Friday, October 31, 2008
You Should Be a Ghost
You are seen as shy and introverted. You like to blend in... or disappear.
You see Halloween as the day you can sit back and enjoy what other people are doing.
You don't scare all that easily on Halloween. If anything, you tend to scare people.
You don't try to be scary, but you do tend to lurk around and catch people by surprise.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
October 28, 2008
Dear Mr. Hamilton,
It is certainly become clear to me in spite of the efforts of certain individuals, that Coach Fulmer for whatever reason has loss his team. Whether it is because he has trouble relating to players or whether it may be that he is more interested in being their friend than their coach, I would not know for sure. But one thing is clear: he is so stuck on his ways that he can’t change and thus, other teams that have changed over the past few years be it head coaches, schemes, better recruiting, etc… and includes among others Alabama, Southern Cal and Missouri have moved ahead and are enjoying Top 25 rankings, but most importantly, they are winning on the field where it counts.
Hopefully, at the least, some thought will be given now to potential coaches to interview should Fulmer and UT decide to part ways at the end of the season. This way, there will be a plan in place to hire a new head coach and things won’t blow up in our faces due to lack of anticipation and planning. I don’t believe that any current coaches on the staff will suffice although conceivably several assistants might stay should the new head coach decide on that.
Cincinnati's Brian Kelly, Missouri's Gary Pinkel, University of South Florida's Jim Leavitt, Boise State's Chris Petersen and Missouri offensive coordinator Dave Christensen are some potential coaches who you may be interested in interviewing.
A distant possibility would be Tampa Bay Buccaneers coach Jon Gruden, who was a graduate assistant in Knoxville in 1986-87 and whose wife is a former Tennessee cheerleader. But a distant possibility nonetheless.
In any event, it will take millions to buy-out Fulmer's contract and millions more to bring in a halfway respectable head coach. All the great ones will not be coming here since their current school would simply give them a bigger raise if they aren't under a long-term contact already. So forget Bob Stoops, Pete Carroll, etc... Yes, UT did well with Bruce Pearl. But in all honesty, if he had failed, no one would have paid any attention giving the basketball program had been floundering for 15-20 years prior to his hire. Just as Kentucky and Duke are primarily basketball schools, UT is primarily a football school and coaches wouldn’t last long if the football program had a similar track record to the basketball program from the time Don DeVoe left to when Pearl was hired. So it is important to get things right and preferably the first time.
I would like to have a coach who respects UT's history and traditions, but will bring new ideas and not be afraid to buck the system when such a situation warrants it.
Of course, you are always free to contact me. I'm interested in a career change and understand the nuances of football as well as anyone around. I just didn't get to play much in high school due to my small size at the time and usually coaches get their start because they played in high school and/or college. Only time will tell, but whatever happens happens.
I don’t know what the future holds, but I can only pray that for all parties involved, that things work out for the best.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Melamine contamination is NOT limited to infant formula in China.
It has been found in candies, cakes, cookies, crackers, coffee/dairy combinations, and egg powder in countries all over the world including the US and Switzerland.
Friday, October 24, 2008
While during these times of financial instability most of our attention turns to Wall Street and Washington, the fiscal policies that our individual governors persue can greatly lessen or worsen the situation within our given states. The Cato Institute recently released their 2008 Fiscal Report Card for American Governors. The criteria is fairly straight forward. Tax and/or spending increases lower the governors’ scores, while tax and/or spending cuts will raise them.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Now don't get me wrong, I was glad that Turner Classic Movies (TCM) played Suspicion on Joan Fontaine's Birthday. But if I was calling the shots (why I never get to call the shots I don't know. Do I lack ambition?), I would have had an all-day tribute to Joan. The movies I would have liked to have seen assuming twelve movies are aired during their regular programming day would be the following:
The Women (1939)
This Above All (1942)
The Constant Nymph (1943*)
Jane Eyre (1944)
Frenchman's Creek (1944)
From This Day Forward (1946)
Letter from an Unknown Woman (1948)
Born to Be Bad (1950)
Island In The Sun (1957)
The Witches (1966)
*As much as I would like to see the Constant Nymph, it is my understanding it has been tied up with copyright disputes, so whether we will ever actually get to see this is very unlikely.
By Jason Pratt
(Chapter 11 of The Liberty Dollar Solution to the Federal Reserve)
The national debt is a constant source of anguish for concerned Americans and economists, and rightly so. It's persistently higher both in real terms and as a percentage of GDP than it ever has been, save the few years we were fighting World War II. Year after year, Federal deficits mean that Congress spends more than it takes in, and borrows the rest, ratcheting the debt even higher. On top of that, the interest payments continue to grow as the debt grows, and they take a bigger and bigger chunk from the Federal budget each year. There seems to be no way to ever pay the off. Looming over us at nearly $7 trillion, the debt threatens our standard of living, our way of life, and the wealth and prosperity we hope to bequeath to our grandchildren.
But is it really that big of a deal? After all, life seems normal to the average American, who goes about his daily routine as if there was no debt burden. If it's such a problem, why hasn't the world ended? Aren't we just going to pay this big debt off one day, making the whole concern irrelevant? And what if we don't?
This chapter addresses those questions. In summary, the national debt is a giant and growing problem facing Americans who live today, and those who have not yet been born. It is a true debt in every sense of the word. It must be repaid and not just to ourselves as many argue. It's possibly the biggest legacy of the 20th century United States, and the largest financial mess this nation will ever have to clean up. In short, the debt is a measure of how we're doing as a country at living within our means, ensuring freedom and limited government, and protecting our future posterity. And the score doesn't look so good.
THE DEBT: AN OVERVIEW
The day before President Bush signed the tax cut of 2003, he quietly and without ceremony signed another piece of legislation that raised the legal debt ceiling for the United States by $984 billion. He did this because his Administration knew that the tax cuts were going to pass, and if they did, the country would need to borrow money. Tax cuts are generally a good thing for the economy, but unless spending is reduced along with them, they mean only more debt. When presented with the bill for his tax cut, Bush essentially whipped out the credit card.
According to the Bureau of the Public Debt, the current debt (including what the government calls "intragovernmental holdings") is around $6.54 trillion in June of 2003, and is expected to rise to well over $7 trillion in the next few years. Each time we get close to the legal ceiling, Congress and the President just raise the ceiling and keep on borrowing. The debt has been steadily increasing since the early 1970s, not coincidentally the era in which Nixon repudiated the gold standard. Figure 1 demonstrates that the federal debt equates to $21,777 per man, woman and child in the U.S at the end of 2002. My 5-year old daughter already owes $21,777 to those who hold the Federal debt. So does my 1-year old son, who doesn't even have any money yet. My wife and I each do, too. Actually, we all owe more than that, since we're now almost through 2003. And what about that alarming uptick at the end of the chart?
All this doesn't count state, local, and private debt which adds another $30 trillion or so on top of the $6 trillion in current Federal debt and an additional, unbelievable $40 trillion in Federal unfunded liabilities (made up of future Medicare and Social Security benefits yet to be paid), per a recent report from the U.S. Treasury Department., for a total of $76 trillion in debt over ten years of production for the entire U.S. economy! It would take us ten years of exporting everything we produce, eating nothing and buying nothing (obviously impossible even for ten days, much less ten years) to pay that debt.
What are the potential consequences of a huge and growing national debt? First, whether we pay off the debt or not, interest rates will trend higher as the amount of public debt crowds out private credit markets and reduces the amount of capital available for private loans. While we thought 18% prime rates were bad in the 1970s, we really haven't seen anything yet, if the debt trend continues.
Second, taxes will have to increase to keep paying the interest and principal on the debt. There's no way to keep borrowing money, lower taxes, and simultaneously reduce the debt. Most people feel like their Federal income taxes are high enough, and the prospect of raising them by the amount needed to pay off the debt in any reasonable timeframe is enough to cause a revolt.
