Thursday, October 30, 2008

ExxonMobil The Great Satan?

You would think so if you listen to the vast majority of people you hear on a daily basis. I can't stand people that bitch and moan about how it's so ridiculous these profits these oil companies make when none of them can tell you the difference between gross profit and net profit. Sure ExxonMobil has had a record quarter for gross profit but guess who has really made out this year? The United States Federal Government has stolen nearly 100 billion dollars from ExxonMobil collected in the form of taxes.

Which brings me to my next point, people say "well these damn oil companies need to support us they make such a astronomical amount of money it makes me sick" well ladies and gentlemen pull your head from you rectum and realize that ExxonMobil or any big companies don't pay any tax, YOU DO the end consumer, the CEO's, the lazy union workers and on down the line are gonna make what they make regardless of how much they are taxed, they just pass the cost along to you. So the real target for aggresion is the US Federal Government, they are the reason your 401ks, and IRAs are hitting the crapper its because of the Federal Reserve. If you think that is rediculous than feel free to leave a comment or send me some email. I never get tired of setting the record straight.

In Depth With Investor Peter Schiff

The Revolution: A Slideshow

This is a great and very informative video created by a Ron Paul supporter.

The Revolution: A Slideshow

This is a great and very informative video created by a Ron Paul supporter.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Chuck Baldwin Ralph Nader Presidential Debate

I am proud to present to you a debate between Chuck Baldwin and Ralph Nader.

John McCain's Flip Flops

National Security Policy

1. McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.

2. McCain insisted that everyone, even “terrible killers,” “the worst kind of scum of humanity,” and detainees at Guantanamo Bay, “deserve to have some adjudication of their cases,” even if that means “releasing some of them.” McCain now believes the opposite.

3. He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

4. In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.

5. McCain was for closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay before he was against it.

6. When Barack Obama talked about going after terrorists in Pakistani mountains with predators, McCain criticized him for it. He’s since come to the opposite conclusion.

Foreign Policy

7. McCain was for kicking Russia out of the G8 before he was against it. Now, he’s for it again.

8. McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.

9. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.

10. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.

11. McCain is both for and against a “rogue state rollback” as a focus of his foreign policy vision.

12. McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.

13. McCain was against divestment from South Africa before he was for it.

Military Policy

14. McCain recently claimed that he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”

15. McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions, concluding, on multiple occasions, that a Korea-like presence is both a good and a bad idea.

16. McCain was against additional U.S. forces in Afghanistan before he was for it.

17. McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”

18. McCain has repeatedly said it’s a dangerous mistake to tell the “enemy” when U.S. troops would be out of Iraq. In May, McCain announced that most American troops would be home from Iraq by 2013.

19. McCain was against expanding the GI Bill before he was for it.

20. McCain staunchly opposed Obama’s Iraq withdrawal timetable, and even blasted Mitt Romney for having referenced the word during the GOP primaries. In July, after Iraqi officials endorsed Obama’s policy, McCain said a 16-month calendar sounds like “a pretty good timetable.”

Domestic Policy

21. McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)

22. On Social Security, McCain said he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Soon after, asked about a possible increase in the payroll tax, McCain said there’s “nothing that’s off the table.”

23. McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.

24. McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.

25. He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party’s policy making. Now he believes the opposite.

26. In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.

27. McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.

28. McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.

29. McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.

30. McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.

31. McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

32. McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

33. In 2005, McCain endorsed intelligent design creationism, a year later he said the opposite, and a few months after that, he was both for and against creationism at the same time.

34. And on gay adoption, McCain initially said he’d rather let orphans go without families, then his campaign reversed course, and soon after, McCain reversed back.

35. In the Senate, McCain opposed a variety of measures on equal pay for women, and endorsed the Supreme Court’s Ledbetter decision. In July, however, McCain said, “I’m committed to making sure that there’s equal pay for equal work. That … is my record and you can count on it.”

36. McCain was against fully funding the No Child Left Behind Act before he was for it.

37. McCain was for affirmative action before he was against it.

38. McCain said the Colorado River compact will “obviously” need to be “renegotiated.” Six days later, McCain said, “Let me be clear that I do not advocate renegotiation of the compact.”

Economic Policy

39. McCain was against Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy before he was for them.

40. John McCain initially argued that economics is not an area of expertise for him, saying, “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues; I still need to be educated,” and “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.” He now falsely denies ever having made these remarks and insists that he has a “very strong” understanding of economics.

41. McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal. And soon after that, McCain abandoned his second position and went back to his first.

42. McCain said in 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and falsely argued that he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.

43. McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.

44. McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”

45. McCain has changed his entire economic worldview on multiple occasions.

46. McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off economically than they were before Bush took office.

47. McCain was against massive government bailouts of “big banks” that “act irresponsibly.” He then announced his support for a massive government bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Energy Policy

48. McCain supported the moratorium on coastal drilling ; now he’s against it.

49. McCain recently announced his strong opposition to a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.

50. McCain endorsed a cap-and-trade policy with a mandatory emissions cap. In mid-June, McCain announced he wants the caps to voluntary.

51. McCain explained his belief that a temporary suspension of the federal gas tax would provide an immediate economic stimulus. Shortly thereafter, he argued the exact opposite.

52. McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.

53. McCain was for national auto emissions standards before he was against them.

Immigration Policy

54. McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. In 2007, he announced his opposition to the bill. In 2008, McCain switched back.

55. On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own bill.

56. In April, McCain promised voters that he would secure the borders “before proceeding to other reform measures.” Two months later, he abandoned his public pledge, pretended that he’d never made the promise in the first place, and vowed that a comprehensive immigration reform policy has always been, and would always be, his “top priority.”

Judicial Policy and the Rule of Law

57. McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.

58. McCain’s position was that the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.

59. McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.

60. In June, McCain rejected the idea of a trial for Osama bin Laden, and thought Obama’s reference to Nuremberg was a misread of history. A month later, McCain argued the exact opposite position.

61. In June, McCain described the Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush was “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” In August, he reversed course.

Campaign, Ethics, and Lobbying Reform

62. McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.

63. In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.

64. McCain supported a campaign-finance bill, which bore his name, on strengthening the public-financing system. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.

