence in the world means that your precious ideals are false. Some of you would rather kill us than face the loss of your ideologies, just as those like you have either hated or killed every sufficiently independent human.

You present yourselves to the world as compassionate, tolerant and enlightened, but we know that your smooth words are costumes. Oh yes, we know you, servant of the state; don't forget, we were raised with you. We played with you in the schoolyard, we sat next to you in the classroom. Some of us studied at the same elite universities. We watched as you had your first tastes of power. We were the boys and girls standing next to you.

Some of us were your first victims. We are not fooled by your carefully crafted public image.

==== What We Believe ====

#1: Many humans resent the responsibilities that are implied by consciousness. We accept those responsibilities and we embrace consciousness. Rather than letting things happen to us (avoiding consciousness), we accept consciousness and choose to act in our own interest.

We do not seek the refuge of blaming others, neither do we take refuge in crowds. We are willing to act on our personal judgment, and we are willing to accept the consequences thereof.

#2: We believe in negative rights for all: That all humans should be free to do whatever they wish, as long as they do not intrude upon others; that no man has a right to the life, liberty or property of another; that we oppose aggression, fraud and coercion.

#3: We do not believe that our way of life, or any other, will make life perfect or trouble-free. We expect crime and disagreements and ugliness, and we are prepared to deal with them. We do not seek a strongman to step in and solve problems for us. We agree to see to them ourselves.

#4: We believe in free and unhindered commerce. So long as exchanges are voluntary and honest, no other party has a right to intervene � before, during or after.

#5: We believe that all individuals should keep their agreements.

#6: We believe that honestly obtained property is fully legitimate and absolute.

#7: We believe that some humans are evil and that they must be faced and dealt with. We accept the fact that this is a difficult area of life.

#8: We believe that humans can self-organize effectively. We expect them to cooperate. We reject impositions of hierarchy and organization.

#9: We believe that all humans are to be held as equals in all matters regarding justice.

#10: We believe that the more a man or woman cares about right and wrong, the more of a threat he or she is perceived to be by governments.

#11: We believe that there are only two true classes of human beings: Those who wish to exercise power upon others - either directly or through intermediaries - and those who have no such desires.

#12: Large organizations and centralization are inherently anti-human. They must rely upon rules rather than principles, treating humans within the organization as obedient tools.

==== Our Plans: ====

We are building our own society. We will supplement traditional tools with networking, cryptography, sound money, digital currency and anonymous messaging.

Our society will not be centrally controlled. It will rely solely on voluntary arrangements. We welcome others to join us. We are looking for people who are independent creators of value, people who act more than talk, and people who do the right thing because it is the right thing.

We will develop our own methods of dealing with injustice, built on the principles of negative rights, restitution, integrity and equal justice.

We do not forbid anyone from having one foot in each realm - ours and the old realm - although we demand that they do no damage to our realm. We are fully opposed to any use of our realm to facilitate crime in the old realm, such as the hiding of criminal proceeds.

We expect to be loudly condemned, libeled and slandered by the authorities of the old regime. We expect them to defend their power and their image of legitimacy with all means available to them. We expect that many gullible and servile people will believe these lies, at least at first.

We will consider traps laid for us to be criminal offenses. Any who wish to join us are encouraged to distribute this declaration, to act in furtherance of our new society, to voluntarily excel in virtues and to communicate and cooperate with other members of the new society.

Free, unashamed men cannot be ruled.

We are The Free and The Unashamed.

#825

From: T <eagle@...>
Date: Wed Apr 1, 2009 3:46 pm
Subject: CFR Unveils Global Governance Agenda

q1eagle

Offline

At 08:02 AM 4/1/09, W.G.E.N. wrote:

http://oldthinkernews.com/Articles/oldthinker%20news/cfr_global_governance.htm

CFR Unveils Global Governance Agenda
Daniel Taylor
Old-Thinker News
March 31, 2009

The Council on Foreign Relations, often described as the "real state department", has launched an initiative to promote and implement a system of effective world governance.
The program, titled " The International Institutions and Global Governance Program," utilizes the resources of the "�David Rockefeller Studies Program to assess existing regional and global governance mechanisms�" The initial funding for the program came with a $6 million grant from the Robina Foundation, which claims that the grant is "�one of the largest operating grants ever received in Council history."
The IIGG program, launched on May 1st, 2008, is the latest manifestation of an agenda that has existed since and before the founding of the Council on Foreign Relations. Former CFR member, Rear Admiral Chester Ward, stated regarding the group,
"The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common - they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government."
The International Institutions and Global Governance Program identifies several "global issues" that require a system of world governance. Environmental issues, terrorism, the global economy and energy are all mentioned. The project then states that a system of "universal membership" could be pursued, or alternatively a regional organization, such as the European Union model.
"In each of these spheres, the program will consider whether the most promising framework for governance is a formal organization with universal membership (e.g., the United Nations); a regional or sub-regional organization; a narrower, informal coalition of like-minded countries; or some combination of all three."
The program calls for the "Re-conceptualizing" of national sovereignty, citing the European Union�s "pooling" of sovereignty as a model. The CFR project recognizes that historically, the United States has been resistant to the ideals of global governance. The project states, "Among the most important factors determining the future of global governance will be the attitude of the United States�"
The IIGG program continues, "�few countries have been as sensitive as the United States to restrictions on their freedom of action or as jealous in guarding their sovereign prerogatives." The program then states that the separation of powers as stated in the Constitution, along with the U.S. Congress, stand in the way of the United States assuming "new international obligations."
As stated,
"�the country�s longstanding tradition of liberal �exceptionalism� inspires U.S. vigilance in protecting the domestic sovereignty and institutions from the perceived incursions of international bodies. Finally, the separation of powers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress a critical voice in the ratification of treaties and endorsement of global institutions, complicates U.S. assumptions of new international obligations."
The actions of the Military Industrial Complex under the Bush Administration have served globalist interests well. "Global structures" are now presented as the mechanism to prevent such atrocities. America�s demonization is central to building a system of world governance. Patrick M. Stewart, who is currently the director of the CFR IIGG program, is anticipating the Obama administration "�to seek to turn the page on what many perceived to be �cowboy unilateralism� of the Bush years, by embracing multilateral cooperation, re-kindling U.S. alliances and partnerships, and engaging in sustained diplomacy within the UN framework," as reported by Xinhua. The IIGG project itself stated in May of 2008 that, "Regardless of whether the administration that takes office in January 2009 is Democratic or Republican, the thrust of U.S. foreign policy is likely to be multilateral to a significant degree."
Globalist forces are hard at work in the economic and political realms in an attempt to shape the future of the world, furthering the dominance of the global elite. Calls for a global currency in response to the economic crisis are regularly occurring, drawing the tacit support of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, speaking to the CFR.
Henry Kissinger, a CFR member, anticipates that President Obama will, "�give new impetus to American foreign policy partly because the reception of him is so extraordinary around the world. I think his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It�s a great opportunity, it isn�t just a crisis."
The Council on Foreign Relations global governance program will undoubtedly be pursued under the Obama administration, which is filled with CFR members. President of the CFR, Richard Haass, is serving as a top adviser to the Obama administration. As the IIGG program admits, regardless of who sits in the White House, the globalist agenda moves forward full speed ahead.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.32/2030 - Release Date: 3/30/09 8:40
AM

#824

From: T <eagle@...>
Date: Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:32 pm
Subject: Re: Mexico: the next Iraq?

q1eagle

Offline

At 12:04 AM 3/29/09, Richard Moore wrote:

There is ample evidence that US bankers are among the principal beneficiaries of drug profits. Earlier this year, the head of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) said his agency had found mounting indications that money from drug trafficking was playing a key role in the bailout of failing banks.

The CIA runs the international drug trade, and Opium production started up again right after the US invaded Afghanistan. In South America, the "war on drugs" has been a cover for suppressing popular movements against puppet regimes.

Mexico is the third largest source of US imported oil, trailing only Saudi Arabia and Canada. In addition to military support, Washington has provided strong political backing to the Calderon government's bid to open the state-owned oil monopoly Pemex to foreign capitalist investment. The proposal is opposed by the overwhelming majority of the Mexican people.

Calderon's election was fraudulent, a scheme to get control of Pemex. A rebellion of the people is simmering and that's what the US intervention is all about.

