Tuesday, January 26, 2010


As I stated recently, China is foreclosing on the U.S. They have their own asset managers working in the Obama administration. When the looting is complete, the collapse of the dollar will occur (at a time of the bankers’ choosing). What would it look like if the lender foreclosed on a country? Consider the following as an example (You might also consider what China and Soros have in common…the correct answer would be communism):

In Liberty,

John L Wadsworth

Today on a segment of the "Glen Beck Show" on FOX (Fox Cable News) was the following:

"Today, even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for our country, he signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil ! The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and NOT THE USA ! Now here's the real clincher...the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil".

We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever!

Wait, it gets more interesting.

Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign.

If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on any of the other news networks!

Forward this factual e-mail to others who care about this country and where it is going. Also, let all of your Government representatives know how you feel about this.

Below is the Wall street Journal article to confirm this.



Friday, January 22, 2010

Hey guys, consider the following quote:

“It looks like Beck will leave out the most salient and important fact about Stalin and Mao: they were funded and supported by Wall Street. Morgan, Rockefeller, and the Wall Street financiers funded and supported the Russian Revolution. Leon Trotsky was given $20 million in gold by the banker Jacob Schiff to help finance the revolution. Lenin was provided a free pass to travel across Europe with the help of Max Warburg, head of the Rothschild-affiliated Warburg bank. He was put in a sealed railway car with over $5 million in gold from the German government and upon reaching Petrograd was joined by Stalin and Trotsky.

“The course of Russian history has, indeed, been greatly affected by the operations of international bankers,” Rep. Louis T. McFadden, chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee throughout the 1920-30s, explained. “The Soviet Government has been given United States Treasury funds by the Federal Reserve Board… acting through the Chase Bank.”

“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history,” said David Rockefeller in 1973, years after Mao exterminated around 70 million people.

It would seem a “capitalist” like Rockefeller would be opposed to Mao and communism. Gary Allen explains: “If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs,” writes Allen. “Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.”

It remains to be seen if Beck will make this connection. It also remains to be seen if he will criticize the fact the Obama administration is packed with bankster agents from the Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs. This is infinitely more important than a few 1960s throwbacks waving around dogeared copies of Mao’s Little Red Book.”

As JBS correctly points out, “capital” is the means of production. In the communist system, and to a lesser degree in the socialist system, the means of production (capital) is controlled by a few oligarchs. Its hard to pierce their corporate veil and see behind it, but the banksters are sure to play their part.


Thursday, January 21, 2010

new government police force in anticipation of coming civil unrest

“A newly released Rand Corporation report proposes the federal government create a rapid deployment "Stabilization Police Force" that would be tasked with "shaping an environment before a conflict" and restoring order in times of war, natural disaster or national emergency.”


Guys, it is doubtful to me that this force is being created only for use overseas. There simply isn’t a reason for one. Interestingly, “Page 123 of the Rand Corporation report says the force would work best under a civilian federal agency or the military police.” Does that remind you of Obama’s Colorado Springs speech?

If you can’t see the coming tyranny, then wake yourself up. Ask God to open your eyes.


Monday, January 18, 2010

Listen to the undercover agent tell what Bill Ayers’ plan was for those who would not go along with the new Marxist makeover of America (i.e. how they would deal with those counterrevolutionaries who resist the communist “hope and change”):

Ayers launched Obama’s political career, and continues to work behind the scenes, having known ties to at least 8 people in the White House.


Saturday, January 16, 2010

the Coming Military Crackdown & what can be done

FYI – good reading, Steve

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?..." - Patrick Henry

This is indeed a truly masterful interview, lavishly powerful in its images...including the "After Thoughts".

Whether you "agree" or not with it's "totality" is not paramount; the thought process is.

It is a long and uniquely American work.....a "get a hot beverage, sit, read, digest and think" one...which you must, as your country depends upon that and you.

Quickly plan on forwarding this to anyone you think is "American" inside. Then, plan on when you can do a second, third or more reading.

OK, then...for those of you who care...and I hope that's all of you in my lists...onward, awaringly...


Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. on the Failure of the Public Sector, the Coming Military Crackdown and What Can Be Done to Stop It

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - with Scott Smith

Edwin Vieira, Jr.

The Daily Bell is pleased to publish an interview with the distinguished libertarian attorney and activist, Edwin Vieira, Jr.

Introduction: Dr. Vieira holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School). For over thirty-six years he has been a practicing attorney, specializing in cases that raise issues of constitutional law. He has presented numerous cases of import before the Supreme Court and written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals. His latest scholarly works are Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2d rev. ed. 2002), a comprehensive study of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective, and How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary (2004), a study of the problems of irresponsible "judicial supremacy", and how to deal with them. With well known libertarian trader Victor Sperandeo, he is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered "crash" of the Federal Reserve System, and the political revolution it causes. He is now working on an extensive project concerned with the constitutional "Militia of the Several States" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms."

Daily Bell: Thanks for sitting down with us. Let's get right to it. In your view, what are the most critical domestic problems facing America?

Edwin Vieira Jr.: Two stand out. The foremost problem-because it is the source of, or contributes significantly to, almost every economic difficulty now plaguing this country-is the inherent and ineradicable instability of the present monetary and banking systems centered around the Federal Reserve System.

