By The People

There are fundamental flaws in how American government operates today,
contrary to the Constitution and the vision of a representative republican form of governance.
I intend doing something about it: by educating and informing others who
are not even aware of the dangers.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

All Bailed Out

It occurred to me that the auto industry does not really need a bail out. They cannot possibly remain solvent on their current business plan. None are making energy efficient vehicles that are affordable. So why bail them out? If anyone should bail them out it should be the oil industry. First and foremost is because they can afford to do it. Second, it would only be fair since the auto industry's inability to meet even modest fuel efficiency standards have kept the gas pumps clicking away our dollars.


I have been spending lots of time lately writing on the Pickens Plan pages. I like the enthusiasm but I feel it it not progressing us to where we need to go. Many people have good solid ideas, and many of us have serious business plans to get us off of the oil dependency. But where are the Pickens people with the funds to back these endeavors? Does Mr. T. Boone Billions think we have the money to put these plans into action ourselves? Why would be looking to him for a plan or support is we have the capacity to do so on our own.




Maybe instead of bailing out the auto makers, the money can be used to fund electric vehicles that are affordable and are as convenient if not as luxurious as the Tesla Roadster. They plan on making a "family sedan" soon, but at a base sticker price of about $60,000.00 I doubt I will be shopping for a dealer soon. How about you? Now if they can start making $25,000.00 electric autos, we may stand a chance at owning a used one in a few years. But then again, I don't think we will see very many on the used car lots soon enough to warrant the wait.




Many consumers will still fear purchasing an electric drive auto, simply because of charging. Nobody wants to get stuck on the freeway at rush hour with a dead battery. But if the autos were equipped with small fuel engines that generate electricity, that can get the driver home or to the nearest plug in charging station at the parking garage near the diner they are going to for dinner. Am I the only one that sees the merits to this?

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Change: For better or worse?



I received an email about the rise in crimes over the last 12 months in Australia, since the citizens were required to turn in there firearms. Now only police and criminals have guns, and the private citizen is left defenseless. Many are expressing fears that Obama is going to get laws passed here to ban weapons alos, and they are buying out gun shows all over the nation.

So I decided to share the rest of my reply email here on the blog. Enjoy it.


Citizens have a right under the Constitution to own and bear arms. All of the laws that prohibit weapons should be challenged by every freedom loving attorney with balls across this land. Weapons should be made MANDATORY and classes and weapons should be required for all citizens. Classes can be taught in schools so that the young will learn about them, learn safety and respect for weapons, and most of all learn what REAL control is all about.


If there are entitlement programs that are necessary, this is right up there with universal health care. Which I think can be doable under the right conditions. First, allow alternative (and less expensive) treatments to be covered, and reform the FDA by hiring real medical experts instead of lawyers and accountants.Focus on holistic cures, including faith healing and prayer. Utilize as many natural and non-invasive remedies BEFORE radical treatments are performed, including surgery, radiation and chemical (Chemo) therapies.


I didn't vote for Obama and neither did you (I think?) but we are both going to have to face the reality of him being the next President. So the way I see it, we just have to hold him to the promises he made, and the standards we demand in a President who takes oath to uphold the Constitution of the united States of America. And to get energy as a priority to support a new economic boon. New jobs created to support a new energy paradigm, built on wind and sun, waves and steam. Yes, but not by coal or gas, the steam is from the sun's heat. We'll also have a new auto industry since the present one doesn't know how to make electric drive vehicles without expensive batteries that make the savings in fuel a poor return on investment.


We don't have to take food to supplement oil, nor do we have to rely on refining operations that are over thirty years since expansion, and at the mercy of the weather. We can have vehicles that are electric driven, with GPS and the iPod dock, LED lighting with advances so rapid that it won't be long before we will start seeing LED headlights.


McCain may not have been a bad President, but the Bush legacy was his undoing. And with all the teasing she got in the media, Palin was as ready to step up as Obama. No, American really needed a third choice, but the media would not allow that. Early on it seemed apparent that the RNC was not fond of Dr. Ron Paul, and with all of the support he was getting on the internet, he received none from the media. John Edward's indiscretions gained more air time than Paul. And in it's failure to alert and inform, the media failed to inform the public of other party candidates that were on the ballot.

As Americans, we have become lazy and obese. We have reached for the remote, settled for fast food, fast relief from heartburn, and whatever choices the media gave us and never extended very far beyond the obvious spin. Very few of us really investigates and educates when we do find those gems among the coals. "Judge not, lest ye be judged." so I will give the man a chance to sh!t or shine.