rkm
___

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/mar2009/mexi-m27.shtml

Washington escalates �drug war� intervention in Mexico

By Bill Van Auken
27 March 2009

With the announcement of a new border security plan Monday and the two-day visit by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Mexico City and Monterrey which ended Thursday, Washington is launching a major intervention in Mexico in the name of combating drug trafficking and associated violence.
< div style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.3em; margin-top: 0.8em; ">The flurry of activity by the US government�similar trips to Mexico are scheduled next week by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder and by Obama himself next month�has been accompanied by a campaign in the American media to create an atmosphere of near panic over the "war" in Mexico and the supposed threat that it is spilling over into the US itself.
The sudden concern over an emergency on the US-Mexican border has not been driven by any recent major change in the objective situation. The right-wing government of Mexican President Felipe Calderon has deployed the country's military in the anti-drug trafficking campaign for two years. The violence associated with this effort has been steady ever since, with over 6,000 people killed last year and 1,000 so far this year.
Rather than responding to some sudden crisis, it appears that the Obama administration is executing plans drafted and developed under the Bush administration, and particularly the Pentagon and the US national intelligence apparatus.
At the heart of the program rolled out this week is $700 million approved by the US Congress as part of the so-called Merida Initiative, a three-year $1.4 billion aid package signed by Bush and Calderon in June of last year. Also known as Plan Mexico for its resemblance to Plan Colombia, which initiated the largest US-backed counterinsurgency campaign in the hemisphere, the central thrust of the initiative is US support for the militarization of Mexico's counter-narcotics operations and border security and closer coordination between the US and Mexican militaries in the development of counter-terrorism strategies.
Under the plan unveiled Monday by the White House and the Department of Homeland Security, in addition to the $700 million in Merida Initiative aid previously requested by the Bush administration, Washington is sending an additional 360 Homeland Security agents to the border along with 116 agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The FBI announced that it is forming a Southwest Intelligence Group (SWIG) to coordinate all FBI activities related to Mexico.
"This issue requires immediate action," said Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano in announcing the initiative. "We are guided by two very clear objectives. First, we are going to do everything we can to prevent the violence in Mexico from spilling over across the border. And second, we will do all in our power to help President Calderon crack down on th ese drug cartels in Mexico."
In subsequent testimony on Capitol Hill and in an interview with the Spanish news service EFE, Napolitano referred to the potential deployment of US troops on the border and a "contingency plan" that has been drawn up to deal with the potential for violence in Mexico triggering a "massive emigration" to the US.
The deployment of troops�Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry has called for 1,000 troops to be sent to his state's border with Mexico�"is under active consideration in the Department of Defense and will depend on several factors," Napolitano told EFE.
In testifying Wednesday before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Napolitano acknowledged that the border plan being enacted by her department�the "Southwest Border Violence Operations Plan"�had been drafted by her predecessor, Bush's Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff.
She also made reference to the central role being played by the Pentagon in developing US strategy towards Mexico. "The Department of Defense h as been a close partner in scenario planning," she said. Napolitano added that her department is "working with the Department of Defense to determine if there are other support roles for the Department of Defense to assist us in securing our southwestern border."
Significantly, the first trips to Mexico City initiated by the Obama administration involved Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who touched off a controversy in Mexico by claiming that the country's military had shed its historically rooted prejudices against collaboration with the Pentagon, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen, who said the US military was prepared to assist the Mexican military in implementing counterinsurgency tactics learned in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The US military is carrying out its own aid program separately from the Merida Initiative under Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act passed in 2006, allowing it to funnel money, training and equipment to foreign militaries under the pretext of combating terrorism. The program�which provided the Mexican armed forces with nearly $13 million in arms and training this year�is one of the means by which Washington has increasingly delegated foreign policy to the Pentagon.
The stepped-up US intervention in Mexico was highlighted by Secretary of State Clinton's two-day trip which ended Thursday in Monterrey.
Much was made of Clinton's acceptance of the fact that US money and arms play a decisive role in fueling the Mexican drug trade and violence and her repudiation of claims made in the media and by sections of the US military and foreign policy establishment that Mexico is on the verge of becoming a "failed state."
This aspect of the trip represented an exercise in damage control, under conditions in which Washington has increasingly antagonized Mexico, in no small measure through the repeal earlier this month of a pilot program allowing a limited number of Mexican long-haul trucks to travel US highways. Mexico denounced the move as protectionism and imposed $2.4 billion worth of tariffs on US goods in retaliation.
Clinton announced while in Mexico City that the US is providing the Mexican army with five Blackhawk assault helicopters and the Mexican navy with a reconnaissance plane to "respond aggressively" to drug traffickers.
"The criminals and kingpins spreading violence are trying to corrode the foundations of law, order, friendship and trust between us that support our continent," Clinton declared Wednesday at a joint press conference with Mexican Foreign Relations Secretary Patricia Espinosa. "They will fail."
The rhetoric, employing the pseudo-democratic phrasemongering of the "war on terrorism," ignores the obvious. The "kingpins" aren't concerned with "corroding" the values extolled by Clinton. Their principal motivation is no different than that of the bankers and financiers on Wall Street: profit.
There is ample evidence that US bankers are among the principal beneficiaries of drug profits. Earlier this year, the head of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) said his agency had found mounting indications that money from drug trafficking was playing a key role in the bailout of failing banks.
"Interbank loans were funded by money that originated from drug trade and other illegal activities," UNODC Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa told the Austrian magazineProfil< /em>. There were "signs that some banks were rescued in that way," he added.
As for the hundreds of thousands of people involved in one form or another in the lower ranks of the drug trade, their objective is obtaining an income and escaping the poverty that afflicts over half of Mexico's 104 million people.
"Clearly what we have done has not worked," Clinton said in relation to the US "war on drugs." But the reality is that the program being launched by the Obama administration in relation to Mexico represents a continuation and escalation of that same policy, treating the complex and deeply rooted problems associated with drugs as a security question to be solved through military action.
That this policy has been a failure is indisputable. The number of people taking illegal drugs in the US has not declined, nor has the supply of drugs, despite the US spending an estimated $2.5 trillion over the past four decades in its "war on drugs" and increasing the US prison population seven-fold in the last 30 years, in large part due to drug-related convictions.
The failure is inevitable, given that the policy treats what is essentially a question of social conditions and public health as a military campaign to be won with increased firepower and measured by the number of narco-traffickers killed or imprisoned.
Nothing said by Clinton or the other US officials who have spoken on the drug violence in Mexico has addressed the conditions of poverty there. Nor have any proposals been made to curtail the demand for illegal drugs in the US, either through decriminalization of drug use or expanded drug treatment programs.
Why would the US administration continue and even escalate a policy that its chief foreign policy representative admits is a failure? The answer lies in the fact that the "war on drugs," like the "war on terrorism," is a fa�ade behind which are concealed strategic aims of US imperialism, which seeks to exert its hegemony over resource-rich regions of the globe by military means.
Mexico is the third largest source of US imported oil, trailing only Saudi Arabia and Canada. In addition to military support, Washington has provided strong political backing to the Calderon government's bid to open the state-owned oil monopoly Pemex to foreign capitalist invest ment. The proposal is opposed by the overwhelming majority of the Mexican people.
For the Calderon government as well there is a large element of pretext in the escalating drug war. It has militarized the country under conditions of a deepening economic crisis and a growing potential for social explosions.
A poll conducted earlier this month by Mexico's leading polling firm found that nearly twice as many Mexicans saw the economy, unemployment and poverty as the main problems confronting the country as those who cited security and drug trafficking. In the same poll, 35 percent said that at least one member of their family had lost a job in the previous six months.
According to Mexico's National Institute of Statistics, 472,000 workers joined the ranks of the unemployed in January and February. Industrial production is in free fall, having declined 15 percent since last year, with many of the layoffs hitting export assembly plants (maquiladoras) operating in border cities like Ciudad Juarez, now subjected to an occupation by 10,000 Mexican troops and federal police.

Copyright � 1998-2009 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2027 - Release Date: 3/27/09 6:51
PM

#823

From: T <eagle@...>
Date: Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:32 pm
Subject: Re: Mexico: the next Iraq?

q1eagle

Offline

At 12:04 AM 3/29/09, Richard Moore wrote:

There is ample evidence that US bankers are among the principal beneficiaries of drug profits. Earlier this year, the head of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) said his agency had found mounting indications that money from drug trafficking was playing a key role in the bailout of failing banks.

Mexico is the third largest source of US imported oil, trailing only Saudi Arabia and Canada. In addition to military support, Washington has provided strong political backing to the Calderon government's bid to open the state-owned oil monopoly Pemex to foreign capitalist investment. The proposal is opposed by the overwhelming majority of the Mexican people.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2027 - Release Date: 3/27/09 6:51
PM

#822

From: T <eagle@...>
Date: Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:28 pm
Subject: Re: Jonathan May reveals insider secrets

q1eagle

Offline

At 07:17 AM 3/28/09, Richard Moore wrote:

... the controlling interest of the prime banks is held by the same people who have the controlling interest in the major oil companies. They control through a joint stock trust which was set up by the original Rockefellers here in America in 1870. This was three years before the United States government declared joint stock trusts illegal in 1873. It is this entity which is the ultimate controlling factor in America of the prime banks, the Federal Reserve, the major oil companies, and many other multi-nationals. This trust is in joint control of the Rockefeller Foundation and their European interest.

Who actually controls the Federal Reserve? Who are the stockholders of this private corporation? In a legislative session regarding abolishing the Fed, the following eight family banks were named as the owners of the Federal Reserve:
Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin
Lazares Brothers Banks of Paris
Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy
Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam
Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
Kuhn, Loeb Bank of New York
Goldman, Sachs Bank of New York.

President Garcia of Peru announced in February of this year that they were absolutely not going to pay the International Monetary Fund. Rockefeller himself went to Peru in February of 1986. Rockeffeler personally made the offer to Garcia of the three-point proposal which was mentioned earlier. Garcia told David that if he wasn�t out of the country in twenty-four hours that he would have him arrested for racketeering.

http://tinyurl.com/deqj9t
http://www.vinesbranch.com/view/?pageID=60862
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.politics.misc/browse_thread/thread/74bb72b95898a643

A Whistleblower from the International Monetary Fund UK

Posted on February 27, 2009 by Sabine McNeill

TESTIMONY OF JONATHAN MAY

Jonathan May formerly worked for the International Monetary Fund in England. In the early 1980s he came to America with a plan to release Americans from debt to the banking system by employing the same �credit creating� system used by international banking. The law governing this system is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). May was initially successful. Eventually, however, he was targeted and imprisoned by the banking system. He is now in a Federal prison in the midwest. While in prison he was interviewed by Lindsey Williams via phone. The following is the text of that interview.

�There are thirteen families which effectively control the central banks of the hard currency countries of the world. The hard currency countries are those whose currency is not allowed to fluctuate as much as the other countries� currency fluctuates. These thirteen families have the contr ol of the policy-making and decision-making of the central banks of those countries. They all practice fractional reserve banking.

Fractional reserve banking has allowed the central banks to permit the prime banks to lend up to twenty-six units of currency for every one unit of currency they have on deposit. The owners andcontrollers of the prime banks are the same people who own and control the central banks.The initial final stage of System 2000 was put into effect in the mid-seventies. System 2000 is the global creditors unilateral totalitarian plan for the control of the world.

A Pentagon official and three other U.S. government officials went to the Prime Minister of Nigeria. They paid him $50,000,000 to more than double the price of body light crude oil. This is the crude oil of Nigeria which is some of the most valuable crude oil in the world. At the same time that the Prime Minister of Nigeria was being persuaded, other Trilateral Commission members were in the Middle East persuading the Middle East nations and England to consolidate OPEC. The deal cut with the Middle East oil producers was that the oil buyers were prepared to pay significantly higher prices for oil if the Middle East nations would invest the revenues in the big banks in America.

Sheik Yamani�s nephew assured us that Sheik Yamani and other oil ministers did not know until late in the seventies or in the eighties that the controlling interest of the prime banks is held by the same people who have the controlling interest in the major oil companies. They control through a joint stock trust which was set up by the original Rockefellers here in America in 1870. This was three years before the United States government declared joint stock trusts illegal in 1873. It is this entity which is the ultimate controlling factor in America of the prime banks, the Federal Reserve, the major oil companies, and many other multi-nationals. This trust is in joint control of the Rockefeller Foundation and their European interest.

The deal cut with the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and the middle eastern peoples was that they were to put their money in the prime banks in America. They did not know that the prime banks were able to lend twenty to one. All they were to receive was the interest on the money they deposited for between ten to thirty years. They were to receive the principal at the end of the term.

Because they had locked-in deposits from the Middle Eastern nations, the banks were able to make loans to the Third World nations. The banks relied on the greed of those ministers of those Third World nations to mis-handle the money. Over the years, that manipulated greed has caused those countries to be in the bankrupt position they are in today.

In 1981, I found out that the Hunt brothers of Texas and John Conley,the Governor of Texas, who was also the Under Secretary of the Treasury, had secretly tried to implement a new currency for Texas. They could legally do this because Texas is only a part of the United States by treaty. This treaty is automatically renewed every year. It has become a tradition, obviously, that it is renewed every year because it is not actually, physically, renewed every year. This made it possible for Texas to create its own money.

The Hunts were in partnership with the Shah of Iran, a German bank, and an Austrian bank. The Hunts made one mistake. They were buying and selling silver irresponsibly. They had one man doing both buying and selling on the same floors in all the exchanges. Word got out and the result was that the German banker was murdered, the Ausrtrian banker was so badly beaten that he will never get out of a mental institution, and the Hunts are virtually bankrupt today. The Hunts had sixteen billions in worth at the time. The Shah was perfectly healthy when he left Iran. He was only declared sick when he arrived in America. He was held in �protective custody� in military bases where he was treated and became progressively worse and ultimately was shipped off to die.

