News and Information Feed

Thursday, September 30, 2010

Bellwether apologist for liberal-capitalist Establishments admits he was duped by Fed swindlers, conservative "rubes" were right all along

Prominent British Editor Apologizes for Defense of Fed

(The New American) -- by Alex Newman --

The high-profile international-business editor of the U.K. Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, shocked and pleased readers with an apology for his past support of the U.S. Federal Reserve System, its chairman, and its policies.

“I apologise to readers around the world for having defended the emergency stimulus policies of the US Federal Reserve, and for arguing like an imbecile naif that the Fed would not succumb to drug addiction, political abuse, and mad intoxicated debauchery, once it began taking its first shots of quantitative easing,” he wrote in the piece, entitled "Shut Down the Fed." “Quantitative easing,” of course, is Fed-speak for creating new currency out of thin air.

“My pathetic assumption was that Ben Bernanke would deploy further QE only to stave off DEFLATION, not to create INFLATION. If the Federal Open Market Committee cannot see the difference, God help America,” he continued.

Evans-Pritchard then proceeded to savage the Fed’s admitted plans to purposefully create inflation. “NO, NO, NO, this cannot possibly be true,” he wrote of the central bank’s recently announced plot to print trillions more dollars, adding that the doctrines and theories being pursued by Fed boss Ben Bernanke were proven to be “bunk” almost a century ago.

“So all those hillsmen in Idaho, with their Colt 45s and boxes of krugerrands, who sent furious emails to the Telegraph accusing me of defending a hyperinflating establishment cabal were right all along. The Fed is indeed out of control,” he wrote. “The sophisticates at banking conferences in London, Frankfurt, and New York who apologized for this primitive monetary creationism — as I did — are the ones who lost the plot.”...

The Fed and its cohorts are indeed out of control. As reported by The New American magazine earlier this year in an article entitled "Fed Manipulations in the Crosshairs," the central bank has been manipulating markets from stocks and bonds to real estate and precious metals. And it has been printing trillions of dollars, setting up front companies to distribute the funds to insider financial institutions, and even sending trillions of newly created federal reserve notes to foreign firms and central banks.

As the banking cartel prepares to further devalue the dollar, and its allies in government ready themselves to hide the obvious inflation using the bogus “consumer price index,” which conveniently does not take into account food or energy prices, Americans must be prepared. If and when federal reserve notes collapse in value, a plan to implement a global fiat currency is already in place, as reported by The New American in "Waking Up to a World Currency" and "The Emerging Global Fed." The consequences of such a move would be disastrous for the world. And particularly for Americans...MORE...LINK
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, international business editor of the Daily Telegraph

Beware of lying leftists: Socialist hero Mao murdered 55 million people

Monstrous Mao

(The New American) -- by Bruce Walker --

Frank Dikotter, an historian from Hong Kong, has been allowed wide access to Chinese Communist Party archives. Speaking at the Independent Literary Festival, Dikotter described Mao Zedong as the greatest mass murderer in human history. According to the historian, the entire death toll from the Second World War was 55 million people. Mao alone was responsible for the death of a mind-numbing 55 million in the years after the war.

Dikotter called this mass murder “like Pol Pot’s genocide multiplied 20 times over.” About the horrific nature of Mao himself and his hideous regime, there can be little doubt. Indeed, there is almost nothing good about Mao Zedong.

According to establishment historians, Mao fought the Japanese alongside Chiang Kai-shek and his Party of the People (invariably called in America by the more sinister sounding “Kuomintang”). Actually, Chiang and the Chinese Republic did nearly all the fighting. Chiang, whose personal rectitude was not even questioned by his fiercest enemies, was demonized by communists in America and presented as hopelessly corrupt. Yet Chiang could have reached an accord with Japan, as Gandhi appeared eager to do if the Japanese reached India, if he were as bad as he was portrayed to be. Then victory in the Pacific would have been very difficult for America and the Western allies.

Chiang also, notably, recognized the autonomy and practical independence of Tibet when governing China. The beginning of that ghastly genocide in Tibet, so sanctimoniously protested by Hollywood types, began in 1949, the year Mao came to power in China.

Anti-communists in America during the early 1960s tried every way possible to let the world know about the horrors being perpetrated on the Tibetan people by Chinese Communists under Mao. No one listened. Instead, the New Left and other organs of subversions lionized Mao (much like they lionized the sadistic tyrant Castro.) Even by the time of his death, the hypnotized people of the free world viewed the “Great Helmsman” as a liberating figure in Chinese history.

Anyone who had been honestly watching China, though, could tell what Hell the “People’s Republic” had become. Millions risked death and worse to cross the Bamboo Curtain into Hong Kong or Macao. They carried stories with them to rival the unhappy creatures of Hitler’s or Stalin’s dreadful camps. The Great Leap Forward, anyone interested would have known long before Mao’s death, was a dreadful collapse backwards. The term “Death by Government” was, perhaps, never more true than with Mao.

Also obvious to anyone who cared about the truth was that the Republic of China on Taiwan was moving rapidly into a relatively prosperous and free society. No Bamboo Curtain kept people from leaving Taiwan. Hong Kong, another Chinese polity, had a thriving economy based upon economic liberty, and a lively public life. Singapore, a more regimented Chinese island-nation to the south, nevertheless had a large measure of freedom both personal and economic, a fast growing economy, and a peaceful, neutral nation. Clearly — again, to those who cared about truth — the Chinese people had a cultural and social heritage that encouraged diligence, thrift, honesty, family, and education. Three Chinese polities thrived and blossomed, but one — Mao’s China — dipped into a dark age.

The inhumanity of Mao, his godless brutality to everyone around him, the dreary banality of his mind (as evidence by his infantile and fanatically celebrated "Little Red Book") should have made him, long ago, an object lesson in how very wrong communism and its sibling totalitarianisms can be. The greater question, perhaps, is why anyone would be surprised that Mao was as evil as Hitler or Stalin. His regime, in which parents were publicly forced to murder their own children in horrific ways like burying them alive or dousing them with flammable fluids and burning them alive, is news to the world — but not those who viewed the world without the colored lenses of wishful socialism...MORE...LINK
Sadistic psychopath Mao (as celebrated by liberal bon vivant Andy Warhol) and his left-wing minions forced parents to murder their own children by burning or burying them alive, all in the name of "equality"


Obama smears tea party and average Americans it represents as anti-immigrant and backed by wealthy special interests

Barack Obama’s war on the Tea Party is doomed to fail

(Telegraph) -- by Nile Gardiner --

I’ve written previously on the White House’s plans for a major campaign against the Tea Party movement, and why it smacks of desperation. President Obama has now upped the stakes considerably with his latest offensive against the hugely popular grassroots movement. In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, the president attempts to further demonise the Tea Party, with talk of “darker” aspects, and “anti-immigrant sentiment”:

I think the Tea Party is an amalgam, a mixed bag of a lot of different strains in American politics that have been there for a long time. There are some strong and sincere libertarians who are in the Tea Party who generally don’t believe in government intervention in the market or socially. There are some social conservatives in the Tea Party who are rejecting me the same way they rejected Bill Clinton, the same way they would reject any Democratic president as being too liberal or too progressive. There are strains in the Tea Party that are troubled by what they saw as a series of instances in which the middle-class and working-class people have been abused or hurt by special interests and Washington, but their anger is misdirected.

And then there are probably some aspects of the Tea Party that are a little darker, that have to do with anti-immigrant sentiment or are troubled by what I represent as the president. So I think it’s hard to characterize the Tea Party as a whole, and I think it’s still defining itself.
Having painted the Tea Party as extreme, Obama then launches into a bizarre attempt to depict the organisation as a puppet of Washington special interest groups who “are opposed to enforcement of environmental laws”, and “don’t believe in regulations that protect workers from safety violations”:
There’s no doubt that the infrastructure and the financing of the Tea Party come from some very traditional, very powerful, special-interest lobbies. I don’t think this is a secret.
I cannot think of a US political movement that is more independent of Washington than the Tea Party. Its very success derives from a powerful disenchantment with Washington’s political elites, and a firm rejection of the notion of business as usual on Capitol Hill. The suggestion that it is bankrolled by powerful vested interests inside the Beltway is simply ludicrous, and for the president to be peddling this myth is an extraordinary development which reveals his own lack of confidence ahead of the November mid-terms. As we saw in the recent Delaware primary, even the Republican Party itself has no control over the Tea Party, and the idea that an anti-establishment movement with millions of supporters is controlled from K Street is pie in the sky...MORE...LINK

Obama's Attorneys: President Can Legally Kill Any American

Obama's Attorneys: President Can Legally Kill Any American

(The New American) -- by Thomas R. Eddlem --

When the President orders American citizens killed without trial, Obama's attorneys bluntly argued in a September 25 brief before the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, these are not crimes but “non-justiciable political questions.” In other words, the courts can't prevent or judge the right or wrong of Presidential assassination lists because these are questions under the political judgment of the President.