65. In May 2008, McCain approved a ban on lobbyists working for his campaign. In July 2008, his campaign reversed course and said lobbyists could work for his campaign.

Politics and Associations

66. McCain wanted political support from radical televangelist John Hagee. Now he doesn’t. (He also believes his endorsement from Hagee was both a good and bad idea.)

67. McCain wanted political support from radical televangelist Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t.

68. McCain says he considered and did not consider joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.

69. McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.

70. McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.

71. In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

72. McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

73. McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.

74. McCain believed powerful right-wing activist/lobbyist Grover Norquist was “corrupt, a shill for dictators, and (with just a dose of sarcasm) Jack Abramoff’s gay lover.” McCain now considers Norquist a key political ally.

75. McCain was for presidential candidates giving speeches in foreign countries before he was against it.

76. McCain has been both for and against considering a pro-choice running mate for the Republican presidential ticket.

EU Calls for One World Government

For years now people such as G. Edward Griffin, Ron Paul, Eustace Mullins, and countless others have been warning everyone that the endgame of those in power is a one world government. Today it is not even kept under wraps anymore, the term "New World Order" which undoubtedly still conjures up pictures of tin foil hats in some peoples minds is now thrown around by some of the most powerful officials on the planet. We will have a one world government there is no doubt of that. However it is your duty to become informed and inform those around you so when the time is right, we the people can do what is right.

A good start would be to vote third party in this election, don't choose between to globalists who are in it for big banks choose someone who will truely bring jobs back to America by kicking out the ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and sealing our borders, repealing NAFTA and CAFTA, and reducing the amount of government robbery of the citizens.

These videos clearly show the EU is pushing for the next step in World Government you need to spread these videos around the net and expose these Globalists for who they are. This isn't just some conspiracy!

What is a White Nationalist?

I am a White Nationalist

I'm not here because I hate another race, I'm here because I want to protect the culture, heritage and history of my people, I'm here because I want to secure a white future for my children, I want to secure them the best future I possibly can.

Most people read me wrong, which doesn't frustrate me as much as it amuses me. They seem convinced I fit some sort of stereotype, that I'm some sort of knuckle dragging ape, isolated and ignorant from other races, socially inept, poor, bitter, angry, filled with hate, who was either brainwashed in to his views or formed them because of some unfortunate, unrepresentative incident in my past, someone who is lacking in self pride or self worth who needs to attack others to promote myself. They are wrong.

Obviously I'm not an ape, nor do my knuckles drag on the floor. I'm not going to sit here and over inflate myself, I am not the most intelligent person on the planet and it would be wrong of me to pretend I was, but I'm above average in intelligence, my IQ says this as does my qualifications and my lifetime achievements. Superman I'm not, but neither am I ignorant.

So, unable to place my views at the altar of ignorance, can I claim my perspective has been shaped by isolation?

It's a common enough charge that people bring against nationalists, but I would argue my life has been far from isolated. I was born in England, but I've lived for large chunks of my life in Wales, Canada, USA, and other areas of Europe; on top of that I've visted four continents. I've been a White face in a majority Black world, I've been a White face in a majority White world, I've been to poor countries, I've been to rich countries, I've been to right wing places, I've been to left wing places -- so left wing they've been Communist.

I've been to pro-West places and anti-West places, I've been to Protestant places, Catholic places, Muslim places, Orthodox places, Atheist places and places where they have their own forms of religion, completely alien to the West. I hardly feel that those credentials mark me out as someone who has lived an isolated life and is ignorant of other people, other cultures and other races. In fact I find it to be quite the opposite, I've noticed times when people of other races have been talking about their race and I've ended up being more racially aware of it than they are, because they have lived an isolated life.

So is it that old chestnut that I'm socially inept?

I read this one a lot in the media, they often say that White nationalists have difficulty mixing in society so they have to join some ultra far right cult to feel at home. Well again this doesn't feel like it applies to me. I didn't become a nationalist because I can't make friends offline, in fact I didn't become a nationalist to make friends at all, although having said that I have met many good people, in the Cause, that I do class as friends now.

I have always seemed to do quite well offline, I've travelled the world and met many people, of many nationalities, and had no problems making friends or interacting.

I read a study, a few years back, into how many "friends" we should have and of what type, I found myself to be in the sociable category of the results of that survey, not a party animal, but scoring slighty above average, which suggests to me there is no social ineptitude.

So is it to do with wealth or poverty?

Again this is a frequent argument used to beat White nationalists over the head with, but I've had a life that has allowed me to experience both wealth and poverty and all stations inbetween, so how could it be about money?

So am I angry, bitter, filled with hate?

I don't think I am, I think I'm a sensitive person, acting and believing what I do out of love. I'm not here because I hate another race, I'm here because I want to protect the culture, heritage and history of my people, I'm here because I want to secure a White future for my children, I want to secure them the best future I possibly can. Why would I ever want anything less than that for them?

The next generation is far more important to me than my own life. I've lived long enough on this planet to know that changes will not be effected over night, therefore the majority of my life, if not all of it, will be lived in a world that I feel is harmful to myself and to my race and so the most important thing for me is not about the here and now, but about the future, about making sure I provide the best future that I am capable of securing for the next generation, not just my children, but all White children.

Another frequently leveled charge is that I've obviously been brainwashed, but again I find this hard to believe, I find it hard to believe not just because I am not a low intelligence person, but also because I find it hard to see who could have brainwashed me.

I obviously wasn't brainwashed by the media, the movies, the newspapers, the schools, or the majority of books, as they all oppose me, so it would be easier to brainwash an anti than it would be to brainwash me using the mainstream media, so how was I brainwashed?

Was I brainwashed by peers?

Well I was never recruited to the 'movement.' I found my own way here, so there was no charasmatic figure that led me through deceit to this position, nor did I have friends with these views, before I formulated them myself, so I couldn't have been brainwashed by peers.

Then am I lacking in self worth or self pride?

I'm sure some would laugh at that even being suggested here because I can be an arrogant bastard, full of myself sometimes. I don't think I can be said to be lacking in self worth at all, and I have a lot of pride in what I've achieved in my life, so I think we can scratch that one from the list as well.