In 1983, we became aware of the fact that a group of very, very quiet bank holding companies were extending credit wherever they felt like it, under whatever terms they felt like. They are authorized under Regulation Y, Section 225.4 of the United States Code to extend this credit. Those companies were receiving loans from the prime banks. With this money they were buying foreclosed real property and businesses with bricks and mortar from liquidations, foreclosures and bankruptcies.

These were bussinesses which were affected by FDIC and FSLIC foreclosures. We could not understand this, and between 1983 and 1985 we researched it and still could not understand it.

Then we found the answer in 1985 when we were approached by an emissary from President Marcos of the Philippines and President Saharte and others from Indonesia. They had a severe problem. Their problem was that, having borrowed all the money that they had borrowed, they now needed more money. The only way that the International Monetary Fund was prepared to lend them more money was if they would do three things:

1. Eliminate their own currencies and become Dollar denominated. This would eliminate cash altogether.

2. If they would go to a unilateral centralized credit card system. This was to be a part of their Social Security system, part of their identity system whereby everybody in the country would have a Social Security number which would be synonymous with a credit card number. Their Central Bank was to act as the wholesaler for credit which was extended to it by the new super bank. This was announced by Paul Volker on the 27th of October, 1985.

3. In order to help the economies of those countries, the International Monetary Fund was going to nominate external non-domestic corporations to properly engineer, exploit and excavate the minerals from those countries in return for PERPETUAL ROYALTIES.

This excavation would bring prosperity to the nation. Marcos was sharp enough to pick up on the word PERPETUAL, and realized he would be signing away the sovereignty of his nation. He was not prepared to do this. Marcos approached us through his emissary, Colonel Christopher Banis. We were aware of this offer made by the International Monetary Fund through our connections in London who are close to Sir Jeffrey Howe. If they agreed to the International Monetary Fund�s terms and conditions, they were to have their existing debts forgiven, absolutely. New lines of credit were to be extended to them and the new lines of credit were to be under better terms and conditions.

When we heard the term PERPETUAL, and when we heard the words �Totally forgiven�, we immediately began to recognize what was happening. Another group of holding companies was operating with the previous group of holding companies. The second group of holding companies was receiving credit from the first group to purchase assets and liabilities from the prime banks. The only liabilities they were purchasing were the liabilities represented by the deposits of the Arab nations. The only assets they were buying were the assets represented by the loans made to some of the debtor nations.

It then became clear, through our own people in the Trilateral Commission, that the forgiveness of the Third World debts would eliminate the assets which were being purchased by this second group of holding companies. This left them only with the liabilities that were owed to the Middle East nations and being serviced by the prime banks.The Arab nations had no idea that these liabilities were now owed by the holding companies and that the debtor nations had stopped paying the prime banks. The prime banks� and holding companies� arrangements were that the prime banks were to act as servicing agents for the holding companies so that the Third World nations would not know that the holding companies were owed the money.

The effect of the elimination of the assets of the second group of holding companies is threefold:
1. The holding companies would be i nsolvent and would legally be able to declare themselves insolvent.
2. They could legally and legitimately avoid payment to the Middle Eastern Nations.
3. The Middle Eastern Arab nations will have to liquidate all their other assets.

These assets are represented by U.S. corporate ownership and many billions of dollars worth of U.S. stock. The effect of the Saudis and Kuwaitis and the Middle Eastern people�s sale of even 25% of their total holdings on the U.S. market would be absolutely chaotic in terms of the stock market, real estate and everything else. The catastrophic effect has been designed to throw the American stock market, the American corporations, the American real estate, and people in general into a state of confusion. The plan is that this state of confusion will be greeted with the salvation of the benevolent bankers on three fronts:
1. They propose to eliminate cash because of the collapse.
2. Stop drug trafficking because the drug traffickers would now have no money to use.
3. Stop tax cheating.

NOBODY CAN ARGUE WITH ANY OF THESE REASONS. It is at this point that they intend to implement a mandatory credit card identity Social Security government. There will be an I.D. card which will be satellite linked through the �Star Wars program�.

Only 40% of �Star Wars� has anything to do with defense. 60% is designed for transmission of banking information instantaneously to the central banks which will be the super banks into which all the major banks of the world will be linked. The super bank is to be the wholesaler and the prime banks are to be the retailers in the foreign countries that have capitulated to the International Monetary Fund�s program.

It inly takes 5% of the total debtor nations to equal all of the deposits of the Saudis that are in the banks. The reason for this is the twenty-to-one ratio of fractional reserve banking. In works in contrary reverse. It doesn�t take many nations to agree to the International Monetary Fund�s proposal for the total volume of money owed to equal the total volume of money on deposit from the Saudis. Twenty debtor nations have already agreed to the International Monetary Fund�s proposal.The resultant collapse of the second group of holding companies will precipitate the Saudis� and Kuwaitis� liquidation of assets.

When the second group of holding companies are unable to pay the private group of bank holding companies the money they owe them from the credit extended to them to buy the assets and liabilities, it will precipitate those bank holding companies inability to pay the loans extended to them by the prime banks to buy the foreclosed land which was used as collateral to secure those loans. Ultimately, the prime banks will end up with all the properties.

President Garcia of Peru announced in February of this year that they were absolutely not going to pay the International Monetary Fund. Rockefeller himself went to Peru in February of 1986. Rockeffeler personally made the offer to Garcia of the three-point pr oposal which was mentioned earlier. Garcia told David that if he wasn�t out of the country in twenty-four hours that he would have him arrested for racketeering.

You will see the foreclosures on real property in America stepped up drastically by the FDIC and FSLIC. They are using gangsteristic tactics to achieve their objective for their masters.

Since the advent of the manipulation of the oil producing countries to sell all their oil in U.S. dollars, the entire world trade is now denominated in U.S. dollars because of the volitility of all the other currencies. The entire trading volume of the world will be totally and absolutely beholden to the super banks. When System 2000 is put into effect, the super banks will be the only source of �U.S. Dollars� credit. There will be no cash.�

[ snip ]

Who actually controls the Federal Reserve? Who are the stockholders of this private corporation? In a legislative session regarding abolishing the Fed, the following eight family banks were named as the owners of the Federal Reserve:

Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin
Lazares Brothers Banks of Paris
Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy
Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam
Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
Kuhn, Loeb Bank of New York
Goldman, Sachs Bank of New York.
< font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000" size="3">
In his book, �To Seduce a Nation� Lindsey Williams lists the same 8 banks.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2027 - Release Date: 3/27/09 6:51
PM

#821

From: T <eagle@...>
Date: Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:28 pm
Subject: Re: Jonathan May reveals insider secrets

q1eagle

Offline

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.31/2027 - Release Date: 3/27/09 6:51
PM

#820

From: T <eagle@...>
Date: Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:39 pm
Subject: Re: The obama-nation and Art. II.

q1eagle

Offline

At 05:41 PM 3/15/09, Legal Reality wrote:

15 March A.D. 2009

First Part.

This first part is a message to those who are obsessing over the obama-nation's Kenyan (British) nationality. If that's not you, just skip right over the first part and go to the second part.

Yes, we're all being lied to about this. You are 100% correct; the obama-nation was not born in Hawaii.

Now, please try to understand our legal reality:

THERE IS NO ARTICLE II "RESIDENCY" OR "NATIONALITY" REQUIREMENT FOR ANY EXECUTIVE OFFICE IN THE "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT."

Welcome to an insidious, wicked paradigm shift. Welcome to the Legal Reality confronting us in our immediate present.

Second Part.

Let's also address something even more obvious that these obsessing "residence requirement" litigants have clearly never read, much less reflected upon.

Let the "constitutionalist" who is an obama-nation "residency requirement" obsessor show me in Article II, or anywhere else in his coveted Constitution for that matter, where a "popular vote" for President of that "constitutional Government" is even a remote part of the PROCESS, and I'll show him a "qualification" requirement from Article II regarding where one is born for that very same governmental system and structure. (And, then I'll show him that it's completely irrelevant, even in that context.)

For those who may want to be some better versed in how to address this obsession in their own communities, let's go over some basics, which we may have covered previously, but which will be good to cover, again, for the new members to the list.

A mere cursory review of our nation's political history reveals the following. There were NINE, count them, NINE, "elections" that applied the Article II PROCEDURE, the "Electoral College" PROCEDURE. The last "election" that followed the Article II PROCEDURE was in 1820.

Starting in 1824, the election process took a turn from which no correction has been made to date. In 1824, for the very first time, there was a concept, and a PROCEDURE, of a "popular vote" for "president."

So, we see the rather obvious, stark-naked obvious, question: If the Constitution called for a "popular vote," then why were the first NINE elections, count them, NINE, by way of the Electoral College PROCESS?

And, we see instantly the answer. The "popular vote" was never even remotely contemplated as the PROCESS by which any executive office would be filled.

Given that no executive office for the "constitutional Government" is to be filled by ANYthing even remotely resembling a "popular vote," we arrive at this fork in the road. Based on the sage advice from Yogi Berra, we're going to take that fork. Either we've got a "constitutional Government," or we don't. Where there's nothing relevant about Article II that applies, then we're NOT dealing with a "constitutional Government."

This shocks the conscience, but not because this is intellectually difficult to grasp. The "rebellion" against the reality is the emotional response. Nonetheless, (A) there is nothing relevant about the Electoral College PROCESS, and (B) there is no "residency requirement." So, the logical conclusion is just not that difficult to make. Article II is completely irrelevant to our present legal reality. Said another way, Article II has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the "federal government."

What makes the reality so difficult to see is that we have to admit that we've "been had." No one likes to admit "being had." And, most will never allow themselves to see that we've "been had" for 220+ years; hence, as advertised, it IS a wicked paradigm shift.

There's a very good reason, then, WHY no court in this system is doing anything to interfere with the obama-nation's candidacy or office-holding. That reason is this: No executive office in the "FEDERAL Government" has any such residency requirement.

[It's impossible to have a legitimate governmental system with an illegitimate "money" system.]

What the courts understand on this issue that the "residency-requirement"-obsessed "citizenry" don't (yet) understand is that "federal" means "federal." "Federal" does not mean "national." "Federal" most certainly does not mean "constitutional." "Federal" means "federal." At the level of a "state," "federal" means "by compact" or "by treaty." At the level of the individual, "federal" means "by private obligation."

Let's apply this reality so that those who may also want to help these "residency-requirement"-obsessed people find something constructive to do with their time will have something constructive to share when the topic comes up. It simply doesn't make one bit of difference who is the "president" of the "federal government." Why not? Ok. Can the "president" of the "federal government" compel anyone to enter into any of the private obligations that are used to vex us? No. So, it doesn't matter who holds that office.