As taxes and interest rates increase, the cost of living for the average working family goes through the roof. Therefore, the standard of living that the average American enjoys drops as the debt crisis escalates. Fewer vacations, smaller houses, older cars, and fewer educational opportunities for the kids ï¿½ this is not the stuff of the American dream.
There are only a few choices we have for getting out of this pickle, and most of them aren't easy to face. The most important task is to drastically reduce Federal spending. If you don't turn off the water, it makes no sense to start draining the bathtub. Congress must reign in its amount of spending if we're ever to get back on track to fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, if you've been watching Washington you know that Republicans and Democrats seem incapable of keeping the budget steady, much less reducing it.
Lowering spending is the common sense, logical part of the solution. The remainder of it is more politically charged, controversial, and unproven. There are several options: we could inflate the currency so much that the debt payments are easier to pay, but in doing so we incur even more debt for the future and we wreck the livelihood for many Americans, especially savers and the elderly. Social Security and Medicare have a hard time keeping up with high inflation. Most observers think the Fed has learned that this isn't the right way to handle the debt problem.
We could repudiate the debt and tell our debtors that we're not going to pay. This would shake the very foundations of the world economy and would quite likely spell the end of the America we know. Since our ability to pay our debt backs our currency, and since our currency backs most other countries currencies (at least in part), the entire global financial system would likely collapse on any large-scale U.S. default. This isn't an option we're likely to choose voluntarily.
Many say we can just grow ourselves out of the debt by producing and exporting goods and services to people in other countries, who will pay us for them in dollars, which we can then use to pay down the debt. That's theoretically possible. But in reality, we're importing much more than we are exporting, measured by the U.S. current account. People in other countries don't seem to want what we are producing as much as we want what they are producing. Growing our way out of the debt seems impossible!
The only real option is to pay it off fair and square keeping inflation low but paying the debtors the money we owe them. The sooner we get this behind us and swear off persistent debt in the future the better our future will be. It makes no sense to do this if Federal spending is still so high that we have to borrow more to pay today's bills.
Some intrepid economists and politicians argue that debt is a good thing and has valuable properties, for example smoothing out the economy. It's true that debt has a useful purpose in the economy, but like the old saying, too much of a good thing is not good. How much is too much? Nobody knows for sure, but if the only way to find out is to keep borrowing until we break the bank, then the average American is in for a financial shock unlike anything he's ever experienced. It would be an encouraging sign if the debt went down, even a little bit, even for a little while. A debt that only goes up should worry even the biggest spendthrift.
THE DEBT AND MONEY
Now here's some irony: it's a good thing that we have all this debt, because without it we would have no money. Our Federal Reserve money supply is entirely debt-based, meaning that if the debt were all repaid, the money would disappear. This is an unbelievable and fascinating by-product of the money system we use in this country, indeed worldwide. It practically requires a large and growing national debt in order to function. The Federal Reserve finds that if it doesn't keep growing the money supply, the economy falters. So Congress obligingly raises the debt ceiling year after year (like they did just recently), and economists concoct all sorts of reasons why the market is demanding more liquidity or pricing in inflationary expectations. What's actually happening is that the debt machine needs to be fed with more debt, or else interest payments dry up, for the simple reason that when money is created as debt, the money to pay the interest payments is not created! Without a steady stream of increasing debt, the whole monetary system will collapse. At some point, maybe those who hold the debt might see this, get nervous and ask for repayment. We can hope that they don't.
Many ask what our money is. Is it backed by debt, based on debt, or is it debt? The best answer is that a Federal Reserve Note (FRN) is evidence of debt. It isn't backed by anything, because to be backed, an instrument must promise payment in something it is backing. With the FRN, the holder of it owns no identifiable piece of the national debt, and so there is no debt backing. Likewise, it is not actually debt in the sense that the bearer owes or is owed something; because the debt is owed to investors and central banks by the Federal government. The bearer of a dollar bill might be a French citizen, and therefore isn't obligated by the U.S. federal government's debt. So holding an FRN doesn't put one in debt position, or in a lending position.
The FRN is a piece of evidence that there exists on the books of the Federal Reserve one dollar in debt owed by the United States of America. That's it. Why do we use such a strange device as money in America? That's a good question, one that others can answer in a much longer chapter regarding the history, motivations, and origins of the Federal Reserve System. But like it or not, our money is nothing but evidence of debt.
So who do we owe all this debt to? We owe the debt to those who buy Treasury securities; 40% of it is owned to foreign investors and foreign banks. The remainder is held by a mixture of domestic investors and the Federal Reserve System, which is the "guaranteed buyer" of Treasuries for the government. Congress can always count on the Fed to buy its debt, no matter how bad things look. That's part of what the Fed was created for.
The debt that the FRN refers to is created when Congress authorizes the Treasury to sell debt (bonds) on the open market. The usual buyer of this debt is the Federal Reserve, who literally purchases it with money it prints out of thin air. For no cost other than the cost of printing the FRNs, the Federal Reserve becomes the owner of a valuable security a government bond that it can do with what it wishes. This is an amazing power granted to an institution whose members are not elected and whose operations are highly secretive. Any American, whether Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, or independent, should be suspect of such an arrangement.
On top of the debt created directly by the Federal Reserve when it buys government bonds, the commercial banks in the Federal Reserve banking system also create debt-based money called "checkbook money". When a customer goes to a neighborhood bank for a loan, the money given to the customer is created there, on the spot, from thin air. The only limit to the amount of such checkbook money that the bank can create, is the reserve requirement, or the amount of FRN currency the neighborhood bank has deposited at the Federal Reserve. Currently commercial banks need less than ten cents on deposit for every dollar in loans they create.
Many people have a hard time believing that loans from their local bank branch are money created from nothing, but in fact that is exactly what they are. The bank collects interest and principal back on something that cost nothing to produce. This is the awesome money power bestowed by the 1913 Congress on the Federal Reserve system, and because of the inherent tendencies of such a power, the debt load at all levels of the U.S. economy has continually grown over the 20th century, with few exceptions.
Looking today at the private debt programs available to average Americans, ranging from low-interest credit cards, high-interest payday loans, 6-months-same-as-cash purchasing arrangements at the local electronics retailer, Visa checks, cash advances, mortgages (adjustable, fixed, 30-year, 15-year, 10-year, 3/1, 5/1, 7/1, and balloon varieties), zero-down car loans, and the myriad other credit arrangements available from financial services outfits popping up around the country, it's clear that Americans are swimming in debt. We're up to our eyes in it and we're financing our high lifestyle today with our children's future consumption. Our politicians are no different, and are happily spending our future to pay for programs today.
What can be done? Can we avoid traveling further down the "Road to Serfdom" as Hayek so memorably named this situation? Will our children live in a socialist tyranny brought on by massive debt collapse? There have been other societies in history who became dependent on inflation and debt (most recently Weimar Germany just before the Nazis took over), and their record of prosperity, freedom and happiness is not good. We want to avoid this for our children and our country, and that's what the Liberty Dollar is about. Debt-free, real money that people can use voluntarily to reduce their dependence and everyone's dependence on crippling debt. If Congress isn't going to act, the people must! And the beauty is, even if you act out of pure self-interest, by using the Liberty Dollar you're doing the country a favor. What are you waiting for?
 In October 2002, I spoke with Mr. Harvey Rosenblum, Senior Vice President of Research at his office in the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. He mentioned that during the Clinton years, the Federal deficit was temporarily eliminated and the Administration was predicting surpluses as far as the eye could see.
