Scandal: Albert Edwards Alleges Central Banks Were Complicit In Robbing The Middle Classes

We apologize in advance for the NY Magazine-style headline, but this is a report that has to be read by all Senators who are preparing to reconfirm Bernanke for a second term. When voting for the Chairman, be aware that all of America will now look at you as the perpetrators who are encouraging the greatest inter and intra-generational theft to continue, and as prescribed by Newton 3rd law, sooner or later, an appropriate reaction will come from the very same middle class that you are seeking to doom into a state of perpetual penury and a declining standard of living.

America spoke in Massachusetts, and will speak again very soon if you do not send the appropriate signal that you have heard its anger - Do Not Reconfirm Bernanke.

You have been warned.

We present Albert Edwards' latest in its complete form as it must be read by all unabridged and without commentary. These are not the deranged ramblings of a fringe blogger - this is a chief strategist for a major international bank.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Theft! Were the US & UK central banks complicit in robbing the middle classes?

by Albert Edwards, Societe Generale

Mr Bernanke’s in-house Fed economists have found that the Fed wasn’t responsible for the boom which subsequently turned into the biggest bust since the 1930s. Are those the same Fed staffers whose research led Mr Bernanke to assert in Oct. 2005 that “there was no housing bubble to go bust”? The reasons for the US and the UK central banks inflating the bubble range from incompetence and negligence to just plain spinelessness. Let me propose an alternative thesis. Did the US and UK central banks collude with the politicians to ‘steal’ their nations’ income growth from the middle classes and hand it to the very rich?

Ben Bernanke?s recent speech at the American Economic Association made me feel sick. Like Alan Greenspan, he is still in denial. The pigmies that populate the political and monetary elites prefer to genuflect to the court of public opinion in a pathetic attempt to deflect blame from their own gross and unforgivable incompetence.

The US and UK have seen a huge rise in inequality over the last two decades, as growth in national income has been diverted almost exclusively to the top income earners (see chart below). The middle classes have seen median real incomes stagnate over that period and, as a consequence, corporate margins and profits have boomed.

Some recent reading has got me thinking as to whether the US and UK central banks were actively complicit in an aggressive re-distributive policy benefiting the very rich. Indeed, it has been amazing how little political backlash there has been against the stagnation of ordinary people?s earnings in the US and UK. Did central banks, in creating housing bubbles, help distract middle class attention from this re-distributive policy by allowing them to keep consuming via equity extraction? The emergence of extreme inequality might never otherwise have been tolerated by the electorate (see chart below). And now the bubbles have burst, along with central banks? credibility, what now?

After reading Ben Bernanke?s speech, once again denying culpability for the bubble, I really didn?t know whether to laugh or cry (remember that Ben Bernanke, like Tim Geithner, was a key member of the Greenspan Fed). I feel like Peter Finch in the film Network, sticking my head out of the window and shouting "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" Although criticism of the Fed (and the Bank of England) has now become louder and more widespread, I feel my longstanding derision for their actions during the so-called ?good years? puts me in a stronger position than some to offer further comment.

Opening my 2002-2005 file of old weeklies I did not have to go any further than the first paragraph of the top copy (end of December 2005). “As far as Alan Greenspan’s tenure at the Fed is concerned, we have spared few words of derision. We have made plain our views that the supposed US prosperity that has accompanied his tenure has been based on a grotesque mountain of debt. We have likened the economy to a Ponzi scheme which will ultimately collapse. He has allowed the funding of strong economic activity by mortgaging the US’s future against one bubble (equity) and then another (housing), which is now beginning to implode”. These are almost consensus thoughts now, but not then.

The pigmies that populate the political and monetary elites prefer to genuflect to the court of public opinion. Blaming the banks is simply a pathetic attempt to deflect the public fury from their own gross and unforgivable incompetence. We have stated before that banks are not the primary cause of the bust. Just as in Japan, a decade earlier, bank problems are a symptom of the bust. It is the monetary and regulatory authorities that are responsible for this mess. And it is not just obvious in retrospect. It was perfectly obvious from the beginning.

I was shocked by a recent survey of Wall Street and business economists, published in the Wall Street Journal (see Bernanke View Doubted 14 Jan? link). Asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the proposition ‘excessively easy Fed policy in the first half of the decade helped cause a bubble in house prices’, some 42, or 74% agreed with the proposition. So unbelievably there are still 12 economists surveyed who did not agree! Even more incredible, a majority of academic economists did not agree with the proposition. Maybe they have sympathy for a fellow academic or maybe they actually believe the preposterous proposition that the western central banks were not in control of the bubbles which were primarily due to tidal waves of surplus savings washing across from Asia.

John Taylor shows this to be nonsense. There was no global savings glut (see chart below)


John Taylor is well known for his famous ?Taylor Rule? for the appropriate level of interest rates and he has been very vocal in his criticism of Fed laxity in the aftermath of the Nasdaq crash in his paper ?The Financial Crisis and Policy Responses: An Empirical Analysis of What Went Wrong’, Nov. 2008 and elsewhere - link. His thesis is simple. Lax monetary policy caused the boom in housing upon which euphoric credit excesses were built. The subsequent bust was an inevitable mirror image of the boom. This simply would not have occurred had the Fed (and the Bank of England) acted earlier to tighten policy as shown in the Taylor?s counterfactual profiles (see charts below).