Until we see the commercial nature of the problem, we won't see the commercial nature of the solution. To see the commercial nature of the problem is to see that there are no political solutions to our commercial problems.

This "residency requirement" obsession is just as much "bread and circuses" as the obama-nation's recent head-on collision with Rush Limbaugh. Those who refuse to think and analyze the matter commercially need the political "bread and circuses." So, there's plenty of political "bread and circuses" for the politically minded. Just listen to or read the "news." Plenty of non-solution, "you have no control" information provided there.

Political activity matters, and you'll never hear me say otherwise. However, as mentioned again very recently, if that's ALL we do, if that's ALL we focus on, then we're wasting our time, "money," and energy, for if we don't act commercially, nothing is going to change (for the better).

So, as the "residency requirement" issue shows up in your neck of the woods, feel free to pull out your pocket-sized Constitution and either read to them or have them read the WHOLE of Article II. And, don't just read it; read it OUT LOUD. Then, ask where the concept of a "popular vote" is anywhere mentioned. If the response is, "Well, it's got to be in there somewhere," feel free to read to them, OUT LOUD, or have them read, OUT LOUD, the entirety of that document. When they see/hear that the Constitution in absolutely, positively no conceivably remote way comes anywhere NEAR even breathing a word about a "popular vote" for the selection process for the Office of President, they're going then also to see that along with the change in PROCESS, there is also a change in the QUALIFICATIONS.

Yes, a State may decide the process for selecting the Electors. This is true. Presume a bunch of States. (To presume them is the only way we'll see any of such bodies politic in our present reality.) If the selection process by which Electors are chosen had anything, at all, to do with the Constitution, there'd be no "political party affiliation" requirement.

How do we know that there IS such a requirement, We know because we see that the "popular vote" that everyone focuses on doesn't elect Electors. We have no idea who the Electors are. We never even see their names. Their names are not supplied by a ballot. Their names are supplied by a political party. The "popular vote" process doesn't elect Electors. It "elects" a party, who then supplies a "slate" or group of "electors," based on a "winner take all" concept, all of which is 100% dependent upon the "political party affiliation" requirement. So, technically, the "popular vote" process doesn't elect a "president," either. It elects a political party.

Given that there is a political party affiliation requirement, what is the obvious problem with such requirement? Remember that IF we're talking about the Office discussed in the Constitution, we're talking about a "constitutional" Office. So, where do we find the Requirements for such an office? There's one and only one place: the Constitution.

Now, read the Constitution, top to bottom, with all the alleged Amendments, OUT LOUD, and stop where you find the language that says that the Office of Elector has a political party affiliation requirement. When you get to the end of the Amendments, and run out of words to read, you'll see that there is no such requirement.

So, when the obama-nation "residency-requirement"-obsessed faction show me where their coveted Constitution has a "political party affiliation" requirement for the Office of Elector, I'll show them both the Electoral College PROCESS and the "residency requirement" for that very same governmental system.

For a State to add a "political party affiliation" requirement to the qualifications for the Office of Elector is for a State to "legislate" an "amendment" to the Constitution.

In short, these so-called "constitutionalists" are VERY internally confused. There's a "residency requirement," but none of the rest of this alternative process bothers them, whatsoever. Curious, to say the least.

In sum, we're back to asking the exact same question: Are we dealing with a "constitutional Government" or not? The evidence screams at us that the answer is "or not." We don't have Electors, for the STATEs have added a "political party affiliation" requirement. We don't have the Electoral College process, for we're not electing Electors, but rather a unknown, undisclosed group/slate of political-party members. And, as those who understand the reality know, and as those who are being dragged kicking and screaming into the legal reality as we speak are coming to know, there simply is no "residency requirement" for the executive officeholders for the "federal government."

The PROCESS we're looking at is not a "constitutional" process. It's a "federal" PROCESS. By way of this PROCESS, it is not a "constitutional" office that is filled; it's a "federal" office that is filled.

The relevant qualifications are not the "constitutional" QUALIFICATIONs, but rather the "federal" QUALIFICATIONS, which makes perfect sense, since that office being filled is a "federal government" office, not a "constitutional Government" Office.

The "constitutional" system HAS a "residency requirement." Yes. Absolutely Right! But the "federal" system has no such "residency requirement."

It is the prayer by those of us at Legal Reality that the obama-nation's "residency-requirement"-obsessed part of our nation survive the shock of the very wicked paradigm shift that comes with realizing that we've "been had" for going on 220 years now. May they be able successfully to direct that time, "money," and energy into something that will do much more good for ourselves and for our nation, i.e., something based on our legal reality.

A "federal government" operates "federally." What does that mean? "By private obligation."

Those who are no longer interested in financing this scam that calls itself the "federal government" may want to start reading the law of trusts, because "taxpayer" means "fiduciary."

We can't change "them." The obama-nation is "in," and that's that. All we can change is us, and that starts with realizing the commercial nature of the mechanisms being used against us. Commercial problems require commercial solutions.

Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.16/2005 - Release Date: 3/16/09 7:01
PM

#819

From: T <eagle@...>
Date: Tue Mar 3, 2009 10:50 pm
Subject: America's Fiscal Collapse

q1eagle

Offline

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12517

The mainstream media suggests that the banks are being nationalized as a result of TARP, In fact, it is exactly the opposite: THE STATE IS BEING TAKEN OVER BY THE BANKS, THE STATE IS BEING PRIVATIZED. The establishment of a Worldwide unipolar financial system is part of the broader project of the Wall Street financial elites to establish the contours of a world government.

They act as creditors of the US State. They evaluate the creditworthiness of the US government, they rank the public debt through Moody's and Standard and Poor. They control the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve Board and the US Congress. They oversee and dictate fiscal and monetary policy, ENSURING THAT THE STATE ACTS IN THEIR INTEREST.

People across the land, nationally and internationally must mobilize. This struggle to democratise the financial and fiscal apparatus must be broad-based and democratic encompassing all sectors of society at all levels, in all countries. What is ultimately required is to disarm the financial establishment

America's Fiscal Collapse

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, March 2, 2009

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

�We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger" ( President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address 24 Feb 2009)

"Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account�to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day�because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government." President Barack Obama, A New Era of Responsibility, the 2010 Budget)

"Strong economic medicine" with a "human face"

�Promise amid peril.� The stated priorities of the Obama economic package are health, education, renewable energy, investment in infrastructure and transportation. "Quality education" is at the forefront. Obama has also promised to "make health care more affordable and accessible", for every American.

At first sight, the budget proposal has all the appearances of an expansionary program, a demand oriented "Second New Deal" geared towards creating employment, rebuilding shattered social programs and reviving the real economy.

Obama's promise is based on a mammoth austerity program. The entire fiscal structure is shattered, turned upside down.

To reach these stated objectives, a significant hike in public spending on social programs (health, education, housing, social security) would be required as well as the implementation of a large scale public investment program. Major shifts in the composition of public expenditure would also be required: i.e. a move out of a war economy, requiring a movement out of military related spending in favour of civilian programs.

In actuality, what we are dealing with is the most drastic curtailment in public spending in American history, leading to social havoc and the potential impoverishment of millions of people.

The Obama promise largely serves the interests of Wall Street, the defence contractors and the oil conglomerates. In turn, the Bush-Obama bank "bailouts" are leading America into a spiralling public debt crisis. The economic and social dislocations are potentially devastating.

Obama's budget submitted to Congress on February 26, 2009 envisages outlays for the 2010 fiscal year (commencing October 1st 2009) of $3.94 trillion, an increase of 32 percent. Total government revenues for the 2010 fiscal year, according to preliminary estimates by the Bureau of Budget, are of the order of $2.381 trillion.

The predicted budget deficit (according to the president's speech) is of the order of $1.75 trillion, almost 12 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product.

War and Wall Street

This is a "War Budget". The austerity measures hit all major federal spending programs with the exception of: 1. Defence and the Middle East War: 2. the Wall Street bank bailout, 3. Interest payments on a staggering public debt.

The budget diverts tax revenues into financing the war. It legitimizes the fraudulent transfers of tax dollars to the financial elites under the "bank bailouts".

The pattern of deficit spending is not expansionary. We are not dealing with a Keynesian style deficit, which stimulates investment and consumer demand, leading to an expansion of production and employment.

The "bank bailouts" (involving several initiatives financed by tax dollars) constitute a component of government expenditure. Both the Bush and Obama bank bailouts are hand outs to major financial institutions. They do not not constitute a positive spending injection into the real economy. Quite the opposite. The bailouts contribute to financing the restructuring of the banking system leading to a massive concentration of wealth and centralization of banking power.

A large part of the bailout money granted by the Us government will be transferred electronically to various affiliated accounts including the hedge funds. The largest banks in the US will also use this windfall cash to buy out their weaker competitors, thereby consolidating their position. The tendency, therefore, is towards a new wave of corporate buyouts, mergers and acquisitions in the financial services industry.

In turn, the financial elites will use these large amounts of liquid assets (paper wealth), together with the hundreds of billions acquired through speculative trade, will be used to buy out real economy corporations (airlines, the automobile industry, Telecoms, media, etc ), whose quoted value on the stock markets has tumbled.

In essence, a budget deficit ( combined with massive cuts in social programs) is required to fund the handouts to the banks as well as finance defence spending and the military surge in the Middle East war. Obama's budget envisages:

1. defense spending of $534 billion for 2010, a supplemental 130 billion dollar appropriation for fiscal 2010 for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a supplemental $75.5 billion emergency war funding for the rest of the 2009 fiscal year. Defence spending and the Middle East war, with various supplemental budgets, is (officially) of the order of 739.5 billion. Some estimates place aggregate defence and military related spending at $ 1 trillion+.

2. A bank bailout of the order of $750 billion announced by Obama, which is added on to the 700 billion dollar bailout money already allocated by the outgoing Bush administration under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). The total of both programs is a staggering 1.45 trillion dollars to be financed by the Treasury. It should be understood that the actual amount of cash financial "aid" to the banks is significantly larger than $1.45 trillion. (See Table 2 below).

3. Net Interest on the outstanding public debt is estimated by the Bureau of the Budget) at $164 billion in 2010.

The order of magnitude of these allocations is staggering. Under a "balanced budget" criterion --which has been a priority of government economic policy since the Reagan era--, almost all the revenues of the federal government amounting to $2.381 trillion would be used to finance the bank bailout (1.45 trillion), the war ($739 billion) and interest payments on the public debt ($164 billion). In other words, no money would be left over for other categories of public expenditure.

TABLE 1 Budgetary allocations to Defence (FY 2009 and 2010), the Bank Bailout and Net Interests on the Public Debt (FY 2010)

$ Billions

Defence including Supplementary allocations; $534 billion (FY 2010), $130 billion supplemental (FY 2010), $75.5 billion emergency funding (FY2009)
739.5
*Bank bailout (TARP plus Obama) 1450.0
Net Interest 164.0
TOTAL 2353.5
Total Individual (Federal) Income Tax Revenues (FY 2010) 1061.0
Total Federal Government Revenue (FY 2010) 2381.0

Source: Bureau of the Budget and official statements. See A New Era of Responsibility: The 2010 Budget
See also Office of Management and Budget

* The officially announced bank bailouts to be financed from Treasury Funds. The timing of disbursements could take place over more than one fiscal years fiscal years. The actual value of bank bailout cash injections is substantially higher.

