Monday, March 23, 2009

WHY IS FRANCE AND GERMANY APPLAUDING OBAMA'S PLAN TO NATIONALIZE BANKS?~~~FOLLOW THE MONEY
Andrew Hitchcock WROTE A BOOK CALLED "THE HISTORY OF THE MONEY CHANGERS", AND IT'S A MUST READ FOR MANY WHO WONDER WHAT DRIVES THIS ADMINISTRATION TO RUN THIS NATION INTO FINANCIAL RUIN.

In what's called a model or template of world powerbrokers that have historically controlled currency, (usury in earlier centuries), today's run on the world financial markets are filled with corruption and deception that puts the United States right in the middle of an old plan that can not be completed with out the blessings and cooperation of our government. In the History of the Money Changers, you will see clearly how currency in all forms, (gold, silver, and paper), is manipulated on some of the grandest scales that moved wealth from one nation to WORLD CENTRAL BANKS while operating in the guise of everyone's best interest, and the FEDERAL RESERVE is at the heart of this run.

"Economists continually try and sell the public the idea that recessions or depressions are a natural part of what they call the “business cycle”.

This timeline below will prove that is simply not the case. Recessions and depressions only occur because the Central Bankers manipulate the money supply, to ensure more and more is in their hands and less and less is in the hands of the people."


When you finish reading Hitchcock's illustrated version of this historical timeline, it all begins to make sense where loading up debt and deficit spending could very well be a calculated manipulation by world Central Bankers that are using diversions such as global warming, energy shortages created by environmental laws and yes WARS to facilitate this current economic crisis into another wealth distribution plan on a grander scale than anyone could foresee.

Excerpts from the "Money Changers":

1916
President Wilson began to realize the gravity of the damage he had done to America, by unleashing the Federal Reserve on the American people. He stated,

"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled governments in the civilized world - no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by ...a vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.

Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

1924
Shortly before his death this year, President Woodrow Wilson made the following statement in relation to his support for the Federal Reserve,

"I have unwittingly ruined my country."

Despite the claims of how the Federal Reserve would protect the country against depressions and inflation, they continued to further contract the money supply. Between 1929 and 1933, they reduced the money supply by an additional 33%. Even, Milton Friedman, the Nobel Peace Prize winning economist stated the following in a radio interview in January 1996,

"The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression by contracting the amount of currency in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933."

In only a few weeks from the day of the crash, 3 billion dollars of wealth vanished. Within a year, 40 billion dollars of wealth vanished. However, it did not simply disappear, it just ended up consolidated in fewer and fewer hands, as was planned. An example of this is Joseph P. Kennedy, John F. Kennedy's father. In 1929 he was worth 4 million dollars, in 1935 that had increased to over 100 million dollars.

1932

Republican Representative Louis T. McFadden of Pennsylvania, the Former Chairman of the House Banking & Currency Commission during the great depression, states,

"We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board...This evil institution has impoverished...the people of the United States...and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through...the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it."

In just one hour of your precious time, (more like 30 minutes, because I'm a slow reader), Hitchcock's "MONEY CHANGERS" may very well open up your eyes to what the motives are in our current crisis. Or, it will at least allow you to ask more questions, and lead you to follow the money........

Late Update: Dafydd at Big Lizards covers just about all of Obama's autocratic government and thinks he's heard it before. You could make a case that Dafydd's written a piece of the puzzle. And it's certainly Déjà Vu About Vujà Dé (sidenote to the big lizard~~Can we add the Federal Reserve to this mixure of manure given the history in this post?)

Saturday, March 21, 2009

NATIONAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE CERTAIN UNDER OBAMA'S RUNAWAY SPENDING PLAN

AMERICAN CITIZENS APPEAL TO DEMOCRATIC LEADERS~~"PLEASE STOP THIS TRAINWRECK!"

While the Iranians race to produce their nuclear weapon to destroy their "enemies", Barack Obama appears to be in a similar race to destroy the most powerful nation in the world---from within. And while Iranian citizens have shown a tolerance to their leadership, American's across this country are becoming frightfull of a reckless agenda that amounts to criminal generational theft:

By ANDREW TAYLOR

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush's presidency, congressional auditors said Friday.