More recently, the San Francisco Fed published a paper this month showing that those countries which saw the steepest run-up in house prices over the last decade also saw the largest rise in household sector leverage (see charts below and link). Of course the causality runs both ways. Loose monetary policy generates higher borrowing which pushes up house prices. Subsequently this prompts other households to borrow against the rising value of their houses to finance consumption via net equity extraction.


Generally most commentators have fallen for the populist line that the banks are to blame. Very rarely does a leading commentator pin the blame where it deserves to be ? on the central banks. Hence, I was very interested to read the Financial Times Insight column on Tuesday from the deep-thinking columnist, John Plender (interestingly his title in the print edition was “Blame the central bankers more than the private bankers” was changed to “Remove the punchbowl before the party gets rowdy” in the web edition - link).

Plender?s point is classic Minsky. An unusually long period of economic stability, also known as The Great Moderation, engineered by Central Bank laxity inevitably created the conditions for the subsequent bust. “Central banks clearly bear much responsibility for past excessive credit expansion. The Fed’s gradualist and transparent approach to raising rates in middecade also ensured that bankers were never shocked into a recognition that unprecedented shrinkage of bank equity was phenomenally dangerous. Despite the popular perception that financial innovation caused so much of the damage in the crisis, the rise in bank leverage was a far more important factor”. His point that it takes guts to remove the punch-bowl when the party is in full swing is spot on. The Fed and the Bank of England were both gutless and spineless. Their love affair with The Great Moderation meant they simply were not prepared to tolerate a little more pain now to avoid a Minsky credit bust and massive unemployment later.

But what is the relationship, if any, between this extreme central bank laxity in the US and UK and these countries being at the forefront for the extraordinary rise in inequality over the last few decades (see cover chart)? And does it matter?

I was reading some typically thought-provoking comments from Marc Faber in his Gloom, Boom and Doom report about current extremes of inequality. It reminded me that our own excellent US economists Steven Gallagher and Aneta Markowska had also written on this. To be sure, the rise in inequality has been staggering in the US in recent years (see charts below).


It is well worth visiting the website of Emmanuel Saez of the University of California who has written extensively on this subject and now has updated his charts up until the end of 2008 (data available in Excel Format ? link). The New York Times reported on the recently released Census Bureau data and showed not only that median income had declined over the last 10 years in real terms, but that this is the first full decade that real median household income has failed to rise in the US - link. What is also so interesting from Professor Saez?s cross-sectional research is how inequality has clearly risen fastest in the Anglosaxon, freemarket economies of the US and the UK (also note that France, with much higher levels of equality, saw much more subdued growth in household leverage).

Our US economists make the very interesting point (similar to Marc Faber) that peaks of income skewness ? 1929 and 2007 ? tell us there is something fundamentally unsustainable about excessively uneven income distribution. With a relatively low marginal propensity to consume among the rich, when they receive the vast bulk of income growth, as they have, then the country will face an under-consumption problem (see 9 September The Economic News ?- link. Marc Faber also cites John Hobson?s work on this same topic from the 1930s).

Hence, while governments preside over economic policies which make the very rich even richer, national consumption needs to be boosted in some way to avoid underconsumption ending in outright deflation. In addition, the middle classes also need to be thrown a sop to disguise the fact they are not benefiting at all from economic growth. This is where central banks have played their pernicious part.

I recalled seeing another article from John Plender on this topic back in April 2008. His explanation for why there had been so little backlash from the stagnation of ordinary people?s income at a time when the rich did so well was simple: ?"Rising asset prices, especially in the housing market, created a sense of increasing wealth regardless of income. Remortgaging homes over a long period of declining interest rates provided a convenient source of funds via equity withdrawal to finance increased consumption” – link.

Now you might argue central banks had no alternative in the face of under-consumption. Or you might conclude there was a deliberate, unspoken collusion among policymakers to ?rob? the middle classes of their rightful share of income growth by throwing them illusionary spending power based on asset price inflation. We will never know.

But it is clear in my mind that ordinary working people would not have tolerated these extreme redistributive policies had not the UK and US central banks played their supporting role. Going forward, in the absence of a sustained housing boom, labour will fight back to take its proper (normal) share of the national cake, squeezing profits on a secular basis. For as Bill Gross pointed out back in PIMCO?s investment outlook ?Enough is Enough’ of August 1997, "?When the fruits of society’s labor become maldistributed, when the rich get richer and the middle and lower classes struggle to keep their heads above water as is clearly the case today, then the system ultimately breaks down.”- link. In Japan, low levels of inequality and inherent social cohesion prevented a social breakdown in this post-bubble debacle. With social inequality currently so very high in the US and the UK, it doesn?t take much to conclude that extreme inequality could strain the fabric of society far closer to breaking point.

Source

Obama Information Czar Calls For Banning Free Speech

The controversy surrounding White House information czar and Harvard Professor Cass Sunstein’s blueprint for the government to infiltrate political activist groups has deepened, with the revelation that in the same 2008 dossier he also called for the government to tax or even ban outright political opinions of which it disapproved.

Sunstein was appointed by President Obama to head up the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an agency within the Executive Office of the President.

On page 14 of Sunstein’s January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” the man who is now Obama’s head of information technology in the White House proposed that each of the following measures “will have a place under imaginable conditions” according to the strategy detailed in the essay.

1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.

2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.

That’s right, Obama’s information czar wants to tax or ban outright, as in make illegal, political opinions that the government doesn’t approve of. To where would this be extended? A tax or a shut down order on newspapers that print stories critical of our illustrious leaders?

