Archive for the ‘Economics’ Category

Obama Pushes for Government Health Control

September 11, 2009

September 10, 2009


Dear Friend of Liberty,

Last night, President Obama made it clear he intends to push hard for a government-run Health Control system. His plans, if enacted, will result over time in either a complete government takeover of Health Care, or the total destruction of any meaningful private system. 

Now is the time for us to raise our voices and insist Congress vote “NO” to this government power grab.

Make no mistake, the Obama plan will cause the price of insurance to skyrocket even further by increasing payouts and other costs of doing business, putting many more Americans in the position of having to drop their coverage.

One plan currently being considered in the Senate would impose a $3,800 fineon families who refuse to get health insurance. Health insurance will no longer be a free choice in our country.  President Obama has long advocated a universal, single-payer system, and that is the ultimate goal of enacting this so-called “reform” package.

In regards to his deficit-neutral promise, the Congressional Budget Office has
already statedthat HR 3200 will add over $200 billion to the deficit over the next ten years, and Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are already trillions of dollars in the red.

Are we really expected to believe that yet another government program on top of all these will save money?

And, hidden throughout the over 1000 pages that make up this bill are even more “goodies” for the allies of Big Government, such as a massive payoff to Big Labor, who will reap millions of new forced union dues and wield unprecedented power over government and “private” health care
as reportedin The Wall Street Journal.  

President Obama has repeatedly stated that we cannot deal with the rising cost of health care by maintaining the status quo. I wholeheartedly agree.

We must acknowledge that the root cause of the health care crisis in this country is
government interference. Of course, many in the insurance industry have taken full advantage of their lobbying power and monopolies, but they have been able to do this because of the government.

It is government that prohibits individuals from being able to shop across state lines for insurance.

It is government that imposes thousands of mandates on insurance providers.

It is government that created HMOs in the 1970s.

It is government that has
skewed the marketto prop up third party payers.

Simply put, the problems with health care in America are TOO MUCH government interference already. The solution is to lessen government control – NOT give them more power!

The Council for Affordable Health Insurance has identified a total of 2,133 mandated benefits and providers currently required by state legislatures, mandates they estimate increase the cost of basic coverage from around 20% to as high as possibly 50%. Read their report
here.

If the president thinks we can pay for his plan through saving billions of dollars by eliminating waste and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid, then why don’t we clean out those systems now and return that money through tax cuts to the American taxpayer, providing them extra funds to buy insurance if they want it?

Both major parties believe the answer to our health care crisis is through government intervention. They only differ in the degree of that intervention.

It’s time to choose freedom.

Americans should be free to shop across state lines for health insurance, to easily go outside the country for cheaper medications, and to buy health insurance without being taxed on it.

Congress should give Americans control over their health care by giving them control over their health care dollar via tax credits and deductions similar to those outlined in Congressman Ron Paul’s Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act (HR 1495).

And Congress should protect privacy rights by allowing patients and physicians to opt-out of any government-mandated or funded system of electronic health care records, and by repealing the federal law creating an “unique patient identifier” by adopting the policies contained in Congressman Ron Paul’s Protect Patients and Physicians Privacy Act (HR 2630).

Tell Congress todaythat you oppose cementing the status quo of government care. Urge your representative and senators to oppose HR 3200 and all other bills that would take control over your health care out of your hands. Clickhereto sign our petition.

President Obama ran on a platform of hope and change, but his policies have proved to be not only more of the same, but a fresh stamp of approval on the ways things have been done for the last thirty years.

Real reform starts with freedom, and real hope for America means upholding its founding principle of self-determination.


In Liberty,

John Tate

President

P.S. A complete government takeover of health care has been defeated before, but the odds have never been as stacked against us as they are now. If you are able, please consider
contributingto C4L today to help us promote true health care reform and defend the principles that made this nation great from further desecration.

A year after financial crisis, a new world order emerges

September 11, 2009

“Told you.”

-F.F.

300ResisttheNewWorldOrder

By Kevin G. Hall, McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — One year after the near collapse of the global financial system, this much is clear: The financial world as we knew it is over, and something new is rising from its ashes.

Historians will look to September 2008 as a watershed for the U.S. economy.

On Sept. 7 , the government seized mortgage titans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac . Eight days later, investment bank Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, sparking a global financial panic that threatened to topple blue-chip financial institutions around the world. In the several months that followed, governments from Washington to Beijing responded with unprecedented intervention into financial markets and across their economies, seeking to stop the wreckage and stem the damage.

One year later, the easy-money system that financed the boom era from the 1980s until a year ago is smashed. Once-ravenous U.S. consumers are saving money and paying down debt. Banks are building reserves and hoarding cash. And governments are fashioning a new global financial order.

Congress and the Obama administration have lost faith in self-regulated markets. Together, they’re writing the most sweeping new regulations over finance since the Great Depression. And in this ever-more-connected global economy, Washington is working with its partners through the G-20 group of nations to develop worldwide rules to govern finance.

“Our objective is to design an economic framework where we’re going to have a more balanced pattern of growth globally, less reliant on a buildup of unsustainable borrowing . . . and not just here, but around the world,” said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner .

The first faint signs that the U.S. economy may be clawing its way back from the worst recession since the Great Depression are only now starting to appear, a year after the panic began. Similar indications are sprouting in EuropeChina and Japan .

Still, economists concur that a quarter-century of economic growth fueled by cheap credit is over. Many analysts also think that an extended period of slow job growth and suppressed wage growth will keep consumers — and the businesses that sell to them — in the dumps for years.

“Those things are likely to be subpar for a long period of time,” said Martin Regalia, the chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce . “I think it means that we probably see potential rates of growth that are in the 2-2.5 (percent) range, or maybe . . . 1.8-1.9 (percent).” A growth rate of 3 percent to 3.5 percent is considered average.

The unemployment rate rose to 9.7 percent in August and is expected to peak above 10 percent in the months ahead. It’s already there in at least 15 states. Regalia thinks that it could be five years before the U.S. economy generates enough jobs to overcome those lost and to employ the new workers entering the labor force.

All this is likely to keep consumers on the sidelines.

“I think this financial panic and Great Recession is an inflection point for the financial system and the economy,” said Mark Zandi , the chief economist for forecaster Moody’s Economy.com. “It means much less risk-taking, at least for a number of years to come — a decade or two. That will be evident in less credit and more costly credit. If you are a household or a business, it will cost you more, and it will be more difficult to get that credit.”

The numbers bear him out. The Fed’s most recent release of credit data showed that consumer credit decreased at an annual rate of 5.2 percent from April to June, after falling by a 3.6 percent annual rate from January to March. Revolving lines of credit, which include credit cards, fell by an annualized 8.9 percent in the first quarter, followed by an 8.2 percent drop in the second quarter.

That’s a sea change. For much of the past two decades, strong U.S. growth has come largely through expanding credit. The global economy fed off this trend.

China became a manufacturing hub by selling attractively priced exports to U.S. consumers who were living beyond their means. China’s Asian neighbors sent it components for final assembly; Africa and Latin Americasold China their raw materials. All fed off U.S. consumers’ bottomless appetite for more, bought on credit.

“That’s over. Consumers can do their part — spend at a rate consistent with their income growth, but not much beyond that,” Zandi said.

If U.S. consumers no longer drive the global economy, then consumers in big emerging economies such as China and Brazil will have to take up some of the slack. Trade among nations will take on greater importance.

In the emerging “new normal,” U.S. companies will have to be more competitive. They must sell into big developing markets; yet as the recent Cash for Clunkers effort underscored, the competitive hurdles are high: Foreign-owned automakers, led by Toyota , reaped the most benefit from the U.S. tax breaks for new car purchases, not GM and Chrysler .

Need a loan? Tough luck: Many U.S. banks are in no condition to lend. Around 416 banks are now on a “problem list” and at risk of insolvency. Regulators already have shuttered 81 banks and thrifts this year.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. reported on Aug. 27 that rising loan losses are depleting bank capital. The ratio of bank reserves to bad loans was 63.5 percent from April to June, the lowest it’s been since the savings-and-loan crisis in 1991.

For all that, the U.S. economy does seem to be rising off its sickbed. The latest manufacturing data for August point to a return to growth, and home sales are rising. Indeed, there are many encouraging signs emerging in the global economy.

It’s all growth from a low starting point, however, and many economists think that there’ll be a lower baseline for U.S. and global growth if the new financial order means less risk-taking by lenders and less indebtedness by companies and consumers.

That seems evident now in the U.S. personal savings rate. It fell steadily from 9.59 percent in the 1970s to 2.68 percent in the easy-money era from 2000 to 2008; from 2005 to 2007, it averaged 1.83 percent.

Today, that trend is in reverse. From April to June, Americans’ personal savings rate was 5 percent, and it could go higher if the unemployment rate keeps rising. Almost 15 million Americans are unemployed — and countless others are underemployed or uncertain about their job security, so they’re spending less and saving more.

A few years ago, banks fell all over themselves to offer cheap home equity loans and lines of consumer credit. No more. Even billions in government bailout dollars to spur lending haven’t changed that.

“The strategy that was stated at the beginning of the year — which is that you would sustain the banking system in order that it would resume lending — hasn’t worked, and it isn’t going to work,” said James K. Galbraith , an economist at the University of Texas at Austin .

Over the course of 2008, the nation’s five largest banks reduced their consumer loans by 79 percent, real estate loans by 66 percent and commercial loans by 19 percent, according to FDIC data. A wide range of credit measures, including recent FDIC data, show that lending remains depressed.

Why? The foundation of U.S. credit expansion for the past 20 years is in ruin. Since the 1980s, banks haven’t kept loans on their balance sheets; instead, they sold them into a secondary market, where they were pooled for sale to investors as securities. The process, called securitization, fueled a rapid expansion of credit to consumers and businesses. By passing their loans on to investors, banks were freed to lend more.

Today, securitization is all but dead. Investors have little appetite for risky securities. Few buyers want a security based on pools of mortgages, car loans, student loans and the like.

“The basis of revival of the system along the line of what previously existed doesn’t exist. The foundation that was supposed to be there for the revival (of the economy) . . . got washed away,” Galbraith said.

Unless and until securitization rebounds, it will be hard for banks to resume robust lending because they’re stuck with loans on their books.

“We’ve just been scared,” said Robert C. Pozen , the chairman of Boston -based MFS Investment Management . He thinks that the freeze in securitization reflects a lack of trust in Wall Street and its products and remains a huge obstacle to the resumption of lending that’s vital to an economic recovery.

Enter the Federal Reserve. It now props up the secondary market for pooled loans that are vital to the functioning of the U.S. financial system. The Fed is lending money to investors who’re willing to buy the safest pools of loans, called asset-backed securities.

Through Sept. 3 , the Fed had funded purchases of $817.6 billion in mortgage-backed securities. These securities were pooled mostly by mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae , Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae . In recent months, the Fed also has moved aggressively to lend for purchase of pools of other consumer-based loans.

Today, there’s little private-sector demand for new loan-based securities; government is virtually the only game in town. That’s why on Aug. 17 , the Fed announced that it would extend its program to finance the purchase of pools of loans until mid-2010. That suggests there’s still a long way to go before a functioning securitization market — the backbone of consumer lending — returns to a semblance of normalcy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090908/pl_mcclatchy/3307834_1

China alarmed by US money printing

September 10, 2009

121381430479539900

The US Federal Reserve’s policy of printing money to buy Treasury debt threatens to set off a serious decline of the dollar and compel China to redesign its foreign reserve policy, according to a top member of the Communist hierarchy.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Cheng Siwei, former vice-chairman of the Standing Committee and now head of China’s green energy drive, said Beijing was dismayed by the Fed’s recourse to “credit easing”.

“We hope there will be a change in monetary policy as soon as they have positive growth again,” he said at the Ambrosetti Workshop, a policy gathering on Lake Como.

“If they keep printing money to buy bonds it will lead to inflation, and after a year or two the dollar will fall hard. Most of our foreign reserves are in US bonds and this is very difficult to change, so we will diversify incremental reserves into euros, yen, and other currencies,” he said.

China’s reserves are more than – $2 trillion, the world’s largest.

“Gold is definitely an alternative, but when we buy, the price goes up. We have to do it carefully so as not to stimulate the markets,” he added.

The comments suggest that China has become the driving force in the gold market and can be counted on to
buy whenever there is a price dip, putting a floor under any correction.

Mr Cheng said the Fed’s loose monetary policy was stoking an unstable asset boom in China. “If we raise interest rates, we will be flooded with hot money. We have to wait for them. If they raise, we raise.

“Credit in China is too loose. We have a bubble in the housing market and in stocks so we have to be very careful, because this could fall down.”

Mr Cheng said China had learned from the West that it is a mistake for central banks to target retail price inflation and take their eye off assets.

“This is where Greenspan went wrong from 2000 to 2004,” he said. “He thought everything was alright because inflation was low, but assets absorbed the liquidity.”

Mr Cheng said China had lost 20m jobs as a result of the crisis and advised the West not to over-estimate the role that his country can play in global recovery.

China’s task is to switch from export dependency to internal consumption, but that requires a “change in the ideology of the Chinese people” to discourage excess saving. “This is very difficult”.

Mr Cheng said the root cause of global imbalances is spending patterns in US (and UK) and China.

“The US spends tomorrow’s money today,” he said. “We Chinese spend today’s money tomorrow. That’s why we have this financial crisis.”

Yet the consequences are not symmetric.

“He who goes borrowing, goes sorrowing,” said Mr Cheng.

It was a quote from US founding father Benjamin Franklin.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/6146957/China-alarmed-by-US-money-printing.html

Obama May Need Sense of Crisis to Revive Health-Care Overhaul

September 9, 2009

“The guys a dick. Face up to it.”

-Fred Face 9/08/09

barack-obama-bw1

By Julianna Goldman and Nicholas Johnston

Bloomberg.com

Sept. 4 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama returns to Washington next week in search of one thing that can revive his health-care overhaul: a sense of crisis.

Facing polls showing a drop in his approval, diminished support from independents, factions within his Democratic Party and a united Republican opposition, Obama must recapture the sense of urgency that led to passage of the economic rescue package in February, analysts said.

“At the moment, except for the people without insurance, we’re not in a health-care crisis,” said Stephen Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Washington. “You do need a crisis to generate movement in Congress and to help build a consensus.”

Obama speaks to labor leaders on Sept. 7 and to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9 as he attempts to rebuild support for his top domestic priority, one that affects 17 percent of the economy. Lawmakers, trying to extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans and rein in costs, are considering mandates on employers to provide coverage, new rules for insurers, and creating a government program to compete with private insurers such as Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc.

Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said the administration made unprecedented health-care progress in eight months.

‘Not There Yet’

“We gave Congress a charge, we gave them broad outlines, which is the reason we are farther along than any of the five presidents that have tried,” Emanuel said in an interview yesterday. “We’re not there yet, and this speech is intended to finish the job.”

Presidential speeches historically do little to move public opinion significantly, saidGeorge Edwards, author of “The Strategic President: Persuasion and Opportunity in Presidential Leadership.”

“This is almost like a Hail Mary, because they know that they’re substantially behind and the trajectory is negative for them,” Edwards said.

Unlike the financial crisis he inherited, the health-care debate is of Obama’s making and places a different burden on him, Edwards said.

“The best thing in presidential leadership is to recognize and exploit opportunities,” said Edwards. “The White House overestimated the nature of the opportunity.”

Stimulus Debate

Obama’s economic stimulus was debated as the Dow Jones Industrial Averagedropped 18 percent from Nov. 4, 2008, to Feb. 13, when Congress approved the legislation. Unemployment had risen to more than 7 percent.

On the stimulus, Obama was able to say “that unless we do X right now, and X is pretty painful and pretty expensive, there is a serious danger in the next few weeks that the entire financial system will come crashing down,” said Bill Galston, a former official in President Bill Clinton’s administration, now a Brookings Institution scholar in Washington.

Emanuel remarked at the time that a crisis was a terrible thing to waste, and Obama pushed for health-care overhaul and energy legislation along with financial and auto bailouts.

He has framed health-care legislation as part of his long- term strategy to improve the economy. Republicans focused on the potential impact on patients. Throughout the summer and in town halls, Republican opponents said Obama wanted a government takeover of the system and creation of panels to decide end-of- life issues.

Democratic Critics

Within the Democratic Party, critics say Obama hasn’t pushed universal health care and others say the overhaul would balloon the federal deficit.

Obama “has said about this issue continually, if it was easy it would have been done by now,” said White House Communications Director Anita Dunn.

Obama’s difficulty on health care is compounded by broader economic worries. While 36 percent of Americans say the economy is getting better, only 10 percent see improvements in their households, according to a CBS poll at the end of August.

“People are not convinced the president’s strategy has helped their family during the economic downturn,” said Robert Blendon, a health-policy pollster at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “That has forced them to be more skeptical towards the president’s health-care proposals.”

Less than a fifth of Americans say a health-care overhaul will help them personally, compared to 31 percent who think the government’s efforts will hurt, and 46 percent who say it will have no effect, the CBS poll showed.

‘Not a Crisis’

“There is a problem in our health-care system today, and we need reform; it’s not a crisis,” said Ed Gillespie, White House counselor to President George W. Bush. “It’s just people saying this is way too much, way too fast, we don’t know where this money is going and we don’t know where it’s coming from.”

The CBS survey of 1,097 Americans Aug. 27-31 found Obama’s approval fell 12 percentage points from a high of 68 percent in April to 56 percent; the error margin is 3 percentage points.

A survey of 4,518 likely voters by Zogby International Aug. 28-31 put Obama’s approval rating at a record-low 42 percent; it also showed he’s well liked.

“He’s got to get control of his presidency,” said John Zogby, president of Zogby International. “There’s a way out of this. Some of it is going to have to be his personality and his ability to frame messages, which is still good.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5HawfX.Mxt8

United Nations conference calls for new global currency

September 9, 2009

UnitedNationsImage2

BY STEPHEN C. WEBSTER

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development said in a report published Monday that the U.S. dollar should be replaced as the world’s standard reserve currency, giving rise to a new global currency managed by an as-yet undetermined financial regulatory organization.

Heiner Flassbeck, director of the conference, told Bloomberg News that changes needed in the world’s financial systems rival the scope of the Bretton Woods or European Monetary System agreements.

The Bretton Woods agreement established in 1944 the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, following allied victory in World War II.

“[The] dominance of the dollar as the main means of international payments [has] played an important role in the build-up of the global imbalances in the run-up to the financial crisis,” the report says. “Another disadvantage of the current international reserve system is that it imposes a greater adjustment burden on deficit countries (except if it is a country issuing a reserve currency) than on surplus countries.”

The UN adds: “Such a multilateral system would tackle the problem of destabilizing capital flows at its source. It would remove a major incentive for speculation and ensure that monetary factors do not stand in the way of achieving a level playing field for international trade. It would also get rid of debt traps and counterproductive conditionality. The last point is perhaps the most important one: countries facing strong depreciation pressure would automatically receive the required assistance once a sustainable level of the exchange rate had been reached in the form of swap agreements or direct intervention by the counterparty.”

The move should not be surprising to observers of global economics, as a U.N. panel of currency experts came to the same conclusion in March, according to Reuters.

The conference specifically emphasizes the enhancement of the International Monetary Fund’s “special drawing right” (SDR), which may serve as the “supranational” currency.

World-wide shake-up
The past year has seen a dramatic shake-up in oversight and management of the U.S. and global economies.

For months, Russia and China have been calling for a new world reserve currency.