The new Congressional Budget Office figures offered a far more dire outlook for Obama's budget than the new administration predicted just last month - a deficit $2.3 trillion worse. It's a prospect even the president's own budget director called unsustainable. link

It will take more than a tea party to stop this trainwreck!

Saturday, March 14, 2009

"A Fundamentally Sound Economy"

Sound Familiar?

Ed Driscoll reports that Obama has had a "self-reckoning" moment.

"Took him about half a year, but Barack Obama finally agrees with John McCain. Philip Klein suggests that the former owes the latter an apology. Good luck collecting!"

In other news:

Report: Cuba, Venezuela could host Russian bombers

MOSCOW – A Russian Air Force chief said Saturday that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has offered an island as a temporary base for strategic Russian bombers, the Interfax news agency reported.

The chief of staff of Russia's long range aviation, Maj. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev, also said Cuba could be used to base the aircraft, Interfax reported.

The Kremlin, however, said the situation was hypothetical.

"The military is speaking about technical possibilities, that's all," Alexei Pavlov, a Kremlin official, told The Associated Press. "If there will be a development of the situation, then we can comment," he said. (emphasis mine)

This sounds like our nation needs to revisit the Monroe Doctrine. I'm certain our President will get right on this, (hypothetically speaking of course).

Thursday, March 12, 2009



Broken Promises---Earmarks & "Unfinished Business"


Now that “President-elect”* Barack Obama has broken his landmark campaign promise to end earmark, (pork barrel) legislation, the public can begin to ask----“was there any critical part of your campaign where you told us the truth Mr. Obama?”

Unfinished business

Jon Ward at the Washington Times observes that the spin cycle coming out of the White House is that the $410 billion omnibus bill, (written and passed by Nancy Pelosi’s democrats), was “unfinished business”:

“White House officials have said that the omnibus is "unfinished business" from last year, and on Monday, Mr. Gibbs argued that the government needs the bill to be passed so it can continue to function. Appropriations bills are done "usually before the fiscal year ends, generally before Congress recesses, most assuredly before the next Congress convenes. And I think blowing through all those hurdles rightly makes it last year's business," he said.” (link)

While these spinmiesters claim a bill with 9000 earmarks is unfinished business, maybe we can explain that 70% of the previously steroid-pumped baseball players deserve a break because it was unfinished business.

So, with this premise in mind, Obama marches up to his teleprompter this week and announces his “new” plan for earmark reform:

"Let there be no doubt: this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability," Obama said in discussing his decision to sign the controversial measure.

"I am signing an imperfect ... bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government, and we have a lot more work to do. We can't have Congress bogged down at this critical juncture in our economic recovery," he said.

Obama outlined a plan that would enable lawmakers to continue to earmark spending with a "legitimate and worthy public purpose," but would make the process more transparent and offer opportunities for public feedback before approval. (link)

Obama, who criticized earmarked spending during his presidential campaign, went behind closed doors to sign the $410 billion spending bill, which was approved by the Democratic-controlled Congress following a contentious debate.

What? No ceremony? Four months of a pork barrel spending at a billion a month is not worth celebrating? That was just peanuts:

"In just 50 days, Congress has voted to spend about $1.2 trillion," said Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the U.S. Senate. "To put that in perspective, that's about $24 billion a day, or about $1 billion an hour -- most of it borrowed."

O.K.-----Now can we celebrate?????? Not yet.

Read back up on this post where Obama says this is a “new era of responsibility and accountability” and see how he plans to reform earmark legislation with a "legitimate and worthy public purpose”. Here’s the key word, (public). Obama went on to explain in his speech that it was the earmarks that went to private entities that allowed the most corruption while the PUBLIC earmarks would pass with far less scrutiny. (Have you “got it” yet? Ding ding ding!----not yet?)

OK-----let me put this plainly------public means GOVERNMENT------and private means all the rest including small private businesses that provides the largest amount of tax revenue to our GOVERNMENT. If you want a school built in your district, it will be funded with a public earmark and preformed by UNION LABOR. Is this card-check legislation that congress will pass getting past your thinking cap?

