Search Blog Posts

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Big Pharma's Mass Vaccination Agenda: Propaganda Assault on Informed Consent

March 2, 2015
By James F. Tracy

Major US news media have presented a grossly distorted and misleading interpretation of vaccines and their relationship to public health since early January. These  journalistic organs have suggested the recent measles outbreak in the Western US has been a crisis of monumental proportions.

This flagrant and cynical sensationalism has become a foundation for intense advocacy on behalf of the pharmaceutical corporate and regulatory cartel targeting patient informed consent—a founding principal of modern medical practice and personal freedom. Keeping in mind the close to 300 vaccine products now in the pharmaceutical industry’s pipeline,[1] closer analysis of “measles outbreak” press coverage suggests a conscious effort by corporate news media to virtually banish such notions and practices from the public mind. A news media dependent on over $1 billion in advertising dollars from big pharma must almost by necessity indulge their clients’ broader agenda.

An impartial journalistic approach to the question of vaccination and personal choice would provide equal and unprejudiced airing of “both sides,” in addition to the varied grey areas in the debate, from the corporate and statist entities flying the banner of mandatory vaccination to cautious segments of the citizenry voicing reservations toward such technology alongside the foremost prerogative of personal choice.

A LexisNexis search of US newspaper and wire service articles from December 28, 2015—the official start date of the California measles outbreak—to February 8, 2015 [2] using the search terms “measles” and “vaccination” yields 799 press releases or wire stories and 746 newspaper articles and opinion pieces. Much of this coverage predictably emphasizes the array of vaccine-friendly assumptions and pronouncements from entities abetting the pharmaceutical industry’s long-term profit-specific objectives.

For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is, alongside the Food and Drug Administration, the most powerful bureaucratic arm utilized by the global pharmaceutical cartel to elicit compliance with the federal vaccine schedule for children from the medical profession and broader population. Of the article sample referenced above, close to one-third (517) reference the “Centers for Disease Control” or “CDC” in their text, suggesting citation of the agency and its policies to persuasively instruct readers on vaccine efficacy and safety.

In contrast, the same body of over 1,500 press releases, news stories and editorials reference “informed consent” only three times—and when the term is used it is done so either in passing or to disparage the practice itself. For example, Arthur Caplan, a professor of medicine at New York University, warns against doctors even considering the practice of informed consent in regard to vaccines. “The science is unimpeachable,” Caplan proclaims. ” Vaccines do not cause autism; measles is dangerous and contagious; inoculating against the disease is neither pointless nor riskier than abstention.” The physician then amazingly suggests that genuine informed consent–explaining how a vaccine such as Measles, Mumps, Rubella, which can severely injure, incapacitate, or kill the child patient–must be categorically replaced by the dissemination of pharmaceutical industry propaganda and half-truths. “Those doctors who counsel otherwise – who distort what patients need to know to preserve their health or that of their children – have crossed a bright red line. They have violated a patient’s right to informed consent, which depends on accurate information.”[3]
READ MORE

DOJ, CFTC have Begun Investigation of 10 Major Banks for Rigging Metals Fixing

Need a job? Drop gold investigation
   
Late last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) had begun investigations of 10 major banks over the process of setting prices for gold, silver, platinum and palladium in the London market.

Look for the end result to pretty much
be a cover-up of the suppression of
gold and silver prices. – Pat Heller
The banks under scrutiny are Bank of Nova Scotia, Barclays PLC, Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Societe Generale SA, Standard Bank Group Ltd., and UBS AG. After this announcement, the Swiss competition commission, WEKO, said it was looking into possible manipulation by Swiss banks in the precious metals markets.

As reported in the Journal, the Department of Justice is looking into criminal activity, while the CFTC has opened a civil investigation.

Many researchers have written about the extensive history of central banks manipulating gold prices over the decades.  In the United States, for instance, declassified government documents released so far have all confirmed that the federal government has conspired with other governments and major banks to manipulate gold prices right from the 1930s up into the 1980s.