Mr. Rosenblum told me that this presented an unexpected problem for the Federal Reserve, so they immediately put researchers on the task of finding some other asset to buy if the government stopped creating new debt. Corporate debt, foreign debt, and corporate stocks were all evaluated as possible assets to allow the Federal Reserve System to continue. I asked Mr. Rosenblum if gold and silver were ever considered as assets the Federal Reserve could buy. He looked around the room at the other economists who were assembled there, and quizzically said, No, I guess we never considered that.
Monday, October 20, 2008
I have an idea although hardly original: we should have all the women who currently serve in Congress wrestle in mud, baby oil, pudding, etc... The participants are free to choose what clothing they want to wear if any. LOL.
I could go on and on about the match-ups I would love to see. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee vs. Nancy Pelosi of California in mud, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota versus Michele M. Bachmann of Minnesota in baby oil, Maria Cantwell of Washington vs.Olympia Snowe of Maine in pudding, not to mention since Christmas will be here before you know it, how about Sarah Palin vs. Cindy McCain in an egg nog match?
"You never know what a football player is made of until he plays against Alabama."
- General Bob Neyland
Seven Maxims of Football
During the 1930s, Neyland began having his teams recite seven sentences that he felt summarized everything it took to win a game. These came to be known as "the Seven Maxims of Football," or "the Seven Game Maxims." To this day, Vol teams still recite them in the locker room before every game. Let just hope they remember them as well as reciting them.
* The team that makes the fewest mistakes will win.
* Play for and make the breaks and when one comes your way - SCORE.
* If at first the game - or the breaks - go against you, don't let up... put on more steam.
* Protect our kickers, our QB, our lead and our ball game.
* Ball, oskie, cover, block, cut and slice, pursue and gang tackle... for this is the WINNING EDGE.
* Press the kicking game. Here is where the breaks are made.
(Do we even have a Special Teams coach? Hire Me!)
* Carry the fight to our opponent and keep it there for 60 minutes.
For a more through history into this rivalry, go to The Third Saturday in October.
In the end, there was not enough Republican support for Hagel's bill to warrant bringing it up for a vote because Democrats also opposed it and the votes of some would be needed for passage. The measure died at the end of the 109th Congress.
McCain, R-Ariz., was not a target of the DCI campaign. He signed Hagel's letter and three weeks later signed on as a co-sponsor of the bill.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
by Dr. Ken Matto
Former Congressional Candidate, 6th District N.J.
"I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."
Did You Ever Wonder Why The National Debt Keeps Going Up and Up?
One of the most ungodly and fraudulent institutions ever perpetrated on the American people and the world, is the Federal Reserve System which through deceit became the central bank of the United States in 1913. The idea came about on a meeting in Jekyl Island off the coast of Georgia in 1910. The bankers in this country, especially J.P. Morgan, created a currency panic in 1907 in order to get the American people to accept the idea of a central bank.
A central bank already existed in England from as far back as 1694. The Rothschilds completely dominate the banking system. It is estimated their wealth goes into the trillions.
Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild boasted:
• "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply."
The idea of a central bank is to so enslave the people of the country to a debt money system that you continue to collect taxes continuously which just covers the interest. The duped people of the United States are paying about $300 billion dollars per year to the IRS which is the collection agency for the Federal Reserve. By the way, the Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank with 10 private members. The Chase Manhattan Bank is a member which is owned by the Rockefellers who are Rothschild Agents. I will list the ten member banks at the end of this article..
At this point the citizens of the United States falsely owe these lemmings about 9 trillion dollars.
Have you ever asked the following question?
WHO HAS THAT MUCH MONEY TO LOAN TO THE UNITED STATES?
History of Lies
During the time of the Babylonian captivity of Judah, a man named Jacob Egibi became the founding father of modern banking. While Judah was in captivity, Jacob began a business of loaning out money for a rate of interest. During the Reign of King Kandalanu of Babylon (circa 648-625 B.C.) a new phenomenon appeared on the scene which Jacob Egibi played a major part, and that was the invention of private banking. There were 2 prominent families at this time, they were the Egibi family and the Iranu families. These 2 families are not a figment of imagination as their names have appeared in many cuneiform tablets discovered by Archaeologists. It is believed that the Egibi family was taken with the first captivity into Assyria and then later migrated to Babylon. At the time of the 70 year captivity, Jacob Egibi already had an ongoing private banking business in which he collected large sums of interest. Now we have secular insight as to why many of the Jews did not want to return with Nehemiah to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem.
By the time of the end of the captivity, many of the others who were in captivity with the Egibi families learned this evil business practice and began to set up shop. A good example of this are the moneychangers which the Lord Jesus Christ threw out of the temple. As a friend of mine said to me many times, "Christ drove the moneychangers from the temple and was crucified 4 days later."
During the time of the Persian period, loan sharking became a business where interest rates of anywhere from 30-50% were charged. As time went on, the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus, tells us that during the reigns of Caesar Augustus (27 BC - 14 AD) and Tiberius (14-32 AD) records of the Roman empire reveal deposits, withdrawals, brokers fees and loans. When the western Roman Empire fell, banking continued to thrive in Egypt, Byzantium, and the Arab nations of the Red Sea.
When the Christian era began to take hold and the church became a powerful entity, she returned to the Old Testament Edict of not charging usury and this idea continued up until the time of the Renaissance when banks began appearing across Europe.
To show you how some kings despised usury, I offer 2 quotations:
...if any man is found taking usury, his lands will be confiscated, and he will be banished from England...
Alfred the Great, King of England; 849-901 A.D.
...If a man is found taking usury, his lands will be confiscated. It is like taking a man's life, and it must not be tolerated...
James 1, King of England; 1566-1625 A.D.
With the rise of international trade which commenced at the end of the medieval period, many of the banks were allowed to coin money for their transactions. At that time, there was no such thing as national money and when the banks minted coins, they were all of different value which created a dilemma for international trade. The first "Christian" gold coins were struck by Emperor Frederick II in 1225 A.D. Then came the "ducats'' of Portugal, the "florins" of Florence, the "agnels" of France, and the "sequins" which became the official coins of Genoa and Venice.
Europe then progressed from the Feudal system and with this came trade between different nations which resulted in foreign moneys accumulating in the various cities in Europe.
1694: The Year which Doomed the World's Economies
The government of King William III was in desperate need of money. When learning of this situation, a man named William Patterson put together a cartel of wealthy men, of which he was the leader.
Patterson and cronies agreed to loan the King 1,200,000 pound sterling which would have been approximately 6 million dollars at 8% interest per annum on the condition that the king would grant 2 things:
1) He would grant Patterson and his associates a charter which would name them "The Bank of England," and
2) This bank shall have the "sole and exclusive right" to issue notes to the fullest extent of its capital.
The people were having a problem with their gold and silver coins of which the bankers quickly came to the rescue.
The solution is aptly described by Professor Carroll Quigley in his book, Tragedy and Hope:
• ...for generations men had sought to avoid the one drawback of gold, its heaviness, by using pieces of paper to represent specific pieces of gold. Today we call such pieces of paper "gold certificates." Such a certificate entitled its bearer to exchange it for pieces of gold on demand, but in view of convenience of paper, only a small fraction of certificate holders ever did make such demands. It early became clear that gold need be held on hand only to the amount needed to cover the fraction of certificates likely to be presented for payment; accordingly the rest of the gold could be used for business purposes, or, what amounts to the same thing. A volume of certificates could be issued greater than the volume of gold reserved for payment....Such an excess volume of paper claims against reserves we now call bank notes. In effect, this creation of paper claims greater than the reserves available means that bankers were creating money out of nothing...
The King literally granted the Bank of England the legal right to print all the money that would be used in commerce by the people and the government. In other words the Bank of England became the sole money source of any currency that was used in English commerce by either the people or the government. If they needed more money, they simply printed it. It is said that by 1698 British government owed 16 X 10 to the 6 power pounds sterling to the Bank of England. Keep in mind this was only 4 years.