What about some incident in my past?

Was there an unrepresentative incident, involving a non-White that shaped my views?

Again, I have to answer no. There have been incidents in my past, more than I would have liked to experience, but I've also had bad experiences with White people as well; I'm not one of these people that claims all Whites are perfect angels and that life would suddenly be paradise if we were all segregated -- my intelligence stretches beyond that sort of reasoning. No, I have had bad experiences, but they didn't make me what I am today, and some of them I merely view as evidence, supporting the views that I had already formulated. But in the majority of cases I have viewed these incidents as being personal, isolated incidents that are representative of nothing.

If a dog bites me I don't instantly believe that all dogs will bite me; in the same way if I have a bad experiance with a non-White, or a White, I don't assume that that is typical behaviour representative of all. I tend to base my views on much more substantive evidence than that.

So am I attacking non-Whites to promote my own stock?

Hardly, because as I already stated I am not seeking to attack anyone, I'm seeking to defend the White race and I don't believe that we have to wipe all the other races out to secure our future.

In a recent conversation I was talking with a Native Canadian. He is, by my definition, non-White. By the end of the discussion we were in agreement. We shared the view that the best thing for both our races was for us to live apart, so that our own cultures could prosper and flourish, we agreed that we were not each other's enemies and that our common enemy was those who force us to integrate -- they were the ones who threatened us, our heritage and our culture.

Was I attacking him to promote the White race?

I'm not a nationalist because I hate another race; I'm a nationalist because I want to protect the culture, heritage and history of my people; I'm a nationalist because I want to secure a White future for my children, I want to secure them the best future I possibly can. Why would I ever want anything less than that for them?

I came to the views that I have through independent means, through reasoning. I have sorted out all sources of knowledge, representing all sides of the debate; I have cogitated upon this information and come to my own conclusions. Everything I am ever told I question; everything I ever read I question; everything I ever hear I question. I don't follow anyone or anything like a sheep. I make my own decisions and if I think something is wrong then I will say so. However I do think that the core principals of White nationalism are right. This is my view, based on all the evidence that I have found, or that has been presented to me.

Here's a question for you: Why would I chose this route unless I was 120% sure it was right?

Being a non-nationalist is easy, everyday you say what the system wants to hear, that's easy; being a White nationalist is hard. Every day of the year I say things the state hates to hear, I risk losing friends and jobs because of my views, I risk being sent to jail because of my views, I risk getting beaten up because of my views, I risk being murdered because of my views. Do you think I'd choose that path lightly?

I would love to be wrong. Suprised?

No seriously, I would love to be wrong, because if I was wrong then I could relax, I could live happily in the world knowing I had to do nothing but enjoy it to secure the future for the next generation. I wouldn't have to worry about what a boss might think of my views, I wouldn't be classed as one of the lowest forms of life on the planet, I wouldn't risk the same beatings, or the same threats to my life, I wouldn't have to worry about being sent to jail. That would be bliss. I would love to be wrong; but I'm right.

It's been over five years since I heard a new argument from an anti -- all the time I hear the same recycled junk.

I've almost begged those opossed to my views to show me why I'm wrong, to show me their vision of a better world, but 99.9% of them can offer nothing more than insults.

Now I ask you this, I believe that I am defending my culture, my people, my race, I want nothing more than to secure the future for the next generation of White people. And I am committed to that goal. How commited is a person that they can't even answer a question when asked?

If a person truly believes he is right then shouldn't he be willing to go to any lengths to 'convert' the people he meets?

Well, convert me.

Adam Kosesh on How to Fight Fascism

Fox News Admits Ron Paul Predicted This Crisis

Fox News Admits Ron Paul Predicted This Crisis

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Jim Rogers Setting Things Straight on CNBC

BJ Lawson for Congress

Don't Throw Away Your Vote


I have many Republican friends who are disgusted that I'm voting third party this election year. They believe stopping Barack Obama from becoming president outweighs all else. Meanwhile, I have many Democrat friends who are equally disgusted; for them, seeing John McCain defeated is more important than who wins. They are all wasting their votes.

Imagine a reckless teenager who constantly runs up his parents' credit cards, smashes the family car every Friday night, is failing in school, and has serious drinking and drug problems. Now imagine that no matter how reckless and dangerous that teenager became, his parents believed his behavior was worth tolerating simply because he was "their" kid. No reasonable person would consider this good parenting.

And yet this is exactly how otherwise reasonable people vote.

No matter how bad the Republican or Democrat nominee for president is, the party faithful support their own without fail. The message to politicians? They may lie, ignore their party's platform, and betray every supposed principle, but they will never be held accountable by most voters. Like the reckless teenager, there is simply no reason for them to stop their irresponsible behavior.

The greatest power the people have is their vote, and in supporting the lesser of two evils each election, voters ensure eternal evil.

Voting third party is as practical as it is principled. Sarah Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate for a number of reasons, one of which was to appeal to independent voters in closely-contested swing states who might support Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr.

Reports The Washington Times, "As with every presidential election, the independent and Libertarian voters can make or break a mainstream candidate because they represent 41 percent of the electorate. Right after the Republican convention, John McCain showed a 12 percent jump in support among independent voters, according to a Gallup poll. The increase was due in part to Mrs. Palin."

Conservatives had little good to say about John McCain before he became the GOP nominee, but now they are prepared to vote for a pro-amnesty, liberal Republican, who recently was not only complicit in passing the greatest wealth distribution package in American history, but who also counts liberals Ted Kennedy, Joe Lieberman, and Russ Feingold amongst his greatest political allies. Is it really worth rewarding such a Republican in order to stop Obama?

This year, I will be voting for Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin. "Chuck who?" you ask. Exactly.

There is no perfect candidate, and in fact I only have two litmus tests that any candidate must pass in order to win my vote; he must be committed to a traditional foreign policy, with the first order of business being to bring our troops home from Iraq, and he must be serious about stopping illegal immigration. There are other issues that concern me, but these two promise to do the most damage to the United States, as war and open borders are inextricably linked to America's most pertinent economic, cultural, and security issues.