Historically, many government monetary systems were valued in relation to gold, so it should not surprise anyone that governments would try to influence the relative prices.  In the United States, for instance, the Treasury Department’s Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) was established as a provision of the January 31, 1934 Gold Reserve Act.  The ESF was explicitly authorized to use its funds to stabilize the exchange value of the dollar versus gold.  Changes over the years have never revoked the authority to manipulate gold prices.  In fact, a law enacted in 1970 directed the Secretary of the Treasury, with the approval of the President, to “deal in gold, foreign exchange, and other instruments of credit and securities.”

These new investigations follow similar reviews in Europe. Last year, the British government fined Barclays Bank more than $40 million for one incident of gold price manipulation.  Also, the Swiss regulator, FINMA, said it found “serious misconduct” among precious metals traders at UBS involving a silver-fix order of one client.

If you think that the researchers and writers claiming that central banks and major private banks were manipulating the precious metals markets by suppressing prices are finally going to be proven right, think again.

I am confident that the end result of the U.S. government investigations will be, after several years in the works, some fines collected from many of these banks for specific individual incidents. Further, there will be promises that whatever wrongdoing they had done will no longer occur.  And that will be all that happens.

Why do I think this is what will be the end result of such a bombshell development? The answer is simple. Ask yourself why the DOJ and CFTC are investigating trading in the London markets but not in the New York COMEX markets. While it is true that the London market handles more volume of precious metals trading than the COMEX, the U.S. markets are more relevant to Americans.

Also ask yourself why the investigations involve eight foreign owned banks and only two U.S. companies. The foreign banks would only be within the purview of American regulators if their actions in the London markets were perpetrated from the U.S.-based offices. Why aren’t other U.S. banks being investigated?

The reason these investigations will be pretty much whitewashed is that the Department of Justice is unwilling to go after Wall Street. New York Federal Reserve Bank president William C. Dudley (who worked at Goldman Sachs 1986-2007 as the chief U.S. economist, a partner, and as a managing director) confirmed not that long ago that the DOJ has no ongoing investigations of Wall Street firms. The DOJ is not conducting such investigations despite former Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan’s public claim that there were massive illegal and criminal frauds committed by Wall Street firms.

The DOJ consistently stated that it will not prosecute these large institutions because the risk of damage to the economy, as they were told by outside experts.  However, could this DOJ policy could have more to do with the revolving doors where the DOJ and CFTC investigators largely have worked for the above named banks or hope to do so when the leave government employment?
After all, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced two years ago that no investigation of UBS’s fixing of LIBOR interest rates would be done. Holder claimed in a news conference that the lack of prosecution was based on a decision of how such an investigation would impact global financial markets. But, was the real reason that UBS was a client of the law firm where Holder worked before his current job?
Want to add some luck to your 
collection or your pocket?

In a previous decision not to investigate HSBC, a Congressional panel asked for the identity of outside parties who advised the DOJ to drop the investigation for global financial stability reasons.  Eventually, Justice officials had to admit that they did not consult any outside parties before canceling the HSBC review.

In sum, I expect the public to be lulled into thinking that the U.S. government is really finding and reporting the truth about the manipulation of precious metals prices. However, once you realize that the DOJ and CFTC are investigating the wrong market (London instead of the New York COMEX), not all of the appropriate American-based banks that should be investigated are being pursued because the government agencies have a “policy” to avoid investigations of firms where they used to work or hope to later be employed. Don’t expect any definitive revelations about the depth and breadth of the manipulation of precious metals trading in America.

Instead, look for the end result to pretty much be a cover-up of the suppression of gold and silver prices.




FDA is Hiding 22 Fraudulent Falsified Studies from the American Public

Were you of the understanding that Congress had Oversight over the FDA?

Posted by: Stephanie Vick, staff writer in Science News February 24, 2015 

(NaturalHealth365) Professor Charles Seife of the Arthur L. Carter Institute of Journalism at New York University recently uncovered some disturbing evidence about the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This information came to light when he made a Freedom of Information request earlier this year. 

When Seife received his information, he learned that 22 clinical trials submitted to the FDA were falsified, and the results of these falsified trials were not revealed to the public.