If one leader can order the death of any citizen without review by a court — or even releasing a reason or evidence — could there be a more perfect definition of the word “dictatorship”?

The case that brought Obama's lawyers out of the pro-assassination closet is Nasser al Aulaqi v. Obama, a case brought by the father of Anwar al-Aulaqi, an American citizen who has allegedly allied himself with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Numerous news agencies have reported that the younger Aulaqi is at the top of a U.S. citizen “assassination list” created by the President.

The father, Obama's own lawyers admit, doesn't want to get the court to create a broad injunction against killing his son under any circumstances. Rather, he's seeking a much more milder ruling banning the court from assassinating his son when he could just as easily be captured and returned to the United States for trial. As Obama's attorneys summarize in their brief, Nasser al Aulaqi “does not seek to categorically stop the United States from using lethal force against his son under all circumstances. Rather, plaintiff seeks to enjoin the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, from 'intentionally killing U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi' outside an armed conflict 'unless he is found to present a concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life or physical safety, and there are no means other than lethal force that could reasonably be employed to neutralize the threat.'”

That sounds like a reasonable enough request from a U.S. citizen, protected by the Fifth Amendment's restriction on the federal government that “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Right?

Wrong, Obama's attorneys argue:
The injunction plaintiff seeks would be unprecedented, improper, and extraordinarily dangerous, regardless of the truth of his allegations (which the United States does not and cannot confirm or deny). That requested injunction would necessarily and improperly inject the courts into decisions of the President and his advisors about how to protect the American people from the threat of armed attacks, including imminent threats, posed by a foreign organization against which the political branches have authorized the use of necessary and appropriate force.
Of course, what's “ unprecedented, improper, and extraordinarily dangerous” is the creation of presidential assassination lists in direct conflict with the Fifth Amendment...MORE...LINK

Wars fraudulently connected to 9/11 could cost $4 trillion to $6 trillion as 500,000 vets have applied for disability

Study: Wars could cost $4 trillion to $6 trillion

(Stars and Stripes) -- by Leo Shane III --

The authors of the book "The $3 Trillion War" noted in a conference call on Wednesday that when they first released their findings two years ago, the estimates were widely criticized as being too high. Now, the researchers believe they may have been too low.

Joseph Stiglitz, who received the 2000 Nobel Prize for Economics, and Linda Bilmes, a public policy professor at Harvard University, said the number of veterans seeking post-combat medical care and the cost of treating those individuals is about 30 percent higher than they initially estimated. That, combined with increases in the cost of military medical care and the lagging economy, will likely push the true long-term cost of the war over the $4 trillion mark.

"This may be more of a crisis than the Medicare and Social Security problems we have looming," said House Veterans Affairs Chairman Bob Filner, D-Calif. "It rivals both in the potential impact. This is another entitlement we've committed ourselves to, and it could break the bank."

In a conference call with reporters, Bilmes said about 600,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have already sought medical treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and 500,000 have applied for disability benefits. That's about 30 percent higher than initial estimates for care, and could cost the department nearly $1 trillion in costs for the current wars alone...MORE...LINK

Craven, cowardly and corrupt Washington bows down before Zionists, puts Israeli interests ahead of Americans

The Ineffable Lobby

( -- by Paul Pillar --

Lately one hasn't heard much of the screaming against the observation that supporters of a certain Middle Eastern state exercise influence over U.S. policy that is well out of proportion to what a clear focus on U.S. interests would dictate. That's because the observation doesn't get voiced very much. The screaming reached a crescendo three years ago when John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt published their book on the subject. Evidently the vituperation, often accompanied by reckless charges of anti-Semitism, that was heaped on those two scholars and anyone else daring to make similar observations about this dimension of the making of U.S. foreign policy has been sufficient to keep the subject out of most discussions among polite company.

But I can't help noticing that in commentary about construction of Israeli settlements in occupied territory and the role this construction is playing in impeding Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, some of the same quarters that have been quickest to shout down the idea that the powerful lobby in question exists have been providing some of the clearest evidence that it does exist and continues to shape important aspects of U.S. policy. When President Obama earlier this year attempted to insist on a cessation of settlement construction in the interest of facilitating peace talks, he was berated for taking a stand that supposedly was unreasonable and unwise and then, after he duly backed down in the face of Benjamin Netanyahu's recalcitrance, was told that his mistake was not in backing down but instead in ever making an issue of settlement construction in the first place. Now, amid discussions over the expiration of Netanyahu's moratorium on settlement construction, the U.S. position is again one of pointing out the unhelpful effects of resuming construction activity but stopping short of doing anything that would be effective in ending the Israeli recalcitrance. And again we hear from supporters of Israeli policies that the United States ought to bow not only to Israeli behavior but to the preferences on this issue of the hardest line elements in Netanyahu's coalition government. Those elements are represented most visibly by Foreign Minister (and West Bank settler) Avigdor Lieberman, who on Tuesday treated the United Nations General Assembly to the spectacle of a speech in which he renounced the final status negotiations to which his own government supposedly is committed...MORE...LINK

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

If Establishment GOP was serious about conservative reform, they'd get behind Ron Paul; but they don't, which proves they're frauds

Ron Paul’s Pledge to America

(The American Conservative) -- by Jack Hunter --

Big Government swindlers don't want Americans buying gold because it impedes the finances of their murderous mega-scam

Politics Versus Gold

( -- by Thomas Sowell --

One of the many slick tricks of the Obama administration was to insert a provision in the massive Obamacare legislation regulating people who sell gold. This had nothing to do with medical care but everything to do with sneaking in an extension of the government's power over gold, in a bill too big for most people to read.

Gold has long been a source of frustration for politicians who want to extend their power over the economy. First of all, the gold standard cramped their style because there is only so much money you can print when every dollar bill can be turned in to the government, to be exchanged for the equivalent amount of gold.

When the amount of money the government can print is limited by how much gold the government has, politicians cannot pay off a massive national debt by just printing more money and repaying the owners of government bonds with dollars that are cheaper than the dollars with which the bonds were bought. In other words, politicians cannot cheat people as easily...

That was just one of the ways that the gold standard cramped politicians' style— and just one of the reasons they got rid of it. One of Franklin D. Roosevelt's first acts as president was to take the United States off the gold standard in 1933.

But, even with the gold standard gone, the ability of private individuals to buy gold reduces the ability of the government to steal the value of their money by printing more money.

Inflation is a quiet but effective way for the government to transfer resources from the people to itself, without raising taxes. A hundred dollar bill would buy less in 1998 than a $20 bill would buy in the 1960s. This means that anyone who kept his money in a safe over those years would have lost 80 percent of its value, because no safe can keep your money safe from politicians who control the printing presses.

That is why some people buy gold when they lose confidence in the government's managing of its money. Usually that is when inflation is either under way or looming on the horizon. When many people start transferring their wealth from dollars into gold, that restricts the ability of politicians to steal from them through inflation.

Even though there is currently very little inflation, purchases of gold have nevertheless skyrocketed.

Ordinarily, most gold is bought for producing jewelry or for various industrial purposes, more so than as an investment. But, at times within the past two years, most gold has been bought by investors.

What that suggests is that increasing numbers of people don't trust this administration's economic policies, especially their huge and growing deficits, which add up to a record-breaking national debt.

When a national debt reaches an unsustainable amount, there is always a temptation to pay it off with inflated dollars. There is the same temptation when the Social Security system starts paying out more money to baby boom retirees than it is taking in from current workers...

Indeed, freedom in general cramps the government's style. Those on the left may not be against freedom in general. But, at every turn, they find the freedoms granted by the Constitution of the United States hampering the left's agenda of imposing their superior wisdom and virtue on the rest of us.

The desire to restrain or control the buying and selling of gold is just one of the many signs of the inherent conflict between the freedom of the individual and the left's attempts to control our lives.

Sneaking a provision on gold purchases and sales into massive legislation that is supposedly about medical care is just one of the many cynical tricks used to circumvent the public's right to know how they are being governed. The Constitution begins, "We the people" but, to the left, both the people and the Constitution are just things to circumvent in order to carry out their agenda...MORE...LINK

Chris Moore comments:

The other component of the scam, which GOP-partisan Sowell doesn't mention, is that because the dollar is no longer backed by gold, it has to be backed by something "tangible," and so what it is backed by today is big guns -- meaning the U.S. Military. In other words, the only reason the dollar doesn't totally collapse as a result of the massive overspending and debt of the federal government is because America has the most powerful military in the world, and regularly uses it against innocent people around the globe in order demonstrate its power and maintain the value of the dollar, which in turns allows continued Big Government spending on the "welfare" of Americans (and the enrichment of the Political Class and its Shyster Class patrons).

As warmongering neocon Jonah Goldberg puts it: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business.”