The second problem derives from the first. It is the ever-accelerating development of a first-class para-militarized police-state apparatus centered around the United States Department of Homeland Security, with its tentacles reaching down into every police force throughout the States and localities. Fundamentally, this apparatus is not, and never was, designed to deal with international "terrorism". If that were its goal, its first task would be absolutely to secure the southern border of the United States, which it has never seriously attempted to do. Rather, it is being set up to deal with what the political-cum-financial Establishment anticipates (and I believe rightly so) will be massive social and political unrest bordering on chaos throughout America when the monetary and banking systems finally implode in the not-so-distant future-surely in hyperinflation, and probably in hyperinflation coupled with a gut-wrenching depression.

Of these two problems, the second is actually the more dangerous. For if (on whatever pretext) this police-state apparatus does succeed in clamping down on America, the likelihood of effecting basic reforms in money, banking, or anything else favorable to the American people will be reduced to something approaching nil, absent a veritable political uprising in this country.

Daily Bell: How can these two problems be solved?

Edwin Vieira Jr.: The problem of money and banking breaks down into two interrelated parts: one economic, the other political.

Economically, the problem lies in the commonly accepted fallacy that debt-whether the private debt of banks or the public debt of governmental treasuries-can function as sound currency over the long term. "Money" is supposed to be the most liquid of all assets-which is why the best moneys have always proven to be the precious metals, silver and gold. "Debt", conversely, is not an asset at all, but is someone's liability, the value of which is contingent upon the debtor's ability and willingness to pay, and often the creditor's ability to force the debtor to pay. The attempt to put into practice the self-contradictory notion that a liability payable in money can be an asset that functions as money-and that the ultimate debtor or surety in this scheme can be a governmental treasury, which usually cannot be compelled to pay in any event-has been tried again and again, in country after country, and failed again and again. For Heaven's sake, it was tried in this country with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and only about twenty years later utterly failed with the banking collapse of 1932, Franklin Roosevelt's seizure of the American people's gold, and the ensuing Great Depression that lasted throughout the 1930s! Right now, we are witnessing what will soon prove to be a more catastrophic failure of that same false idea embodied in that same pernicious institution. Apparently, as the old saw has it, "No one ever learns anything from history except that no one ever learns anything from history." Obviously, massive efforts in public education will be necessary to overcome this deplorable level of ignorance.

In our particular case, the problem also appears in a political form, actually dating from well before 1913: namely, the coupling of bank and state, whereby the government empowers private special-interests groups by statute to "manage" the monetary and banking systems-primarily for the economic benefit of those groups, but as well to the political advantage of the public officials, politicians, and political parties that support the system and receive support from it. The Federal Reserve System is such a coupling: the hermaphroditic creature of private enterprise and statute, at once both quasi-private and quasi-public in source, form, and functions.

Daily Bell: We call it mercantilism.

Edwin Vieira Jr.: Strictly speaking, it is a classic example of a corporative-state arrangement in the particular field of banking, exactly parallel to what Benito Mussolini set up throughout the economy of Fascist Italy, and to what Franklin Roosevelt established for all other American industries in the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (until the Supreme Court declared that act unconstitutional in 1935).

The reason for this unholy alliance between bank and state lies in the operation of "debt as currency": namely, that using "debt as currency"-and particularly "debt as currency" that can be paid through the emission of new "debt as currency"-allows for the essentially unlimited redistribution of real wealth from society to the issuers of the currency and their immediate clients.

When the redistribution favors bankers and their clients among private businessmen, it is called "forced savings"-the average America being compelled by the system to lose real wealth so that the bankers and businessmen can employ that wealth in their own speculative ventures. When the redistribution favors bankers and their clients among public officials, it is called "hidden taxation"-the average America being compelled by the system to lose real wealth so that public officials can buy more votes with more governmental spending (with the bankers taking a cut of the proceeds). In both cases, by the system's very design, the financial and political classes always benefit, the masses are always looted.

The truly vicious nature of this scheme, though, is now appearing in all its ugly nakedness in the multi-trillion-dollar bailouts that the financial Establishment is extorting, and will continue to extort, ultimately from the taxpayers and the victims of inflation, on the threat that, without such payoffs, the entire economy will melt down into irremediable chaos.

So, here we see the ultimate practical truth of the matter: Private financial special-interest groups buy politicians; in public office these politicians empower the special-interest groups by statute to manipulate the monetary and banking systems; to the extent that these manipulations succeed, the profits are largely privatized; and to the extent that the manipulations fail, the losses are almost entirely socialized. In either case, the general public is held hostage to the racket, and foots the gargantuan bill for its operation. And the guilty parties escape scot free to steal again, and again, and again.

Daily Bell: So what is to be done?

Edwin Vieira Jr.: In principle, this problem can be solved, if America enforces her Constitution. In practice, implementing such a solution will take no little time and effort, though, because: (i) the Federal Reserve System cannot simply be "abolished" at one fell swoop without generating massive dislocations throughout the markets; and (ii) the necessary reforms cannot arise out of the snake pit of Congress in the foreseeable future. Instead, Americans need to create an alternative constitutional and sound currency-actually consisting of, not simply "backed by", silver and gold-to compete with Federal Reserve Notes in the marketplace.