Monday, November 10, 2008

HIs Royal Highness?



What is the meaning of this? It it a Freudian slip, or is that how they usually speak amongst themselves, and we are being "conditioned" for more of the same? I am looking at reactions and using that as a guide.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Hail To The Chief


Yes, I am hailing our newly elective Chief Executive, Barack Obama. While I have not been a supportive fan of his, I will support the decision of America in electing Obama as president. I feel as a patriotic American, a Philadelphia-born, Constitutional Libertarian, it is my obligation to stand behind my country and our leaders.


That said, it will mean that I will scrutinize and opine this new administration as passionately as I have the current one. I will hold President Obama to the same high standards that I felt lacking during these past 8 years of Bush.

I trust others will do the same and report the good as well as the wrongs they feel are perpetrated by this new President and his Cabinet.

Saturday, November 1, 2008

This Sums It Up

An open letter that arrived in my email this morning, which I feel is important to share with everyone voting this Tuesday.


I know that many of you are sick and tired of all this political BS but if you read just one more thing between now and next month's election, I urge you to read the following editorial. I don't know who "Michael Masters" is or what he does, but he does write cogently and well. A Google search turns up a Michael Masters who is a lawyer in Philadelphia, but I don't believe that he is the author of this open letter. There is a "Michael C. Masters" who lives in McLean, VA – I presume, but do not know, for sure, that he is the author. However, he didn't show up in any Google searches that I conducted, so I guess he isn't "notorious" enough to be found. I look at that as a good thing, however. On the surface, that suggests he is just another citizen like the rest of us and has no particular ax to grind. However, he HAS done his homework before writing this editorial.



To Barack Hussein Obama,

The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008, that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.

The
Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008, that FBI records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.

Your speech in
Philadelphia on March 18, 2008, about "race" contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about white America. While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on March 14.

In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea without "preparations" at lower levels ... Joe Biden repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin ... while the video tape from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered "I would" to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without "any" preconditions. While your judgment about meeting with enemies of the
USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.

On
July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that the surge would work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you stated that the surge would not work. While your judgment about military strategy as a potential commander-in-chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.

You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal, while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be removed immediately ... not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now claim. While your judgment about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to
America about your previous position.

You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar ... and it failed. The record shows that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined Republicans only 13% of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement from the Democrat party. While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth.

In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have talked with a "Captain" of a platoon in
Afghanistan "the other day" when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had just been deployed to Afghanistan. You lied in that debate.

In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a "professor of Constitutional law" when in fact you have never been a professor of Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were careful to say that you "taught a law class" and never mentioned being a "professor of Constitutional law." You lied last spring.

You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You distorted the truth.

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially corn ... and he was right .... corn is too expensive at producing ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn from $2 a bushel to $6 a bush el for food. You distorted the truth.

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and Joe Biden. You lied to
America.

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of the votes are procedural. You are one of the few who has not voted 90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate since the day you got elected. While your absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts.

You did not take an active role in the rescue plan. You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn ... who all helped cause the financial problems of today ... and they all made major contributions to your campaign. While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful.

You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you sponsored as a state senator ... and Acorn has been convicted of voter fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign contributions. Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns. You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you. While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them to
America.

During your campaign, you said: "typical white person." "They cling to their guns and religion." " They will say that I am black." You played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about you as racist. You divide
America.

You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of
America, but you forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the Bush tax reductions. You have requested close to $1 billion in earmarks and several million for Acorn. Your social programs will cost America $1 trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military spending ($100 billion for Iraq) can pay for it. While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America.

The drain to
America's economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 billion (less than 1% of GDP). You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities. Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear. You are lying to America.

Mr. Obama, you claimed that you "changed" your mind about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 2008 spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George Soros and MoveOn.org). You are lying to
America.

Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers union and college professors in the
USA. They eliminated religion from our history. They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with students as young as first grade. They bring their personal politics into the classrooms. They disparage conservatives. They brainwash our children. They are in it for themselves ..... not America. Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans? You are deceiving America.

Oh, Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before anything else.
Your character looks horrible. While you make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric. You talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.

1. You lied to
America. You lied many times. You distorted facts. You parsed your answers like a lawyer.

2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your advertisements.

