Sunday, January 17, 2010

Obama Information Czar Outlined Plan For Government To Infiltrate Conspiracy Groups

Sunstein called for Cointelpro style effort to silence truth using army of hired provocateurs

Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, January 14, 2010

Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, Obama’s appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, outlined a plan for the government to infiltrate conspiracy groups in order to undermine them via postings on chat rooms and social networks, as well as real meetings, according to a recently uncovered article Sunstein wrote for the Journal of Political Philosophy.

As we have often warned, chat rooms, social networks and particularly article comment sections are routinely “gamed” by trolls, many of whom pose as numerous different people in order to create a fake consensus, who attempt to debunk whatever information is being discussed, no matter how credible and well documented. We have seen this on our own websites for years and although some of those individuals were acting of their own accord, a significant number appeared to be working in shifts, routinely posting the same talking points over and over again.

It is a firmly established fact that the military-industrial complex which also owns the corporate media networks in the United States has numerous programs aimed at infiltrating prominent Internet sites and spreading propaganda to counter the truth about the misdeeds of the government and the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

In 2006 CENTCOM, the United States Central Command, announced that a team of employees would be hired to engage “bloggers who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information,” about the so-called war on terror.

In May 2008, it was revealed that the Pentagon was expanding “Information Operations” on the Internet by setting up fake foreign news websites, designed to look like independent media sources but in reality carrying direct military propaganda.

Countries like Israel have also admitted to creating an army of online trolls whose job it is to infiltrate anti-war websites and act as apologists for the Zionist state’s war crimes.

In January last year, the US Air Force announced a “counter-blog” response plan aimed at fielding and reacting to material from bloggers who have “negative opinions about the US government and the Air Force.”

The plan, created by the public affairs arm of the Air Force, includes a detailed twelve-point “counter blogging” flow-chart that dictates how officers should tackle what are described as “trolls,” “ragers,” and “misguided” online writers.

New revelations highlight the fact that the Obama administration is deliberately targeting “conspiracy groups” as part of a Cointelpro style effort to silence what have become the government’s most vociferous and influential critics.

In a 2008 article published in the Journal of Political Philosophy, Obama information czar Cass Sunstein outlined a plan for the government to stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine” those groups.

The aim of the program would be to “(break) up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories,” wrote Sunstein, with particular reference to 9/11 truth organizations.

Sunstein pointed out that simply having people in government refute conspiracy theories wouldn’t work because they are inherently untrustworthy, making it necessary to “Enlist nongovernmental officials in the effort to rebut the theories. It might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts,” he wrote.

“Put into English, what Sunstein is proposing is government infiltration of groups opposing prevailing policy,” writes Marc Estrin.

“It’s easy to destroy groups with “cognitive diversity.” You just take up meeting time with arguments to the point where people don’t come back. You make protest signs which alienate 90% of colleagues. You demand revolutionary violence from pacifist groups.”

This is what Sunstein is advocating when he writes of the need to infiltrate conspiracy groups and sow seeds of distrust amongst members in order to stifle the number of new recruits. This is classic “provocateur” style infiltration that came to the fore during the Cointelpro years, an FBI program from 1956-1971 that was focused around disrupting, marginalizing and neutralizing political dissidents.

“Sunstein argued that “government might undertake (legal) tactics for breaking up the tight cognitive clusters of extremist theories.” He suggested that “government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action,” reports Raw Story.

Sunstein has also called for making websites liable for comments posted in response to articles. His book, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done, was criticized by some as “a blueprint for online censorship.”

The Infowars office has been visited on numerous occasions by the FBI as a result of people posting violent comments in response to articles. Since the government now employs people to post such comments in an attempt to undermine conspiracy websites, if a law were passed making websites accountable, Sunstein’s program would allow the government to obliterate such sites from the web merely by having their own hired goons post threats against public figures.

The fact that the government is being forced to hire armies of trolls in an effort to silence the truth shows how worried they are about the effect we are having in waking up millions of people to their tyranny.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

VIDEO: Climategate Scientist Received Over Half A Million From Obama Stimulus Package

Corporate media completely silent on latest development with global warming fraudsters

Steve Watson
Thursday, Jan 14, 2010

A leading scientist involved in the climategate scandal received over half a million dollars in federal economic stimulus funds from the Obama Administration last Summer, it has been revealed.

