Gender: Male
Status: Single
Age: 32
Sign: Libra
City: Los Angeles
State: CALIFORNIA
Country: US
Signup Date: 7/14/2005
|
|
|
|
Friday, June 26, 2009
 |
Current mood:  amused
Category: News and Politics
Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke unleashed an
alarming veiled threat of financial terrorism when he was questioned by
Rep. Duncan on Thursday about his response to the fact that a majority
of Congress co-sponsoring Ron Paul’s H.R. 1207 bill to audit the
Federal Reserve.
Bernanke clearly regarded the bill’s intent as hostile to the institution he represents:
"My concern about the legislation is that if the GAO
is auditing not only the operational aspects of the programs and the
details of the programs but making judgments about our policy decisions
would effectively be a takeover of policy by the Congress and a
repudiation of the Federal Reserve would be highly destructive to the
stability of the financial system, the Dollar and our national economic
situation."
The brunt of Bernanke’s statement is as crystal clear as a threat from a common street thug– back off from the Fed, or the economy gets it.
The chairman clearly implies that any attempt to
restore monetary powers constitutionally granted to the Congress would
be seen as a "takeover" and that the defensive and "repudiated" Fed
would respond destructively.
The Congress shall have power… To coin money,
regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard
of weights and measures;
Bernanke’s open use of financial terrorism in the face of Congress’ blatant Constitutional authority is absurd and dispicable.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
 |
Current mood:  infuriated
Category: News and Politics
Obama is out for your guns. The Kenyan that is occupying the white house and his new Attorney General are salivating to disarm you so you will be easily forced to go along with their tyranny.
Infantryman
based at Fort Campbell leaks shocking directive ordering soldiers to
submit information on registration, location of weapons as well as
Concealed Carry permits, order was stopped according to base officials

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
An alarming document sent to us by an Infantryman based out of Fort
Campbell Kentucky shows that active duty military personnel are being
secretly ordered to submit information to their Chain of Command on how
many firearms they own privately, their location, as well of details of
any Concealed Carry permits.
Though the order was apparently rescinded, the fact that active duty
soldiers are being asked to submit every detail of their private
firearm collection is a telltale sign that the second amendment is in
dire straights.
The directive orders active duty personnel to report details of all
privately-owned firearms to their Chain of Command, as well as future
firearms purchases.
The memorandum was sent to us by a concerned 11B Infantryman based
at Fort Campbell. In his e mail, the man expresses his shock at being
ordered to comply with what amounts to a registration of
privately-owned firearms.
“I live off post, with my firearms (which I don’t bring on post for
any reason). A very frightening thing happened at work yesterday,” he
writes. “I was ordered to fill out a list containing my firearm
information. This included make, model, caliber, and serial number of
all firearms I currently posses. In addition, I was also required to
list registration information, location of all weapons individually,
and information regarding any CCW permits I posses.”
The man tried to ascertain why such information was being demanded
by speaking to his First Sergeant but was told, “Just put your info on
the form.”
“I don’t know how high this goes, but I am hearing that this is
going on in other units at Fort Campbell as well,” writes the
Infantryman. “It just seems a little coincidental to me that within 90
days: the most anti-firearm President in history is inaugurated, some
of the nastiest anti-firearm laws are put on the table in Washington,
and then the Army comes around wanting what amounts to a registration
on all firearms, even if they are off post, and doesn’t provide any
reason or purpose as to why.”
The man said he had been at Fort Campbell for almost 8 years and had never encountered anything like this directive before.
“I fear something really nasty is blowing in the wind here,” he warns.
According to a World Net Daily article, the order was stopped when it was discovered the commander was not “acting within his authority.”
However, the story emphasizes how gargantuan threats to the second
amendment are not being reported by the mainstream media nor by big gun
groups like the NRA.
Read the document below.

Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Monday, April 13, 2009
 |
Current mood:  enraged
Category: News and Politics
Taxation Is Extortion...... .. ............window.google_render_ad();..by Marcel Votlucka
 I sometimes wonder which is worse: the government or the Mafia. Oh wait; they may as well be the same thing.
If you’re wondering how the logic of this admittedly brash remark works itself out, try the following. It’s simple; just publicly refuse to pay your taxes. The government will come for you and the police will try to throw you in jail. If you resist, you will be shot. Pay up, or get a bullet in your head. It’s essentially the same tactic employed by Mafia thugs.
After a long week’s labor, you get the dubious pleasure of having warmongering politicians get 30 to 40 percent of your money out of your paycheck. And it is indeed your money, not theirs. They didn’t earn it. They didn’t slave away for it. They don’t own it. They have no right to demand it from you. And they certainly have no right to take it from you by force. Taxation is essentially extortion.
There’s a reason why everybody hates the IRS. There’s a reason why Republicans manage to win elections by pledging to lower taxes—even though they never do it once elected. There’s a reason why, in olden times, tax collectors took their place among the most hated and reviled professions. If some thief burglarized your home, you’d be outraged over the loss of your property. You’d likely be even more outraged if the thief had accomplices holding you at gunpoint while stealing your stuff.
So why is it okay for the government to garnish your wages under the unseen yet implicit threat of punishment if you fail to comply? Why does the IRS get to keep extensive records on your personal financial matters, with little to no accountability on their part? Why is it acceptable for some people to force you and me—under pain of death—to subsidize their fat salaries and their generous handouts to corporate welfare queens and their bloody wars abroad?
