MySpace


Randy



Last Updated: 5/4/2008

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Male
Status: Single
Age: 32
Sign: Libra

City: Los Angeles
State: CALIFORNIA
Country: US
Signup Date: 7/14/2005

Blog Archive
[Older      Newer]
 /  / 
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."
    A d v e r t i s e m e n t
    efoods
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.
Of course Congress’ constitutional power over money is enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:
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.
Greenspan, Bernanke and other Fed-related cronies have already bad-mouthed the Dollar and signaled it’s decline as the world’s currency. So what else is new?
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.


Military Personnel Ordered To Comply With Private Firearms Registration

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

Military Personnel Ordered To Comply With Private Firearms Registration eng gun GB1 BM Baye 697885g

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.

Military Personnel Ordered To Comply With Private Firearms Registration 190509top3


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.


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 ArticleDigg It!
| 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?


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."


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");
......


..

..




..

..WND Exclusive..




..
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");
......
.._GA_googleAdEngine.createDOM[[iframe]]('google_ads_div_WND_NWS_C0200' ,'WND_NWS_C0200');..

 
..
GA_googleFillSlot("WND_NWS_C0201");
......
.._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. Attorney
General – 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 Foundation
founder 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 decided
in 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 ruling
should 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."

Monday, January 12, 2009 

Current mood:  betrayed
Category: News and Politics


..
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.

Friday, January 09, 2009 

Current mood:  enraged
Category: News and Politics

Air Force Creates “Counter Blog” Response Plan To Quell Online Dissent

Detailed flow chart orders officers to respond to negative material

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Frid
ay, Jan 9th, 2009

Air Force Creates Counter Blog Response Plan To Quell Online Dissent 090109plan ....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)

Air Force Creates Counter Blog Response Plan To Quell Online Dissent 161008pptv2

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.

..Air Force Creates Counter Blog Response Plan To Quell Online Dissent 140508Cyber ..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.

Friday, October 31, 2008 

Current mood:  enraged
Category: Life

No Way to Hide Truth: Cell Phone Does Cause Tumor

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.

Thursday, October 23, 2008 

Current mood:  catalyzed
Category: News and Politics

Anti-Tax Author Irwin Schiff Has First Amendment Denied

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(); ..>Alex Jones films online

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.