And what does Sunstein define as “conspiracy theories” that should potentially be taxed or outlawed by the government? Opinions held by the majority of Americans, no less.

The notion that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone in killing JFK, a view shared by the vast majority of Americans in every major poll over the last ten years, is an example of a “conspiracy theory” that the federal government should consider censoring, according to Sunstein.

A 1998 CBS poll found that just 10 per cent of Americans believed that Oswald acted alone, so apparently the other 90 per cent of Americans could be committing some form of thought crime by thinking otherwise under Sunstein’s definition.

Sunstein also cites the belief that “global warming is a deliberate fraud” as another marginal conspiracy theory to be countered by government action. In reality, the majority of Americans now believe that the man-made explanation of global warming is not true, and that global warming is natural, according to the latest polls.

But Sunstein saves his most ludicrous example until last. On page 5 he characterizes as “false and dangerous” the idea that exposure to sunlight is healthy, despite the fact that top medical experts agree prolonged exposure to sunlight reduces the risk of developing certain cancers.

To claim that encouraging people to get out in the sun is to peddle a dangerous conspiracy theory is like saying that promoting the breathing of fresh air is also a thought crime. One can only presume that Sunstein is deliberately framing the debate by going to such absurd extremes so as to make any belief whatsoever into a conspiracy theory unless it’s specifically approved by the kind of government thought police system he is pushing for.

Despite highlighting the fact that repressive societies go hand in hand with an increase in “conspiracy theories,” Sunstein’s ’solution’ to stamp out such thought crimes is to ban free speech, fulfilling the precise characteristic of the “repressive society” he warns against elsewhere in the paper.

“We could imagine circumstances in which a conspiracy theory became so pervasive, and so dangerous, that censorship would be thinkable,” he writes on page 20. Remember that Sunstein is not just talking about censoring Holocaust denial or anything that’s even debatable in the context of free speech, he’s talking about widely accepted beliefs shared by the majority of Americans but ones viewed as distasteful by the government, which would seek to either marginalize by means of taxation or outright censor such views.

No surprise therefore that Sunstein has called for re-writing the First Amendment as well as advocating Internet censorship and even proposing that Americans should celebrate tax day and be thankful that the state takes a huge chunk of their income.

The government has made it clear that growing suspicion towards authority is a direct threat to their political agenda and indeed Sunstein admits this on page 3 of his paper.

That is why they are now engaging in full on information warfare in an effort to undermine, disrupt and eventually outlaw organized peaceful resistance to their growing tyranny.


Source

Letter to the Society of Professional Journalists Ethics Committee

TO: Andy Schotz,

Chairman of the Society of Professional Journalists Ethics Committee

Fred Brown, Vice-Chair

Dear Andy and Fred, June 19, 2009

I called SPJ today because of my concern over the current violation of journalism ethics I witness on a daily basis. To put it bluntly, it’s an outright embarrassment.

In today’s paper, it wasALL about the murdered abortion doctor, but made no mention of the soldier killed and the others wounded.

Countless daily incidents of purposeful omission by journalists more interested in preserving their jobs, and promoting liberal ideas than avidly ferreting out the truth exist.

And the majority of these purposeful omissions are seriously harming America’s citizens. I will cite a specific example: keeping the details of legislation AWAY from the American public until it either passes in the darkness of night or apprising them AFTER the FACT. Most Mainstream Media TV stations are NOT covering things that are important to citizens’ rights, liberties and freedoms. This seems to go on and on ad nauseam. WHY didn’t the media demand the transparency the Administration touted —when there was no five-day review period for legislation? Americans were betrayed by their own government and the media that is supposed to be looking out for their interests. They (we) didn’t even get 24 hours to review the first budget. And who was the actual author of this bill? Did any journalist really ask? Who had time to write an 1,100-page document that no one had time to read?

Where are the stories of how overpopulation because of immigration laws is driving America over an impending cliff? That overpopulation will soon contribute to political instability? While our politicians pander to potential voters – welcoming and making comfortable with benefits and social programs those living in America illegally.

Where are the stories about the 35 Terrorist Training Camps on American soil since 2002 without being on a State Department Watch List?Coupled with an existent Islamic Terror Network, the combination of these two organizations training people to kill us blankets our United States. Where are the stories reflecting how California’s bankruptcy can be blamed on its socialist state – a path being paved daily for the U.S. — where no government can sustain itself when social service outlays exceed revenues generated by taxpaying businesses and employees?

Since when does political correctness outweigh our obligation to tell the truth and not only save American lives but our critical resources such as land, air, fuel, water and food? Where are the stories about the energy resources we have within the United States that could be cultivated to make us energy independent – except that many in Congress won’t support it? WHY? Who is pulling the strings?

Where are the stories about the financial dealings of Al Gore and how he stands to profit from Cap and Trade which is a tax in disguise? Why can’t 30,000 scientists who have debunked the Global Warming Agenda obtain five minutes on a major news network to tell the American public the truth — that we are being had? Again, who is pulling the strings and why, why, why are journalists NOT asking these hard questions as watchdogs? And most important, where are the Mainstream News TV broadcasts and print stories telling parents they will lose parental rights if the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Treaty passes, giving control of our children to the UN?

Did I really state the removal of our rights as parents and transference to the United Nations? Yes, this is exactly what is intended by Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer and the entire Council on Foreign Relations whose agenda is to undermine the sovereignty of our United States. These are the stakes if journalists continue to keep these secrets to protect the powerful wanting the one world government endgame. After all, Hillary once said, “It takes a village to raise a child.”