Actually, my opening suggestion may not be relevant to the present time, because nowadays we don’t make direct payments of tax to the Treasury, which is what used to be done. Before World War II, people paid their taxes to the government in one lump sum every March. But between the war expenses and the New Deal programs, the government was racking up quite a huge bill. Knowing full well that most people wouldn’t be happy having to pay higher taxes, they came up with the ingenious solution of having employers withhold the appropriate amount of money from their employees’ paychecks and sending it off to the Treasury. This was called the “withholding tax,” but a more fitting term would be garnishing the workers’ wages. This is the system that exists to this day.
Because taxes are withheld from our paychecks and paid by someone else (our employer) to the government, we don’t really see the impact of taxation in a visceral way. Instead of paying out one lump sum of thousands each year, we come home with a paycheck with “Gross pay” and “Net pay,” and gripe over the difference. You send out a tax return form and maybe, just maybe, get a refund. Someone withholds your money from you but all you ever really see is that numerical difference. You don’t see the actual money as you shell it out to the warmongers and fat cats. The end result of this is that you never really feel the full impact of taxation. Out of sight, out of mind.
Surely if you had to mail a check for four thousand bucks to the treasury every year instead of having your employer withhold it and take care of the rest, you would be pretty PO'ed. You’d shed a tear or two as you wrote out that check and stuffed it in the mailbox and watched all that cash go down the drain. And that contributes to us believing in the legitimacy of taxation. Out of sight, out of mind . . . and therefore acceptable.
How is this any different from the Mafia demanding “protection money” from storeowners at gunpoint, then using it to finance their lavish lifestyles and criminal activities? How is it okay for greedy, power-hungry politicians to take what is rightfully yours and use it to finance their own lavish lifestyles, corruption, and the murder of poor people all over the world? If for no other reason, taxation (or rather, extortion) is wrong because it forces hardworking people like you and me to pay for the mass murder of poor people abroad, so some parasite—be he or she Republican or Democrat—can go on TV and proclaim the salvation of the Republic.
Clearly, if anybody else tried to do the same thing the government does with impunity, they’d be thrown in jail in a heartbeat.
Of course, there’s little the government does with our extorted money that society couldn’t do otherwise (and better), aside from national defense—and it doesn’t even do that too well. Suppose there were no taxes and you got to keep 100 percent of the wages you work so hard for. You could donate to charity. You could save it up and start a business and provide jobs to people who need them in this ailing economy. You could afford better health care than the government could ever provide. You could afford to go to a better school. You and the greater community could have the economic means to help more people in need, if you so desired. More importantly, you would have complete control of the fruits of your labor, which should be yours by right.
Yet because of what is essentially a massive extortion racket for the purpose of financing mass murder, corruption, and waste, this is just a pipe dream. Some people would argue that this extortion racket is somehow okay because we vote for the politicians who use our money, you know, to dole it out for what they call the "greater social good." Of course, it wouldn’t matter if you got to vote for the Mafia dons because their extortion rackets would still be wrong regardless.
Here’s my big question: Why not apply the same principle to greedy, amoral politicians?
__________
Marcel Votlucka is a writer and freelance journalist from Queens, NY. He is a graduate of Stony Brook University, and is a frequent contributor to the Stony Brook Press and the Stony Brook Independent. He is currently finishing work a novella, Neverland: Voices From the Muslim Holocaust.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, February 26, 2009
 |
Current mood:  fascinated
Category: Life
..
Why Silver Is Money
By: Jason Hommel, Silver Stock Report
..
..
-- Posted 25 February, 2009 | Digg This Article | Discuss This Article - Comments: ....
.. .. .. 7
(Phoenix Silver Summit Workshop Speech)
Silver Stock Report Welcome. Thank you! I'm very honored to be here. My name is Jason Hommel. I'm the Editor of the Silver Stock Report. This last year, I started dealing in silver, selling silver, at www.seekbullion.com and I learned a lot more about the silver trade. My speech today is on why silver is money, even though no nation on earth uses silver as money. In other words, my speech is on why 99.9% of humanity is wrong, and why you are right! The words that mean "money", and the words that mean "silver" are the same in most Romance languages. Silver is the only real money that there is. Gold, historically, is just too valuable to use as money if an ounce of gold is worth a year's salary, or a modest home. Even at today's prices, as you know, they don't make $1000 bills! Throughout history, Silver has been used as money in more times in more places than gold. Silver is just not used as money today, except as a store of value. Silver does not circulate, but that does not mean it's not money. Most people don't want to know about silver, or even dollars. Most people don't even want to know about the silver price, which is the ratio between silver and dollars. Instead, people just want to GROW THEIR OWN MONEY. I've been a success in numerous things, and a failure too. One thing I've learned is that if you want to be a success, you have to study hard, and know your subject, and then, you are much more likely to be a success. That's three topics of study then: The first topic is GROWTH which includes compound interest and exponential growth, or following the first commandment, "to be fruitful and multiply". The second topic is "YOUR OWN". People don't seem to know that possession is 9/10ths of the law. If you want to grow YOUR money, be sure it belongs to you. That means no futures, no certificates, no options, no ETF's, no third party storage programs. You have to actually own the real stuff. You have to hold it in your hot sweaty hands, lift it yourself, or hire your sons or some relative to lift and lock it up in your own