Joseph Stack and the IRS Building

Recently a desperate American fed up with the tyranny of the IRS flew his private airplane into the Austin-based IRS building killing himself on a patriotic suicide mission. His name was Joseph Stack. The federal propagandists are salivating over this incident because they see this as a great benefit and an opportunity to push their agendas forward. They can use this for several purposes. The neoconservatives and their co-conspirators on the Left will use this to argue the case for federal surveillance of all American citizens. They will tie this man in to the Tea Party (even without proof) which doesn't have an honest footing since the moment it was co-opted by the people who promote the FairTax and the Flat Tax. The neoconservative Republican candidates who have attached themselves to the Tea Party movement to make themselves look more honest than they are to Americans fed up with the Rep. Party are going to use this incident to draw in votes. Of course, what I'm saying is not very surprising, and there's nothing new under the sun.

The mainstream media propagandists (example here) are labelling him as a terrorist. This is quite ironic from the standpoint of patriotic Americans who see his target, the Internal Revenue Service, as an outfit which conducts terrorism. Ed & Elaine Brown, anyone?

Larken Rose wrote of the incident:

Earlier today, a victim of the largest extortion racket in the world struck back, giving up his life in the process. The control freaks, and their propagandists who pretend to be "reporters," will no doubt spend the next few weeks demonizing the man, or painting him as crazy.

To those who rely on the mainstream media for their source of information and knowledge, Joseph Stack will be another Lee bin Laden McVeigh, the crazy lone wolf. And, in fact, he may very well be another front man for a much larger operation that used him as someone to take the fall and the blame.

Alex Jones is already speculating the involvement of federal agents in a conspiracy to discredit and smear the growing national protest over the Leninist IRS. And its certainly possible. The Hegelian dailectic has been found to be very useful our Washington parasites.

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."

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.

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!"

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?

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

Flu Shot Caused Neurological Disorder in Cheerleader

I've been meaning to post this for a few days now. I'm finally getting around to it.

One thing I must mention is a statement made by, I guess, a reporter (who should be fired and never allowed to work for a news agency again). First I'm going to quote what she said in this video below here and then translate into english what was communicated in doublespeak.

Reporter: You know, there's no conspiracy here folks! Just get your damn vaccine! Listen to our government agency. These guys are telling the truth! Forget the conspiracy! Just get your damn vaccine!

The Honest English Translation: Do you presume to criticize the Great Oz, you ungrateful creature? Pay no attention to that man behind that curtain! Government is holy, pure and virtuous! It has never done anything wrong! It has never failed! Trust it, damn you!! If it wasn't for the government, you wouldn't be alive!! It gave you life, it surely can take it away! So mind your manners, don't think, and go back to sleep!! And just get your damn vaccine!!

As for Desiree Jennings.... have mercy on her soul!!!

Some Unexpect, Great News: Irving Kristol Dead at 89

Recently, I've been reading Mullins' compendium work to his Federal Reserve book, The World Order, which cites the newspaper many, many times. While perusing through the pages of the New York Times, I found this article on Irving Kristol, the trotskyite communist who radicalized the Republican Party by introducing the poisonous doctrine of neoconservatism which is nothing new and isn't conservative just as the Federal Reserve isn't federal and has no reserves.

He brought to the Republican Party his rabid dedication to communism with his friend Norman Podhoretz, who both, along with the help of other backstage power-brokers, tranformed the Republican Party into the Trotskyite Wing of the Communist Party.

Ron Paul wrote quite extensively about the neocon agenda in his article Neo-CONNED.

Be aware when reading the article. The NYT and Weekly Standard do try to make Kristol look like an anti-communist anti-socialist. Not true.

Republicans Adopt Ron Paul's Message With Something Missing

A friend sent me this article in email. And I had to post it. But first I have to point something out before I duplicate the story with the link provided afterward. I'm developing this sense that a lot of conservatives are flocking to Glenn Beck's side to sit at his feet and learn the Wisdom of the Elders, if I may be allowed to be so dramatic. And I'll admit that Beck has recently scored points with me even in his exposé of the dedicated communists in Obama's Administration. But I have to wonder how much of this heavy investigation into the Obama's Administration by the conservative journalists has to do with their disappointment in the loss of a Republican victory in the 2008 elections.