3. You had associations with some very bad people for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations.

4. You divide
America about race and about class.

Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race baiting, and associations to John McCain: War hero.
Annapolis graduate with "Country first." Operational leadership experience like all 43 previously elected president s of the USA as a Navy officer for 22 years. 26 years in the Senate. Straight talk. Maverick. 54% of the time participated on bills with Democrats. Never asked for an earmark. The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago.

Mr. Obama, at
Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not justify the means. You learned that perjury, false witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated. Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.

Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest character. It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for
America first. It is time for America to vote for honesty.
Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character. Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches? Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain? Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? Of course not. So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your dishonesty? Because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security .... and you are preying on their fears with empty promises ... and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for "change" like the Germans who voted for Adolf Hitler in 1932. The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was. They loved his style. Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you ... your style has camouflaged your dishonesty .... but many of us see you for who you really are ... and we will not stop exposing who you are every day, forever if it is necessary.

Mr. Obama, you are dishonest. Anyone who votes for you is enabling dishonesty.

Mr.
Obama, America cannot trust that you will put America first in your decisions about the future.

Mr. Obama, you are not the "change" that
America deserves. We cannot trust you.

Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander-in-chief.

Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to refute all of your false statements. And for whatever reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race baiting, lack of operational leadership experience, and generally dishonest character. The media is diverting our attention from your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships. The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves .... just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon ... Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those men lied about the events ... false witness ... perjury ... your relationships and bad judgments are bad on their own .... but your lies are even worse.

Therefore, by copy of this memo, all who read this memo are asked to send it to everyone else in
America before it is too late. We need to do the job that the media will not do. We need to expose your dishonesty so that every person in America understands who you really are before election day.

Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. And God help
America if we deserve you.

Michael Master
McLean, Virginia

Monday, October 20, 2008

Energy Issue

Ad lib
The Alliance for Climate Protection says ABC barred ad calling out Big Oil
Posted by Kate Sheppard at 10:10 AM on 10 Oct 2008

An environmental action group founded by former vice president Al Gore is accusing ABC of censoring an advocacy ad the group paid to air on the network.

The Alliance for Climate Protection late Wednesday sent an e-mail blast to supporters with the ominous subject line, "ABC won't air our ad."

"Did you notice the ads after last night's presidential debate? ABC had Chevron. CBS had Exxon. CNN had the coal lobby," wrote Alliance CEO Cathy Zoi. "But you know what happened last week? ABC refused to run our Repower America ad -- the ad that takes on this same oil and coal lobby." The message sent readers to to a web page where they could send a form letter to the network.

The ad in question, which was aired by several other networks, is a 30-second spot that starts off with a call to "Repower America," with images of a little girl, windmills and solar panels. Then music in the ad gets more intense, as the narrator's voice asks, "So why are we still stuck on dirty and expensive energy?"
Big Oil claim: the offending part of the ad
The offending image in the ad.

"Because Big Oil spends hundreds of millions of dollars to block clean energy," it says. "Lobbyists, ads, even scandals, all to increase their profits, while America suffers."

The Alliance had arranged to run the ad during the Sept. 26 airing of the news magazine 20/20, the same night of the first presidential debate. The group said it submitted the ad seven days before it was scheduled to run. According to representatives from the campaign, on Sept. 25 ABC sent an e-mail notifying them that the ad had been rejected. The network's stated reason? The one frame of the ad showing the Capitol building violated the network's guidelines.

"Per our Guidelines, national buildings may be used in advertising provided the depictions are incidental to the advertiser's promotion of the product or service," said the e-mail, which was provided to Grist by the Alliance. "Given the messages and themes of this commercial, the image of the Capital building is not incidental to this advertising. Please replace the image with one that is not of another national building or monument. Thank you."

Alliance communications director Giselle Barry told Grist it should be clear that the image of the Capitol building is pertinent to an advertisement about the lobbying power the fossil fuels industry has in Washington, D.C.

Grist's repeated requests for comment from ABC and Disney were not returned. Meanwhile, the Alliance said its letter-writing campaign had yielded more than 128,000 e-mails to the network within the first 24 hours of sending out their e-mail blast. The group is hoping that public pressure will convince the network to air the ad during tonight's episode of 20/20.

"It's the height of irony. [It's] outrageous actually," said Barry. "The reason why we put the email out yesterday is because the presidential debate coverage, not just on ABC but all of the networks, it was like ad after ad from oil and gas companies, Exxon, Chevron. It just makes no sense, it's outrageous that they would air ... ads about the benefits of fossil fuels, but not air our ad, which is the simple point of oil and coal companies spend millions of dollars on advertising."