Professor Michael Mann of Penn State University, currently under investigation by the institution itself for his role in massaging climate data and hijacking the peer review process to advance the myth of anthropogenic global warming, was awarded a grant of $541,184 by the government in June 2009.

Mann, the creator of the now infamously discredited Hockey Stick Graph, landed money that came directly from the U.S. Treasury’s economic stimulus package, reveals the Washington free-market think-tank group The National Center For Public Policy Research (NCPPR).

The official justification for the grant, authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, was labeled as “climate change research”.

An NCPPR press release, published today, calls for the funds to be returned:

“It’s outrageous that economic stimulus money is being used to support research conducted by Michael Mann at the very time he’s under investigation by Penn State and is one of the key figures in the international Climategate scandal. Penn State should immediately return these funds to the U.S. Treasury,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project.

The funds Mann is receiving from the government come in addition to another award to Penn State University researchers of $1.9 million in stimulus funds to study the effects of climate change on the spread of infectious diseases.

NCPPR further commented in its press release:

“It’s no wonder that Obama’s stimulus plan is failing to produce jobs. Taxpayer dollars aren’t being used in the ways most likely to spur job creation. The stimulus was not sold to the public as a way to reward a loyalist in the climate change debate. Nor was the stimulus sold as a way to promote the Obama Administration’s position on the global warming theory…As is often the case, political considerations corrupt the distribution of government funds,” said Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network.

Of course, the kind of economic stimulus Obama has in mind in awarding such grants to proponents of AGW may stem directly from his own intimate involvement in the carbon tax program he is now seeking to broadly implement.

The mainstream media, once again, remains completely silent on the matter as the vast majority did throughout the climategate controversy.

Warming alarmists are sure to point to the fact that NCPPR has a vested interest, being a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition, whose object is described as “dispelling the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis”.

In 25 years of operation, NCPPR has received about $280,000 from ExxonMobil and presently receives about one half of one percent of its funding from the company.

However, as we have previously pointed out, the funding received by groups such as the NCPPR from companies like Exxonmobil pales in comparison to the gargantuan amounts, of mostly tax payer dollars, awarded to AGW proponents.

The leaked emails from the Hadley centre revealed that (now former) CRU chief Phil Jones received 55 endowments since 1990 from agencies ranging from the U.S. Department of Energy to NATO, worth a total of £13,718,547, or approximately $22.6 million.

$19 million alone came between the years 2000 and 2006.

The London based intergovernmental organisation The Commonwealth Foundation has called for an outside, independent investigation of Michael Mann and his involvement in climategate, a move that is further vindicated entirely by these latest revelations.

The next big scam: carbon dioxide

By Patricia Adams
Jan 13, 2010

Attempts to create markets for tradeable CO2 are shaping up to be the next Oil-for-Food-sized fraud

Deloitte Forensic calls it “the white collar crime of the future.” Kroll, a business risk subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan, the global professional services firm, calls it “a fraudster’s dream come true.”

These two global financial services firms are referring to carbon trading markets, a business that is estimated to explode from $132-billion in 2009, mostly in the European Union, to $3-trillion by 2020 as jurisdictions around the world join in carbon trading, part of the “cap and trade” system that governments are embracing.

Under cap and trade, companies need permits for the right to emit CO2 as part of their operations. The permits, in effect, guarantee that excess carbon emissions will be “offset” by third parties that will, for example, sequester carbon by growing trees. These permits, which are being traded on carbon exchanges, akin to stock exchanges, have caught the attention of law enforcement officers, who have seen an upsurge in fraud.

Says Chris Perryman of Europol’s Criminal Finances and Technology section in The Hague, in referring to the $7.4-billion in fraud that have occurred in the last 18 months in the EU’s carbon market: “It is clear that [carbon trading] fraudsters are fully aware of the potential that trading in intangible commodities has to further their ends. Such goods or services can be traded without the need to be physically moved or transported, which represents an obvious opportunity to frustrate Law Enforcement efforts to track and trace transactions.” So much fraud has been occurring that, Europol estimates, up to 90% of all carbon market volume in some EU nations was related to fraudulent activities.