They certainly weren't this critical with the Bush Administration like Ron Paul had been, but Republicans do tend to hate liberal Democrats more than the State. After witnessing the popularity of Ron Paul, the conservatives and their counterpart journalists are desperately trying to win back disenfranchised voters who went with Paul and similarly minded candidates. Glenn Beck recently made an attempt at being more Ron Paul friendly by writing a modern version of Thomas Paine's famous tract, Common Sense. Only the gullible are going to fall for this disingenuous pandering.

The Fox News Judas goats never cease to amaze me. The article follows:

Trouble is it won't work! One must do more than study the words of another in order to embrace a new philosophy. Beck, Palin, Romney even Ann Coulter are all now sounding like avid Ron Paul supporters, although seldom giving credit where it is due.

Glen Beck has been making headlines for himself recently by denouncing the Republican party and making statements that he would have voted for Hillary Clinton over McCain. He even went so far as to draft five pledges a candidate should make in order to show himself "for the people". However, a close inspection of these pledges reveals that either Beck does not "get it" or he is a spokesman for the current Republican party which is desparate to regain its conservative support.

Upon reflection, one will notice that underneath Beck's pledges is an assumption that the government should be "in control" but has simply erred and gone off course. Notice the repeated use of the word "until". Once the necessary corrections have been made, the government can take its rightful place back in the seat of power and control. This logic is faulty at its core. Politicians are elected to manage the public's trust, not to be "in charge'. Regardless of common perception and celebrity worship, civil servants are to be just that: servants. Most politicians are keenly aware of this during elections but suffer amnesia immediately thereafter.

The most revealing of the 5 pledges is the last. "I believe the United States of America is the greatest country on earth and therefore will not apologize for policies or actions which have served to free more and feed more people around the world than any other nation on the planet." This statement is arrogant and ethnocentric at best. Of course one should believe strongly in his country and maintain a certain amount of patriotic pride. This statement, however, is dangerous. It is the essence of Republican "big government".

Whenever one places an agenda above the people it is meant to serve, no matter how noble the intentions, he then ventures off of the ground of freedom and liberty and into the region of totalitarianism and authoritarianism. If one holds the fundamental belief that the people need the government to "take care of" them, to "protect" them, to "regulate" them and to "enforce" morality, agendas and ideals, then he will always revert back to his particular party of choice. The fact is, that while we must have laws to address fraud, abuse and corruption, the less government we have the more liberty we will possess.

While Beck's pledges address the present concerns of government spending, taxation, environmental regulations and security, which are typical concerns during a Democratic administration, he fails to address the manipulation by corporate interests and corporate influenced legislation. One must remember that the stimulus and bailout programs began under the Bush administration. Most politicians, including Obama himself are sponsored heavily by major corporate interests. This goes far beyond lobbying. The direct connection through board membership and corporate earnings between politicians in both parties and major financial interests is totally obscene. In fact, Gerald Celente defines it as the essence of fascism.

Ron Paul's message is simple, People First! While the Republicans may be attempting to co-opt this message they continue to cling to their agendas of war, federal empowerment and bribery. The co-dependent media anchors and authors have a vested interest in contributing to the party's success. After all, they have built a career around it.

Ron Paul is the litmus test, the standard. His message has been the same for over thirty years. His funds are supplied by his constituents. He maintains a simple lifestyle and he defends the Constitution whether it is popular or not, regardless of personal gain. We need to do what is right for America! We need liberty for all, justice for all, respect for all. What we do not need from our government is patronization, control and co-dependence. Government is meant to be servant, not master!

Republicans Adopt Ron Paul's Message With Something Missing

Blacklisted by History - The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy

I just recently purchased this book - Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy - and I recommend it.

I checked in the index and did not see Eustace Mullins listed. Odd, considering Mullins was McCarthy's personal research assistant. You would figure someone like M. Stanton Evans, historian that he is, would've came across Eustace Mullins in his research. Mullins himself has been writing a biography of his very own on the Late Great Senator, reportedly. I have not been able to get my hands on a copy of it myself and do not know the status of its publication.

I've read a few chapters of this book before through the local library. I remember that when I read it I developed the feeling that M. Stanton Evans was under the impression that the Cold War was an actual threat to America's national security. Of course, I'm going to have to reread the chapters I've already read and then read the rest of the chapters so that I can get a complete understanding.

I know that Eustace Mullins would disagree with Evans if Evans argued that the Cold War was real. Mullins wrote a piece on the Cold War and explained how it was a fraud concocted by those who were of the employ of the Federal Reserve, which I plan to reprint here in the future.