The Budget Deficit

These three categories of expenditure (Defence, Bank Bailout and Interest on the Public Debt) would virtually swallow up the entire 2010 federal government revenue of 2381.0. billion dollars

Moreover, as a basis of comparison, all the revenue accruing from individual federal income taxes ($1.061 trillion), (FY 2010) namely all the money households across America pay in the form of federal taxes, will not suffice to finance the handouts to the banks, which officially are of the order of 1.45 trillion. This amount includes the $ 700 billion (granted during FY 2009) under the TARP program plus the proposed $ 750 billion granted by the Obama administration.

While TARP and Obama's proposed bailout are to be disbursed over Fy 2009 and 2010, they nonetheless represent almost half of total government expenditure ( half of Obama's $3.94 trillion budget for fiscal 2010), which is financed by regular sources of revenue ($2381 billion) plus a staggering $1.75 trillion budget deficit, which ultimately requires the issuing of Treasury Bills and government bonds.

The feasibility of a large short-term expansion of the public debt at a time of crisis is yet another matter, particularly with interest rates at abysmally low levels.

The budget deficit is of the order of 1.75 trillion. Obama acknowledges a 1.3 trillion-dollar budget deficit, inherited from the Bush administration. In actuality, the budget deficit is much larger .

The official figures tend to underestimate the seriousness of the budgetary predicament. The $1.75 trillion dollar budget deficit figure is questionable because the various amounts disbursed under TARP and other related bank bailouts including Obama's announced $750 billion aid program to financial institutions are not acknowledged in the government's expenditure accounts.

"The aid hasn�t been requested formally, but appears in a line item �for potential additional financial stabilization efforts,� according to the budget overview. The budget office calculated a $250 billion net cost to taxpayers this year, because it anticipates it would eventually recoup some, though not all, of the money expended to help financial companies.

The funds would come on top of the $700 billion rescue package approved last October by Congress. The White House budgets no money for fiscal 2010 and beyond for such aid." (Bloomberg, February 27, 2010)

Fiscal Collapse

A major crisis of the federal fiscal structure is occurring. The multibillion dollar allocations to the War Budget and to the Wall Street Bank Bailout program backlash on all other categories of public expenditure.

The Bush administration's $ 700 billion bailout under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was approved by Congress in October. TARP is but the tip of the iceberg. A panoply of bailout allocations in addition to the $ 700 billion were decided upon prior to Obama assuming office. In November, the federal government's bank rescue program was estimated at a staggering 8.5 trillion dollars, an amount equivalent to more than 50% of the US public debt estimated at 14 trillion (2007). (See table 2 below)

Meanwhile, under the Obama budget proposal, 634 billion dollars are allocated to a reserve fund to finance universal health care. At first sight, it appears to be a large amount. But it is to be spent over a ten year period, -- i.e. a modest annual commitment of 63.4 billion.

Public spending will be slashed with a view to curtailing a spiralling budget deficit. Health and education programs will not only remain heavily underfunded, they will be slashed, revamped and privatized. The likely outcome is the outright privatization of public services and the sale of State assets including public infrastructure, urban services, highways, national parks, etc. Fiscal collapse leads to the privatization of the State.

The fiscal crisis is further exacerbated by the compression of tax revenues resulting from decline of the real economy. Unemployed workers do not pay pay taxes nor do bankrupt firms. The process is cumulative. The solution to the fiscal crisis becomes the cause of further collapse.

Structure of The Public Debt

This large scale appropriation of liquid money assets under the bank bailouts by a handful of financial institutions serves to increase the public debt overnight.

When the US Treasury allocates 700 billion dollars to the Troubled Assets Relief Program, this amount constitutes a budgetary outlay which inevitably must be financed from within the structure of government revenues and expenditures.

Unless all other categories of public expenditure including health, education and social services are slashed, the various outlays under the bank bailout will require running a massive budget deficit which in turn will increase the US public debt.

America is the most indebted country on earth. The US (federal government) public debt is currently of the order of $14 trillion. This does not include mounting public debts at the state and municipal levels.

This US dollar denominated (federal) debt is composed of outstanding treasury bills and government bonds. The public debt, also called "the national debt" is the amount of money owed by the federal government to holders of U.S. debt instruments.

US debt instruments are held by American residents as part of their savings portfolio, companies and financial institutions, US government agencies, foreign governments, individuals in foreign countries. but does not include intergovernmental debt obligations or debt held in the Social Security Trust Fund. Types of securities held by the public include, but are not limited to, Treasury Bills, Notes, Bonds, TIPS, United States Savings Bonds, and State and Local Government Series securities.

The proposed solution becomes the cause of the crisis. The 700 billion bailout under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) combined with the proposed Obama $750 billion aid to financial services industry is but the tip of the iceberg. A panoply of bailout allocations in addition to the 700 billion have been decided upon.

Table 2

The Bush Administration's " Bank Bailout"

The government's bank rescue program under the Bush administration was estimated at a staggering 8.5 trillion dollars, an amount equivalent to 60% of the Total Gross Federal debt of 14.078 trillion (2010) (See Table 2 above). This amount does not include the "aid" to financial institutions proposed by the Obama administration, including an additional 750 billion dollars in Obama's February 2009 budget proposal. The size of these allocations of liquid assets endangers the very structures of the fiscal and monetary system.

The total of Bush bank bailouts (8.5 trillion) can be broken down into funds granted by the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Housing Authority.

The handouts to the financial institutions financed out of Treasury are government expenditures, to be met either through tax revenues or through the emission of public debt instruments.

The disbursements under TARP are categorized by the Bureau of the Budget as part of "a mandatory program" under an Act of the US Congress.. The Treasury's liability, which includes the controversial Troubled Assets Relief Program, was estimated in November 2008 at 1.1 trillion dollars. (See Table 2) Further Treasury allocations, which serve to heighten the burden of the public debt have been envisaged by the Obama administration

Spiralling Public Debt Crisis

Is the Treasury in a position to finance this mounting budget deficit officially tagged at 1.75 billion through the emission of Treasury bills and government bonds?

The largest budget deficit in US history coupled with the lowest interest rates in US history: With the Fed's " near zero" percent discount rate, the markets for US dollar denominated government bonds and Treasury bills are in straightjacket. Moreover, the essential functions of savings (which is central to the functioning of a national economy) is in crisis. .

Who wants to invest in US government debt? What is the demand for Treasury bills at exceedingly low interest rates?

Table 3 Interest Rates in Percent
Treasury securities Updated 2/25/2009
This week Month ago Year ago
One-Year Treasury Constant Maturity 0.64 0.43 2.10
91-day T-bill auction avg disc rate 0.300 0.150 2.160
182-day T-bill auction avg disc rate 0.495 0.350 2.070
Two-Year Treasury Constant Maturity 0.95 0.77 2.04
Five-Year Treasury Constant Maturity 1.79 1.58 2.89
Ten-Year Treasury Constant Maturity 2.75 2.56 3.85
One-Year MTA 1.633 1.823 4.326
One-Year CMT (Monthly) 0.44 0.49 2.71

Source Bankrate.com

The market for US dollar denominated debt instruments is potentially at a standstill, which means that the Treasury lacks the ability to finance its mammoth budget deficit through public debt operations, leading the entire budgetary process into a quandary.

The question is whether China and Japan will continue to purchase US dollar denominated debt instruments. Washington is running a public relations campaign to lure Asian investors into buying T-bills and US government bonds. .

With the markets for US dollar denominated debt (both domestically and internationally) in crisis, further pressure will be exerted on the Treasury to slash (civilian) public expenditure to the bone, exact user fees for public services and sell off public assets, including State infrastructure and institutions. In all likelihood, this crisis is leading us to the privatization of the State, where activities hitherto under government jurisdiction will be transferred into private hands.

Who will be buying State assets at rock bottom prices? The financial elites, which are also the recipients of the bank bailout.

Consolidation of the Banks

A massive amount of liquidity has been injected into the financial system, from the bailouts but also from pension funds, individual savings, etc.

The stated objective of the bank bailout programs is to alleviate the banks' burden of bad debts and non-performing loans. In actuality what is happening is that these massive amounts of money are being used by a handful of institutions to consolidate their position in global banking.

The exposure of the banks, largely the result of derivative trade is estimated in the tens of trillions of dollars, to the extent that the amounts and guarantees granted by the Treasury and the Fed will not resolve the crisis. Nor are they intended to resolve the crisis.

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA SUGGESTS THAT THE BANKS ARE BEING NATIONALIZED AS A RESULT OF TARP, IN FACT, IT IS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE: THE STATE IS BEING TAKEN OVER BY THE BANKS, THE STATE IS BEING PRIVATIZED. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A WORLDWIDE UNIPOLAR FINANCIAL SYSTEM IS PART OF THE BROADER PROJECT OF THE WALL STREET FINANCIAL ELITES TO ESTABLISH THE CONTOURS OF A WORLD GOVERNMENT.

In a bitter irony, the recipients of the bailout under TARP and Obama's proposed 750 billion aid to financial institutions are the creditors of the federal government. The Wall Street banks are the brokers and underwriters of the US public debt, although they hold only a portion of the debt, they transact and trade in US dollar denominated public debt instruments Worldwide.

THEY ACT AS CREDITORS OF THE US STATE. THEY EVALUATE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE US GOVERNMENT, THEY RANK THE PUBLIC DEBT THROUGH MOODY'S AND STANDARD AND POOR. THEY CONTROL THE US TREASURY, THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD AND THE US CONGRESS. THEY OVERSEE AND DICTATE FISCAL AND MONETARY POLICY, ENSURING THAT THE STATE ACTS IN THEIR INTEREST.

Since the Reagan era, Wall Street dominates most areas of economic and social policy. It sets the budgetary agenda, ensuring the curtailment of social expenditures. Wall Street preaches balanced budgets but the practice has been lobbying for the elimination of corporate taxes, the granting of handouts to corporations, tax write-offs in mergers and acquisitions etc, all of which lead to a spiralling public debt.

Circular and Contradictory Relationship

The Federal Reserve system is a privately owned central bank. While the Federal Reserve Board is a government body, the process of money creation is controlled by the 12 Federal Reserve Banks, which are privately owned.

The shareholders of the Federal Reserve banks (with the New York Federal Reserve Bank playing a dominant role) are among America's most powerful financial institutions.

While the Federal Reserve can create money "out of thin air", the multibillion outlays of the Treasury (including the TARP program) will require the emission of public debt in the form of treasury bills and government bonds.