With his students assisting him, Professor Seife compared the FDA’s actions regarding these trials against information on them in peer-reviewed studies. The results of Seife’s investigation were recently published in the online journal, JAMA Internal Medicine.
The FDA is keeping the public in the dark about scientific fraud
When clinical trials are found to have violated proper practices or to have been falsified, the FDA takes regulatory action against those conducting the trials. 

When this is required, paperwork regarding the trials is traditionally marked as “official action indicated (OAI).”

Seife’s investigation revealed that 57 trials received the OAI indicator for everything from bad record keeping (35 studies) to actual falsification of results (22 studies). The affected trials took place between 1998 and 2013. The FDA never informed the public of these findings or of any actions taken against the facilitators of the studies.
How could the FDA allow falsified studies to be published?
While the FDA did take ‘official action’ against clinical trial facilitators who falsified results, they allowed the results to be published. No retractions for these falsified results were ever required. Studies with blatantly falsified results remain in medical journals, misleading other researchers as well as the public about the truth.

It is no longer a ‘secret’, the FDA has violated the public trust.  This is the same organization that refuses to label seafood that has mercury – a known neurotoxic (heavy metal) substance; allows the deadly (artificial) sweetener aspartame to be sold in food products and gives its approval to drugs that cause harm.

By allowing falsified results of clinical trials to remain in publications with no retractions required, the FDA is violating the public’s trust. The public has a right to expect transparency from the FDA, as the health and safety of America’s people depend on it.

Professor Seife has stated that the FDA seldom takes any action to make sure falsified study results are corrected in the medical literature, even when it finds significant departures from good study practices. And, the only reason why the FDA has not been taken down is because the federal government, its regulatory agencies and the U.S. legal system work together to protect corporate interests – while minimizing its exposure to lawsuits.
The evidence is clear: The FDA does not care about public safety
When the FDA does NOT retract inaccurate and/or falsified research projects – this indicates a clear violation of their duties and obligations – both morally and professionally. In fact, the actions of the FDA are criminal – by NOT making every (reasonable) step to protect the population.

And, just in case you have any doubt how bad this organization really is – consider this quote from a credible source:
“The thing that bugs me is that the people think the FDA is protecting them. It isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it’s doing are as different as night and day.” – Herbert Ley Jr., M.D., former Commissioner of the FDA.
The FDA consistently acts as the ‘protector’ of drug company profits and supports the monopoly-control that the pharmaceutical industry has over the world.  Not only does the FDA hide fraud, they actually censor quality health information from getting into the public domain. 

In fact, here are several examples of how the FDA deliberately withholds lifesaving information from the general public:
  • Between 1992 and 1996, the FDA prohibited companies that sell folic acid from telling women of childbearing age that .4 mg of folic acid daily before pregnancy could reduce the incidence of neural tube defects (including spina bifida and encephaly) by 40%. FDA’s censorship contributed to a preventable 10,000 neural tube defect births.
  • Between 1994 to 2000, the FDA prohibited companies that sell omega-3 fatty acids from telling Americans that those fatty acids found in fish oil could reduce the risk of coronary heart disease by as much as 50%. FDA’s censorship contributed to a preventable 1.8 million sudden death heart attacks.
  • Between 2000 and the present, FDA prohibits companies that sell saw palmetto extract (the fruit of the dwarf American palm tree) from telling Americans that saw palmetto reduces enlarged prostates and relieves related symptoms. Approximately 50% of all men age 50 and older suffer from enlarged prostates and are denied access to this information.
  • Between 2000 and the present, FDA prohibits companies that sell glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate from telling Americans that those dietary ingredients treat osteoarthritis and relieve osteoarthritic pain and stiffness. Approximately 20 million Americans suffer needlessly from osteoarthritis.
This criminal behavior must be stopped. Without the correct information, other researchers, as well as the general population, are being misled and allowed to go down roads regarding their own studies, health and wellness practices – that lead to nowhere, or eventual harmful outcomes.  The FDA has broken public trust; acted without regard to public safety and must be held accountable for their actions.