1773: The Second Date of Infamy
In 1773, a wealthy goldsmith and coin dealer named Mayer Amschel Bauer (1743-1812) summoned 12 wealthy and influential men to his place of business in Frankfurt, Germany. His purpose for the meeting was to impress upon these men that if they pooled their resources, it was possible to gain control of the wealth, natural resources, and manpower of the entire world. He then outlined a 25 point plan on how to accomplish it.
The plan was put into operation and evidentiary information exists that Bauer aligned himself with Adam Weishaupt who was the founder of the Illuminati whose aim was and still is world domination. Bauer later changed his name to Rothschild which means "red shield." He took it from the red sign which hung outside his place of business. The eagle was clutching 5 golden arrows in its claws. It was supposed to symbolize his five sons. Presently the red shield represents the official coat of arms of the city of Frankfurt, Germany.
Later on each of the five sons were dispatched to a major city in Europe to establish a branch of the Rothschild banking firm.
Son #1 - Amschel - Remained in Frankfurt and propelled Germany to financial success under Bismarck.
Son #2 - Salomon - Went to Vienna, Austria. he became a leader in the Austria-Hungary Empire.
Son #3 - Nathan Mayer - Went to England where he took control of the Bank of England.
Son #4 - Carl - Went to Naples where he became the most powerful man in Italy through his banking skills.
Son #5 - James Jacob - Went to Paris where he established the central bank. He was credited with dominating the financial destiny of the nation of France.
By 1850, the House of Rothschild represented more wealth than all the families of Europe.
Shortly after he formed the Bank of England, William Patterson lost control of it to Nathan Rothschild and here is how he did it:
• Nathan Rothschild was an observer on the day the Duke of Wellington defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, Belgium. He knew that with this information he could make a fortune. He later paid a sailor a big fee to take him across the English Channel in bad weather. The news of Napoleon's defeat would take a while to hit England. When Nathan arrived in London, he began selling securities and bonds in a panic. The other investors were deceived into believing that Napoleon won the war and was eyeing England so they began to sell their securities too. What they were unaware of is that Rothschild's agents were buying all the securities that were being sold in panic. In one day, the Rothschild fortune grew by one million pounds. They literally bought control of England for a few cents on the dollar. The same way the Rockefeller's went into Japan after World War 2 and bought everything 10 cents on the dollar. SONY=Standard Oil New York, a Rockefeller Company.
Frederick Morton wrote in his book, The Rothschilds:
• "...the wealth of the Rothschilds consists of the bankruptcy of nations."
There were other wealthy families in Europe and America which were allowed to join "the international banking club" such as John D. Rockefeller and John Pierpont Morgan.
Early American Wisdom
The Americans had won their political independence but their financial independence was in jeopardy. The international bankers had an agent in place and his name was Alexander Hamilton who wanted a central bank. Thomas Jefferson lobbied vehemently against the central bank stating it was contrary to the Constitution. However, a central bank was formed in 1781 known as the Bank of North America which was patterned after the Bank of England. The colonists wanted nothing to do with it so it folded in 1790. The international bankers countered the closing of the Bank of North America by gaining a charter for the Bank of the United States which was chartered on February 25, 1791. The Bank of France desired the formation of the US Bank also and it was chartered for 20 years.
In 1826, the second bank's charter was soon to expire and presidential candidate Andrew Jackson campaigned strongly against a central bank which was owned and operated by the international banking element.
Here is Jackson's opinion of those bankers:
• "You are a den of vipers. I intend to wipe you out, and by the Eternal God I will rout you out...If people only understood the rank injustice of the money and banking system, there would be a revolution by morning."
In 1836, the charter did expire but that was not the end of the international banking influence in this country. The Civil War was planned in England as far back as 1809. Slavery was not the real cause of the Civil War. The Rothschilds (who were heavy into the slave trade) used the slavery issue as "a divide and conquer strategy" which almost split the United States in two. The Bank of England financed the North while the Paris branch of the Rothschild bank funded the South. In 1863, the National Banking Act was passed despite protest by President Lincoln. This act allowed a private corporation the authority to issue our money.
In November of 1910, some of these vultures came together at the Jekyl Island Hunt Club on Jekyl Island, Georgia. What were they hunting? The biggest prize of all, the absolute and complete control of all the money in America which means control of all America and with it the power to make slaves of all the people.
Those who attended were: Senator Nelson Aldrich (Nelson Rockefeller's maternal grandfather); A. Piatt Andrew, Economist and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Frank Vanderlip, President of the National City Bank of New York; Henry P. Norton, President of Morgan's First National Bank of New York; Paul Moritz Warburg, a German who was partner in the New York banking house of Kuhn, Loeb Co.; Benjamin Strong, an aid to J. P. Morgan.
Paul Warburg was credited as the architect of the bill which was passed by Congress and signed by traitorous Woodrow Wilson. It was entitled the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. America once again had a central bank but this time they had placed America under an absolute dictatorship.
President James Garfield had insight into this situation:
• "It must be realized that whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolutely master of all industry commerce."
The Federal Reserve was incorporated in 1914 and has been creating a completely unnecessary national debt ever since. In simple terms, the Fed creates money as debt. They create money out of thin air by nothing more than a book entry. Whenever the members of the Fed make any loans, that debt money is our money supply.
The United States went bankrupt in 1938 because of this system. It took the Fed only 25 years to bankrupt the USA. Can you imagine how little time it would take these vultures to bankrupt a developing nation? The American people are paying about $300 billion dollars a year in interest to this phony organization. When you look in the Washington, D.C. phone book, you will not find the Federal Reserve in the Government section as they are a private concern.
The national debt is increased about $1.71 billion dollars every day (as of October 12, 2004) . Have you taken a look at your money? It says "Federal Reserve Note" which means it is an instrument of debt. There is no real money in circulation.
The Assassination of President Kennedy
One of the greatest coverups in history was the Killing of the President. If you believe the Mafia did it, then I have ocean front land in Kansas for you to buy. President Kennedy was murdered over money, $4 billion dollars worth. You see, he had printed $4 billion worth of non-interest bearing money which meant he began to chop at the profits of the vultures. Interest free money means the national debt is eliminated and the power of the international banking element is broken. So to prevent Kennedy from abolishing the illegal Fed, he was assassinated. Coincidence? As soon as the traitor Johnson was in office, he recalled all the debt free notes and continued our country in the same path of ruin. There, the mystery of the killing is over. Just follow the trail of the money.
Now that the Federal Reserve was firmly in place, schemes had to be constructed to get the government to borrow so a continuously growing national debt would happen. So here are some coincidences: The Federal Reserve is created in 1913, then in 1914 we have World War 1. Right at the end of World War 1, we have a depressed economy especially in the Weimar Republic where 2 billion marks could buy a loaf of bread. In 1917, we had the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. A man named Lord Alfred Milner was a front man and paymaster for the Rothschilds in Petrograd during the revolution. He later headed a secret organization called The Round Table which was dedicated to a one world government run by wealthy financiers under socialism.
Then, lo and behold, in the 1920's we see a little known corporal with 12 men meeting in a beer hall in Munich while in America the Roaring 20's were in progress until October, 1929. Then the Federal Reserve withheld money from circulation so bills could not be paid, while simultaneously they were calling in all their loans which caused the stock market to crash. By 1932 the price of stocks had plummeted 80%. When the bankers plunged this nation into a depression on that fateful day in October, at the New York Stock Exchange was a visitor, his name was Winston Churchill who stated after the crash of '29, "Now I know who wields the real power."
