Cattle Decapitation- The Gardeners of Eden

Search Querries Yield Attempts to Debunk the Federal Reserve Conspiracy

Everyone by now who has read this blog faithfully knows I have a fascination with the Federal Reserve System and its relative topics (i.e. 16th Amendment, tax law, IRS, the Constitution, Ron Paul, Eustace Mullins, etc). Because I am so fascinated with the topic and have clearly voiced my informed opinions about the Federal Reserve Conspiracy, I am also well aware there are those who try to debunk the claims. These people fail miserably. Their arguments are laughable.

Recently I've been paying attention to Screw Loose Change: The Blogspot. The authors of this blogspot pride themselves in debunking the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, so I wanted to know if they covered anything beyond that. My field of interest is, of course, the Federal Reserve System. I did a search: "Eustace Mullins" "Federal Reserve" "Ron Paul". Not surprisingly, the search querries yielded the typical tired warn out arguments that keep popping up like the puppets in a game of Whack-A-Mole! Once you knock down one of their arguments, another one pops up. When this fails them, they resort to name calling and deliberate misrepresentation.

I don't endorse her because she's an excuser of the crimes committed by the Bush Administration, but before you talk to these types of people consider some of the valuable lessons in Ann Coulter's instruction manuel (How to Talk to A Liberal (If You Must). ) and apply your arguments accordingly. Her one redeeming feature is her defense of Senator McCarthy, possibly the greatest Republican Senator that ever lived.

The "Federal Reserve" search querry yielded Pat's recommendation to read Conspiracy Science's Dissertation on why critics of the Federal Reserve are wrong. The kind of flawed logic-cum-flawed arguments is prevelent in the Anti-American Party.

I'm going to catch a lot of hellfire for the term "Anti-American" but when I scroll down to read another post related to the search querry I find the following:

By no means do all believers in either the “Illuminati” or demonized “bankers” hate Jews. Many do not. Some are even Jews themselves. However, these ideologies are historically intertwined with and closely parallel classic Jew-hating myths. For example, some anti-Illuminists have claimed that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious anti-Jewish forgery, is entirely true and accurate if you just substitute “Illuminati” for “Jews.” And a lot of the rhetoric we’ve been hearing in the alternative media about the Federal Reserve System is derived from writings such as Secrets of the Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins, a notorious Jew-hater who also believed that Jews ritually kill Christian children. Speaking of ritual murder, there’s also the “Satanic Ritual Abuse” scare, which often goes hand-in-hand with anti-Illuminism.

I emboldened parts of the quote shown above because I wanted to ask a few questions. 1) If the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a forgery, then what happened to the original copy that the plagiarized copy is committing forgery against? and 2) does calling Eustace Mullins a Jew-hater constitute character assassination since the term carries a deliberately negative connotation? Because if so then I think Mullins should bring a libel suit against this NYCActivist. He's brought lawsuits against the United States government so many times he's probably scheduled to appear in court tomorrow.

My final comment is this: the opposite of anti-Illuminism is pro-Illuminism. The use of this word here insinuates we should be supporting the Illuminati, a traitorous suggestion to anyone who believes in America and the Constitution. And yes, there have been Jews who believe in the Illuminati. Myron Fagan, anyone? Fagan was Eustace's earliest supporter.

Benjamin Freedman is also another Jew -- sorry Ben -- "former Jew" as Freedman referred to himself as. Freedman and Mullins shared a really close friendship. Mullins even lived with Freedman. Guido Roeder is also another Jew who used his own money to promote the work of Eustace Mullins.

I'll be debunking the Federal Reserve "debunkers" in another post. Their arguments are too ridiculous to patronize here.

Happy Birthday Eustace!

Born March 9th 1923, Eustace Mullins is 86 today!!

Happy Birthday Eustace!!!

D.L. Hughley Interviews Ron Paul

This is a fantastic interview.

Jon Stewart Eviscerates CNBC and Rick Santelli

Great clip where Stewart destroys the credibility of a news station like CNBC. But he doesn't go far enough as I'm concerned. He doesn't attack the Federal Reserve and he doesn't give a shout out to the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee on their prescience in this matter.

What's disappointing and depressing is that there are going to be people who continue to trust sources like CNBC and Bloomberg for their financial information, as if we can trust them again. As if we could trust them before. This financial problem started in the 90s when Greenspan was still Chairman of the Federal Reserve. GATA was preaching from rooftops about how the international economy was going to be destroyed and turned into liquid shit by fiscally irresponsible policymakers. But where was the mainstream media in all of this?

Acting like the government lapdogs that they are: defense bulldogs for the state.