This step must be taken at the State level, for several reasons. First, it cannot be done through Congress, because Congress is thoroughly in the vampiric embrace of the financial Establishment. Second, the States enjoy the legal authority to adopt an alternative currency-indeed, as the Constitution declares, "No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". Third, the States' exercise of their legal authority to adopt an alternative currency is constitutionally immune from interference by Congress, as even the Supreme Court has held on more than one occasion. Fourth, the States have a political and legal responsibility to their own citizens to protect the public health, safety, and welfare-which necessitates adopting a sound currency to replace the collapsing Federal Reserve Note before it is too late. And fifth, among the fifty States there must be at least a few in which the political and economic climate is such that State legislators can be convinced to take appropriate action.

Once the experiment has been tried and proven workable in one State, it will quickly spread to others, because no alternative exists, other than supine and stupid acquiescence in the collapse of the Federal Reserve System, with all the dire consequences that will entail.

Daily Bell: We at the Daily Bell are of a free-banking caste, and we often have discussions with what we call Brownians - those who, like Ellen Brown herself, believe that money is the province of the state and that gold and silver are merely commodities until the state stamps them with its authorized mark. We disagree. What do you say?

Edwin Vieira Jr.: The people who believe in "the state theory of money" need to study what the Austrian School of Economics teaches about money, and in particular "the regression theorem" that explains the origin of money. Gold and silver did not become money because some "state" first authorized them as such. Various states throughout history adopted gold and silver as money because markets (particularly in interregional or international trade) were using the precious metals for that purpose. Indeed, that is the explanation for the adoption of the "dollar" (actually, the silver Spanish milled dollar) as the unit of American currency, both under the Articles of Confederation and then explicitly in the Constitution.

More recently, of course, various states, including rogue public officials in the United States, have tried to "demonetize" and then demonize gold and silver in vain attempts to compel free markets to comply with officialdom's generally uneconomic and often blatantly tyrannical political policies. Roosevelt's gold seizure of the 1930s is the pre-eminent example in recent American history.

If gold and silver could function as money only because some state authorized such use, though, there would be no need for states to expend such efforts to "demonetize" the precious metals. Simply withdrawing a state's formal authorization would suffice. So, the veritable war that many states have felt it necessary to wage against specie money, and particularly gold, during most of the Twentieth Century renders rather implausible "the state theory of money".

Daily Bell: Do you believe the current push to audit the Fed will result in success? What would be the result of such an audit in your opinion?

Edwin Vieira Jr.: The Establishment doubtlessly will put up tremendous resistance to a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve System, if that audit includes a thoroughgoing investigation and public exposition of the ulterior motives for and untoward consequences of the System's twists and turns in "monetary policy" over the years. I wonder, however, what such an audit would accomplish, and whether it is really necessary. If ten economists examined the System's decisions, they would probably give a dozen different opinions as to what motivated those decisions, and whether the results were good, bad, or indifferent. So the upshot of an audit could be nothing more than confusion twice confounded.

For all the journalistic shortcomings of its aggressively "liberal" perspective, the old expose by William Greider, The Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country (1987), tells us enough about the motivations and performance of the banking cartel, even without a formal audit, to justify the conclusion that it must be disestablished post haste. Actually, anyone who studies the Federal Reserve Act of 1913-particularly in the context of earlier banking and monetary legislation-should conclude that it always was and remains unworkable and doomed to failure, besides being utterly unconstitutional. So an audit is superfluous. On the other hand, if the results of, or the even demands for, an audit would galvanize public opinion into doing something positive in the area of monetary reform-such as supporting adoption of an alternative currency in the States-it probably would be worth the effort. But that is a very large "if".

Daily Bell: Ugh, that was a terrible book. He catalogues what's wrong for hundreds of pages and then decides having the Fed around is better than the alternative. We think it's central banking in large part that has given the elite the funds to take America down the wrong path, and that the velocity is accelerating - given the creation of Homeland Security, etc.

Edwin Vieira Jr.: In my estimation, dealing with the domestic-police-state-in-the-making is an even more critical concern than dealing with the problems engendered by the Federal Reserve System. This, because the present monetary and banking regime, being nothing more than a confidence game, could implode at any moment, and certainly could collapse before an alternative currency were in operation, thereby plunging the country into the sort of economic, political, and social chaos which would serve as the pretext for the imposition of all-round police-state repression. Therefore, if Americans do not have a plan in place, and very soon, for preventing that repression, everything could be lost.

That is not all. Even the Establishment could be hoist with its own petard. The police state now being elaborated from Washington, D.C., does not consist solely of civilian law-enforcement agencies. Rather, the deep thinkers in the "homeland-security" business are working feverishly to insinuate the Armed Forces into their schemes for nationwide domestic oppression. As a practical matter, this is probably necessary (from their point of view), inasmuch as a general economic, political, and social breakdown would set off eruptions of violent unrest beyond the capabilities of most if not all State and local police departments to put down.

Daily Bell: So you believe that the Establishment realizes how large a divide is growing between "average Joes" and America's elitists?

Edwin Vieira Jr.: Of course. Anyone even randomly surfing the Internet will stumble upon massive evidence of the irreconcilable antagonism and rancor rising at a fever pitch among common Americans against the economic and political "leaders" who have sold them and their country down the river. (Which is one of the main reasons the Establishment is desperate to come up with some rationalization and means to censor the Internet.) The Establishment knows that it stands on shaky ground-and that if it can no longer depend on the good will of the people, it must hope to be able to suppress collective manifestations of their ill will. This will require vast numbers of "boots on the ground". Thus, the ever-mounting emphasis by officials in "homeland-security" agencies on involvement of the Armed Forces in domestic "peacekeeping".