All of this is yet one more example of the nearly exact moral equivalency between the Big Government Statist Left and the Big Government Statist Right; they're both comprised of depraved sociopaths with oceans of blood on their hands, all because they seek to play God and use Big Government to socially engineer their stunted "will," while simultaneously fattening their own pocket books.

Truly disgusting "human beings," (if they still even qualify for the "human" category).

America comes to resemble the Soviet Union; Tyranny under the auspices of "national security"

Tyranny Triumphing

(The New American) -- by Jack Kenny --

America is sliding into tyranny, and few Americans seem to recognize it. Before you dismiss this as alarmist propaganda, consider the following:

A September 8 ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, often described as the nation’s most liberal, offers another example of a tortured balancing act. The court ruled that private persons may not sue over the government practice of rendition and torture of terrorist suspects because the defense would require the government to compromise “state secrets.” This extension of the “state secrets privilege,” argued by the George W. Bush administration and again by the Department of Justice under President Barack Obama, was used to cover even a subsidiary of Boeing, the giant aircraft manufacturer, that allegedly transported the suspects overseas for interrogation. Now even Boeing apparently enjoys the privilege of “sovereign immunity.”

Writing for the majority in the court’s 6-5 decision, Judge Raymond C. Fisher described the case as “a painful conflict between human rights and national security.” But the court’s majority assigned all the pain to human rights and gave all the security to those in both the government and private sector who plan and carry out the transfer of prisoners in U.S. custody to overseas jurisdictions, where interrogations are carried out in a fashion that is, to say the least, pre-Miranda.

The plaintiffs were five prisoners who claimed they were tortured during their detainment, a charge that the United States, so far, does not need to refute. That could change if the U.S. Supreme Court accepts an appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit for the plaintiffs. The court declined to hear a similar appeal in 2007 and, according to the New York Times, the high court has not taken on the limits of the state secrecy privilege in 50 years.

For most Americans the issue will, perhaps, be of minor concern. When people are out of work or fearful of losing their jobs, what happens to people overseas is, in a manner of speaking, foreign to them. But Ronald Reagan was fond of saying that elections are not merely about who gets what, but about who we are as a people. And if we stop to look now at who we are as a people, we might not recognize the face in the mirror.

No Wonder Why
For we are to blame. Even though the judges may have erred in deciding the case against the plaintiffs and ranking human rights below the state secrets privilege, they did not create the policy of “extraordinary rendition.” They did not decide that sending people to secret prisons run by our Central Intelligence Agency was essential for the defense of America. They may have permitted, but did not invent policies that more resemble those of the Soviet Union than the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States. No, our executive branch did that and the council of cravens known as the Congress of the United States lets the executive get away with it. And We the People let the Congress get away with that. What Congressman has lost his seat for not opposing “extraordinary rendition”?...MORE...LINK

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Admission by Establishment's primary economist Paul Krugman that US debt default inevitable is essentially an admission of fraud by government

How Paul Krugman Would Handle Debt

(The New American) -- by Bruce Walker --

Nobel prize-winning economist and Princeton Professor Paul Krugman provided the Associated Press with some unpleasant commentary on the huge debt that Americans and their institutions owe now. Krugman argues that eventually default on these loans is inevitable. That would mean bankruptcies for individuals and corporations and defaults by governments — or, if the Krugman approach is followed, this would mean calculated government inflation of the money supply, which would make it easier to pay off debts.

Private debt is one matter. Bankruptcy was intended to be a remedy in the Constitution for individuals who could not pay their debts. Congress has tweaked with bankruptcy laws over the last two hundred years, but the principle itself is enshrined in the foundational text of a new country that rejected the debtors’ prisons of the Old World.

Default of state and local debt obligations is a much more serious matter. Before that occurs, the public may wish to request an investigation into how financial malfeasance allowed this to happen. The obligations which wreck state and local governmments are overwhelmingly the variety which, in the private sector, would be considered trusts with fiduciary obligations. How, for example, can public employee pension systems run out of money? If an insurance company suddenly found itself unable to pay claims against its policies, politicians and the public would be screaming for the scalps of those executives who failed the trust obligations. If a bank could not pay its depositers, the same scrutiny would be demanded.

The problem with defaulting on public obligations runs deeper. Governments that fail to pay their debts and obligations lose the confidence of bondholders and other investors. The return on investment for future bonds, consequently, is higher — sometimes much higher — and this, in turn, must be paid for by the taxpayers (as coerced “investors” in the failing government.) Taxpayers, no matter what happens, end up paying the price, a fact that does not seem to faze Paul Krugman at all. Inflation (or deflated money), higher interest payments on debts, higher tax rates — all offer unpalatable options to an electorate already overtaxed.

The solution which seems to elude “experts” like Krugman is to dramatically reduce the scope and function of government...MORE...LINK

Chris Moore comments:

Here is the Krugman blog that the author of this piece is apparently referring to:
Default Is In Our Stars

Not in ourselves.

I think it’s fair to say that a majority of economists believe that excessive private debt played a key role in getting us into this economic mess, and is playing a key role in preventing us from getting out. So, how does it end?

A naive view says that what we need is a return to virtue: everyone needs to save more, pay down debt, and restore healthy balance sheets.

The problem with this view is the fallacy of composition: when everyone tries to pay down debt at the same time, the result is a depressed economy and falling inflation, which cause the ratio of debt to income to rise if anything. That is, we’re living in a world in which the twin paradoxes of thrift and deleveraging hold, and hence in which individual virtue ends up being collective vice.

So what will happen? In the end, I’d argue, what must happen is an effective default on a significant part of debt, one way or another...MORE...LINK
Krugman is a swindler extraordinaire. No wonder he's the favored economist of the post-Christian, Keynesian con artists, fraudsters and murderers who have slowly taken control of the country over the last century, and finally put it in a stranglehold in the last few decades.

He starts by blaming "excessive private debt" for the current recession/depression instead of the Fed, its low interest rate policy, and government engineered bubbles like the government-backed Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mortgage bubble precipitated on loans to unqualified borrowers under the auspices of advancing a public good.

And he totally ignores federal government ponzi schemes like Social Security, in which the federal government takes in hundreds of billions from taxpayers, quickly forks it over to its crony Capitalist and crony Socialist partners in exchange for political support, and then replaces what was once hard, investable money with worthless IOU's. (And that's only one government scam among thousands.)

Additionally, he ignores the fact that due to government overspending and corruption, federal debt has grown from 33% of GDP in 1980 to 92% of GDP today, and is scheduled to explode even higher.

But no, he says, the fault isn't with the corrupt Ruling Class, but with "ourselves" -- in other words, it's the fault of the American people themselves for the fact that the unethical, immoral, post-Christian hostile elite robbed, swindled and betrayed them. And any other view is "naive," so of course we don't need to return to Christian "virtue," says the Jewish Krugman.

The man is a fraudulent "economist" and a shill, hired by Keynesian parasites and plunderers who have been robbing the country blind for decades.

Off with their heads.

Fraudulent "economist" Paul Krugman, P.R. spokesman for the Fed/Keynesian thieves and swindlers and their murderous Shyster Class patrons

Leftist swindler Bernie Sanders and his fellow taxpayer-plundering socialists: Tools of the thieving Fed, tools of corrupt Big Media

What a Government-funded "Public" Media Would Look and Sound Like

(The New American) -- by William F. Jasper --

One of the most outspoken advocates on behalf of a Big Government-Big Media merger is avowed socialist Robert McChesney, the Gutgsell Endowed Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is the President and co-founder of Free Press, a national organization pushing an agenda that includes media reform "solutions" that advocate Big Media bailouts and government-funded public-private partnerships. Professor McChesney also hosts the "Media Matters" weekly radio program every Sunday afternoon on WILL-AM, a "public" radio station that receives about 60 percent of its funding from the federal and state governments and liberal-left tax-exempt foundations.

McChesney's most recent "Media Matters" program for Sunday, September 26, featured an extended interview with U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the only currently-serving member of Congress who publicly identifies himself as a socialist. Sanders is listed as an Independent on the ballot but caucuses with the Democrats and is considered a Democrat for committee assignments.

In his glowing introduction to Sanders, McChesney described the senator as "one of the most prominent politicians in the United States today, and whatever one's political view, anyone who knows him understands him as a person of great public and personal integrity and considerable intelligence." Throughout his hour on the program, Senator Sanders inveighed repeatedly against the power of Wall Street, big banks, and big corporations, and especially thrashed Republicans for not "standing up to big money interests" and not being "willing to take on Wall Street."

"Speaking Truth to Power"?