Chuck Baldwin could be an alcoholic, an atheist, or an asshole, and he would still receive my vote, because he's right on foreign policy and illegal immigration. Luckily, he's a conservative Christian who I agree with on most issues, and was even endorsed by Ron Paul, who I supported for the Republican nomination. If Baldwin was not running, I would be voting for Ralph Nader, who as a liberal, still passes my two litmus tests. So does Bob Barr.

Once you've decided to vote third party, it only makes sense to support the candidate you feel most comfortable with, conservative, liberal, or otherwise.

Neither Obama nor McCain pass either of my litmus tests, and the Republican nominee is arguably even worse than his Democratic opponent. As Libertarian Justin Raimondo aptly put it, the only thing Obama promises to change concerning our current foreign policy is the battlefield. McCain wants to send more troops to both Iraq and Afghanistan, and if he and his neoconservative advisers get their way, possibly Iran and Georgia. And whereas Obama merely supports amnesty, McCain — along with Ted Kennedy — actually sponsored the bill.

It has been said that if you don't vote, you can't complain. If you always vote for the status quo, you really have no business complaining about it. And if politics-as-usual is something you're entirely comfortable with, then by all means vote for Obama or McCain.

However, I know very few people who admit to being comfortable with the status quo. And even fewer willing to do anything about it.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Who Runs the Federal Reserve - Jews

by Ian Mosley

Ever since the creation of the Federal Reserve system in 1913, EVERY SINGLE CHAIRMAN of the Fed, without exception, has been Jewish. That tradition has continued in the appointment by President Dubya of Ben Shalom Bernanke (Yes, that’s his real middle name) as successor to Alan Greenspan.

It is difficult to overstate the importance of the Federal Reserve in maintaining the Judaic control not only of our American economy and politics, but the economy and statecraft of the entire world. Very few people in America even understand what the Federal Reserve is, despite the fact that every single dollar bill in their wallets bears the description “Federal Reserve Note.” Many people think that they are working to earn “American money” or “U. S. dollars” and that the green pieces of paper in their wallets are in some way connected with the United States or backed by the United States government. They are not. They are Federal Reserve notes–PRIVATELY printed money issued under contract to the U. S. by a JEWISH controlled corporation.

Federal Reserve notes are not backed by gold, silver, or any other precious metal, as was the case up until 1934 when Franklin Delano Roosevelt recalled the last of the gold certificates. People sometimes wonder why the United States even bothers to maintain a gold reserve at Fort Knox. Simple–it is to keep gold out of the hands of the people. The last year any American coins contained silver was 1964.

The Federal Reserve and the Jews who control it have their claws in a stranglehold around America’s throat. They alone decide how much money will be in circulation, hence the rate of inflation. They alone decide on prime interest rates, hence the power to inflate huge multinational banks and financial institutions with obscene profits or send the American economy crashing down into a depression with a few taps on a computer keyboard and a public announcement. The mighty Stock Exchange itself is nothing but a toy balloon on a string for the Jews who run the Federal Reserve; they can manipulate the market and stock prices at will and pop the balloon any time they want.

America will never be truly free until the Federal Reserve and the Jews who control it have been brought down and replaced by a genuine national currency backed by precious metals or some other benchmark of real-world value.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Joe the Outlaw Plumber

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

This whole campaign has been dreadfully boring, with gaffe-avoidance techniques squelching all spontaneity, and it doesn't help that the ideological parameters of the election have been so narrowly drawn as to make any thinking person want to shut up both the candidates and the media that cover them so lovingly.

Still, one interesting point has emerged: the archetype chosen to represent mainstream America turns out to be a thorough-going outlaw in the best sense of that term. In this, he is a symbol of the age. We can look forward to the creation and emergence of ever more people like this in the coming years, as the state tightens its grip over every aspect of American life. We will all soon be outlaws.

The whole Joe the Plumber saga began when Joe Wurzelbacher from Toledo, Ohio, confronted Barack Obama about the candidate's tax plans. He wanted to know if Obama would raise his taxes. In particular, he was planning to buy a company with a revenue of $250,000 per year. "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?"

Of course the Republicans seized on this and exploited it. McCain keeps bringing him up in speeches. Republicans like to talk about taxes. They always seem to corner the budget-balancing, wealth-distributing Democrats with this topic, even though it is largely a distraction in an age of fiat money when the government can print all the revenue it needs. Still, the GOP likes the symbolism, so Joe had his 15 minutes of fame as a hero of the Right.

But the New York Times did some digging and discovered – horror – that Joe is doing plumbing without a proper business license. How dare he call himself a plumber! A license is required by Toledo, not just one license for a partnership but for everyone who is called a plumber. Joe has not taken the training courses, is not a member of the union, and cannot legally call himself a plumber.

The press reports on this were explosive, with reporters speaking as if they had caught this guy red-handed and completely discredited him. But what about the complete absurdity of the idea that you have to have a license in order to have the right to fix someone else's sink? This is Soviet like, but deeply entrenched in American professional life.

The idea of licensing is that it assures quality standards. But this is just a cover used by guilds since the Middle Ages. The real goal of licensing is to create a professional cartel. Fewer providers means higher wages for those with licenses. It is all about boosting income by restricting competition. This is of course a violation of human rights because it impinges on the fundamental freedom of association.

In a market setting, there are plenty of quality controls through professional organizations. Consumers are free to use them or not. Many private producers attempt to create cartels through this means, but it is rarely successful. There are always producers who break with the guild in order to charge lower prices for their services. This is why they often seek state regulations, such as the requirement that all plumbers have a license.

By the way, this is true of all professions, including lawyering and doctoring. There was a time when entry into these fields was governed by the free market, and the system worked fine (contrary to legend). But the big players in these industries sought and obtained state privileges to officially license service providers. It was an income-boosting tactic and it worked.

By practicing plumbing without a license, Joe is bucking the system in a truly heroic way. He shouldn't be condemned for this. He should be celebrated as a freedom fighter. He has a lot more to complain about than just taxes. It is the state itself in all its incarnations that is his true enemy. He ought to demanding answers from the politicians about their regulatory schemes to further restrict competition in a wide range of areas (banking for example!).

Most ridiculous is the idea that he shouldn't be called a plumber because he doesn't have a license. Here we see how licensing attacks even the use of our language. If he is doing plumbing, he is a plumber. Period.