Russia, for its part, supports replacing the dollar on the world stage, suggesting the Chinese yuan may be the quickest path to diversified reserves.

“There is a need to make the IMF a true representative of the world’s leading economies. It’s not there right now,” said Russian finance minister Alexei Kudrin in June, noting that China had a lower representation quota than Switzerland or Belgium.

Kudrin also said he did not expect to see any new monetary unions rise, although the Gulf states agreed in May to use Saudi Arabia as a base for a pending “monetary union” and new central banking authority.

The issue of IMF reform should therefore be raised “in earnest, in a bold way,” Kudrin said, adding countries should be “represented in proportion to the strength of these economies and their role in the world economy.”

Over the weekend, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner argued successfully tostrengthen the “Basel II” framework for international commerce, which would see all G20 member nations increase their currency liquidity and allow centralized, “global supervision” of financial industries. The Obama administration is committed to full compliance with the framework by 2011.

The Group of 20 finance ministers and central bank governors plan to meet in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on Sept. 24 and 25. Several major liberal groups are planning demonstrations, including the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition. The city has alreadysecured a deal to use National Guard troops to provide a security buffer for the world’s financial elite during their meeting.

Also on Sunday, a key Chinese official predicted that the dollar’s increasing supply, which grows with added liquidity, meant the currency could “fall hard” within “a year or two.” The official also signaled that China is moving its reserves away from the dollar and toward gold, euros and yen.

Washington has staunchly defended the dollar as the world’s reserve, with President Obama, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner all insisting there is no need for a new global reserve currency.

The UN report which makes the recommendations is available online (PDF link).

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/07/united-nations-calls-for-new-world-currency/

German Government Advisor Proposes Personal CO2 Budget For Everyone On Planet

September 8, 2009

“This is why a lot of us amazingly handsome and astute humans have been trying to tell people WHY global warming is a huge production of a hoax.  It’s to bleed you suckers more dry with taxes you’d throw yourself in front of a bus to pay because you think your carbon ass-print is gonna make the world explode.”

“Just because Brad Pitt doesn’t have the brain capacity to understand that he is selling you something straight from the minds of some of the most evil people who pollute this land and his babies daddy Al Gore seems like a harmless shark-headed human in his natural habitat doesn’t mean they are right. Smarten up butter-cups and stop listening to semi-retarded celebrities. I’m broke and I can’t afford any more taxes on the account of  lazy-azz brains.”

(Yes, WE DO need to take better care of the Earth but apocalypse, no,  check out the factual science and the natural cooling & heating trends of this earth-thing where you live).

-Fred Face 9/07/09

070909top

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, September 7, 2009

The top climate science advisor to the German government has proposed that everyone on the planet should have a personal CO2 budget and be forced to pay a tax if they exceed it, adding that westerners have already exceeded their allocations and should pay climate reparations to poorer countries.

This is not just another tax being rammed through using the phony pretext of global warming, it’s the entrée for complete government tracking and control over your personal life. This is the “inventory” that Nancy Pelosi called for during her visit to China in May.

On May 28, the Associated Press reported that Pelosi told a Chinese student that in order to cut back on CO2 emissions, “Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory.”

German climate scientist Joachim Schellnhuber is pushing for the same thing – the nanny state on steroids.

How will a personal CO2 budget be enforced? Every plane ticket you buy, every time you fill up at the station, every mile of every journey you make will be fed into a centralized government database, creating a leviathan matrix system to catalogue every aspect of your personal behavior. Exceed your personal carbon budget and you’ll be hit with a hefty fine, with the majority of the proceeds no doubt going straight to the huge international banking interests that own the carbon trading market, mainly N M Rothschild & Sons, as well as people like Maurice Strong and Al Gore.

This CO2 tax will bankroll the very same globalist interests, specifically groups like the Club of Rome, that resolved decades ago to invent hysteria surrounding climate change in order to advance their agenda for global government.

“Schellnhuber is proposing the creation of a CO2 budget for every person on the planet, regardless whether they live in Berlin or Beijing,” reports Der Spiegel, a “breathtaking” idea according to Czech physicist Dr. Lubos Motl, who said Schellnhuber’s proposal helped him “to understand how crazy political movements such as the Nazis or communists could have so easily taken over a nation that is as sensible as Germany.”

Schellnhuber goes further, claiming that westerners have already exceeded their CO2 allocations and will need to pay climate reparations to poorer countries amounting to no less than $142 billion dollars a year, every year.

“Humankind has to limit itself to emit only fixed amount of carbon into the atmosphere until 2050. […] Because the industrialized nations have already exceeded their quotas if you take into account past emissions. […] With the current output you see that Germany, the US and other industrialized nations have either already used up their permissible quota, or will do so within the next few years. […] The industrialized nations are facing CO2 insolvency. This means that they have to notch up their efforts to reduce climate change, otherwise they will use up the CO2 budget actually designated to poorer countries and future generations,” he told Der Spiegel.

The proposal mirrors similar measures called for by MP’s in Britain, which would force every adult to use a “carbon ration card’ when they pay for petrol, airline tickets or household energy.”

The next step has also already been floated. Should you become a serial carbon offender, no doubt your thermostat will be forcibly turned down by the government via remote control. Sound too far fetched? According to a January 2008 New York Times report, “State regulators are likely to have the emergency power to control individual thermostats, sending temperatures up or down through a radio-controlled device that will be required in new or substantially modified houses and buildings to manage electricity shortages.”


http://www.infowars.com/german-government-advisor-proposes-personal-co2-budget-for-everyone-on-planet/

Audit the Fed Mass Action Event

September 8, 2009

September 7, 2009

Dear Friend of Liberty,

Seventy-five percent of Americans agree with us that it’s time to thoroughly and completely audit the Federal Reserve System.

Every Republican and over one hundred Democrats in the House of Representatives have signed on as cosponsors of HR 1207. Almost a quarter of the Senate has gotten on board with S 604.

So what does this tell us?

It’s time to go get the rest!!

Last month, I announced that we would be holding an Audit the Fed Mass Action Event starting in the last couple weeks of August and culminating in a nationwide Mass Action Day on September 15.

Since then, C4L members have been knocking on doors, standing outside stores, attending county fairs, and gathering petition signatures in support of S 604.

On September 15, C4L National will deliver over 100,000 petitions to Capitol Hill while members across the country deliver the petitions they’ve collected to their senators’ local offices. Many of your fellow members will be holding rallies outside those offices, and several have contacted local media about covering the event.

Here are three ways you can help ensure the success of this Mass Action Event:

1.) Gather petitions –Hit the streets! Make sure your senators hear from as many people in your state as possible. Let’s spread the word and add to the seventy-five percent of Americans who support our cause. You can download petitions at CampaignforLiberty.com and AuditTheFed.com.

2.) Call your senators– Starting Tuesday, September 8, C4L members will be calling their senators’ offices to urge them to cosponsor S 604. Our objective is to keep their phones ringing off the hook by having members call every day for the week leading up to the petition drop. Commit to calling your senators by signing up here.

3.) Show up on September 15 – Congress counts on grassroots activists being content with just calling and sending petitions. To make sure they get our message that it’s time to Audit the Fed, we’re going to take our cause right to their offices in person. These events will be as effective as you make them. Show your senators that you are serious about real reform by rallying with your fellow members right outside their offices.

State and local coordinators and leaders have been working hard to create the most effective and efficient plans for September 15’s petition drop. Click hereto find out how to take action in your area.

We were able to secure the support of almost two thirds of the House with your hard work gathering petitions, calling, and showing up at your representative’s offices. This could be the event that tips the scales in the Senate!

As we also announced last month, we’re adding an extra incentive. The person who gathers the most signatures in each state will win a pocket Constitution and a copy of Dr. Paul’s new book, End the Fed,both autographed by Congressman Paul himself.

And whichever state collects the most signatures (as a percentage of population) will win a $1,500 gift certificate to the Campaign for Liberty store!

Our representatives and senators are expecting to settle back in to business as usual when they return to D.C. after Labor Day. They think that they can leave your opinions and concerns behind in their districts while they continue to work on completely taking over our health care and finding other new ways to run our lives.

Let’s show them that their top priority should be finding out how the Federal Reserve has doled out trillions of our dollars, what deals they have locked us into with foreign central banks and governments, and why they refuse to disclose the details.

The day after our petition drop will mark the official release of End the Fed.This comprehensive look at the Federal Reserve System and its disastrous effects on our lives and country is sure to be a powerful tool with which to convince your family, friends, and neighbors that it’s time to restore our economy by reinstituting a sound money system.

A year ago, no one would have said we could make an audit of the Fed into a national, mainstream issue. Join us on September 15 as we show the political establishment, entrenched bureaucrats, and the media that our grassroots Revolution is more energized and determined to take back our country than ever before.


In Liberty,


John Tate

President


P.S. Together, we cansee Audit the Fed signed into law. But to do so, we have to take action to grow and secure our support in the House and Senate. Download our petitions and other materials, spread the word, call your senators, and join us on September 15 as we come together across the country to fight to Audit the Fed!

Wall Street wants to do to life insurance what it did to housing

September 7, 2009

estpl042908

By Daniel Tencer

The “securitization” of mortgages — bundling mortgage policies and selling them on to investors — is considered to be one of the major reasons for last year’s financial collapse.

Now, Wall Street banks want to do it all again — but this time, with life insurance policies instead of real estate.

The New York Times reports that large investment banks are lining up to begin securitizing “life settlements,” life insurance policies that ill and elderly people sell so that they can get cash before they die.

According to the Times:

[Banks] plan to “securitize” these policies, in Wall Street jargon, by packaging hundreds or thousands together into bonds. They will then resell those bonds to investors, like big pension funds, who will receive the payouts when people with the insurance die.

The earlier the policyholder dies, the bigger the return — though if people live longer than expected, investors could get poor returns or even lose money.

Life settlement companies — companies that buy life insurance policies and cash in when the original policy holder dies — have been around for some time, but this would mark the first time that life insurance policies are turned into big business on Wall Street.

THE FASTER YOU DIE, THE MORE INVESTORS MAKE

One of the principal dangers in this plan is that it creates an incentive to see ill people die quickly. The investors who buy life insurance policies have to pay the premiums on those policies in order to collect when the original holder dies. So the faster an ill person dies, the fewer premiums have to be paid, and the higher the profit.

Conversely, life insurance securitization would create a disincentive for finding cures for diseases. If a person sells their life insurance policy and then their illness is cured, the investor who bought their policy loses money.

As the Times points out:

In addition to fraud, there is another potential risk for investors: that some people could live far longer than expected.

It is not just a hypothetical risk. That is what happened in the 1980s, when new treatments prolonged the life of AIDS patients. Investors who bought their policies on the expectation that the most victims would die within two years ended up losing money.

LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUMS WILL GO UP

A certain percentage of life insurance policies is never paid out by insurance companies. This is because some policy-holders stop paying their premiums, either because they no longer need the additional financial security or because the premiums have become too expensive.

But if life insurance policies are packaged and sold to investors, those investors will invariably pay the premium until the original policy holder dies. Insurance companies calculate their premiums on the expectation that some policies will lapse. If fewer policies lapse, the insurance industry will have to raise insurance premiums.

“This defeats the idea of what life insurance is supposed to be,” Steven Weisbart, chief economist for the Insurance Information Institute, told the Times. “It’s not an investment product, [it’s] a gambling product.”

PREYING ON THE WEAKEST?

One of the principal reasons people sell their life insurance policies is to be able to pay for their health care before they die. If the buying and selling of life insurance policies becomes big business, then there would be little incentive to reform health care, as reform would — presumably — make treatment more affordable, thereby reducing the number of people willing to sell their life insurance.

Thus the plan to securitize life insurance would likely create even more resistance among bankers and investors to any plan to reduce health care costs, or to introduce a public health care option. Indeed, a public health care option would eliminate the need for terminally ill people to seek new sources of money, thereby potentially decimating the life insurance securities market.

WHO’S INVOLVED?

The Times names two companies that it evidently believes to be heading up the effort to securitize life insurance. One is the Swiss bank Credit Suisse, and the other is investment bank Goldman Sachs.

Some financial firms are moving to outpace their rivals. Credit Suisse, for example, is in effect building a financial assembly line to buy large numbers of life insurance policies, package and resell them — just as Wall Street firms did with subprime securities.

The bank bought a company that originates life settlements, and it has set up a group dedicated to structuring deals and one to sell the products.

Goldman Sachs has developed a tradable index of life settlements, enabling investors to bet on whether people will live longer than expected or die sooner than planned. The index is similar to tradable stock market indices that allow investors to bet on the overall direction of the market without buying stocks.

According to the Economist, the life-settlement market in existence today is worth about $18 billion to $19 billion, meaning that about that amount of life insurance policies is bought and sold every year. The Times estimates that a securitized market for life insurance policies could be worth about $500 billion.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/05/wall-street-life-insurance/

Proposed formula for health care would raise over-65 poverty to 18.6%

September 7, 2009

Older Americans Poverty

Simon Norwood, a construction worker who hasn’t found work in months, poses in a garage apartment belonging to a friend in Little Rock, Ark., Thursday, Aug. 27, 2009. The official poverty rate for Americans 65 years and older has stood for years at 10 percent, the lowest rate among age groups. But the true rate could be nearly twice that high, according to a revised formula created by the National Academy of Sciences that is gaining favor among public officials, including some in the Obama administration.

(AP Photo/Danny Johnston)

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer Hope Yen, Associated Press Writer Fri Sep 4, 7:22 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The poverty rate among older Americans could be nearly twice as high as the traditional 10 percent level, according to a revision of a half-century-old formula for calculating medical costs and geographic variations in the cost of living.

The National Academy of Science‘s formula, which is gaining credibility with public officials including some in the Obama administration, would put the poverty rate for Americans 65 and over at 18.6 percent, or 6.8 million people, compared with 9.7 percent, or 3.6 million people, under the existing measure. The original government formula, created in 1955, doesn’t take account of rising costs of medical care and other factors.

“It’s a hidden problem,” said Robin Talbert, president of the AARP Foundation, which provides job training and support to low-income seniors and is backing legislation that would adopt the NAS formula. “There are still many millions of older people on the edge, who don’t have what they need to get by.”

If the academy’s formula is adopted, a more refined picture of American poverty could emerge that would capture everyday costs of necessities besides just food. The result could upend long-standing notions of those in greatest need and lead eventually to shifts in how billions of federal dollars for the poor are distributed for health, housing, nutrition and child-care benefits.

The overall official poverty rate would increase, from 12.5 percent to 15.3 percent, for a total of 45.7 million people, according to rough calculations by the Census Bureau. Data on all segments, not only the elderly, would be affected:

• The rate for children under 18 in poverty would decline slightly, to 17.9 percent.

• Single mothers and their children, who disproportionately receive food stamps, would see declines in the rates of poverty because noncash aid would be taken into account. Low-income people who are working could see increases in poverty rates, a reflection of transportation and child-care costs.

• Cities with higher costs of living, such as New York, Chicago and San Francisco, would see higher poverty rates, while more rural areas in the Midwest and South might see declines.

• The rate for extreme poverty, defined as income falling below 50 percent of the poverty line, would decrease due to housing and other noncash benefits.

• Immigrant poverty rates would go up, due to transportation costs and lower participation in government aid programs.

The changes have been discussed quietly for years in academic circles, and both Democrats and Republicans agree that the decades-old White House formula, which is based on a 1955 cost of an emergency food diet, is outdated.

The current calculation sets the poverty level at three times the annual cost of groceries. For a family of four that is $21,203. That calculation does not factor in rising medical, transportation, child care and housing expenses or geographical variations in living costs. Nor does the current formula consider noncash aid when calculating income, despite the recent expansion of food stamps and tax credits in the federal economic stimulus and other government programs. The result: The poverty rate has varied little from its current 12.5 percent.

Next week, the Census Bureau will publish official poverty figures for 2008 with a cautionary note about the shortcomings. The agency says it will expedite release of alternative numbers in the following weeks, because of the interest expressed by lawmakers and the Obama administration in seeing a fuller range of numbers.

“The current poverty measure does a very bad job of measuring the impact of quite a few of our anti-poverty policies,” Rebecca Blank, the Commerce Department’s undersecretary of economic affairs, said in an interview. “It isn’t meaningless, but it isn’t complete.”

Although the White House Office of Management and Budget dictates how federal poverty is measured, legislation pending in Congress would require use of the National Academy approach. Advocates are hoping the White House may act on its own.

Cities are already showing interest.

In New York City, roughly one in three senior citizens fell below the poverty line after Mayor Michael Bloomberg adopted the new formula last year; state officials in Albany, N.Y., plan to publish their revised numbers next month. Los Angeles, Miami, Washington, San Francisco and Chicago also have been considering a switch.

Nationally, official poverty rates for older Americans have improved significantly over the past 30 years due to expansions of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income. But many older people with modest cash incomes would fall below the poverty line under the NAS formula due to out-of-pocket expenses from rising Medicare premiums, deductibles and a coverage gap in the prescription drug benefit that is known as the “doughnut hole.”

The NAS figures could take on added significance at a time when the government is touting an overhaul of Medicare and Social Security as its best hope for reducing the ballooning federal debt.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090904/ap_on_re_us/us_older_americans_poverty

Ron Paul at Loyola University

September 5, 2009

On Wednesday, Congressman Paul addressed a packed house at Loyola University New Orleans.

Audit the Fed Action Alert!

September 5, 2009

September 4, 2009

Greetings Liberty Loving Texans!

The drive to audit the Federal Reserve continues to gain momentum, thanks to hundreds of thousands of patriots like you that have made their voices heard on the issue.  Now we need your help again to make sure that our efforts end in victory.  With your support, we will get an audit bill passed!

Here’s the situation:

Right now there are 282 cosponsors to HR 1207 in the House of Representatives.  That’s just under 2/3rds of the House, a truly remarkable accomplishment.  How did we get there?  By calling our congressmen, signing petitions, sending letters, and by letting our representatives know in every possible way that this issue is important to us and important to America.

But there is still work to be done in the Senate.  The Audit the Fed companion bill, S 604 has 23 cosponsors.  That’s a great start and the bill is certainly gaining momentum, with 20 cosponsors since the 4th of July.  But to overcome resistance from the Senate leadership, we’re going to need even greater support.

We didn’t come this far just to watch the audit bill stall out in the Senate!

That’s why Campaign for Liberty is organizing a nationwide Mass Action Event to bring as many senators as possible on board with S 604 and round up some obstinate representatives.  Last spring, a similar effort for HR 1207 resulted in over 50 new cosponsors as the support in the House doubled in just a few weeks.

Since that time, our organization has grown and the American people have become increasingly aware of the damage being done to our country by the Federal Reserve.  Over 75% of Americans want to see an audit of the Fed, and more Americans actually think less of the Federal Reserve than the hated IRS.  We’ve made monetary policy a key issue in the public conscience.  Our efforts can and will be more successful during this Mass Action Event.

We are very fortunate in Texas: both of our senators have already cosponsored S 604 (let’s call and thank them!).  However, we still have a few representatives who have not signed on to HR 1207, and we need to put pressure on them.

If you live in or near any of these congessional districts, please help us make a final push to get them on board! We need to collect petition signatures and deliver them to these representatives:

Green (9), Hinojosa (15), Reyes (16), Jackson Lee (18), Gonzalez (20), Rodriguez (23), Cuellar (28), Green (29), Johnson (30)

We need everyone to show up for petition drop-off events on Tuesday, September 15th at 4PM across Texas.  Campaign for Liberty’s Mass Action Event will culminate with nationwide visits to local congressional offices.  Our goal is to have over 100 people show up for the rally and petition drop at Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson’s Dallas office at 3102 Maple Avenue, Suite 600, Dallas, TX, 75201

Please join us if possible!  From there we will head over to the Federal Reserve Bank, 2200 N Pearl St,  Dallas, TX 75201 for an evening rush hour sign wave.