safe for you. Finally, the third topic, the topic of this talk, which is: Money! So, if you want to MAKE MONEY, you'd better first understand the subject, and know what money actually is! I've asked many experts; and they are nearly unanimous on one thing. They tell me, "Don't try to predict the dollar price of silver; because you will look like an idiot, you will most likely be wrong. And it will damage your credibility. And if silver is going past $1000/oz., why bother to say it before it happens. Just grow wealthy, and be happy." But I don't listen to bad advice. See, I'd rather help people. Second, if I don't have any credibility, or if I don't care if I have any credibility, or if I think no man should ever have any credibility, then I have nothing to lose! So, here it is--the opinion I have that everyone wants to know, and what some experts are uncomfortable in saying: I think silver will head beyond $10,000/oz., in less than 15 years. And I'll tell you why. Basically, that's the price if all paper money were to be backed by silver and gold again. That's the price if the dollar were falling to zero, if they stopped printing all money tomorrow, and managed to back up every dollar with all the U.S. gold, and if the silver/gold ratio returned to about 10:1. We could get to that price in about 15 years, if silver merely rises about 50% per year for 15 years in a row. That's perfectly possible. It would merely be a mix of a growth rate in silver's value, going up only about 20 times in value, and the rest of the gains would be due to a decline in the dollar's value, happening at the same time. There are many, many fundamental reasons why silver will go up in value. 10,000 reasons, since there are probably 10,000 industrial applications that use silver. But it's my job to focus, and help you focus, on the big reasons, or biggest reasons. Some of the big reasons are the story put out by GATA, the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee. They have shown that the central banks of the world have loaned or leased about 15,000 tonnes of gold, out of about 33,000 tonnes. Gold is counted as "on the books", but it is no longer in the vault. It's an unsustainable manipulation or deception, and when it ends, gold will skyrocket. Ted Butler has also written great things about the excessive short position in the futures markets. When that manipulation or deception ends, silver will skyrocket.
And I mostly agree. But I want to talk about the biggest fraud of all, the biggest deception out there. The biggest deception is so big, it has warped the thinking of most everyone in this room, including myself. It's very difficult to explain a deception. By definition, if you are deceived, you don't know you are deceived. That's the nature of a deception. The other problem about deceptions is that lies can be exposed rather quickly. Frauds fail rather suddenly and unexpectedly. The biggest deception, the biggest fraud -- is paper money. That's because PEOPLE TODAY DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT MONEY IS. I've struggled to define money; it took me several years! Some say what you spend is money, or that you buy things with money. Or that currency is money. Others say the dollar is defined as a certain amount of silver in the constitution, and that's it; nothing more. The definition of words changes over time. But essential concepts and truths do not. Remember, the words for silver and money are the same in many languages. Please give me your attention while I talk about the Desirable features of money, my definition that I've been working on. To function as money, a monetary item should possess a number of features: To be a medium of exchange: * It should have liquidity, and be easily tradeable, with a low spread between the prices to buy and sell, in other words, a low transaction cost. * It should be easily transportable; precious metals have a high value to weight ratio. This is why oil, coal, or water are not suitable as money even though they are valuable. * It should be durable. Gold or silver coins are often mixed with 10% copper to improve durability, and coins are made with ridges around the rim to prevent coin shaving or debasement. To be a unit of account: * It should be divisible into small units without destroying its value; precious metals can be coined from bars, or melted down into bars again, with a low percentage cost. This is why leather, or live animals are not suitable as money. * It should be fungible: that is, one unit or piece must be equivalent to another, which is why diamonds, works of art or real estate are not suitable as money. * It must be a specific weight, or measure, or size to be verifiably countable. You must be able to weigh, measure, and count, your unit of account! To be a store of value: * It should be long lasting, durable, it must not be perishable or subject to decay. This is why food items, expensive spices, or even fine silks or oriental rugs, are not generally suitable as money. * It should have a stable value. * It should be difficult to counterfeit, and the genuine must be easily recognizable. PROMISES THAT CAN DEFAULT AND GO TO ZERO VALUE ARE NOT A STORE OF VALUE! PROMISES THAT CAN DEFAULT AND GO TO ZERO VALUE ARE NOT A STORE OF VALUE! That means no ETFs, no futures contracts, no silver certificates, no bullion accounts, no storage programs, none of that nonsense! To be anonymous: * Money should not be subject to government tracking * It should be useable for purchases in a black market * It should not require equipment, tools or electricity to use * It should not require a mark, or image, to be valuable, but rather, be a just weight, and measure. So, if you want to "MAKE MONEY", YOU SHOULD TRY TO ACQUIRE THINGS THAT HAVE THE ABOVE CHARACTERISTICS! I think silver is best, especially because silver is cheap, and will be a great store of value. When I compare things, I compare fundamentals. There are two ways to approach the fundamentals: first, the supply and demand: and second, the nature of the thing. So, for two items, silver and dollars, that's 4 areas of study. supply and demand of silver, and of dollars, and the nature of silver, and the nature of dollars. 1. Lets look at the nature of silver. Like gold, silver has all the properties of money, that we just examined and defined, above. SILVER, SINCE 2003, HAS BEEN A GREAT STORE OF VALUE; actually increasing in value at a much faster rate than the stock market or bonds. 2. What is the nature of dollars? Dollars are falling and failing as a store of value. A few years ago, many commodity prices went up 1000%, ten fold!