It's lynching time!!! String 'em up!! America can't afford to put up with their lies and excuses any longer!! Throw the bums out!!! Burn 'em at the stake!!!

Lady Lynn Forester De Rothschild

All I have to say....

WOW!

She's a Rothschild! And listen to what she's saying! What a two-faced bitch! And then there's the "cherry-on-top" moment at the end: how she wanted somebody principled!

Octomom Hypocrisy: Four reasons Nadya Suleman drives us crazy, and why we're wrong.

By Raina Kelley | Newsweek Web Exclusive



Just when you think the "Octomom" story has run out of tentacles, some new revelation jolts it back into the headlines. Last week, in an exquisite combination of smut and gossip, porn producer Vivid Entertainment offered Nadya Suleman, the infamous mother of newborn octuplets, up to a million dollars to star in an X-rated film.

Suleman turned the offer down, but that's not going to stop this train. The paparazzi follow her from Starbucks to the nail salon. Everyone who's ever known her has been on TV. Face it, Octomom is never, ever going away. This mother of 14 will become a staple of the gossip mags. A diet company will sign her up for the ultimate "body after baby" challenge. And I'm sure that someday we'll see her on "Celebrity Apprentice."

If this woman is going to be part of our everyday lives, like Lindsay and Britney and the rest, we should be honest about why she's there. Because, in truth, we created Octomom. With our glorification of bizarre behavior, we dare the emotionally needy to shock and appall us. And then we slam them. But are we seeing her clearly, or just addicted to feeling superior? Let's take a hard look at the four things about Suleman that ignite the most outrage. That way, the next time some knucklehead captures the national spotlight, we won't be lying to ourselves about why we're so interested.

1. How the @#$% did she think she could support 14 children without a job? And why do we have to pay for her craziness?
Consider this: Maybe Suleman thought she'd get a TV show. If I found out I was pregnant with eight babies, my third call would be to TLC. (The first call would be 911 for the resuscitation of my husband and the second would be to my shrink.) I mean, how do the beloved reality stars Jon and Kate Gosselin pay for their eight kids? Remember, neither Jon nor Kate had a job when they brought their sextuplets home. And I bet that TV money helps out if you, like Discovery Health Channel stars the Duggar family, have 18 kids.

As for the use of "our" money, it is common knowledge that welfare and other programs such as assistance for women and infants (WIC), disability payments and food stamps are programs actually designed to use taxpayers' money to help pregnant women and children in need, right? There is no freak or idiot clause hidden within these programs. They're there to make sure American children aren't malnourished.

I know; it's unfair that Suleman's children are just as entitled to assistance as the children of people who don't creep us out, but let's not forget, they didn't decide to come into the world this way. And besides, Suleman isn't the only one who's getting "our" money for behavior we disapprove of—bank bailouts, anyone? And many of the institutions that got the first chunk of cash under the financial rescue plan haven't even answered requests from the federal government asking what they've done with the money. At least we know that the worst Suleman can do is buy a whole lot of empty carbs and some dairy with all those food stamps.

2. She wants to be Angelina Jolie!
Consider this: I want to be Angelina Jolie, too. She's rich, famous, charitable and unbelievably beautiful. What's not to like? Her boyfriend is Brad Pitt. And she is one of the miniscule numbers of parents who could afford to quit their jobs and raise 76 kids or buy a house right next to a film set so they can see their kids at lunch. I know we don't like to hear it, but money does make the work-home balance thing a lot easier.

3. The woman misused IVF fertility treatments and wound up with eight babies at the same time, and she has six more kids under the age of 7 at home.
Consider this: Cable news and newspapers have been flooding us with experts on how many embryos should be implanted in a woman and so on and such. And while the cost of IVF is usually mentioned, most of these experts conveniently forget to mention how few states "force" insurance companies to pay for IVF treatment.

So the question really is how many embryos would you ask to be implanted if you had a history of miscarriages and limited funds? Odds are that you'd pick more than one; only 11 percent of IVF procedures in this country involve a single embryo. Let's remember that Jon and Kate were already the parents of twins when they rolled the fertility-treatment dice and wound up with sextuplets. That's just an order of magnitude different from Octomom.

And that's the beautiful and exasperating thing about America—our democracy gives people the freedom to have as many children as they want. All we can do is rant and rave while we watch them on TV.
Quantcast

4. Is the porno offer a creepy testament to her Angelina Joliefication, or what?
Consider this : We are all, each of us, one national scandal away from being offered a million dollars to star in a skin flick. Asking the iniquitous and infamous to do dirty movies is how the porn industry tries to stay relevant. Think of it as "Dancing With the Stars"—only naked.