Smaller events will be planned at office locations across the state.  If you are one whose representative hasn’t signed on, we need you to step up and choose a good location for your area’s rally. Please contact me.

We know what we have to do to succeed. We also know that victory could mean a revolution in the United States’ monetary policy, once the workings of the Fed are finally revealed.

If that’s not enough motivation (really?), Campaign for Liberty is offering prizes for truly outstanding efforts.  The person that collects the most signatures in the state (as certified by a State, Regional, or County Coordinator) will win an autographed copy of Congressman Paul’s new book, End the Fed.   And if Texas collects the most signatures (as a percentage of the population), we’ll win a $1,500 gift certificate to the Campaign for Liberty store.

Working tirelessly for freedom,

Debbie McKee

Interim State Coordinator

Full Spectrum Dominance

September 4, 2009

by: F. William Engdahl

Gold nears $1,000 an ounce, ending at 6-month high

September 4, 2009

prodGold01

By Moming Zhou

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — Gold futures rose Thursday to six-month highs, with nearby contracts approaching $1,000 an ounce while contracts for next year’s delivery topping the psychologically important level, as a weakening dollar and continued fund buying pushed up prices. Gold for delivery, the most active contract, gained $19.20, or 2%, to $997.70 an ounce on the Comex division of the New York Mercantile Exchange, the highest settlement for the contract since Feb. 23. It rose as high as $999.50 earlier. The October contract rose to $996.30, while futures for April delivery ended at $1,000.20 an ounce. (Updates to correct the December contract closing price.)

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gold-nears-1000-an-ounce-ending-at-6-month-high-2009-09-03

Health care reform means more power for the IRS

September 4, 2009

irs

By: BYRON YORK
Chief Political Correspondent
September 2, 2009

There’s been a lot of discussion about the new and powerful federal agencies that would be created by the passage of a national health care bill. The Health Choices Administration, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, the Health Insurance Exchange — there are dozens in all.

But if the plan envisioned by President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats is enacted, the primary federal bureaucracy responsible for implementing and enforcing national health care will be an old and familiar one: the Internal Revenue Service. Under the Democrats’ health care proposals, the already powerful — and already feared — IRS would wield even more power and extend its reach even farther into the lives of ordinary Americans, and the presidentially-appointed head of the new health care bureaucracy would have access to confidential IRS information about millions of individual taxpayers.

In short, health care reform, as currently envisioned by Democratic leaders, would be built on the foundation of an expanded and more intrusive IRS.

Under the various proposals now on the table, the IRS would become the main agency for determining who has an “acceptable” health insurance plan; for finding and punishing those who don’t have such a plan; for subsidizing individual health insurance costs through the issuance of a tax credits; and for enforcing the rules on those who attempt to opt out, abuse, or game the system. A substantial portion of H.R. 3200, the House health care bill, is devoted to amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to give the IRS the authority to perform these new duties.

The Democrats’ plan would require all Americans to have “acceptable” insurance coverage (the legislation includes long and complex definitions of “acceptable”) and would designate the IRS as the agency charged with enforcing that requirement. On your yearly 1040 tax return, you would be required to attest that you have “acceptable” coverage. Of course, you might be lying, or simply confused about whether or not you are covered, so the IRS would need a way to check your claim for accuracy. Under current plans, insurers would be required to submit to the IRS something like the 1099 form in which taxpayers report outside income. The IRS would then check the information it receives from the insurers against what you have submitted on your tax form.

If it all matches up, you’re fine. If it doesn’t, you will hear from the IRS. And if you don’t have “acceptable” coverage, you will be subject to substantial fines — fines that will be administered by the IRS.

Under some versions of health reform now circulating on Capitol Hill, the IRS would also be intimately involved in how you pay for insurance. Everyone would be required to buy coverage. The millions of Americans who can’t afford it would receive a subsidy to pay for it. Under the version of the plan currently under negotiation in the Senate Finance Committee, that subsidy would come through the IRS in the form of a refundable tax credit. Under the House plan, the subsidy would come directly from the Health Choices Administration.

In either scenario, the IRS would be the key to making the system work. Before you could receive any subsidy, whether through the IRS or not, the Health Choices Administration would have to determine whether you are eligible for it. To do so, the bills under consideration would give the Health Choices Commissioner the authority to demand sensitive, confidential information from the IRS about individual taxpayers. The IRS would have to provide it.

Under current law, it is a felony for a government official to release taxpayer information in all but the most limited of circumstances. One such exception is for law enforcement; the IRS is allowed to give taxpayer information to prosecutors in criminal cases. The information can also, in some instances, be released to the Social Security Administration and the Veterans’ Administration for the determination of benefits. The health care bills would change the Internal Revenue Code to permit the IRS to give similar information to the vast, new health care bureaucracy. 

That means the personal tax information of millions of Americans would enter the system whether they want it to or not. “There’s a mandate to buy insurance,” says one Republican House aide. “You have to buy it. You have millions of people who can’t buy it without a subsidy, so they will have no choice but to accept the subsidy in order to buy insurance, and then the Health Choices Commissioner will have access to their tax records.”

“How many hands would this information go through?” asks a GOP source in the Senate. “What are the quality controls? This increases the risk of misusing this information.”

Some versions of the bill even permit the release of confidential taxpayer information for decidedly less pressing reasons. In H.R. 3200, the IRS would be required to provide taxpayer information to the Social Security Administration for the purpose of helping Social Security officials find qualifying seniors who can then be encouraged to enroll in the prescription drug program. “There is no precedent for using taxpayer information for the purpose of identifying people to go out and advertise to them,” says the House expert.

So far, there has been little substantive public debate about the integral role of the IRS in nearly every aspect of the various national health care proposals. But people who are closely involved with the process are deeply concerned about what they view as a massive, and in some senses unprecedented, expansion of the Internal Revenue Service.

First, they wonder whether the IRS can handle the new demands. “There is a sense at the IRS that their purpose is to collect revenue and not to implement all sorts of other programs,” says a second Senate GOP aide. “Also, the IRS isn’t necessarily great at doing what it does already. How is it going to determine whether 300 million people have health insurance?”

Second, they are concerned about anticipated abuse of the system. “You’re going to have lots of fraud,” says the House source. “People claiming lots of affordability credits or refundable tax credits. The IRS is not going to have the resources and expertise to police this stuff.”

Finally, there is a third concern, more fundamental than questions of whether the IRS can handle the job: Should the IRS be involved in health care enforcement in the first place? As seen in the town halls across the country in August, many Americans are concerned about the coercive nature of the proposed national health care system. Handing the IRS the power to monitor every American’s place in the system worries them even more.

Backers of the Democratic bills are betting that the handouts involved — giving people money to buy health insurance — will outweigh concerns about privacy and coercive government. Perhaps. But before Congress makes any decision on national health care, voters should know just what it will involve.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Health-care-reform-means-more-power-for-the-IRS-56781377.html

The Fed’s Interesting Week

September 3, 2009

By Ron Paul
Published 09/01/09

It has been an interesting week indeed for the Federal Reserve. Early this week, it was announced that President Obama intends to reappoint Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to a second term in January, signaling a vote of confidence in him. Bernanke seems to be popular with the administration and with Wall Street, and with good reason. His lending policies have left big banks flush with newly created cash that covers up old mistakes and allows for new ones. By buying up mountains of Treasury debt he has also enabled spending to soar to ridiculous levels that should startle any responsible economist, and scare any American concerned about the value of the dollar. However, these highly sensitive decisions about our money are not made by economists, they are made by politicians. Bernanke, like most of his predecessors, is the politician’s best friend. However, there is no reason to believe any other central planner would behave any differently, considering the immense political pressure on the Fed.

Fed policies have been as bad for the economy as they are good for politicians and bankers, as the recently released numbers on the debt and deficit demonstrate. For the first time since World War II the annual budget deficit is projected to be over 11 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. It is also projected that by 2019 the national debt will be 68% of GDP. Our path, if unchanged, is completely untenable.

The administration claims that it inherited a dire situation from the last administration, which is absolutely true. However, that hasn’t stopped them from accepting all the policies and premises that got us here, and accelerating those policies to rapidly make a bad situation much worse. The bailouts started with the last administration. They have gotten bigger with this one. The last administration gave us expanded government involvement in healthcare with a new prescription drug benefit. This administration gave us a renewal and expansion of SCHIP, and now the current healthcare takeover attempts. In reality, we can afford none of this, but shady monetary policy allows Washington to continue along its merry way, aggravating all our economic problems.

Not everyone in government finds it acceptable that the Fed wields so much power and privilege in secrecy. Last week, a federal judge ruled against Fed secrecy, compelling them to release under the Freedom of Information Act information regarding which banks received emergency loans, and under what terms. The Fed will, of course do everything in its power to fight this ruling and it is certainly not the last word on the issue. Still, it is encouraging to see that the interests of the taxpayers were defended victoriously in court, while the Fed only sees the plight of its big banker friends.

Meanwhile HR 1207 and S604, legislation to open up the Fed’s books to a complete audit, continue to gain momentum in Congress as the people continue to insist on real transparency of the Federal Reserve. One way or another, the days of Fed autonomy are coming to an end, as well they should. No one should have the power to debauch the currency and gut the economy as they do. It is time they answered for their actions, so the people can understand that we truly are better off with freedom instead of Fed tyranny.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=189

No Compromise on Audit the Fed!

September 1, 2009

August 31, 2009

Dear Friend of Liberty,

Our grassroots Revolution has set its sights on restoring a sound monetary policy to our nation, and every day we are awakening more of our countrymen to the dangers of Federal Reserve secrecy and its stranglehold on our economy.

A year ago, no one in the political establishment would have believed that a bill to thoroughly audit the Fed would have almost two-thirds of the House (including every Republican representative and nearly one hundred Democrats) and a quarter of the Senate on board.

Certainly, no one would have bet that three-fourths of the American people would supportsuch an audit.

As many of you may have heard by now, recent statements from Representative Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, have indicated that the House will vote on Audit the Fed in the next few months.

However, rather than voting on HR 1207 as a standalone bill, many in Congress hope to roll it into the comprehensive regulatory reform package recently proposed by the White House.

This reform package grants new, more comprehensive powers to the Fed and strengthens the government’s control over our economy. C4L and other friends of liberty stand in opposition to this proposal, as well as any other attempt to convert this historic movement for transparency into yet another rubber-stamping of politics as usual.

It is imperative that Audit the Fed come before the House and Senate on its own merits.

The American people stand behind a thorough audit of the Fed, and we should not be adding additional powers when we don’t fully know what is being done with the ones they currently have.

Call Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office today at (202) 225-0100 and urge her to stand with the American people by giving the Audit the Fed bill full debate and a standalone vote on the House floor.

Click herefor contact information for your representatives and senators and ask them to get behind Audit the Fed if they have not yet done so. If they have already cosponsored, tell them to push for a roll call vote on HR 1207 and S 604 on the bills’ own merits.

Our movement has worked hard to bring transparency and accountability to one of the nation’s most secretive institutions. Audit the Fed has received a bipartisan level of support that is very rare in politics today.

Together, we can see a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve signed into law, but it should not be accompanied by more of the same interventionist legislation that helped create the current crisis.

In Liberty,

John Tate

President

P.S. Click hereto take action, and don’t forget to tell your family and friends about AuditTheFed.com, where they can view the coalition in support of transparency, sign a petition, and learn more about this historic effort.

The Anti-Fed Fact Sheet

September 1, 2009

Full View

focus-anti-fed

57% Would Like to Replace Entire Congress

August 31, 2009

“Its time for the tar & feathers people.”

-F.F.

bums

Sunday, August 30, 2009

If they could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, just 25% of voters nationwide would keep the current batch of legislators.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% would vote to replace the entire Congress and start all over again. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure how they would vote.

Overall, these numbers are little changed since last October. When Congress was passing the unpopular $700-billion bailout plan in the heat of a presidential campaign and a seeming financial industry meltdown, 59% wanted to throw them all out. At that time, just 17% wanted to keep them.

There has been a bit of a partisan shift since last fall. With Democrats controlling both chambers of Congress, it’s not surprising to find that the number of Democrats who would vote to keep the entire Congress has grown from 25% last fall to 43% today. In fact, a modest plurality of Democrats would now vote to keep the legislators. Last fall, a plurality of Democrats were ready to throw them all out.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

While Democrats have become more supportive of the legislators, voters not affiliated with either major party have moved in the opposite direction. Today, 70% of those not affiliated with either major party would vote to replace all of the elected politicians in the House and Senate. That’s up from 62% last year.

Republicans, not surprisingly, overwhelmingly support replacing everyone in the Congress. Their views have not changed. But Republican voters are disenchanted with their team as much as the Congress itself: 69% of GOP Voters say Republicans in Congress are out of touch with the party base.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) now believe that members of Congress are overpaid. That’s up 10 percentage points from last October. Just five percent (5%) think their Congress member is paid too little. Thirty percent (30%) think the pay is about right.

One reason for this attitude may be that most voters say they understand the health care legislation better than Congress. Just 22% think the legislature has a good understanding of the issue. Three-out-of-four (74%) trust their own economic judgment more than Congress’.

Just 14% give Congress good or excellent review for their overall performance, while only 16% believe it’s Very Likely that Congress will address the most important problems facing our nation. Seventy-five percent (75%) say members of Congress are more interested in their own careers than they are in helping people. On the brighter side, just 37% say most in Congress have extramarital affairs.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans believe that when members of Congress meet with regulators and other government officials, they do so to help their friends and hurt their political opponents. Most believe that’s why politicians are able to solicit contributions from business leaders. Most, however, say it’s generally a good investment because political donors get more than their money’s worth. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of American adults say political donors get more than their money back in terms of favors from members of Congress.

Despite these reviews, more than 90% of Congress routinely gets reelected every two years. It’s a shock when any incumbent loses. One explanation for this phenomenon frequently heard in Washington, D.C. is that “people hate Congress but love their own congressman.”

Voters have a different perspective, and 50% say ‘rigged’ election rules explain high reelection rate for Congress.

When the Constitution was written, the nation’s founders expected that there would be a 50% turnover in the House of Representatives every election cycle. That was the experience they witnessed in state legislatures at the time (and most of the state legislatures offered just one-year terms). For well over 100 years after the Constitution was adopted, the turnover averaged in the 50% range as expected.

In the 20th century, turnover began to decline. As power and prestige flowed to Washington during the New Deal era, fewer and fewer members of Congress wanted to leave. In 1968, congressional turnover fell to single digits for the first time ever, and it has remained very low ever since.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2009/57_would_like_to_replace_entire_congress

From dust to bust, America’s poor take on a new type of monster

August 31, 2009

VIDEO HERE

Seventy years after The Grapes of Wrath, Chris McGreal recreates John Steinbeck’s famous fictional journey to reveal life in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression

Chris McGreal in Tulsa, Oklahoma

Looking back on the past few weeks, Johnnie Levy can see how she was driven to the brink of death and didn’t care.

The sharpest economic downturn of her 63 years stripped Levy of her beloved job as a seamstress and unravelled her world until she found herself sitting in a church hall in the black end of Tulsa waiting to see a nurse with a syringe in one hand and a Bible in the other.

Tulsa has seen its share of poverty and desperation over the years. In the 1930s, it saw a tide of hundreds of thousands struggling west along Route 66 to escape economic collapse in the north and the notorious dustbowl of drought and wind across the Midwest. Whether they had lost their land or their jobs, that flow of desperate humanity – chronicled so devastatingly through the fictional Joad family in John Steinbeck‘s Grapes of Wrath – struggled hard to find enough to feed and clothe their children as they trekked towards an illusory dream of prosperity in distant California.

To travel the old road today – stumbling across crumbling ghost towns and half-abandoned communities, across the sprawling Native American desert reservations, through cities where people work all the hours they aren’t sleeping and still cannot afford to go to the doctor – is to encounter new despair, some of it still recognisable to the Joads.

The banks are once again evicting. Foreclosures plague the parts of northern Arizona and New Mexico traversed by the evicted 70 years ago.

But the monster – as Steinbeck described the financial system – has spawned modern beasts unknown to the Joads, such as the vast multinationals discarding American workers in favour of cheaper labour in Mexico and the health insurance companies that cut off the medical lifelines to the gravely ill.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/27/grapes-of-wrath-1-tulsa

Banks Hiding Tsunami of Foreclosures

August 31, 2009

By: Ellen Chang

U.S. banks face a tsunami of home foreclosures soon, says David Karsbol, chief economist at Saxo Bank.

Homeowners may be faced with no choice and will just stop paying their mortgages, he warns.

“I believe we are about to see a tsunami of foreclosures in the U.S. A lot of homes have been held back because if the banks are foreclosing on them they will have to do a writedown on the mortgages they have on their balance (sheets),” Karsbol told CNBC.

“That’s why they have been reluctant to do so.”

Soon homeowners may be looking around their neighborhoods and realizing that their neighbors have opted to stop paying their mortgages and are living scot free, he said.

“The fact that many homeowners are allowed to stay in their houses without paying on their mortgages begs the question: Why should you pay on your mortgage when your neighbor doesn’t?” Karsbol said.

Rising unemployment in the United States is the main cause behind foreclosures, economists and bankers told the Washington Post. Subprime mortgages are becoming less of a culprit.

“It’s a much harder nut to crack, unemployment,” says Mark A. Calabria, director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute.

“It’s much easier to bash lenders than to create jobs.”

In 2009, the first three months reported the largest share of foreclosures moved to prime loans from subprime loans, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.

“Rising unemployment, for the sake of this downturn, has magnified things considerably,” notes John Snyder, manager of foreclosure programs for NeighborWorks, a large housing counseling group.

“It’s less about the payment adjustment.”

http://moneynews.newsmax.com/streettalk/banks_foreclosures/2009/08/28/253604.html

Study Says World’s Stocks Controlled by Select Few

August 30, 2009

Companies from US, UK and Australia have the most concentrated financial power.

stock market for beginners[3]

Aug 25, 2009

By Lauren Schenkman
Inside Science News Service

WASHINGTON — A recent analysis of the 2007 financial markets of 48 countries has revealed that the world’s finances are in the hands of just a few mutual funds, banks, and corporations. This is the first clear picture of the global concentration of financial power, and point out the worldwide financial system’s vulnerability as it stood on the brink of the current economic crisis.

A pair of physicists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich did a physics-based analysis of the world economy as it looked in early 2007. Stefano Battiston and James Glattfelder extracted the information from the tangled yarn that links 24,877 stocks and 106,141 shareholding entities in 48 countries, revealing what they called the “backbone” of each country’s financial market. These backbones represented the owners of 80 percent of a country’s market capital, yet consisted of remarkably few shareholders.

“You start off with these huge national networks that are really big, quite dense,” Glattfelder said. “From that you’re able to … unveil the important structure in this original big network. You then realize most of the network isn’t at all important.”

The most pared-down backbones exist in Anglo-Saxon countries, including the U.S., Australia, and the U.K. Paradoxically; these same countries are considered by economists to have the most widely-held stocks in the world, with ownership of companies tending to be spread out among many investors. But while each American company may link to many owners, Glattfelder and Battiston’s analysis found that the owners varied little from stock to stock, meaning that comparatively few hands are holding the reins of the entire market.