References:
Source via naturalhealth365

Can States Keep Secrets from the Federal Government?

Anti-commandeering laws are one of the many ways in which the American people can resist the federal government through the states. Also known as noncompliance, these laws forbid states from assisting the feds while they are attempting to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.

However, the feds have seemingly found a way around this by requiring states to turn over information related to regulated activity by their citizens, some of which is illegal under federal laws, such as marijuana businesses. While the courts have ruled that the states are not required to actively aid the feds in enforcing their laws, they have ruled that the states must yield certain information when the feds request it.

This has created a troublesome situation, which Professor Robert Mikos at the Vanderbilt University Law School details in his paper “Can the States Keep Secrets from the Federal Government?”

Obviously, it is difficult to adequately summarize a 51-page paper without running the risk of over-simplifying, but Mikos’ answer to the titular question is yes, or they should be allowed to.

He points out the rather peculiar desire of the feds to expose government secrets – as long as those secrets serve their end, of course. Cutting through all the legalese surrounding it, he demonstrates why the question itself is so important.
He writes:
 “Across a growing set of policy domains, the federal government has been quietly ordering state governments to hand over their own confidential records to help enforce federal laws against private citizens. For example, federal agencies have demanded access to state medical marijuana registries to help prosecute suspected marijuana traffickers, city police files to facilitate deportation of non-resident aliens, state tax rolls to investigate cases of federal tax fraud, and transcripts of state administrative hearings to pursue employment discrimination claims against private employers.”
Legal scholars have more or less given no attention to the feds taking information from the states. Although the Supreme Court held in Printz v. United States that the states could not be coerced into enforcing federal laws, lower courts have differentiated between the feds ordering the states to enforce their laws and asking for information through which they can enforce the laws themselves.

Mikos states that this legal distinction is due to an interpretation of a section of Judge Scalia’s opinion on Printz, where he seemed to suggest that “demands for information were, somehow, categorically different than other demands placed upon the state executive.” Justice O’Connor supported this idea in her opinion, writing “appropriately refrain[ing] from deciding whether other purely ministerial reporting requirements imposed by Congress on state and local authorities pursuant to its Commerce Clause powers are similarly invalid.”

The courts have held, however, such requests are unconstitutional when they “do not consume state resources in the way that demands for other services do,” yet at the same time “lower courts have emphasized the fact that the federal government generally demands information a state already has on hand.”

One way in which the feds can sidestep this is by offering the states grants to pay for collecting the information.

According to the courts, “so long as Congress gives the states a constitutionally sufficient alternative to providing information, it does not run afoul of the anti-commandeering rule,” Mikos writes. “On this view, commandeering is not harmful because the state does not need to expend resources to get the information, and hence, will not need to divert resources from local priorities to satisfy federal demands.”

Though there is nowhere in the Constitution that claims the feds can force the states to surrender secrets, which means such authority remains with the states per the Tenth Amendment, the courts have chosen to ignore it.

Because of these court rulings, Mikos said, almost any information gathered by state governments can be seized by federal authorities, which provides invaluable when they are trying to enforce federal laws.

There are examples of where the states have successfully fought the feds in court over what is ruled to be unreasonable demands when issuing subpoenas for information, but they are rare because the Supreme Court has created a high standard. Courts presume the demands are reasonable and the state must prove otherwise. This rarely occurs.

So why are the feds so emphatic about obtaining state information?

Mikos says this is because the states often have better or more complete databases than the feds do when it comes to information pertinent to federal laws. They have more law enforcement officer; again, this is why anti-commandeering legislation is so devastating to federal authority, as federal agencies are incapable of enforcing federal laws on their own. Local law enforcement assistance is absolutely necessary.

One example of this is the Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990, which requires the businesses to install fire alarms and sprinkler systems.