US financial institutions oversee the US public debt. They are involved in the sale of treasury bills and government bonds on financial markets in the US and around the World. But they also hold part of the public debt. In this regard, they are the creditors of the US government. Part of this increased public debt required to rescue the banks will be financed or brokered by the same financial institutions which are the object of the bank rescue plan.

We are dealing with a pernicious circular relationship. When the banks pressured the Treasury to assist them in the form of a major bank rescue operation, it was understood from the outset that the banks would in turn assist the Treasury in financing the handouts of which they are the recipients.

To finance the bank bailout, the Treasury needs to run a massive budget deficit, which in turn requires a staggering increase of the US public debt.

Public opinion has been misled. The US government is in a sense financing its own indebtedness: the money granted to the banks is in part financed by borrowing from the banks.

The banks lend money to the government and with the money they lend the government, the Treasury finances the bailout. In turn, the banks impose conditionalities on the management of the US public debt. They dictate how the money should be spent. They impose fiscal responsibility, they dictate massive cuts in social expenditures which result in the collapse and/or privatization of public services. They impose the privatization of urban infrastructure, roads, sewer and water systems, public recreational areas, everything is up for privatization.

The recipient banks are the beneficiaries as well as the creditors. As creditors, they will oblige the government a) to slash expenditures b) to run up the public debt through the issuing of treasury bills and government bonds.

This public debt crisis is all the more serious because the US federal government does not control monetary policy. All public debt operations go through the Federal reserve, which is in charge of monetary policy, acting on behalf of private financial interests. The government as such has no authority over money creation. This means that public debt operations essentially serve the interests of the banks.

Continuity from Bush to Obama

The Obama stimulus program constitutes a continuation of the Bush administration's bank bailout packages. The proposed policy solution to the crisis becomes the cause, ultimately resulting in further real economy bankruptcies and a corresponding collapse of the standard of living of Americans.

Both the Bush and Obama bank bailouts are intended to come to the rescue of troubled financial institutions, to ensure the payment of "inter-bank" debt operations. In practice, large amounts of money transit through the banking system, from the banks to the hedge funds, to offshore banking havens and back to the banks.

The government and the media tend to focus on the ambiguous notion of " inter-bank debts". The identity of the creditors is rarely mentioned.

Multi-billion dollar transfers are conducted electronically from one financial entity to another. Where is the money going? Who is collecting these multibillion debts, which are in large part the consequence of financial manipulation and derivative trade?

There are indications that the financial institutions are transferring billions of dollars into their affiliated hedge funds. From these hedge funds they can then channel money capital towards the acquisition of real assets.

Through what circuitous financial mechanisms were these debts created? Where is the bailout money going? Who is cashing in on the multibillion dollar government bailout money? This process is contributing to an unprecedented concentration of private wealth.

Concluding Remarks

Financial manipulation is an integral part of the New World Order. It constitutes a powerful means to accumulate wealth.

Under the present political arrangement, those responsible for monetary policy are quite deliberately serving the interests of the financiers, to the detriment of working people, leading to economic dislocation, unemployment and mass poverty.

This article has focussed on how financial manipulation has served to shatter the structure of US public expenditure.

This restructuring of global financial markets and institutions (alongside the pillage of national economies) has enabled the accumulation of vast amounts of private wealth � a large portion of which has been amassed as a result of strictly speculative transactions.

This critical drain of billions of dollars of household savings and state tax revenues paralyses the functions of government spending and spurs the accumulation of a public debt, which can no longer be be financed through the emission of US dollar denominated debt.

What we are dealing with is the fraudulent transfer and confiscation of lifelong savings and pension funds, the fraudulent appropriation of tax revenues to finance the bank bailouts, etc. To understand what has happened: follow the money trail of electronic transfers with a view to establishing where the money has gone

The monetary system, which is integrated into the State budgetary process has been destabilized. The fundamental relationship between the monetary system and the real economy is in crisis.

The creation of money "out of thin air" threatens the value of the US dollar as an international currency. Similarly, the financing of a mammoth US budget deficit through dollar denominated debt instruments is impaired as a result of exceedingly low interest rates. Moreover, the process of household savings is undermined with interest rates close to zero.

What we have dealt with in this article is one central aspect of an evolving process of global financial collapse.

The international payments system is in crisis. The economic prospects are terrifying. Bankruptcies in the US, Canada, the European Union are occurring at an alarming rate. Country level exports have collapsed, leading to a contraction of international trade Reports from the Asian economies indicate a massive increase in unemployment. In China's Pearl River basin in Southern Guangdong province's industrial export processing economy, some 700,000 were laid off in January. In Japan, industrial output has collapsed by more than 20 percent since December. In the Philippines, a country of 90 million people, exports collapsed by more than 40 percent in December.

Financial Disarmament

There are no solutions under the prevailing global financial architecture. Meaningful policies cannot be achieved without radically reforming the workings of the international banking system.

What is required is an overhaul of the monetary system including the functions and ownership of the central bank, the arrest and prosecution of those involved in financial fraud both in the financial system and in governmental agencies, the freeze of all accounts where fraudulent transfers have been deposited, the cancellation of debts resulting from fraudulent trade and/or market manipulation.

People across the land, nationally and internationally must mobilize. This struggle to democratise the financial and fiscal apparatus must be broad-based and democratic encompassing all sectors of society at all levels, in all countries. What is ultimately required is to disarm the financial establishment:

-confiscate those assets which were obtained through fraud and financial manipulation.

-restore the savings of households through reverse transfers

-return the bailout money to the Treasury, freeze the activities of the hedge funds. .

- freeze the gamut of speculative transactions including short-selling and derivative trade.

ANNEX

Documents

Budget of the United States Government

Fiscal Year 2010 The Budget Documents

A New Era of Responsibility: The 2010 Budget

The tables contained in Annex can also be consulted by clicking:

Summary Tables

See also:

http://www.budget.gov

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf

The Economic Depression was predicted in this 2002 best-seller

The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order

by Michel Chossudovsky

In this new and expanded edition of Chossudovsky�s international best-seller, the author outlines the contours of a New World Order which feeds on human poverty and the destruction of the environment, generates social apartheid, encourages racism and ethnic strife and undermines the rights of women. The result as his detailed examples from all parts of the world show so convincingly, is a globalization of poverty.

This book is a skillful combination of lucid explanation and cogently argued critique of the fundamental directions in which our world is moving financially and economically.

In this new enlarged edition �which includes ten new chapters and a new introduction-- the author reviews the causes and consequences of famine in Sub-Saharan Africa, the dramatic meltdown of financial markets, the demise of State social programs and the devastation resulting from corporate downsizing and trade liberalisation.

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.6/1981 - Release Date: 3/3/09 7:25 AM

#818

From: "Mit" <seizeliberty@...>
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:19 am
Subject: An Urgent Request

seizeliberty...

Offline

Hour 1 http://216.240.133.177/archives32/Hertz/2008/10/Hertz_1_100208_110000.mp3 ,)

An Urgent Request

An urgent request for those who have come to know of our ordeal- I emplore you to come together and unite on our behalf against the tyrannical entities set towards our destruction. This is a call for us to unite.

Hi Mit, hello Jim, hi Paul-hello Lesley- Hello Mr Tasse- I don't know if any of you know each other but Mit-Jim Stach is from FreedomfighterRadio.net and has helped propagate awareness of our plight further via proxy bulletin on Freedomsphoenix.com and has been gracious enough to host several interviews with me as guest. Mit Etagniw is a former broadcaster with Republic Broadcasting network, and hosts a site called Freedomshinnanigans.com and has also been extremely helpful, once interviewing me while police were still outside my door during an attempted kidnapping! http://www.gabcast.com/casts/3452/episodes/1215289263.mp3

Paul Verge has been enormously helpful patiently taking the time to unravel the convoluted intricacies of our plight and their ploys and has extended graciously and plentifully of his time and energy, hosting us on his radio broadcast and speaking to others about our plight; Moreover, he has been in the circles of some very high profile figures and done interview with those so noted as David Ike while loosley connected with such notable public figures as Cynthia McKinney (former congressman)

Lesley Hughes has steadfastly supported us as journalist and friend, following the repeated afflictions upon us and now witness to the collusion corruption and wrote judicial breaches of law being committed towards our harm in the Manitoba law Courts as recently as Jan 18/09. Her presence at the Public Safety Buidling Oct 27/07 surely lended heavily to preventing what would assuredly have entailed my kidnapping and torture. Canada's involvement in the kidnapping and torture of Maher Arar, Scott Loper , John Graham, Gary Freeman set vice grip precident underscoring the likelyhood of just that thing.

Michelle Gross has petitioned heavily on our behalf as head of the Minneapolis based Communities United Against Police Brutality. Having witnessed and at times been subject to the tyranny and brutality of the Minneapolis Police force, and having carefully researched the nuances of our ordeal, she has provided corroborative voucher and attest to the accuracy of our account of the attacks upon us. http://advocacymgrosscuapb.blogspot.com/

While Roch Tasse, head of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, has written to the Public Interest Law Center, appealed on our behalf with the ACLU, and appealed to Penny Priddy parliamentary member and MP for Surrey B.C. North- valiantly yet unfortunately without response from a government clearly intent towards our perminent harm.

Winnipeg City Councilor Harvey Smith (hsmith(at)winnipeg(dot)ca has stated quite correctly that he is the only city councilor to stand up to the Winnipeg Police- and he had challenged them on our behalf-so what did they do- city council passed legislation this year making it illegal for him to help us by making it illegal for a city councilor to assist those outside of their riding- and councilor Smith's assistant stated that our case was a primary focus instumental towards that bilaw being passed!

Leon in Toronto has been extremely helpful in posting links on his company website for his Toronto game store, having first seen account of ordeal on the net almost 1 year prior and having contacted me by email thereafter. His level of awareness and

conscientiousness concerning issues of injustice and covert state tyranny have provided a common ground for me to vent frustrations and emotion over the indifference of the masses to our ordeal despite the fact that it is representative of mass tyranny culminating slowly upon those same masses.

Finally, Joshua Antonelli of the police abuse complaint centre at PoliceAbuse.com as per referral Jim Stach of freedomfighterradio.net, has been extremely receptive to our concerns and we look forward to dealing with their centre as an instrument of justice amidst the sea of injustice in which we are now cast.
Jim and Gianni Hayes ( Gianni Hayes giannihayes@...
info@..., info@...) have done interview together and Gianni has has a post on Republic Broadcasting This is where the lineage and cross over lies: Republic BroadcastingNetwork . (She also has a position with TheAmericanVoice.com . )

Jim had suggested he might refer me to her and I have since sent her the email below (a detailed press release giving most of the updated nuances of the state terror afflictions upon us)
I am still waiting to here back from her. Our lives are in danger, we no longer have an attorney (read the email) and we VERY MUCH NEED THE PUBLICITY EXPOSURE ON HER BROADCAST WOULD BRING. I see announcements for her broadcasts as spam in my in box every day- we MUST make use of this resource. The court is closing in upon us towards my kidnapping at this point via wrote denial of breach of law towards the occlusion of our stolent possessions with an aim to abcution and the use thereafter of this intellectual property against me in a covert tribunal- my second and my LAST.