“If you would look at this locally, it’s always distributed,” Glattfelder said. “If you then look at who is at the end of these links, you find that it’s the same guys, [which] is not something you’d expect from the local view.”

Matthew Jackson, an economist from Stanford University in Calif. who studies social and economic networks, said that Glattfelder and Battiston’s approach could be used to answer more pointed questions about corporate control and how companies interact.

“It’s clear, looking at financial contagion and recent crises, that understanding interrelations between companies and holdings is very important in the future,” he said. “Certainly people have some understanding of how large some of these financial institutions in the world are, there’s some feeling of how intertwined they are, but there’s a big difference between having an impression and actually having … more explicit numbers to put behind it.”

Based on their analysis, Glattfelder and Battiston identified the ten investment entities who are “big fish” in the most countries. The biggest fish was the Capital Group Companies, with major stakes in 36 of the 48 countries studied. In identifying these major players, the physicists accounted for secondary ownership — owning stock in companies who then owned stock in another company — in an attempt to quantify the potential control a given agent might have in a market.

The results raise questions of where and when a company could choose to exert this influence, but Glattfelder and Battiston are reluctant to speculate.

“In this kind of science, complex systems, you’re not aiming at making predictions [like] … where the tennis ball will be at given place in given time,” Battiston said. “What you’re trying to estimate is … the potential influence that [an investor] has.”

Glattfelder added that the internationalism of these powerful companies makes it difficult to gauge their economic influence. “[With] new company structures which are so big and spanning the globe, it’s hard to see what they’re up to and what they’re doing,” he said. Large, sparse networks dominated by a few major companies could also be more vulnerable, he said. “In network speak, if those nodes fail, that has a big effect on the network.”

The results will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Physical Review E.

http://www.insidescience.org/research/study_says_world_s_stocks_controlled_by_select_few

Misinformation Alert: Barney Frank Never Said That HR 1207 Will Pass In October

August 30, 2009

By tmartin • August 28, 2009

Missing Sentence in Transcript Causes Premature HR 1207 Victory Celebration

Several blogs and forums reported during the past 24 hours that Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, said that Ron Paul’s bill to audit theFederal ReserveHR 1207, will pass in October.

Incorrect Reports about Barney Frank’s Statement on HR 1207

    A sloppy and incomplete transcript, which appears to have originated at theWashington Times, is making the rounds. The transcript is missing an essential sentence, which is marked in bold:

    Barney Frank: “I have been pushing for more openness from the Fed. I want to restrict the powers of the Federal Reserve. First of all, the Fed will be the major losers of power if we are successful, as I believe we will be, setting up a financial product protection commission. The Federal Reserve is now charged with protecting consumers. They were supposed to do subprime mortgage restrictions.

    Congress in 1994 gave the Fed powers to ban subprime mortgages. Alan Greenspan refused to do it. They had the power to ban credit card abuses. Under Greenspan they did nothing. Under Bernanke they started but only after Congress acted.That’s one of the reasons why in the new consumer protection agency, we will take away from the Federal reserve the power to go consumer protection.

    Secondly, they have has since 1932 a right under Herbert Hoover to intervene in the economy whenever they could. Last September, the Federal Reserve they were going to advance $82 billion to AIG. I was kind of surprised and said, ‘Mr Bernanke do you have $82 billion?’ Mr. Bernanke replied, ‘I have $800 billion and under section 13.3 of the Federal Reserve Act they can lend anything they want.’

    We are going to curtail that lending power. We are going to put some restrictions on it.

    Finally we will subject them to a complete audit. I have been working with Ron Paul, who is the main sponsor of that bill. He agrees that we don’t want to have the audit appear as if it influences monetary policy as that would be inflationary.

    One of the things the audit will show you is what the Federal Reserve buys itself. And that will be made public, but not instantly because if it was made instantly people would be trading off it, so the data would be released after a time period of several months, enough time so it will not be market sensitive. That will be part of the overall federal regulation that we are redacting. This will probably pass in October.”

    With “This will probably pass in October”, Frank is referring not to HR 1207, but to his own financial regulation bill, which might or might not include some aspects of Ron Paul’s HR 1207. The preceding sentence, “That will be part of the overall federal regulation that we are redacting,” is for some reason missing from the widely distributed transcript, and has therefore been completely ignored by bloggers and commentators.

    In recent weeks Ron Paul repeatedly warned against just this sort of thing happening: that HR 1207 might become part of a more comprehensive financial regulation bill and be watered down so that it appeases the angry masses without instituting any real changes. It would be an irony of history if that happened — if HR 1207 were watered down and integrated into an unconstitutional bill that Ron Paul would have to vote against.

    What did Ron Paul really say?

    It has become fashionable for the political elite to try to distort Ron Paul’s statements for political gain or even put entirely new words into his mouth. Just the other day,Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said, “Even [Ron Paul] recognizes how important it is to us to have the Fed independent of politics.”

    Now Barney Frank claims that “[Ron Paul] agrees that we don’t want to have the audit appear as if it influences monetary policy as that would be inflationary.”

    Ron Paul never said that an audit of the Federal Reserve would be inflationary. In fact, he has credibly demonstrated the exact opposite: that the secretive Federal Reserve itself is responsible for inflation, with the dollar having lost 96% of its value since the Fed’s creation in 1913.

    Here is what Ron Paul actually said about HR 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve, and why only a real audit will protect the public’s interest.

    purchasepower

    Ron Paul: “Mr. Speaker, the big guns have lined up against HR 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve. What is it that they are so concerned about? What information are they hiding from the American people? The screed is: transparency is okay except for those things they don’t want to be transparent.

    Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, argues that HR 1207, the legislation to audit the Federal Reserve, would politicize monetary policy. He claims that monetary policy must remain independent, that is; secret. He ignores history because chairmen of the Federal Reserve in the past, especially when up for reappointment, do their best to accommodate the president with politically driven low interest rates and a bubble economy.

    Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Arthur Burns, when asked about all the inflationhe brought about in 1971 before Nixon’s reelection, said that the Fed has to do what the president wants it to do, or it would lose its independence. That about tells you everything.

    Not by accident Chairman Burns strongly supported Nixon’s program of wage and price controls the same year, but I guess that’s not political. Is not making secret deals with the likes of Goldman Sachs, international financial institutions, foreign governments and foreign central banks politicizing monetary policy?

    Bernanke argues that the knowledge that their discussions and decisions will one day be scrutinized will compromise the freedom of the Open Market Committee to pursue sound policy. If it is sound and honest and serves no special interest, what’s the problem?

    He claims that HR 1207 would give power to Congress to affect monetary policy. He dreamt this up to instill fear, an old statist trick to justify government power. HR 1207 does nothing of the sort. He suggested that the day after an FOMC meeting, Congress could send in the GAO to demand an audit of everything said and done. This is hardly the case. The FOMC function under HR 1207 would not change.

    The detailed transcripts of the FOMC meetings are released every 5 years, so why would this be so different and what is it that they don’t want the American people to know? Is there something about the transcripts that need to be kept secret, or are the transcripts actually not verbatim?

    Fed sycophants argue that an audit would destroy the financial markets’ faith in the Fed. They say this in the midst of the greatest financial crisis in history brought on by none other than the Federal Reserve. In fact, Chairman Bernanke stated on November 14th 2007, “A considerable amount of evidence indicates that Central Bank transparency increases the effectiveness of monetary policy and enhances economic and financial performance”.

    They also argue that an audit would hurt the value of the U.S. dollar. In fact, the Fed, in less than a 100 years of its existence, has reduced the value of the 1914 dollar by 96%.

    They claim HR 1207 would raise interest rates. How could it? The Fed sets interest rates and the bill doesn’t interfere with monetary policy. Congress would have no say in the matter and besides, Congress likes low interest rates.

    It is argued that the Fed wouldn’t be free to raise interest rates if they thought it necessary. But Bernanke has already assured the Congress that rates are going to stay low for the foreseeable future. And again, this bill does nothing to allow Congress to interfere with interest rate setting.

    Fed supporters claim that they want to protect the public’s interest with their secrecy. But the banks and Wall Streets are the opponents of HR 1207, and the people are for it. Just who best represents the public’s interest?

    The real question is: why are Wall Street and the Fed so hysterically opposed to HR 1207? Just what information are they so anxious to keep secret? Only an audit of the Federal Reserve will answer these questions.”

    75% Want A Real Audit

    We need to keep up the pressure to make sure that HR 1207 itself is put up for vote.75% of the American people want a real audit of the Federal Reserve, not a pretend investigation that goes to great pains not to ruffle any feathers, claiming that too close a look at what the Wizard is doing behind the curtain would be “inflationary” (Frank) and “problematic for the country” (Geithner).

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-08-28/barney-frank-didnt-say-that-hr-1207-will-pass-in-october/

Trailer for the upcoming ‘Fall of the Republic: The Presidency of Barack Obama’

August 30, 2009

Financial Parasites Have Killed the American Economy

August 29, 2009

A Review of Economist Michael Hudson

Michael Hudson is a highly-regarded economist. He is a Distinguished Research Professor at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, who has advised the U.S., Canadian, Mexican and Latvian governments as well as the United Nations Institute for Training and Research. He is a former Wall Street economist at Chase Manhattan Bank who also helped establish the world’s first sovereign debt fund.

Hudson has frequently described Wall Street as “parasitic”. For example, in a 2003 interview, Hudson said:

The problem with parasites is not merely that they siphon off the food and nourishment of their host, crippling its reproductive power, but that they take over the host’s brain as well. The parasite tricks the host into thinking that it is feeding itself.

Something like this is happening today as the financial sector is devouring the industrial sector. Finance capital pretends that its growth is that of industrial capital formation. That is why the financial bubble is called “wealth creation,” as if it were what progressive economic reformers envisioned a century ago. They condemned rent and monopoly profit, but never dreamed that the financiers would end up devouring landlord and industrialist alike. Emperors of Finance have trumped Barons of Property and Captains of Industry.

More recently, Hudson said:

You can think of the financial sector as being wrapped around the real economy, almost like a parasite, and that’s why it’s been called parasitic for so long. The financial sector extracts interest from the economy, the property sector extracts economic rent, as do monopolies. Now the key thing about parasites, is that it’s not simply that they extract nourishment from the host. The parasite takes over the host’s brain, to make it think it’s part of the economy, to make it think it’s part of the host’s own body, and, in fact, that’s it almost like a child of the host, to be protected. And that’s what the financial sector has done today.

You have Obama coming out and saying, “We have to save the banks in order to save the real economy”. The fact is, you can’t serve both the parasite and the host.

And see this.

Today, I heard the podcast of an interview by KPFA radio host Bonnie Faulkner in which Hudson went even further. Specifically, he said:

  • The giant financial institutions have already killed their host – the real American economy
  • Since they realize that the American economy is dead, they are trying to suck as much blood out of America as possible while the corpse is still warm
  • Because the American economy is dead, their plan is to soon jump to another host. They will ship all of their money overseas

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14922

Racketeering 101: Bailed Out Banks Threaten Systemic Collapse If Fed Discloses Information

August 29, 2009

Article Here

geithner-bernanke-pointing_rt_20090114

New Ron Paul Super Hero Comic Book Cover

August 28, 2009

paul-super

Ron Paul On Obamacare

August 27, 2009

Don’t Need No Trojan Horse — when Troy is your Home

August 26, 2009

obama-laughing

By Joe Bageant (about the author)

Almost a year after the Great Giddy Swarming of the Obamians last November, some of the revelers are waking up with one booger of a hangover. And they are asking themselves, “What were we thinking when we had that 10th drink of Democratic Party Kool-Aid?” It was a clear cut case of seduction and date rape. The spike in the drink was of course, hope. Poor pathetic American liberals. Forever doomed to be naive freshmen at the senior beer bash.

Corporate interests? Yup. It’s like this. Congress and the president hands the public treasury to elite financial corporations, via bailouts, special tax breaks and cash stuffed aircraft carriers bound for their fortified French20villas. Then Congress and the administration go looking for some new scheme to the pay for the Congressional Country Club out there in Bethesda, MD, the White House heating bill and money to keep Air Force One in toilet paper and armengnac marinated quail breasts.

This newest Social Security shell game is quite a bit slicker than the previous one. The old one consisted of simply ripping the money out of the SS fund, and replacing it with bad paper — IOUs repayable in up to 100 years. Since our Social Security checks cannot be cut by law, the boys on the Hill had a problem. The solution was to raise the Medicare prescription drug premium deducted from SS payments. Now I ask you, could the old zombie war hero and the semi-slutty Alaskan have come up with anything like that? I doubt it. It takes a Harvard degree in constitutional law and a devil on your shoulder named Tim Geithenr whispering the game plays in your ear.

A poster on AlterNet named monkeywrench observed that Obama couldn’t have handed the corporate owners of this country more if he had been a Trojan Horse candidate. So prescient was the poster that I have highjacked his chain of thought herein. Could Obama be a Trojan horse? Maybe, but it would be a waste of time and effort. Trojan hoses are not necessary in a country that has only one political party anyway – Big Business. You don’t need a Trojan Horse when Troy is your home. The Republicans vs. Democrats mock combat are mere bread and circuses for the clamoring crowd. Personally, I have no problem with that. I fully understand I was born under a corpocracy. But I do wish our masters grasped the importance of free alcohol in the suspension of disbelief.

Continue Article

Madoff Reportedly Dying of Cancer in Prison

August 25, 2009

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
August 24, 2009

It looks like Ponzi-scheme criminal Bernard Madoff will share the fate of the convicted Enron criminal and Bush buddy Ken Lay. “Bernard Madoff, convicted of swindling $65 billion through the biggest-ever Ponzi scheme, has told fellow prison inmates that he is dying of cancer, the New York Post reported on Monday, citing unnamed prison sources,” reports Reuters.

Madoff allegedly told his fellow inmates at a North Carolina federal prison he does not have longer to live. The New York Post reports there had been speculation that Madoff was suffering from pancreatic cancer earlier this year. Inmates said Madoff was taking “about 20 pills a day” and “not doing very well.”

Ken Lay, CEO of Enron and the poster child for corporate abuse and accounting fraud, allegedly died died while vacationing in Snowmass, Colorado on July 5, 2006, about three and a half months before his scheduled October 23 sentencing.

Last month, Bob Chapman, publisher of the financial newsletter The International Forecaster, predicted arch criminal and fall guy Bernie Madoff would die within six months. It appears Chapman was way off the mark but spot-on about Bernie’s demise. “I don’t think he will die,” Chapman told Jones. “I think they will tell you he died and he will be shipped out some place.”

As Alex noted during the conversation with Chapman, there are persistent rumors that Ken Lay is alive and well and living in Paraguay on a Bush ranch, sort of like infamous Nazis guilty of the most unimaginable war crimes ended up in South America sixty odd years ago.

Chapman noted that the Fed and the Treasury know exactly where the money went — to offshore bank accounts — and the Madoff scam was merely business as usual.

http://www.infowars.com/madoff-reportedly-dying-of-cancer-in-prison/

Insurers admit 50,000 employees lobbying Congress to claim profits fair

August 25, 2009

Affordable-Medical-Insurance-For-Family

BY JOHN BYRNE

Memo tells employees to keep a low profile

A spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s trade group, admitted in an article published Mondaythat as many as 50,000 industry employees are involved in an effort to fight back against aggressive healthcare reform.

The admission, published in the last sentence of a Wall Street Journal article, highlights the stakes of potential healthcare reform for the private health insurance industry. Insurers and investors alike are terrified at the prospect of a so-called “public option,” which would create a government-run health insurance program to compete with private insurers. Because the government plan wouldn’t have to earn a profit, the plan would be able to undercut the premiums of private firms, pressuring profit margins.

“The health-insurance industry is sending thousands of its employees to town-hall meetings and other forums during Congress’s August recess to try to counter a tide of criticism directed at the insurers and remain a player — and not an outsider — in the debate over the future of the health-care system,” the Journal’s Vanessa Fuhrmans and Avery Johnson wrote Monday.

Employees of the health insurers have also been given talking points that encourage them to keep a low profile and avoid taking “the bait” when the industry is criticized in public, the reporters say. The industry’s trade group drafted a “Town Hall Tips” memo that instructs employees to stay calm and not to yell at members of Congress.

The industry’s staff have also been encouraged to write their local representatives.

Health insurers are trying to reshape the debate over the public option by fighting back against charges that they’re enjoying record profits at consumers’ expense. Most private insurers enjoy a four to six percent profit margin, which is less than many other industries, but, all told, amounts to billions and billions of dollars.

Karen Ignagni, America’s Health Insurance Plans’ chief lobbyist, says that town hall meetings are a chance for employees “to strongly push back against charges that we have very high profits.”

“It’s very important that our men and women… calmly provide the facts and for members of Congress to hear what these people do every day,” Ignagni added.

Insurers have also been trying to convince the public that they’re well-intentioned. They’ve agreed to dispense with policies that prevent patients with pre-existing conditions from getting coverage and stop marking up policies based on gender. But they’ve agreed to this only on the condition that Congress mandate health insurance coverage for all Americans, which would add tens of millions of new customers to insurers’ pools.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/24/health-insurance-employees-lobbying-congress/

Millions face shrinking Social Security payments

August 24, 2009

“He’s really doing a bang-up job and with that stupid grin to boot. Ahhhh… duhhhhh?”

-Fred Face 8/23/09

obamagrin

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Millions of older people face shrinking Social Security checks next year, the first time in a generation that payments would not rise. The trustees who oversee Social Security are projecting there won’t be a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for the next two years. That hasn’t happened since automatic increases were adopted in 1975.

By law, Social Security benefits cannot go down. Nevertheless, monthly payments would drop for millions of people in the Medicare prescription drug program because the premiums, which often are deducted from Social Security payments, are scheduled to go up slightly.

“I will promise you, they count on that COLA,” said Barbara Kennelly, a former Democratic congresswoman from Connecticut who now heads the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. “To some people, it might not be a big deal. But to seniors, especially with their health care costs, it is a big deal.”

Cost of living adjustments are pegged to inflation, which has been negative this year, largely because energy prices are below 2008 levels.

Advocates say older people still face higher prices because they spend a disproportionate amount of their income on health care, where costs rise faster than inflation. Many also have suffered from declining home values and shrinking stock portfolios just as they are relying on those assets for income.

“For many elderly, they don’t feel that inflation is low because their expenses are still going up,” said David Certner, legislative policy director for AARP. “Anyone who has savings and investments has seen some serious losses.”

About 50 million retired and disabled Americans receive Social Security benefits. The average monthly benefit for retirees is $1,153 this year. All beneficiaries received a 5.8 percent increase in January, the largest since 1982.

More than 32 million people are in the Medicare prescription drug program. Average monthly premiums are set to go from $28 this year to $30 next year, though they vary by plan. About 6 million people in the program have premiums deducted from their monthly Social Security payments, according to the Social Security Administration.

Millions of people with Medicare Part B coverage for doctors’ visits also have their premiums deducted from Social Security payments. Part B premiums are expected to rise as well. But under the law, the increase cannot be larger than the increase in Social Security benefits for most recipients.

There is no such hold-harmless provision for drug premiums.

Kennelly’s group wants Congress to increase Social Security benefits next year, even though the formula doesn’t call for it. She would like to see either a 1 percent increase in monthly payments or a one-time payment of $150.

The cost of a one-time payment, a little less than $8 billion, could be covered by increasing the amount of income subjected to Social Security taxes, Kennelly said. Workers only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,800 of income, a limit that rises each year with the average national wage.