Although there was ample opportunity, neither Professort McChesney nor any of his callers bothered to ask Senator Sanders about his own recent, spectacular failure to stand up to the big money interests of Wall Street. Sanders provided the strategic flip-flop in the Senate that torpedoed the nearly successful heroic effort by Rep. Ron Paul (T-Texas) to obtain an historic audit of the Federal Reserve. We reported here in May ("Time to Audit the Fed") on Sanders' remarkable reversal:
The timing of the sellout by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) could not have been more politically auspicious — or more suspicious. For months the Senator had been denouncing the secrecy of the Federal Reserve's bailout operations, which have exceeded two trillion dollars. For months he had been pledging that he would push for a genuine audit of the Fed. He authored an amendment in the Senate identical to "Audit the Fed" legislation in the House (H.R. 1207) authored by Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas).

However, on May 6 Sanders caved in to pressures from the Obama administration, the Federal Reserve, and Wall Street. The "who-how-why" details behind the flip-flop are still largely unknown, but here is the "what" of the matter: In a last-minute switch, Sanders agreed to substitute a watered-down version of the audit as an amendment to financial reform legislation sponsored by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.).

The new Sanders amendment would provide the administration, the Fed, and Members of Congress with a certain level of cover, allowing them to claim that they had supported auditing the Fed, while at the same time allowing the Fed to continue most of its operations in secret, beyond the scrutiny of Congress and the public...
A favorite meme of the political left is "speaking truth to power," which is meant to invoke the image of fearless Davids taking on entrenched Goliaths, armed solely with the power of truth. It is a slogan McChesney is wont to employ, as for instance, in his October 30, 2009 Washington Post op-ed, "Yes, journalists deserve subsidies too."

Sen. Bernie Sanders is forever talking about transparency and accountability, but when he had the greatest opportunity of his career to "speak truth to power" and to force real transparency and accountability on the Fed and its privileged coterie of private banks that have looted trillions of dollars from the American economy, he joined the looters. McChesney not only failed to call Sanders out on this critical betrayal but gave further cover to Sanders' false populist posing by giving verbal support to Sanders' proposal to use federal anti-trust actions to break up the power of the four big commercial banks (Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and JP Morgan Chase).

However, it is the Federal Reserve that has brought about this centralization, concentration, and cartelization of commercial banking power that McChesney and Sanders claim to abhor. Yet, neither of them are willing to take on this power. That may be because they know the Federal Reserve, as a key Marxist institution, is essential to the establishment and maintenance of a socialist state. As a socialist and a man of "considerable intelligence" (according to McChesney), Senator Sanders is, no doubt, aware that a national central bank like the Fed is prescribed by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in The Communist Manifesto. In that celebrated blueprint for socialism, Marx and Engels provide a ten-point program to consummate "the Communist revolution." Number five in that program is:
Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
And following immediately after that is the Marx-Engels prescription for state control of the media. Point number six in the Manifesto's program calls for:
Centralization of the means of communications and transport in the hands of the State.
Centralization of the control of the media in the hands of the State is precisely what McChesney and co-author John Nichols are calling for in their many media appearances promoting their new book, Saving Journalism: The Soul of Democracy...MORE...LINK

Monday, September 27, 2010

Insane totalitarian liberals just can't let go of their obsessive scheme to leverage climate data into a global power/money grab

Global Warming? No. Global Climate Disruption? Yes!

(The New American) -- by Raven Clabough --

Forced to contend with the reality that global warming is not a man-made phenomenon that will ultimately result in catastrophe, President Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren has turned away from terms like “global warming” and “climate change” and has instead targeted the newest threat to the globe: “global climate disruption.”

Addressing the clear attempt at repacking an old concept under a new title, England’s Telegraph joked, “That way whether it gets warmer or colder, wetter or drier, less climatically eventful or more climatically eventful, the result will be the same: it can all be put down to ‘global climate disruption.’”

Obama’s Science Czar could not very well allow the issue of climate change to die, as it would thwart efforts to pass tyrannical measures like the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, which regulates virtually every product produced in America, and Cap and Trade, a system that punishes thriving industrial economies by imposing a tax for the massive use of carbon. For Holdren, the solutions do not end there. According to the 1973 book Human Ecology: Global Problems and Solutions, which Holdren co-authored, he has long supported government population control, by any means necessary, and the destruction of the American economy.

It was during a lecture given by Holdren to the Kavli Prize Symposium on September 6 that Holdren first coined the expression “global climate disruption.” During the lecture, Holdren discussed a variety of aspects related to global climate disruption. He summed up the focus of his speech by explaining, “The problem is that the world is getting most of the energy its economies need in ways that are wrecking the climate its environment needs.” Holdren refuted claims that the Earth is no longer warming as a myth, and described the phenomenon as “highly uniform, not just about temperature, rapid compared to capacities for adjustment, and harmful for most places and times.”

At the start of his lecture, Holdren explained the transition from “global warming” to “global climate disruption”: “Climate change means disruption of the patterns. Global average temperature is just an index of the state of the global climate as expressed in these patterns. Small changes in the index [lead to] big changes in the patterns.”...

Despite the Left’s efforts to increase the public’s interest in climate change, and acquire support for climate-change legislation, a July poll commissioned by the Institute for Energy Research found that 70 percent of Americans reject Cap and Trade, even though the poll was conducted in the midst of the British Petroleum oil spill. An August Rasmussen Report poll shows that 61 percent of Americans support finding a new source of energy over reduction of energy consumption. Likewise, a 2010 Pew Research Center for the People and Press poll found that Americans ranked the issue of global warming last in their list of top priorities that the government should tackle.

It seems that no matter how the Green Czars attempt to package global warming and the solutions to combat it, Americans overwhelmingly reject it...MORE...LINK

Populist Jacksonians have abandoned socialist Dems, consolidated power in GOP, and are sweeping out degenerate money powers with tea party tidal wave

Jacksonian America

(Occidental Dissent) -- by Hunter Wallace --

Clinton Country

In The Weekly Standard, Jay Cost draws my attention to an article by Sean Trende published last year at RealClearPolitics about the demise of the Clinton coalition.

A year later, this process is far more advanced than it was when Republicans won two governorships in Virginia and New Jersey. White Democrats and Independents have been silently deserting the Democratic Party. Combined with the anger of the Republican base, this movement within White America toward the GOP sheds considerable light on the Tea Party and its likely trajectory.

The story begins in the Early Republic when the Democratic Party emerged and succeeded in overthrowing the Federalist Party. For two hundred years thereafter, the Democratic Party was the champion of the common White man against the Whig and Republican monied interests.

The base of the Democratic Party was located in the South and Border States. These Jacksonian Democrats – culturally conservative, hawkish, populist Whites - sustained the party from Andrew Jackson through Bill Clinton.

In the twentieth century, this slowly began to change. Progressives moved into the Democratic Party under Woodrow Wilson and became more influential under FDR. Jews became an increasingly more powerful and influential faction within the Democratic coalition.

Under FDR, the Democratic Party began its long courtship with black voters. As blacks, Jews, and White liberals became more influential within the party, the first cracks began to appear in the Jacksonian base. The Dixiecrats in the Deep South rebelled against Truman.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the Republicans exploited the White backlash against the Civil Rights Movement to peel off a significant number of Jacksonians, but they remained a small minority within the Republican coalition. Blacks voted solidly Democratic after the Voting Rights Act.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the Democratic Party migrated further to the Left, and the ensuing White backlash resulted in landslide victories for Nixon and Reagan. In spite of this, Jacksonians remained a minority within the traditional Republican coalition.

In the 1990s, the South began to tilt dramatically toward the Republican Party. Jacksonians were now evenly divided between the Republican and Democratic parties. Still, there were enough Jacksonians around for Bill Clinton to build a winning coalition and reside in the White House for eight years.

Under George W. Bush, the Jacksonian exodus continued, now reaching a point where terms like “Red America” and “Blue America” entered mainstream political discourse. In 2000 and 2004, the Jacksonian abandonment of the Democratic Party cost Al Gore and John Kerry the presidency.

By the mid-2000s, Jacksonians had become the base of the Republican Party. They had given the GOP the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court, but the GOP establishment blocked their agenda. This collapse in confidence resulted in the Republican blowouts of 2006 and 2008.

Barack Obama was elected President.

This was interpreted by superficial observers as evidence of a progressive realignment of American politics that would last for decades. Obama, the Democratic majority, and the liberal base of the party had waited years for this opportunity and seized upon it to advance their agenda.

In the process, they succeeded in driving out almost all of the remaining Jacksonians from the Democratic Party. This fresh influx of Whites into the Republican Party completed the realignment that began with the Dixiecrat rebellion. It has been half a century since the Jacksonians were united under a common political umbrella.

Political gravity is now working its magic.

With all the Jacksonians now in the Republican Party, the GOP establishment is too weak to maintain its traditional dominance. The conservative base of the party is ousting the establishment and succeeding in remaking it in its own image.

Now that all the Jacksonians have abandoned the Democratic Party, the power and influence of Jews, non-White minorities, and White liberals within the party has been magnified even further. The brakes are gone on the liberal agenda.