Look, I don't like the Octomom situation either, and each new revelation shocks me all over again. Suleman, just like Dr. Frankenstein's monster, has come to symbolize the ill that arises when humans delve into the realm of creation. Hungry for knowledge, glory, fame and power, Dr. Frankenstein never paused in his quest to create life to consider the consequences of his actions, nor, it seems, did Suleman—when deciding that six was not enough.

Now we're all snickering and feeling superior, but this could be a real tragedy for at least some of those 14 children, who face lifelong emotional and physical challenges that go beyond money. Suleman should be a warning to us: by sensationalizing her, we're inviting more trivialization of the most sacred aspects of humanity. In Britain, a terminally ill woman is selling her death on a reality program. If it's ever broadcast in the U.S., we'll probably slam that woman, too. But trust me, we'll still watch.

Lee Harvey Oswald Was Innocent. And Here's Why

This is pretty easy to figure out.

It cannot be argued that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of assassinating President John F. Kennedy. Why? Because he's not alive to defend himself and under the Constitution private citizens are considered innocent until they have been proven guilty. You have a right to a fair and speedy trial, you have a right to an attorney if you cannot afford one, you have a right to have your case heard before a jury of your peers, and you have a right to know what the charges are that have been brought against you.

Even if someone were to make the convincing argument that Lee Harvey Oswald did indeed murder Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tippit, that in no way establishes his guilt in the crime of assassinating Kennedy. Jack Ruby ended Oswald's life before he ever went to trial. There's something wrong about convicting a dead, and therefore defenseless, man.

While being interviewed by the press, Oswald said that he hadn't been charged with the murder of President Kennedy. Oswald mentions that all he knew was the charges of murdering a policeman (Tippit), but his statement is somewhat drowned out by background noise.

How government is regarded by the public has changed in this country. During the time of its founding, our founders believed that government was a wild untameable beast that had to be held down by the "chains of the constitution" because it wasn't something to be trusted. It wasn't as if they believed government was ineffective because it was comprised of bumbling idiots. They believed that government was corrupt because so many of its employees fell prey to the temptation of intoxifying power.

Government is the aphrodisiac of the mind that provides the ego its mojo and enables the power mad megalomaniac the title of tyrant. But because the American people have forgotten this precious lesson by state-engineered apathy, a culture of dependency has been borne out by the welfare/warfare state that the politicians in Washington promise to the ignorant massess will provide them with shelter, sustenance, and protection.

It is because of this our culture has produced people like Nancy Grace of CNN who believe instead that it is the private citizen who is guilty until proven innocent. This is a prejudice that better serves the public by reallocating it to government.

Conspiracy debunkers always like to argue that the burden of proof rests upon those who bring allegations of crime and conspiracy against government. But they forget to tell us, perhaps for purposes of gain, that the same critical thinking methods we use to conclude that JFK's death was the result of conspiracy are the same ones used to conclude that the Nazis exterminated the Jews.

For an example of their faulty logic in practice: the burden of proof of a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews rests on the Jews themselves.

This is a classic example of tyranny in practice. One doesn't need to prove that the interests of the fox are nowhere to be found in protecting the henhouse. And like that policemen's line of old: you have nothing to fear from an investigation if you are innocent.

So it comes as no surprise and shouldn't be that much a stretch of the imagination to see the conspiracy debunker as a cheerleader for the authoritarian state -- a cheerleader for slavery.

New York Times Falsifies History of Federal Reserve

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/new_york_times_falsifies_169.html

By Michael Collins Piper

The New York Times published a flat-out untruth on Feb. 7 about the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. And the untruth came from the pen of a distinguished American academic who is author of many much-touted works of history.

In a commentary in the Times, entitled “The Value of Other People’s Money,” Dr. Melvin I. Urofsky, a professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, reflected on the origins of the congressional measure that created the Federal Reserve System. He said that the measure “allowed Congress to take away banks’ control over currency.” In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Dr. Urofsky was dead wrong. The New York Times was guilty of perpetrating a falsehood, something which should come as no surprise, considering the fact that The New York Times—which fancies itself America’s newspaper of record—has long been the daily media voice in the United States of the international banking dynasties that control the American money system through their domination of the Fed.

The truth about the nature of the Fed is no secret to Americans who have access to independent newspapers such as AMERICAN FREE PRESS, historical journals such as THE BARNES REVIEW and radio outlets such as Republic Broadcasting (which can be found on the Internet at republicbroadcasting.org).