But the limit only increases if monthly benefits increase.

Critics argue that Social Security recipients shouldn’t get an increase when inflation is negative. They note that recipients got a big increase in January — after energy prices had started to fall. They also note that Social Security recipients received one-time $250 payments in the spring as part of the government’s economic stimulus package.

Consumer prices are down from 2008 levels, giving Social Security recipients more purchasing power, even if their benefits stay the same, said Andrew G. Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank.

“Seniors may perceive that they are being hurt because there is no COLA, but they are in fact not getting hurt,” Biggs said. “Congress has to be able to tell people they are not getting everything they want.”

Social Security is also facing long-term financial problems. The retirement program is projected to start paying out more money than it receives in 2016. Without changes, the retirement fund will be depleted in 2037, according to the Social Security trustees‘ annual report this year.

President Barack Obama has said he would like tackle Social Security next year, after Congress finishes work on health care, climate change and new financial regulations.

Lawmakers are preoccupied by health care, making it difficult to address other tough issues. Advocates for older people hope their efforts will get a boost in October, when the Social Security Administration officially announces that there will not be an increase in benefits next year.

“I think a lot of seniors do not know what’s coming down the pike, and I believe that when they hear that, they’re going to be upset,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who is working on a proposal for one-time payments for Social Security recipients.

“It is my view that seniors are going to need help this year, and it would not be acceptable for Congress to simply turn its back,” he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090823/ap_on_go_ot/us_social_security_smaller_checks

British MEP Daniel Hannan

August 24, 2009

Daniel Hannan is a Conservative MEP for the South East of England and author of The Plan: Twelve Months to Renew Britain.

White House deficit estimate jumps — by $2 trillion

August 24, 2009

ObamaDeficit

By Agence France-Presse

US President Barack Obama’s administration will raise its 10-year budget deficit forecast to about nine trillion dollars, up about two trillion from the previous forecast, a US official said Friday.

The 2010-2019 projection, due out in a report expected next week, will supercede the previous forecast of about 7.1 trillion dollars, according to an official with the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

The OMB official requested anonymity.

The figures are expected to fuel a fierce political debate over the US deficit and debt, with Obama’s Republican critics redoubling their calls for him to abandon his plans to remake US health care and fight climate change.

On Wednesday, an Obama administration official said the White House next week would pare the estimated 2009 US budget deficit to 1.58 trillion dollars, around 262 billion dollars lower than forecast.

OMB will make the announcement when it releases its delayed annual mid-year review next week, the official said, on condition of anonymity.

In May, the administration projected a 3.998 trillion dollar budget for 2009 with a deficit of 1.841 trillion dollars, reflecting swollen spending amid the worst economic crisis on record.

The lower-than-expected figure was attributed to the administration spending less money than it had projected on bank failures and aid to the financial industry.

The 2009 deficit will clock in at around 11.2 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and new projected budget figures will come in at around 3.65 trillion dollars.

The following video was broadcast by CNN on August 21, 2009.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/22/white-house-deficit-estimate-jumps-by-2-trillion/

Related Story:

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57K4XE20090821

“Common Sense 2009” by Larry Flynt

August 24, 2009

rockefeller4

Here’s what Rockefeller said in 1994 at a U.N. dinner: “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order.”

They’re gaming us. Our country has been stolen from us.

Larry Flynt

Publisher of Hustler magazine and free speech advocate

Posted: August 20, 2009 08:15 PM

The American government — which we once called our government — has been taken over by Wall Street, the mega-corporations and the super-rich. They are the ones who decide our fate. It is this group of powerful elites, the people President Franklin D. Roosevelt called “economic royalists,” who choose our elected officials — indeed, our very form of government. Both Democrats and Republicans dance to the tune of their corporate masters. In America, corporations do not control the government. In America, corporations are the government.

This was never more obvious than with the Wall Street bailout, whereby the very corporations that caused the collapse of our economy were rewarded with taxpayer dollars. So arrogant, so smug were they that, without a moment’s hesitation, they took our money — yours and mine — to pay their executives multimillion-dollar bonuses, something they continue doing to this very day. They have no shame. They don’t care what you and I think about them. Henry Kissinger refers to us as “useless eaters.”

But, you say, we have elected a candidate of change. To which I respond: Do these words of President Obama sound like change?

“A culture of irresponsibility took root, from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street.”
There it is. Right there. We are Main Street. We must, according to our president, share the blame. He went on to say: “And a regulatory regime basically crafted in the wake of a 20th-century economic crisis — the Great Depression — was overwhelmed by the speed, scope and sophistication of a 21st-century global economy.”

This is nonsense.

The reason Wall Street was able to game the system the way it did — knowing that they would become rich at the expense of the American people (oh, yes, they most certainly knew that) — was because the financial elite had bribed our legislators to roll back the protections enacted after the Stock Market Crash of 1929.

Congress gutted the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial lending banks from investment banks, and passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which allowed for self-regulation with no oversight. The Securities and Exchange Commission subsequently revised its rules to allow for even less oversight — and we’ve all seen how well that worked out. To date, no serious legislation has been offered by the Obama administration to correct these problems.

Instead, Obama wants to increase the oversight power of the Federal Reserve. Never mind that it already had significant oversight power before our most recent economic meltdown, yet failed to take action. Never mind that the Fed is not a government agency but a cartel of private bankers that cannot be held accountable by Washington. Whatever the Fed does with these supposed new oversight powers will be behind closed doors.

Obama’s failure to act sends one message loud and clear: He cannot stand up to the powerful Wall Street interests that supplied the bulk of his campaign money for the 2008 election. Nor, for that matter, can Congress, for much the same reason.

Consider what multibillionaire banker David Rockefeller wrote in his 2002 memoirs:

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Read Rockefeller’s words again. He actually admits to working against the “best interests of the United States.”
Need more? Here’s what Rockefeller said in 1994 at a U.N. dinner: “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order.” They’re gaming us. Our country has been stolen from us.

Journalist Matt Taibbi, writing in Rolling Stone, notes that esteemed economist John Kenneth Galbraith laid the 1929 crash at the feet of banking giant Goldman Sachs. Taibbi goes on to say that Goldman Sachs has been behind every other economic downturn as well, including the most recent one. As if that wasn’t enough, Goldman Sachs even had a hand in pushing gas prices up to $4 a gallon.

The problem with bankers is longstanding. Here’s what one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, had to say about them:

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their father’s conquered.”

We all know that the first American Revolution officially began in 1776, with the Declaration of Independence. Less well known is that the single strongest motivating factor for revolution was the colonists’ attempt to free themselves from the Bank of England. But how many of you know about the second revolution, referred to by historians as Shays’ Rebellion? It took place in 1786-87, and once again the banks were the cause. This time they were putting the screws to America’s farmers.Daniel Shays was a farmer in western Massachusetts. Like many other farmers of the day, he was being driven into bankruptcy by the banks’ predatory lending practices. (Sound familiar?) Rallying other farmers to his side, Shays led his rebels in an attack on the courts and the local armory. The rebellion itself failed, but a message had been sent: The bankers (and the politicians who supported them) ultimately backed off. As Thomas Jefferson famously quipped in regard to the insurrection: “A little rebellion now and then is a good thing. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Perhaps it’s time to consider that option once again.

I’m calling for a national strike, one designed to close the country down for a day. The intent? Real campaign-finance reform and strong restrictions on lobbying. Because nothing will change until we take corporate money out of politics. Nothing will improve until our politicians are once again answerable to their constituents, not the rich and powerful.

Let’s set a date. No one goes to work. No one buys anything. And if that isn’t effective — if the politicians ignore us — we do it again. And again. And again.

The real war is not between the left and the right. It is between the average American and the ruling class. If we come together on this single issue, everything else will resolve itself. It’s time we took back our government from those who would make us their slaves.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-flynt/common-sense-2009_b_264706.html

Unemployment Edges Up to Great Depression Level

August 23, 2009

adjusted

obama-homeless-dees

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
August 22, 2009

Here is a chart released by the government that claims to show the percentage of unemployed people in the United States as of July, 2009. It is a fictional snapshot of the actual number of unemployed and under-employed people.

As economics professor John Miller notes in an article posted on the Dollars&Sense website, the actual number of unemployed and — importantly — under-employed people is actually in the double-digits, probably twice the official figure. Miller writes that government figures

dramatically understate the true extent of unemployment. First, they exclude anyone without a job who is ready to work but has not actively looked for a job in the previous four weeks. The Bureau of Labor Statistics classifies such workers as “marginally attached to the labor force” so long as they have looked for work within the last year. Marginally attached workers include so-called discouraged workers who have given up looking for job-related reasons, plus others who have given up for reasons such as school and family responsibilities, ill health, or transportation problems.

The government figures also leave out out part-time workers looking for full-time work because part-time workers are “employed” even if they work as little as one hour a week, according the the bean counters and number crunchers in the district of criminals. “The vast majority of people working part time involuntarily have had their hours cut due to slack or unfavorable business conditions,” Miller explains. “The rest are working part time because they could only find part-time work.” Miller notes that “forced part-time work” is at an all-time high, going all the way back to 1956 and including the 1982 recession. In May 2009, 8.8 million workers were forced to work part time for economic reasons, in other words they were forced out of the job market by the banksters and their long-standing plot to turn the country into a third world cesspool (the latter was not stated by Mr. Miller).

During the last bankster engineered economic depression in the 1930s, the official unemployment rate was 24.9%. If we accept the premise that the actual unemployment rate is double the officially cooked figures, then the states in the above chart with 12 percent or higher unemployment are actually experiencing unemployment on par with the so-called Great Depression. If we accept the “or higher” on the chart, some parts of the country are suffering unemployment worse than the Great Depression.

The GDP is now floundering in negative territory — officially at -1.89% — which means massive job losses will continue. Conventional economic wisdom states that in order to maintain stable employment, the GDP must be around 2.5% per year and it must go much higher to make up for the catastrophic losses suffered since the “recession” began in November, 2007.

Once again, the government is playing a shell game with the numbers. The GDP numbers are distorted by manipulation of the money supply, which creates inflation. If you look at the Federal Reserve’s M3 data, you will see that GDP has decreased substantially since 1990. In order to hide this from the American people, the Fed stopped publishing the M3 monetary aggregate report on March 23, 2006. The discontinuation of the M3 “detracts from the transparency the Fed preaches and adds to the suspicion that the Fed wants to hide anything showing money growth high enough to fuel inflation, just so people won’t know how bad it is and possibly react and thus make it worse,” writes Bud Conrad for Financial Sense.

Or react and storm the castle with pitch forks and raised fists.

Earlier this month, the U.S. government told the one-worlders at the European Union that at the end of the third quarter it will not meet its forecast for the annual budget deficit and the forecast must be revised to a figure in excess of 10.75%. On Saturday, Obama’s budget office said the figure will be 11.2% of GDP, a staggering $1.8 trillion, the highest deficit as a percentage of GDP since 1945 when the people were obliged to pay for the last world war created by the banksters and their international minions.

In order to give this dire situation a somewhat softer and fuzzier glow, Obama’s folks removed from the 2009 budget deficit projection $250 billion given away to the banksters.

Even if the “recession” ends this quarter — and in the meantime, you may as well wish for a pony — Obama’s number crunchers admit unemployment will continue to skyrocket. “Unemployment has continued to rise for several months after six of the past seven recessions. That’s just what it does as a lagging indicator,” write the brain surgeons over at the CIA’s favorite newspaper, the Washington Post. “What we’ll be watching for, however, is whether the gap between the officially and unofficially unemployed continues to grow. If it does, this recovery will take even longer than people think.”

Of course, we shouldn’t expect the Grand Dame of Operation Mockingbird to level with us, even if her scribes realized the truth — the “economic crisis” is an engineered affair. It is the largest and most elaborate transfer of wealth from the people to the banksters in the history of mankind.

Back when Obama signed the so-called American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — absurdly called the “stimulus” bill — he said the plan would create three and a half million jobs over a two year period and that unemployment would be less than 8 percent — 16 percent? — by June of 2009. The corporate media is now turning somersaults over an officially reported drop in unemployment — from 9.5% in June to 9.4% (multiply by two) — but with the caveat that things will get worse before they get better.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out things will get worse — much worse — and there will be no recovery at the end of the rainbow.

“There is no economy left to recover. The US manufacturing economy was lost to offshoring and free trade ideology,” economist and former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts wrote last month. “The real economy was traded away for a make-believe economy. When the make-believe economy collapsed, Americans’ wealth in their real estate, pensions, and savings collapsed dramatically while their jobs disappeared.” Americans are “over their heads in debt. Jobs are disappearing. America’s consumer economy, approximately 70% of GDP, is dead. Those Americans who still have jobs are saving against the prospect of job loss. Millions are homeless. Some have moved in with family and friends; others are living in tent cities.”

“Obama’s policy, like Bush’s before him, is keyed to the enrichment of Goldman Sachs and the armament industries,” Roberts concluded.

“Will Americans realize that they are not ruled by elected representatives but by an oligarchy that owns the Washington whorehouse?” the economist wrote more recently. “Will Americans ever understand that they are impotent serfs?”

At this late hour, it remains to be seen.

http://www.infowars.com/unemployment-edges-up-to-great-depression-level/

Doctor Speaks Out at Town Hall Event

August 22, 2009

Ron Paul- “The Free Market as Regulator.”

August 22, 2009

By Ron Paul
Published 08/21/09

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health Care Bill Would Allow Feds To Snoop in Your Checkbook

August 22, 2009

nsa_1984

Congressman John Shadegg calls the language in the healthcare bill “pretty troubling.”

Read Through The ENTIRE Obama Care Bill!

(KFYI News) Half of Congress is in recess, but debate continues over President Obama’s health care program concerning privacy.

Section 163 of the bill states that the government would be allowed real-time access to a person’s bank records – including direct access to bank accounts for electronic fund transfers.

Even-though the bill mentions privacy aspects, the fact remains that if approved, Obama’s health care plan will give the government permission at any time to your personal bank records.

Arizona Congressman John Shadegg says people have the right to be concerned.

“It’s pretty Orwellian, it certainly gets the government pretty darn deeply involved in private matters in our lives.”

http://kfyi.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=118695&article=5824042

Michelle Obama Now Requires 26 Servants

August 22, 2009

Her-Royal-Higness-sml

Dr. Paul L. Williams
Canadian Free Press
August 21, 2009

She is served by twenty-six attendants, including a hair dresser and make-up artist.

The annual cost to taxpayers for such unprecedented attention is approximately $1,750,000 without taking into account the expense of the lavish benefit packages afforded to every attendant.

Continue Article


Even Top Climate Change Negotiator Admits Cap And Tax “Out Of Control”

August 20, 2009

190809top

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Former climate change negotiator for Bill Clinton and Democratic Senator Senator Timothy Wirth admits that the cap and trade proposal is “out of control,” and makes no sense whatsoever.

Such a scornful rebuke from somebody who would normally be expected to vehemently support climate change legislation goes to show just how nightmarish the plans really are.

“Cap-and-trade legislation to limit U.S. carbon dioxide emissions has “gotten out of control” and needs to be scaled back in Congress, said former Democratic Senator Timothy Wirth,” reports Bloomberg News.

“The Republicans are right — it’s a cap-and-tax bill,” admitted Wirth during an interview.

Wirth is head of the UN Foundation, a Ted Turner-funded globalist body that has ties to dozens of behemoth corporations, banks, pharmaceutical companies and governments. Part of the foundation’s work is aimed at “reducing carbon emissions” to combat alleged man-made global warming.

For such a well-connected globalist to attack plans that would fundamentally advance the agenda for world government and a direct tax on CO2, the life-giving gas that humans exhale and plants breathe, really illustrates how bad cap and trade would be.

The fact that the establishment’s own middle managers are throwing a spanner in the works means that even they think the Obama administration is overreaching with its agenda to reduce living standards in the name of fighting the imaginary threat of man-made global warming.

The bill will also sink the economy and create a new great depression, effectively obliterating America’s first world status.

Included below are multiple links that portray exactly how far “cap and tax” goes, and illustrate exactly why even the establishment’s own insiders are wary of its scope.

FLASHBACK: Climate Cops To Fine “Wasteful” Homeowners & Businesses

FLASHBACK: Obama’s Nightmare “Green Agenda” Officially Unveiled

FLASHBACK: Obama Intimately Tied To Carbon Trading Scam

FLASHBACK: Get Ready For The Obama “Green Brigades”

FLASHBACK: Obama Pushes Carbon Tax Proposal That Would Inflict New Great Depression

FLASHBACK: World’s Most Powerful Banks Behind Push To Introduce Global Carbon Trading Markets

FLASHBACK: Rothschild Australia and E3 International to take the lead in the global carbon trading market

http://www.infowars.com/even-top-climate-change-negotiator-admits-cap-and-tax-out-of-control/

Barack Obama hoists the white flag over Stalinist health care proposals

August 19, 2009

By Gerald Warner

The white flag is flying over Camp Obama, which makes a pleasant change from the red flag that, metaphorically speaking, has been flying there since January 20. Barack Obama’s plan for socialised health care on the Stalinist model across the United States is now in full retreat. Not only will it not play in Peoria, it will not play anywhere.

Politicians returning to Washington after scrubbing off the tar and feathers acquired at town-hall meetings are bringing with them a blast of reality that has been absent from Obama’s dreamland regime since his inauguration. For months Obama had been trumpeting the indispensable nature of his “public option” in a new health care system. Suddenly, it is no big deal. Kathleen Sebelius, the Health and Human Services Secretary, is now telling Americans that taxpayer-funded insurance was “not the essential element”.

So, President Pantywaist is in full retreat; but he is desperate for some face-saving measure to pretend he has achieved revolutionary reform. The Senate should not oblige. Obama has no interest in genuine health care reform: as a Senator he voted against all the moderate, achievable measures that were proposed. So far as he was concerned, the worse things got for 48 million uninsured Americans the better: it might persuade them to buy into his socialist scheme, the primary objective of which was not relief of suffering but expansion of Big Government.

Now that is in tatters. Politically, it is interesting to analyse why. Obama has no notion of cautious, consensual reform: he wants a Union of Soviet States of America and he wants it now. A realist would have taken up the existing reform proposals, perhaps radicalised them a little, and tried to take them forward. Above all, he would not have alienated the pro-life lobby by rolling abortion into the plan. But not Obama. He brings to the White House the abilities and experience of a Chicago community organiser. As Sarah Palin witheringly said: “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organiser’ except that you have actual responsibilities.”

President Pantywaist has been found out and it will get worse. The one glimmer of realism he displayed was when he recently told an audience in Montana that, with regard to health care, he was “not in favour of the British system”. Perhaps he had just seen the latest figures from the Office of National Statistics revealing that more than 30,000 people have died in England and Wales from hospital infections in just five years. Translated proportionately into American demographics, that would be 150,000 fatalities. Not the best advertisement for socialised health care.

There will be many more U-turns as reality overtakes Obama. His economic recovery plan, which cost nearly $1 trillion dollars and masked 9,000 pork barrels, has removed his halo for even quite gullible voters. This will be a one-term presidency.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100006701/president-pantywaist-in-retreat-barack-obama-hoists-the-white-flag-over-stalinist-health-care-proposals/

Concentration of wealth in hands of rich greatest on record

August 17, 2009

“That be the plan, no?”

-F.F.
bigmoney

BY DANIEL TENCER

The wealthiest 10 percent of Americans now have a larger share of total income than they ever have in records going back nearly a century — an even larger amount than during the Roaring Twenties, the last time the US saw such similar disparities in wealth.