Are dollars liquid? Yes, you can make change for zero cost, and exchange a $10 for two $5 bills. But there are banking hold times as long as 3 weeks on checks. And you cannot convert dollars to silver very easily; especially if no silver is available at your local coin shop. There is about a 7% spread for silver between the cost to buy and sell it. But is the 7% a spread on silver, or is it really a spread on dollars? There is a VAT of 17% on silver in most of Europe. Is that a tax on silver, or is it a disincentive or penalty on selling the Euro? Durable? Cash can go up in flames, or go to zero value. Stable value? No; the ratio of silver in dollars is changing. Dollars are not rare; not difficult to obtain; & are going down in value. Dollars are easy to counterfeit; and $100 bills are not always accepted overseas. Even Star buck's will not take a $100 bill. Dollars are traceable. There are numbers all over the place; both on the money, and on your account. In essence: dollars are fraud. They were a promise to pay in silver. The promise was broken. They are not a just weight and measure. Dollars are a unit of account, with no accounting! Dollars are not essentially money. At best, they are the current medium of exchange--that's only 1 out of 4 major things that money needs to be, and they don't even do that job well, due to banking hold times, and income taxes! A promise is not the same thing as having received what was promised! If people could be happy with mere promises, I'd never have to spend a dime on my kids! Even kids know the difference! I feel stupid for having to point it out, but paper dollars are not money. People will actually argue with me over this. But paper is not money. It's not even the ghost of money. It's not even a promise to pay in money, like it used to be. Clearly, a promise to pay money, and the actual money, cannot be the same thing! And when one is no longer even a promise to pay money, that's even further removed from being money! We may call dollars money; we may think of dollars as money; but we are using the word "money" wrong; or we just do not understand what the word "money" means; as I've explained. For many people in the world, the word "money" means the same thing as silver. 3. So, let examine the supply and demand of silver. There is Zero demand for silver as a medium of exchange-- it is not really used as a currency anywhere in the world. There is almost Zero demand for silver as a unit of account--it is not used for debt in most of the world. (Except by a few traders in the futures markets.) There is now a small, but rapidly growing demand for silver as a store of value. Last year, it was 40 million ounces. This year, investment demand is perhaps up to 100 million oz/year? I'm using silver as MY store of value, and as MY unit of account. If I acquire more silver, I consider myself to be successful. Most of the demand for silver today is for industry, jewelry, & photography. More than is produced each year. That does not leave much room for investment, or monetary demand. The Silver ETF has acquired 253 million oz. That was surprising. I don't think they have any silver backing it up. JP Morgan is the custodian! JP Morgan was fingered as the last remaining silver short at COMEX! That's the biggest conflict of interest that there could be! The amount of actual silver available for investment has been variously estimated as between 60 million to 600 million oz. Or as much as 4 billion oz. if you include all silver jewelry and flatware and tableware. 4. Finally. Lets look at the supply and demand of dollars. $50 trillion world bond market. $50 trillion world paper money supply. That's $100 trillion of paper money. The world derivatives market is worth close to 1 quadrillion, or 1000 trillion. $1000 trillion is about a million times larger than 1000 million ounces of silver. It is impossible to exchange all the promises for payment. But the world tends to try to cash out all at once. People have asked me, do I think silver is a "once in a lifetime" opportunity? No, I think it's a "once in human history" opportunity, with no prior historic examples. Never before have conditions like today ever existed. 1. We have consumed nearly all the silver in the world. 2. We continue to consume more than we mine. 3. The entire world has totally abandoned silver as money. But whether you know it, or can accept it, silver is money. And nothing else is. When gold becomes too expensive, and when paper money fails, silver is the only thing left to use as money. One of the best books ever written on trading, and highly regarded by many traders today, is "Reminiscences of a Stock Market Operator" by Jessie Livermore. In the book, he talks about how the markets totally stopped trading for up to nine months at a time during war in the early 1900's. I know several millionaires out there, in this audience, who think they will be protected in a monetary collapse, because they have brokerage accounts and silver stocks. But nothing can replace real silver that you may need to spend on food during a time period of a market crisis. Everyone here should have at least $5000 worth of silver. Two years ago, I advised people to clean out the local coin shops. Last year, that happened. So, that's why I started dealing in silver, to help provide it, when you can't get any, because so many dealers are sold out! Before I conclude, I want to mention the big thing I learned about the silver market in the last year. I always thought that monetary demand for silver would cause the price to rise. That's what happened with rising premiums in the silver investor market for bars and coins. But premiums rose, and silver prices did not. That's because silver investment demand is still so small, about 10% of the market. Also, I did not realize that the silver dealers and mints were in such bad shape from the 27-year bear market in the metals. Nearly half of them ARE bankrupt. Not maybe, ARE. If you buy from a dealer, chances are now about 50/50 that you will be scammed with a very delayed delivery, which means they are floating on your money because they ARE bankrupt. In fact, all the most heavy bullion dealers who are the biggest advertisers ARE probably bankrupt. And if you just try to "buy silver" and don't know to avoid the ETF's and all the other paper silver scams, you are likely to be scammed about 80-90% of the time. It's rough. That's what makes and marks a market bottom. I barely got my silver out of one very reputable mint that said it would be 3 weeks, which turned into 8 weeks, and I still only got 1/3 of my silver minted after 8 weeks. And that's typical now. If the mints are scamming me, they sure are scamming the other dealers, and other customers. And that's why I ship "same day" so that if I do get scammed with a default, you won't be. Go to the bank, get your cash, and get your silver. And get a safe, and bolt it to your garage floor, or put it in your closet. Again, if you want to grow wealthy, you must know about growth, you must make sure you are growing your own wealth, and you better be sure you know what money is. So get your silver!
At www.seekbullion.com
Thank you.