In fact, as far back as the 1920s, the great American industrialist Henry Ford was warning Americans of the venal nature of the Fed and the plutocratic money masters who created the Fed and who controlled it then as they do today. Ford wrote:

What the people of the United States do not understand and never have understood is that while the Federal Reserve Act was governmental, the whole Federal Reserve System is private. It is an officially created private banking system.

Examine the first 1,000 people you meet on the street, and 999 of them will tell you that the Federal Reserve System is a device whereby the United States government went into the banking business for the benefit of the people. They have an idea that like the Post Office and the Custom House the Federal Reserve is part of the government’s official machinery. . . .

Take up the standard encyclopedias and while you will find no misstatements of fact in them, you will find no statement that the Federal Reserve System is a private banking system; the impression carried away by the lay reader is that it is a part of the government.

The Federal Reserve System is a system of private banks, the creation of a banking aristocracy within an already existing system of aristocracy, whereby a great proportion of banking independence was lost, and whereby it was made possible for speculative financiers to centralize great sums of money for their own purposes, beneficial [to the people of the United States] or not.

In addition, while there has been much written on the Federal Reserve and the reality of what it constitutes— a privately owned and privately controlled money monopoly in the hands of banking institutions—the fact that the Rothschild family of Europe was, ultimately, the primary force behind the establishment of the system on American soil, is not something that is fully understood.

For example, because there were no people named “Rothschild” at the famous meeting off the coast of Georgia at Jekyll Island where the framework for the Federal Reserve was put forth and where the planning for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 established the Fed, there are those who would divorce the Rothschild family altogether from the circumstances. However, the fine hand of Rothschild was indeed on the scene, represented by Paul Warburg of the New York-based Kuhn, Loeb Company, which was under the control of longtime Rothschild associate Jacob Schiff.

Despite all of this very clear history—which has been outlined by numerous authors such as Wyckliffe Vennard, Eustace Mullins, and Dr. Martin Larson, the preeminent among them—modern-day media propagandists (and we must include the aforementioned Dr. Melvin I. Urofsky among them)—continue to present the Fed as precisely the opposite of what it really is. That Urofsky is assisting in the perpetration of the fraud is particularly egregious in light of the fact that he is a much-published author of such volumes as:

� American Zionism from Herzl to the Holocaust;
�We are One!: American Jewry and Israel;
� Commonwealth and Community: The Jewish Experience in Virginia;
� Documents of American Constitutional and Legal History; and
� A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States.

And these are just a few of the works to which Urofsky has added his name. Those who wish to contact Urofsky and provide him factual information about the Federal Reserve System (of which he is apparently unaware) may contact him by email at murofsky@vcu.edu or write: Dr. Melvin Urof sky, 919 W. Franklin Street, Richmond, Va. 23220.

Radio chip coming soon to your driver's license?

This is so disturbing.


http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90008

By Bob Unruh© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Washington state's enhanced driver's license

Privacy advocates are issuing warnings about a new radio chip plan that ultimately could provide electronic identification for every adult in the U.S. and allow agents to compile attendance lists at anti-government rallies simply by walking through the assembly.

The proposal, which has earned the support of Janet Napolitano, the newly chosen chief of the Department of Homeland Security, would embed radio chips in driver's licenses, or "enhanced driver's licenses."

"Enhanced driver's licenses give confidence that the person holding the card is the person who is supposed to be holding the card, and it's less elaborate than REAL ID," Napolitano said in a Washington Times report.

REAL ID is a plan for a federal identification system standardized across the nation that so alarmed governors many states have adopted formal plans to oppose it. However, a privacy advocate today told WND that the EDLs are many times worse.

Radio talk show host and identity chip expert Katherine Albrecht said REAL ID earned the opposition of Christians because of its resemblance to the biblical "mark of the beast," civil libertarians opposed it for its "big brother" connotations and others worried about identity theft issues with the proposed databases.

"We got rid of the REAL ID program, but [this one] is way more insidious," she said. Enhanced driver's licenses have built-in radio chips providing an identifying number or information that can be accessed by a remote reading unit while the license is inside a wallet or purse.

The technology already had been implemented in Washington state, where it is promoted as an alternative to a passport for traveling to Canada. So far, the program is optional.

But there are other agreements already approved with Michigan, Vermont, New York and Arizona, and plans are under way in other states, including Texas, she said.

Napolitano, as Arizona's governor, was against the REAL ID, Albrecht said. Now, as chief of Homeland Security, she is suggesting the more aggressive electronic ID of Americans.

"She's coming out and saying, 'OK, OK, OK, you win. We won't do REAL ID. But what we probably ought to do is nationwide enhanced driver's licenses,'" Albrecht told WND.