Obama Regulatory Reform Plan Officially Establishes Banking Dictatorship In United States

An article worth reprinting in spite of the Alex Jones stain.

Paul Joseph Watson & Steve Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, June 18, 200

President Obama’s plan to give the privately-owned and unaccountable Federal Reserve complete regulatory oversight across the entire U.S. economy, which is likely to be enacted before the end of the year, will officially herald the beginning of a new form of government in the United States - an ultra-powerful banking dictatorship controlled by a small gaggle of shadowy and corrupt elitists.

The new rules would see the Fed given the authority to “regulate” any company whose activity it believes could threaten the economy and the markets.

This goes a step further than the centrally planned economies of the Soviet Union or Communist China, in that the Federal Reserve is not even accountable to the U.S. government, it is a private entity that according to former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, is accountable to nobody but the banking families that own it.

Obama’s regulatory “reform” plan is nothing less than a green light for the complete and total takeover of the United States by a private banking cartel that will usurp the power of existing regulatory bodies, who are now being blamed for the financial crisis in order that their status can be abolished and their roles handed over to the all-powerful Fed.

According to an Associated Press report today, Democratic leaders have committed to enacting the plan before the end of the year and Republicans in both the House and Senate have indicated that they won’t stand in the way of the overhaul.

“The final plan….is expected to sidestep most jurisdictional disputes and simply impose across the board standards to be applied by all financial regulators, according to administration and industry sources, ” reports the Washington Times.

In other words, the Fed, which is already totally unaccountable to Congress, is to be placed in complete control of the entirety of the U.S. financial system, to do as it wishes without repercussion.

As the LA Times reports, the government, in conjunction with the private Federal Reserve, would effectively have the clout to simply seize and take over any company it desires.

In order to appease those opposed to the plan, such as Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, the Obama administration has agreed to create a “watchdog” council of regulators to “advise the Fed”.

However, as former chairman Alan Greenspan has most recently pointed out, given that the Fed is an independent entity, and therefore accountable to no one, it will have the power to simply reject and overrule any advice it is offered.

Pointing out the flagrant conflict of interest in empowering the Federal Reserve to essentially regulate itself, Professor of public affairs at the University of Texas at Austin Robert Auerbach writes, “The Federal Reserve has massive conflicts of interest that make it ill suited for its present regulatory functions and certainly for an expanded regulatory reach. The officials leading the Fed today preside over an organization that is run in substantial part by the bankers they regulate. Bank regulation begins at its 12 district Federal Reserve Banks, each governed by a nine-member board of directors, two-thirds of whom are elected by the bankers in the district.”

As economic author Nomi Prins highlights, Obama’s plan does nothing whatsoever to fix the excesses of financial institutions blamed for the financial collapse, it only ensures their continued operation and an expansion of the practices that contributed to the economic crisis in the first place.

“The ’sweeping overhaul’ of the financial system detailed by Geithner on behalf of the Obama administration does not overhaul the system at all,” writes Prins, “giving the Fed a bigger role, creating a ‘council of regulators’ to oversee the existing oversight bodies and allowing the biggest Wall Street players to maintain their status, leaves the system intact.”

“The Federal Reserve is not a fully public entity. It has amassed a set of $7.87 trillion worth of facilities and other entities through which it has lavished cheap loans in return for questionable collateral from the banking system. It has kept the true nature of these transactions a secret despite numerous FOIA requests. And, it has actively promoted the creation of bigger institutions in a chaotic environment, rather than putting the brakes on the creation of these giants,” concludes Prins.

Proof that the agenda of implementing overt financial dictatorship is being carefully coordinated can be seen in the fact that an almost identical scheme is also being set up in the United Kingdom, where “The governor of the Bank of England has called for greater powers to allow it to fulfil its new role of promoting financial stability,” according to a BBC report.

Just as in the U.S., King is calling for traditional independent regulatory bodies to be all but abolished and replaced by the Bank of England itself, which just like the Federal Reserve is a private outfit with no accountability to the government whatsoever.

The mainstream media, for the most part, has reported the oversight plan as a much needed regulatory crackdown on those responsible for the financial crisis. However, the details of the plan constitute almost exactly what lobbyists for leading bankers have been pushing for over the past few weeks.

“All derivatives contracts will be subject to regulation and all derivatives dealers subject to supervision,” Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said at a Time Warner Economic Summit in New York on Monday, also noting “When you have too many people involved, there’s an accountability problem.”