What we have here IS a village of the biggest villains – the media – complicit in its march to facilitate this One World Order government- the utopian society where the middle class is being destroyed, and only the Power Elite and the slaves are left standing. A villain that knows the psychology of mass behavior all too well with its ability to shape public opinion and foreign policy – taking advantage of impressionable masses that count on spoon feeding where only “seeing is believing.“

Why are Americans not being told about HR 416, introduced by socialist progressive Democrats calling for the Senate to approve all treaties, including the Law of the Sea Treaty which would give control of our waters to the International Seabed Authority and heavily tax anything that uses, flies over, operates under the water, pollutes it or pours into it? We are talking $1 million fees annually to operate an oil drilling position under the water! What will this treaty do to the remainder of US businesses left standing? Cap-n-Trade will wipe out the coal industry and consumers’ pocketbooks for utility costs.

Yes, I said slaves after Cap and Trade (HR 2454) is ramrodded through. Slaves after socialized healthcare rationing ensures genocide. Slaves when the Feds grab control over all bodies of water private and public (S. 787), including our food supply (HR 875), ensuring we eat genetically modified garbage while they continue to spray us and our atmosphere, water and soil with barium, strontium, aluminum and other metals making us more susceptible to the weaponized viruses they’re purposely creating in one of the 1,200 bioweapons laboratories that shouldn’t even exist. Weapons labs designed to create cancers, weaponized rabies and bat viruses capable of spreading without a victim even being bitten or scratched.

Aluminum is being released out of airplanes spraying chemtrails at seven times the EPA’s allowable maximum for aluminum. Is it any wonder that Alzheimer’s disease is projected to bankrupt the healthcare industry? How come no entity is warning the population? These chemtrails are sickening us. While previous Administrations did nothing and the current one calls for more geo-engineering, the CDC continues in its cover up and you, the media, continue to NOT do your jobs. Why has the CDC not provided any answers to the 40 congressmen and senators who requested an expedited investigation two years ago into Morgellons Disease of which almost 20,000 Americans suffer? How these errant journalists can look themselves in the mirror is beyond comprehension.

And the biggest journalism question of the year shows no signs of ever being addressed: Why are Obama’s attorneys spending $1 million to hide all of his documents that would confirm that he is a natural born citizen and eligible for the office of president – key information that should have been made available before they voted? Why are you doing nothing about this? White House visitors’ logs not made available? Please tell me what the definition of transparency is again.

What I describe are critical concerns on topics vital to our survival as individuals and as a nation. These purposeful omissions are in one word – criminal.

Many are getting a free pass while others are under heavy scrutiny.The public is missing things because of the media’s purposeful complacency and selective identification. Smart consumers are growing tired of the propaganda and the lies…………….as evidenced by declining subscriptions and advertising revenues.

Yes, the recession and economy have a great deal to do with this —–but the real catalyst is the lies. Can’t we DEMAND journalism do better to protect what is left of America our Republic? But now as media gets into financial trouble, government bailouts will ensure even less truth sees the light of day because after all, a dog knows better than to bite the hand that feeds it. Why no outrage over ABC?

I am outraged and embarrassed every single day by the continued complicity and negligent behavior of journalists who facilitate this march toward one world government and the aborting of capitalism. Keep in mind that every last one of these journalists and their families will be thrown under the bus once the middle class is eradicated and the utopian state is attained – pure evil for a liberty loving people.

We have an outright obligation to DEMAND the truth and nothing but the truth be told via every word in our print or broadcast products. We must insist journalists perform better for the people they are charged with representing(misrepresenting) and protecting.

Journalism hasn’t been and clearly is NO LONGER the watchdog of government ———–but its lapdog.

Carmen Reynolds, Lt Col (Ret), USAF

Investigative journalist, copy editor, researcher

Radio show host

First Amendment Foundation

Society of Professional Journalists

BS, Criminology and Law Enforcement

MA, Business Personnel Management

BA, Journalism


Source

Obama Extends Power over Governors

As Kurt Nimmo wrote in his article Obama Expands Federal Power Over the States with Executive Order, "The order, signed on January 11 2010, further diminishes the sovereignty of the states and builds on a framework for possible martial law. The executive order was completely ignored by the corporate media."

Ten Governors are required to meet whenever called. What if they refuse?
As the executive orders mandates, The Council shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs

This authorizes the federal government, whenever they wish, to round up ten Governors. What if they refuse? Will they be arrested or taken by force?

An abuse of power
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and all the Founding Fathers would be furious past the boiling point over this Unconstitutional, self-authorizing expansion of executive power.

Given too much power, the Founding Fathers knew an abusive President would turn against the citizens and their states, so they granted specific, limited powers to the Executive Branch and established barriers to halt unauthorized expansions of power.

Ten Governors to be outnumbered and outgunned
Once assembled, Governors are no longer protected by their bodyguards, executive protection or state militia. They are subject to intimidation, interrogation, bullying, and personal threats. Would anyone exclude torture?

Under the false pretense of meeting to "exchange views, information, or advice," ten Governors will be forced to meet with top military commanders including:

The "Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counter terrorism; the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs; the Commander, United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security"

Governors—You will do as commanded
The Founding Fathers knew that freedom and liberty is always destroyed from domestic enemies, and during the final stages of converting a republic to fascism, an attack is pretended and enemies or terrorists are blamed.