Then we come into the 1930's and the rise of Hitler. Hitler was also funded by Wall Street through the Industrialist I.G. Farben. Let's test the theory of follow the money. Here is a little known corporal with no money meeting in a beer hall in Munich with only about 12 men. In a seriously depressed and defeated country, there begins to rise another military dictatorship. By 1934 the Nuremberg Rallies were in place and Germany was rebuilt. In that countries' economy who had that much money to rebuild Germany into a powerful country which marched across Europe and almost defeated Russia in the first 24 hours of Case White (The invasion of Russia)? The answer is the bankers of the USA and England. In fact, a banker named Bernard Baruch was President Roosevelt's personal advisor during World War 2. Baruch made $200 million dollars as a result of World War 2. During WW2 the Rockefellers were selling oil to the Germans from their Standard Oil concern in Argentina.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) was formed in 1919 in Paris, France by Colonel Edward Mandell House who was known as Woodrow Wilson's alter ego. The CFR was and still is dedicated to the one world rule under a new world order. In fact, every war has been planned by the CFR. Every American President since 1919 has had their cabinet filled with CFR members. Also our traitorous Presidents fill their cabinets with not only CFR members but those of the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, the Yale Fraternity of the Skull and Bones (George Bush was a member of this).
These members insure that the will of the bankers are done, even if the President is not a member of any group. After WW2, was fought another war was created known as the Korean War (which was started by a phone call from John Foster Dulles), then the Vietnam War. During the Vietnamese War, the Rockefellers had a metals processing plant going full blast in North Vietnam. The Rockefellers have the blood of thousands of Americans on their hands because of their supplying the Russians with weapons and metals. The North Vietnamese received their weapons from Russia. The only reason these rats are never indicted for treason, is because since WW2 there has never been a declared war which means if we have no official enemy, there can be no aiding the enemy AKA treason.
Presently we have skirmishes such as the Gulf War of 1990 which was an experiment by the New World Order crowd to see how fast they can assemble an army in case a country does not choose to obey the dictates of the banker bosses. Of course funding for the gulf war came from borrowing money from the Fed. Wherever you hear of a limited war, or some type of political destabilization, think of the money trail. Wars are started in foreign countries, then our President goes there and gives millions of dollars of borrowed money which normally goes into the pockets of the dictators. Nowhere in our Constitution is it written that our government is to borrow money and give it away.
At this point I want you to click on the following web site and see the reality of the death of America:
The Debt Clock
The American economy has been sucked dry by the Federal Reserve System. Americans think they own property but the truth is the entire United States has been mortgaged to the bankers. The Rothschilds and Rockefellers become richer while the peoples of the world become poorer. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are also designed to loan money to developing nations with the understanding that they will never be able to repay so with every loan made to a country, it becomes their death knell. The entire world has been plunged into a debt economy which means 6 billion people are in debt to about 250 men. But keep in mind that all their wealth is phony because it is created money without any gold backing.
I really laugh when Wall Street bows down to Alan Greenspan who is nothing more than a boot licker of the International Banking element who takes his orders by phone too. So many people rejoice when the Federal Reserve has a policy meeting and no interest rate increase happens. The truth is that we should never have a Federal Reserve to begin with. They print money, loan it into circulation, and the American people are strapped with more debt.
I remember leaving materials on the Federal Reserve at a meeting of Concerned Women for America. The next day I went back and not one copy was taken. The reason given me was because it was not approved material. Groups like Concerned Women for America and the Christian Coalition and Rush Limbaugh are something known as controlled opposition. They are allowed to exist as long as they do not bring up the real issues. If they stick to the created liberal Democrat Vs. conservative Republican agenda, they can exist and the bankers will even make them famous. But you will never hear a Beverly LaHaye, Tim LaHaye, Jim Dobson, James Boice, Billy Graham, Gary Bauer, or any other famous Christians ever tackle the real issues like the illegal Fed which causes all the poverty in every country. If these people would think for a minute that if $300 billion dollars a year was not being sucked out of the economy and was used for the people in this country, we would surely have enough to help other nations and our own problems. Crime would almost be non-existent with a monetized money system. The Great Commission would also be funded without worrying if there will be enough left over to feed the children.
THE TEN MEMBER BANKS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE
All owned by the Rothschilds
Rothschild Bank of London
Warburg Bank of Hamburg
Rothschild Bank of Berlin
Lehman Brothers of New York
Lazard Brothers of Paris
Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy
Goldman, Sachs of New York
Warburg Bank of Amsterdam
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
Now ask a question - Where is the Federal Government of the United States listed and how much does it get? I will answer it for you, it is not listed because the Federal Reserve is private and it receives nothing.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
On Thursday night, I volunteered as a door greeter at the Tennessee Theatre for the Knoxville Symphony Orchestra's performance of Pyotr (Peter) Ilyich Tchaikovsky.
This is the first time I've ever attended a KSO event although I've followed some of their happenings in the local media. I sat up in the top balcony which was preferential since I could then observe all the instruments and performers with a bird's eye view. The performance was led by Lucas Richman, Music Director.
I suspect that if the roles were reversed and some angry Republican man had launched an unprovoked attack on a frail, bespectacled, Obama-supporting female the media would have had a field day, never letting this story off the front pages up until the election.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
You Are a Cinnamon Latte
Deep down, you are a sensitive soul. You just want to be loved and appreciated.
You may have a spicy attitude, but you're all sweetness on the inside.
You are dependable and loyal. You have you life together, and you're able to be there for other people.
You like nothing more than a warm, cozy house filled with friends and loved ones.
I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of all the stories about how Jennifer Love Hewitt, Eva Longoria and Cheryl Burke are "fat", "obese" or whatever.
Damn if you do and damn if you don't. Hollywood was never intended to be a (good) role model, so I wish people would quit already. Or is this purely a media invention? Besides, I prefer a woman with meat on her bones over looking like a concentration camp inmate any day. Plus, I'm not a fan of breast implants (although I acknowledge there may be medical reasons from time to time). Nowadays, even men are object of scorn because not all of them have a 28" waist and rock hard abs. Heck, I'm 20-25 pounds overweight based on their charts, but far from obese. It is just that I have never had rock hard abs and never will look like a professional bodybuilder and don't care to look like it either.
If you have been listening to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson lately (although hopefully not believing what he says), you would think that the housing problem is the root of our financial crisis. He is either wrong or lying.
The root of the problem can be traced to one simple fact: Most Americans simply do not know what a dollar is. Or to put it another way, they do not know what is not a dollar.
If you want to check this basic fact out for yourself, you might experiment with people with whom you do business, such as cashiers in restaurants and grocery stores. Here is the way I do it. When it is time to pay the bill, I ask if they accept Federal Reserve Notes. I tell them that all I have to pay the bill with are Federal Reserve Notes. They will pause, think for a few seconds and then tell me that they only accept various charge cards, checks or cash. I ask them if they are sure, and they assure me that they are. I then suggest that they check with their manager. (If you like a large audience, you can do this on a Friday evening in a busy supermarket). When the manager arrives, I almost always insist that the clerk ask the manager the same question. The clerk often forgets what it was I said I could pay with. When the manager is finally asked the same question, he or she will almost always give me the same negative answer: We do not accept Federal Reserve Notes. I then pull out a folded $20 bill (or any other denomination) from my shirt pocket and ask them to read the words at the top of the bill. The words clearly read: Federal Reserve Note.
What experiments as this will reveal is that most Americans do not even know what they are using for money.
But this is not all that one should know about those pieces of paper people think are dollars. Each piece of paper claims to be a note at the top, and claims to be a certain number of dollars at the bottom. Obviously, a note for a thing cannot be the thing. If a person had a note for one banana, he would not try to eat the paper. He would want to exchange the piece of paper for the real thing.
It gets even worse. The "notes" are not even legal notes. To be a legal note, the instrument must have a promise to pay by the signer (the payer), a payee, a definite sum of money and a due date. Prior to 1964, the Federal Reserve Notes (one-dollar bills and other denominations) contained all these elements. For example, at the bottom of the note, (just above the amount), the note read:
WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND
This phrase contained the promise (Will Pay), the payee (the Bearer) and the due date (On Demand).