As Richard Weaver observed, though, "ideas have consequences"-and, one might add, particularly stupid ideas very often have extremely bad, albeit unintended consequences. The lesson that history teaches, but that the big brains in Washington apparently have not absorbed, is that once politicians (in any country) have turned to the Armed Forces to control domestic dissent arising out of failed economic and social policies, the Armed Forces quickly conclude that they are able and even entitled to become political powers in their own right. After all, why should the Armed Forces not exercise control over the policies and other decisions civilian officials make concerning the deployment of the Armed Forces, particularly when those officials' incompetence or corruption has brought about the domestic disturbances the Armed Forces are expected to risk their lives to quell? And then why should the Armed Forces themselves not promulgate, or at least oversee, policies on all economic and social matters in the first place? Could they fail any more miserably than have the civilian officials?

Furthermore, here in America, if the Armed Forces are deployed to suppress widespread civil unrest emanating from a major breakdown of the economy that threatens the continued viability of the military-industrial complex, the Brass Hats will have a particularly compelling institutional incentive to maintain themselves in positions of political leadership: namely, securing their reason for being and the source of their importance, power, and benefits. In addition, thoroughly politicized Armed Forces will likely feel the need to justify the expensive existence of the military-industrial complex by inserting themselves into, if not instigating outright, ever-expanding overseas military adventures. Thus, "the war on terror"-in addition to whatever other forms of aggressive imperialism can be fomented, ostensibly to "defend our freedoms" in a "homeland" no longer free-will drag on forever, at untold costs in lives and treasure.

Of course, as has proven true everywhere else, politicized Armed Forces in this country will be unable to solve the underlying economic and social problems that rationalized their politicization in the first place. So America will be wracked with chronic political chaos: token civilian regimes staffed with incompetent puppets and "yes men", followed by new bouts of military string-pulling or outright intervention aimed at cleaning up the last crisis, and so on, along the sorry lines South American republics such as Argentina have followed for generations.

For that reason, people worried simply about the likelihood of hyperinflation, depression, or hyperinflation coupled with depression-and about how they might be able to protect their incomes and accumulated wealth under such circumstances-are viewing their world through rather ill-fitting rose-colored glasses. When hyperinflation or other economic calamities strike, and the Armed Forces are politicized as instruments of domestic repression, merely maintaining his income and securing his accumulated wealth will become matters of very low priority for anyone with high economic, social, or political visibility who has or might run afoul of the regime. So those myopic people who are trying to figure out how they can personally profit from the coming collapse of America's economy had better start thinking instead of how they can contribute to the effort to prevent that collapse, to fend off a police state that collapse will engender, and to return this country to the rule of constitutional law-right now, before time runs out.

Daily Bell: How can a police state be fended off?

Edwin Vieira Jr.: Actually, the constitutional solution for dealing with the emerging police state is even simpler than the solution for dealing with the collapsing Federal Reserve System. Now, I do not believe that, at the present time, the upper echelons of the Officer Corps in America's Armed Forces contain significant numbers of potential Bonapartists. The patriotic sense of "duty, hono r, country" doubtlessly still prevails. But this circumstance could change. It has changed in other countries. As the Second Amendment to the Constitution declares, "[a] well regulated Militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State". Not the regular Armed Forces, but "[a] well regulated Militia".

"A well regulated Militia" is the only thing the Constitution identifies as "necessary" for any purpose, and the only thing it identifies as serving the specific purpose of "security". So, if Americans want a stable and prosperous economy, they want a free economy (that is, one based on the free market). If Americans want a free economy, they want "a free State", that being the only kind of political system that will support and defend the free market. And if Americans want "a free State", they want "[a] well regulated Militia" in every State. And what is "[a] well regulated Militia"? As Article 13 of Virginia's Declaration of Rights (1776) so aptly put it, "[a] well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state". That is, "[a] well regulated Militia" consists of We the People ourselves-in the final analysis, the only possible guarantors of freedom in a self-governing society.

Moreover, for all of these reasons, the members of the Armed Forces-all of whom take an oath to support the Constitution-should want "[a] well regulated Militia" in every State, too. Unfortunately, "[a] well regulated Militia", fully formed and operated according to proper constitutional principles, does not exist in even a single State today. (No, Virginia, the National Guard is not, never was, and cannot be the Militia.) So a great deal of work remains to be done in this area, as well.

Daily Bell: If these problems could be solved by application of the Constitution, then why did the Constitution not prevent them from arising in the first place? Has not the Constitution proven itself ineffective?

Edwin Vieira Jr.: We have had the benefit of the Ten Commandments since the days of Moses; but has their mere existence prevented all, or even most, sinful behavior? No. Whose fault has that been? God's or the sinners'? And shall we now blame the Ten Commandments-or worse, jettison them entirely-because some, even many, individuals continue to murder, to steal, and so on, whether in public office or private occupation?