Barry said changing the ad would be expensive and time consuming, and they didn't agree with the reasoning behind the request. "There's just no reason," said Barry.

Zoi sent a letter to Disney-ABC Television Group President Anne Sweeney on behalf of the Alliance, protesting the decision.

"This advertisement simply points out that the massive spending by oil companies on advertising and lobbying is a primary reason our nation hasn't switched to clean and renewable sources for our energy. The assertions that our ad makes are factual, common sense and are needed in the national debate about our energy future. Your viewers should not be denied the right to hear this point of view," wrote Zoi.

"Your rejection is even more indefensible given the overwhelming number of misleading ads that the oil and coal industry have run on your network," she continued. "This year alone, oil and coal companies and interests have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in an effort to convince the American people that they are focused on solving our energy and climate crises. On its face, these assertions by oil and coal defy all reason."

Barry said the group did not receive a response from ABC. The "Repower America" ad ran on CBS, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, and MSNBC. ABC was the only one to reject the ad, according to the Alliance. The time spot purchased on ABC cost the group nearly $100,000, according to the Alliance. Instead of airing "Repower America," ABC ran the group's "Free Us" ad, which was already running on the network.

Here's the ad that ABC rejected:

UPDATE: ABC spokeswoman Julie Hoover talked to the Guardian about the ad: "All of our advertising is reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and the context of this particular ad was determined not to be acceptable per our policy on controversial issue advertising."

Saturday, October 18, 2008

America: Freedom to Fascism




Every now and then, I choose to take a day off. Watch some sports, read a book, and not think about anything that is deep or requires my full attention. Today was such a day, at least it began as one.
I was having a large cup of dark hazelnut roast coffee, playing a game, and not doing anything that involved too much thinking. My email notifier popped up a few times, but I easily ignored it. I didn't feel required to exert any effort to think about much at all..

But something happened. Call it a message from the Universe or whatever you want, I don't care what you call, I got the message. So I began to watch. For me it was something that I have been aware of and which I speak about often to my friends and family.

Here is a very long documentary that was created by a big name Hollywood producer. It's called America: Freedom to Fascism. I didn't even finish it but I am putting it up on the blog for others to see. I am not selling anything. You already bought a bill of goods, and you are going to reach your own conclusions.

All I am doing is offering an opportunity to see things from a different perspective than the one we are used to seeing. In this way I trust that you will question what you think you know, and feel motivated to learning more and doing whatever it takes to remain a patriotic, free American citizen.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Limiting Possibilities

It seems a foregone conclusion based on the media spin, and we haven't cast a ballot yet. Why so called experts have indicated that Obama will be President. Is that because they are sure limited backing for McCain? Who are these people?

This is the same media that sold us on weapons of mass destruction, bird flu epidemic (or was that pandemic?) and many other stories that haven't panned out. But somehow, this time I think they may have it right. Not because they have any clairvoyant views into the results, but because they are responsible for steering America toward Obama.

There are still other choices, but it won't matter. Everyone is convinced that it's either one or the other. They refuse to see any other choices, even if they are printed on the ballot. It doesn't matter because they have been brainwashed, conditioned to see only one choice from either/or.

I have watched the debates (when they didn't interfere with Phillies baseball) ans heard the answers each has given. I noticed both backed the bailout, and sold us all down the river as senators. What makes anyone think it will be different if we make them President? I am voting for Bob Barr, the Libertarian Candidate. He is not perfect, but he stands to make the types of decisions that would be in our best interests as individuals and and a nation.

You can all argue the merits of McCain and Obama until you are hoarse and tired, but I have heard it all, and I am choosing a person for president based on my patriotism and my love of the Constitution. I know it represents more than "a piece of paper" as our current president thinks about it. And I do not accept the methods expressed by Obama to "spread the wealth" by giving the earnings of the very rich to the very poor, simply because they need it.

None has really addressed the fundamental issue of the economy.They just pretend that it's a problem that can be "tweaked" back into good working order. It is in good working order. It is doing exactly what the inventors of it intended for it to do. It makes the very, very rich and powerful, more so, by robbing the general population of its assets and its freedoms. It is a credit/debit based financial system that is owned and controlled by the banking system itself.

It is destined to collapse because credit is extended freely when there are no deposits to back it, and after all, it's based on a promissory note system of currency, whose value is controlled by buying power in world markets, where the large globalist elite own the playing field.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Real Money


Here is very good web site that I found. It can be the answer to solving the monetary crisis we now face.