Obama’s complete agenda is to make your government the sole enterprise in structuring and building this nation. If you own a private business that wants to compete in the process, go to the back of the line and wait for the union reps to show up. And certainly don’t look for any earmarks.

* (I called Obama President-elect out of respect for the fact that this legislation was last years unfinished business when the man had yet to be anointed)

Saturday, March 07, 2009

Silencing Those Who Criticize Our Government

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted a story on Friday that question's the reversal of David Brook's criticism of Barack Obama's economic plans, suggesting that Brooks was taken to the woodshed and changed his "opinion". While the White House chose to engage Rush Limbaugh's recent dissent of many of Obama's plans, it appears that other critics are some how either reversing their opinions or becoming mysteriously silent. Of course the typical way the left wing media's, (and now Obama's personal attack dogs, Paul Begala and James Carville) reaction to Rush, is to take a comment out of context and publish it. Limbaugh has made his point crystal clear that he wants Obama's economic policies to FAIL:

"I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed." "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails."

What the media and rest of the liberal left loonies left out was the CONTEXT:

"Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he's doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing.".......(READ RUSH'S COMPLETE POST HERE)

But I digress. A commenter at Hot Air summed up the phenomenon that appears to be happening to "the critics":

"One wonders what sort of intimidation tactics are being used here. Santelli’s been quiet lately, including canceling an appearance on The Daily Show. Cramer was taken to task by the White House, although he’s not likely to shut up anytime soon. We all know what they’re trying to do to Rush. And now this with David Brooks.

Maybe there are a lot more Obama skeptics out there than we realize, but with the current economic state we’re in, they’re too afraid to risk their job security by taking on this administration"........Doughboy on March 6, 2009 at 9:48 AM

Morrissey's story, Revolt over: White House puts Brooks back on the leash points out David Brooks has "returned to the fold" after a scathing post about Obama's liberal and socialist policies:

"On Tuesday, I wrote that the Obama budget is a liberal, big government document that should make moderates nervous. The column generated a large positive response from moderate Obama supporters who are anxious about where the administration is headed. It was not so popular inside the White House. Within a day, I had conversations with four senior members of the administration and in the interest of fairness, I thought I’d share their arguments with you today." (READ THE COMPLETE HOT AIR POST HERE)

Is there a "silencing of the lambs" movement going on by the President's people? And does President Obama condone this form of speech suppression? What has been said to these critics of our government that changed their minds or opinions? Were they subtle threats or outright career busters? Will David Brooks, (and others) write in his memoirs thirty years from now, how he was intimidated or even threatened to change his tune, or else?

So far, our constitution guarantees freedom of the press and the rights of our citizens to express their opinions and grievances without the threat of harm from its government. If, (and this is a BIG IF), our "leadership" is in any way attempting to silence public dissent by intimidation or actual threats, and the President IS aware of, AND condoning this with his expressed consent, I believe this IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

Could Barak Obama really be this stupid to have a "Nixon / Watergate Moment" where he's allowing his "henchmen" to desecrate the first amendment? While he's moving full steam ahead with his agenda to nationalize private enterprises with trillions of unfunded dollars, he may want to be extremely careful how he goes about silencing those who may want his policies to fail.

Thursday, March 05, 2009

A Presidents Promise of Change Comes to Light

When President Obama promised a change in how government will work if he was elected, few understood how far the "change" would go. Most who supported him thought this to mean that his "transparency" would bring a new trust to a Congress that rated all time lows in national public polls. Our government in Washington would be run differently from the "failed" years in the past. What Obama didn't understand is that the powerbrokers and the already established party of the center-left Democrats, (already two years in control, and further expanded by the 2008 elections), had a more sinister agenda. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid had waited patiently for a Democrat President to rubber stamp their own agenda that has included a calculated assault on capitalism, the life-blood of a free democracy. They have used this "perfect storm" of an economic crisis to advance every program and entitlement that free market forces had kept in check. The levels of deficit spending from the previous administration was already getting out of control, and yet in the first month of Obama's tenure this government has more than tripled the debt in new spending that is supposed to be stimulating our economy while preserving the job market. So far, nothing has worked to return confidence in the markets or convince consumers to spend their guarded paychecks. But, what people don't understand is the Democratic Party is perfectly fine with this in their plan to destroy capitalism and replace it with a socialist model similar to Western European governments.