As we reported earlier this month, heads of nine of the biggest banks in the derivatives market, including JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Bank of America, secretly lobbied to keep derivatives under Federal Reserve “oversight” and away from real scrutiny.

As reported by The New York Times, they all met secretly to discuss how to use the lax regulation and institutional secrecy of the NY Fed to shield their credit-default swaps business from prying eyes and attempts at regulation.

The banks formed a lobby– the CDS Dealers Consortium– only weeks after accepting TARP funds in October 2008 to protect its interests. Heading this effort was Edward Rosen, who previously helped fend off derivatives regulation. Rosen wrote and circulated a “confidential memo” to the Treasury Department and leaders on Capital Hill, making their agenda clear, the Times reported.

Rosen and his backers propose that derivatives be “traded in privately managed clearinghouses, with less disclosure,” according to the Times. The clearinghouse of choice for the big banks in Rosen’s CDS Consortium is ICE U.S. Trust, which is in turned regulated only by the Federal Reserve system.

So the upshot of all this is that the bankers get what they want, are allowed to carry on as they were, while at the same time the fractional reserve banking system and the federal government are both greatly expanded and empowered, and the compliant corporate media ludicrously tells us that a strict crackdown is underway.

This kind of activity is exactly what some leading representatives have warned of in recent weeks.

A fortnight ago, the Democratic Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Collin Peterson, announced to the press that “The banks run the place,” in reference to the US Congress.

While Peterson is also pushing for legislation to regulate derivatives trading, his proposed bill would limit derivatives trading to public exchanges, rather than private clearinghouses, which are managed by banks.

Peterson’s warning mirrors that of Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who just a few weeks before uttered the same rarely acknowledged truth.

“And the banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place,” Durbin said.

How simultaneously dangerous and ridiculous it is that the Federal Reserve is given more authority to oversee the economy. This is the same privately run entity that refused to comply with congressional demands for transparency and disclose the destination of trillions dollars in bailout funds. It is the same privately owned entity that has withheld internal memos, in spite of freedom of information act requests. It is the same private entity, run for the most part by European banking elites, that has arrogantly refused to tell Senators and Congressmen which banks were in receipt of government loans.

The government is ready to hand over everything to a monolithic private corporation and a gaggle of bastard banker offspring, that have gobbled up an amount close to the entire GDP of the country in taxpayers’ money and figuratively stuck the middle finger up regarding questions over where that money has gone.

It can be no more apparent than at this time that legislation to audit, repeal and eventually end the Federal Reserve, must be supported by Americans if they want to see their children and their grandchildren grow up without indentured debt and entrenched servitude to a fascistic marriage of private banks and hugely inflated government.

Pro-Israel Mouthpiece Says Freedom of Speech Dangerous

JINSA’ article says outlets who oppose future wars should be silenced—killed if necessary—by military strike

By Michael Collins Piper

ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL voices of the pro-Israel lobby has published a shocking essay suggesting that, in the future, there should be “military attacks” on journalists and media outlets that oppose American military ventures on behalf of Israel.

In the spring 2008 issue of its Journal of International Security Affairs, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a particularly vocal force of the Jewish lobby, published a series of articles devoted to the subject: “The U.S. Military Faces the Future.”

One article, entitled “Wishful Thinking and Indecisive Wars,” written by Ralph Peters (described as “a retired U.S. Army officer”) states flatly that “Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media.”

The JINSA essay says “Freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our soldiers and strengthens our enemies. Such a view arouses disdain today, but a media establishment that has forgotten any sense of sober patriotism may find that it has become tomorrow’s conventional wisdom.”

JINSA’s suggestion that the media in America opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq—a key demand by Israel and JINSA—flies in contrast to the truth. In fact, the major media banged the drum for war. AMERICAN FREE PRESS and a few independent newspapers strongly opposed this needless war.

So what JINSA is saying is that those independent media voices—such as AMERICAN FREE PRESS—that opposed the drive for war should ultimately face military violence if they oppose the Jewish lobby’s future military aims.

One analyst, University of Pennsylvania Prof. Edward Herman, has described JINSA as “organized and [run] by individuals closely tied to the Israeli lobby and can be regarded as a virtual agency of the Israeli government.”