Welcome to the GoldMoneyBill.org website !

A group of State Representatives in New Hampshire, state motto: "Live Free Or Die," have introduced a voluntary, parallel Gold/Silver money bill for the Granite State. Lead by Rep. Henry McElroy and co-sponsored by David Buhlman and Dan Itse, this Sound Money Bill would allow the state of New Hampshire to include the use of Gold/Silver U.S. minted coins (or their digital equivalent) to be used in daily transactions for payables/receivables between it (the state) and the inhabitants and businesses in New Hampshire. It would be totally voluntary. Federal Reserve Notes could still be used or a combination of Gold/Silver U.S. minted coins or a total transaction in Gold/Silver U.S. minted coins (or their digital equivalent) !


There are NO restrictions or laws by the Federal Government that prevent ANY state from using Gold/Silver U.S. minted coins ! This bill is NOT radical...it simply shows that the state of New Hampshire conforms to the U.S. Constitution and wants to set an example of Constitutional conformity as well as offering a "Sound Money" alternative to its inhabitants and businesses!

Restoring the Gold Standard, what can you do?
While we are waiting for NESARA to be announced or for the Knights Templar riding down on a fiery chariot from the heavens raining Gold coins like the deluge from the Great Flood. There are a few practical steps that WE the American people can take to reign in the terror of the international bankers. more...

SOME COMMON QUESTIONS / OBJECTIONS ANSWERED
1. Americans have been using Federal Reserve Notes for some ninety plus years —so why stop now ?

a. The Federal Reserve Notes Americans use today are not the same, economically or legally, as the Federal Reserve Notes used in previous decades.

Federal Reserve Notes have gone through a process of deterioration. From 1913 to 1933, they were directly redeemable in United States gold coin; and the banks were required to maintain a reserve of gold equal to forty percent of their outstanding notes. Redeemability of Federal Reserve Notes in gold for American citizens was terminated in 1933; but the notes remained indirectly redeemable in silver from 1933 until 1968. Redeemability of Federal Reserve Notes for foreigners was terminated in 1971. So, today, Federal Reserve Notes are irredeemable in gold or silver. See Title 31, United States Code, Section 5118(b, c). Thus, the present situation is radically different from what it was prior to 1968 or 1971.

Furthermore, the supply of Federal Reserve Notes (and of bank deposits payable in those notes) has greatly expanded since the 1950s, seriously eroding the purchasing power of all United States paper currency and base-metallic (“clad”) coinage. Indeed, from 1985 to 2000, while the production of material goods in the United States increased by 50%, the money supply increased by 300%.

In sum, today the purchasing power of Federal Reserve Notes has no anchor in a valuable monetary commodity (silver or gold); and the policy of the Federal Reserve System is to increase the supply of those notes (and related bank deposits), thereby further sinking the notes’ real value.

b. The proposed legislation does not stop—or in any way inhibit—the use of Federal Reserve Notes or base-metallic coin. It simply enables citizens of New Hampshire to use United States silver and gold coin in preference to other media of exchange in their monetary transactions with the State, if they choose to do so.

Both before and after the Federal Reserve System was created in 1913, the United States minted silver and gold coins. Entirely base-metallic “clad” coinage began to be minted only in 1970. So, today, Congress has authorized a multiform monetary system, consisting of Federal Reserve Notes irredeemable in silver or gold [see 12 U.S.C. § 411 and 31 U.S.C. § 5118(b)], base-metallic coin [see 31 U.S.C. § 5112(a)(1-6)], silver coins [see 31 U.S.C. 5112(e)], and gold coins [31 U.S.C. § 5112(a)(7-10)], all of which are equally “legal tender” [see 31 U.S.C. §§ 5103 and 5112(h)], and any of which any individual may use to the exclusion of the others [see 31 U.S.C. § 5118(d)(2)].

Under the proposed legislation, those citizens of New Hampshire who prefer to use irredeemable Federal Reserve Notes and base-metallic coinage may continue to do so. But they will make this choice intelligently, knowing of their option to use silver and gold coin instead.

2. Why should New Hampshire question what the national government is doing with regard to monetary policy ?

New Hampshire is not questioning, but is actually implementing, Congressional monetary policy. As explained in No. 1, above, Congress has authorized several types of money as official media of exchange, but has not given a special position or preference to any. Through the proposed legislation, New Hampshire will enable its citizens to choose among these various media of exchange, and will facilitate their choices.