Unemployment rose as high as 6.3% after 9/11 and gradually worked down to as low as 4.4% in October of 2006. The Democrats swept into power that fall and now we are at 7.5%, (10% in California), and rising. Meanwhile, this mantra of unfunded bailouts (in the trillions) in an attempt to prop up failed housing, banks, and "other financial institutions", has done little to stop the bleeding while piling up generational debt.

While the Nation rejoiced in this new incoming government, the sleeping giant of a housing market ponzi scheme (created and supported for more than twenty years) raised its ugly head. While there are many who argue that this "social experiment" gone awry was the result of little over-sight or regulation, I would submit it was just the opposite. Our government not only encouraged the practice of unqualified home ownership, they supplied the vehicle for lenders to dump their volatile paper into the government created Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac institutions all bundled in the false title of "securities".

So, how does our new government react to a financial crisis that impacts world economies? Spend, spend, and spend.

Not only has Barack Obama and the Democrat Party spent trillions in new programs and entitlements (with no plan to repay this debt), they also plan in this years agenda to turn our health care system over to this same "responsible" government that is breaking this nation. And the more folks begin to understand a system of government controlled medical/health care that will dictate the choices of procedure, the level of professional care, and, for starters deny doctors a license who refuse to preform abortions, they will (hopefully) begin to realize that this will be another unfunded massive program that will pale the price of Social Security.

Now comes the really scary (part 1):

The democrats agenda is clear:

1st amendment = under attack
2nd amendment = under attack
No taxation without representation = gone
Privately owned banks and financial institutions = gone
Government control of food production = coming soon
Government control of health care = almost here
Term limits on Supreme Court Justices = coming soon
Term limits of U.S. Presidents = suspension coming soon

And now the really, REALLY SCARY (PART TWO)

Guess Who?

*I was born in one country, raised in another. My father was born in another country. I was not his only child. He fathered several children with numerous women. *
*I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me. My mother died at an early age from cancer. *
*Later in life, questions arose over my real name. *
*My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a legitimate,reliable birth certificate. *
*I grew up practicing one faith but converted to Christianity, as it was widely accepted in my country, but *
*I practiced non-traditional beliefs & didn't follow Christianity, except in the public eye under scrutiny. *
*I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult, disguising myself as someone who really cared about them. *
*That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career. *
*I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child. *
*I became active in local politics in my 30's then with help behind the scenes, I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office in my 40s. They said I had a golden tongue and could talk anyone into anything. That reinforced my conceit. *
*I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker and citizens were drawn to me as though I were a magnet and they were small roofing tacks. *
*I drew incredibly large crowds during my public appearances. This bolstered my ego. *
*At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy. I was very critical of my country in the last war and seized every opportunity to bash my country. *
*But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy. I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could do better and every poor person would be fed & housed for free. *
*I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess. It was the free market, banks & corporations. I decided to start making citizens hate them and if they were envious of others who did well, the plan was clinched tight. *
*I called mine "A People's Campaign" and that sounded good to all people. *
*I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics & was able to gain widespread popular support. *
*I knew that, if I merely offered the people 'hope' , together we could change our country and the world. *
*So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on behalf of the downtrodden, poor, ignorant to include "persecuted minorities" like the Jews. My true views were not widely known & I needed to keep them unknown, until after I became my nation's leader. *
*I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found out what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with. *
*I'm glad they didn't. Then I became the most powerful man in the world. And the world learned the truth. *

*Who am I? .........*

*ADOLF HITLER. *

Perhaps this wasn't quite the change Americans had in mind when they chose Barack Obama. The Democrat Party had different ideas------or did they?


Monday, March 02, 2009

There is Hope For Our Future




Principals Matter...............Just ask Jonathan.