This is having the effect of pushing out the socially liberal, fiscally conservative Whites who live in the suburbs outside the major cities. They are leaning toward the Republicans this year. As the fiscal ramifications of the Jacksonian exodus to the GOP becomes clear, they too will likely find themselves settling down in their new home...MORE...LINK
President Andrew Jackson: model politician for the tea party movement?


Puppet Obama sicks the dogs of State on his own left-wing for its Palestinian-solidarity activism

The Obama Boomerang

Pro-Obama lefties get slapped down – by the FBI
( -- by Justin Raimondo --

FBI raids on six houses in Minneapolis and Chicago, including the office of the Minneapolis Antiwar Committee, have the antiwar movement – and the left in general – in an uproar. Agents came barging into homes guns drawn, kicking down doors and smashing furniture, armed with search warrants. The warrants described, in suitably vague terms, allegations of “material support for terrorism.” No arrests were made, although a number of individual activists were served with subpoenas demanding their appearance before a grand jury. Computers, documents, phones, and other materials were carted away by burly FBI agents, who appeared at 7 a.m. sharp, locked and loaded.

Let the frame-ups begin!

This Palmer raids-style fishing expedition is apparently aimed at members and supporters of an obscure Marxist grouplet, the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO), a Maoist remnant founded in the 1960s which came out of the “new communist movement” documented in Max Elbaum’s Revolution in the Air. What drew the attention of the authorities to FRSO was apparently their “solidarity” work on behalf of the Palestinians and a Colombian leftist insurgency known as FARC...

The target of the raids, the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, is interesting because its history gives us a capsule summary of what happened to the antiwar movement of the 1960s and 70s – and a lesson in why the current antiwar movement is floundering.

FRSO came out of the generational radicalization that created Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and energized a mass left-wing student-based movement. When SDS splintered into a couple dozen fragments in a frenzy of factional warfare, FRSO emerged from one of the splinters known as the Revolutionary Youth Movement (II) – the Revolutionary Youth Movement (I) being something altogether different, you see. In any case, as more and more of these young radicals began to go into real estate, or take up Zen Buddhism, the dead-enders either joined the Weathermen and went underground, or else joined one of the plonky neo-Stalinist “parties” – i.e. sects – that sprang up like mushrooms on a fallen tree.

FRSO was one such grouplet, formed out of the merger of the Maoist Revolutionary Workers’ Headquarters (which had previously split from the Revolutionary Communist Party), and the Proletarian Unity League. Both of these groups had been highly critical of the “ultra-left” doctrine, tactics, and strategy of the Maoist movement, and sought to salvage those activists who survived the flight to bourgeois respectability...

The Left Refoundationists went into the Democratic party, and were active in “Progressives for Obama,” an outfit cooked up by Tom Hayden, FRSO-“Left Refoundationist” and AFL-CIO bureaucrat Bill Fletcher, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Danny Glover, whose job it was to get these former militant commies to the polls on behalf of the Great Change. The orthodox FRSO-ers, on the other hand, continued along the “Marxist-Leninist” path, meeting with leftist insurgents in South America and occupied Palestine, but still feeling the pull of the Great Change. As their “Main Political Report” on the domestic situation for 2010 puts it:

“The election of Barack Obama as the first African American President of the United States is a contradictory event. In part the election of Obama was a referendum on race in the United States, a referendum that came out surprisingly positive … Obama’s election represents a rejection of the Bush administration policies and a desire amongst the people for a progressive agenda from the government. Immediately following his election there was a sense of optimism and a feeling that change is possible. This is a very good development after so many years of Bush. ”

I wonder if they’ll revise that last sentence in light of recent developments.

I think it’s safe to say the antiwar movement was unprepared for this kind of attack from an administration they hailed as “a very good development,” and I’m not just talking about FRSO. The idea that the election of a black man whose resume reads “community organizer” is going to change the face of US imperialism even slightly is an illusion brought on by the identity politics that have long since replaced Marxism (or any coherent ‘ism) in the canons of the left. If many have wondered who let the air out of the antiwar movement, it was precisely those “radical” leftists who, like the “orthodox” Marxists of FRSO, signed on as the “left” wing of the Obama cult. That’s why they didn’t see the mailed fist of the State coming even when it was a few inches from their faces.

The Minneapolis and Chicago raids are just the beginning. The logic of the “war on terrorism,” and its legal machinery here on the home front, is an ever-expanding campaign to associate political dissent – and, specifically, dissent from our interventionist foreign policy – with violence and treason. And it will be a lot easier to pull this off under a “progressive” veneer. Remember, Bush’s political police just spied covertly, as well as targeting Islamic charities and shutting several down: Obama’s KGB is conducting open raids on the offices of domestic antiwar organizations. Anybody who gave a dime, or an hour of their time, to the Minneapolis and Chicago antiwar groups in which FRSO involved itself is now apt to be on an FBI “terrorist watch list.” Under this “progressive” President, the FBI isn’t just taking photos of us at antiwar events and following us to the grocery store: it’s kicking down the front door and taking our stuff...

The ruling elite has never been more nervous, because their rule has never been more brittle: the economic collapse foreshadows a political collapse that can only be prevented by a crackdown and general tightening of the rules of the American “democratic” system. They’re making up these new rules as they go along, and the process is still ongoing, but of one thing we can be certain: the Constitution is a dead letter. It no longer exists except as a document kept under glass, venerated but never obeyed...MORE...LINK

Chris Moore comments:

Zionism is a comprehensive ideology, not unlike Communism and Fascism. In fact, it has elements of both, in that it seeks to use a vast, monolithic, authoritarian State in pursuit of its particularistic agenda.

Americans of both Left and Right are having an incredibly hard time coming to terms with the fact that there is essentially a Zionist shadow government that straddles both parties that is for all intents and purposes running the country, but obviously Obama knows this, and Obviously Bush knew this, because in both cases it's been integral to their agenda and governance.

We need to quit thinking of Zionism as an Israeli issue or a Mideast issue or a Jewish issue; it is THE issue of our times. Those who dismiss this by now self-evident fact are likely in its thrall -- whether they even know it or not. Denying its centrality to our politics and even our culture is how it has heretofore been so successfully able to operate under the radar and penetrate our way of life so thoroughly. Additionally, both the post-Christian statist-globalist Left, and the post-Western globalist Right have their own reasons for denying Zionism's centrality, and none of them are noble or pretty, having to do with their complicity both materially and in spiritual outlook.

Flushing Zionism out into the open in order to force the compromised elite to make a public choice is half the battle; once they've made their choice, whichever way the go, the dye is cast.

State assassination of US citizens: Obama surpasses even neocon Bush in illegal "national security" authoritarianism

Obama argues his assassination program is a "state secret"

( -- by Glenn Greenwald --

At this point, I didn't believe it was possible, but the Obama administration has just reached an all-new low in its abysmal civil liberties record. In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality...

If the President has the power to order American citizens killed with no due process, and to do so in such complete secrecy that no courts can even review his decisions, then what doesn't he have the power to do? Just for the moment, I'll note that The New York Times' Charlie Savage, two weeks ago, wrote about the possibility that Obama might raise this argument, and quoted the far-right, Bush-supporting, executive-power-revering lawyer David Rivkin as follows:
The government's increasing use of the state secrets doctrine to shield its actions from judicial review has been contentious. Some officials have argued that invoking it in the Awlaki matter, about which so much is already public, would risk a backlash. David Rivkin, a lawyer in the White House of President George H. W. Bush, echoed that concern.

"I'm a huge fan of executive power, but if someone came up to you and said the government wants to target you and you can't even talk about it in court to try to stop it, that’s too harsh even for me," he said.
Having debated him before, I genuinely didn't think it was possible for any President to concoct an assertion of executive power and secrecy that would be excessive and alarming to David Rivkin, but Barack Obama managed to do that, too. Obama's now asserting a power so radical -- the right to kill American citizens and do so in total secrecy, beyond even the reach of the courts -- that it's "too harsh even for" one of the most far-right War on Terror cheerleading-lawyers in the nation. But that power is certainly not "too harsh" for the kind-hearted Constitutional Scholar we elected as President, nor for his hordes of all-justifying supporters soon to place themselves to the right of David Rivkin as they explain why this is all perfectly justified. One other thing, as always: vote Democrat, because the Republicans are scary!...MORE...LINK

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Globalist-agenda money powers and their liberal lackeys declare war on US Constitution, tea partiers, and US Founders as outdated and backward

Rothschild and CIA Publications Attack “Constitution-worshipers”

( -- by Kurt Nimmo --

The Economist is owned by members of the Rothschild banking family of England. It is run by the Economist Group, a known CIA front.

According to the Economist, the framers were aristocrats who “did not believe that poor men, or any women, let alone slaves, should have the vote.” The Constitution does not address the “hard questions thrown up by modern politics,” namely should gays be allowed to marry?