Permits for CO2, a tasteless, colourless and odourless gas, epitomize an “intangible commodity.” The underlying commodity for these permits, CO2, until recently had few producers, few customers and few commercial uses. With the rise of fears over global warming, governments decided to turn this niche gas into what could soon be the world’s most traded commodity — by comparison, oil, currently the most traded commodity, logs an estimated $2-trillion in annual trade.

But unlike oil and other commonly traded commodities, CO2 is a commodity with no inherent value. Most transactions involving carbon permits involve parties that have no interest in the CO2 — the value lies in the permit. If no CO2 is actually offset, neither buyer nor seller would suffer a loss. The only incentive anyone has in dealing with this intangible commodity is in avoiding fines or suffering bad PR.

What kind of fraud do private auditors and law enforcement alike believe inevitable? Take the example of an Indonesian forest operator who provides a permit to a German manufacturer, to offset the German company’s excess CO2 emissions. The German company receives a certificate as proof that it has offset its emissions. It will be content, as will the Indonesian company that planted the trees. The German firm won’t know if the Indonesian has sold permits for the same forest to companies in Canada and the UK and it won’t care — the German firm, like the others, will think they have helped the planet by planting a forest and they will have obtained what their businesses need — a permit to continue operating. There are no identifiable victims. The only loser — if there is any — is the planet, and it won’t be blowing the whistle on this crime.

Because buyers and sellers will rarely have an incentive to police their carbon transactions, “tight, frequent, ongoing monitoring will be fundamental to the integrity of any cap-and-trade system,” states ClimeCo, a carbon consulting firm. Yet the likelihood of that occurring is next to nil because the regulators will be official bodies like the UN — think Oil-For Food Program, says Kroll. Moreover, governments themselves will balk at the cost that would be entailed in meaningful regulation. Because CO2 is ubiquitous in society, affecting most industrial processes, an army of inspectors and auditors would be needed to properly check the countless transactions that would occur to ensure that no company’s carbon footprint was understated, that every windmill contracted for in faraway lands was indeed built, that every meter measuring the flow of gas piped underground was recording CO2 and not air and that every seedling committed to be planted was planted.

Apart from phony projects — Kroll likens them to “the Soviet Union’s Potemkin villages built to show off a phony communal paradise to naïve foreigner visitors” — Kroll, in a report published last year in its Tendencias journal, tells us to expect companies to create entitlements for themselves by “pumping up the baseline,” say by pretending they have historically been emitting more greenhouse gases than in fact occurred, thus creating a government entitlement that they can then turn into cash.

Deloitte, in a report released last November, echoes such concerns, taking particular aim at problems likely to emerge under Australia’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, in which the country’s largest greenhouse gas emitters will be required to offset their carbon footprint. Says Deloitte: “even a cursory look at the global carbon market in its current form reveals some carbon credit fraud ‘red flags’ that simply cannot be ignored.”

Deloitte also warns companies to be on the lookout for the entry of organized crime into the Australian scheme, which is slated to take effect this year. “For example, a money launderer could use illegally obtained funds to purchase wind turbines for an offset project, especially those projects occurring in developing nations,” Deloitte explains. “The launderer would then seek reimbursement for the wind turbines from a company seeking to purchase carbon offsets.” In doing so, the launderer is able to use illegally obtained funds for legal purposes — concealing the wealth obtained from illegal activities.

In the final analysis, carbon markets are political constructs controlled by politically empowered regulators who will be gatekeepers to a multi-trillion dollar market. The regulators themselves would become too numerous to regulate. This then becomes the tried and true recipe for good old fashioned and widespread corruption.

Financial Post

Read more:
The Financial Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

VIDEO: The Cause Of The Food Shortage --The Bankers Get Rich At The Expense Of Starving Masses

Although I'm not a big LaRouche fan, this bit of information sure gets to the root of this genocidal problem.

(FOOD CRISIS) :"Humanity Is In Mortal Danger" - Click here for the funniest movie of the week

Humanity Is In Mortal Danger
--Global Food Crisis

"Instead of Wars of Starvation, Let Us Double Food Production"

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Schiller Institute
703-771-8390 (United States)

May 3, 2008 (LPAC)--The fiery letters of an unprecedented human catastrophe already stand flickering on the wall, and it will be fatal for the world as a whole, if we do not succeed immediately, in the coming days and weeks, to declare globalization a failure, and to set everything into motion to double agricultural production capacity in the shortest possible time!