JINSA was founded in the mid-1980s by Stephen Bryen. He, along with several of his close associates—including future George W. Bush administration officials Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith—was investigated by the FBI on charges of spying for Israel at various times. JINSA has worked to forge alliances between the Jewish lobby and former American military officials, treating them to international junkets and a variety of business and other financial bonanzas provided by Israeli sympathizers in America and around the globe in return for support for their blatantly pro-Israel policies.

Peters—whose pro-Israel articles are published regularly in The New York Post, owned by pro-Zionist billionaire Rupert Murdoch—is just one of those whose views on the military appeared in JINSA’s journal.

A recurring theme in the essays emphasized the need for the United States to coordinate its international ventures with its “allies,” that is, Israel. The essays underscore the idea that it is vital for the United States to engage in covert action to bring down regimes that stand in the way of Israel’s agenda. Written in “code,” so to speak, the essays carry the theme that Israel’s interests are those of America and vice-versa and that those who oppose Israel are “anti-American,” and that includes American military officers.

An essay by one Patrick Poole alleges that the distinguished Strategic Studies Institute at the U.S. Army War College is in the state of “strategic collapse” because it published a study saying that Hamas, the Palestinian faction, has been misunderstood due to misreporting by what the War College report says are “Israeli and Western sources that villainize the group.”

JINSA’s propagandist claims the War College “is only representative of a larger rot in the U.S. military’s halls of higher learning . . . [that] apparently runs through all levels of our military senior service schools. . . .”

The author of these attacks on American military leaders who refuse to pander to the Jewish lobby, Patrick Poole, is a ubiquitous Internet presence, writing pro-Israel screeds for Frontpagemag.com, the website of ex-communist-turned-neoconservative pro-Israel publicist David Horowitz. (Mister Goldbug - Don't you just love that? David Horowitz goes from being a communist to being a "Trotskyite neoconservative" (ref. Eustace Mullins).)

The record shows that increasing numbers of American military figures, and a host of ex-diplomats, intelligence officers and others are publicly challenging the Jewish lobby. They include Adm. “Fox” Fallon, former ambassadors Charles Freeman and Richard Peck, ex-CIA officers Michael Scheuer and Ray McGovern as well as top academics such as Dr. John Mearsheimer and Dr. Stephen Walt. And former President Jimmy Carter as well.

It is thus no surprise that influential Jewish voices, such as Forward, published in Manhattan, complain there is opposition to Israel within higher circles, a point that surprises many Americans who believe Israel has a firm stranglehold on the American intelligence, diplomatic and law enforcement apparatus.

On May 11, 2005, Forward reported that Barry Jacobs of the Washington office of the American Jewish Committee said there were high-ranking officials in the U.S. intelligence community who were hostile to Israel and unreceptive to pro-Israel lobbyists.

Citing the then-ongoing FBI investigation of espionage by officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Forward noted that this top Jewish leader believed, in Forward’s summary, that “the notion that American Jews and Pentagon neo-conservatives conspired to push the United States into war against Iraq, and possibly also against Iran, is pervasive in Washington’s intelligence community.”

Although the Justice Department recently dropped its case against the AIPAC duo, the FBI investigators remained confident that their criminal case against the intriguers would have resulted in a conviction.

It has been a long-standing concern of JINSA that many in the military are tired of fighting wars for Israel. In the fall of 2006, JINSA’s journal suggested that a full-fledged witch-hunt was in order, designed to root out critics of Israel at high levels, implying that Israel’s critics were allied to “jihadist” fundamentalist Muslims. JINSA asked:

How deeply have jihadist elements infiltrated the U.S. government and federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and various military commands, either through sympathizers or via actual operatives?

Since there are few Muslims in the FBI, Homeland Security, the Department of Defense etc, the suggestion that “jihadist” elements have “infiltrated” our government might seem silly to the average American. But JINSA—determined to enforce Israel’s demands on American foreign policy and military might—is concerned that there are growing numbers in the military, the FBI and the CIA who are opposed to wars for Israel—and this, in JINSA’s view, constitutes collaboration with the dreaded “jihadists.”

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/pro-israel_mouthpiece_178.html

Federal Reserve Hires PR Firm to Fight Audit

NERVOUS THAT ITS BACKROOM money dealings may soon come under public scrutiny, the Federal Reserve is reportedly bringing in the big guns in an effort to quash Rep. Ron Paul’s landmark “Audit the Fed” bill (H.R. 1207), which has garnered 208 cosponsors as this issue goes to press—nearly half the members of the House of Representatives.

A national news wire service reported in early June that Linda Robertson, who currently heads up public relations for Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, has been brought in by the United States’ private central bank to polish its image.