In recent years, the fact that differences between rich and poor are the greatest they’ve been since the Great Depression has become a popular talking point among liberal-leaning economists.

But an updated study (PDF) from University of California-Berkeley economist Emanuel Saez shows that, in 2007, the wealth disparity grew to its highest number on record, based on US tax data going back to 1917.

According to Saez’s study, which Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman drew attention to at his New York Times blog, the top 10 percent of earners in America now receive nearly 50 percent of all the income earned in the United States, a higher percentage than they did during the 1920s.

“After decades of stability in the post-war period, the top decile share has increased dramatically over the last twenty-five years and has now regained its pre-war level,” Saez writes. “Indeed, the top decile share in 2007 is equal to 49.7 percent, a level higher than any other year since [records began in] 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of stock market bubble in the ‘roaring’ 1920s.”

By comparison, during most of the 1970s the top 10 percent earned around 33 percent of all the income earned in the United States.

The contrast is even starker for the super-rich. The top 0.01 percent of earners in the US are now taking home six percent of all the income, higher than the 1920s peak of five percent, and a whopping six-fold increase since the start of the Reagan administration, when the top 0.01 percent earned one percent of all the income.

There is no consensus among economists on whether large disparities in income lead to economic disruption, but it is hard to ignore the correlation between rising income inequality and the onset of economic crisis. The last time the US saw similar differences in income was in 1928 and 1929, just before the start of the Great Depression.

Saez also broke the numbers down by administration, and found that while the wealthiest few saw their incomes rise as quickly during the Bush years as they did during the Clinton years, the same was not true for the rest of the population.

Saez suggests that the economic growth seen on paper during the Bush years was little more than an illusion for the vast majority of Americans, who saw their income grow much more slowly in the 2002-2007 period than they did during the Clinton years.

During both expansions, the incomes of the top 1 percent grew extremely quickly at an annual rate over 10.3 and 10.1 percent respectively. However, while the bottom 99 percent of incomes grew at a solid pace of 2.7 percent per year from 1993–2000, these incomes grew only 1.3 percent per year from 2002–2007. As a result, in the economic expansion of 2002-2007, the top 1 percent captured two thirds of income growth.

Those results may help explain the disconnect between the economic experiences of the public and the solid macroeconomic growth posted by the US economy since 2002. Those results may also help explain why the dramatic growth in top incomes during the Clinton administration did not generate much public outcry while there has been an extraordinary level of attention to top incomes in the press and in the public debate over the last two years.

Saez, who this spring won the prestigious John Bates Clark Medal for economists under 40, links this disparity to the Bush tax cuts, noting that “top income tax rates went up in 1993 during the Clinton administration (and hence a larger share of the gains made by top incomes was redistributed) while top income tax rates went down in 2001 during the Bush administration.”

TWO MORE RECESSIONS?

The economic crisis that has taken hold over the past year isn’t over, and the world could in fact see two more recessions before the crisis is finally over, says the chief economist of Germany’s influential Deutsche Bank.

Norbert Walter told CNBC that investors are worried about the health of the US dollar, and many countries are facing difficult financial problems because of overspending by governments on bailouts and stimulus. Those things combined could push the world economy downwards not once but two more times in the near future, he said.

“I believe that the rescue packages brought on have been so costly for so many governments that the exit from this fiscal policy will be very painful, very painful indeed,” he said. “Some of us are already talking about a W-shaped recovery. I’d probably talk about a triple-U-shaped recovery because there are so many stumbling blocks here to get out of this.”

“The world is in trouble,” Walter told CNBC.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/15/concentration-of-wealth-in-hands-of-rich/

Treasury Dept Lets the American Public Down Once Again

August 16, 2009

Loophole in government program to buy toxic securities could cost taxpayers

Without safeguards, traders in the $40-billion program could use inside information to profit — and any losses would be largely borne by taxpayers.

AIG Bonuses

By Ralph Vartabedian

latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-toxic-assets14-2009aug14,0,3865656.story

A video with some sensationalized images but the text is pointing to the truth

August 15, 2009

Audit the Fed . Com

August 14, 2009

August 13, 2009


Dear Friend of Liberty,

As you and I both know, Campaign for Liberty is leading the fight to pass Ron Paul’s bill to
Audit the Fed.  With 282 cosponsors in the House and 23 in the Senate, your efforts have so far proven very successful in establishing large, bipartisan support for Federal Reserve transparency.  We’ve come a long way in demonstrating to the nation that monetary policy is a critical issue, and every day more and more people are waking up to the harm that the Fed has caused our economy.

But our mission is not yet complete.  There are more Americans to educate, more signatures to collect, and more work to be done to combat the “big guns” that have come out against Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed bill.  That’s why today I’m proud to announce that we’ve taken the next step in our efforts by launching
AuditTheFed.com, a focused, coalition website with one purpose: to push this historic piece of legislation through Congress, past the President’s desk, and into law.

AuditTheFed.com includes:
contact informationfor your congressman and senators,petitions, widgets, and bannersto promote the website, dynamic graphs of the bill’scosponsors, a detailed summaryof the Audit the Fed bill, a list of our growingcoalition, a blog to keep you up to date on all the latest Audit the Fed news, a sign up for email updates, and social networksto help get the word out online.  This website was designed to put you, the liberty-loving activist, in a position to efficiently and effectively promote Audit the Fed to family, friends, neighbors, and strangers alike.

This new website is the latest addition to our efforts to Audit the Fed, but it is by no means the culmination.  Stay tuned to CampaignforLiberty.comin the coming days for information on how we plan to mobilize to gain not only more cosponsors for HR 1207 and S 604, but support for a vote in the House and Senate.

For Liberty,



John Tate

President

P.S. If you are able, please consider donatingto Campaign for Liberty today to help ensure Audit the Fed becomes law and we can finally bring transparency and accountability to one of our country’s most secretive institutions.

Cash for Clunkers

August 13, 2009

wylercashforclunkers

By Ron Paul

Published 08/11/09

The Cash for Clunkers program has received a lot of attention this week on Capitol Hill and across the country. The program offers a voucher of up to $4500 in federal funds to anyone who trades in a working used car for a new one with better fuel economy. Congress was shocked at how quickly people responded to promises of free money and drained the program, while car dealers have been equally shocked at how slow and arduous the government’s website to claim the rebates has been.

It’s not a shock that people respond to incentives. The program has been deemed a resounding success, and Congress has authorized 2 billion more taxpayer dollars for it. But not everyone is happy about this. Low-income earners who would have been in the market for those perfectly serviceable, working cars will have fewer to choose from, and those cars will probably be more expensive than they normally would have been. Automotive repair shops actively lobbied against this program, as it will destroy many of the cars they would have repaired. They were out-lobbied. And of course, Americans as a whole are hurt, because this additional bailout of auto companies comes at our expense through inflation.

I have introduced a somewhat similar bill that would have provided a much better alternative to Cash for Clunkers because it does not rely on increased government bureaucracy or spending. My bill HR 1768 provides tax credits to people trading in used cars for new cars with better fuel economy. There is a big difference, in my mind, between letting people keep their own money versus giving them someone else’s. It is clear which one a free and fair society would choose. Not only that, but my bill would not have required working, serviceable cars to be destroyed for scrap metal.

Cash for Clunkers is a popular program right now, but in the larger scheme of things it does very little towards accomplishing its stated goals. Requiring cars to be destroyed and new ones made to replace them might help the auto industry in the short run, but any improved fuel economy will not make up for the environmental impact of junking one car and making a new one. So this is not a program that should really make environmentalists happy.

There is also much evidence that the boost in demand for autos, that has made dealers happy, is just borrowed demand from the past and the future. In other words, many have put off purchases they would have made anyway because they were waiting to see what the government would do. Others who would have waited a little longer to trade in a vehicle are accelerating their decisions so they can get in before the money runs out. So I would not be surprised to find that this artificial boom in auto sales is followed by an extended drop. This should serve as a very tangible example of how government meddling in the economy creates booms and busts. While everyone loves the booms, the busts are what creates the crises that government thrives on, and that is what we really need to watch out for!

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=165

The Real Grand Chessboard and the Profiteers of War

August 13, 2009

14672by Prof. Peter Dale Scott

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SCO20090806&articleId=14672


Obama Promises Solution to Mexico Trucking Conflict After Meeting Calderon

August 11, 2009

http://whatreallyhappened.com/ Commentary:

The question is, just how is Obama looking to resolve this?

The unrestricted delivery of materials from Mexico to the US will be great for the corporations whose products will be shipped across the border, and potentially catastrophic for American truckers, both union and independent.

Who’s going to inspect the trucks for safety?

What about the insurance on these vehicles, and what happens if they get involved in an accident?

Who is going to certify that each driver drives well enough, and speaks English well enough to be permitted to drive in the US?

And just how is the program going to be paid for, considering that the US is dead broke, and that state of dead broke isn’t going to go away any time soon.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/

“Two suspicious ass looking motherfuckers if you ask me.”

-F.F. 8/9/09

obama-calderon

By Nicholas Johnston and Jens Erik Gould

Aug. 10 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama told his Mexican counterpart Felipe Calderon that he is committed to resolving a dispute over truck access to U.S. highways.

Obama said he will also address safety concerns about the trucks raised by the U.S. Congress, an administration official said after the two leaders met in Guadalajara yesterday at a summit of North American leaders. Calderon told Obama that the dispute has hurt trade, raised consumer costs and reduced job creation, according to a statement from his press office.

Removing restrictions that prevent Mexican trucks from delivering goods across the border has been a top issue for Calderon since the U.S. Congress, citing safety concerns, ended a pilot program in March that allowed some trucks access. Mexico retaliated by imposing $2.4 billion in tariffs on U.S. goods after the program ended, affecting companies such as Procter & Gamble Co., the world’s largest household-products maker.

U.S. exporters such as Appleton Papers Inc. of Appleton, Wisconsin, and Mary Kay Inc., the Dallas-based cosmetics seller, have urged Obama to reach an agreement to put Mexican trucks back on U.S. roads and end the tariffs imposed on makers of paper, batteries, toothpaste and grapes.

Closely held Appleton is a member of the Alliance to Keep U.S. Jobs, a group of companies formed to fight the tariffs. Other members include Caterpillar Inc., Smithfield Foods Inc. and PepsiCo Inc.

Nafta and Trucks

As part of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the U.S. agreed to allow Mexican trucks unrestricted access to deliver goods in the U.S., a pledge it has never fully honored because safety advocates and union officials say Mexico’s trucks and drivers don’t meet U.S. standards. Nafta rules would also have allowed Mexican trucks to pick up cargo to return to Mexico.

Around 4,500 Mexican trucking companies represented by the National Freight Transportation Chamber, known as Canacar, said in June they were seeking $6 billion in compensation from the U.S. because of the trucking conflict, alleging its northern neighbor wasn’t complying with Nafta.

In 2008, the U.S. and Mexico had $368 billion in trade, making Mexico the third-largest U.S. trading partner after Canada and China, according to the Commerce Department.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is sharing a set of principles about the truck dispute with the Mexican government and with members of the U.S. Congress, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said in a speech today in Washington.

“LaHood is trying to shop those principles to both sides,” Locke told the Council of the Americas, a business group whose members support free trade and open markets.

After their meeting, Obama and Calderon joined Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper for dinner and a performance by a mariachi troupe. The three plan more meetings today.

Drug Fight

Calderon and Obama also discussed cooperation on fighting drug cartels through the Merida Initiative, a three-year, $1.1 billion package of aid to Mexico that includes helicopters, intelligence sharing, and police training.

The U.S. is withholding 15 percent of the Merida funds until the State Department deems that Mexico has made progress on human rights. In today’s meeting, Obama underscored the importance of human rights and said Mexican progress on the issue will aid its fight against the drug cartels, the U.S. official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Obama and Calderon also discussed the importance of coordination before a possible rebound of the deadly H1N1 swine flu, the Mexican statement said. The two presidents agreed to synchronize efforts to track the spread of the disease and prepare for outbreaks, the U.S. official said.

Swine Flu

In May, the swine flu outbreak battered the Mexican economy as the government closed schools and restaurants, and foreign tourism revenue plunged. The flu may reduce Mexico’s gross domestic product 0.5 percent this year, according to central bank Governor Guillermo Ortiz.

Mexico recorded 146 deaths from swine flu among 17,416 total cases, the health ministry said Aug. 4. There were 43,771 cases worldwide of H1N1 flu and 302 deaths as of July 24, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Canada’s Harper told Calderon during a meeting yesterday that he won’t lift a requirement that Mexicans obtain visas before visiting the country. Canada announced the rule last month after a surge in refugee claims from Mexico.

The visa rule “has nothing to do with our bilateral relationship or broader issues; it is simply a control measure while we have problems in the refugee system,” Harper told reporters after the meeting. “It is not the fault of the government of Mexico, very clearly. This is a problem of the Canadian refugee law.”

Harper said he hopes Canadian lawmakers will work to streamline the way refugee claims are dealt with. Harper is in a minority government and needs support from opposition lawmakers to amend the immigration system.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aiVLrrhUWbiU

Obamageddon

August 11, 2009

fraud-obama-6-787596

by Justin Raimondo, August 10, 2009

An American president is launching the most ambitious, the most expensive, and certainly the most dangerous military campaign since the Vietnam War – and the antiwar movement, such as it is, is missing in action. After a long and bloodycampaign in Iraq and the election of a U.S. president pledged to get us out, our government is once again revving up its war machine and taking aim at yet another “terrorist” stronghold, this time in Afghanistan. Yet the antiwar movement’s motor seems stuck in the wrong gear, making no motions toward mounting anything like an effective protest. What gives?

We shouldn’t doubt the scope of the present war effort. Make no mistake: the Obama administration is radically ramping up the stakes in the “war on terrorism,” which, though renamed, has not been revised downward, as the Washington Post reports:

Continue Article


Barracks and Burger King: U.S. Builds a Supersized Base in Afghanistan

August 9, 2009

obama20afghanistan202

pic.php Construction of a vast new $17 million barracks building by US in Afghanistan.

By David Wood

August 8, 2009

BAGRAM AIR BASE, Afghanistan — Anyone who thinks the Afghanistan troop “surge” is a temporary, one-time deal should watch the construction here of a vast new $17 million barracks building.

It’s not temporary. It’s three stories of concrete.

Eight years after American forces scattered the Taliban and effectively conquered Afghanistan, the United States is embarked on a frenzied $220 million building campaign at this sprawling and still expanding military air base. Just to meet the base’s demand for fresh concrete, it has two of its own cement factories working full time.

There’s plenty of guessing these days about whether Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, will recommend a large troop increase here, and if so, how many, and if he does, whether President Obama will agree. But perhaps the construction of the new troop barracks, and permanent new facilities such as water treatment plants, headquarters buildings, fuel farms and power generating plants says more about the size and duration of this war than any White House press conference or Pentagon power-point presentation.

When I first visited this war-battered former Soviet base in January 2002, the military was erecting canvas tents for incoming troops. Infantrymen of the 10th Mountain Division were hammering together plywood outhouses; hot showers were a cruel rumor, and the few buildings left intact from the Mujaheddin war with the Russians were getting a cursory remodeling (i.e., windows).

“Low profile” was the directive coming down from Washington, senior officers told me then. That meant no big construction. Wartime living conditions. Nothing could be built that couldn’t be turned over to and used by the Afghans themselves in a year or two, they vowed. Mornings, we shaved outdoors.

Well, that was then.

Today, Bagram sports a Burger King and Pizza Hut, five mess halls, and living quarters for 20,000 people (so far), office spaces for the command, Joint Task Force-82, and for dozens of other headquarters and agencies. A well-stocked PX sells everything from potato chips to vacuum cleaners.

Russian minefields on the south and east sides of the long runway have been cleared for freight yards, aircraft aprons, bulk fuel storage, hangars and maintenance sheds. New logistics warehouses bake in the sun amid acres of parked armored vehicles. A network of new roads connecting it all is jammed with dusty SUVs, fuel and water tankers, troop buses, cement mixers, dump trucks full of crushed rock and tractor-trailers piled with steel girders and concrete pipe.

Bagram’s air facilities, its supersized runway, parking aprons, cargo handling machines and maintenance bays are sized for the stream of intercontinental and local cargo aircraft, aero-medical evacuation planes, bombers, strike fighters, unmanned drone aircraft and cargo and attack helicopters that roar in and out of here day and night.

Although all this would presumably belong to the Afghans, should the U.S. someday pull out, it’s hard to see how this air base could be used efficiently by Afghanistan alone. Its civilian air hub, Kabul International, is barely 40 miles away. And Afghanistan’s air force of seven medium cargo planes and 13 helicopters would be dwarfed here.

Still, the work continues. Long dust plumes mark where armored bulldozers are plowing up old minefields. Behind them come earth movers leveling off small hills. Gangs of turbaned Afghans lay steel pipe in deep, newly dug trenches. Lines of cement mixers stand ready to pour.

“The whole landscape is changing rapidly � every time I come out here it’s something new,” Army Capt. Scot R. Keith, a staff officer, told me on a drive around the base.

I recently had a lengthy conversation about Afghanistan’s future with Army Col. Scott Spellmon. This combat-decorated counterinsurgency expert, finishing up a 15-month tour here as a brigade commander, said he thinks that in northeast Afghanistan, at least, American involvement will become less military, more civilian. As security improves, with forces hunting down the last pockets of insurgents and Afghan army units and police improving, the work can shift more toward development.

He already sees signs that this is happening, he said, with Afghans taking over security completely in some large areas and the State Department sending out civilian reinforcements. That’s the plan for the rest of Afghanistan, too. Just don’t look for it to happen anytime soon. The concrete suggests otherwise.

http://uruknet.com/?p=m56760&hd=&size=1&l=e

Ron Paul: Government Is A Failure

August 9, 2009

“The next President of the United States… if you have a shred of logic, common sense, or compassion for ALL the good people of this country… then this is your guy.”

-Fred Face 8/8/09

060809RP

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, August 6, 2009

Texas Congressman Ron Paul, founder of the advocacy group Campaign for Liberty, spoke on a number of issues yesterday including the growing opposition to socialized healthcare, the threat of martial law, his ongoing effort to audit the Federal Reserve and the prospect of running for president in 2012.

Below are the highlights of the Congressman’s comments followed by video of the full interview.

Ron Paul on the Obama administration’s healthcare proposals:

“It is nationalized healthcare, this pretence that it isn’t completely just means that there is some transition involved. Their goal is to have one party payer, which means that they control everything. And there’s a lot of other bad things in too like this effort to consult with anybody who’s over a certain age and talk to them about end of life type of procedures.”

“This bill is just such an outrage, the American people see it for what it is, it’s going to cost a lot of money, their care is not going to be improved, and special interests will be served.”

Ron Paul on the spate of protests at town hall meets:

“I don’t remember seeing the people so angry as they are now, but I think what they have discovered is that the government is a failure… I think a lot of people have come to the realisation that you can’t trust government.”

“That’s a healthy start. It is our job now to fill the void and tell them what the role of government ought to be, so that we can take all this energy and anger and redirect it.”

Ron Paul on government use of fear tactics:

“Up until now they have been able to use fear as their best tactic, and whether it’s on foreign policy issues or domestic policy issues, that’s how that first TARP fund went through… If things get worse, they’ll say this is more reason than ever for the government to take over and of course we still have the threat of martial law coming in because they havn’t forgotten about that and I don’t think they’d hesitate to use it.”

