Friday, February 5, 2010

The Greatest American Patriot of the 20th Century Passes Away

It has been difficult in deciding an appropriate heading for the blog article that I'm writing tonight. And I still don't know if the title is appropriate enough. Hopefully the careful words I choose pay adequate respect to Eustace Mullins in my piece.

Eustace Clarence Mullins, Jr, the 20th Century's Greatest American Patriot, born on March 9th, 1923 in Roanoke, VA, passed away at noon at the home of his caretaker Jesse Lee in Hockley, Texas. He was 86. It was a blessing and privilege to have met him last year and to have spent some time with him. My only regret is what has become a squandered opportunity, as damnable as it is: not taking the time out to get to know him more than I did. These past few days have been very burdensome for me because withholding the tears is no easy task. To me, he was and still is the greatest political researcher who ever lived.

I loved him like a family member.

His corpus of work, which was the product of Mullins' unique meticulous research, provided a "happy hunting ground" for his student readers to utilize in fighting back against the World Order conspirators. He was a Prophet; a Godsend; a National Treasure; and to those oblivious to him who may yet still discover and cherish his work, he will be known as an Unsung Hero and America's Unknown Soldier.

John Kaminski commented on his passing:
Eustace Mullins was the greatest political historian of the 20th century, and not just because he was not beholden to the power structure that deters candid reports about significant events, but because, guided by the greatest poet of the 20th century who was imprisoned for broadcasting for peace, his meticulous research eventually uncovered virtually every political secret of the last 400 years. It’s a pity so many people are afraid to believe what Mullins told them, because it was much more of the truth than has ever been seen in our schools or our media.
The author of this blog piece hopes to attend the funeral services of this great man.

A Daryl Bradford Smith interview with John Kaminski can be accessed from the following link: http://iamthewitness.com/audio/John.Kaminski/TFC.SMITH.KAMINSKI.04-02-2010.mp3

I will close this article out with Mullins' own words. Asked by James Dyer what he was most proud of in life, Mullins replied:
Getting Ezra Pound out of St. Elizabeth's, and now trying to rehabilitate Joe McCarthy. These are two of the most maligned persons of the 20th century. If I can change public thinking of these two men that I admired and loved, maybe they'll get their just desserts.

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Ron Paul Bill Seeks Coin and Bullion Tax Ban

http://www.coinnews.net/2009/12/14/ron-paul-bill-seeks-coin-and-bullion-tax-ban/

Congressman Ron Paul [R-TX] on Wednesday introduced legislation that would, if signed into law, end taxes on coins and bullion and repeal legal tender laws. The bill’s lofty goal is to reintroduce a system of competing currencies.
"At this country’s founding, there was no government controlled national currency. While the Constitution established the Congressional power of minting coins, it was not until 1792 that the US Mint was formally established," Rep. Ron Paul said.

"In the meantime, Americans made do with foreign silver and gold coins. Even after the Mint’s operations got underway, foreign coins continued to circulate within the United States, and did so for several decades.
H.R. 4248, or the Free Competition in Currency Act of 2009, includes several measures to end government controlled currency. One is to repeal Section 5103 of Title 31 of the United States Code which includes legal tender language that, according to Ron Paul, should not exist.
"There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Congress the power to enact legal tender laws. We, the Congress, have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, but not to declare a legal tender. Yet, there is a section of US Code, 31 USC 5103, that purports to establish US coins and currency, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal tender."
Federal law currently mandates short-term capital gains rates of up to 35 percent for coins and long-term capital gains taxes of 28 percent, which Ron Paul argues is a hindrance to competitive currencies. H.R. 4248 would eliminate taxes on "any coin, medal, token, or gold, silver, platinum, palladium, or rhodium bullion" as well as restrict states from assessing taxes and fees "on any currency."

Finally, the legislation would eliminate laws that prohibit the operation of private mints, and retroactively end prosecutions and convictions of citizens who have been charged with such. Ron Paul specifically discussed this aspect of the bill as well as the raids on Liberty Dollar when he introduced the legislation. (See Liberty, Ron Paul Dollars Seized in Raid.)
"Evidently the government felt threatened, as Liberty Dollars had all their precious metal coins seized by the FBI and Secret Service in November of 2007. Of course, not all of these coins were owned by Liberty Services, as many were held in trust as backing for silver and gold certificates which Liberty Services issued. None of this matters, of course, to the government, which hates competition. The responsibility to protect contracts is of no interest to the government."
The bill has been referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and the Judiciary.

For any legislation to become law, it must pass in the House, Senate and get signed by the President.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Eustace Mullins at 86

Blacklisted historian’s works reveal the deception of mainstream history

by John Kaminski

29th October 2009

Lots of fine folks around the world have been worried lately about the welfare of legendary anti-establishment historian Eustace Mullins.