Previously, Ms. Robertson served in top spots in both Republican and Democrat Treasury Departments. She also had a brief stint at the infamous energy company Enron, the Houston-based corporation that through fraud and deception, managed to fleece investors of billions of dollars.

Most notably, Ms. Robertson worked in the Treasury Department while Robert Rubin was secretary during the time in which the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was rolled back. Rubin’s Treasury worked with Congress to formulate legislation, which allowed banks to form massive financial institutions by merging with investment firms and insurance companies.

These same megabanks, which formed as a result of the new rules, have now cost U.S. taxpayers trillions of dollars in bailout money.

“Members of Congress have chafed at the Fed’s bold use of its emergency powers and in particular its multi-billion-dollar bailouts of investment bank Bear Stearns and insurer American International Group,” Reuters reported in an article that broke the news about the Federal Reserve’s new hire.

“Critics also bristle at the Fed’s practice of maintaining the confidentiality of the companies that borrow directly from the central bank on the grounds that divulging their names would risk runs on those institutions.”

As a result, says Reuters, the Fed will be bringing on Ms. Robertson to act as its point man when it comes to dealing with Congress.

In May, the federal government’s Inspector General for the Federal Reserve Elizabeth Coleman testified before Congress that she does “not have jurisdiction to directly go out and audit Reserve Bank activities specifically.”

Rep. Paul has already stated that the intention of his bill is to open “all Fed operations to a GAO audit and calling for such an audit to be completed by the end of 2010, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act would achieve much-needed transparency of the Federal Reserve.”

Federal Reserve Hires PR Firm to Fight Audit

9/11 Truth Activist Sues Glenn Beck and Fox News for Defamation

This is wonderful news! Personally, I'd not only sue. I'd also prosecute if the possibility is there.

9/11 Truth Activist Sues Glenn Beck and Fox News for Defamation

An East Coast 9/11 truth activist is preparing to file a defamation lawsuit against TV / radio personality, Glenn Beck, the producers of the Glenn Beck Program, and the Fox News Channel.

Specifically, Greg Hoover will be suing the above-described defendants in Federal Court for Beck’s having repeatedly broadcast statements characterizing those who question the government’s official version of the events of 9/11 as, “anarchists,” “terrorists” and as persons denying the Holocaust.

The complaint will note that - on October 22, 2007 - Beck suggested that those identifying themselves as associated with the 9/11 truth movement are “dangerous” “anarchists” who deny the Holocaust, and are “the kind of group that Timothy McVeigh would come from.”

The suit will also note that during Beck’s June 10th broadcast Beck linked the murder of the Washington D.C. holocaust museum guard with “9/11 truthers.”

As I have previously written, suing people for defamation who falsely claim that 9/11activists are terrorists could be a good way to stand up to these bullies.

Hoover told me by email:

Copies of my actual initial filings will be available for media distribution within the upcoming week…

I do so having now cast off all other personal concerns. Having chosen sides… I’ll stand with the patriots.

Godspeed, Mr. Hoover.

I will update this post with links to Mr. Hoover’s complaint as soon as it is available.

Note: Mr. Hoover has not requested either legal or financial assistance. However, if you are an attorney experienced in defamation claims, please let me know, and I’ll pass on your name.

Glenn Beck's Guilt By Association Charge

This is just amazing, although not unexpected. Glenn Beck has proved himself (not that he needed to with me) incredible.

This is one of the recent great gifts the mainstream media has been given in terms of having something to use for purposes of illegitimizing the patriotism of Americans who are concerned about the state of liberty in their country.

Yes, James von Brunn is a 9/11 Truther. He's a member of the Justice for 9/11 Petition for a New 9/11 Investigation, according to Screw Loose Change.

For anyone who doesn't know, James von Brunn has garnered some attention in the press recently for opening fire at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. I'm not going to reprint the story here for purposes of brevity. Although I do encourage many to read as many different pieces on the story as you can find from differing news outlets to see how each one portrays James von Brunn differently.

James von Brunn is also known for making an attempted kidnapping on several members of the Federal Reserve Board in 1981, another tidbit of information I'm sure the mainstream media will love to use in their arguments that anyone who opposes the Federal Reserve is an antisemite.

The only reason Glenn Beck is arguing that it's okay to be against the Federal Reserve is more than likely because Jewish economist Ludwig von Mises said that it was okay. Von Mises never told us who owned the Fed and neither has Lew Rockwell.