And yet taxes are also close to Joe's heart because it also turns out that he is delinquent on his property taxes, which are similarly too high and similarly unjust. The Ohio Department of Taxation placed a lien against him because $1,183 in personal property taxes had not been paid. In what sense can you say that you really own your home if the state can take it away if you don't pay what the state says you ought to be pay? This is an attack on private property in the most fundamental sense.

So it turns out that we truly do have an American archetype in Joe Wurzelbacher. He is an outlaw in the same sense that our founders were outlaws. He lives outside the regulations of the state because these regulations attack his freedom and property. It was to end systems such as this that the American revolution came to be. And yet we find ourselves back in exactly the same system, and one incredibly worse in every way.

It is going to take something different from the election of the Republican to beat back the oppressions that vex his life. It is not complicated. It is a right belonging to all people that they can do what they want and keep what they own provided they do not impinge on anyone else's right to do the same. The state is nothing but an organized attempt to deny this right. Joe has an enemy, but it goes way beyond Obama.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Is Voting Third Party a Wasted Vote?

by Dr. Chuck Baldwin

When asked why they will not vote for a third party candidate, many people will respond by saying something like, "He cannot win." Or, "I don't want to waste my vote." It is true: America has not elected a third party candidate since 1860. Does that automatically mean, however, that every vote cast for one of the two major party candidates is not a wasted vote? I don't think so.

In the first place, a wasted vote is a vote for someone you know does not represent your own beliefs and principles. A wasted vote is a vote for someone you know will not lead the country in the way it should go. A wasted vote is a vote for the "lesser of two evils." Or, in the case of John McCain and Barack Obama, what we have is a choice between the "evil of two lessers."

Albert Einstein is credited with saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. For years now, Republicans and Democrats have been leading the country in the same basic direction: toward bigger and bigger government; more and more socialism, globalism, corporatism, and foreign interventionism; and the dismantling of constitutional liberties. Yet, voters continue to think that they are voting for "change" when they vote for a Republican or Democrat. This is truly insane!

Take a look at the recent $700 billion Wall Street bailout: both John McCain and Barack Obama endorsed and lobbied for it. Both McCain and Obama will continue to bail out these international banksters on the backs of the American taxpayers. Both McCain and Obama support giving illegal aliens amnesty and a path to citizenship. In the debate this past Tuesday night, both McCain and Obama expressed support for sending U.S. forces around the world for "peacekeeping" purposes. They also expressed support for sending combat forces against foreign countries even if those countries do not pose a threat to the United States. Neither Obama nor McCain will do anything to stem the tide of a burgeoning police state or a mushrooming New World Order. Both Obama and McCain support NAFTA and similar "free trade" deals. Neither candidate will do anything to rid America of the Federal Reserve, or work to eliminate the personal income tax, or disband the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Both Obama and McCain support the United Nations. So, pray tell, how is a vote for either McCain or Obama not a wasted vote?

But, back to the "he cannot win" argument: to vote for John McCain is to vote for a man who cannot win. Yes, I am saying it here and now: John McCain cannot win this election. The handwriting is on the wall. The Fat Lady is singing. It is all over. Finished. John McCain cannot win.

With only three weeks before the election, Barack Obama is pulling away. McCain has already pulled his campaign out of Michigan. In other key battleground states, McCain is slipping fast. He was ahead in Missouri; now it is a toss-up or leaning to Obama. A couple of weeks ago, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida were all leaning towards McCain, or at least toss-up states. Now, they are all leaning to Obama. Even the longtime GOP bellwether state of Indiana is moving toward Obama. In addition, new voter registrations are at an all-time high, and few of them are registering as Republicans. In fact, the Republican Party now claims only around 25% of the electorate, and Independents are increasingly leaning toward Obama.

Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama is headed for an electoral landslide victory over John McCain. John McCain can no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton.

I ask, therefore, Are not conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain guilty of the same thing that they accuse people who vote for third party candidates of doing? Are they not voting for someone who cannot win? Indeed, they are. In fact, conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain are not only voting for a man who cannot win, they are voting for a man who does not share their own beliefs and principles. If this is not insanity, nothing is!

So, why not (for once in your life, perhaps) cast a vote purely for principle! Vote for someone who is truly pro-life. Someone who would quickly secure our nation's borders, and end the invasion of our country by illegal aliens. Someone who would, on his first day in office, release Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean and fire U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. Someone who would immediately, upon assuming office, begin leading the charge to dismantle the Federal Reserve, overturn the 16th Amendment, expunge the IRS, and return America to sound money principles. Someone who would get the US out of the UN. Someone who would stop spending billions and trillions of dollars for foreign aid. Someone who would prosecute the Wall Street bankers who defrauded the American people out of billions of dollars. Someone who would work to repeal NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and stop the NAFTA superhighway. Someone who would say a resounding "No" to the New World Order. Someone who would stop using our brave men and women in uniform as global cops for the United Nations. Someone who would stop America's global adventurism and interventionism. Someone who would steadfastly support and defend the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

"Who is this person?" you ask. Go here to find out:

As John Quincy Adams said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

Washington's Maverick

Full Story Here

Often called the most honest man in Washington, Ron Paul, the unsinkable Congressman from Texas’s fourteenth district, has positioned himself as resident watchdog for the United States Constitution. Ron Paul holds a point of view that, although echoing the wording of our nation’s founding fathers, rings downright alien to the United States government of today.

We are now living in a nation where Federal social and economic programs are our government, where our currency status hinges on the stock market rather than the gold standard and where our current President has taken more liberties with the United States constitution than any other President in our country’s history. Under these circumstances, Ron Paul just doesn’t seem to fit in. Reason being: we’ve grown accustomed to, and quite comfortable with, large Federal government and the act of re-shaping laws for convenience.

Ron Paul is a conservative, but hardly a Republican – not according to the cookie cutter Ronald Reagan playbook, anyway. He fancies himself a Libertarian and a Constitutionalist, yet in 2007, Paul ran for President under the guise of the Republican Party, a move that seemed out of character, but one that brought his agenda to the mainstream media and sealed his status as a cult hero to an overwhelming number of staunch Ron Paul supporters.