Actually, half-baked reports and calculated rumors have had him killed, kidnapped, missing or otherwise under siege for decades. Some of these items have been true, others only near misses.

I’m here to tell you tonight that Eustace is fine. One is tempted to describe him as “never better,” but for a writer as young as myself, describing an old codger of 86 years filled with intrigue and tragedy, whose legs don’t work very well anymore and who is prone to nodding off after a good meal, that would be a subjective judgment I would not care to make.

I’ve been hearing stories about the persecution and exploitation of Eustace Mullins by shadowy people with ulterior motives since the late 1980s, when they’d already been happening for 30 years. To make a long story short, Eustace would be dead today — murdered, actually — if not for the miraculous intervention of a guardian angel. Yes, it does happen.

The thing that first strikes me as remarkable about Eustace is his face, especially when he laughs, which is often. Good humor amidst adversity is perhaps the finest human trait, which this battler for objective human truth possesses in abundance.

Even though the subject at hand may be tragic and portend dire consequences for the entire human race, when the point is made, and Eustace laughs wryly, all the wrinkles on his face disappear, except for two little crow’s feet. His eyes sparkle as he glances upward, as if to say, “I tell them what I’ve found, Lord, that’s about all I can do.” The best way I can put it is that he is infused with a kind of light I’ve seen in very few others.

Eustace Mullins is the most blacklisted, suppressed and harassed writer in American history. In the introduction to his “A writ for martyrs,” which is a report on the files the FBI compiled on him for decades, Mullins writes, “In a single day, my life changed from one of peaceful artistic endeavour to one of constant struggle for survival. One dark winter day in in 1948, some friends persuaded me to visit the poet Ezra Pound in his cell at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, Washington, D.C. That day was to cast a pall over my life, and to bring great suffering to my innocent family.”

After 25 books, including such pertinent titles as “The Secrets of the Federal Reserve,” “Murder by Injection,” and “The World Order: Our Secret Rulers,” Mullins is now living the good life, sort of, thanks to his rescue from oblivion by a lone man who takes life very seriously. Mullins and his steadfast caretaker Jesse Lee are essentially homeless, but touring the country, going from friend to friend, selling the same books Mullins has been peddling for sixty years. (You too can acquire these precious, museum quality books for a song — and possibly get a visit from Eustace and Jesse in the bargain — simply by writing to me and I’ll pass the info on.)

But in their happy travels, they do something a lot more than that. With Jesse’s thoughtful guidance, they raise eyebrows and elicit love wherever and with whomever they meet. The minute Eustace’s message reaches the unenlightened, they seem to universally respond, “I need to hear this information, because it relates to what is happening now more than anything I’ve ever heard on TV.”

Sitting comfortably in an easy chair, Mullins dismisses the physical problems that have plagued him in recent years with a wave of his hand, and says matter-of-factly, chuckling with that twinkle again, “I still have 25 more books to write!”

The astonishing output of works of supreme relevance to our understanding of today’s world can perhaps best be viewed on Wikipedia, a site I don’t normally recommend, and can’t say is accurate. But it gives you an idea of the volume and magnitude of Mullins’ works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustace_Mullins Savor the titles. “The plagues of pharaoh.” “Jewish TV: Sick sick sick.” “Why General Patton Was Murdered.”

But more importantly, understand the content of all these publications and simply marvel at the profound enormity of the output.

Among his major works . . .

“The Secrets of the Federal Reserve” may just be the single book that can save the American republic, if that’s possible, because it objectively examines how the international bankers have reshaped reality throughout the 20th century and turned our freedom into slavery.

“Murder by Injection: The Story of the Medical Conspiracy against America” reveals the American Medical Association’s sordid history of killer quackery and heartless profiteering that continues today with the ubiquitous use of poison medicines to cure fictional diagnoses.

“The World Order: Our Secret Rulers” names the five men who rule the world.

In “The Rape of Justice: America’s Tribunals Exposed,” Mullins writes: “ . . . the cause of our legal dilemma, that our Constitutional courts, as authorized in the Constitution, have stealthily been replaced by equity courts, operating on the stern military principles of admiralty punishment.”

So now you have some idea why the notorious FBI director J. Edgar Hoover put a tail on Mullins for decades; in fact, probably, the agent is still posted.

Eustace’s guardian Jesse says “The Curse of Canaan” is the key to all of Mullins’ works, because it explains the demonic plot that has plagued civilization for five thousand years. Back in the late 1980s, when I first encountered “Curse of Canaan,” I was put off by religious terminology I didn’t understand, and I thought all evangelical types were the same — hypocrites.