And this is why magnifying von Brunn's incident is so important: to imply that if you're against the Federal Reserve and believe that 9/11 was an inside job, you're a Holocaust denier who wants to commit acts of violence.

I do have to wonder though how much of this was a choreographed publicity stunt. This is a gift that falls right into the hands of the ADL who are pushing for hate speech legislation and liberal Democrats who believe in gun control.

With one story, how many millions of Americans now fear that it's 1930s Germany ALL OVER AGAIN?

Accusing 9/11 Truthers of wanting to tear the country down is unconscionable and its slander and Glenn Beck should be taken to court over it. It's character assassination.

I'm sorry. I'm just not a boot-licking state worshiper. Too S&M for me I guess.

2nd Tuesday Constitution Group: Mission Statement

I just attended the second meeting of 2nd Tuesday's Constitution Group. The meetings are located at Mama Maria's in Salem, VA at 6:30pm.

Here follows their Mission Statement:

Our group of American patriots cdeclares full support of the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The inherent Right of Man are forthrightly contained in these documents and are protected by them as the foundational laws of our nation and irrevocably granted by our Creator.

We espouse returning to a truly representative Constitutional Republic, one in which our elected representatives do, in fact, answer to those they represent. This can best be accomplished by educating the public on their duties as conscientious citizens of their county, state and nation.

We do not advocate any form of violence against the "long train of abuses and usurpations" by govenrment, nor do we promote any religious position or political party, as that would defeat our purpose.

We seek to reduce the size of government and intervention of government in our lives. Our efforts are primarily focused toward local and state issues. We demand the commonwealth resume its responsibility for those duties and rights ceded to the federal government maintaining the right of the citizenry to whom it is accountable. In turn, we expect local government to do likewise for those duties ceded to the state.

ADL Director Declares War on Freedom of Speech

A MySpace friend of mine's blogspot, I guess? Anyway, I found this story interesting. Here's a little bit of evidence that supports the argument that the promotion of hate crime legislation is mainly pushed by Jewish supremacists (or their associations).

ADL Director Declares War on Freedom of Speech

The Anti-Defamation League Director for the Plains States Alan Potash, has just declared war against our First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Potash made the following statement, which was published in the May 26 edition of The Omaha World Herald.

“Dangers of hate,” was right to point out that freedom of speech does not extend to racist groups, nor give their supporters the right to threaten and intimidate others or commit acts of violence.

But when bigots step over the line, it is vital that law enforcement and the courts have the proper tools to respond effectively.

This is why Congress should move expeditiously to approve the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevent Act - legislation that would add protection for all citizens from violent acts of intolerance.

The bill, which was approved in the House last month, would equip local law enforcement officials with tools, training and resources to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated crimes.

Like acts of terrorism, hate crimes can hurt more than the individual victim. They can instill fear and insecurity within an entire community."

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act recently passed the Congress and is now on its way to the Senate, where it is likely to pass and signed by President Obama. The Anti-Defamation League has been at the forefront of promoting hate crime legislation, and openly advocates for their model anti-hate law. In 1988 the ADL gave out an award to law student Joseph Ribikoff for writing a proposed hate crime bill that would criminalize hate speech against gays and minorities.

On the ADL's website they state their mission is "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all." That sounds fair enough but the organization has gone out of its way to vilify anyone who disagrees with their political agenda. On a number of occasions as I have pointed out they have opposed the right to freedom of speech. The ADL has smeared as anti-semites, Professor John Mearsheimer for his book critical of the Israeli Lobby and former President Jimmy Carter for his book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid". The ADL has also supported Europe and Canada's policies on prosecuting what their governments deem as hate speech. While they have aligned themselves with the Neoconservatives on the issue of Israel they have also joined with leftist organizations such as the Southern Poverty Center by smearing CNN's Lou Dobbs as well as Pat Buchanan for their views on immigration as racist while ignoring the fact that Israel's immigration policy makes Dobb's and Buchanan's look liberal in comparison.

The ADL claims to be fighting the defamation of the Jewish people but they are doing a grave disservice to Jewish Americans who believe in liberty and freedom of speech by claiming to advocate on their behalf. The ADL has also tried to stifle dissent within the Jewish community such as in the cases of Tony Judt and Norman Finkelstein.