The same reasoning applies to the Constitution. The Constitution is a set of instructions for running a complex political machine. This machine has as workmanlike a design as political science has ever recorded throughout the ages; and the instructions for its operation are concise and clear. So if, from time to time, the operators of the machine, through incompetence or malevolence, fail or refuse to follow those instructions, with deleterious results, does the fault lie with the instructions or the operators? Now, at one level, the operators of the constitutional machine are public officials. But they are subject to control by a higher level of operators: We the People, the selfsame We the People who (as its Preamble attests) "ordained and established th[e] Constitution" in the first place. So, if compliance with the Constitution's instructions has not been had, then ultimately We the People, not the Constitution, are to blame. Which is very fortunate, because We the People are in an unique position to do something about this situation.

We the People are the voters who select legislative, executive, and some judicial officers for government at every level of the federal system. We the People are in actual physical possession of most of the valuable property in this country. We the People constitute the Militia, which imposes upon us the direct responsibility to maintain "the security of a free State". And, with a little organization pursuant to statutes enacted in the States, We the People can effectively enforce Nancy Reagan's dictum: to "just say NO!" to further economic and political incompetence, corruption, and downright oppression in this country, emanating from Washington, D.C., New York City, or anywhere else .

Daily Bell: But is not the Supreme Court the final legal authority on what the Constitution means, and therefore legally superior to the people?

Edwin Vieira Jr.: Balderdash. A judicial opinion about the Constitution is precisely that, and no more: just an opinion of some fallible human beings who happened to occupy the Bench at that time. It may be correct-or it may be incorrect. The Supreme Court does not determine what the Constitution means; rather, the Constitution determines whether a decision of the Supreme Court is right or wrong. Even the Supreme Court has recognized that "[t]he power to enact carries with it final authority to declare the meaning of the legislation". Propper v. Clark, 337 U.S. 472, 484 (1949). And We the People-not "we the judges"-enacted the Constitution. It is our supreme law, not theirs.

We are the principals, they merely our agents. So we are the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution, and the ultimate judges of whether public officials are complying with it. As Sir William Blackstone, the Founding Fathers' primary legal mentor, observed: "whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself: there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to". Commentaries on the Laws of England (1771-1773), Volume 1, at 212. Any self-governing people should know as much without being reminded. One can only hope that the present economic crisis will focus people's minds on this basic truth to a degree sufficient to make a difference.

Daily Bell: Thank you for this interview.

Edwin Vieira Jr.: It was my pleasure.

After Thoughts with Scott Smith

It is interesting to interview someone so honest and informed as Dr. Vieira because one is exposed to a verity of human intelligence - the smarter the individual the clearer the vision. Speak to someone who is less well versed in the history of human legislative interaction and you will get all sorts of ideas spouting forth like firecrackers - and often none of it means much. The noise is random and the thoughts sparkle and trail off like sparklers, then die. But Dr. Vieira understands the basic thrust of what is going on and has a clear idea of where it's headed and what to do about it.

The interview speaks for itself. But to summarize - reading slightly between the lines - Dr. Vieira seems fairly certain that there will be some sort of social upheaval in America as a result of the economic and military forces now in play. He seems to believe that this could, to begin with, result in some sort of Latin-American style junta (they are familiar to Europe, too) and obviously believes the only way to avoid such a catastrophe is for "the people" to take back Constitutional rights.

In fact, this perspective is shared by many American libertarians with greater or lesser degrees of urgency. Certainly, there has never in our experience been the level of vituperation that one now witnesses on chat boards and in feedbacks whenever government programs and policies are mentioned. George Bush with his incessant meretricious spending, endless warring and ongoing endorsement of the regulatory state ended his time in office literally unable to speak anywhere except at military graduations. President Obama is rapidly approaching a point where he will not be warmly welcomed either in most American enc laves - and will likely have to restrict his speechifying to television.

And what then? Are the Republicans going to elect another compassionate conservative like George Bush? No, after three Internet presidencies we expect a tidal wave of support for a libertarian conservative. We know Sarah Palin is being groomed to take advantage of this wave, but as a proponent of the military police state and Homeland Security, we wonder if the contradiction in terms will not prove too much for her. And even if she is elected, or some like her who pays lip service to libertarian ideals, it will not paper over the growing divide in America between those who wish for freedom and those who espouse its cause (ludicrously) within the context of an activist IRS, a central bank, a domestic surveillance apparatus and a global, warlike military.

The point is, as Vieira notes, the sociopolitical consensus holding America together is falling to pieces. The political process is gradually grinding to a halt. It offers no answers. Obama's "change" is uniting his nation, but not in a way that the power elite might hope. People are increasingly aware of sociopolitical alternatives. Of course, we attribute this directly to the Internet and also to the difficulty that the power elite has had in creating war mobilization - the usual method of dealing with social disaffection and economic crises. The situation from our perspective is analogous to the inexplicable 30-year pan-European peasant war that somehow broke out - mysteriously - when the Gutenberg press began to erode the credibility of that era's power elite.

The Internet itself and the difficulty in creating a world war without an implacable enemy and within a nuclear environment has made the power elite's task far more difficult. There is a war going on, but it is not a very satisfactory one and the enemy keeps changing, as do the battle fronts. This is giving rise to skepticism, so much so that we wonder for how long such a war can continue as a viable promotion. From a power-elite perspective, it may eventually tend to cause more problems than it solves.

Vieira proposes that there may be increased civil unrest in America and Europe, leading up to a potential military takeover. In fact, in Europe we believe it has already started. And yet ... we are in favor of Vieira's alternative scenario - that civil unrest need not lead to endless martial law and South American-style banana republics.