Sincerely, Jason Hommel www.silverstockreport.com
www.bibleprophesy.org
If you are on Facebook, will you add me as a friend? | ..
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Friday, February 06, 2009
 |
Current mood:  awake
Category: Life
US Inflation Could Hit 200%: Dr. Doom By: CNBC.com | 06 Feb 2009 | 03:28 AM ET
The US risks being hit by Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation and there are signs that the world's biggest economy risks turning into a banana republic, Marc Faber, author of the Gloom, Doom & Boom report, told CNBC's "Asia Squawk Box."
"In the US, we have a totally new school, and it’s called the Zimbabwe school," Faber said. "And it’s founded by one of the great leaders of this world, Mr Robert Mugabe, that has managed to totally impoverish his own country. And that is the monetary policy the US is pursuing." The government's increased intervention in the economy is likely to slow down economic growth because history shows that every time the private sector shrinks to make way for the government sector, the economy suffers, he said. Asked whether the US risked being faced with 200 percent inflation, Faber answered: "Well, not yet. Not yet. But I think eventually. If I look at government debt in the US, and debt in general, I think the only way they will not default physically on their debt is to inflate."
The Federal Reserve's policy of printing money and the government's intervention in the economy might undermine the US's economic and political clout, Faber warned. "Well, I wrote two years ago a report entitled 'Is America becoming a banana republic?' And there are some features that characterize banana republics- totalitarian states, very strong government intervention into the economy, and the polarization of wealth," he said. "And we have all these trends occurring in the US. We are not yet there. And in theory it could be reversed, but I doubt it will be," Faber added. Because of these factors, US government and corporate bonds, including that of CNBC parent General Electri, should be downgraded, he said. "Yeh, I think GE should be a junk bond. But I also think the US government should be junk," Faber said, adding: "I don’t pay much attention to rating agencies. The rating agencies have totally failed over the last 3-4 years to identify sick companies."
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Friday, January 30, 2009
 |
Current mood:  calm
Category: News and Politics
.. SInce the media is out to dumb you down let me remind all you US citizens what the 2nd amendment says. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The 2nd Amendment was written at a time when civilians had better guns then the military. Civilians had rifles compared to the smooth bore muskets of the British regulars at the time. The 2nd amendment exists as the teeth for the first amendment. If you do not have the right to self defense you have a hard time speaking out against the injustices you see occurring around you. Just say no to the government disarming the citizens and making us all victims to armed thugs and tyrants.
Tyranny will come to your door in a uniform. .... GA_googleFillSlot("WND_NWS_C0100"); ......
| .. .. ..
.. ..  ..
.. WEAPONS OF CHOICE.. .. Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'.. .. 2nd Amendment critics are 'ready to run wild'.. Posted: January 06, 2009 10:05 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh.. .. © 2009 WorldNetDaily ..
.. ..
 |
..
A perfect storm is developing for Second Amendment opponents that could allow President-elect Barack Obama's choice for attorney general – Eric Holder – to "ban guns at will" despite the 2008 affirmation from the U.S. Supreme Court that U.S. citizens have a right to bear arms. The situation was described with alarm by Alan Korwin, author of Gun Laws of America, in a recent commentary. He cited Holder's known support for gun bans – the former Clinton administration official endorsed the District of Columbia's complete ban on functional guns in residents' homes before it was overturned by the Supreme Court. And Korwin pointed to overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress as well as Obama's known support for gun restrictions and his presence in the Oval Office. (Story continues below).. .. GA_googleFillSlot("WND_NWS_C0200"); ...... <[[iframe]] style="border: 0pt none ;" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" name="google_ads_[[iframe]]_WND_NWS_C0200" id="google_ads_[[iframe]]_WND_NWS_C0200" scrolling="no" width="300" frameborder="0" height="250">..
.._GA_googleAdEngine.createDOM[[iframe]]('google_ads_div_WND_NWS_C0200' ,'WND_NWS_C0200');..
| | .. GA_googleFillSlot("WND_NWS_C0201"); ...... <[[iframe]] style="border: 0pt none ;" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" name="google_ads_[[iframe]]_WND_NWS_C0201" id="google_ads_[[iframe]]_WND_NWS_C0201" scrolling="no" width="300" frameborder="0" height="250">..
.._GA_googleAdEngine.createDOM[[iframe]]('google_ads_div_WND_NWS_C0201' ,'WND_NWS_C0201');..