This is of the utmost urgency: Since October 2007, there have been food riots in over 40 nations. According to Rajat Nag, managing director general of the Asian Development Bank, 1 billion Asians (!) are already at serious risk from the hunger crisis, and in Africa, Ibero-America, and among the poor on the other continents, an additional 1 billion face the same fate. But according to Jacques Diouf, head of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), since December his organization has been unable to raise 10.9 million euros (!) in order to purchase seed for poor farmers in developing countries. The rich states are simply not willing to support the developing countries with money, seed, and investment in infrastructure, Diouf told an FAO conference on Latin America in Brasilia in mid-April.

Jean Ziegler, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, pointed to an additional aspect of the crisis; namely, that the use of food for biofuels is a ``crime against humanity. In order that we might fill our gas tanks with ethanol with clear ecological conscience, people in the Third World must starve (and also die). Speaking of the resulting food riots, Ziegler said, ``These are riots of utter despair by people who fear for their lives, and who, nagged by deathly fear, take to the streets.

And that's only the beginning. Because, as long as the current policy of the ``rich nations--i.e., the free-trade doctrine of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the European Union Commission, and so one--continues, the food cartels and speculators will take advantage of the conditions created by the escalating systemic crisis of the world financial system, to maximize their profits and to feed price inflation, without the farmers reaping any benefit therefrom. And if the world's central banks continue their practice of using tax revenues in an attempt to make up for the speculative losses of private banks, then we are going to see hyperinflation like Weimar Germany spread around the globe.

Under these circumstances, the entire planet will be swept by the storm winds of food riots, until humanity descends into a new dark age of chaos, gang warfare, and climbing death rates--or, until justice and life with human dignity is established for all human beings on this planet.
In the U.S. Declaration of Independence--which the Schiller Institute's founding conference in 1984 adopted as its charter by making it applicable for all nations of this world, by just a few wording changes--it says:

``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This Declaration of Human Rights must hold true still today--for all human beings on this planet. What we need today, is men and women who fight with passion and love for the idea of a just world order, one in which the community of nations can live together in peace and human dignity. Life, Liberty, and Happiness mean, above all, that all people have enough to eat and that poverty is abolished--something which we have all the technological means to bring about. Whether we can make this vision into reality, or whether we instead speed humanity into collapse, is how each one of us will be measured by history.

source : Lyndon LaRouchePAC's website or

VIDEO: 20% Inflation & Food Shortages Coming In 2010

Bob Chapman - Inflation May Exceed 20% in 2010 - Food Shortages Possible - The top video clips of the week are here

VIDEO: Why The Fed Likes Secrecy

Saturday, January 9, 2010

New Liquidity Threatens Inflation

International Forecaster
Bob Chapman
Jan 6, 2010

On thing we can say for sure about 2009 is that markets witnessed the worst manipulation ever by the President's "Working Group on Financial Markets."

Over a 15-month period ending 9/30/09, together the Fed and Treasury borrowings were $2.81 trillion. This has been the greatest creation of financial aggregates in history. This tidal wave of money and credit was accompanied by just above zero interest rates. Then there was the Fed's trillion-dollar purchase of toxic mortgage securities, which the Fed refuses to tell us what they paid for them and from whom they bought them. Total monetization has been well over $2.3 trillion that we know about. The freeing of toxic mortgages reliquefied balance sheets and markets and allowed mortgage finance to remain low for residential real estate for refinancing, most of which was guaranteed by US taxpayers, by the bankrupts known as Fannie, Freddie, Ginnie and FHA. We might add that our government started the subprime crisis all over again over this past year by handing out marginal mortgages to reduce residential inventory held by banks. Government admits they will probably have 25% foreclosures. We estimate them at more than 50%. When the truth is finally known guarantees are probably in the realm of $700 billion to a trillion dollars. Once government discontinues this very expensive support, prices will again fall and inventory will again rebuild.