The hallmark of a promotion is that it ignores factual reality, so we anticipate all these promotions and more will continue to progress legislatively. But as we have pointed out before, authoritarian implementation of such promotions does the power elite little good. Without a "buy in" a promotion is merely an enforcement. The populace may be cowed, but the resentment burns. It is certainly possible to keep billions cowed by fear (that's what the promotions are all about), but if the fear is merely administrative, then the danger to the power elite increases dramatically. You end up with a dictatorship. Dictators are targets.

The power elite for the most part stepped away from direct leadership hundreds of years ago. It was too dangerous. But now the Internet has exposed the leadership all over again. This is not a tolerable position for a handful of extraordinarily powerful people to be in. They will have to do something other than business as usual. Right now they are moving forward with an almost incomprehensible haste. But one might speculate they are still in denial. With acceptance will come an understanding that the timeline will have to be recalibrated.

Vieira is correct that Americans can take their Constitution back. One of the obstacles is fear, but fear erodes as the Internet educates and certain fear-mongering websites lose their grip. In fact, there are no more George Orwells for the power elite to promote. A British socialist spymaster who told us just what the power elite had in store (in order to make us cringe in fear), his narrative is beginning to seem outdated as reality overtakes prognostication.

Repetition, Internet-style, breeds familiarity - and familiarity breeds contempt. The dominant social themes and accompanying memes will not stick in such an environment. Mass martial law descending on hundreds of millions, or billions, is simply not feasible long term. Even "soft" martial law is a difficult environment to maintain long-term. The USSR's leaders found it out. The Chinese know it, and are troubled by it.

It took the Gutenberg press a full century to do its damage, but the Internet may only take 25 or 30 years. And the result may well be something entirely unexpected - not the gulags and martial suppression of the USSR (as predicted by Orwell and certain suspicious, perfervid ‘Net outlets) - but something more exciting and life-affirming.

Interviews and after-thoughts may include the contributions of several Daily Bell editors and writers.

Reasearch this and see how many Maoists turn up


Friday, January 15, 2010

Playing the TEA party race card

by We Are Change San Francisco

It seems that opposing our president and the policies of the big banking cartels means we are racists, or even worse. A new film has emerged which directly links and portrays TEA party patriots, anti-immigration and anti-government activists as neo-Nazi's.

The film was created by bignoisefilms.com film makers Rick Rowley and Jacquie Soohen. They make a bunch of liberal and leftist style films, but that definition simply puts them in a box. I believe this rhetoric now portrayed goes much further down that hate tunnel.

Note: The miniscule racist and white supremacist movement is a creation of the FBI as evidenced by the revelations of the racist Hal Turner, who worked with the FBI as a “national security intelligence” asset. The DHS report demonizing constitutionalists and advocates of the Second Amendment was heavily influenced by the ADL and SPLC, two organizations that have made a cottage industry out of peddling the bogus white supremacist threat and linking it to Alex Jones and other patriots. The following documentary compliments efforts by the corporate media in the United States to discredit Libertarians and the Tea Party movement.

The following video not only calls out TEA party goers as white supremacists, but directly links images with neo-Nazi rallies in a true propaganda style way.

Images of the following organizations are directly placed in a stream of white supremest websites and rallies:


Lou Dobbs is also targeted directly, because he has been so outspoken on immigration and the SPP.

The infamous Rightwing Extremism document, which is prominently mentioned in this film, from Homeland Security should be enough evidence there are forces afoot simply trying to discredit and discourage liberty-minded crowds. The film also says that TEA parties are mostly a white persons creation and that black people simply don't get involved that much. This angers me and many others, because it simply isn't true.

The fact that this film dramatically fades back and forth and has high-end graphics depicting neo-Nazi groups alongside TEA party groups and anti-immigration groups is extremely disturbing. Somebody is scared, somewhere. They don't like the fact just regular Americans are getting fed up with the policies being presented to us. It is the newest but shocking example of what some clueless seemingly liberal elements of the media will do to discredit those of us attempting to shine a light on Washington. President Obama, as depicted by the Obama Joker posters, has spent more money than every president before him and has accepted the largest donations from bankers in Wall Street. We should all be asking questions of our government and stop this petty bickering. Obama isn't hated because he is black, its because he is a puppet for the new world order and world wide banking cartels. I fear it has gone more than petty at this point and they are bringing on a wave of hate orientated media to silence people.

Don't ever give in to this nonsense. Fight back by ignoring these childish actions of "you're a racist" and show them love. Everything is OK. Don't question your government. Go back to your sports game and diet soda.

The bar has been raised, the gauntlet thrown down, what will you do? We are the only real change this country has, not some group of wanna-be sheep following a Marxist president.

Now featured on infowars.com as
Al Jazeera Documentary Links Tea Party Movement to White Supremacists


The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is known for bringing race into any issue in order to divert attention from the real issues. SPLC is clearly a government front group to control the masses and should be ignored.


and guess what? It just happens that Chip Berlet who is prominently featured in this film writes for the SPLC. Move along, there isn't anything interesting to see here.


Dear Friends,

Let me just state the obvious. The party is over.
Whether the White House administration and the mainstream media are ready to admit it or not, our economy is about to collapse. The White House is doing damage control and taking every step to counter the coming civil unrest WHEN this occurs. The mainstream media is providing cover for White House maneuvering.