Since then I’ve learned differently. Like the debate about good Jews and bad Jews, there is no debate that there are good Christians and bad Christians. Israel-poisoned shills like John Hagee, Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell are the bad Christians; but the good ones like Jesse Lee and Eustace leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that they are driven by the light of truth, and overjoyed at the prospects of the trip they’re on.

As stimulating as reading Eustace Mullins can be, conversing with him can be even more startling, not to mention educational.

“People don’t realize the United States didn’t win the Revolutionary War,” Eustace casually says. “They let us think we won, but it never really happened.”

Jaws usually drop considerably at that line. Summoning my meager knowledge of America’s war for independence, I began to babble on about Alexander Hamilton, the guy on the $10 bill, as being one of the key figures preventing America’s independence from Britain and the international bankers. I brought up a name familiar to Eustace, the respected Jewish economic historian Emanuel Josephson, who was Mullins’ close friend when they both lived in the same New York City neighborhood a half century ago.

Josephson wrote that Hamilton was half black and half Jewish, went to Hebrew school in London, and later prevented the fledgling colonies from financial freedom by reserving the printing of paper money to the banks, rather than the government, despite what the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution appears to say.

“That kind of reminds me of Abraham Lincoln,” Eustace retorted. “Lincoln’s mother was a slave and his father was a Jew. Did you know that Lincoln’s wife went mad and spent the later part of her life in an insane asylum, and that both of Lincoln’s sons committed suicide?”

He continued. “Lincoln was put in place by the bankers, too. That whole greenbacks thing was just a smokescreen.”

As I said, jaw dropping.

After a pause, Eustace went on. “Did you know that for two whole years, Averill Harriman was the leader of Russia?”

Harriman, member of an infamously rich American family comparable and in league with the Bushes, was sent to Russia by the Rockefellers right after Hitler invaded in 1941, because when that happened, Stalin had a nervous breakdown which lasted two years. Harriman later returned to the U.S. and ran for vice president in 1948.

Perhaps with Eustace Mullins rather than any other single author, you can really get a feel for how deep the rabbithole goes. Among Mullins’ more astounding publications are both whole books of commentary on the Jewish question, including a mammoth tome titled “Mullins’ New History of the Jews,” and small booklets containing the riveting essays “Jewish War Against the Western World,” “Sigmund Freud: Anti-Christ Devil,” “There’s a Gulag in Your Future,” and “The Biological Jew,” plus scores of other essays and short works with similar titles and the same subject. So it seemed natural to suggest my own observations for his scrutiny, and when I did, was I surprised.

“So, Eustace,” I queried, “who really runs the world?”

“The Queen,” he answered quickly.

“You mean it’s not the Sanhedrin!?” I exclaimed, flabbergasted. “Are you sure it’s not the Sanhedrin that runs the Queen?”

“No, it’s Queen Elizabeth who runs the Sanhedrin and everything else — most definitely.”

As I said, with Eustace Mullins, both with reading his works and listening to him, prepare to be astounded. Prepare to learn the real history that has been concealed from us by the people who own the media, who just happen to be the same people who own the banks and the government.

As I said before, since 1988 I’d been hearing secondhand stories about Eustace and about how numerous charlatans would make their way to his modest Staunton, Virginia home to try to steal the rights to Eustace’s books. Many times I pondered how the only thing that could really save Eustace from the ravages of time and inattention was a guardian angel.

For decades, said angel never appeared, and Eustace’s health rapidly went down the tubes. Then suddenly, right after filmmaker Randy Atkins made the video “The Neo-Zionist World Order,” which consisted of an extensive interview with Mullins, the latest team of these charlatans spirited Eustace out of the Virginia nursing home where he had been living to another nursing home in Texas. Two criminals named Blackburn and Spencer were all set to commit Mullins to a Texas state institution, where it would have been all but impossible to get him out. During this dangerous episode, Spencer actually reprinted one of Mullins’ works, carefully removing all instances of the word “Jew,” and pocketing all the profits for himself.

As Eustace recalls it, “Spencer told me that if I took the word out of all my books, we could make a million dollars.” That Eustace remembered what G. Edward Griffin did. “He totally plagiarized my ‘Secrets of the Federal Reserve’ and made two million dollars.”

Just as Mullins was to be committed to a Texas state institution, along comes Jesse Lee, son of a Baptist preacher, who perceived the unjust horror of the situation. Jesse snatched Eustace from the clutches of money-grubbing opportunists and the poisoned nursing home, and drove him off to Maine for a 40-day raw vegetable fast.

And that’s what saved Eustace’s life.

Since then Eustace and Jesse have lived a nomadic life, going from friend to friend, all over the U.S., spreading the real history of the United States and waking people up in the friendliest of ways.