In the upper left hand portion of the bill, it also read: THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, AND IS REDEEMABLE IN LAWFUL MONEY AT THE UNITED STATES TREASURY, OR AT ANY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK.
Today's paper currency contains no promise to pay, no payee, and no due date. It also no longer states that it is redeemable in lawful money. The lawful money of the United States is gold and silver coin. (Real money by definition is metallic money with intrinsic value.) Prior to 1964, a person could take a one-dollar note to Federal Reserve Bank and receive one silver coin know as the silver dollar. Or he could take a ten-dollar note and receive ten silver dollars.
However, if you take a Federal Reserve Note to a Federal Reserve Bank for redemption today, all they will give you is more of the same kind of paper. According to 12 U.S.C. 411, the law still requires redemption in lawful money. But just because the words redeemable in lawful money were removed, the note for a dollar did not magically become the dollar, just like no change of wording could change the note for a banana into the banana. Congress has also never declared Federal Reserve Notes to be dollars.
But what is a dollar? We all use the term dollar whenever we discuss the price of things we buy or sell and when we discuss debts. Yet, few people can properly define the term. When trying to guess what a dollar is, some people suggest it is a unit of measure. But that is not a sufficient answer. A unit of measure is constant and certain. An inch measures a certain distance. A pound constantly measures a certain weight. A quart measures a certain volume. In response to the suggestion that a dollar is a unit of measure, I respond by asking, If a dollar is a unit of measure, what does it measure? To this question, they have no answer.
The law states that United States money is expressed in dollars:
31 U.S.C. 5101: Decimal system
United States money is expressed in dollars, dimes or tenths, cents or hundredths, and mills or thousandths. A dime is a tenth of a dollar, a cent is a hundredth of a dollar, and a mill is a thousandth of a dollar. ''hundredths,''
But who determines what a dollar is? Can Congress determine what a dollar is? No, they don't have the authority to do so. What a dollar is today is what it was at the time the United States Constitution was written. The term dollar is used in the United States Constitution twice: once in Article 1, Sec. 9, cl. 1 and once in the Seventh Amendment. The United States Constitution is a document of limited powers. Congress doesn't have the authority to redefine terms used in the document to suit its own desires.
"Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised." Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
The President of the United States means today what it meant then. It does not mean longest serving senator from Tennessee. Congress could define 'Firearms', 'Gross Income', or even 'Federal Reserve Note', but it doesn't have the authority to define 'Arms', 'income', 'dollars', or even 'excise'. Instead what the courts have done is use the general dictionaries. I certainly found that to be true when the courts dealt with the matter of taxation.
The founding fathers would have not used the term 'dollar' if they didn't know what a dollar was and what its fixed value was. The Spanish milled dollar was the standard coin used in trade and business transaction in the colonies. This coin contained a certain amount of pure silver, minus any wear and tear the coin might have had. The Constitution states that: Congress shall have the power 'to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures'; Article 1, Sec. 8, cl. 5.
In Article 1, Sec. 10, cl. 1, it states that No State shall among other things, make anything but gold and silver coin a tender for payment of debt.
It would not be possible to build a house if a foot was not a set standard of measure just as it would be impossible to measure the weight of apples if a pound was 16 ounces one day and 12 ounces another day.
Since the dollar had been accepted as the official money unit of the United States, exact accuracy was needed in determining the value (the amount of pure silver) in a dollar (money unit). After some determinations, Congress defined the dollar as being 371.25 grains of silver. It then regulated the value of gold coins at 24.75 grains. This means you could exchange 15 grains of silver for every grain of gold. The Coinage Act of 1792 gave the new nation three gold coins (the Eagle or $10 gold piece, Half Eagle and Quarter Eagle); five silver coins (the Dollar, Half Dollar, Quarter, Dime (originally spelled Disme), Nickel (or half Disme); and two copper coins (the Cent and Half Cent). This is Constitutional money. Moreover, the Act provided all citizens access at the Mint to coin their gold, silver, and copper (free coinage) and established any debasement of the coinage as a capital offense! One complaint about gold and silver coin is that it is burdensome to carry around. It is entirely possible to use legal notes issued by a bank which are fully redeemable in lawful money.
Money based on gold and silver prevents arbitrary inflation and deflation. Today's money is not based on gold and silver. It is simply fiat money. When you hear about the Federal Reserve increasing the money supply, that doesn't mean that bankers are mining for gold and silver. They operate on fractional reserve banking. Think of it like creating money out of thin air. This is where the national debt comes from. It is also important to know that the Federal Reserve Banks "are not federal instrumentalities for purpose of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)
I remember when I was a kid, my grandfather said at one time he could have bought a car for $1,500, a house for $10,000 and feed a family of five on about $50 a month. I wondered why it seemed so cheap then. Only when I started to understand the money issue a few years ago that it all started to make sense. Alan Greenspan summed up the situation quite nicely: "Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights."
Monday, October 13, 2008
Once upon a time, banks were locally owned and run by people whom were your neighbors, friends, lunch buddy, etc... The bank was simply a warehouse for the depositor's money and the bank managers had to be careful about whom they were lending the depositor's money to. They made sure you were credit-worthy and had good references. You used warehouse receipts that were redeemable in lawful money. Then a new breed of banker came along roughly around the middle of the 20th century and from there, it was easy credit just for the sake of easy credit. Thriftiness and good monetary principles were out and convenience just for the sake of convenience was in. Federal Reserve Notes backed by the national debt ("good faith and credit") is another indicator of this mindset. These notes are certainly not backed by lawful money.
But nowadays, credit is getting harder to come by. While this may cause some short-term pain, in the long run, it is necessary. If you keep playing with fire, you will eventually get burned and many people have been burnt. Of course, the central banks of the world which caused the problem in the first place are now claiming they will fix it. But in reality, they just want to continue doing what they've been doing all along. They either don't care if they harm people or nations or will never learn so as long as they can consolidate their power and wealth.
But if this crisis is going to be overcome, it will have to be done at the grassroots level. We need to get back to basics. Stop leaving beyond your means and stop allowing yourself to be enticed by the bank's promises of easy credit which is created by fractional reserve banking.
*Coming tomorrow - what will the near future look like*
Sunday, October 12, 2008
This week, I will be posting my thoughts on the upcoming Great Depression II (history always repeats itself folks!). For now, here is an interesting read titled America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard:
President Hoover was proud of his experiment in cheap money, and in his speech to the business conference on December 5 (1929), he hailed the nation's good fortune in possessing the splendid Federal Reserve System, which had succeeded in saving shaky banks, had restored confidence, and had made capital more abundant by reducing interest rates. Hoover had done his part to spur the expansion by personally urging the banks to rediscount more extensively at the Federal Reserve Banks. Secretary Mellon issued one of his by now traditionally optimistic pronouncements that there was "plenty of credit available." And William Green issued a series of optimistic statements, commending the Federal Reserve's success in ending the depression. On November 22 (1929), Green said:
"All the factors which make for a quick and speedy industrial and economic recovery are present and evident. The Federal Reserve System is operating, serving as a barrier against financial demoralization. Within a few months industrial conditions will become normal, confidence and stabilization in industry and finance will be restored."
Terri Gruca has told me she is moving. She wrote that she is going to be the main anchor and investigative reporter at KVUE-TV in Austin, Texas.
"I'm really excited! It's a fantastic station in a beautiful city. So keep in touch and tell all those Knoxville folks if they're ever in Texas to look me up!"
She begins her new gig starting December 8. I wish you the best, Terri and let us know how things go.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
A Wasted Vote?
by Chuck Baldwin
October 10, 2008
When asked why they will not vote for a third party candidate, many people will respond by saying something like, "He cannot win." Or, "I don't want to waste my vote." It is true: America has not elected a third party candidate since 1860. Does that automatically mean, however, that every vote cast for one of the two major party candidates is not a wasted vote? I don't think so.