Obama’s solution to the present crisis – raise more taxes. Predictably, this will only accelerate bankruptcies and foreclosures. Revenues to government will actually decrease. Its clear that He is working for the Chinese communists, who have also become banking elites and a financial superpower unbeknownst to most Americans.

Let me speak in ordinary consumer terms…
We, the United States have been refinancing our debt with more and more short-term debt, just to make our minimum credit card payment.

http://www.wnd.com/2010/01/121993/ and

We have borrowed from the Chinese. The Chinese are about to foreclose on us. What would it look like if the Chinese foreclosed on the U.S.? Well…in consumer terms, it would be like the bank coming in and taking control of your house, right? That is exactly what is happening. The Chinese have been giving orders to Washington to staff the administration with Maoists, to take over industries so that the borrower (U.S. government) can pass assets (newly obtained influence in government and private companies) to the lender (the Chinese). Yes, China is in the process of foreclosing on the United States. All the financial shuffling will be obfuscated with media b.s. and a slick democrat propaganda campaign, but that is exactly what is happening.

America cannot take out any more short term loans to service interest or cover prior short-term maturities. The party is over.

What you do with this information will determine how you survive in the coming times. You might think I’m crazy for going out on a limb and saying this. Well, that’s ok. I’m simply stating the obvious.

China is foreclosing, and that means that they are pulling strings that greatly affect our national security. They are also the leading superpower country that is energetically building offensive weapons to attack us. This should be a concern, but don’t expect the government to warn you. This will first manifest in their increased naval capabilities, and our reduction in naval advantage. Our government is already working for them and their cause of global communism. A blind man should be able to see this. Count the Maoists in the White House administration.


America has become like an old familiar restaurant that is under new management. Picture the restaurant that you have visited for many years. One day you begin to notice new managers and cooks, but the waiters and waitresses are the same. So you ask, are you under new management? The answer comes back, oh, yes, but we didn’t announce it because we didn’t want to affect business.

The Chinese have beat us at economic warfare, and most Americans don’t even know we have been at war


They are in a position now to actually choose the time of the collapse, which they won’t do until the looting is complete. They are constantly attacking us with cyber warfare, (http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2009/05/analyst-cyberwarfare-arms-race-with-china-imminent.ars) and now you can expect to see their military grow at an unprecedented rate and scope (after having effectively neutralized us through the influence they have due to the above mentioned foreclosure process) , because this is the time they have been waiting for. You can also look for the U.S. to willingly subjugate us more and more to the U.N. (Chinese control).

Much more needs to be said, but that’s all for now.


Please consider what you may do today to preserve our liberties.

In Liberty,


Wednesday, January 13, 2010

2010 Executive Order

Dear Friends,

This (attached) executive order was signed two days ago by Obama. You have probably heard of it by now. This is dangerous and also unprecedented. Please refer especially to Section 2:d. Synchronization is one thing, integration a completely different thing and altogether unconstitutional.

This is the type of executive order one would sign before suspending the privilege of habeus corpus and enacting what is referred to as martial law. So it’ll be legal now(martial law, that is), right??? WRONG. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it disallows United States military intervention in the Several States. (PLEASE read the Constitution).

Please give this the widest circulation, and more importantly take some time and read the Constitution. It is the compact that exists between “we the people” and the government we have created to be our agents.

Look at the progression of the Obama administration’s seizure and consolidation of power since January:

Taking over insurance companies (and by taking over, I mean top-down control by the government and deprivatization)

Taking over auto industries

Taking over banks

Taking over health care (assuming the power of life and death)

Obama asks for sole discretionary power to shut down the internet

Obama becomes chairmen of the U.N. Security Council (forbidden by the Constitution)

Allowing Interpol to supersede our own Constitution and subjugating U.S. law enforcement to them (unprecedented in U.S. history, but this also happened several weeks ago)

Now this executive order which has the appearance of destroying posse commitatus

Additionally, many of Obama’s 30+ czars are self-professed Maoists. Can you see how deep the Chinese influence is reaching into our government? It is true that the “borrower becomes servant to the lender” as it says in the Bible, but just look at how deep and insidious this servitude goes. Many have already caught on that the banksters put Obama in power, but please consider the designs of Maoism, and their stated goal of global communism. The statist architects of this new revolution are brought to us from China and our government is already being reformed into conformity with the stated goals of the communist manifesto.

Normally, the anatomy of a communist revolution (and we have many to study, right?) is as follows: 1. Bloody takeover of existing government, 2. Restructuring of government via deprivatization, 3. Blood purges.

In this case, America is so apathetic that it does not even recognize that the socialists have not even needed the first step. Its logical to me that the 2nd step is well underway, and that the third one (which is a constant in any communist takeover) is coming. That is exactly why watchdogs SHOULD be alarmed when they read an executive order such as the one attached in this email. How many of the governors will have the guts to just say “NUTS” or “pound sand” Obama? We won’t go along with it.

Much more could be said about this, but I am out of time for writing this email.

In liberty,


Friday, January 01, 2010

Argentina's Economic Collapse - and where is our money going now?

We implemented the Federal Reserve System in 1913. If it takes around 100 years to implode an economy, then perhaps we are looking at 2013 or so for these issues to manifest. The Argentinean central bank was established in 1935, and in 2002 their economy totally tanked. It only took them 67 years. I believe America is just slightly behind, because we have so many people that watchdog these bastards. Oh, and just so you know, several trends forecasters peg 2010 as a really bad year, with economic collapse in the next 2 years, right on track.