This Council of Governors, like Hitler's staff, may be told it is their duty to impose martial law to quell rebellions or arrest terrorists, who are just Constitution-loving citizens on the government's massive terrorist list, and they may be compelled to carry out such orders.

What if Governors are commanded to disregard the Bill of Rights, arrest innocent citizens and take them to FEMA detention camps?

The President serves the people; the people do not serve the President
The President serves the people and states, and must stand accountable. It is the duty of the Governors, Congress and Supreme Court to check his every act against the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to thwart the Executive Branch from amassing tyrannical powers, and to nullify any bills, executive orders or presidential signings their states do not support.

State governments are not extensions of the federal government. Governors do not serve the Executive Branch. This executive order is completely wrong, is exactly what the Constitution was established to prevent, and must not be accepted.

Council of Governors can be used to bully other Governors
Will acts against these Governors be used an example for non-compliance of federal mandates? Will Governors be persuaded to declare that state sovereignty is irrelevant?

If Governors are bullied, who will protect the people?
Citizens are protected by their states, each led by a state Governor. Governors have the power to organize and assemble militias to defend citizens against domestic and foreign enemies, including despots, dictators, the President, and totalitarian government.

Now the President can conveniently demand meetings at all the wrong times
What if Governors had scheduled a meeting to nullify executive powers, dissolve the Executive Branch or plan succession? The Founding Fathers established separate branches of government to balance power representing citizens and states. The Constitution was designed to protect citizens against an all-powerful President who grants himself sweeping powers over Governors and the citizens they are sworn to defend.

If Governors decide to protect their states against a run-away Executive Branch, they must not be kept from their duties.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are roadblocks against tyranny, not Hallmark Greeting Cards
The Founding Fathers studied history and the rise and fall of nations. They knew that whenever an abusive King, President or Executive Branch gets too much authority, they practice unrighteous and unlawful dominion, so they created a Constitution to protect people against their government, not to protect government against the people. By controlling Governors by their earlobes, the Executive Branch is seizing unprecedented state control under the disguise of exchanging, "views, information, or advice."

While some say this is just the formation of an advisory council, this unlawful presidential executive order is another attack against freedom and liberty. Governors may be our last defense against executive abuse, and states nullifying Unconstitutional bills our last hope. Those who seek to complete the overthrow of the United States of America know this very well.

Tyranny and abuse always begin with what first seems to be harmless acts of legislation. Phone your state Governors today and demand your voice be heard.


Source

The Constitution Will Never Enforce Itself

The following was a prepared speech for an event in Greeley, CO on 12-22-09

I want to talk with you about the State Sovereignty movement and Nullification. Our Founding Fathers secured for us a land of freedom and opportunity that has been the envy of the entire world, and sought to protect those freedoms and that opportunity with our Constitution. But the Constitution is not in itself the protection, only the means for us to protect ourselves.

It is quite clear the federal government is completely out of touch with those they are supposed to be serving. Yet the Constitution provides for us, the inheritors of the greatest system of government the world has ever known, a way to defend our rights. This is the tenth amendment! And while Amendment Ten has not stopped the power grab from all branches of the federal government, it does provide both the framework and the justification for “we the people” to maintain and defend our share of the power in our political system.

First you have to understand that power is a finite resource, meaning that as one group gains power, it must come from another group. In this case us. Make no mistake about it; a lot of laws passed in the last ninety six years have been about power. More to the point, it is about power that is going from “we the people”, to the political class in Washington D.C

So it is not enough to be against Nationalized Healthcare,

It is not enough to be against Cap and Trade,

It is not enough to be against the bailouts, against TARP, against the Patriot ACT, against No Child Left behind!

It is not enough to oppose activist judges legislating from the bench, or executive orders, or bureaucratic regulations or any other “laws” without the understanding that these “laws” were NOT passed in a legislative branch of Government as laid out in the Constitution. You must see that it is really about power, and you have to begin to recognize that this power has been taken from “we the people”!

How? Through apathy, indifference, and willful ignorance, we have let it be taken.

This brings us to the tenth amendment and Nullification.

Nullification is the idea that the people of the several States entered into a contract called the Constitution where the Federal Government was granted specific powers, most of which are found in Article One Section Eight. And that the states had not only a right, but an obligation to interpose or nullify laws passed by the Federal Government that go beyond those powers, and infringe upon the rights of “we the people”. This idea is clearly spelled out by the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It is common sense that the states must have some recourse available to them should the Federal Government overreach its powers, and infringe upon the liberty of “we the people”. Does this sound crazy? Some notes on this idea from the founders before the Constitution was ratified.

“It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.” Alexander Hamilton Federalist Papers#28

“The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” James Madison Federalist Papers# 39

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” James Madison Federalist Papers#45

“Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other; at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” James Madison Federalist Papers# 51

“We may safely rely on the disposition of the state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.” Alexander Hamilton Federalist Papers#85

The Federalist papers were never meant to define the Constitution; but to sell it to the general public to get it ratified. You see, the former colonist were not eager to trade a despotic centralized Government across the ocean for one on their own continent. Proof is self evident by the fact that they had to promise that a bill of rights would be added to get it ratified.

The Doctrine of Nullification was first introduced in 1798 in the Kentucky Resolution, written by Thomas Jefferson, and the Virginia resolution, written by James Madison. These were in response to the “Alien” and Sedition acts”. I urge you to read these resolutions, and I brought a few copies of the pocket constitution put out by the Campaign for Liberty which includes both. And in case you didn’t know, the “Alien and Sedition” acts among other things made it illegal to criticize the Government. This doctrine was later adopted by Massachusetts and Wisconsin to nullify parts of the “Fugitive Slave ACT”, and by South Carolina to nullify a tariff they believed harmful to their state economy, and by the New England states in response to embargos.