| | .. Thirdly, Korwin, one of many Second Amendment advocates raising concerns, cited a proposal already submitted to Congress at a time when its backers could not reasonably expect it to succeed. The submission is H.R. 1022 by New York Democrat Carolyn McCarthy and 67 co-sponsors. It was introduced in February 2007 and the next month referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, where it has stayed. But that could change in the 111th Congress, sworn in today. And Korwin said the plan would allow the U.S. AttorneyGeneral – possibly Holder – to add to the list of guns banned to the public any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General." "Note that … Holder … wrote a brief in the (District of Columbia) Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home," Korwin said. In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event." "In plain English," Korwin said, "This means that any firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public. That presumption can be challenged only by suing the federal government over each firearm it decides to ban, in a court it runs with a judge it pays. This virtually dismisses the principles of the Second Amendment. "The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose – is that devious or what? And of course, 'sporting purpose' is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent," he said. Korwin told WND a new proposal to replace H.R. 1022 is not expected to be less draconian. "Remember – these bans were proposed when the congressional anti-rights crowd had no chance of success. Now they are ready to run wild, or according to Sarah (Brady) herself, 'I have never been so confident,'" Korwin wrote, referring to the champion of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, which requires background checks on purchasers of handguns. Korwin said the Democrats listed in H.R. 1022 a framework for guns to be banned that includes originals, copies or duplicates of a wide-ranging list of shotguns, pistols and rifles. One of the red flags for semiautomatic rifles would be "anything" that can serve as a grip, and as set up now, the Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee "are all sworn enemies to the Second Amendment and are unlikely to be swayed at all by any firearms related arguments," he said. The Republicans all "need to be pressed hard to do everything they can to block the appointment." Further, with the expectation that Obama will appoint at least one or two Supreme Court justices, further damage could be just a vote or two away, he said. "If he can get a 5-4 or 6-3 majority who dislike gun rights, you could find that your [Second Amendment] rights aren't what they've been for 200 years," Korwin said. John Snyder assembled a list of prominent critics of the Holder nomination.for the Firearms Coalition. "A former Ohio secretary of state, (Ken) Blackwell notes that, 'despite Obama's new lip service to the Second Amendment, Holder signed onto a brief earlier this year (2008) reaffirming his long-held position that the Second Amendment confers no rights whatsoever to private citizens, and that the Supreme Court should have upheld D.C.'s absolute ban on handguns, even in homes." Snyder also cited comments from Brian Darling, director of U.S. Senate Relations at the Heritage Foundation, that Holder's position "strongly suggests that Holder is hostile to private gun ownership and will work to restrict gun rights." Shotgun News columnist Jeff Knox wrote, "The gun rights community should make every effort to see to it that Holder's nomination is withdrawn or rejected."According to Second Amendment Foundationfounder Alan Gottlieb, Holder has supported handgun licensing and mandatory trigger locks. He also lobbied for limits on gun shows. "This is not the record of a man who will come to office as the nation's top law enforcement officer with the rights and concerns of gun owners in mind," Gottlieb wrote. "America's 85 million gun owners have ample reason to be pessimistic about how their civil rights will fare under the Obama administration," Gottlieb said. "Mr. Obama will have a Congress with an anti-gun Democrat majority leadership to push his gun control agenda. Gun owners have not forgotten Mr. Obama's acknowledged opposition to concealed carry rights, nor his support for a ban on handgun ownership when he was running for the Illinois state senate." The issue of gun rights is more important than many believe, wrote Joseph Farah, WND's founder and editor, in a recent column. He cited a study from the University of Maryland and University of Michigan that uncovered a beneficial link between gun shows and crime. "We find a sharp decline in the number of gun homicides in the weeks immediately following a gun show," the study concluded. Furthermore, in Texas they found "gun shows reduce the number of gun homicides by 16 in the average year." "Holder’s appointment to be AG must be approved by the Senate," wrote David Codrea in the Examiner."While it is highly unlikely that opponents could muster the 51 votes needed to reject Holder's appointment, a single senator can place a 'hold' on the confirmation and effectively lock up the system just as Democrats did with a number of President Bush's judicial appointments and the appointment of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the U.N." The Supreme Court decidedin the D.C. vs. Heller case that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to own firearms, not just the right for states to form armed militias. The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Justice Antonin Scalia said in the majority opinion. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in dissent, said the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." Scalia said the rulingshould not "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Joining Stevens in dissent were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter. The amendment, ratified in 1791, says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Monday, January 12, 2009
 |
Current mood:  betrayed
Category: News and Politics
By
Thomas
Claburn
..
InformationWeek
..
January 2, 2009 06:22 PM
..
..
The U.S. Department of Defense is looking to
develop virtual parents to comfort children when moms and dads on
active duty aren't available to talk.
In a solicitation for proposals posted on the department's Small Business Innovation Research
Web site, the military says it's seeking to "develop a highly
interactive PC- or Web-based application to allow family members to
verbally interact with 'virtual' renditions of deployed Service
Members."
"The child should be able to have a simulated conversation with
a parent about generic, everyday topics," the solicitation says. "For
instance, a child may get a response from saying, 'I love you,' or 'I
miss you,' or 'Good night mommy/daddy.' This is a technologically
challenging application because it relies on the ability to have
convincing voice-recognition, artificial intelligence, and the ability
to easily and inexpensively develop a customized application tailored
to a specific parent."
While Skype or similar technologies might seem like a more
cost-effective and immediately available solution, Defense rejects that
possibility, noting in a Q&A posted below the solicitation that the
purpose of the project is to help children cope with the absence of a
parent when Internet and phone communication are not an option.
In a blog post,
Catherine Caldwell-Harris, associate professor of psychology at Boston
University, suggests the project would make a "great background-story
for a dystopian novel."
"I confess I am skeptical of the utility of an artificial
intelligence program which mimics parental dialogue," she wrote. "Is
there any evidence that children age 3-5 will understand that the
avatar on the screen is supposed to be their parent? I wouldn't envy
the job of a mother who has to train her 3-year-old to comprehend
this."
In a phone interview, Caldwell-Harris added, "You can rapidly speculate on how this could be very damaging for children."
At the same time, she tempered her skepticism, saying that there
are clearly potential uses for artificial intelligence that deserve
further research funding, like real-time language translation or using
avatars to teach foreign languages.
"There is a place for AI [research] dollars," she said. "But I think this was a project that didn't get thought out very well."
"The actual solicitation doesn't seem strongly grounded in any
behavioral science," she added, noting that the proposal seemed to have
been put together by someone who Googled a few supportive articles.