The Economist argument against the Constitution is the same one used by liberal academics. The document is antiquated, the product of a bygone era. The founders were afraid of “democracy taking hold,” so they crafted a document designed to exclude the common people and preserve their aristocratic position.

Globalists love democracy. It is an easy enough task to fool the people, especially these days with 24-7 media and satellite television. It is a relatively simple matter to have the benighted masses vote away their natural rights under some cooked up false pretense. “Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote,” wrote Marvin Simkin. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

Soon after the Economist article appeared, the establishment publication Foreign Policy posted an article slamming the idea that we should follow the Constitution. Joshua Keating writes that he suspects “most Americans don’t realize quite how old the Constitution is by world standards,” that is to say globalist standards. In order to make his point, Keating cites an article published in the Onion, a popular satire publication...

The CFR wants “to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the United States,” Admiral Chester Ward, a former member of the CFR, warned. In order to realize their one-world government scheme, the CFR and the ruling elite must undermine the sovereignty of the United States.

It must also undermine and subvert the Tea Party movement and the popular move to restore the constitutional foundation of the country.

The twin articles appearing in the Economist — at the behest of Rothschild and the City of London banking elite — and Foreign Policy — controlled by the Council On Foreign Relations — are designed to make constitutionalists appear to be not only infantile idealists who idolize an archaic document that the globalists argue has no relevance in our modern era of gay marriage, but also as dangerous people who suffer from mental illness...MORE...LINK

Shills for the state: Neocons frustrated because Americans concentrating on corrupt Washington instead "threat" from far-off Iran decoy

Neocons in Retreat

(The American Conservative) -- by Jack Hunter --

Neo-Bolshevik Washington's institutional bias in favor of special classes of citizens has devolved into endemic anti-White racism

Justice Department is Biased Officials Say

(The New American) -- by Bruce Walker --

Christopher Coates used to be the voting chief for the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. On Friday, September 24, he gave testimony under oath before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about the attitude of the Department of Justice toward civil rights violations against white Americans.

Most egregious was the videotaped voter intimidation by New Black Panther members in Philadelphia in the 2008 election. Coates said: "As important as the mandate in the Voting Rights Act is to protect minority voters, white voters also have an interest in being able to go to the polls without having race-haters such as Black Panther King Samir Shabazz whose public rhetoric includes such statements as 'kill cracker babies' standing at the entrance of the polling place with a billy club in his hand hurling racial slurs at voters."

Coates is not the first former employee of the Department of Justice to raise this issue. E. Christian Adams testified in July 2010 that the agency showed hostility to civil rights cases in which the alleged perpetrators were black and the victims were white. Coates said that civil rights attorneys were pressured by the NAACP as well as by individuals within the Department of Justice itself to dismiss the case. He further noted that when the Department of Justice pursued a voter intimidation case against a black official in Mississippi in 2005, that there was a similar backlash within the department and by the NAACP.

The case exposes the problems caused when government tries to especially protect a certain class of citizens. The supporters of those departments and bureaus tasked to protect those particular citizens almost inevitably are special-interest organizations like the NAACP. And it is not unusual for bureaucrats to leave government for a cushy job in one of those special-interest firms. The relationship, almost inevitably, becomes incestuous. This grows, over time, into an institutional bias which seems quite natural to those who inhabit the closed world of advocacy for these special classes of citizens...MORE...LINK

Corrupt Establishment, statist-authoritarians fear and loathe those who mistrust authority; go figure

Tea and Anarchy

(The American Conservative) -- by Thomas E. Woods Jr. --

According to Slate editor-in-chief Jacob Weisberg, a specter is haunting America: the specter of anarchism. Not real anarchism – that’s Weisberg’s emotional hypochondria at work – but merely a growing skepticism of authority.

This won’t do at all. Americans were born to be ruled by people and ideas of which Jacob Weisberg approves, and they are supposed to like it, or at least shut up about it. If they absolutely must complain, their complaints and modes of resistance must be kept within bounds approved of by Slate, a division of the Washington Post Company.

In other words, if these uppity peons would just stick to ideas and strategies chosen for them by their enemies, it would be easier for our betters to tolerate them.

Let’s hear from Weisberg himself. “The Tea Party movement has two defining traits: status anxiety and anarchism…. [It’s] a movement predominated by middle-class, middle-aged white men angry about the expansion of government and hostile to societal change.” I like Lew Rockwell’s reply: “Weisberg, need I mention, is a middle-class, middle-aged white man angry about any opposition to the expansion of government, and hostile to societal change not directed from the top. Oh, and no intellectual important in the current order is anxious about losing his status.”

The “Tea Party” designation refers to a diverse lot, and Weisberg is exaggerating its anti-establishment features. Some Tea Partiers speak of “taking our country back” while looking forward to pulling the lever for Mitt Romney in 2012, or think Sarah Palin, a complete nonentity, is a “maverick” despite being in Bill Kristol’s hip pocket. This branch of the Tea Party poses no threat to any established interest, and in fact strengthens the regime by misdirecting justifiable anger into officially approved channels.

But there is a sliver of genuine rebelliousness to be found here and there in the Tea Party, and it is this that Weisberg finds so awful and scary. “What’s new and most distinctive about the Tea Party,” he writes, “is its streak of anarchism – its antagonism toward any authority, its belligerent style of self-expression, and its lack of any coherent program or alternative to the policies it condemns.” Perhaps worst of all, Weisberg huffs, the peons don’t trust the experts, a designation they insist on preceding with the adjective “so-called”!

They don’t trust the experts? I can’t imagine why. Could it be that the experts told us the economy was fine in 2006? (James Galbraith admits this: only about a dozen economists predicted the financial crisis, according to him, though – natch – he pretends the Austrian economists do not exist.) Or maybe it’s because economist Paul Krugman said in 2001 that what the economy needed was low interest rates to spur housing – the very thing that gave rise to the housing bubble. Or maybe because Ben Bernanke denied there was a housing bubble, said lending standards were sound, denied that the subprime problem would spill over into the rest of the economy – there’s no real need to go on, since one of those uppity anarchists has collected these and other whoppers into one of those authority-undermining YouTubes that are destroying America.

I can’t resist one more example: Just two months before Fannie and Freddie collapsed and were taken over by the government, then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson told reporters not to worry: after all, he said, their regulator reported that they are adequately capitalized. When called on this two months later, Paulson denied having misled anyone: “I never said the company was well-capitalized. What I said is the regulator said they are adequately capitalized.”

See, Jake, people don’t trust someone like that...MORE...LINK

While tea partiers want Ron Paul style small government, GOP leadership only slightly less fraudulent than totally bankrupt Big Government Dems

Are Republicans Serious About Their "Pledge to America"?

(The New American) -- by Michael Tennant --

...As a Democrat partisan, [New York Times columnist Paul] Krugman naturally claims that the Republicans are making “nonsensical promises” while the Democrats are being sober and responsible in their public pronouncements. When the Obama administration forecasts impossibly low spending and deficits far into the future despite ever-increasing spending (including ObamaCare), its projections are merely “somewhat too optimistic” and “a matter of technical details,” according to the columnist. On the other hand, he avers, Republicans are making “war on arithmetic” by promising lower deficits in the future without specifying what programs they will cut to achieve this objective. As a result, he says, if the GOP takes Congress in November, “Banana republic, here we come.”

In truth, we’re probably headed down that path no matter which party is in control come January. Krugman is correct that Republicans are mathematically challenged; it’s his inability to recognize that Democrats suffer from the same disability that makes reading his column so frustrating.

The subject of Krugman’s piece is the Republicans’ “Pledge to America,” released on Sept. 23. He writes, “In essence, what they say is, ‘Deficits are a terrible thing. Let’s make them much bigger.’” By that he means that while Republicans complain repeatedly about federal debt in their document, their only “substantive policy proposal is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent,” thus supposedly reducing federal revenue, while simultaneously proposing next to no specific spending reductions. Krugman explains:

"True, the document talks about the need to cut spending. But as far as I can see, there’s only one specific cut proposed — canceling the rest of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which Republicans claim (implausibly) would save $16 billion. That’s less than half of 1 percent of the budget cost of those tax cuts. As for the rest, everything must be cut, in ways not specified — “except for common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops.” In other words, Social Security, Medicare and the defense budget are off-limits."

Regardless of Krugman’s partisan pedigree, these are reasonable criticisms. The GOP has essentially declared the overwhelming majority of the federal budget, including the two largest and most unsustainable entitlement programs, immune from its supposed full frontal assault on out-of-control spending.

The New Republic’s Ed Kilgore, too, spots the inconsistency between Republicans’ conservative rhetoric and the reality of their Pledge. The document, says Kilgore, highlights the gap between grassroots, Tea Party-type activists, who seem to want genuine federal retrenchment, and the GOP leadership, which just wants to be in charge of the spending spree...