Jesse Lee, you may know, looks just like Santa Claus (well, much thinner). While on a previous fast in the mountains of Colorado, Jesse took a Nazarite vow to never again cut his hair as a sign he was a servant of the Lord, and the task he adopted as his life’s work was to resuscitate and renourish Eustace. So far this mission, a tremendous amount of work since Mullins is essentially not able to sustain himself without significant care, has been a complete success. And a great gift to those they choose to visit.

Jesse’s goal for the future, suggested by Atkins, is to reacquire the old Mullins homestead in Staunton, also buy the house next door, and turn them both into the Eustace Mullins Ezra Pound Institute for Civilization, sell books and protect the works of Mullins, Pound and other authors who have been blacklisted by the authorities who control people’s thoughts. That plan at this point is only a dream.

“We’re not out to sell books,” Jesse stresses. “We just want to spread the word.”

Lately I’ve noticed something that I’ve never noticed before. I guess it’s one of the perks of getting older.

I’ve noticed that a lot of the best people — not the ones who are trying to make lots of money or assume positions of power after they steal them from whomever possesses them at the moment — exude a certain kind of light about them.

Jesse has asked me if I was a Christian, and I said no, but added that Jesus was a close personal friend of mine.

Jesse didn’t know that I am one of the most trenchant and persistent critics of organized religion in the world. Or at least that’s what I like to think.

But lately I’ve noticed that the people who say and do the best things are all driven by a CERTAIN faith in God, and are made happy by it, regardless of whatever historical anomalies that I might hold in such high and incriminating regard, and regardless of whichever creed — except for that horrible one we’ve been talking about — that espouses veneration of a highest power with an emphasis on love, charity and service . . . you know, that highest power that has given us our lives. I’ve seen it just as strongly in Catholics, Muslims, Baptists and Buddhists. Sorry to say I don’t know any Hindus, but I’m sure they have it, too.

It’s the light of faith that shows through in good works for the highest purposes, and it is the most beautiful thing in the world.

Lately I feel this light rising in myself, the light of safety, and I don’t know what do about it, trenchant critic of psyop religions that I pretend to be.

A thought crosses my mind: What if all the believers in the world united against the nonbelievers? I’m not talking lockstep Hageeism here. I’m talking about understanding we all have shared goals and shared beliefs, but some agency in the world somehow exacerbates our differences instead of emphasizing our commonalities. They foment conflict for the purpose of exploiting both sides. As a direct result, society is in chaos while the mindlocked government works to mass murder as many people as possible so the rich can have less crowded playgrounds.

What if all the believers in the world found their commonality and exposed and neutralized the one group of nonbelievers that controls everything for a purpose that can only be described as selfish and evil?

Well, it’s just a dream. A dream that could be made possible if everyone understood everything that Eustace Mullins has ever said, and put those thoughts into action.

The phone rings. It’s Randy, supposedly the next stop for Eustace and Jesse. “They’re not here yet.” I get on the phone. “Jesse, where are you?” “Oh, we stopped at Mia’s. Don’t know how long we’ll be here, but we’re having a great time.”

Join in if you like. You’ll never regret it.

Supreme Court Overturns Restrictions On Corporations

Big news coming from Washington, D.C. And I'm not really surprised that it was the Republican Supreme Court Justices that decided this outcome. After the 14th Amendment was passed government defined what a corporation was and then granted the same rights that a citizen of the united States enjoys to this newly created artificial entity. The Supreme Court Justices argued that because a corporation was a legal person and because it had freedom of speech that it should now be able to donate however much money it wants to into the coffers of bought-off politicians.

And how can you disagree with the Supreme Court Justices. In a way this is the most honest statement Washington, D.C. has ever made: money talks and bullshit walks.

The one thing that gets me is how Democrats are complaining about this decision: after all, in the recent 2008 election it was Goldman Sachs who donated campaign funds to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain so that whoever lost, Goldman Sachs won. The protests from the left is nothing but theatrics. Big Business and Big Government have always slept together even before the ruling of this Surpeme Court decision. Read Anthony Sutton's Wall Street trilogy and his epic publication Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development. Monopoly capitalists and corporatists will always find favor with revolutionary socialists.

The (very) sickening story follows below:

Supreme Court OKs unlimited corporate spending on elections

In a landmark 5-4 decision, the court's conservative bloc said that corporations had the same right to free speech as individuals, and for that reason the government could not stop corporations from spending to help their favored candidates.

The ruling, which will presumably apply as well to labor unions and other organizations, is likely to have an effect on this year's congressional elections. Many political analysts and election-law experts predict that millions of extra dollars will flood into this fall's contests, much of it benefiting Republican candidates.

Republicans praised the decision as a victory for wide-open political speech, but Democrats slammed it as a win for big money.