To fulfill its duty to protect its citizens’ economic welfare, New Hampshire needs to concern itself with the instability of the present monetary and banking regimes. See No. 4, below. Obviously, Congress, too, is concerned with this problem—or it would not have authorized the present multiform monetary system. See No. 1, above.The preceding is from "SOME COMMON QUESTIONS / OBJECTIONS ANSWERED" and referred to as "20 Questions About The Sound Money Bill." To read the whole article just go to the "Articles" section of our website. The questions were posed by inhabitants upon hearing that the Sound Money Bill was being considered in New Hampshire. They were answered by Dr. Edwin Vieira, the author and crafter of the revised bill (HB 1342). We thank him for his hard work and his expertise in this important arena. Dr. Vieira is still involved and will be further revising the bill as it evolves and is, again, introduced in the 2004/2005 legislative session in New Hampshire.



We encourage you to learn about "Sound Money" and to persuade your state Representative and Senator to pass this much needed bill in the next session ! We also encourage those inhabitants in the other 49 states to make their state Representatives and Senators aware of New Hampshire's intentions and to also consider passage of a similar bill in their states! Thank you!

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Monday, October 6, 2008

Libertarian Bob Barr for President

US Troops vs. US Citizens


(Fred's note)
Occasionally it necessary to bring such things to the attention of the public who normally would not learn of them through the mainstream media. I feel this is such a case. Also, because it was forwarded to me, and also being it was posted on a faith-based site, many would not have even been aware of it (I would not) unless they were of a particular faith. It is my intention to enlighten and not frighten you.

Civil unrest and martial law in the US

Saturday October 4, 2008

posted by Rod Dreher @12:02pm

Several of you have privately pointed me to this story from last week in Army Times, which reports on the new, permanent mission of the 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat team. It's not Iraq; it's within the United States. Excerpts:
Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.
It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.
But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.
After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.
More:
They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.
Training for homeland scenarios has already begun at Fort Stewart and includes specialty tasks such as knowing how to use the "jaws of life" to extract a person from a mangled vehicle; extra medical training for a CBRNE incident; and working with U.S. Forestry Service experts on how to go in with chainsaws and cut and clear trees to clear a road or area.
The 1st BCT's soldiers also will learn how to use "the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded," 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.
The package is for use only in war-zone operations, not for any domestic purpose.
Oh, of course not (he says, nervously). More:
"I can't think of a more noble mission than this," said Cloutier, who took command in July. "We've been all over the world during this time of conflict, but now our mission is to take care of citizens at home ... and depending on where an event occurred, you're going home to take care of your home town, your loved ones."
I mean to cast no aspersions on this commander, but that language is, frankly, Orwellian. The reader who first tipped me off to this story caught a reference to it in The American Conservative, which last year ran a remarkable piece about how the legal barriers preventing the deployment of US soldiers domestically was eroding. Excerpt:
How many pipe bombs might it take to end American democracy? Far fewer than it would have taken a year ago.
 The Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on Sept. 30, empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist "incident," if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of "public order," or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations.
Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from "Insurrection Act" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act." The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only "to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy." The new law expands the list to include "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition"--and such "condition" is not defined or limited.
How about a condition brought about by, say, an economic collapse and what follows? IJS.
The important point here is not that a single brigade is going to be in the position of enforcing emergency military rule, a physical impossibility. The important point is that a line has been crossed in the law. The redeployment of this BCT is an outward sign of a legal transformation that happened while few of us were paying attention. As someone said to me this morning, "The scary thing is not so much that they've done it, but that they felt the need to do it at all."
HAARP: PSYCHOTRONIC CONTROL TOOL OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER

HAARP's space-generated ELF waves, coming back down to the earth, can be utilized in many different ways, such as communicating with submarines or creating harmful biological and mental effects upon a specifically targeted population. HAARP can also be utilized in a system of earth-penetrating tomography, for locating hidden underground bunkers in enemy territory or the buried arms, survival supplies, and valuable coins buried by U.S. patriots and militias.

The 1/96 'Progressive Magazine' reported that a 1995 article, "Non-Lethal Technology and Airpower", in the 'Air Command and Staff College's Airpower Journal', describes how so-called non-lethal psychotronic and electromagnetic weapons will be used against civilians:

"In the very near future, it will become clear that non-lethal methods have applicability across the entire spectrum of conflict, including crime and terrorism..."
"In this research paper, the authors reveal for the first time, the U.S. military is developing high-powered microwave weapons for use against human beings" (which is one of the hidden goals of the HAARP transmitters).