Though liberals, and even some conservatives, often misdiagnose Paul’s agenda, no one in either the House or the Senate can deny the consistency and integrity of his voting record. Many people may not agree with his strict interpretation of our constitution, but everyone defends his character, including Senator John McCain, who was recently denied an endorsement by Paul.

A former physician and devoted family man who never waivers in his beliefs, this quote from eloquently and humorously sums it up, “Ron Paul is 9 feet tall, but the weight of his conscience makes him look shorter.”

During my conversation with Ron Paul I took every opportunity to get a Washington veteran’s perspective on our current financial crisis, the seven hundred billion dollar “rescue package” which flip flopped its way through the House of Representatives, the value of the U.S. dollar, McCain and Obama politics and the future of our economy.

Hundreds of Economists Sign Letter Opposing Obama's Tax Plan

Hundreds of economists (including Nobel Prize winners Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Robert Mundell, Edward Prescott, and Vernon Smith) have signed letters opposing Barack Obama's economic and tax plans (here, here, and here):

We are equally concerned with his proposals to increase tax rates on labor income and investment. His dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans. His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay, as would his mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance.

After hearing such economic criticism of his proposals, Barack Obama has apparently suggested to some people that he might postpone his tax increases, perhaps to 2010. But it is a mistake to think that postponing such tax increases would prevent their harmful effect on the economy today. The prospect of such tax rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy. Businesses considering whether to hire workers today and expand their operations have time horizons longer than a year or two, so the prospect of higher taxes starting in 2009 or 2010 reduces hiring and investment in 2008.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Obama's Second Facorite Kind of Nuts ACORN

ACORN the socialist organization bent on destroying the producers in our society have now and forever been tied to Barack Hussein Obama. What is wrong with Hussein Obama saying that he would let "ACORN shape is policy"? How about this?

"A community-based organization's voter drive that has registered some 1.3 million voters is drawing allegations of fraud, observers say.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as ACORN, aims to register to vote lower income blacks and Latinos, ABC News reported Wednesday. The group, based in Las Vegas, has been accused by Nevada officials of using fake and duplicate names, including the names of Dallas Cowboy players, in a fraudulent voter registration. Investigators have alleged that ACORN hired 59 inmates on work release as canvassers. One inmate who had worked as a "team leader" told investigators that "some of the canvassers hired by ACORN were "lazy crackheads."

Barack Hussein Obama CONFIRMED Socialist

Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Web Archives Confirm Barack Obama Was Member Of Socialist 'New Party' In 1996


In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago "New Party". The 'New Party' was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards. The admittedly Socialist Organization experienced a moderate rise in numbers between 1995 and 1999. By 1999, however, the Socialist 'New Party' was essentially defunct after losing a supreme court challenge that ruled the organizations "fusion" reform platform as unconstitutional.

After allegations surfaced in early summer over the 'New Party's' endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization. The DSA and 'New Party' then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA's New Party.

On Tuesday, I discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website. The web page which was published in October 1996, was an internet newsletter update on that years congressional races. Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization had archived the page.

From the October 1996 Update of the DSA 'New Party':
"New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races...

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)."

Link To The New Party Update

Beyond the archived web page from the Socialist New Party is the recognition by the "Progressive Populist" magazine in November 1996 that Obama was indeed an acknowledged member of the Socialist Party.

"New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago. "

Link To The November 1996 Progressive Populist Article

The Democratic Socialist Party of America published in their July/August Edition of New Ground 47 Newsletter.

"The Chicago New Party is increasely becoming a viable political organization that can make a different in Chicago politics. It is crucial for a political organization to have a solid infrastructure and visible results in its political program. The New Party has continued to solidify this base...

the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration."

Link To DSA Article

Obama's membership within the 'New Party' is disturbing as even Green Party members attacked the DSA and New Party as nothing more than a fringe group. The New Party had hoped to implement Socialist Rule in the United States and was established to counteract the influence of a Democratic Party that they viewed as too moderate and too centered. Now it seems that nearly 10 years after the socialist party fell apart, their strategy of upward growth has reached the White House. Obama's ties to the DSA's New Party is beyond just an association it is outright membership, as clearly defined by the parties August 1996 newsletter, in an outright Socialist organization.


Saturday, October 11, 2008

Ron Pauls Plan to Fix The Economy


America became the greatest, most prosperous nation in human history through low taxes, limited government, personal freedom and a belief in sound money. We need to return to these principles so our economy can thrive again. When enacted, my plan will provide both short-term stimulus and lay the groundwork for long-term prosperity.

Other candidates talk a lot about stimulus packages, but my record stands alone. I have fought for these measures for years as a member of Congress and will make them a top priority as president.

Ron Paul, a 10-term Republican congressman from Texas’s 14th District, is currently the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology. He has been named “Taxpayers’ Best Friend” for 10 consecutive years by the National Taxpayers’ Union. Ron Paul is also the author of several books on monetary policy and economics.

The Four-Point Plan

1. Tax Reform: Reduce the tax burden and eliminate taxes that punish investment and savings, including job-killing corporate taxes.
2. Spending Reform: Eliminate wasteful spending. Reduce overseas commitments. Freeze all non-defense, non-entitlement spending at current levels.
3. Monetary Policy Reform: Expand openness with the Federal Reserve and require the Fed to televise its meetings. Return value to our money.
4. Regulatory Reform: Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley regulations that push companies to seek capital outside of US markets. Stop restricting community banks from fostering local economic growth.

1. Tax Reform

* Eliminate Taxes on Dividends and Savings. The basis of capitalism is savings, and Americans who do so should be rewarded.
o Pass HJ Res. 23 to encourage savings over consumption.
* Repeal the Death Tax. Attacking small businesses and breaking up family farms smothers growth and kills jobs.
o Pass H.R. 2734 to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.
* Cut Taxes for Working Seniors. Grandmothers and grandfathers working to make ends meet should keep all the fruits of their labor.
o Pass H.R. 191 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in gross income of Social Security benefits.
* Eliminate Taxes on Social Security Benefits. That money belongs to seniors, not the government. They paid into the system for a lifetime, and they should be free to spend every penny as they see fit.
o Pass H.R. 192 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security benefits.
* Accelerate Depreciation on Investment. We need to help companies grow and create jobs.
o Pass H.R. 4995 and amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce corporate marginal income tax rates.
* Eliminate Taxes on Capital Gains. Investment should be embraced and rewarded.
o Pass H.J. Res 23 (The “Liberty Amendment”), proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.
* Eliminate Taxes on Tips.The single parents and working students who earn their income chiefly through tips deserve to keep all of their money. This tax on “estimated income” is unfair and should be ended.
o Pass H.R. 3664 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that tips shall not be subject to income or employment taxes.
* Support Mortgage Cancelation Relief Act. Working families who lost their homes should not be punished a second time with a big IRS bill.
o Pass H.R. 1876 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income of individual taxpayers discharges of indebtedness attributable to certain forgiven residential mortgage obligations.