Everyone should take notice of this, and don't just simply pass it off as coincidence. Our history is vitally important to understand what our future is going to hold. Perhaps we should step back and stop worrying as much about international terrorism and focus on the home front for a while.

37,300 people died on our highway system in the United States last year. We aren't banning cars and trucks.

106,000 or so die from pharmaceutical drugs (while in hospitals). We continue to allow companies like Bayer, Agfa and Novartis to make drugs. 198,000 or so die from drug related problems, like over the counter medicines.

About 8.8 million people are hospitalized each year because of bad interactions with prescribed drugs.

About 438,000 people die from smoking cancer ridden, chemical based cigarettes and second-hand smoke each year.

10,000 or so die from recreational drugs like crack, speed, ecstasy, etc. We created a police state to handle this huge problem...

There were over 860,000 foreclosures/bank turnovers in 2008 alone. That was out of a whopping 3.1 million foreclosure filings. Thats a lot of people not managing their finances well.

Statistics prove prescription drugs are 16,400% more deadly than terrorists

Terrorism Still Less Deadly in US Than Lack of Health Insurance, Salmonella (good graph here)

I AM NOT BELITTLING THE SEVERITY OF TERRORISM. I am simply trying to point out that more people have massive death experiences regardless of how much our military or militarized police forces go about their business each day. For God’s sake, we are now trying to force people into full body scanners at the airports. I say issue a luger to everyone who wants one (*) on the plane, with rubber bullets, and issue the flight crew shotguns with rubber loads. I guarantee that terrorism and hijackings stop overnight.

Lets seriously consider where we put our efforts when talking politics and spending. Should we be worrying about some phantom terrorists around every corner, and underwear bombers? Or in fact should we be more concerned with how Goldman Sachs is stealing billions and the Rockefeller and Rothschild syndicates rape this country?

We need to understand finances and how the scammers, i.e. bankers operate.

Do We Fear the Right Things?

Don't Cry For Me, America


In the early 20th century, Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world. While Great Britain 's maritime power and its far-flung empire had propelled it to a dominant position among the world's industrialized nations, only the United States challenged Argentina for the position of the world's second-most powerful economy.


It was blessed with abundant agriculture, vast swaths of rich farmland laced with navigable rivers and an accessible port system. Its level of industrialization was higher than many European countries: railroads, automobiles and telephones were commonplace.


In 1916, a new president was elected. Hipólito Irigoyen had formed a party called The Radicals under the banner of "fundamental change" with an appeal to the middle class.


Among Irigoyen's changes: mandatory pension insurance, mandatory health insurance, and support for low-income housing construction to stimulate the economy. Put simply, the state assumed economic control of a vast swath of the country's operations and began assessing new payroll taxes to fund its efforts.


With an increasing flow of funds into these entitlement programs, the government's payouts soon became overly generous. Before long its outlays surpassed the value of the taxpayers' contributions. Put simply, it quickly became under-funded, much like the United States ' Social Security and Medicare programs.


The death knell for the Argentine economy, however, came with the election of Juan Perón. Perón had a fascist and corporatist upbringing; he and his charismatic wife aimed their populist rhetoric at the nation's rich.


This targeted group "swiftly expanded to cover most of the propertied middle classes, who became an enemy to be defeated and humiliated."


Under Perón, the size of government bureaucracies exploded through massive programs of social spending and by encouraging the growth of labor unions.


High taxes and economic mismanagement took their inevitable toll even after Perón had been driven from office. But his populist rhetoric and "contempt for economic realities" lived on. Argentina 's federal government continued to spend far beyond its means.


Hyperinflation exploded in 1989, the final stage of a process characterized by "industrial protectionism, redistribution of income based on increased wages, and growing state intervention in the economy."


The Argentinean government's practice of printing money to pay off its public debts had crushed the economy. Inflation hit 3000%, reminiscent of the Weimar Republic . Food riots were rampant; stores were looted; the country descended into chaos.


And by 1994, Argentina 's public pensions - the equivalent of Social Security - had imploded. The payroll tax had increased from 5% to 26%, but it wasn't enough. In addition, Argentina had implemented a value-added tax (VAT), new income taxes, a personal tax on wealth, and additional revenues based upon the sale of public enterprises. These crushed the private sector, further damaging the economy.


A government-controlled "privatization" effort to rescue seniors' pensions was attempted. But, by 2001, those funds had also been raided by the government, the monies replaced by Argentina 's defaulted government bonds.


By 2002, ".government fiscal irresponsibility. induced a national economic crisis as severe as America 's Great Depression."


In 1902 Argentina was one of the world's richest countries. Little more than a hundred years later, it is poverty-stricken, struggling to meet its debt obligations amidst a drought.


We've seen this movie before. The Democrats' populist plans can't possibly work, because government bankrupts everything it touches. History teaches us that ObamaCare and unfunded entitlement programs will be utter, complete disasters.

Today's Democrats are guilty of more than stupidity; they are enslaving future generations to poverty and misery. And they will be long gone when it all implodes. They will be as cold and dead as Juan Perón when the piper must ultimately be paid.

(*) My caveat is that you show proof of firearms training and you are over 18. But seriously consider the positive effects of an armed populous instead of sniveling scaredy-cats.