Such "microwave weapons are almost uniquely intrusive" (especially when they are pulsed at ELF frequencies). "They do not simply attack a person's body, they reach all the way into a person's mind...They are meant to disorient or upset mental stability."

The Soviets aimed one of these weapons at the American Embassy in Moscow for years and caused enormous physical and emotional damage amongst the Americans working there. It is thus shocking to see the U.S. military now preparing, with the help of the Justice Department, to use such electromagnetic totalitarian zapping devices against American civilians.

Years before he became House Speaker, Newt Gingrich wrote the foreword to an official U.S. Air Force book that described how electromagnetic weapons can be used to subjugate U.S. citizens who oppose the policies of the Federal government. The publication, titled 'Low Intensity Conflict and Modern Technology' (Lt. Col. David J. Dean, USAF, Editor), contained a chapter written by Capt. Paul Tyler that deals with electromagnetic, (so-called) non-lethal and psychotronic weapons.

Because of the strong support for using the U.S. military against civilians (as clearly demonstrated by recent anti-terrorist legislation), this Air Force publication (and its relationship to HAARP) is very significant. Capt. Tyler stated:

"The potential applications of artificial electromagnetic fields are wide-ranging and can be used in many military or quasi-military situations. ...Some of these potential uses include dealing with terrorist groups" (as currently defined by the Clinton administration), "crowd control, and...antipersonnel techniques in tactical warfare. In all cases, the electromagnetic systems would be used to produce mild to severe physiological disruption or perceptual distortion or disorientation" (psychotronic weapons application).

"In addition, the ability of individuals to function could be degraded to such a point that they would be combat ineffective. Another advantage of electromagnetic systems is that they provide coverage over large areas with a single system"(disguised reference to projects like HAARP).

"...One last area where electromagnetic radiation may prove of some value is enhancing abilities of individuals for anomalous phenomena", which appears to be a veiled reference to the Federal government's use of electromagnetic and psychotronic devices to create artificial UFO abductions amongst unwitting civilians. Such government-staged UFO encounters (not to be confused with the many real UFO events, such as the Roswell crash) are now being used a cover for widespread physical and psychological experimentation upon U.S. civilians.

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Selling Out America


Here is an article from the Libertarian Party's Site:


Dear Concerned Citizen,

At first, it was but three pages.

Then, it grew to 42.

When it was voted on last night, the bill was the size of a novel.

A 451-page novel they most likely did not read before completing the first of three steps into making it law.

Packed with "sweeteners"–the deceptive name for political bribes—the bill passed with ease. Sweeteners like more regulations on insurance companies, setting up a "Wool Trust Fund"…and even relief for the manufacturers of wooden arrows.

"Other goodies intended to attract the votes of individual members of Congress include $192 million for the rum producers of Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands, $128 million for car racing tracks, $33 million for corporations operating in American Samoa, and $10 million for small film and television productions," says ABC's Jake Tapper.

Is this what John McCain calls pork? Is this what is supposed to help Wall Street?

"It's garbage," Rep. Devin Nunes [R-Calif.] told UPI before the vote. "They're trying to put more decorations on the Christmas tree, but the problem is the Christmas tree."

Only 25 Senators voted against their parties' successful attempt to railroad this bill through the Senate.

Absent from this coalition: Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, who both voted FOR the bailout.

A bailout, paid for by taxpayer, which sends a lifeline to corrupt CEOs who made bad deals and then looked for rescue.

A bailout that a Treasury Department spokesperson said was "not based on any particular data point" because they "just wanted to choose a really large number."

A bailout that nobody knows its probability for success, its end cost and how much taxpayers will ultimately be responsible for.

"To the Democrats and Republicans who opposed this plan yesterday, I say step up to the plate and do what's right for this country," Obama said.

"We are in the greatest financial crisis of our lifetime," McCain said. "Congressional inaction has put every American and the entire economy at the gravest risk."

Did they ever stop to think that it was Congressional action that caused the problem in the first place?

Did they ever stop to think if bailing-out these corporations with taxpayer money, in a bill laden with pork, is what America needs right now?

Where have all our leaders gone?

"Where is the $700 billion or more for a bailout supposed to come from, in a government already drowning in deficit spending and a spiraling national debt?" asks Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party's nominee for president. "Who will bail-out the federal government when investors at home and abroad refuse to buy its paper?"

The Libertarian Party is the only party dedicated to protecting you, the taxpayer, from big government spending and intervention in the market.