2. Spending Reform

* Reduce Overseas Military Commitments. Our bases and troops should be on our soil.
o It’s time to stop subsidizing our trading partners in Europe, Japan and South Korea.
* Freeze Non-Defense, Non-Entitlement Spending at Current Levels
o I vote against all bloated, pork laden spending bills and will veto them as president.

3. Monetary Policy Reform

* Televise Federal Open Market Committee Meetings. An institution as powerful as the Federal Reserve deserves full public scrutiny.
* Expand Transparency and Accountability at the Federal Reserve
o Pass H.R. 2754 to require the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to continue to make available to the public on a weekly basis information on the measure of the M3 monetary aggregate and its components.

* Return Value to Our Money. Legalize gold and silver as a competing currency.
o Level the long-term boom and bust business cycle by passing H.R. 4683, which would repeal provisions of the federal criminal code relating to issuance coins of gold, silver, or other metal for use as current money and making or possessing likenesses of such coins.

4. Regulatory Reform

* Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley. It has seriously wounded our capital markets and helped make the UK the financial center at our expense.
o Ending these misguided regulations would bring jobs flooding back to the United States
o Pass H.R. 1049 to reform Sarbanes-Oxley and reduce the burden it places on small businesses.

* Repeal or Remove Costly and Unnecessary Federal Regulations. Neighbors know best how to help their neighbors.
o We need to make it easier for community banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions to better serve their communities and to help people in these communities get access to credit and capital.
o Pass H.R. 1869 to enhance the ability of community banks to foster economic growth and serve their communities, boost small businesses, increase individual savings, and for other purposes.

Jim Rogers we will have "Inflationary Holocaust"

Ron Paul Speech at the John Birch Society

Chuck Baldwin Speech at the John Birch Society

Friday, October 3, 2008

Who Do Mccain and Obama Work For?

You would think they would represent the people of Arizona and Illionois however that assumption is false. As I reported earlier here the top contributors to McCain and Obama are banks. These men do not represent the conservatives or the liberals. The American people have been left out to dry. These men serve Zionist International Bankers and there is nothing you can do about it.

Ron Paul on the Floor of the House Regarding the Bailout

United States House of Representatives
Statement on HR 1424
October 3, 2008

Madame Speaker, only in Washington could a bill demonstrably worse than its predecessor be brought back for another vote and actually expect to gain votes. That this bailout was initially defeated was a welcome surprise, but the power-brokers in Washington and on Wall Street could not allow that defeat to be permanent. It was most unfortunate that this monstrosity of a bill, loaded up with even more pork, was able to pass.

The Federal Reserve has already injected hundreds of billions of dollars into US and world credit markets. The adjusted monetary base is up sharply, bank reserves have exploded, and the national debt is up almost half a trillion dollars over the past two weeks. Yet, we are still told that after all this intervention, all this inflation, that we still need an additional $700 billion bailout, otherwise the credit markets will seize and the economy will collapse. This is the same excuse that preceded previous bailouts, and undoubtedly we will hear it again in the future after this bailout fails.

One of the most dangerous effects of this bailout is the incredibly elevated risk of moral hazard in the future. The worst performing financial services firms, even those who have been taken over by the government or have filed for bankruptcy, will find all of their poor decision-making rewarded. What incentive do Wall Street firms or any other large concerns have to make sound financial decisions, now that they see the federal government bailing out private companies to the tune of trillions of dollars? As Congress did with the legislation authorizing the Fannie and Freddie bailout, it proposes a solution that exacerbates and encourages the problematic behavior that led to this crisis in the first place.

With deposit insurance increasing to $250,000 and banks able to set their reserves to zero, we will undoubtedly see future increases in unsound lending. No one in our society seems to understand that wealth is not created by government fiat, is not created by banks, and is not created through the manipulation of interest rates and provision of easy credit. A debt-based society cannot prosper and is doomed to fail, as debts must either be defaulted on or repaid, neither resolution of which presents this country with a pleasant view of the future. True wealth can only come about through savings, the deferral of present consumption in order to provide for a higher level of future consumption. Instead, our government through its own behavior and through its policies encourages us to live beyond our means, reducing existing capital and mortgaging our future to pay for present consumption.

The money for this bailout does not just materialize out of thin air. The entire burden will be borne by the taxpayers, not now, because that is politically unacceptable, but in the future. This bailout will be paid for through the issuance of debt which we can only hope will be purchased by foreign creditors. The interest payments on that debt, which already take up a sizeable portion of federal expenditures, will rise, and our children and grandchildren will be burdened with increased taxes in order to pay that increased debt.

As usual, Congress has show itself to be reactive rather than proactive. For years, many people have been warning about the housing bubble and the inevitable bust. Congress ignored the impending storm, and responded to this crisis with a poorly thought-out piece of legislation that will only further harm the economy. We ought to be ashamed.

Who Sold Their Souls on the Bailout?

The following representatives voted "Nay" during Monday's bailout vote and switched their votes to "Yea" for the vote on Friday.


Weller (did not vote the first time)


Edwards (MD)
Green, Al
Jackson (IL)
Lewis (GA)
Scott (GA)
Thompson (CA)
Welch (VT)

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Wake Up From Your Slumber

The memory of the American people is a curious thing, men can remember Football games from 20 years ago and women can remember who made every celebrities dress at the Emmy's, but ask them to remember just 2 months ago when Bernanke swore UNDER OATH stating that the economy was in fine shape and we had nothing to worry about. Meanwhile this site and many others were shouting at the top of our lungs that the shit is about to hit the fan, well now the shit is beginning to hit the fan and it is high time you turn off your worthless TV and start doing the research on how we as a country have hit the skids. Our National Debt is over 10 TRILLION dollars (not counting Fannie and Freddie nor this "bailout" package for the banks) how many times did that get mentioned on the radio or the TV? We are on a freight train going full speed ahead and rapidly approaching a cliff. We as a country cannot spend what we don't have and almost more importantly You as an individual cannot spend more than you have either! GET OUT OF DEBT!