“It’s pure propaganda to get us involved overseas, it’s war propaganda saying someone is going to attack us with a nuclear weapon if we don’t go in and invade other countries. The same way you domestically scare people.”

“When you hear these stories about the use of force and the use of martial law and the tremendous invasion of our privacy, that to me is scary, nothing is private anymore, everything in the government is secret and your privacy is non existent, that is where the real problem is, we need to reverse that sentiment.”

Ron Paul on talk of mandatory swine flu inoculations:

“I don’t like the mass treatment of people, it’s just bad medicine. That doesn’t mean I have an attitude that inoculations are never good, matter of fact I think polio was truly eradicated by inoculations, well a small part. But the question is should government be making massive decisions, when in the Constitution there is not supposed to be any government involvement at all.”

Ron Paul on the effort to audit the Federal Reserve:

“We worry about how much pressure and how much authority the Fed has, but because we’ve done our grassroots work, we’ve gotten the large majority of members of Congress to support our auditing bill. And that didn’t come from me persuading the Congressman, that came from exactly what is going on at these town hall meetings, people being upset. In this way I think we are harnessing the energy in the correct way.”

“Once we hit the 290 cosponsors, which means we’ll have two thirds vote, or the 300, right in that area, I think that’s the time I’m going to really start putting pressure on the leadership to bring this up. So far they’re indicating that they are going to bring the bill up in a mixture of other bills, but they might get bogged down, so I think after we go back you may be hearing some announcements on where we want to direct our energies because we have such great momentum on that issue.”

“It’s a little bit more than Bernanke shaking hands with somebody… it’s the immorality of the system, the violation of the Constitution, the idea that you can print money, the idea that gold is evil, and that deficits don’t matter. It’s a philosophical argument that is so crucial, and we’ve suffered from it.”

“I think eventually they are going to use national security as an excuse to keep the books closed. A lot of times what the CIA does is use national security… because they do use funds to get involved in foreign affairs, because they can make deals with other governments, other central banks, other international financial organisations, and that’s the kind of stuff they don’t want us to know about.”

Ron Paul on the future of the economy and false optimism:

“There is a limit to how long they can fool the people, if you’ve been out of work and you don’t have enough money to feed your kids, and you listen to this you just don’t buy into this stuff. I’ve always argued that the people are always ten to fifteen years ahead of Congress.”

“There will be a time when the psychology changes, when it turns into a rout, and that’s what they can’t control. But I don’t think there will be a bank holiday, that will help cause panic… they’re not going to close the banks, they’re going to keep the presses running. They don’t default by not paying the bills… if they can inflate by 50% they’ve just defaulted on half of the debt.”

Ron Paul on Obama’s plummeting ratings:

“I don’t think he’ll be reelected but it’s way way to early to know that for sure, his circumstances are much more difficult. I often thought early on whether he would be like Roosevelt and never get blamed for anything… but I think Obama is going to receive some of the blame and rightfully so.”

Ron Paul on running for president in 2012:

“In which country?!!”

“I have no plans for that, I wouldn’t be able to make a decision on that today, it’s such a long way off.”

Watch the full interview below:

http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-government-is-a-failure/

Doctors Ron Paul & Rand Paul on CNN

August 7, 2009

On Thursday, Dr. Ron Paul appeared on CNN with his son Dr. Rand Paul to discuss health care “reform,” out of control deficit spending, risks of price inflation, and how they would grade the Obama Administration.

“Cash for Clunkers” Hurts the Poor

August 5, 2009

In his latest C4L video, Dr. Paul discusses the true effects of the “Cash for Clunkers” program and talks about how government intervention into the economy will only make things worse.

75% of Americans Support Audit the Fed!

August 4, 2009

August 3, 2009

Dear Friend of Liberty,

For the first time in nearly 100 years, the secretive Federal Reserve is a mainstream topic for debate.

Results of a recent surveyreleased by Rasmussen Reports show that 75% of Americans support thoroughly auditing the Fed.

Read our press release about this great news here.

Before Campaign for Liberty started just a little over a year ago, no one could have imagined that such a survey result would be possible.

In less than six months since Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed bill was introduced, we have reached millions of Americans through phone calls, mailings, and radio and television interviews. Combined with tremendous grassroots efforts including having a presence at events, contacting Congress, spreading the word on the internet, and petitioning, we are achieving true, lasting change by fighting for accountability from the cause of so many of our nation’s struggles.

The House of Representatives is already out for its August recess, and the Senate will follow at the end of this week. This month-long recess gives us a perfect opportunity to challenge those who have not yet cosponsored to join the growing national movement to require transparency and accountability from Washington’s most shrouded institution.

Members of Congress will be hosting townhalls and appearing at fairs and other local events as they travel their districts to promote their agenda. C4L members should be at every stop along the way to push Audit the Fed.

Stay tuned to CampaignforLiberty.com in the coming days for more information on how we intend to take advantage of the August recess to promote issues including Audit the Fed.

One indication of our success has been the number of ardent Fed supporters who have recently attacked both Dr. Paul and the idea of a thorough audit.  When HR 1207 was first introduced, many of them believed it was a fringe bill that would never gain traction.  Your efforts have proved them wrong.

Click on the video below to see Congressman Paul respond to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and these other critics in his latest speech on the House floor.

If you have not yet signed our Audit the Fed petition or need contact details for your members of Congress, check out our Audit the Fed action page here. You can also find information on which representatives and senators have cosponsored HR 1207 and S 604. Be sure to send the link to family and friends and ask them to spread the word!

We are winning this fight, and Audit the Fed is only the beginning of our national efforts. With our membership continuing to grow by leaps and bounds as more Americans dedicate themselves to reclaiming their neighborhoods and their country, the political establishment hasn’t seen anything yet.

Together, we can continue to push back big government tyranny and restore the freedoms our Founders fought to give us.

Thank you for all of your time and dedication, and keep up the great work!

In Liberty,

John F. Tate

President


P.S. Don’t forget to visit our Audit the Fed action pagefor congressional information, our petition, videos, letters to the editor, grassroots actions, event reports, and more!

Ron Paul: What Are They So Afraid Of?

August 3, 2009

A federal spending road trip. Wanna join Obama?

August 3, 2009

Barack Obama and the Democrats did not inherit the bad economy; they caused it and made it worse

August 3, 2009

An interesting ad in USA Today…

http://www.bettergovernmentassociation.com/pdfs/ad_1.pdf

What A Bullshitter Obama is…..

August 1, 2009

Trilateral Member Hormats nominated to State Department

August 1, 2009

hormatsPatrick Wood
The August Review
July 31, 2009

 

On July 18, 2009, another Trilateral Commission member has been nominated to a strategic post in the Obama administration, bringing the total number of Obama’s Trilateral appointees to twelve.

Robert Hormats, vice-chairman of Goldman Sachs, has been nominated by President Obama to be an Undersecretary of State for Economic, Energy and Agriculture. His Senate confirmation is expected to proceed without incident.

Hormats will join five other Trilateral Commission members in the Department of State: Kurt Campbell, James Steinberg, Richard Hass, Dennis Ross and Richard Holbrooke. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is not a member, but her husband, Bill Clinton, was.

It is expected that Hormats will be the lead diplomat in economic negotiations with China and India. Goldman Sachs’ commercial relationship with China and India is huge, and has been instrumental in turning both countries into world economic powers.

The following is Hormats’ biography according to LeadingAuthorities:

“Robert D. Hormats is Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs (International) and Managing Director of Goldman, Sachs & Co. He joined Goldman Sachs in 1982. Robert Hormats served as Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs from 1981 to 1982, Ambassador and Deputy U.S. Trade Representative from 1979 to 1981, and as Senior Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs at the Department of State from 1977 to 1979. He served as a Senior Staff Member for International Economic Affairs on the National Security Council from 1969 to 1977 during which time he was Senior Economic Advisor to Dr. Henry Kissinger, General Brent Scowcroft and Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski. Mr. Hormats was a recipient of the French Legion of Honor in 1982 and Arthur Fleming Award in 1974.

Read entire article

Rolling Stone: The Great American Bubble Machine

July 27, 2009

Source: Rolling Stone / Youtube

Matt Taibbi on how Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression.

In Rolling Stone Issue 1082-83, Matt Taibbi takes on “the Wall Street Bubble Mafia” — investment bank Goldman Sachs. The piece has generated controversy, with Goldman Sachs firing back that Taibbi’s piece is “an hysterical compilation of conspiracy theories” and a spokesman adding, “We reject the assertion that we are inflators of bubbles and profiteers in busts, and we are painfully conscious of the importance in being a force for good.” Taibbi shot back: “Goldman has its alumni pushing its views from the pulpit of the U.S. Treasury, the NYSE, the World Bank, and numerous other important posts; it also has former players fronting major TV shows. They have the ear of the president if they want it.” Here, now, are excerpts from Matt Taibbi’s piece and video of Taibbi exploring the key issues.

From Matt Taibbi’s “The Great American Bubble Machine” in Rolling Stone Issue 1082-83
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/…


Spitzer: Federal Reserve is ‘a Ponzi scheme, an inside job’

July 26, 2009

 

“Here’s the idea of the century…(drum-roll)…(wait for it)… Ron Paul for President & Eliot Spitzer for Vice President in 2012. Sounds pretty fuckin’ good to me!”

-Fred Face 7/25/09

governor-eliot-spitzer

BY DANIEL TENCER 

 

The Federal Reserve — the quasi-autonomous body that controls the US’s money supply — is a “Ponzi scheme” that created “bubble after bubble” in the US economy and needs to be held accountable for its actions, says Eliot Spitzer, the former governor and attorney-general of New York.

In a wide-ranging discussion of the bank bailouts on MSNBC’s Morning Meeting, host Dylan Ratigan described the process by which the Federal Reserve exchanged $13.9 trillion of bad bank debt for cash that it gave to the struggling banks.

Spitzer — who built a reputation as “the Sheriff of Wall Street” for his zealous prosecutions of corporate crime as New York’s attorney-general and then resigned as the state’s governor over revelations he had paid for prostitutes — seemed to agree with Ratigan that the bank bailout amounts to “America’s greatest theft and cover-up ever.”

Advocating in favor of a House bill to audit the Federal Reserve, Spitzer said: “The Federal Reserve has benefited for decades from the notion that it is quasi-autonomous, it’s supposed to be independent. Let me tell you a dirty secret: The Fed has done an absolutely disastrous job since [former Fed Chairman] Paul Volcker left.

“The reality is the Fed has blown it. Time and time again, they blew it. Bubble after bubble, they failed to understand what they were doing to the economy.

“The most poignant example for me is the AIG bailout, where they gave tens of billions of dollars that went right through — conduit payments — to the investment banks that are now solvent. We [taxpayers] didn’t get stock in those banks, they didn’t ask what was going on — this begs and cries out for hard, tough examination.

“You look at the governing structure of the New York [Federal Reserve], it was run by the very banks that got the money. This is a Ponzi scheme, an inside job. It is outrageous, it is time for Congress to say enough of this. And to give them more power now is crazy.

“The Fed needs to be examined carefully.”

Spitzer resigned as governor of New York in March, 2008, after news reports stated Spitzer had paid for a $1,000-an-hour New York City call girl.

At the time, Spitzer had been raising the alarm about sub-prime mortgages. In the wake of the economic meltdown triggered last fall by sub-prime loans, some observers have suggested that Spitzer may have been targeted by law enforcement because of his high-profile opposition to Wall Street financial policies.

Investigative reporter Greg Palast wrote that federal agents’ revealing of Spitzer’s identity as a call-girl customer was no coincidence.

Palast wrote that the principle of “prosecutorial discretion” is often used to keep the names of high-profile persons out of the media when they are tangentially linked to a criminal investigation. In the case of Spitzer, the Justice Department chose not to invoke prosecutorial discretion.

Funny thing, this ‘discretion.’ For example, Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, paid Washington DC prostitutes to put him in diapers (ewww!), yet the Senator was not exposed by the US prosecutors busting the pimp-ring that pampered him.

Naming and shaming and ruining Spitzer – rarely done in these cases – was made at the ‘discretion’ of Bush’s Justice Department.

Spitzer recently told Bloomberg News that President Obama’s regulatory reforms of the financial sector are “irrelevant” because regulatory agencies have not been enforcing corporate laws to begin with.

“Regulatory agencies already had the power to do everything they needed to do,” he said. “They just affirmatively chose not to do it.”

– Daniel Tencer

 

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/25/spitzer-federal-reserve-is-a-ponzi-scheme-an-inside-job/

 

Related Story:

“This is the real reason why Eliot Spitzer was ousted from his Governors seat. Not because of some margarita sippin’ call girl.”

-F.F. 

Ron Paul- “The Federal Reserve is a Government Unto Itself”

July 24, 2009

Freedom Watch 24: REAL Health Care Solutions, Federal Reserve

July 24, 2009

America’s ‘disappeared’: The homeless of the big cities

July 24, 2009

By Wayne Madsen
Online Journal Contributing Writer

 

(WMR) — They were always seen by all who passed by, broke and idle in a number of Washington, DC, parks and grassy nooks. After 9/11, however, they began to disappear and in large numbers. “They” were the familiar faces of Washington’s homeless.

From Lafayette Park, across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House, to Virginia Avenue across from the State Department, and Franklin Square, amid the city’s glass and steel towers housing DC’s power elite to tony Georgetown, many homeless people, both those truly down on their luck and those who were mentally ill, began to disappear.

As one Washington homeless advocate told this editor, “These people simply vanished.”

The disappearance of homeless people from the streets of Washington began under the administration of Mayor Anthony Williams and continues in force under that of Adrian Fenty. Both African-American mayors, Democrats but beholden to deep-pocketed land developers in a city that rarely elects Republicans to office, began to quietly make it tougher for the homeless to survive in the nation’s capital. Last year, Fenty announced that the Franklin School Shelter at 13th an K Streets would be phased out, leaving the homeless residents of that shelter little choice but to move to the streets.

Last August, a number of homeless activists picketed Fenty’s home over the plans to close the Franklin shelter. WMR was told by one spokesperson for the homeless that one of the protesters, John McDermott, has also now “vanished.” The spokesperson added that there are many cases of people known to live on the streets of Washington simply “disappearing” without a trace.

Some major cities, including New York and Atlanta, have been discovered to be “dumping” their homeless residents on other smaller towns and cities. Others threaten their homeless with prison unless they leave town with usually a one-way bus ticket provided.

However, there is no evidence that Washington, DC, has been dumping homeless on other cities or paying their transportation out of town. The homeless spokesperson interviewed by WMR said that DC’s homeless are simply “vanishing” without a trace. DC officials in charge of the homeless are very tight-lipped when asked about the fate of unaccounted for homeless in the city.

Although the best-case scenario is that these unfortunate people have, in fact, been relocated to other areas, the spokesman ended the interview on a chilling note. He said with federal camps and a high demand for any usable body parts by the lucrative transplant industry, he feared the worst may have befallen some of DC’s “invisible residents.” 

 

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4882.shtml

Kucinich: ‘Is the Fed paying banks not to loan mon

July 24, 2009

kucinich1

BY STEPHEN C. WEBSTER 

 

Update (at bottom): White House does not know how TARP funds were used

House Domestic Policy Subcommittee plans probe of TARP funds

 

Ohio Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich wants to know: “If [the Troubled Asset Relief Program] isn’t about keeping people in their homes or providing credit to businesses, what is it for?”

Expressing his frustration before the Government and Oversight Committee, the two-time presidential candidate suggested that the Federal Reserve may be paying banks to hoard money and avoid making loans.

Before the committee — which assembled Tuesday to hear the testimony of Neil Barofsky the Special Inspector General for TARP, along with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke — Kucinich wondered aloud if “banks are parking a historic amount of taxpayers’ money in the Federal Reserve while the businesses and consumers across America are starved for credit,” and whether the Federal Reserve is paying banks to avoid making loans.

“Is the Fed paying banks NOT to loan money?” a Kucinich media advisory pondered.

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

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

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

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

In his testimony, Bernanke said the pace of America’s economic decline seems to have slowed, but he expects continued unemployment near 10 percent of the population through the end of 2010.

“The weak job market in the United States, coupled with falling home prices and tight credit, he said, are putting downward pressure on households, undermining ‘the recent stabilization in household spending,’” according to The New York Times.

Increased oversight soon?

Kucinich said the House Domestic Policy Subcommittee will probe how the $700 billion in troubled asset relief funds were used, in light of the Fed’s nondisclosure. It will not be the first time the nation’s largest bank has faced efforts to increase oversight of its policy decisions and accounting.

In a letter to Bernanke regarding the use of TARP funds for a $3.6 billion bonus package given out to Merrill Lynch & Co. employees, Kucinich insisted that “[the] answers the Subcommittee seeks will be of interest to the American public, who are rightly concerned about how recipient firms have used TARP monies, and how well the Federal Government has monitored the use of those funds and safeguarded them from waste and abuse.”

Bernanke told the panel in late June that the Federal Reserve “acted with the highest integrity throughout its discussions with Bank of America regarding that company’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch.”

Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has, in particular, been a thorn in the side of the bank which controls America’s currency. His bill, House Resolution 1207, which would audit the Fed, has garnered 274 co-sponsors: “[Every] House Republican and almost 100 Democrats — and counting,” noted The Wall Street Journal.

“Although Federal Reserve officials regularly explain the rationale for their policy decisions in public venues, the process of vetting ideas and proposals, many of which are never incorporated into policy decisions, could suffer from the threat of public disclosure,” Federal Reserve deputy chairman Donald Kohn argued earlier this month.

“The big guns are coming out now,” said Congressman Paul in a recent video update. “They are trying to line up the establishment economists and other business people to warn people about the great danger of the American people finding out who’s benefiting from the behind the doors, seeing the activities of the Federal Reserve.

“I think it’s going to be impossible for them to ignore everything we’ve done and just walk away,” he said.

Update: White House does not know how TARP funds were used

During Tuesday’s White House press briefing, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gave a convoluted answer to a reporter who asked why the hundreds of billions in TARP funds have not been tracked.

“I think that Treasury Department puts out monthly reports on the lending activities from banks,” he began. “Again one of the suggestions was, in some ways being able to follow what might not be, according to us, followable. In other words you have thefungibility of money that is not put in a separate TARP lending account for the deposit and guarantee in Auburn, Alabama, for us to measure the increase in lending.

“The administration believes that that transparency is important but can be done better in measuring the increase in that lending. But it is going to be hard to follow, again, something as fungible as money moving from one bank to the other.”

 

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/21/kucinich-is-the-fed-paying-banks-not-to-loan-money/

 

 

Bernanke: “I Don’t Know” Which Foreign Banks Were Given Half a Trillion

July 24, 2009

APTOPIX Bernanke

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, July 22, 2009

 

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke was confronted yesterday by Congressman Alan Grayson about which foreign banks were the recipients of Federal Reserve credit swaps, but he was unable to provide an answer as to where over half a trillion dollars had gone.

Asked which European financial institutions received the money, which was handed out by The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), a component of the Federal Reserve System, Bernanke responded, “I don’t know.”

“Half a trillion dollars and you don’t know who got the money?” asked Grayson.

As we have previously reported, the destination of trillions in bailout funds remains hidden after the Fed refused to disclose where it had gone despite a lawsuit filed by Bloomberg.

Bernanke said the Fed had a “long standing legal authority” to hand money to foreign banks under section 14 of the Federal Reserve Act, a claim contradicted by Bernanke’s own report, as Grayson soon highlighted.