Mikos writes:
 “The sanction for failure to comply is debarment from hosting federally funded meetings, conventions, conferences, and similar functions. To help enforce that debarment sanction, the Act compels states to “submit to the [Administrator of FEMA] a list of those places of public accommodation affecting commerce located in the State which meet the requirements [of the Act].” In other words, the Act requires states to identify every firm that complies with federal law.”
READ MORE

Monday, March 2, 2015

Department of Homeland Security: What is it Good For? by Ron Paul

By Ron Paul - March 02, 2015

Late Friday night, Congress passed legislation funding the Department of Homeland Security for one week. This vote followed weeks of debate over efforts to attach a prohibition on funding President Obama's executive order granting amnesty to certain illegal immigrants to the Homeland Security funding bill.

Despite the heated rhetoric from both sides, no one seriously believes that Congress will allow Homeland Security funding to lapse. Most in Congress believe that, without the Department of Homeland Security, Americans would be left unprotected from terrorists and natural disasters. As with most areas of bipartisan agreement, the truth is the exact opposite of the DC consensus. 

The American people would be much better off if Congress transferred the few constitutional functions performed by Homeland Security to other parts of the government and then shut down the rest of the department.

Many Americans associate Homeland Security with the color-coded terrorist warning system and the "if you see something, say something" public relations campaign. These programs were designed to inspire public confidence in the department, but instead they inspired public ridicule.

Ironically, the best case for shutting down this department is its most well-known component -- the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). More terrorist attacks have been thwarted by airline passengers than by the TSA! The TSA may be ineffective at stopping terrorists, but it is very effective at harassing innocent Americans like Lucy Forck. Three-year-old Lucy, who uses a wheelchair, not only had to endure an intrusive screening from TSA agents, but the agents also took away her beloved stuffed animal.

When not abusing children who use wheelchairs, TSA subjects airline passengers to rules that seem designed to make air travel as unpleasant as possible. For example, TSA recently forced a Campaign for Liberty staffer to throw away a jar of Nutella she had in her carry-on luggage. I am sure all airline passengers feel safe knowing that TSA is protecting them from sandwich spreads.

Ending the TSA would return responsibility for airline security to airports and airlines. Private businesses have a greater incentive than a government bureaucracy to ensure their customers' safety. 

Those conservatives who think this is a radical idea should try to think of one area where they trust government bureaucrats to do a better job than private business owners.

Another agency within Homeland Security that the American people could do without is the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Having spent fifteen years in Congress representing a coastal area subject to hurricanes and floods, I have seen first-hand how FEMA places adherence to bureaucratic rules ahead of aiding victims of a natural disaster. As a result, it is not uncommon for disaster victims to wait months or even years for assistance.

FEMA not only fails to provide effective relief to disaster victims, it also impedes private disaster relief efforts. FEMA even hinders disaster victims' efforts to help themselves. While in Congress, I heard stories of individuals being threatened with fines or even jail time if they returned to their property without FEMA's permission. One individual in my district was threatened with arrest if he removed a tarp that FEMA put on his house -- even though FEMA was supposed to have put it on his neighbor's house!

Ten years after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, it is clear that this department has failed to protect our security, but has infringed on liberty. If Congress really wanted to enhance our security and our liberty it would shut down this unnecessary, unconstitutional department.

This article contributed courtesy of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

via thedailybell

Local, County, State Police Collude with Feds to Raid Republic Of Texas Meeting

21st century Honest Abe re-visits sovereign southern US state to maintain Washington's tyranny grip. State scalawag law enforcements & VFW complicit in Treason.

TEXIANS UNDER ATTACK # 2

At the regularly scheduled meeting of the Republic of Texas, officially starting at 9:50 a.m. and held, as usual, at the rented VFW Post 4892 in Bryan, Texas, the congenial and unimposing group was raided at 10:10 a.m. by an army of policing agencies with flashing emergency lights: Police Departments of Bryan and College Station along with their Brazos County Sheriff’s Office counterparts (northeast of San Antonio) along with deputies from the Kerr County Sheriff’s Office (west of San Antonio), The Texas Rangers, Department of Public Safety Highway Patrol State Troopers, The Texas State Attorney General’s Office, the FBI, and the US Marshall Service. Ingress and egress from Harvey Mitchell Parkway was sealed even to the media that responded two hours later from KBTX television during the four-hour ordeal.
 