President Obama called the ruling "a major victory for Big Oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." He promised to seek "a forceful response to this decision" from Congress. Some Democrats talked about seeking legislation that would require corporations to get approval from their shareholders before spending money on politics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR THE RECORD
An earlier version of the subheadline on this report incorrectly said millions of extra dollars were expected to flow to Republican candidates. Corporations and unions are still barred from giving money directly to the campaigns of federal candidates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican leader, said that the court had restored proper rights to corporations and unions. Previously, "the government was picking winners and losers," McConnell said.

Until Thursday, corporations and unions were barred from spending their treasury funds on broadcast ads, campaign workers or billboards that urge the election or defeat of a federal candidate.

The restriction dates to 1907, when President Theodore Roosevelt persuaded Congress to forbid corporations, railroads and national banks from putting money into federal races. After World War II, Congress extended the ban to labor unions. More recently, the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002 added an extra limit on corporate and union-funded broadcast ads in the month before an election. Such ads were prohibited if they even mentioned a candidate running for office.

Thursday's decision swept away all of these restrictions.

"The government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity," said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion. While the case of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission dealt only with corporations, the ruling will probably also free unions to spend as they wish.

Two significant prohibitions were left standing. Corporations and unions cannot give money directly to the campaigns of federal candidates, or to political parties. And the court affirmed the requirement that sponsors of political ads disclose who paid for them. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented on these points.

Thursday's decision was supported by five justices who were Republican nominees: Kennedy and Thomas along with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

The dissenters included the three Democratic appointees: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. They joined a 90-page dissenting opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who was appointed by President Ford, a Republican. Stevens, who will turn 90 in April, spoke in a halting voice as he read part of his dissent in the courtroom Thursday.

He called the decision "a radical change in the law." He predicted that the ruling would "cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress and the states to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process."

The decision displayed a deep division of opinion on the court about the meaning of the 1st Amendment and the freedom of speech.

The majority said that the Constitution broadly protected discussion and debate on politics, regardless of who was paying for the speech.

Stevens and the dissenters said that the majority was ignoring the long-understood rule that the government could limit election money from corporations, unions and others, such as foreign governments.

"Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments" would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S. elections, Stevens said.

For critics of the campaign funding laws, the Citizens United case was an acorn that grew into an oak.

It began when Hillary Rodham Clinton, then a New York senator, said that she was running for president. David Bossie, a longtime Clinton critic, set up Citizens United as a nonprofit corporation, and produced a DVD called "Hillary: The Movie," an attack on her as vicious and untrustworthy.

Bossie lost a suit against the Federal Election Commission, which was charged with enforcing the McCain-Feingold Act. A lower court had said that the planned broadcast of the film was prohibited because it was an electioneering communication aimed at voters within 30 days of a presidential primary. Bossie appealed, citing the 1st Amendment.

When his case first reached the Supreme Court, the conservative justices voiced alarm that the government could restrict a movie, or perhaps a book, that criticized a candidate simply because it was paid for with corporate money. In September, they heard the case for a second time to broadly consider the issue of corporate-funded election ads.

Chief Justice Roberts said he was convinced that a broad free-speech ruling was required. Otherwise, it "would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern."

Thursday, December 31, 2009

GATA sues Fed to disclose gold market intervention records

http://www.gata.org/node/8192

2p ET Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

GATA today brought suit against the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, seeking a court order for disclosure of the central bank's records of its surreptitious market intervention to suppress the monetary metal's price.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and targets Fed records involving gold swaps, exchanges of gold with foreign financial institutions. In a letter dated September 17 this year to GATA's law firm, William J. Olson P.C. of Vienna, Virginia, (http://www.lawandfreedom.com) Fed Board of Governors member Kevin M. Warsh acknowledged that the Fed has gold swap agreements with foreign banks but insisted that such documents remain secret:

http://www.gata.org/files/GATAFedResponse-09-17-2009.pdf

The lawsuit follows two years of GATA's efforts to obtain from the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury Department a candid accounting of the U.S. government's involvement in the gold market. These efforts parallel those of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who long has been proposing legislation to audit the Fed. The Fed has wrapped in secrecy much of its massive intervention in the markets over the last year, and Paul's legislation recently was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Fed claims that its gold swap records involve "trade secrets" exempt from disclosure under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.

While GATA has produced many U.S. government records showing both open and surreptitious intervention in the gold market in recent decades (see http://www.gata.org/node/8052), Fed Governor Warsh's letter is confirmation that the government is surreptitiously operating in the gold market in the present as well. That intervention constitutes a huge deception of financial markets as well as expropriation of precious metals miners and investors particularly. This deception and expropriation are what GATA was established in 1999 to expose and oppose.

Of course GATA's lawsuit against the Fed will take months if not years to resolve. We think we have a good chance of winning it in court. But we can win it outside court, and much sooner, if the suit can gain enough publicity from the financial news media and market analysts and prompt enough inquiry from them and from the public, the mining industry, and members of Congress.