In fact, Kilgore adds, the House Republicans’ commitment to fiscal responsibility is so anemic that the Pledge “fails to promise a balanced federal budget, or even the hoary symbolic demand for a balanced budget constitutional amendment.”...

Krugman’s assertion that the GOP isn’t serious about cutting government is, therefore, on the mark. Why, then, does he fear that the party, if given power, will implement “its real, not-so-secret agenda, which mainly involves privatizing and dismantling Medicare and Social Security”? Where does Krugman even get the idea that most Republican politicians want to do such things? Ron Paul is probably the only person in Washington who is serious about eliminating these programs, and even he has stated that he would do so gradually. George W. Bush’s so-called Social Security privatization plan was never much more than a campaign gimmick and would, in any event, have done little to reduce the program’s long-term liability.

In the end, Krugman recognizes that even if the GOP does have some hidden slash-and-burn agenda, it didn’t implement it the last time it was in power; in fact, it did just the opposite. “So,” he writes, “the clear and present danger isn’t that the G.O.P. will be able to achieve its long-run goals. It is, rather, that Republicans will gain just enough power to make the country ungovernable, unable to address its fiscal problems or anything else in a serious way.” In other words, Krugman worries that those foolish, unserious Republicans will get in the way of the super-intelligent, highly responsible Obama and his agenda — the one that is already shattering Bush’s deficit records. We can only hope that he isn’t fretting over nothing...MORE...LINK

Friday, September 24, 2010

Corrupt to the core: Another entitled, Establishment GOP has-been loses to a tea-partier -- and toys with extracting revenge for the Dark Side

Mike Castle Ponders Write-in Campaign

(The New American) -- by Bruce Walker --

Congressman Mike Castle, a longtime fixture in Delaware politics, who lost his race in the Republican nomination for the Senate seat vacated by Joe Biden, is pondering an independent write-in campaign for that Senate seat. The rationale is a little fuzzy. Castle has been a lifelong Republican, a former governor, a congressman with many terms under his belt, and he ran in the primary of his party and lost. Castle has declined to endorse the Republican who bested him, Christine O’Donnell.

The Republican congressman did not seem upset, however, when O’Donnell undertook to challenge Senator Biden in 2008, which in an election year that also had Biden as the vice presidential nominee of the Democrat Party, made him a prohibitive favorite. O’Donnell still managed to get 35 percent of the vote in that election. Christine O’Donnell has three times challenged powerful Delaware politicians in seeking to represent Delaware in the Senate: Castle in 2010, Biden in 2008, and Carper (Senator and former Governor) in 2006. At a time when Americans seem unhappier than ever, O’Donnell seems to truly challenge the status quo.

Castle, however, has been an elected official continuously for the last 44 years, serving first in the Delaware House of Representatives, then the Delaware State Senate, then as lieutenant governor, then as governor and, since 1992, as U.S. representative. What, precisely, does Castle plan to offer if he mounts a write-in campaign? “New ideas” would not seem to be on the list: He has already served in five different elected offices and no great reforms have attached to his name.

Mike Castle seems to have the (Alaska Senator) “Lisa Murkowski” or (Florida Governor) “Charlie Crist” syndrome: Run in the Republican primary, lose in a fair fight, and then decline to endorse the candidate who defeats you. His endorsement could help O’Donnell win — she is within striking distance now — but his pique at losing a primary election seems to have overwhelmed any stronger instincts...MORE...LINK

Decrepit, bitter old lemon-sucker Mike Castle resents the fresh face and small government ideas of Christine O'Donnell and the Tea Partiers, who show him and his Establishment GOP/neocon comrades up for the purveyors of leviathan corruption, greed and warmongering they are


Feminism, another ploy in the leviathan left-liberal and State Capitalist war against the Christian basis of Western Civilization

Created Unequal

(The American Conservative) -- by Patrick J. Buchanan --

If you would understand why America has lost the dynamism she had in the 1950s and 1960s, consider the new Paycheck Fairness Act passed by the House 256 to 162.

The need for such a law, writes Valerie Jarrett, the ranking woman in Barack Obama’s White House, is that “working women are still paid only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man.”

But why is that a concern of the U.S. government, and where is the empirical evidence that an inequality of pay between the sexes is proof of sexist hostility to women?

On average, Asians earn more than Hispanics; blacks less than whites. Mormons earn more than Muslims; Jews more than Jehovah’s Witnesses. And Polish Americans earn more than Puerto Ricans.

Does that prove America is a racist and religiously bigoted country?

The assumption of the Jarrett-backed law is that the sexes are equal in capacity, aptitude, drive and interest, and if there is a disparity in pay, only bigotry can explain it.

But are there not other, simpler answers for why women earn less?

Perhaps half of American women leave the job market during their lives, sometimes for decades, to raise children, which puts them behind men who never leave the workforce. Women gravitate to teaching, nursing, secretarial and service work, which pay less than jobs where men predominate: mining, manufacturing, construction and the military.
Over 95 percent of our 40,000 dead and wounded from Afghanistan and Iraq were men. Men in prison outnumber women 10 to one. Is that the result of sex discrimination?

Sports have become a national obsession, and among the most rewarded professions in fame and fortune. And TV viewers prefer to watch male athletes compete in baseball, basketball, football, hockey, golf, tennis and boxing.

Is unequal pay for men and women professional athletes a matter for the government?...MORE...LINK

Chris Moore comments:

Jarrett's gambit is yet more tactical, left-wing enmity-stirring designed to pit groups against each other, engender hostility and resentment, and peel off the embittered into the left-coalition by promising them that the lefties have a program to correct the “discrimination.” Of course, its all a swindle. More and more “liberated” American women enslaved by their jobs, prostituted by the system, and angry over having no children or having no time for their children or having a “liberated” husband who tomcats around town sanctioned and congratulated by hipster liberal society for having gotten over his sexual “hang ups” can see the scam for what it is.

Contrast the cynical, permanent revolution, perpetual swords-point, atheist-materialist “liberal” value system (which goes hand in hand with the amoral, atheist-materialist State Capitalist system) with the values and harmony of the Christian social and moral system.

This is who the fight is really between: those who embrace the traditional Christian value system of Western Civilization (and who have been marginalized by a government-backed, hostile “post-Christian” elite) vs. those who seek to incite constant rebellion against Christian moral authority in order to feather their own nests, serve their own narrow personal, social and political agendas, and satisfy their infantile desire -- born of arrested development -- to spit in the face of any kind of Christian morality.

With immoral and amoral sleaze like this running the country, it’s no wonder we’re at perpetual war both at home and abroad.

America's house is way out of order. It’s time to take out the trash.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

The real state of the Union: Far worse than we've been led to believe by the mirage-constructing elites and their media shills

Forget a Recession, The Empire is Crumbling

(Gains Pain and Capital) -- by Graham Summers --

I look around me and I see an Empire in Decline.

The US economy is clearly in a depression… not a recession, not a recovery, but a DEPRESSION of a moral, social, and financial nature.

More than 40 million Americans (12%) are on Food stamps. Nearly one in five of us are unemployed of underemployed. Folks go to Wal-Mart at 11PM waiting for their government checks to clear at midnight so they can buy baby formula, milk and other necessities.

Three out of every five Americans are overweight. One in five are obese. Indeed, there are only two areas (one state, Colorado, and Washington DC) where obesity rates are under 20%.

Nearly three in four of us don’t get enough sleep. Almost one third of us report having trouble falling asleep EVERY night. And almost half of us report that day-time sleepiness interferes with normal activities including work.

Half of marriages end in divorce. One out of ten married couples report sleeping alone. The average American watches 28 hours of TV a week (enough to qualify for a part-time job). Two thirds of us eat dinner while watching TV, preferring the fake, sensationalized lives of others to engaging with our own families.

The TV and media are filled with foul, ungodly images of sex, violence, and hate. The most watched shows of the last decade all feature ordinary folks becoming superstars in lottery-esque competitions (American Idol, Survivor, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, etc) OR crime sagas detailing the most sordid and disgusting elements of society (CSI, Law and Order, etc) OR amoral social dramas in which notions of personal responsibility, fidelity, and common decency are unknown (Desperate Housewives, the Bachelorette, etc).

Today, brain dead, vapid human beings who have contributed nothing to society are idolized and followed as though they invented the wheel. We’ve actually got two industries devoted to presenting the illusion and reality of celebrity: Hollywood shows the photo-shopped, CGI-enhanced, scripted version, while the paparazzi and weekly glossies reveal the drug-addicted, affair-crazed, family breaking, soul-less emptiness.

Sex or violence are plastered on virtually every flat surface available. Even the check-out lines at the grocery store feature endless images of barely clothed women along with headlines sensationalizing gruesome behavior, right out in the open for children to see. And if the kid can actually read the headlines… God only knows what ideas this stuff is putting into their heads.