The Treasury and the Fed have poured almost $13 trillion into the economy and haven't made a dent in the problem of bad debt. They just transferred the problem to the taxpayer. In that process the banks and brokerage houses dispensed ever-bigger bonuses as a tribute to their incompetence and failure. The result for the economy recently has been a bogus 2.2% growth rate in GDP for the third quarter. Mind you, the first release was 3.6% and the second one was 2.8%. Does anyone really believe they got it right the third time? This is how government and Wall Street massage the market to keep it from falling. It is like all of their statistics, they are all stamped bogus. That 2.2% was the first supposed growth in a year.

Unemployment numbers are a joke. U3 is said to be 10%, but U6, which is conveniently obscured from view, is 17%. If you strip out the birth/death ratio you get 21.9%.

The result of this tremendous infusion of money and credit has been the survival of banking, Wall Street and insurance, and a fall in household net worth of almost $7 trillion. We'd call that an uneven, unbalanced performance. The culprits have been bailed out and the public has paid for it. The next natural question is what will the Treasury and the Fed do for an encore? The treasury is running a $1.7 trillion deficit, and is the go to source for employment. The Fed says it is going to withdraw liquidity from the system and that they intend to raise interest rates in July or there abouts. If this is the case you had best prepare for a deflationary depression. We do not believe the Fed for one second. Do they really believe this will save the dollar? We do not think so.

Almost every country in the world has done, in varying degrees, what the US has done and that is create large amounts of money and credit. The result is that all currencies have fallen versus gold, which just happens to be the only real money. As currency deterioration has continued over the past ten years there has been a drift away from financial assets to hard assets, which is a natural response. This is part of the past bubble phenomenon, which will continue to offset inflationary loss and to serve as a flight to quality. The result of the foregoing is that the US dollar has continued to lose value versus other fiat currencies.

We now have worldwide stock markets recovering the 50 to 60 percent they lost in early 2009. In the US we can call it the TARP rally. China has poured $1.8 trillion in stimulus into its economy and has a new stock and real estate bubble with nasty inflation on the way. Chinese citizens are not only buying gold and silver, but now diamonds as well - anything to get out of the dollar and get into something tangible. The Chinese bubbles are in the early process of collapsing. They are going to suffer the same fate as Japan and the US. China will need those $2.3 trillion in foreign reserves to bail itself out. That is sure to put lots of dollars up for sale.

During 2009 we saw an exodus of liquidity from money market funds most of which went into Treasuries. A drop from almost $4 trillion to $3.3 trillion in good part caused by low yields and the abandonment of government guarantees on 9/18/09. Some of those funds went into the market, gold, silver and commodities, but the bulk of it went into Treasuries, which was the motivation for government to drop those guarantees.

Banks have reduced lending in 2009 by about 18% yoy and we do not expect any changes in 2010. The zero interest rate policy has only benefited banks and other speculators. Part of the TARP funds may have gone on interest bearing deposits, but a good part went into market speculation. The riskiest stocks, bonds, junk bonds and CDOs were the overwhelming choice. Unfortunately bank and brokerage leverage is still 40 times assets. Fortunately, they are not long gold and silver related assets, so we see no fallout in that venue as these crooks are forced to finally de-leverage. Even though insolvent these financial institutions will not be forced to stop using two sets of books. When the Fed falls, they will fall.

The last fallacy is that there is stabilization in the system. We are still in a credit crisis. The Fed and other central banks will stop monetary restriction and stop raising interest rates, when they see a deflation has them by the throat. That doesn't mean real interest rates won't rise, they will. Leverage will soon come to a halt as financial entities start losing money again. It will be a very difficult year in 2010, as the excesses of 2009, to save the system unwind.

The probability of 14% inflation in 2010 has already been baked into the cake. The Fed and other central banks are really trying to avoid hyperinflation. The real trouble will come in 2011. If the Fed and other central banks cannot raise interest rates, cannot reign in the liquidity in their economies, and need further stimulus, which we believe will be the case, then inflation will run wild. As a result gold and silver prices will go through the roof.