So GATA urges its friends to publicize the suit and to urge journalists, market analysts, mining companies, and members of Congress to join us in seeking disclosure of the Fed's gold market intervention records. If enough clamor is directed at the Fed about these records, the gold price suppression scheme will lose its surreptitiousness and fail.

Unfortunately the World Gold Council, which each year collects tens of millions of dollars in membership fees from mining companies in the name of representing them and gold investors, refuses to question governments about their surreptitious interventions in the gold market. These interventions powerfully influence not only gold's price but the prices of government bonds and currencies, as well as interest rates generally and the value of all capital and labor in the world. There is no more important issue in the world economy than gold price suppression.

So what should have been the World Gold Council's work has fallen to GATA, a non-profit educational and civil rights organization that operates from month to month on donations from people who share its objective -- free and transparent markets in the precious metals and fair dealing among nations generally. As we prosecute our lawsuit against the Fed, we'll be grateful for your support. We promise to do something with it.

For information about supporting GATA, please visit:

http://www.gata.org/node/16

GATA's lawsuit against the Fed is listed in federal court records as civil case No. 09-2436 ESH, the letters being the initials of the district court judge assigned to it, Ellen S. Huvelle.

You can find the lawsuit here:

http://www.gata.org/files/GATALawsuitVs.Fed-12-30-2009.pdf

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Ron Paul on Ben and the Fed



If Joe Scarborough was aware of what Ron Paul said about the economic ills that were to befall this country later into the decade, why wasn't he speaking with Ron and why wasn't he supporting Ron during the 2008 election season? Did he forget about the comments Paul made back in 2003 or was it that he was never made aware of it until recently? Paul is correct to criticize the Federal Reserve institution as evil, but he plays gatekeeper when he doesn't describe Ben Bernanke as being evil as well. Paul is also incorrect in saying that Ben Bernanke is the most powerful man in the world. Not to take away from the guilt that Bernanke bears himself, but there are other players involved here, like the members of the Bank of England who are so conveniently left out from the scathing criticism. Also, why isn't Paul talking about the findings of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee? It's very concerning to me that he hasn't said anything.

I'm turned off by these corporate newscasters who try to play themselves off as trustworthy when for 8 years during King Bush's reign they parroted state propaganda. It means that things are going to get worse as they try to lull people back to sleep from their wake-up so that they can resume their program of deception. Yes, that means you, Glenn Beck, and I don't care if you rewrote Thomas Paine's Common Sense.

Oh, and here's something I didn't know. Obviously Murray Rothbard and Pat Buchanan were friends from way back. Eustace Mullins has some information on both Rothbard and Mises in his book The World Order. I'll post the passage in another blog article.

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

E.P.A. Designates Forests “Enemies of State.”

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I think I'll just boil over with rage.

E.P.A. Designates Forests “Enemies of State.”

Today the Environmental Protection Agency’s chief Martinet (official title) Lisa P. Jackson (formerly of Wendy and Lisa, and Lisa Lisa and Cult Jam), has issued orders that Carbon Dioxide, which is what you are breathing out right now, is a deadly pollutant.

Many individuals have been taken by surprise by this official ruling of the Obama administration, including one Terence Wheeler, of Macon County, Georgia, who claims to have been breathing C02 out and in for many years without noticing that he was being poisoned.

But criminalization of this deadly poisonous toxic pollutant that is responsible for all acts of terrorist weather, as well as AIDS, is just the beginning for EPA super-agent Jackson.

Said Mrs. Jackson to the packed hall of reporters, “While it is well known, and I quote, that ‘climate change could reduce income from farming and fishing, possibly driving some women into sex work and thereby increase HIV infection,’ we must take an even larger step than preventing people from having sex, to stop global warming.”

No, says Mrs. Jackson, “We’ve got to clean up our acts, and that means going through our closets and finding all the dresses that don’t fit, and whether we like it or not, or think that one day we might squeeze into them again…what was I saying? Oh, yes. We’ve got to throw out those old clothes and old relationships, and start anew.” Said agent Jackson, with a mouthful of hostess devil’s food cake.

“And that’s why we’ve got to cut down the forests of the world.” She told a stunned, but quickly compliant audience.

Following the conference, the EPA issued a formal declaration, explaining that forests were now an ‘Enemy of the State.’ From the briefing:

“Because trees and plants take in C02 and turn it into oxygen, they must be considered enemies of the state, for co-dependently facilitating global warming by not preventing us from stopping production of C02.”
So now the Environmental Protection Agency has made the bizarre, yet predictable move of categorizing all plant life as enemies of the state. Declaring all plant life as an enemy of the state is bizarre because this sounds more like an idea for a satirical comedy skit. And predictable because I'm not very surprised. The Environmental Protection Agency has turned into the State Protection Agency. It is quite insincere and disingenous for anyone to take seriously the government's concern for the environment's welfare. Why? Well, because the government's only concern is its self-existence and its continued application of tyranny over free peoples. The government's concern for the environment only extends to the point where it perceives a threat level something or someone poses to its criminal existence.