Financially, we’re all pretty much bust or going bust (except those on Wall Street).

New home sales in July were a RECORD low. Not record as in for the year, but the lowest since 1963. The talking heads are high fiving because sales improved in August, but failed to note that they were still DOWN 19% from August 2009 levels.

Americans two primary assets for retirement (stocks and their homes) have both been absolute disasters. Home prices are down 30%, stocks haven’t produced gains in over a decade. Every moron on TV talks about the Dow 10,000 like it’s a miracle. But when you adjust the Dow for inflation, (using the BLS’ ridiculous CPI measure) the Dow is SUB-500 in terms of purchasing power.

Our money system is controlled by an elite banking oligarchy fronted by academics who have never run a business, invented anything, or had any interaction with commerce aside from vying for tenure. Our currency is now worth less than 1/20th of what it was a century ago. And we are ALL in debt up to our eyeballs on a personal, corporate, local, state, and federal level.

Heck, even USA TODAY (not exactly the cutting edge in financial research) notes that in order to pay off our current liabilities, every US family would have to pay $31,000 a year… for 75 YEARS!!!...MORE...LINK

New "Pledge to America" just another gimmick; Congressional pledge to Constitution is already supposed to limit government-- and is routinely violated

New Contract With America to be Unveiled

(The New American) -- by Charles Scaliger --

History is about to repeat itself, if the activity of House Republicans is any indication.

First, a primer for those unfamiliar with electoral politics 16 years ago. In fall of 1994, the Republican Party was making electoral hay over widespread anger at Democratic President Bill Clinton, a fresh face who, two years before, had been elected on a platform of change. And change President Clinton brought: on his first day in office, he signed an executive order overturning the military’s long-standing ban on homosexuals, creating with the stroke of a pen the so-called “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that continues to stir controversy. Faced with huge budget deficits, President Clinton raised taxes sharply. His wife, meanwhile, was leading an aggressive task force charged with overhauling the American healthcare system. And there were unending allegations of moral impropriety on the part of the President. The American electorate, feeling betrayed by Clinton’s radical agenda and sick of their obvious prevarications, was in a mood for change.

Enter the Republican Party, whose most visible representative in those days was Representative Newt Gingrich. With the support of other Republicans in Congress, who were in a minority in both houses, Gingrich and his allies (who included John Boehner, now the House Minority Leader) unveiled a new plan that they promised to enact if Republican majorities were elected to Congress. Called the “Contract with America,” the Republican program consisted of eight planks for enactment on their first day in office...

During their first 100 days in office, Republicans additionally promised in the Contract with America to enact balanced budget legislation, tax cuts for small businesses and families, term limits for all lawmakers, and Social Security and welfare reforms.

Most of the Contract with America died in the Senate or failed to see light of day at all. Without reviewing all the sordid details, suffice it to say that the freshman Republican class of 1994 failed miserably to deliver on its promises of smaller government and an end to corruption on Capitol Hill. By 2000, Edward Crane, president of the Cato Institute, could observe that “the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%.”

However, as a number of sober observers, including The John Birch Society, pointed out 16 years ago, the Contract with America was itself a bogus program, a distraction from the inconvenient fact that a contract already existed, then as now, between America and her political leaders in Washington. It’s called the United States Constitution, and it lays out, in clear, unambiguous language, what the powers delegated to the various branches of the federal government are to be (the word “federal,” by the way, comes from the Latin foedus, meaning “covenant” or “contract”).

One thing that the Constitution does is limit the size and power of the federal government. No power not enumerated in the Constitution may be exercised by the federal government, as James Madison, the father of the Constitution, explained clearly in The Federalist, #45...

Unfortunately, this crystal clear doctrine of enumerated powers hasn’t stopped federal legislators from passing laws and regulatory bodies dealing with everything from education to food quality, and from spending money on projects as diverse as crop price supports and foreign aid — none of which is mentioned in the Constitution.

The Contract with America was thus a clever counterfeit, a substitute program to distract the electorate from the contract every legislator swears an oath to uphold, and whose limitations on federal power clearly invalidate at least three fourths of everything the federal government does nowadays. Note that the 1994 Contract did not promise to eliminate unconstitutional programs like Social Security and welfare, but merely to reform them. While it made a few laudable procedural proposals to render the activities of lawmakers more transparent to public scrutiny, it did nothing to address the real problem confronting America, then as now: the size and constitutional legitimacy of government...

Fast forward to fall of 2010, and once again, an energetic young Democratic president is on the electoral hot seat. Like President Clinton, President Obama is deeply unpopular for his radicalism and for his love of big government. Although President Obama has yet to raise taxes, the mounting debts his administration has created will eventually come home to roost. Further, Obama the Populist lost little time, once in office, in approving hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts for corporations deemed too important and well-connected to fail...

As if on cue, Congressional Republicans have just announced (wait for it!) the unveiling on Thursday of a brand-new Contract with America. Although the particulars will not be revealed until tomorrow, Republican leaders have informed the AFP that the platform of the new Contract with America will include “a proposal to freeze non-essential federal spending at current levels for the next two years” and “a reaffirmation of the party's support to extend tax breaks put in place during former president George W. Bush's first term in the White House and due to expire on December 31.”

In other words, every indication suggests that the old canard, tax cuts, will be coupled with a commitment to freeze — not reduce — non-essential federal spending for the next two years; in other words, the new Contract is designed to perpetuate the status quo (and presumably not even that in the case of supposedly essential spending). We are safe in predicting that there will be nary a word in the new Contract with America about the Constitution, and no effort to actually reduce the size of government or the amount of government spending.

After all, changes like that would be truly revolutionary...MORE...LINK
FIRE IN THE MINDS OF REPTILES: From Statist Left to Right, the modern American elite who thought they knew better than the Founders (or at least professed to in order to swindle average Americans) have burned the Constitution, and the country, to a crisp

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Establishment-left, hipster liberal Jon Stewart mocks Tea Partiers for speaking truth to power

FNC's Gutfeld Mocks 'Daily Show' Rally: 'This is What Passes for Rebellion in the Media'

( -- by Jeff Poor --

While it seems like so many of Jon Stewart's adoring fans in the media are elated to see a counter-Tea Party, not many have been willing to call this event what it is - an event to belittle people who are exercising their rights as citizens to protest their government.

But Fox News Channel's Greg Gutfeld, the host of "Red Eye" took a stab at it on his Sept. 22 program. Unfortunately, it broadcasts on at 3 a.m. Eastern time (and still manages to beat CNN's prime time lineup in the ratings). In case you missed it, Gutfeld applauded the event as a gimmick, but questioned the sincerity of it as a true meaningful political rally.

"So last week Jon Stewart announced he was going to hold a rally of his own in Washington D.C., to restore reason, sanity or whatever," Gutfeld said. "[N]ow, it's a cute idea - not as good as a gay bar next to a mosque [something Gutfeld had proposed in response to the "Ground Zero Mosque"] - but it's an appropriate, hipster response to the tea parties and Glenn Beck's thing. It's exactly the thing that the bald nerdy guy in glasses from The New York Times subscription commercial might attend and feel totally good about himself afterward - which raises an interesting question: would Stewart have announced his event if those other events had a decidedly liberal tilt?"

According to Gutfeld, had the Tea Party been a left-of-center movement, no. In fact, this was just a means to poke fun at the Tea Party protestors.

"Short answer: no," he continued. "Long answer: noooooooooooooooooooooooo, which makes the jokiness of the stunt wear off fast. Think about it - what Stewart is doing is not speaking truth to power, but poking fun at the people who are speaking truth to power. I mean, Stewart isn't going after politicians or leaders - he's mocking people who are standing up to politicians and leaders."

Gutfeld offered proof that Stewart, while claiming to offer a "million moderate march," is really just another instrument of the left-wing establishment - since there's fear it could jeopardize some of the Democratic candidate's chances in the upcoming midterm election.

"While the Tea Party is a ‘bottom-up' phenomenon, Stewart is on top, looking down," Gutfeld continued. "His is a reaction from the establishment, not against. Here's proof: Yesterday Democrats actually complained that Stewart's rally being too close to the elections will hurt the Democrat's chances. They worry their supporters will be more inclined to hit the rally before the election rather than campaign. Translation: Stewart will harm the establishment left, because he is the establishment left."...MORE...LINK

Chris Moore comments:

Jon Stewart is just another Big Media Jew doing the bidding of Big Money Jewish Zionists who own the Democrat Party. His legion of adoring fans planning to attend this "counter extremist" demonstration are liberal airheads and sleazeballs too stupid to know they're being used by Jewish supremacists and warmongers who utilize Big Government to advance their racist, authoritarian agenda and taxpayer-thieving swindles.

Unfortunately, the entire seedy lot of them is what passes for "liberalism" in America today.