In the first place, a wasted vote is a vote for someone you know does not represent your own beliefs and principles. A wasted vote is a vote for someone you know will not lead the country in the way it should go. A wasted vote is a vote for the "lesser of two evils." Or, in the case of John McCain and Barack Obama, what we have is a choice between the "evil of two lessers."
Albert Einstein is credited with saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. For years now, Republicans and Democrats have been leading the country in the same basic direction: toward bigger and bigger government; more and more socialism, globalism, corporatism, and foreign interventionism; and the dismantling of constitutional liberties. Yet, voters continue to think that they are voting for "change" when they vote for a Republican or Democrat. This is truly insane!
Take a look at the recent $700 billion Wall Street bailout: both John McCain and Barack Obama endorsed and lobbied for it. Both McCain and Obama will continue to bail out these international banksters on the backs of the American taxpayers. Both McCain and Obama support giving illegal aliens amnesty and a path to citizenship. In the debate this past Tuesday night, both McCain and Obama expressed support for sending U.S. forces around the world for "peacekeeping" purposes. They also expressed support for sending combat forces against foreign countries even if those countries do not pose a threat to the United States. Neither Obama nor McCain will do anything to stem the tide of a burgeoning police state or a mushrooming New World Order. Both Obama and McCain support NAFTA and similar "free trade" deals. Neither candidate will do anything to rid America of the Federal Reserve, or work to eliminate the personal income tax, or disband the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Both Obama and McCain support the United Nations. So, pray tell, how is a vote for either McCain or Obama not a wasted vote?
But, back to the "he cannot win" argument: to vote for John McCain is to vote for a man who cannot win. Yes, I am saying it here and now: John McCain cannot win this election. The handwriting is on the wall. The Fat Lady is singing. It is all over. Finished. John McCain cannot win.
With only three weeks before the election, Barack Obama is pulling away. McCain has already pulled his campaign out of Michigan. In other key battleground states, McCain is slipping fast. He was ahead in Missouri; now it is a toss-up or leaning to Obama. A couple of weeks ago, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida were all leaning towards McCain, or at least toss-up states. Now, they are all leaning to Obama. Even the longtime GOP bellwether state of Indiana is moving toward Obama. In addition, new voter registrations are at an all-time high, and few of them are registering as Republicans. In fact, the Republican Party now claims only around 25% of the electorate, and Independents are increasingly leaning toward Obama.
Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama is headed for an electoral landslide victory over John McCain. John McCain can no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton.
I ask, therefore, Are not conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain guilty of the same thing that they accuse people who vote for third party candidates of doing? Are they not voting for someone who cannot win? Indeed, they are. In fact, conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain are not only voting for a man who cannot win, they are voting for a man who does not share their own beliefs and principles. If this is not insanity, nothing is!
So, why not (for once in your life, perhaps) cast a vote purely for principle! Vote for someone who is truly pro-life. Someone who would quickly secure our nation's borders, and end the invasion of our country by illegal aliens. Someone who would, on his first day in office, release Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean and fire U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. Someone who would immediately, upon assuming office, begin leading the charge to dismantle the Federal Reserve, overturn the 16th Amendment, expunge the IRS, and return America to sound money principles. Someone who would get the US out of the UN. Someone who would stop spending billions and trillions of dollars for foreign aid. Someone who would prosecute the Wall Street bankers who defrauded the American people out of billions of dollars. Someone who would work to repeal NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and stop the NAFTA superhighway. Someone who would say a resounding "No" to the New World Order. Someone who would stop using our brave men and women in uniform as global cops for the United Nations. Someone who would stop America's global adventurism and interventionism. Someone who would steadfastly support and defend the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
"Who is this person?" you ask. Go here to find out:
As John Quincy Adams said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote
alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
Friday, October 10, 2008
Photo Courtesy: Tactical Advantage
I've long been interested in court cases especially as it relates to matters of constitutional law. Specific cases would include the 2nd Amendment and how ironic that assailants of the 2nd Amendment say it is okay to trample on it (as well as the whole document itself) by claiming that the police will protect you and thus you don't need a firearm for self-defense. Guess what? They are lying!
This past Wednesday, an employee at the Knoxville Center Mall was shot to death. Now yes, police officers were on the scene within four minutes, but the damage was already done. The police don't prevent crimes. They only show up after the fact if they do at all. "If they do at all?" you ask. Yes. If they do at all. The police are not legally obligated to respond to any calls. So, you would not have legal case against them. There is plenty of case law that proves this to be true, two cases in particular. It call comes down to the general duty of the government (as if) and special relationships between particular parties.
"Here the effort to separate the hostile assailants from the victims -- a necessary part of the on-scene responsibility of the police -- adds nothing to the general duty owed the public and fails to create a relationship which imposes a special legal duty such as that created when there is a course of conduct, special knowledge of possible harm, or the actual use of individuals in the investigation."
The D.C. Court of Appeals went on to say that it is a `fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.''
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
The law in New York remains as decided by the Court of Appeals case Riss v. New York: the government is not liable even for a grossly negligent failure to protect a crime victim. In the Riss case, a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened "If I can't have you, not one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand", wrote a dissenting opinion, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (1968)
In other words this means the only people the police are duty-bound to protect are criminals in custody, and other persons in custody for such things as mental illness. YOU have no recourse if the police fail to respond or fail to protect you from injury! Self-defense is your own responsibility.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Of course, it’s the Fed that got America in this jam with fractional banking (banks loan out $10 for every $1 deposited) and fiat money policy (prints money at the whim of the government). Bank depositors today are paid about 2.6% interest while the stated rate of inflation is about double that figure. The actual rate of inflation is much higher still. Imagine, the consumer price index (an estimation of the cost of purchase of a basket of goods) does not include food or energy costs! Many sources estimate the actual inflation rate to be 11–12%. You are losing money just to give bankers an opportunity to use your funds. Given these figures, a $10,000 bank deposit loses, after interest is paid, about $840 a year in buying power. Just look at the dismal record of the Federal Reserve in preserving the value of the U.S. dollar. A rise in the consumer price index reflects a decline in the purchasing power of the dollar. This is just another form of quiet thievery of your money out the backdoor of the bank.
Some articles in recent weeks have made an issue that many Democrats are not voting for Barack Obama because he is black and a number of women are voting for the McCain-Palin ticket because the vice presidential candidate is a woman. Much in the same way most blacks vote for democrats because Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton tells them to. So, what about you? Are you voting Democrat because your grandparents who have been dead for 40 years were Democrat party officials? Are you voting for McCain because he was one of many POWs although he tries to make it sound as if he were a unique case.
I would like to think Americans are more robust in their choices, but when George W. Bush was elected for a second term, I wondered. Despite all the nonsense and abuse we take from the Democrat and Republican parties (Republicrats), the majority of people still vote for them. Talk about Battered Person Syndrome.
For the record, I'm voting for Chuck Baldwin.
Carmen Wong Ulrich, author of "Generation Debt: Take Control of Your Money--A How-to Guide" and host of CNBC's "On The Money" posted in a recent column about someone who asked her whether this is another Great Depression in which she replied “Nope.”
For the record, I have done some investing in the stock market, but I never ever throw all my eggs in one basket.
While I enjoy her writings, I think she has it wrong on this one. Why? Well for two reasons. Because history always repeats itself. Plus, even the "experts" get it wrong, much more often than not. They just don't tell you that. For those few people old enough to know, World War I wasn't referred to that by the people who were alive then because it was the "War to End All Wars". But alas, history repeats itself. Then came along the "Roaring 20's", then the Stock Market Crash in October of 1929 which has too often been referred to as the cause of the Great Depression. Again, they are wrong.