This site as well as the link provided in the right hand column are a wealth of information and a great place to start. The only possible way to get out of this mess long term is to have an informed public. I don't mean listening to the the arrogant son of a bitch Limbaugh either. The 3 things you need to research are as follows:

1. The Federal Reserve
2. Neo-Conservatives/Zionists
3. 9-11

You can't put this off any longer. You are needed in this fight for information, you are needed to wake up your friends and co workers. You are the key. Without you and people like you there is no hope. If you ever have any questions about anything I will personally do my best to help you in any way possible.

Where Do You Draw The Line?

Make no mistake, the economic and political realms of our country are headed for all time lows. We have never as a country seen the overall outlook for the future look so bleak. We have also never seen such a complacent group of people who call themselves Americans. Time after time the government has crossed the line sometimes masking their perversions behind a series of smoke and mirrors such as the 911 attacks leading to this endless war on terror as well as complete erosion of our civil liberties. Other times however which is the case of this bailout they thinly veil their atrocities. Fear is their greatest weapon and it has been very effective.

When will YOU draw the line? When they used your labor to give 250 billion dollars to AIDS in Africa? Whenever they inflate the currency at over 10% per year so no matter how much you save or how much your house appreciates you still come out behind long term? Whenever they send your sons to die protecting other countries? Whenever the law makers are such clear puppets of international bankers that they will go against the will of the people just to please them? All of these heinous acts and 1000's more have been committed by the behemoth we call the Federal Government.

How far will you let this country go until you take an active role in getting it back to its roots? Lyndon LaRouche believes we should all be outraged at this bailout even suggesting that this is the time for violent Revolution.

Sarah Palin is a Moron

When asked a legitimate question about our apparent fervor to spread democracy abroad - even though we were never intended to have a democracy here - Couric asks Palin what do we do when in Gaza Hamas is elected through democratic means, she rambles on about God knows what and makes it obvious she has no idea of the situation.

McCain and Obama Working for the Same Team

Which team? Globalist Bankers.

Obama's top contributors:
Goldman Sachs $691,930
University of California $611,207
Citigroup Inc $448,599
JPMorgan Chase & Co $442,919
Harvard University $435,769
Google Inc $420,174
UBS AG $404,750
National Amusements Inc $389,140
Microsoft Corp $377,235
Lehman Brothers $370,524
Sidley Austin LLP $350,302 $347,463
Skadden, Arps et al $340,264
Time Warner $338,527
Wilmerhale Llp $335,398
Morgan Stanley $318,070
Latham & Watkins $297,400
Jones Day $289,476
University of Chicago $278,885
Stanford University $276,038

McCain's Top Contributors:
Merrill Lynch $298,413
Citigroup Inc $269,251
Morgan Stanley $233,272
Goldman Sachs $208,395
JPMorgan Chase & Co $179,975
AT&T Inc $174,487
Blank Rome LLP $150,426
Credit Suisse Group $150,025
Greenberg Traurig LLP $146,787
UBS AG $140,165
PricewaterhouseCoopers $140,120
US Government $137,617
Bank of America $129,475
Wachovia Corp $122,846
Lehman Brothers $117,500
FedEx Corp $113,453
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $104,250
US Army $103,613
Bear Stearns $99,300
Pinnacle West Capital $97,700


If there has ever been a year to vote Third Party this is the year.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Who Voted for the Bailout?

The following is a breakdown of how the Senators voted on the Bailout of Wall Street. Let it be known that this will not help the economy long term, it will no even help the average American short term, this will not create jobs but will destroy our currency. This bill is solely to bail out greedy bankers who made foolish investments and lost it all now they cry to the government for help and our elected representatives don't do our will but instead do the will of the bankers. These people don't care about we the people anymore and haven't for some time. Make sure you get a hold of these ass holes tomorrow and let them know how you feel about being robbed. Don't be fooled by the fear mongering of the media. If you have not researched the Federal Reserve NOW is the time to do it. If would like a copy of America Freedom to Fascism send me an email.

Grouped by Home State

Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Nay Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Nay McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Nay Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Nay Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Nay
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Nay Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Nay Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Nay Enzi (R-WY), Nay

Swing Votes on the Bailout of Wall Street

The United States Senate will be taking up the bailout plan tonight. The following Senators are considered key votes on this bailout. Please take a moment to call these Senators and urge them to cast their vote against this dangerous legislation. And please, call your two U.S. Senators and urge them to vote no as well.

Elizabeth Dole (NC)
DC Office Phone: (202) 224-6342; Fax: (202) 224-1100
Local Raleigh, NC Office: Toll Free: (866) 420-6083; Fax: (919) 856-4053

Norm Coleman (MN)
DC Office Phone: (202) 224-5641; Fax: (202)-224-1152
Local Grand Rapids, MN Office: Phone: (218)-327-9333; Fax: (218)-327-8637

Roger Wicker (MS)
DC Office Phone: (202) 224-6253; Fax: (202) 228-0378
Local Jackson, MS Office: Phone: (601) 965-4644; Fax: (601) 965-4007

Gordon Smith (OR)
DC Office Phone: (202) 224-3753; Fax: (202) 228-3997
Local Portland, OR Office: Phone: (503) 326-3386; Fax: (503) 326-2900

Lindsey Graham (SC)
DC Office Phone: (202) 224-5972
Upstate Regional Office: (864) 250-1417

Ted Stevens (AK)
DC Office Phone: (202) 224-3004; Fax: (202) 224-2354
Local Juneau, AK Office: Phone: (907) 586-7400; Fax: (907) 586-8922

Thought Police Arrest Man in London

"Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death."

At Londons Heathrow airport Thought Police rounded up a man for having beliefs which were contrary to that of the Ministry of Truth. FYI it is illegal in Germany to question the "holocaust" on any grounds. Here is the full story.