‘What about the “Supremacy clause”?’ The one that states the Federal Government is the Supreme law of the land.

1997 “Mack/Printz vs. the US” Where two County Sheriffs sued the Federal Government over the Brady Bill. This was a law that forced county Sheriffs to run background check on their citizens who bought handguns at the expense of the county, and any sheriff who did not comply with this law would be subject to arrest. These sheriffs argued that this law violated the tenth amendment. This case was heard and ultimately won before the Supreme Court.

Justice Scalia writes for the majority, “…the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discreet, enumerated ones.” And in a direct challenge to this interpretation of the Supremacy clause, he writes, “It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of dual sovereignty” he also states “This separation of the two spheres is one of the constitution’s structural protections of liberty. Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the federal government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.”

But there is really a supremacy clause, and it states:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” This clearly states the Constitution and laws that carry out, follow and continue the Constitution are the Supreme Law of the land.

How about the Real ID Act, whereby the States had until May of 2008 to issue everyone of its citizens a national ID card complete with biometrics, resulting in the complete loss of privacy from the state. States who failed to comply by the deadline would see its citizens loose the ability to board an air plane or enter a federal building. It has been over a year since that deadline has passed, and I ask you, do any of you have a “real ID”? How many of you have entered a federal building or boarded an airplane in the last year? Do you know why? Because the states said NO!

Is there anyone here tonight, having heard what I have had to say about States Rights, and the Doctrine of Nullification, who believe that this is a real and viable strategy in the fight to, not only secure the freedoms we still enjoy, but to take back the power that has always been our god given natural rights?

For those of you who have answered yes, here is a strategy for how we will win!

First, we must redirect the efforts from the Federal office holders who not only have ignored us, but hold us in contempt! And direct that energy towards the State Legislators. These people live here in our communities with us and have much less insulation from “we the people”.

We must get them to introduce and pass key laws including: nullifying both a National Healthcare act and Cap and Trade, an honest money act, to protect Coloradoans from the oncoming hyper-inflation that will be the result of this out of control spending. Furthermore we should follow Tennessee, whose legislators are introducing a bill which creates an escrow account whereby legal federal taxes are collected and held by the states as protection against federal backlash against our nullification efforts.

Next we must have them introduce and pass legislation which will “build and impenetrable wall around the county sheriff and the second amendment” examples include “Sheriff First” “Extension of the Castle Doctrine” “Prohibition of Gun and Ammunition Tracking” and finally a “Firearms Freedom Act”. This is laid out in detail in an article I have printed out, and brought with me.

At some point as “we the people” work to make the Constitution relevant again, you will begin to hear the progressives and their puppets use the term “general welfare clause”

The general welfare clause has been interpreted by those favoring a strong central government to mean that as long as the law was meant to be in the “general welfare” of the union, congress has the authority to pass it. The argument against this is the Virginia plan, which was introduced by Madison at the Constitutional Convention. This plan would have created a National Government that gave the central government the authority to do anything it wanted. It is important to remember this plan was rejected by the delegation, and more importantly, it was never ratified by “we the people”.

James Madison, considered the ‘father of the Constitution’ and the author of the defeated Virginia plan, stated the following about this interpretation of the “general welfare clause”.

“Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them.” Think on that a second. Now let me give you one of my favorite quotes from James Madison. “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

This should help to explain where we are today and how we got here, and hopefully what we need to do next.

Will it be easy? No. Every step of the way not only will enemies of Freedom tells us this wont work, but even our friends, who should be on our side will say it is impossible. The Central Government is too big to take on!

Will there be risk? Yes. We will be taking on the most powerful “empire” in the world today, and you can be sure that they will not give up all this power without a fight. But I ask you to consider what dangers our founding fathers faced, surely this pales in comparison.

I think Samuel Adams said it best when he said this, “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better then the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen”

I want to leave you all with a few closing thoughts. Remember;

It is about your future,

It is about your children’s future

It is about your grandchildren’s future,

It is about control,

It is especially about power, and finally

It is about TIME people were willing to stand up for themselves and do more then just complain to our would be masters for better treatment. And begin to assert the power that is our god given birth right as American Patriots!

Geoff Broughton [send him email] is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Colorado Tenth Amendment Center

Post Script: I wrote this as a speech, and most of my research was done through internet search engines. Much of the content is from Articles or Videos posted at http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/ I used hyper links to articles where I took information from directly, to serve as a poor mans bibliography. I would also like to recognize Kevin R.C. Gutzman, J.D., Ph.D. author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution” , Thomas E. Woods Jr.,Phd. Author of “Politically Incorrect Guide to American History” and Sheriff Richard Mack author of “County Sheriff Americas Last Hope” as books that I have read and was greatly influenced by.


Source

Monsanto's GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals

In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers found that agricultural giant Monsanto's GM corn is linked to organ damage in rats.

According to the study, which was summarized by Rady Ananda at Food Freedom, "Three varieties of Monsanto's GM corn - Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 - were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities."

Monsanto gathered its own crude statistical data after conducting a 90-day study, even though chronic problems can rarely be found after 90 days, and concluded that the corn was safe for consumption. The stamp of approval may have been premature, however.

In the conclusion of the IJBS study, researchers wrote:

"Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity....These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown."