Grayson said that he had investigated one of the arrangements, a $9 billion dollar package to New Zealand, which works out at $3000 dollars for every citizen of New Zealand.

“Seriously, wouldn’t it have been better to extend that kind of credit to Americans rather than New Zealanders,” said Grayson.

The Congressman then implied that handing money to foreign institutions was unconstitutional, reading from Article I, “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.”

“Do you think it’s in the spirit of the Constitution for a group like the FOMC to hand out a half a trillion dollars to foreigners without any action by this Congress?” asked Grayson, to which Bernanke responded that Congress had approved it with the Federal Reserve act of 1913. Grayson responded that in 1913, the entire GDP of the U.S. was well under half a trillion dollars.

“Is it safe to say that nobody in 1913 contemplated that a small little group of people would decide to hand out half a trillion dollars to foreigners?,” asked Grayson, to which Bernanke again claimed that the authority had been used numerous times before.

Grayson debunked this claim by pointing to Bernanke’s own report, which stated that the entire amount had been handed out starting from the last quarter of 2007, and the amount given out before that to foreign banks was zero.

 

http://www.infowars.com/bernanke-i-don’t-know-which-foreign-banks-were-given-half-a-trillion/

 

Ron Paul on CNBC 7/21/2009

July 22, 2009

Audit the Fed Update

July 21, 2009

Tax Group: Obama’s $4 Trillion Tax Increase

July 21, 2009

WRH, (http://whatreallyhappened.com/), Commentary:

“Giving more taxes to this government is like handing a bottle of scotch and the keys to the family car to a bunch of teenage boys.”

By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers

Americans for Tax Reform doesn’t like taxes or President Obama much. But even Obama fans might choke on the additional 10-year tax bill that the group tallied under the president’s plans: $4 trillion. Americans for Tax Reform figures $2.3 trillion more if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire; $1 trillion from the cap-and-trade bill; and $722 billion for healthcare reform. It’s roughly $4,000 per household, a ton more than Obama allies believe Americans will face but not as bad as some GOP warnings.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/07/20/tax-group-obamas-4-trillion-tax-increase.html

VIDEO: Congressman Stearns: Mr Paulson How Do You Have Any Credibility?

July 21, 2009

Cost Of Bailout Hits A Whopping $24 Trillion Dollars

July 21, 2009

“Hey, two shit-bags.”

-F.F.

200709top

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, July 20, 2009

According to the watchdog overseeing the federal government’s financial bailout program, the full exposure since 2007 amounts to a whopping $23.7 trillion dollars, or $80,000 for every American citizen.

The last time we were able to get a measure of the total cost of the bailout, it stood at around $8.5 trillion dollars. Eight months down the line and that figure has almost tripled.

The $23.7 trillion figure comprises “about 50 initiatives and programs set up by the Bush and Obama administrations as well as by the Federal Reserve,” according to the Associated Press.

In testimony which will be delivered to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee tomorrow, Neil Barofsky, the inspector general for the TARP, will tell Congress that “the Treasury Department has repeatedly failed to adopt recommendations aimed at making the TARP program more accountable and transparent.”

According to Barofsky, taxpayers are in the dark as to who has received the money and what they are doing with it.

As we have repeatedly highlighted, the destination of some $2 trillion in TARP funds was the subject of a lawsuit filed by Bloomberg late last year after the Fed refused to disclose the recipients. The suit is still ongoing as Bloomberg attempts to discover names of private financial institutions that received the money.

The American people will ultimately pick up the tab as their dollar is devalued because the Fed lends the money from its own balance sheet or essentially just prints more money, as a San Francisco Chronicle article explained last year.

Wages will not keep pace with inflation and if we add to the equation the raft of new taxes being introduced by the Obama administration, the consequences are clear – another lowering of the living standard for millions of middle class Americans.

Meanwhile, Henry Paulson, one of the chief architects of the bailout and the man who committed financial terrorism by threatening the Congress with martial law and food riots if they didn’t pass the initial TARP package, brazenly pockets $200,000 in Goldman Sachs profits tax free while handing out billions in ill-gotten gains to his bankster buddies, all this after he pulled a bait and switch by changing the entire focus of the bailout from buying up toxic debt to giving money directly to financial institutions.

We dread to think what the bailout figure will be in another eight months. Will it triple again to $70 trillion dollars? How about $100 trillion dollars?

The only thing that can bring an end to the wanton looting is Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Fed, which has received overwhelming support in the House but is being blocked by the bought and paid for traitors in the Senate who would rather see a continuation of the grand larceny rather than real accountability and transparency.

Watch a CNBC discussion of the $24 trillion figure

Governors Discover Resisting the Fed Has Consequences

July 21, 2009

USREPORT-US-USA-SCANDALS-WIVES

Kevin Jones
Infowars
July 19, 2009

Cynical observers of the U.S. political scene weren’t surprised when it was revealed in June 2009 that Mark Sanford, Governor of South Carolina, who is married, had been carrying on a long-term affair. Sanford admitted that the affair had been going on for at least a year and soon resigned as chairman of the Republican Governors Association.

Matters became worse for Sanford when it was revealed the following month that he had visited and entertained his mistress, an Argentine commodities broker named María Belén Chapur, using public funds. As of this writing, Sanford is clinging to the governorship, but his hold appears to be tenuous.

Here’s the more interesting part. Earlier in 2009, Sanford had resisted accepting stimulus funds for South Carolina from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which he correctly saw as part of the process of bringing the states further under Federal control. His resistance led to a lawsuit heard by the South Carolina Supreme Court, and the state was ultimately forced to accept the money.

The public humiliation of Mark Sanford following his fight against the U.S. Treasury Dept. and the Federal Reserve banks that control it is part of a clear and disturbing pattern:

Governors who speak out against member banks of the New York Federal Reserve and other major Wall Street institutions tend to be publicly humiliated and taken down through the discretionary leaking of compromising information.

Consider the case of former Gov. Eliot Spitzer of New York. Prior to serving as governor, he had been New York Attorney General, a role in which he made a name for himself by taking on organized crime and securities fraud. Among those he charged in lawsuits was Richard Grasso, former chairman of the New York Stock Exchange. Spitzer also campaigned against stock price inflation by investment houses, predatory practices by mortgage lenders, and mutual fund fraud. He continued to pursue his campaign against corrupt banking practices as governor.

In March 2008, the NewYork Times reported that Spitzer was a client of a prostitution ring then under investigation by the Federal government. Spitzer resigned two days later. Who leaked the information? The New York Times wasn’t saying. Could it have been retaliation for Spitzer’s campaign against Wall Street corruption?

Or consider the case of Rod Blagojevich, former governor of Illinois. He was nabbed by the Feds in December 2008 on a comprehensive catalog of charges, including wire fraud and solicitation of bribery. Many observers thought Blagojevich was simply carrying out business as usual and had simply had the misfortune of being caught.

The public was treated to the entertaining spectacle of politicians across the ideological spectrum—including” Blagojevich’s former allies and supporters—stumbling over one another to express their indignation and moral rectitude. Of course, none of them would do things like solicit bribes and accept kickbacks.

The day prior to his arrest, Blagojevich had declared that the State of Illinois would stop doing business with Bank of America, a member bank of the Federal Reserve. His action came in response to Bank of America’s cutting off a line of credit to a Chicago factory—an incident that had gained wide press coverage in the Chicago area and become a cause célèbre that Blagojevich would have been foolish to ignore.

Early on the morning of Dec. 8, 2008, the day following his declaration that Illinois would no longer deal with Bank of America, Blagojevich was taken away from his home in handcuffs by Federal agents. Interestingly, on the same morning but before the arrest had hit the news wires, Bloomberg.com quoted John Douglas, attorney for Bank of America and former general counsel for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., as describing Blagojevich’s declaration against Bank of America as “dangerous.”

Dangerous for whom? For the banking industry, or for those who dare to resist it? Perhaps for both?

One former governor who has talked openly about the extortion game played against governors by the Federal government and the banks that own it is Jess Ventura, who served as Governor of Minnesota from 1999 to 2003. He ran for and won the governorship as an independent with Libertarian leanings, which placed him outside the political establishment.

Shortly after becoming governor, Ventura says he was summoned to a meeting with numerous people who turned out to be agents of the Central Intelligence Agency. In a television interview, Ventura said:

I wouldn’t have known a CIA guy if he would’ve came up and bit me. I went to my old friends, my old teammates to try to get advice to pick up why they were questioning me and he was exactly right. He said, ‘They didn’t see you coming.’ They wanted to know if there were more independent governors on the horizon.”

Ventura correctly pointed out to the agents—if indeed that is what they were—that their domestic operation was illegal. He has since concluded that the agents were there to let him know who’s really in charge at the state level, and that it isn’t the state governors and legislatures.

A holder of public office needn’t be a governor to feel the nip of the wringer after criticizing member banks of the Federal Reserve. Just ask Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois.

Never one to conceal what he really thinks, Sen. Durbin appeared on a Chicago radio talk show near the end of April 2009 and said, “And the banks—hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created—are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.”

A month and a half later, Durbin was blindsided by accusations that he had sold more than $115,000 worth of stock after being tipped off to the severity of the financial crisis during a closed meeting with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke in Sept. 2008.

The Chicago Sun-Times, which broke the “story,” reported that Durbin had bought about $43,000 worth of Berkshire Hathaway stock the same day he had liquidated his mutual funds and eventually invested a total of about $98,000 with the Oracle of Omaha’s fund.

A Durbin spokesman correctly pointed out that “Durbin was doing what a lot of other people were doing, taking a look at their savings” and seeing it “start to tank and trying to preserve some level of wealth by getting out of the market.”

This non-scandal has since gone nowhere, and in fact the original story has disappeared from the Sun-Times’ archives. But perhaps Durbin has gotten the message: If you’re a high-profile holder of public office, you don’t question or resist the banks.

As corrupt or immoral as many of them may be, governors and members of Congress probably deserve more pity than scorn. After all, most private citizens are subjected merely to passive surveillance—our telephone conversations and e-mails are filtered through facilities run by the National Security Agency in partnership with AT&T and other telecommunications companies that search out “hot” keywords. Our communications aren’t examined by a human being unless they’re flagged as containing something “suspicious.”

Governors and members of Congress, on the other hand, are far more likely to be placed under active surveillance—their communications are routinely eavesdropped upon by security personal working for the advancement of the takeover of the Federal government by Federal Reserve and its member banks, both domestic and foreign.

So before becoming too outraged at the next story about a corrupt governor or member of Congress, remember that we’re all living under the same tyranny. High-profile politicians are simply more likely to be humiliated when successfully nailed for refusing to go along with the program. In any story involving the humiliation of one of them, always look for the banking connection. You’ll usually find one.

http://www.infowars.com/governors-discover-resisting-the-fed-has-consequences/

Obamacare: A Health Care Rationing Scheme to Enrich Insurers, Drug Companies and Large Hospital Chains

July 21, 2009

“Is anyone else getting as tired as I am seeing that mug? He’s becoming as annoying to me as Bush was and is and will always be. Amen.”

-Fred Face 7/20/09

Obama Surgeon General

Stephen Lendman
Global Research
July 20, 2009

On February 24, Barack Obama told a joint session of Congress that “we must….address the crushing cost of health care….caus(ing) a bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds. By the end of the year, it could cause 1.5 million Americans to lose their homes. In (each of) the last eight years….one million….Americans have lost their health insurance….Given these facts, we can no longer afford to put health care reform on hold….health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year.”

Behind the facade of reform, Obama and leading Democrats ruled universal, single-payer coverage off the table before debate even began. Instead they’ve focused on taxing more, rationing care, placing profits above human need, disdaining vital change, shifting the cost burden to individuals and requiring everyone to be insured; imposing fines up to $1000 for non-compliance, and making a broken system even worse.

On June 10, Physicians for a National Health Program advisor Walter Tsou told the House Education and Labor Committee:

“Attempting to reconcile the dual imperatives of universal coverage and cost control through alternative methods besides single payer is an exercise in futility. When some congressional leaders declare that single payer is off the table, they are in effect saying that insurers will be protected, leaving the pain to patients, taxpayers and health care providers.”

At the same hearing, the California Nurses Association and National Nurses Organizing Committee co-president Geri Jenkins said:

“The current system rations care based on an ability to pay. Right now we are the only nation on earth that barters human life for money.”

The administration and lawmakers have been unresponsive in moving ahead with House and Senate legislation to enrich health insurers, Big Pharma, and large hospital chains. It will ration care, curb expensive treatments and surgeries for those who can’t afford them, leave millions in the country uncovered, deny it altogether to undocumented immigrants even though they pay income, payroll and other taxes, and claim it’s real reform like they always do.

On May 20, S. 1099: Patients’ Choice Act was introduced “to provide comprehensive solutions for the health care system of the United States, and for other purposes.” It was referred to the Senate Finance and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committees (HELP) for consideration.

The Senate Finance Committee may craft its own version. On July 15 along party lines, HELP voted 13 – 10 to approve a $615 billion Democrat-sponsored bill that’s substantially similar to House legislation with provisions that Obama wants.

On July 14, HR 3200: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 was introduced “To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.” It was referred to the following House committees for consideration: Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, Education and Labor, Oversight and Government Reform, and Budget.

House and Senate bills stress cost-containing “evidence-based” solutions with Obama appearing on a June 24 ABC News “Questions for the President: Prescription for America” infomercial touting his plan to carefully selected reporters and others invited to the White House East Room for a scripted Q & A.

Cutting costs and free-market solutions were emphasized, not real reform stressing human need with Obama saying “If we don’t drive down costs, then we’re not going to be able to achieve all of those other things.” Which ones he didn’t say before stressing the need for “evidence-based care,” meaning less is better for those unable to pay so that millions will be sacrificed on the alter of cost containment while enriching private insurers, Big Pharma, and large hospital chains that will flourish as community and public ones shut down for lack of enough resources.

Obama was callous in saying “Loading up on additional tests or additional drugs” must be curbed. “Maybe (some would be) better off not having….surgery, but taking (a) painkiller” instead. He showed disdain and indifference in stating that “the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80% of the total health care bill out there” – the inference being ration their care and let ‘em die to cut costs.

At the same time, he favored big insurers by saying that “One of the incentives for (them) to get involved in this process is that potentially they’re going to have a whole bunch of new customers, paying customers….insurance companies will thrive” under this plan.

As for a “public option” to fill holes, Obama was receptive to alternatives but adamantly against universal single-payer coverage in saying: “For us to completely change our system, root and branch, would be hugely disruptive.” Only market-based solutions will be considered along with huge cost-containment measures, mostly affecting millions of working Americans, the poor, elderly, and chronically ill.

Over the next decade, Medicare and Medicaid may lose over $600 billion in funding with recipients, of course, making up the difference or foregoing care. About $317 billion is proposed for “efficiencies” with another $313 billion in cuts for hospitals that treat the poor and uninsured. Many of them are already severely strapped as unemployment soars, charitable donations are down, expenses rise, vital services and staffs have to be cut to stay afloat, and growing numbers won’t make it as economic conditions worsen.

Instead of helping to fill budget gaps, Obama plans less aid to shut them down. It will leave some areas dependent on more distant ones for treatment, and let large chains consolidate for greater dominance. Accessible quality care will be less available and affordable so, of course, patients will lose out – mostly the elderly, chronically ill, those on society’s lower rungs, and all working Americans because an uncaring administration and Congress threw them overboard for profit and “efficiencies.”

If “Obamacare” passes, most working people, the disadvantaged, and those singled out as less important will experience large rollbacks in quality, readily accessible coverage. For them, future health problems will be more hazardous than ever because a callous nation doesn’t care.

On July 17 as expected, two of three key House committees passed HR 3200. Largely along party lines, Ways and Means voted 23 – 18. Education and Labor approved 26 – 22 with a Kucinich amendment that may not survive a floor vote or make it to the Senate.

It leaves HR 3200 intact but lets states create single-payer plans. Eight are now considering them – California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Missouri, and Washington with perhaps more to follow.

On June 11 in Pennsylvania, HealthCare4ALLPA organized over 400 people for a state capital rally, and its Executive Director Chuck Pennachio predicts pending legislation passage later in the year because bipartisan support backs it. So do most Pennsylvanians, and Governor Ed Rendell said he’ll sign what comes to his desk.

Kucinich hailed its importance in saying:

“There are many models of health care reform from which to choose around the world – the vast majority of which perform far better than ours. The one that has been the most tested here and abroad is single-payer. Under (it) everyone in the US would get a card that would allow access to any doctor at virtually any hospital. Doctors and hospitals would continue to be privately run, but the insurance payments would be in public hands. By getting rid of the for-profit insurance companies, we can save $400 billion per year and provide coverage for all medically necessary services for everyone in the US.”

Continue Article

The Return of America’s Anathema, “Taxation without representation is tyranny.”

July 20, 2009

By Jerry Salcido
Published 07/18/09

As most American school children know, one of the chief complaints that the American colonists had against the mother country was that they were taxed without their consent. “Taxation without representation is tyranny,” a phrase often credited to the revolutionary James Otis, became an American maxim. Colonial Americans were anti-tax to begin with, but to be taxed by a parliament three thousand miles away without any say in the matter was intolerable.

The colonists revolted and after sacrificing their lives and treasure they defeated the pariah which is taxation without representation; and, consequently, the freest nation the world had ever seen was born. Victory, however, was short-lived, as taxation without representation was resurrected and transmogrified a little more than 100 years later, in 1913, in the form of the Federal Reserve System, America’s third and most menacing iteration of a central bank.

Technically, the Federal Reserve has no power of taxation. In fact, it is not even a governmental entity or agency. It is a bank composed of unelected officials who answer to their shareholders… and who once in a while appear before Congress to discuss a whole lot about nothing. How then does the Federal Reserve effect taxation without representation? Through its manipulation of the money supply, that is, through varying degrees of continual inflation. As even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke admitted, “Inflation is a tax.”

The problem is that unlike those in 1776, Americans today—courtesy of the fractional reserve banking system led by the Federal Reserve—do not even realize they are being taxed without their consent. One reason for this general dearth of understanding concerning such vital subject matter is the perception that acquiring knowledge of the economics of central banking is equivalent to earning a PhD in quantum physics. Not so; and, if liberty is to return to America Americans must understand that the Federal Reserve is their new King George.

No Representation

To begin, calling it the “Federal Reserve” is a misnomer, because it is not “federal” (or a “reserve” for that matter, but that is not important for our purposes). Nonetheless, it does have loose, somewhat incestuous, ties to the federal government. As one federal circuit court explained it is “composed of both public and private elements.” Committee for Monetary Reform v. Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System, 766 F.2d 538, 539 (D.C. Cir. 1985). The Federal Reserve System was created by Congress’s 1913 Federal Reserve Act, and consequently derives its powers from the federal government. It consists of twelve districts each of which has one Federal Reserve Bank (“Fed Regional Banks”) and more than 5,000 other privately owned banks, that is, your bank. The Federal Reserve System’s powers are distributed primarily among three separate bodies, none of which are composed of elected officials: the Board of Governors (“Board”), the Federal Open Market Committee (“FOMC”), and the Federal Advisory Counsel (“FAC”). The Board governs the day-to-day business of the Federal Reserve and consists of seven members each of whom is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Board members serve fourteen year terms — more than twice as long as U.S. Senators. While the original text of the Federal Reserve Act allowed the President to remove a Board member “for cause,” that is no longer the case. Today Board members may only be removed through Congressional impeachment, a next to impossible process.

Continue Article

Dr. Paul argues in this video, additional regulations will be just another tax on consumers

July 20, 2009