How is it that a supposedly free people can be subjected to intimidating, rough and highly intrusive search and seizure when assembling lawfully and peaceably from all corners of this vast Country of Texas to educate those in attendance about the Historical 1836 Republic of Texas Constitution and celebrate a Nation wide Valentine’s Day and a fellow Texian’s 89th birthday?

The lead Kerr County deputy named in the paperwork, Jeff McCoy, who initially pretended to be a guest from Houston at the freely open-to-the-public meeting, stood up and blocked the only exit to the Republic of Texas’ rented room with armed and threatening police, announcing that he had a search warrant but he would not present it despite repeated requests stating that it would be made available AFTER the investigation. Everyone present was put on notice that they were not to leave the room without permission and escort by uniformed officers, almost all armed and wearing bulletproof vests. Some 15 to 30 minutes later a fleeting copy of the search warrant surfaced unannounced on the main table of which was never officially presented to those detained and searched.

As if dangerous criminals, many of the Texian people – generally seniors of respected middle-class business, farming, broadcasting, engineering, scientific, health, veterans and faith-based backgrounds – were one-by-one physically searched on their person and in their vehicles, finger printed, detained and then had their personal belongings and property searched and seized. Surprisingly, the warranted DNA swabbing was omitted.

A receipt (not well detailed or itemized) was issued to only SOME whose property was seized. Therefore most all seizures that day are considered LEGAL THEFT. Among the items stolen were cell phones, iPads, laptops, business papers, Republic of Texas paperwork and coinage of precious metals along with other valuables.

Some of the phones were essential to their owners in conducting business and schoolwork, safely traveling the highways and attending to emergency medical calls as health professionals. One of the senior Texians often featured in documentaries and alternative radio and known to suffer with health concerns had to be taken by emergency vehicle to a hospital as a result of the forced takeover of the peaceful assembly.

The team of investigators left with the trunk and backseat of an unmarked sedan apparently belonging to Deputy Jeff McCoy, fully packed with confiscated belongings without a copy of the Search Warrant provided to anyone associated with the Republic of Texas. Instead, the warrant was given to the Post Commander of the VFW facility who was instructed not to copy the document nor divulge its contents to anyone.

The fortuitously warrant revealed it was issued by 216th District Court Judge N. Keith Williams of Kerr County alleging an unauthorized summons had been issued by the Republic of Texas. The documents alleged to be unauthorized were a Writ of Mandamus and a Writ of Quo Warranto issued by “The Officers and Constituents of The International Common Law Court for the Republic of Texas to Melvin Rex Emerson Jr., Court Administrator, and Color of Law ID No. 24009018, 700 Main Street, Kerrville, Texas. Kerr County” and was so stated on the document “This writ is hereby served by said Petitioner upon you, Melvin Rex Emerson Jr. as an individual”. In no way was the “State of Texas” intimated to be part or parcel to the documents.

If the Writ of Mandamus and the Quo Warranto issued for the Republic of Texas International Common Law Court were purely frivolous in nature, then why did this judge call out HIS MILITIA to address this action? What instilled such fear in him?

Why was it necessary to confiscate tens of thousands of dollars, Gold and Silver Metals being private and confidential property that was unrelated to the search warrant for a allegedly Class A Misdemeanor offense? One Texian noted that one officer confided that he probably would NEVER see his property again. Just who is the guilty party here? Could it be that the people of the Republic of Texas are rightfully fully vested with the power of the paperwork served on Judge Everson? Undoubtedly, additional paperwork needs to be issued! You decide.

Contrary to patently false reports by KBTX that the Republic of Texas and its assemblage were a militia group, the truth is that the Republic of Texas is a self-determined people attempting to throw off the yoke of military occupation of Texas through peaceful and lawful process. The entire land boundaries of the United States are also under military occupation thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. If you don’t believe it, you can read it for yourself: (http://thetexasrepublic.com Select: History Tab; Select “The Non-Ratification of the 14th Amendment – Highlighted by Robert Wilson” Selection option).