Monsanto has immediately responded to the study, stating that the research is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products."

The IJBS study's author Gilles-Eric Séralini responded to the Monsanto statement on the blog, Food Freedom, "Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."

Source

Carbon Traders Charged in Fraud Case

Three Britons and a Dutchman have been charged by Belgian authorities with money laundering in an investigation into fraudulent trading in carbon emissions permits, Belgian prosecutors said on Monday.

The fraud occurs when carbon credits are bought and imported tax-free from other EU countries, then sold to domestic buyers, charging them value-added tax (VAT). The sellers then disappear without paying the tax to governments.

The three Britons were arrested at the end of 2009 in the Belgian town of Tournai as part of an investigation into transactions worth some 3 million euros ($NZ5.8 million).

A fourth suspect from the Netherlands was arrested on Sunday. Prosecutors would not disclose the names of those arrested.

The three Britons set up a company in Tournai, in south-western Belgium, which bought the credits in Britain and sold them on to banks via an intermediary, pocketing the 21% VAT charged in Belgium, prosecutor Jean-Bertrand Combier said.

The Dutchman lives in nearby Mouscron and works for a Belgian company which bought the credits and sold them on to the banks, Combier said.

The three British suspects have denied the charges. The Dutchman's position was not yet clear on Monday, with the investigation continuing, Combier said.

Last December, European police agency Europol said fraudulent trading in EU carbon credits in the past 18 months has led to more than 5 billion euros in tax revenue losses for several EU nations.

Last August, the British tax office arrested seven people in London in a suspected 38 million pounds value-added tax fraud in the carbon market. Several other EU states have raised concerns about the potential for fraud in the market.

A European Commission working group approved a proposal in December to apply a "reverse charge" mechanism to carbon trading to prevent possible VAT fraud.

Source

George W. Obama: After his first year, Obama shows his true face

Before President Obama, it was grimly accurate to write, as I often did in the Voice, that George W. Bush came into the presidency with no discernible background in constitutional civil liberties or any acquaintance with the Constitution itself. Accordingly, he turned the "war on terror" over to Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld—ardent believers that the Constitution presents grave obstacles in a time of global jihad.

But now, Bush’s successor—who actually taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago—is continuing much of the Bush-Cheney parallel government and, in some cases, is going much further in disregarding our laws and the international treaties we’ve signed.

On January 22, 2009, the apostle of "change we can believe in" proclaimed: "Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of my presidency." But four months into his first year in command, Obama instructed his attorney general, Eric Holder, to present in a case, Jewel v. National Security Agency, a claim of presidential "sovereign immunity" that not even Dick Cheney had the arrant chutzpah to propose.

Five customers of AT&T had tried to go to court and charge that the government's omnipresent spy, the NSA, had been given by AT&T private information from their phone bills and e-mails. In a first, the Obama administration countered—says Kevin Bankston of Electronic Frontier Foundation, representing these citizens stripped of their privacy—that "the U.S. can never be sued for spying that violated federal surveillance statutes, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or the Wiretap Act."

It is one thing, as the Bush regime did, to spy on us without going to court for a warrant, but to maintain that the executive branch can never even be charged with wholly disregarding our rule of law is, as a number of lawyers said, "breathtaking."

On the other hand, to his credit, Obama's very first executive orders in January included the ending of the CIA "renditions"—kidnapping terrorism suspects off the streets in Europe and elsewhere and sending them for interrogation to countries known to torture prisoners. However, in August, the administration admitted that the CIA would continue to send such manacled suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation.

Why send them to a foreign prison if they're not going to be tortured to extract information for the CIA? Oh, the U.S. would get "guarantees" from these nations that the prisoners would not be tortured. That's the same old cozening song that Condoleezza Rice and George W. Bush used to sing robotically.

President Obama also solemnly pledged to have "the most open administration in American history." Nonetheless, his Justice Department lawyers have already invoked "state secrets" to prevent cases brought by victims of the CIA renditions from being heard.

In February, in a lawsuit brought by five graduates of CIA "black sites" before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, one of the judges, visibly surprised at hearing the new "change" president invoking "state secrets," asked the government lawyer, Douglas Letter, "The change in administration has no bearing on this?"

The answer: "No, your honor." This demand for closing this case before it can be heard had, he said, been "thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration, [and] these are authorized positions."

Said the torture graduates' ACLU lawyer, Ben Wizner: "Much is at stake in this case. If the CIA's overboard secrecy claims prevail, torture victims will be denied their say in court solely on the basis of an affidavit submitted by their torturers."

Barack Obama a torturer? Not exactly. In this particular case, the torture policy had been set by George W. Bush. President Obama is just agreeing with his predecessor. Does that make Obama complicit in these acts of torture? You decide.

What is clear, beyond a doubt—and not only in "rendition" cases, but in other Obama validations of what Dick Cheney called the necessary "dark side" of the previous administration—has been stated by Jameel Jaffer. Head of the ACLU's National Security Project, he is the co-author of the definitive evidence of the Bush-Cheney war crimes that Obama is shielding, Administration of Torture (Columbia University Press).

After the obedient Holder rang the "state secrets" closing bell in the San Francisco case, Jaffer described the link between the Bush and Obama presidencies: "The Bush administration constructed a legal framework for torture, but the Obama administration is constructing a legal framework for impunity."