EPA Chief Lisa P. Jackson is in clinical psychiatry terms: a lunatic.

Monday, November 30, 2009

Woman's Leg Amputated by Mistake Following False Cancer Diagnosis

(Mister Goldbug - for access to all the links in this article, please go to the website and read the article yourself.)

(NaturalNews) Word to the wise: Be careful of what doctors tell you to cut off following a cancer diagnosis. Submitting to cancer surgery can cost you an arm... or a leg.

Increasingly, cancer surgeons are recommending that woman have their healthy breasts surgically removed as a way to prevent cancer -- even when those women have no cancer! But recently, an even more bizarre story surfaced: According to a BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/...), a UK woman had her leg amputated by a cancer surgeon who claimed her leg showed signs of a malignant cancer tumor. She naively agreed to undergo the surgery and awoke with quite a shock: Not only was her leg missing, but the doctor told her she never had cancer in the first place.

I'm trying to figure out who made the bigger goof here: The doctor who claimed there was cancer, or the patient who agreed to let a doctor amputate her leg without getting a second opinion...

Here's what the doctor reportedly said upon her regaining consciousness: "I've got a bombshell to tell you - I'm very sorry, but we shouldn't have taken the leg off."

At that point, I think the patient should have picked up that amputated leg and beat the snot out of the surgeon with it. But that's just me...

The finest medical care in the world

The leg amputation patient was offered a settlement of roughly US$158,000, much of which ended up being used to buy a prosthetic leg. This is how the medical system generates business these days: First they harm patients with one procedure (drugs, chemo or surgery), then they make even more money treating the harm they caused in the first place. It's quite a clever system for repeat business.

The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, where this surgery took place, denied it had been negligent. (That must be some creative excuse-making.) The leg amputation was approved by "a group of clinical experts - three of them world-renowned in their particular fields," according to statements published by the BBC. (None of them lost their jobs over the incident.)

Is that a relief? It would be far more comforting to think this was a mistake made by bumbling idiots who had no idea what they were doing. But no, this leg amputation error was made by the best doctors and surgeons around! These are the smart ones!

I'd hate to think what some lesser-educated members of the medical profession might have done. Perhaps they would have resorted to the tactics of masochistic U.S. breast cancer surgeons and recommended that the women remove both legs just to make sure she never gets cancer there in the future.

And why stop at that? Chop off the arms, legs, testicles, breasts, colon and reproductive organs -- all just to make sure no cancer appears there. Soon, you're left with the Black Knight from Monty Python, a wiggling torso with an animated head that insists he's just fine and can still fight.

You gotta wonder, by the way, why this victim settled for a mere $158,000. Isn't your leg worth much more? I don't know about you, but I need both legs because there are still too many practicing cancer surgeons who need a good swift boot to the head!

Need a CT scan? Here's the "Hiroshima special..."

Oh, and just in case you think the craziness of modern health care is limited to surgeons who remove the wrong body parts, here's something else you need to know. As the LA Times reports:

"After Cedars-Sinai reset a CT scan machine in February 2008, more than 200 brain scans on potential stroke patients were performed at eight times the normal dose of radiation, the hospital says." (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/l...)

So instead of getting a low-risk medical imaging test, patients who went to Cedars-Sinai got something more like a taste of Hiroshima and its radioactive fallout. CT scans, even when properly calibrated, are equivalent to receiving 100 chest X-rays (http://www.naturalnews.com/023582.html). Multiply that by eight -- as happened at Cedars-Sinai -- and you the equivalent of 800 chest X-rays worth of radiation all in one setting!

"Hey doctor, something's strange here. All these CT scans are showing the brains of these patients are completely fried! What should we do?"

Replies the doctor at Cedars-Sinai: "Don't worry about it. If these patients had any brains to begin with, they wouldn't be visiting us in the first place!"

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Jewish Hate Group Calls Patriotic Grass Roots Organizations Un-American

Okay, so the title of this blog article is extreme. It draws your attention to the piece. And that's precisely what I wanted out of this.

In their continued efforts to subdue the white American male and those who support him in his goals, the Anti-Defamation League has labeled two organizations of identical purpose and similar origin as "extremist" and "anti-government". Their article, Oath Keepers and Three Percenters, reads with a bias that is cloying. Since it has so many features of a propaganda piece, we cannot rely on it to glean any truth from the article. And the only inspection possible that will allow us any truth would be to consult the groups targeted therein the piece.