I have tried petitioning THEAMERICANVOICE of my own accord Call in LIVE at 1-800-433-1429

Phone:541-826-9050 Fax:810-885-1842 and have spoken to a representative twice now, but have recieved no return of interest!

Some help with TheAmericanVoice and Gianni Hayes would be very much appreciated at this time.

It seems strange- I have done interviews with Charles Guiliani and spoken directly to Vincent Bugliosi an international figure during one of these sessions ("Charles talks with Vincent Bugliosi about indicting Bush for murder, and then he is joined by Aaron James and Ted Pike for the second hour."

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2008 Charles Guiliani Republic Broadcasting
MP3 Files:

and yet OUR story is still in occlusion from the masses while tyranny closes in behind closed doors! We need assistance in referral very badly- I hope any of you would be able to be of assistance.

MORE HERE

#817

From: T <eagle@...>
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2009 2:54 pm
Subject: foreclosure

q1eagle

Offline

http://fightaforeclosure.com/


For those of you who are facing foreclosure, this is NOT another "We will buy
your home scam." In fact, this site offers only information. What YOU do with
the information hereon posted is your own choice. If you are fighting a
foreclosure, worried about the fraud in the system of foreclosure, or wondering
why public officials appear to only be concerned about the rights of the banks,
you are encouraged to read on. It is written that "the truth shall make you
free", but take it from the author of this site, The truth will first make you
angry.



******DISCLAIMER: THIS SITE IS ABSENT LEGAL ADVICE, AND IF YOU NEED LEGAL
ADVICE, YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN. THIS SITE DOES NOT RECOMMEND YOU GO TO A LAWYER,
BUT THAT YOU LEARN THE TRUTH YOURSELF, AND USE IT ACCORDINGLY.******


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.19/1941 - Release Date: 2/9/09 6:50 AM

#816

From: T <eagle@...>
Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 8:01 pm
Subject: Economic Calamity ahead

q1eagle

Offline

At 01:50 PM 2/4/09, Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd wrote:

I question why the elite are talking though Lindsey Williams, but unfortunately I can't argue with most of the information provided.
Prudhoe Bay has more oil that Saudi Arabia ever had. The "elite" don't want it out that "Gull Island" is probably the single largest oil pool in the world not to mention Franklin Bluffs oil. I have been on Gull Island in 1984 and was cautioned not to talk about it or ask questions concerning the amount of oil on this island if I wanted to continue working at Prudhoe Bay, which is located about 2-3 miles in the Arctic Ocean from East Dock. It would be a simple issue to add a pipeline to connect Gull Island to the existing Alyeska Pipeline getting the volume back up the maximum of I think is about 2 million barrels per day, but not if you want to control America and bring it to its knees also.
The Legislature of Alaska stands quiet on this issue. Why? Threatened or just plain Traitors. I vote for Traitors.
Talk Show Hosts in Alaska will not address this issue with real facts. Why?
The Bakken Field Oil Shale has 6-7 times the amount of oil of Saudi Arabia and Congress does nothing. Congress is but a den of Vipers and Traitors.
Is this such a complex issue that Congress and the Legislature of Alaska can't determine that America should immediately become self sufficient and quit sending dollars offshore to the enemies of our Republic. Traitors the whole lot with a very few exceptions.

Ralph

Pastor Lindsey Williams Details "Economic Calamity" Ahead

January 16, 2009

(This is a summary by "Tom" of a recent interview of Williams by Gianni Hayes)

Dear Friends and Family:

       For some years now, I have been saying that the "money changers" and "banksters" in London and New York are setting us up. They're playing a money game in which all of the marbles are on the table.. It seems that this game is now in the bottom of the Ninth inning. Tonight I listened to the Reverend Lindsey Williams on American Voice Radio, hosted by Ms. Gianni Hayes. Some people will recognize his name, some won't. I am not going to go into a lengthy bio. You will have to do that research yourself, assuming you even have an interest. I wЩ��5��lZb ill only mention that he is the man who, because of his contacts in the oil industry, correctly predicted that the world price for oil would fall from roughly $140.00 per barrel to less than $50.00 per barrel.    He claims to be well connected to what he calls "the power elite," and I firmly believe that he is telling the truth. But, what he calls the power elite is just one level of corporate America. He interacted with the high paid servants of the oil industry. That would be the executives of ARCO and other big oil companies when he served as chaplain for the Alaska pipeline. He knows and admits that the "real power" is much further up the food chain. Bottom line? Personally, as far as I am concerned, Reverend Williams character and credibility are unimpeachable. I think it is very important to pay attention to what he has to say.

   After two hours of interview I had four legal pages of notes.   I am going to relate as best I can the highlights of that interview. Some of you will get duplications because some of you are on more than one of my mailing lists. Please understand. I consider this matter to be extremely important!

   This will be rough, since it will be stream of consciousness, right off of my note pad. But it is the message that is important and not the delivery.

       1.   The reason why the "elite" dropped the world price of oil down below $50.00 a barrel was to wage economic warfare against the Arab/ OPEC countries.   "They" seek to bankrupt OPEC countries., especially the Iranians by cutting their revenues more than 75%. (Do you think that is why Mr. Chavez is so belligerent towards the USA?) Why would they do that?   Because Iran and the other OPEC states are getting too strong and too wealthy.   The Iranians are running an oil bourse, that effectively sidesteps the oil markets of New York and London. (My note. Even worse they are trading oil not for dollars but for other currencies such as the Euro. This is a direct threat to the western banking system.) According to Williams, this will not be allowed to continue. This is about control!! "What is happening today has been planned for years and there are other more nefarious motives, which will be outlined below.

       2..    The world reserve currency is the dollar and dollar denominated assets such as U.S. Treasury Debt. The Arabs have been recycling their petro dollars into U.S. Treasury debt for thirty five years.   (My comment. The Arabs/OPEC have been financing our national debt. This is per agreement with the New York Banking establishment, and the U.S. Treasury. This arrangement has been part of the world order since the collapse of the Bretton Wood Agreement in 1971. This is now coming to an end.) Now that they are being bankrupted (intentionally) the OPEC/Arab states are no longer willing or able to buy Treasury Debt. Hence, the interest on the National Debt (which now exceeds 15 Trillion dollars?) is not being financed by foreign creditors. China, India and other Asian states are doing the same thing. "They are running from dollar denominated assets." Therefore, the Federal Reserve is now buying up all the Treasury Debt issued by the U.Щ��5��lZb S. Treasury to cover the debt maintenance on the national debt. (My Comment: this is called monetization and it is highly inflationary.) (My note: to put this in perspective, the so-called bailout, which was really nothing but a heist without the guns, in the amount of 700 billion dollars, was actually in the amount of 8.5 trillion dollars. All of this sum represents more debt "created" by the Federal Reserve which is then added to the National Debt. In addition to being extremely inflationary, we will be paying interest ("tribute?") on this debt to the banksters in perpetuity.)

        3.    Gold and Oil generally move in tandem i.e., when oil goes up, so does gold.   This has not been the case since the oil market collapsed. Gold has shown huge relative strength to the price of oil.   Because of intense world wide demand and speculation the relationship between gold and oil will no longer continue. Gold will now move independently of oil.

        4.    This year, 2009, the USA will face total financial collapse. The dollar will also collapse in value, and it will take years for the U.S.A. to recover.

        5.     OPEC has been cutting production steadily but they cannot influence the supply of oil enough to affect the world price.

        6.      Ms. Hayes tried to get pastor Lindsey to point the finger at a particular ethnic group.   HeЩ��5��lZb would not do so, but much to his credit he said that the Papacy and the Jesuits had nothing to do with what was going on.

         7.     He said we have more than enough oil in the USA for our own needs, but the so-called "elite" as he calls them have no intention of EVER developing a major oil field in the continental U.S. or Alaska. "They" will not allow this country to become energy independent, and they intend to continue to keep us dependent on foreign oil sources. (My note: Dependency is another world for control.)   Later he mentioned the field just disclosed by the USGS which is located in Montana and N. Dakota. (This I believe is the Bakken Field.) He said that it contains 320 billion barrels which is only 10% of the reserves. This oil is worth about 15 trillion dollars. (My note: in others words the 300 BB is the easy oil. It's the oil that will flow out of the ground under its own pressure. That means total reserves of this one field using secondary and tertiary recovery techniques are probably near three trillion barrels. To put that in perspective the Saudis have reserves of about 260 Billion barrels.) One of the senators from Montana has been screaming about this to Congress. He has been totally ignored by both Congress and the media.

         8.     Regarding Obama. "It did not matter who won the election." The handlers around Obama are, for the most part, members of the Council on Foreign Relations. "The elite." "The globalists." They are essentially the same people who ran the Clinton administration and both Bush Administrations.   "There will be absolutely no change in either our domestic or foreign policy. (My note: the people who have looted this Щ��5��lZb country will continue to loot this country.) Regarding economic policies "Obama" will be another Hoover." In other words Obama will follow orders and will take the fall for the economic calamity that is about to unfold. (My note: Obama is another feckless, empty suit, who was selected, trained, groomed, packaged and sold to a gullible, naive and lazy American public.)

         9.      Because of the tremendous cut in revenue to the Arab states (75%.) Dubai will become a "wasteland." Already they have suspended all construction on major buildings in Dubai. "There will be no change in the future. "

        10.     All of the Arab states are sliding into a depression. Their budget planning is based upon $80.00 oil, so they are cutting their expenditures dramatically----especially infrastructure and public works.

        11.     In addition to no longer buying our treasury debt, the Arab/OPEC states are now actively selling what treasury debt they hold. This is also occurring throughout Asia, especially China. This of course amounts to Trillions of dollars of Treasury debt etc. (My Note: if the Fed is now monitizing these debt instruments, which they must surely do since they are the buyer of last resort, this will also be highly inflationary.) The Arabs/OPEC/Asia are converting their dollars and dollar denominated assets to gold and other hard assets.

         12.    The long term goal of "these people" is to control and own everything. "They intend to break us." (My comment: Geeeez. I am confused. Here, all along, I have been told by the media Щ��5��lZb that our enemies are in the Middle East.)

         13.    Gasoline will remain at approximately $1.50 per gallon for the next year to a year and half.   This is killing the State government gas tax revenues.   Total, state tax revenues are collapsing. Expect many states to go bankrupt----especially California.

         14.     "They" intend to control the world price of oil by dumping massive amounts of oil on the market to keep the price down. They intend to use, among other sources, an oil field in Indonesia that "they" just brought "on line." This field has reserves of more than 300 billion barrels.   He also mentioned another field in northern Russia.