John Harold Jarnecke
President of the republic of Texas
February 17, 2015
Contact: www.thetexasrepublic.com for the Secretary of State
Excerpts from:Senate Report 93-549


Senate Report 93-549 “EMERGENCY POWERS STATUTES: Provisions of Federal Law Now In Effect Delegating To The Executive Extraordinary Authority In Time of National Emergency” November 19, 1973 (cover page)
Background and History
Senate Report 93-549 entitled “EMERGENCY POWERS STATUTES: Provisions of Federal Law Now In Effect Delegating To The Executive Extraordinary Authority In Time of National Emergency” was issued on November 19, 1973 by the “Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency” pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 9 – 93rd Congress, 1st Session.[1]
…..These proclamations give force to over 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes.[4]
Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.[5]


….The “termination” was in name only. The emergency powers are now continued in the U.S. Code as permanent everyday powers.[8] The state of national emergency has become a permanent condition.[9]


….Every president since Roosevelt has used emergency powers extensively, some claim falsely that the United States has been in a continual and permanent state of declared national emergency since March 9, 1933.[14]
….The US Senate Report states: “That since March 09, 1933 the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.”[29]
“A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency.” [30]


30^ [U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, Emergency Powers Statutes, 93rd Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 93-549 (Washington: GPO, 1973) | page= 1]


Saturday, February 28, 2015

North Carolina Legalizes Call Girls For Politicians

Must you be a NC politician or can South Carolina Republicans now run up (limousined) to NC for a “fix”? The chosen analogy of a sex act having no monetary value does not compute with a politician getting a free flight to Fiji, or other such medium for which someone must pay for a service or ‘device’. Also, must be non-gender specific to apply to the gay/lesbian political element, as well as religious or race non-specific. This is the Party of the Big Tent, had you forgotten?

Family plans most likely will be offered as well. 

Incurred medical expenses or extended care will be covered by the taxpayers of NC. Those arranged “dates” aren’t free for someone. 


Author: Nathaniel Downes February 27, 2015 4:52 pm

 North Carolina Legalizes Call Girls For Politicians


North Carolina’s State Ethics Committee has just opened up a major problem for their state — they just made it legal for lobbying firms to purchase prostitutes to service politicians. The Committee’s determination that sex had no value and that sex between a lobbyist and politician was nothing to report or in any way questionable means that a major loophole has opened up for lobbying firms. Now lobbying firms can hire people with the explicit goal to seduce and fornicate with politicians in order to garner favor.

In other terms, lobbying firms can hire people who can offer sexual services for politicians, and they don’t even need to register.

Now, before it is said that it is being misinterpreted, here is the actual letter from the Ethics Committee, titled “Sexual Favors or Sexual Acts as a Gift or ‘Thing of Value.'” In it, they declared that these relations have no monetary value, so do not need to be reported. In addition, they declared that if the person is not registered as a lobbyist, there was never any point of concern, even if the service was paid for by a third-party. In other words, lobbyists can hire people expressly for a politician to use in a carnal manner, even if the politician asks for or otherwise indicates their desire for such a service.

Even more disturbing are the long-term implications. Let us say a politician does partake, yet the person who paid for the night of temptation was a less than honest broker. A few hidden cameras, some veiled threat that did not cross the line into blackmail territory, a night of infidelity could put a politician into a less honorable group’s pocket without major cost, and all now rendered perfectly legal by the Ethics Committee of North Carolina.

Lobbying is a practice which needs to end for the good of the republic. When our founders agreed that the people have the right to redress grievances and to petition the government, that did not mean corporations or trade groups being granted superior access to the people themselves. Money is not speech, liberty is not anarchy — freedom for all, not just for the elite.

via addictinginfo

Must Listen! Silver Coins as Money - Ask The Expert – Hugo Salinas Price!

Hugo Salinas Price shares his views on precious metals, provides some historical background on gold and silver money, the manipulation of the precious metals markets, the inevitable collapse of the fiat money, and more…  
Click here for transcript and original posting