"They're actually talking about issuing every person a spychip driver's license," she said. "That is the potential problem."

Imagine, she said, going to a First Amendment-protected event, a church or a mosque, or even a gun show or a peace rally.

"What happens to all those people when a government operator carrying a reading device makes a circuit of the event?" she asked. "They could download all those unique ID numbers and link them."

Participants could find themselves on "watch" lists or their attendance at protests or rallies added to their government "dossier."

She said even if such license programs are run by states, there's virtually no way that the databases would not be linked and accessible to the federal government.

Albrecht said a hint of what is on the agenda was provided recently by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The state's legislature approved a plan banning the government from using any radio chips in any ID documentation.

Schwarzenegger's veto noted he did not want to interfere with any coming or future federal programs for identifying people.

Albrecht's recent guest on her radio program was Michigan State Rep. Paul Opsommer, who said the government appears to be using a national anti-terrorism plan requiring people to document their identities as they enter the United States to promote the technology.

"The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative was … just about proving you were a citizen, not that you had to do it by any specific kind of technology," Opsommer said.

But he said, "We are close to the point now that if you don't want RFID in any of your documents that you can't leave the country or get back into it."

Opsommer said his own state sought an exception to the growing federal move toward driver's licenses with an electronic ID chip, and he was told that was "unlikely."

He was told, "They were trying to harmonize these standards with Canada and Mexico [so] it had to apply to everybody. I was absolutely dumbfounded."

WND previously has reported on such chips when hospitals used them to identify newborns, a company desired to embed immigrants with the electronic devices, a government health event showcased them and when Wal-Mart used microchips to track customers.

Albrecht, who has worked on issues involving radio chip implants, REAL-ID, "Spychips" and other devices, provided a platform for Opsommer to talk about drivers licenses that include radio transmitters that provide identity information about the carrier. She is active with the AntiChips.com and SpyChips.com websites.

Opsommer said he's been trying for several years to gain permission for his state to develop its own secure license without a radio chip.

"They have flat out refused, and their reasoning is all about the need for what they call 'facilitative technology,' which they then determined was RFID," he said during the recent interview.

According to the U.S. State Department, which regulates international travel requirements, U.S. citizens now "must show proof of identity and proof of U.S. citizenship when entering the United States from Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and the countries of the Caribbean by land or seas."
Documentation could be a U.S. passport or other paperwork such as birth certificates or drivers' licenses. But as of this summer, one of the options for returning residents will be an "Enhanced Driver's License."

The rules are being promulgated under the outline of the WHTI, a result of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which requires travelers to present a passport or other identity documents on entry into the U.S.

While the government has expressed confidence that no personal or critical information will be revealed through the system, it also says drivers will need special information on how to use, carry and protect the radio-embedded licenses as well as "a shielded container that will prevent anyone from reading your license."

But Albrecht, the author or co-author of six books and videos, including the award-winning "Spychips: How major corporations and government plan to track your every move with RFID," warns it goes much further.

"This must be nipped in the bud. Enhanced DL's make REAL ID look like a walk in the park," Albrecht said.

"Look, I am all in favor of only giving drivers licenses to U.S. citizens or people that are otherwise here in this country legally," Opsommer said, "But we are already doing that in Michigan. We accomplished that without an EDL, as has virtually every other state via their own state laws.

"But just because we choose to only issue our license to U.S. citizens does not mean that our licenses should somehow then fall under federal control. It's still a state document, we are just controlling who we issue them to. But under the EDL program, the Department of Homeland Security is saying that making sure illegals don't get these is not enough. Now you need the chip to prove your citizenship," he continued.

Opsommer further warned the electronic chips embedded in licenses to confirm identity are just the first step.

"Canadians are also more connected to what is going on in Britain with the expansion of the national ID program there, and have seen the mission creep that occurs with things like gun control first hand … Whatever the reason, as an example, just last week the Canadian government repatriated a database from the U.S. that contained the driver's license data of their citizens," he said.

"Someone finally woke up and realized it would not be a good idea for that to be on American soil … I think it is only logical that we as state legislators really understand how the governments of Mexico and Canada will have access to our own citizen's data. Right now it is very ambiguous and even difficult for me to get answers on as a state representative."

But Opsommer said Big Brother concerns certainly have some foundation.

"So if EDLs are the new direction for secure licenses in all states, it just reinforces what many have been telling me that DHS wants to expand this program and turn it into a wireless national ID with a different name," he said. "We'll wake up one day and without a vote in Congress DHS will just pass a rule and say something like 'starting next month you will need an EDL to fly on a plane, or to buy a gun, or whatever.'"