It's become an Obama trademark: reversing a vigorous position he had previously taken, as when he signed into law the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Amendments Act that, as a senator, he had vowed to filibuster as a protest against their destruction of the Fourth Amendment. And now he's done it again. His government is free to spy on us at will.

For another example of the many Obamas, the shifting president had supported the release of photographs of Bush-era soldier abuses of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. (The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York had approved the publication of these "intensive interrogations.") But Obama changed his mind, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates flat-out censored the photos. Not surprisingly, the Roberts Supreme Court agreed with Gates and Obama and overruled the Second Circuit.

[Continue @ source]

Source

Obamacare: A Runaway Train

Obama’s healthcare legislation is not more socialism, it’s fascism, pure and simple, with “our” government fronting for the private International Monetary/Banking Cartel’s insurance corporations, at great expense to all taxpaying Americans, who will be receiving far less health care than ever before.

Socialist congressman from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich, who along with Texas Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul, who make up part of a handful of those in congress not owned by the Monetary Cartel, has shed some light on Obama’s new healthcare bill, which will ensure US health care will become progressively worse, at great expense to all of us who still pay income taxes:

“We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory for-profit insurance system, which makes money not providing health care,” wrote Congressman Kucinich.

“We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed, the strengthening of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.

“Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care.

“Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200%, while the number of administrators has increased by 3,000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the US is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.”

Former TV/movie star Chuck Norris tells us that Obama’s 2,000, or so, page health care bill has sections which allow government agents entry into our homes to usurp parental rights over child care and development.

Considering the crime and corruption of the federal government, Mr,. Obama, do you really believe your administration is better qualified to rear our children than American parents, or have you gotten to those pages during your “careful” study of the legislation you have so vehemently supported?

This disaster called Obamacare is a runaway fascistic bill, that no one in the White House or congress has written or read, but is being heralded as morally necessary for America. Does anyone know everything that’s in these 2,000 plus pages of badly written legalese? Yes, those mysterious demons in the Cartel’s “think-tanks” and tax-free foundations, who wrote those 2,000 plus pages, know all about it, very unlike those in congress who voted for it and a president who will sign it.

And for those of you who like the ever expanding growth of the federal government, you shall be thrilled with Obamacare: It’s estimated that 111 new bureaucracies, boards, commissions, and programs will be spawn from Obamacare, which will raise insurance premiums, ration care, and increase the overall cost of health care in America, while the quality of medical care sinks ever lower.

Additionally, Obamacare will require Americans who shun Western medicine in favor of alternative medicines – not covered by insurance – to buy expensive, corporate, health insurance from the very corporations the health conscious have long avoided, with threats of huge fines and prison time. In other words, Obamacare will not cover the purchase of vitamins, minerals, homeopathy, acupuncture, naturopathic, or chiropractic care, but will force health enlightened citizens to buy into the cut, burn, and poison rackets of corporate drugs and bloody surgeries.

Mr. President, would it not have been better to have concentrated your health care legislation on real care, by curbing the abuses and malpractices of the medical/pharmaceutical combine, that kills so many of us? Tell us, Sir … when will you begin delivering on your promise of “change we can believe in?”

From the jury box to the ballot box to our cartridge boxes, “our” government is stealing our justice, our democracy, and our freedoms, while ruining our health and standard of living in the process.

But the dark days of the oligarchs are drawing to a close, as people across the world awaken to the crimes of the Cartel and their weaselly minions in government.

Just you wait Mr. Henry Higgins … just you wait!

Source

'Plastics-Jesus' heir David de Rothschild bears skull & bones belt

FLASHBACK: The Return of Arnold's Nazi Belt Buckle

Are the elite mocking us with symbols of their dominance, as they pose as the saviors of humanity?

One gets that impression. Already David de Rothschild, heir to the London branch of the Rothschild family, has been promoting an eco-stunt (as he rightly calls it below) where he will travel around the world in a recycled-plastic boat powered by human fecal matter-- a form of making lemonade out of lemons for an elite class that believes it is the hordes of unwashed masses who are trampling always upon Mother Earth (or maybe that's just a populist perception of the wider depopulation agenda).

Now, he has been spotted promoting his Plastiki boat while sporting a Skull & Bones belt buckle, a universal symbol of death, piracy and a key emblem of the Nazi regime. The photos are in an article hailing de Rothschild as the 'Plastics Jesus'-- a disgusting moniker for a true eco-fasicst. The Rothshild family stands to gain even more from carbon trading schemes than Al Gore does, all while pretending to save the Earth. Reuters: Rothschild, E3 launch carbon credit investment fund

Surely, dictator-loving Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger was making a statement when he showed off his Nazi-issue 'deathshead' belt buckle in TIME and Esquire magazines (see below).


From Outdoor magazine: "I think the perception can be, Here's an affluent kid, and this is some kind of environmental stunt," de Rothschild says. "But if you dig into it, you can't belittle it like that. You go, Actually, these guys have developed something credible."


As you may have heard, David de Rothschild, 31, an heir to the famous European banking fortune, is building a catamaran out of some 12,500 plastic water bottles and sailing it from San Francisco to Sydney, Australia. He plans to depart by the end of the year with two full-time skippers and a cameraman. Along the way they'll pass through the Eastern Garbage Patch, a slowly twirling vortex of suspended plastic bits in the North Pacific that's been estimated at twice the size of Texas. At stopover islands on the route, he'll pick up and drop off temporary crew members—scientists, writers, artists, entrepreneurs, athletes, even Hollywood celebrities, if they have environmental credibility—who will help him market his message.





Source