Only the Libertarian Party understands that government is not the answer.

With the nomination of John McCain, the Republican Party once-and-for-all gave up their claim to be the "Party of the Free Market."

Barack Obama, who claims to be for "Main Street," put taxpayers on the line for Wall Street, relinquishing their claim to be the "Party of the People."

It is time for change.

It is time for the Libertarian Party, who is both for the free market and for the people.

All political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

Will you help us become the next major Party, that voters can count on to protect their interests, and not those of failing, corrupt corporations?

Your donation, and your membership with the Libertarian Party, will send a message to Washington that change is coming, and it's not coming through Republicans or Democrats.

"Legislators should take a deep breath, stay out of the way as the market continues its painful adjustment process, and start fixing the financial problems that government caused over the years," says Bob Barr. "The best person to oversee this process is someone who hasn’t been part of the problem in Washington."

Only a vote for Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party will yield the sort of change necessary to get our financial system back in order.

John McCain himself proved that a vote for John McCain is a vote for big government.

Barack Obama himself proved that a vote for Barack Obama is a vote for bigger government.

They are two sides to the same coin.

It is time to vote for change; real change—not just a new name.

It is time to vote for the Libertarian Party."


At the time I posted this, I really felt that Americans would do the right thing and vote for a third-party candidate instead of the same two parties that keep doing the same things, leading America into bankruptcy and slavery. It is apparent that Obama did not want to run against Ron Paul and the Republican  Party was eager to comply. I obviously grossly underestimated the effects that the dumbing down had on the majority since I myself was able to see through the propaganda and attempted indoctrination inflicted upon me.


America did have an opportunity to make major restorations to our Constitutional Representative Republic was restored to what it was intended to be; liberty and rights under self-governance. The constitutional federal government was to operate as the subject of the Sovereign People and the Sovereign States. It was not mean to be the sovereign and make the People subjects.


If all of the 'Tea Party' groups can unite under a Libertarian party with candidates at all levels of government who, like Ron Paul and his son, have demonstrated their statesmanship with distinguished records as representatives of the people who elected them, restoring constitutional law and order to America will be less of a challenge. You can start early by protecting the vote to insure that it remain accurate and honest. The way to assure that happens is explained in the link (Protecting The Vote).

Saturday, October 4, 2008

Unconstitutional Fed


Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"The [privately-owned] Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution... if the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."



Even Abraham Lincoln shared Jefferson's view of the private bankers. In order to finance the Civil War, he approached the New York bankers to see about getting a loan for the North. The interest rates they proposed were in the order of 30%. Lincoln's response was akin to; "stuff it."
He then had Congress live up to its Constitutional responsibility for issuing and valuing currency and issued his famous greenbacks.
Incredibly, like so many of us, even to the heights of power, Lincoln didn't know at first that he had the OPTION, let alone the probably-intended OBLIGATION to create money for the nation. With the civil war ending, he had come to the conclusion that his government issued currency should become the basis of the re-United States monetary system. Within a matter of weeks he was shot in the Ford theatre with his monetary system dying with him.

In 1832, President Jackson vetoed the move to renew the charter of the 'Bank of the United States' (a central bank controlled by the international bankers). In 1836 the bank went out of business.
The Bank of the United States (1816-36), an early attempt at an American central bank, was abolished by President Andrew Jackson, who believed that it threatened the nation.
He wrote:
"The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government, the distress it had wantonly produced...are but premonitions of the fate that awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it."
Andrew Jackson had at least two attempts made on his life. So proud and intent on warning the future generations was he that his tombstone is inscribed with the phrase "I killed the bank!"

It came back.
The Federal Reserve Act was passed in December 1913; ostensibly to stabilize the economy and prevent further panics, but as Congressman Charles Lindberg Sr. warned Congress:
"This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth...the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust investigation, will be legalized."

Even as early as 1916 President Woodrow Wilson was saying:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world--no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small amount of dominant men."

No more stinging condemnation of a concept can be given than by the man who, convinced it was for the good, championed it in the first place!

Federal Reserve Bunk

It's amazing that after rejecting the bailout, the House came right back and passed it. This was after "pork" was added, and the Fed insisted on a less restrictive policy. I read Ron Paul's The Daily Paul where he showed exactly what this bailout bill will do.

It is very much like what Enron did to siphon off ratepayers money from the west and send it into the CEO accounts in the east. Americans will be paying for the mistakes and greed of lenders for years. What will it take for the citizens of this country to wise up?