After telling us where the first national conference of the OathKeepers took place and for how long it lasted, it then, the skeptic observer assumes, under reports the scale of attendance by commenting that only 100 people attended. Because of what follows in their article, this statistic can only be verified by the testimony of those who were there. The article then audaciously reports, with no supportable evidence, that the group is much smaller in membership than the declaration of an OathKeeper boardmember who advanced the number 2,000 in counting the tally of dues-paying members.

What follows is political language phrased to elicit apathy from the reader. In understanding that people sympathize more with veterans over lawyers, the ADL carefully chooses to describe OathKeeper's founder Stewart Rhodes as a lawyer instead of a disabled U.S. Army paratrooper. In this respect, this is beneficial to the ADL who want nothing more than for ignorant Americans to believe patriotism equals treasonous extremism.

Editorially, the ADL contemptuously eludes with disdainful pride that in refusing to obey suspected unlawful commands by traitors in all branches and at every level of government, the Oathkeepers' members should be restrained to strap-belted gurneys for their own mental-health protection. It was not hard for the author of this blog article to decipher their encoded message. Look at the following excerpt below in blockquote for yourself.

The Oath Keepers encourage members of the military and law enforcement to pledge not to follow certain hypothetical "orders" from the federal government. These "orders," including one "to put American citizens in detention camps," and another "to disarm the American people," echo longstanding conspiracy theories embraced by anti-government extremists, who claim that the U.S. government is creating a police state. The Oath Keepers try to appeal to military and law enforcement personnel by reminding them that they swore an oath to defend the Constitution "from all enemies, foreign and domestic," and suggesting that now is the time to live up to that oath by resisting an allegedly tyrannical government.
"Allegedly tyrannical government," "echoing longstanding conspiracy theories embraced by anti-government extremists," is the type of political language used to slanderously and libelously assail American patriots in the public arena when trying to engage in serious discourse about topics they feel need to be discussed.

Their vials of poison still not empty yet, the ADL shoots their guns again twice more at American patriot Stewart Rhodes. First they suggest in language not so subtle that the picture of an Oath Keepers patch on an active-duty serviceman's arm sleeve is a fraud. Second, by brazenly accusing OathKeepers and ThreePercent as being organizations formed by extremists and opportunists capitalizing on the discontented masses unhappy with having a black President. But one must ponder if there are so many discontented over the President's blackness, how did Barack Obama rally enough votes to launch him into office?

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Federal Reserve Policy Audit Legislation ‘Gutted,’ Paul Says

Oct. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Representative Ron Paul, the Texas Republican who has called for an end to the Federal Reserve, said legislation he introduced to audit monetary policy has been “gutted” while moving toward a possible vote in the Democratic-controlled House.

The bill, with 308 co-sponsors, has been stripped of provisions that would remove Fed exemptions from audits of transactions with foreign central banks, monetary policy deliberations, transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee and communications between the Board, the reserve banks and staff, Paul said today.

“There’s nothing left, it’s been gutted,” he said in a telephone interview. “This is not a partisan issue. People all over the country want to know what the Fed is up to, and this legislation was supposed to help them do that.”

The Fed, led by Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, has come under greater congressional scrutiny while attempting to end the financial crisis by bailing out financial firms and more than doubling its balance sheet to $2.16 trillion in the past year. The central bank is also buying $1.25 trillion of securities tied to home loans.

Paul, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, said Mel Watt, a Democrat from North Carolina, has eliminated “just about everything” while preparing the legislation for formal consideration. Watt is chairman of the panel’s domestic monetary policy and technology subcommittee.

Keith Kelly, a spokesman for Watt, declined to comment and said Watt wasn’t immediately available for an interview. Watt’s district includes Charlotte, headquarters of Bank of America Corp., the biggest U.S. lender. (Mister Goldbug - well this certainly makes sense why Watt would elimite "just about everything" in Paul's bill. He either works unofficially for Bank of America, who may or may not have put him in office, and this is something that needs to be researched, or he is doing the Federal Reserve a mere favor. But really what's the difference? Mel Watt is a whore.)

Original Language

Paul said he intends to introduce an amendment to the bill when it comes to the House floor for a vote restoring the legislation’s original language.

Representative Barney Frank, a Democrat from Massachusetts and chairman of the committee, said in interview that he intends to ensure legislation would provide a time lag between FOMC actions and the reporting of them.

Such a provision would “lessen the market impact,” he said on Oct. 20. “The importance is to see that there are no abuses and to judge what they did.” (Mister Goldbug - I've always loved the way defenders of the Fed have argued time lag transparency. There's another word for time lag and its usually associated with people who are drunk -- slow response time.)

The legislation will probably be included in a broader Democratic package of financial-regulation changes in the House, Frank said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=atc2o1ijLRno