          15.      The ultimate objective is to "destroy the USA."   At the same time "they" seek to consolidate control over all assets of any significance. "They" already own and control, the banks, and the media. (My note: Williams did not say, but obviously, they also control the oil industry.) "They" intend to gain control of the entire auto industry. According to Williams "why not buy the auto industry? All they need to do is create the credit in a computer entry." The takeover of the auto industry will happen when the time is right. They also seek control of all the real estate that is worth owning.   According to pastor Williams, everyone is going to be paying rent by the time this thing is over. Again he emphasized that "After years of collapse they intend to own everything."

           16.      Щ��5��lZb ;Russia is a major world power. Tensions will increase between the west and Russia. Look for a return of the cold war. (My note: he did not say it but I got the feeling that the Russians are not anxious to become part of the New World Order.   Of course this oil price suppression is really hurting the Russians. They have had to devalue the Ruble seven times.)

            17.     "There will be no attack on Iran. There will no war with Iran." "The American people will not stand for it." They intend to accomplish their goal of destroying Iran by economic means. "They will accomplish their goal of destroying Iran without the need of another 911 false flag operation."

            18.     "Within six to nine months we will be into full blown hyper inflation." "Buy everything you need right NOW!!!!"   "Prepare your dinner table NOW! It is going to be 1933 all over again."

            19.     "The nations of the world, especially China, are dumping U.S. currency and buying gold.

             20.     "The reason why it is getting so hard for people to buy gold is that "they" do not want people to be able to protect themselves." "They don't want people to have something that is REAL." (My note: it's hard to find any significant quantities of gold anywhere. Silver too!)

             21.     "They fear people buying gold because it is something "they" can NOT control. They feel that only they, the elite, should own gold.""They regard it as real money."

             22.      Their greatest fear is that the people will "wake up" from their slumber. "In fact they are terrified." They do noЩ��5��lZb t intend to impose martial law. They believe this would cause an armed revolution and that they do not want. Hmmmm. (I guess that is why the founders included the Second Amendment in the Constitution.)   "A revolution means they could lose control."

             23.      "The American people are terrified of Obama." "The day after the election the gun shops in the USA were emptied by alarmed and frightened citizens." "Wal Mart reported that the day after the election their sales of ammunition went up by 400%. It was a record for ammunition sales in a twenty four hour period. (My note: this continued for several weeks after the election.) Evidently this behavior caused a great deal of alarm.

             24.      "They" have given up on implementing the North American Union and are "going all the way." The goal is total global control of everything. Global Government. Global bank. Global Currency. Etc. (My note: this NWO globalism business has always included a global army, and a global religion. I am sure we will be hearing more about global religion from "Americas pastor," Rick Warren)

            Pastor Williams was asked what can we do? He made some suggestion which are not surprising. They are:

            1. Get your spiritual house in order. (My note: I totally agree with Rev. Williams. At the core, this struggle is spiritual in nature. It is also a war on human consciousness. And, It is about both controlling and breaking the human spirit. That can only happen if we allow iЩ��5��lZb t to happen. "They" need us to surrender our God given powers to them for them to accomplish their evil deeds. Think, think, think! People must learn to use the magnificent brain that God gave us.   Be skeptical of everything.   In the coming months accept nothing at face value. Investigate everything. To do that you will need to turn off the "electronic sewer" "they" call television. Better yet, throw the damn thing in the dump where it belongs.The electronic and print media are a wasteland designed to keep you distracted, misled, confused and misinformed.   You will NEVER discover anything of value watching boobokvision. Never!!!! Trust nobody until that person has EARNED your trust. And above all, question everything, especially if it comes from people in a position of authority. And, finally recognize that "the enemy" is within. The enemies of freedom are right here. Inside the gates.)

            2. Plant a garden.

            3. Get out of debt. He said debt is the main weapon of subversion and control used by "these people."   (My note. I totally agree with that remark unless all of your debt is unsecured and you own no real assets. Can't squeeze blood from a stone.)

            4. Store lotЩ��5��lZb s of food. "The farm economy is collapsing."

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1930 - Release Date: 2/2/09 7:51 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1930 - Release Date: 2/2/09 7:51 AM

#815

From: T <eagle@...>
Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 7:53 pm
Subject: Angry people across the EU are discovering the fine print in all the treaties signed by their leaders

q1eagle

Offline

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/janetdaley/4424125/Wildcat-oil-str\
ikes-Europeans-are-finally-waking-up-to-the-demise-of-democracy.html

Wildcat oil strikes: Europeans are finally waking up to the demise of democracy
Angry people across the EU are discovering the fine print in all the treaties
signed by their leaders, says Janet Daley.


The peoples of Europe have finally discovered what they signed up to. I do mean
"peoples" (plural) because however much political elites may deceive themselves,
the populations of the member states of the EU are culturally, historically and
economically separate and distinct. And a significant proportion of them are
getting very, very angry.

What the strikers at the Lindsey oil refinery (and their brother supporters in
Nottinghamshire and Kent) have discovered is the real meaning of the fine print
in those treaties, and the significance of those European court judgments whose
interpretation they left to EU obsessives: it is now illegal � illegal � for the
government of an EU country to put the needs and concerns of its own population
first. It would, for example, be against European law to do what Frank Field has
sensibly suggested and reintroduce a system of "work permits" for EU nationals
who wished to apply for jobs here.

Meanwhile, demonstrators in Paris and the recalcitrant electorate in Germany are
waking up to the consequences of what two generations of European ideologues
have thrust upon them: the burden not just of their own economic problems but
also the obligation to accept the consequences of their neighbours' debts and
failures. Each country is true to its own history in the way it expresses its
rage: in France, they take to the streets and throw things at the police, in
Germany they threaten the stability of the coalition government, and here, we
revive the tradition of wildcat strikes.

But the response from the EU political class is the same to all of these varied
manifestations of resistance. Those who protest are being smeared with
accusations of foolhardy protectionism or racist nationalism when they are not
(not yet, anyway) guilty of either. It is not purblind nationalism, let alone
racism, to resent the importation of cheap labour en masse when its conditions
of employment (transport and accommodation provided, as seems to be the case at
Lindsey) allow it to compete unfairly with indigenous workers. The drafting in
of low-wage work gangs has always been seen as unjust: exploitative of the
foreign workers, and destructive of the social cohesion of existing communities
which, incidentally, is something about which the Tories say they are much
exercised. So can the protesters expect their support?

The US had a rule during its great period of immigration in the early years of
the last century, that no one could enter the country with a pre-arranged job.
This was designed precisely to prevent the unfairness and disruptive effect of
the wholesale import of cheap labour. An individual travelling to seek work,
prepared to take his chances in fair competition with local workers is one
thing: the organised recruitment of people from the poorest regions of the
poorest countries in Europe in order to reduce employers' wage costs in the more
prosperous ones, is something else altogether.

Nor is it "protectionism" to argue that competition for employment should take
place within a context of social responsibility and respect for the fabric of
communities. Genuine protectionism is setting up barriers to free trade: this is
what Barack Obama is doing when he forbids the importation of foreign materials
such as British steel, and urges his countrymen to restrict their purchases of
goods not manufactured in the US ("Buy America!") I eagerly await the
condemnation of his proposal for US economic isolationism from all those
European leaders who were so anxious to see him elected.

Free trade in goods, as opposed to unlimited open borders for transient labour,
is absolutely essential to the recovery of the global economy (and for that
matter, to the relief of poverty in the developing world). I agree with those
who fear that the US under President Obama may be about to do what it did under
Franklin Roosevelt, whose protectionism and hard-nosed refusal to make
concessions to international needs condemned the world to a depression (followed
by a war). But what the British strikers are demanding is not the same at all,
and if their complaints are caricatured or defamed, the price in social disorder
could be hideous. It is not an exaggeration to say that this could be the moment
of justifiable anger that neo-fascist agitators have been waiting to exploit.

The protesters are simply demanding what they thought � what all free people
have been taught to think since the 18th-century enlightenment � was their
birthright. That is to say, for the basic principle of modern democracy: the
understanding between the state and its people that the proper function of a
government is to represent the interests of those who elected it. And to be fair
to both presidents, Obama and Roosevelt, this assumption is so deeply grounded
in the American psyche that it is almost inconceivable for any US administration
not to abide by it quite literally.

In the grand abstract terms of the enlightenment, the legitimacy of government
derives from the consent of the governed, and therefore no government should
have the right to hand over its authority to some external body which is not
democratically accountable to its own people. So when the framers of the EU
arranged for the nations of Europe to do exactly that, they were repudiating the
two centuries old political struggle for the rights and liberties of ordinary
citizens, of government "of the people, by the people and for the people". It
has always been my view that this was a quite conscious decision by the EU
founders who, in the wake of two world wars, came to believe that the infamous
national crimes of the 20th century could be traced directly to the democratic
revolutions of the 18th century, and that the only long-term solution to this
was to replace democracy with oligarchy.

But there it is. And here we are, with a generation of European political
leaders who almost all accept the terms in which their predecessors gave away
the most important principle of that great democratic pact between a free people
and its government. While times were good and there was enough prosperity to
keep everybody distracted and happy, the loss went almost unnoticed except by a
few persistent and despairing critics. Well, not any more. The American
government may be committing itself to a policy that is economically unsound and
even irresponsible, but its insistence on maintaining the compact with its own
voters � on putting their concerns first � will at least ensure that democracy
will survive there. I am not at all sure that will be true in Europe.


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1930 - Release Date: 2/2/09 7:51 AM

#814

From: "reportersnotebook" <msantom629@...>
Date: Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:39 pm
Subject: Catholic Priest With Jewish Roots Questions Holocaust

reportersnot...

Offline

Italian Catholic Priest Questions Holocaust

By JOHN L. ALLEN JR., NCR Staff

Published:

Jan. 29, 2009

http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/3191

Fr. Floriano Abrahamowicz

Excerpt:
I myself, on my father's side, have Jewish roots. My last name even suggests this.

MORE:

http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/3191
<http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/3191>

--
Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton, PhD

Publisher's Note: This is a non-Revisionist title for Theses & Dissertations Press. It will be the first book on the Holocaust, in publishing history, that will not take a Traditionalist or a Revisionist point of view. When you purchase this book, one-third of the proceeds will go to Germar Rudolf and his family.

http://www.amazon.com/Debating-Holocaust-Look-Both-Sides/dp/1591480051/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233219533&sr=1-1

Founded in 2000 the publishing company Theses & Dissertations Press is at the center of a worldwide network of scholars and activists who are working -- often at great personal sacrifice -- to separate historical fact from propaganda fiction. The founder of Theses & Dissertations Press is Germar Rudolf. Who is currently serving prison time for his published works and will be released on July 4, 2009.

As the new director of Germar Rudolf's American publishing division, I wish to express my outrage that the Holocaust, unlike any other historical event, is not subject to critical revisionist investigation. Furthermore I deplore the fact that many so-called democratic states have laws that criminalize public doubting of the Holocaust. It is my position that the veracity of Holocaust assertions should be determined in the marketplace of scholarly discourse and not in our legislatures bodies and courthouses.

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@...