At the time and still today, the pundits blamed gold and the stock market for this calamity. The root cause of the Great Depression was neither as these were merely symptoms of the disease. Today, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson essentially blames American homeowners for the rash of foreclosures sweeping the nation. Again the symptom is being blamed as the cause. Is it any wonder why I don't trust doctors especially those with Ivy League degrees?
So what caused the Great Depression? What is the root cause of today's events? In one word: credit. They know it, but rely on people's ignorance about money to force feed propaganda and generally false information in order to obtain power. There is no greater power that one can have over another than fear and ignorance. Those stories from your grandparents about staying out of debt ring true as much today as they did then. Most people can't even give you the definition of a dollar.
But the symptom was blamed for the disease rather than the cause: "If shortage of bank reserves was causing a business decline, why not find a way of supplying increased reserves to the banks so they never need be short!" If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely — it was claimed — there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913. While publicly claiming to be a government agency, the 'Fed' is in fact a group of "privately owned and locally controlled corporations." Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government.
"When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve's attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning of the authorities involved was as follows: if the Federal Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks, interest rates in the United States would fall to a level comparable with those in Great Britain; this would act to stop Britain's gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of having to raise interest rates. The "Fed" succeeded; it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world, in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market, triggering a fantastic speculative boom. By 1929 the speculative imbalances led to a demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures." Alan Greenspan, Gold and Economic Freedom
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Fulmer, in his 16th season as head coach, is under fire after a 2-3 start. With games remaining at Georgia, Alabama, at South Carolina, Wyoming, at Vanderbilt and Kentucky, it's possible the Vols could have their second losing record in the past four seasons. Conceivably, they could lose all but the game against the Wyoming Cowboys and I can't even be too certain about a win over them either. I do know coach Joe Glenn will have them ready to go. I think Phil Fulmer's chances of coming back after this year are 50/50 with the way things are going now. It has become so bad that now the Athletic Director is making the call on who is to start at quarterback and they are also lying about their attendance figures at games and even then those figures are below what one would expect at UT games. If public pressure becomes enough, Mike Hamilton may have no choice but to concede and buy out his contract.
While the Vols won the SEC East last season, Fulmer hasn't guided Tennessee to an SEC title since 1998, the year the Vols also won the national championship. Since then, Alabama, LSU, Florida, Georgia and Auburn have won SEC crowns.
But remember that Fulmer signed a contract extension in the offseason, and he has a hefty buyout. Published reports indicate Fulmer would be owed $6 million, payable in 48 months. The first payment would be due the month after he is let go.
If Tennessee does replace Fulmer, among the early names being bandied about are recently fired Oakland Raiders head coach Lane Kiffin, Cincinnati's Brian Kelly, Missouri's Gary Pinkel, USF's Jim Leavitt, and Boise State's Chris Petersen to name a few.
Given Kiffin's connections to the West Coast, I think he would prefer to stay there particularly if the Washington or Washington State head coaching position were to become available at season's end.
Brian Kelly in my opinion of this group is the most likely candidate for the Volunteers head coaching position given his proximity to Knoxville and his proven track record of turning around programs.
Gary Pinkel is also a good possibility, but I'm certain Missouri will up the ante to keep him.
Leavitt signed an extension this past Spring that would pay him $12.6 million from the 2008–2014 seasons, with the annual starting salary of $1.5 million increasing by $100,000 each contract year.
Chris Peterson also is under contract through 2012 with a salary of around $850,000 a year.
Another possibility is Missouri offensive coordinator Dave Christensen. He's the architect of a Tigers attack that arguably is the best in the nation with quarterback Chase Daniels leading the way. And he soon figures to be a head coach. Christensen interviewed for the Washington State job last season, but the position was not appealing to him. He was on an early list for the SMU job but never got seriously involved. All of that will change this offseason for Christensen.
A distant possibility would be Tampa Bay Buccaneers coach Jon Gruden, who was a graduate assistant in Knoxville in 1986-87 and whose wife is a former Tennessee cheerleader. But a distant possibility nonetheless.
In any event, it will take millions to buy-out Fulmer's contract and millions more to bring in a halfway respectable head coach. All the great ones will not be coming here since their current school would simply give them a bigger raise if they aren't under a long-term contact already. So forget Bob Stoops, Pete Carroll, etc...
I would like to have a coach who respects UT's history and traditions, but will bring new ideas and not be afraid to buck the system when such a situation warrants it. My major concern is that even during the coaching search, UT could screw it up. Suppose the administration doesn't properly prepare in searching for prospective candidates and they end up being played like a classic carrot and stick story. In the end, we may have to settle for a second rate coach that was overpaid due to not getting "our guy" in the first place especially if a new coach isn't selected before national signing day.
Of course, they are always free to contact me. I'm interested in a career change and understand the nuances of football as well as anyone around. I just didn't get to play much in high school due to my small size (5'5", 130 pounds at the time) and usually coaches get their starts because they played in high school and/or college. Who knows! Only time will tell how things go, but whatever happens happens.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Darrell Castle Vice Presidential Candidate Of the Constitution Party
To Visit With Tennesseans
Nashville, Oct. 6th
Alternative Debate at Vanderbilt University
7:00 p.m. at Stevenson Center #4309
(Meet and Greet to Follow)
Kingsport, Oct. 9th
Kingsport Civic Center
6:00 – 8:00 p.m.
Speaking on the Bailout And What It Means
To American Families
(Public invited – No Charge)
OTHER EVENTS ARE BEING PLANNED
GO TO OUR EVENTS CALENDAR FOR MORE INFORMATION
Constitution Party Vice Presidential Candidate
Darrell L. Castle
Born, 1948, Kingsport, Tennessee.
Darrell has a Bachelor’s Degree in History and Political Science from East Tennessee State University. In 1979 he graduated with a Juris Doctorate from the University of Memphis Law School.
Darrell is a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corp. He served from 1970- 1974. His service as a 2nd Lieutenant in Viet Nam followed a family military tradition; his oldest brother served in the Army during World War II, another brother served as a Marine in the Korean War. Darrell left the Marine Corp a very different person than he was when he went in. It was a life changing event and his experience during those years has contributed to his strong belief that war should not be entered into capriciously, and, that the decision to go to war must be made according to constitutional provisions. Darrell firmly believes we must uphold Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which makes it clear that only Congress can declare war that those powers are not granted to the president.
Darrell served two terms as Constitution Party of Tennessee State Chairman, is serving his third term as Vice Chairman of the National Committee and two terms as Platform Chairman at the National Convention. Darrell has taught the Institute on the Constitution course and written articles and commentaries addressing national issues and analysis of current events. He spent the 4th of July this year on the Border with Mrs. Compean and Mrs. Ramos.
Since 2005, Darrell has served on the Board of the Conservative Caucus. He served as Chairman of the National Veterans Coalition (www.nvets.org), an outreach of the national Constitution Party, in 2007.
Darrell is an attorney in private practice with firms in Memphis, TN, St. Louis, MO, and Kansas City, MO. The Castle Law Firms specialize in Bankruptcy and Personal Injury.
Darrell has served the local church as deacon and deacon chairman. In 1998, he and wife Joan founded Mia’s Children Foundation, Inc. (www.miaschildren.org), a Christian mission in Bucharest, Romania which ministers to homeless gypsy children.
Darrell and his wife Joan have been married for 30 years and live in Germantown, TN. Their daughter Joanna and her husband Michael Miller serve with the Navigators Ministry at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.
Darrell is an attorney in private practice with firms in Memphis, TN, St. Louis, MO, and Kansas City, MO. The Castle Law Firms specialize in Bankruptcy and Personal Injury.
* Constitution Day 2008
* Should Fannie May and Freddie Mac Be Saved?
* Something Evil This Way Comes