"If the military is genuinely interested in helping military families,
why don't they just provide more money for social services that we
already know work?" she said.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Friday, January 09, 2009
 |
Current mood:  enraged
Category: News and Politics
Detailed flow chart orders officers to respond to negative material
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, Jan 9th, 2009
....The
US Air Force has announced a “counter-blog” response plan aimed at
fielding and reacting to material from bloggers who have “negative
opinions about the US government and the Air Force.”
The plan, created by the public affairs arm of the Air
Force, includes a detailed twelve-point “counter blogging” flow-chart
that dictates how officers should tackle what are described as
“trolls,” “ragers,” and “misguided” online writers.
Wired blog Danger Room summarizes how the chart lays out a range of possible responses to a blog post:
Airmen can offer a “factual and well-cited response
[that] is not factually erroneous, a rant or rage, bashing or negative
in nature.” They can “let the post stand — no response.” Or they can
“fix the facts,” offering up fresh perspective. No matter what, the
chart says, airmen should “disclose your Air Force connection,”
“respond in a tone that reflects high on the rich heritage of the Air
Force,” and “focus on the most-used sites related to the Air Force.”
Another option offered by the chart is to “monitor the site for relevant information and comments” while reporting back to HQ.
Of course, the type of bloggers that Air Force officers will be able
to respond to may be limited due to the fact that the Air Force actively blocks access to just about any independent site with the word “blog” in its web address.
No doubt the Web Posting Response Assessment plan is an offshoot of the Air Force’s “national cybersecurity initiative“,
an ongoing $11 million project which is also seeking the capability to
hack into, fully control and even destroy any form of computer or
network in existence.
(Article continues below)

We have previously reported on similar efforts on
behalf of the military and the government to quell online dissent, as
well as more broadly control the information available to the American
public.
Multiple programs are currently being rolled out by the Pentagon and
its offshoot agencies such as DARPA, in a secret war with the internet
that has been described as a $30 billion “electronic Manhattan Project“.
Such ongoing efforts to infiltrate the Internet and propagandize for the war on terror are well documented.
CENTCOM has programs underway to infiltrate blogs and message boards
to ensure people, “have the opportunity to read positive
stories,”presumably about how Iraq is a wonderful liberated democracy
and the war on terror really is about protecting Americans from
Al-CIAda.
In May 2008, it was revealed that the Pentagon was expanding “Information Operations” on the Internet with purposefully set up foreign news websites, designed to look like independent media sources but in reality carrying direct military propaganda.
More recently the New York Times published an expose
on privately hired operatives who have been appearing on all major US
news networks promoting the interests and operations of the Pentagon
and generating favorable news coverage of the Bush administration while
posing as independent military analysts.
This operation was formally announced In 2006
when the Pentagon set up a unit to “better promote its message across
24-hour rolling news outlets, and particularly on the internet”.
Again, the Pentagon said the move would boost its ability to counter “inaccurate” news stories and exploit new media.
.. ..The program represents another wing of the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Influence,
publicly announced after 9/11 but simply the latest incarnation of a PR
brainwashing scam that spans back decades. The OSI exploited legal
loopholes by planting its propaganda in foreign newspapers that would
later be picked up by U.S. newswires. In today’s environment even that
seems quaint, with the Pentagon openly and proudly shouting from the
rooftops that they will knowingly violate the law to indoctrinate the
American people.
Perhaps the most alarming case of the military’s
information tentacles burrowing their influence deep into media circles
in recent years was in February 2000, when another branch of the same
Pentagon propaganda bureau, Psychological Operations Command (PSYOPS), had placed their operatives
“in the news division at CNN’s Atlanta headquarters as part of an
“internship” program starting in the final days of the Kosovo War.”
FAIR speculated
that the purpose was twofold, one to directly propagandize the American
people via CNN and also potentially to allow the “military to conduct
an intelligence-gathering mission against the network itself,” because
the “military needed to find ways to “gain control” over commercial
news satellites to help bring down an “informational cone of silence”
over regions where special operations were taking place.”
With the knowledge that government propagandists were utilizing U.S.
news network hubs at CNN to run what was described as a “vast
psychological warfare operation of the kind the military conducts to
influence a population in enemy territory,” and that this took place
almost eight years ago - just imagine how infested today’s networks and
newsrooms are with paid agent provocateur propagandists whose sole job
specification is to orchestrate methods of mind control over the
population of the United States.
In October 2005 Government Accountability Office investigators
concluded that the Bush administration’s secret policy to pay off
influential journalists to plant fake news and positive spin on Bush’s
policies was illegal and that the “administration had disseminated
“covert propaganda” in the United States, in violation of a statutory
ban.”
A study by media watchdog Center for Media and Democracy
revealed that, over a ten month span, 77 television stations from all
across the nation aired video news releases without informing their
viewers even once that the reports were actually sponsored content.
Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq, or promoted specific companies’ products.
The consequences were not the drafting of new legislation that would
clearly outlaw such actions in future, nor any form of criminal
proceedings against the protagonists. The upshot of it all was a slap
on the wrist for conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and a
request that he pay back part of the money that the government had
given him - not even all of it.
“Armstrong Williams is going to pay back $34,000 to the government
for work he failed to deliver, but who’s going to pay the taxpayers for
the rest of the quarter million dollars Williams was paid for his
propaganda services to the administration?,” asked Congressman George
Miller, as the Justice Department hurried a settlement and swept the
whole sordid affair under the rug.
See the Prisonplanet archive on Government Use Of Fake News for more examples of these practices.