Sonia Sotomayor and Obama’s Idea of Justice

If Sonia Sotomayor was indeed and is still indeed a member of the National Council of La Raza, then this is bad news. The minority right activists in this country are going to crucify Buchanan for this.

One of the arguments that is sure to be made against Buchanan is anything the may look two-faced on in these issues. This is done to sidetrack the issue, make it seem less important, just so that the Latino population can be allowed to be racist.

Isn't it interesting that every ethnicity is allowed to be racist except for whites? Well, I guess their reasoning is that since whites were racist for so long, now its time to let the minorities be racist as well. Hey, it's alright! Equal rights and all that!

I'm however looking to the sky, constantly watching, keeping my eyes open....

In all seriousness, I don't care what race you are. What I'm against is activist judges using the "implied powers" of the Constitution to enact legislation that expands the government's power into doing things that they think the government should do. And this includes any type of racial profiling or discrimination.

We've really become more obsessed about racial identities in our pursuit for "equal rights" than we have ever before.


Sonia Sotomayor and Obama's Idea of Justice

by Pat Buchanan

When you think about it, Sonia Sotomayor is the perfect pick for the Supreme Court — in Barack Obama’s America.

Like Obama, himself a beneficiary of affirmative action, she thinks “Latina women,” because of their life experience, make better judicial decisions than white men, that discrimination against white men to advance people of color is what America is all about, that appellate courts are “where policy is made” in the United States.

To those who believe the depiction of our first Hispanic justice as an anti-white liberal judicial activist, hearken to her own words.

Speaking at Berkeley in 2001, Sonia told her audience, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Imagine if Sam Alito had said at Bob Jones University, “I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his life experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic woman, who hasn’t lived that life.”

Alito would have been toast. No explanation, no apology would have spared him. He would have been branded for life a white bigot.

Judge Sotomayor will be excused because the media agree with her and she is a Latina who will use her court seat to impose upon the nation the values of the National Council of La Raza (The Race), of which she is a member.

Indeed, she sees this as her mission. Speaking at Duke in 2005, Sotomayor declared: “(The) court of appeals is where policy is made. I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law I know.” She and the audience joined in the laughter.

Who were they laughing at? Americans who still believe the role of judges is to apply the Constitution as the Framers intended and to interpret the law as written by our elected legislators.

In Barack Obama’s America, that is so yesterday.

Sotomayor’s support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits.

Frank Ricci is the New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia but desperate to realize his dream of becoming an officer, quit his second job, bought $1,000 worth of books and had a friend read them to him to prepare for the crucial exam. He made it, coming in sixth among 77 firefighters, qualifying for promotion to lieutenant.

A problem immediately arose. Seems that of those who qualified for promotion, all but one were white, and he was a Hispanic.

Can’t have that. So, the New Haven City Council, under pressure from the usual suspects, threw out the tests, refused to promote Ricci or any white firemen, and called for new tests — to produce greater diversity.

In other words, get rid of at least some of those white guys who somehow managed to come in near or at the top of their class.

Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white.

What did Sotomayor’s three-judge panel do with Ricci’s appeal of the district court decision that turned him down? She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court.

Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both.”

Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes — a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster — Sotomayor’s misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice.

The process by which Sotomayor was selected testifies to what we can expect in Obama’s America. Not a single male was in the final four. And she was picked over the three other women because she was a person of color, a “two-fer.” Affirmative action start to finish.

Reading 30 of her opinions, GW law professor Jonathan Turley found them “notable” for “lack of depth.”

Liberal law professor and Supreme Court expert Jeff Rosen of The New Republic reports, after talking to prosecutors and law clerks, that Sotomayor covers up her intellectual inadequacy by bullying from the bench.

The lady is a lightweight.

What should Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee do?

Abjure the vicious tactics Democrats used on Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito. Lay out the lady’s record. And let America get a close look at the kind of justice Barack Obama believes in.

Lincoln as Hitler - Southern Avenger

Another home run hit by the Southern Avenger.

Ron Paul Discusses Austrian vs. Keynesian Economics on Morning Joe

Yesterday, 5/15/2009, Ron Paul appeared on Morning Joe and discussed the pros of Austrian economics vs. the cons of Keynesian economics.

Here's the video.



My only problem here is how Ron Paul doesn't give the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee a shout-out! Is he not aware of them? He was re-elected to Congress in 1997. Being a member of the Oversight Committees, he would've received a copy of their book, Gold Derivative Banking Crisis.

Come on, Ron. You're the man! Speak up!