These operations equate to a formal declaration of
psychological warfare on the American people. The military is engaging
in direct propaganda and indoctrination.
Recent history clearly indicates this is just the latest outreach of
an insipid brainwashing agenda that is totally unlawful and anathema to
the U.S. Constitution.
The White House has made it perfectly clear that it will target
American citizens for propagating information harmful to the interests
of the U.S. government and classify them as enemy combatants. This is
codified in sub-section 27 of section 950v. of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
Bush’s own strategy document for “winning the war on terror”
identifies “conspiracy theorists,” meaning anyone who exposes
government corruption and its lies about major domestic and world
events, as “terrorists recruiters,” and vows to eliminate their
influence in society.
We have even seen the proposal of legislation that would require bloggers to register with and regularly report their activities to Congress or face prison.
The eminently hypocritical tenet of the suggestion that the military
and the Air Force need to “Fix the facts”, correct “inaccurate
statements” and “set the record straight” is borne out by the fact that
they participated in the dissemination of the most lurid and damaging
propaganda since Hitler’s final speech - a deliberately fomented lie
about weapons of mass destruction that has killed over one million
Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers.
It is they who constitute the “ragers” and “trolls” and it is we the
alternative media - the fifth estate - that should mobilize in the
infowar to counter their spurious deception.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Friday, October 31, 2008
 |
Current mood:  enraged
Category: Life
Chanyut Phrukkumwong NaturalNews Thursday, Oct 30, 2008 Long-term exposure to electromagnetic radio waves at certain strengths does cause brain tumors. Just like in the case of cigarette smoking, which nobody realized could damage your health until the era where lung cancer caused by regular smoking showed up. Such warnings about the dangers from electromagnetic radio waves from cell phones have been around for some years now. But the reporting has not been very widespread because of the attempt to hide this truth from those who hold the stake, which is certainly the cell phone industry (manufacturers). Dr. George Carlo is among the first scientists who warned the public about this danger. He refused a billion-dollar bribe from the cell phone industry who told him to keep quiet about the research results that he conducted. Take a look at his website, (http://www.safewireless.org) . Other honest doctors and health advocates have helped this warning to become more widespread and more understandable by comparing such dangers with the ones associated to smoking. Everybody mistook, at first, that smoking was healthy but we have later come to know that it is dangerous. (Article continues below)  More warnings about cell phones can be found here (http://www.naturalnews.com/cell_phone.html) . We may notice that such warnings about the danger of cell phone is usually put out by honest doctors, health advocates, health-related people while hidden by cell phone industries or technology-related people. Until recently, this issue was mentioned about by the technology-related web site like CNET or ZD net. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/… http://www.cnet.com/4520-6033_1-5741203… Even though an objection against the research finding is also there, we know that it is only a voice from cell-phone industry who has tried its best to conceal this fact and to protect itself from losing the profits. This shows that the industry itself has already realized this truth simply because there is no way to hide it. So what's the deal? Is it possible to stop using cell phone? No way. Cell phone has become part of our daily lives. It helps us in case of emergency or while being in the place where we need to talk and no other safe communication device is available. We should take action to minimize such risk and to be responsible for our own health. Simply be smart. Take moderate practice. Make use of it but do not let it harm us. Use headset, use handsfree feature, use it only when a wired phone is not available, do not go for a long conversation, send a message instead of talking. There are quite a number of techniques to minimize the risk. Also, we can be selective by choosing a cell phone model that emits minimum strength of electromagnetic waves possible. Check out here http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html6. Details about the concentration of electromagnetic waves at home noted in the following article is also of interest http://www.naturalnews.com/023307.html. Since cell phone has become a world-wide public issue, everyone in the world uses it while its long-term use does cause some diseases, there should be a public law that helps administer the marketing, selling, and the use of cell phone the same way as on cigarettes or sports drinks. The law that enforces the labeling of warning message on every cell phone and/or cell phone shop like "Long-term use of cell phone causes cancer", "Cell phone causes autism", that prohibits children under the age of 15 or so (whose physical development is still not so endured as adult) to buy a cell phone is strongly encouraged. Want more live evidence? Take a look at this now! >>> http://www.fitnesssavedmylife.com.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, October 23, 2008
 |
Current mood:  catalyzed
Category: News and Politics
KEN RITTER Associated Press October 23, 2008 LAS VEGAS – A federal judge has permanently barred convicted tax rebel and author Irwin Schiff and a co-defendant from preparing tax returns and marketing products advising people that no law requires Americans to pay federal income taxes. - A d v e r t i s e m e n t
- .. type="text/javascript"> show_banners(); ..>
 Federal officials said the permanent injunction by Senior U.S. District Court Judge Lloyd George in Las Vegas ensures that Schiff and his former business partner, Cynthia Neun, "cannot promote tax fraud schemes from within prison or when they are released." "The Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department have strong civil and criminal enforcement tools available to stop tax defiers who promote fraudulent schemes," Justice Department lawyer Nathan Hochman said in a statement following George's Oct. 14 order. The filing made permanent a restraining order and preliminary injunction first imposed in 2003. Schiff, 80, and Neun, 55, are serving federal prison sentences after a jury in Las Vegas found them guilty in October 2005 of conspiracy, tax evasion and tax fraud. Schiff was sentenced to 12 years and seven months by U.S. District Judge Kent Dawson, who branded Schiff and his Las Vegas company, Freedom Books, "a flimflam operation" that encouraged others to engage in a fraudulent tax evasion scheme.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|