That leads us to our latest information gleaned through private Fed meetings. They believe the period between July and October is when the financial fireworks will begin. The Fed will act unilaterally for its own survival irrespective of any political implications. In the last quarter of the year we could even see Martial law, which is more likely in the first six months of 2011. If Congress passes any kind of health care, the public will go ballistic and be prime for revolution. Our position is that bank lending will not improve nor will unemployment. If this is accompanied by official devaluation and default everything could break loose. The elitists realizing this will arrange another 9/11-type event with the usual cast of characters and we expect conflict will spread into Pakistan and that Israel will attack Iran enveloping the Middle East in flames. That would send oil prices considerably higher and cause a collapse of world stock markets, with the exception of gold and silver shares. The excuse to impose Martial law would be apparent. The country could go into lockdown. Transportation could be limited, food and gas rationed, banks closed and many other major inconveniences. The current mainline media, Wall Street and governmental propaganda about economic recovery would end, they never having to prove that a recovery ever existed. During the first six months of 2010, Americans and others will continue to live in their world of inreality. These hopeless fools are again being taken down the garden path. The world as we know it is about to change dramatically, so prepare for it.

In the meantime we observe that foreign exchange reserves denominated in US dollars has fallen from 64.5% to 61.8% in the last six months of 2009. This represents huge sales of dollars most of which was in the form of Treasury and Agency bonds. China has for some time been a major seller of Agency paper and a moderate buyer of very short-term T-bills. That has kept China's dollar denominated portfolio at about $1.8 trillion. In addition as China has publicly stated the world has run out of enough dollars to service public debt. That means more Fed monetization, perhaps on a level of more than $1 trillion a year. That means hyperinflation, because the elitists won't be ready, as yet, to pull the plug on the economy and plunge into deflationary depression. They have to increase terrorist events and world war on a parallel basis, so that all strike at the same time. This way they can blame the economic financial problems on the enemy who would be responsible for this horrible war. These are all the reasons for having freeze dry and dehydrated foods, a water filter and a method of defending your family as a first line of defense. All other funds should go into gold and silver coins and shares. For 20 years of publication we have been correct 98% of the time, thus, a word to the wise should be sufficient. If you do not follow these instructions your lives will be in peril. The bottom line is the Fed has no choice but to monetize and that means inflation is going to spiral out of control. You have to be prepared.

As this unfolds all currencies will fall versus gold and silver as they have for the past 6-1/2 years. Being long any currency is foolhardy. You should only have enough for three months operating expenses as a family and six months for business. No CD's, cash value life insurance policies or annuities. Many insurance companies will go under and as a result not pay off. Things are not the way they seem to be. Nothing that emanates from government, Wall Street, banking and corporate America is to be trusted, it is 80% disinformation. That is why we do 30-hours of radio programming a week and publish 100 pages in the IF. We know we are one of just a handful of people in the world trying to bring the truth to the public to save them grief and perhaps their lives.

In the next 1-1/2 years we expect the US to officially devalue and default along with many other countries. There will be emergency meetings, one after another, as governments attempt to cope with, internal debt and a collapsing financial system. Not one government is attempting to solve the problems, only treat the disease. The system has to be purged as soon as possible and as an interm alternative the US dollar has to be abandoned as a world reserve currency, and replaced by the weighted currencies of the G-20, backed by 10 to 15 percent in gold. Later the gold reserve can be increased to 25 to 30 percent. That will put gold prices somewhere north of $10,000 an ounce. We now know that real inflation, since 1980, justifies a price between $6,700 and $7,150, but with hyperinflation on the way, who knows where the top price will be. As you can imagine we are probably two years away from currency controls. That means government permission to move assets in or out of the country. That means if you choose to keep assets in a foreign place you should be prepared to go and live with them, otherwise keep them at home for better or worse. On the other hand government may force you to repatriate assets, whether you like it or not and then dream up a new tax on them or even confiscate them.

Remember, irrespective of what the media, government and Wall Street tells you, we are already in a depression and we have been for almost a year. 21.9% unemployment, that will be 23% after February, denotes a depression and all the lying by these entities is not going to change this.

Willem Buiter warns of massive dollar collapse

Americans must prepare themselves for a massive collapse in the dollar as investors around the world dump their US assets, a former Bank of England policymaker has warned.
By Edmund Conway, Economics Editor
Published: 5:34PM GMT 05 Jan 2009

The long-held assumption that US assets - particularly government bonds - are a safe haven will soon be overturned as investors lose their patience with the world's biggest economy, according to Willem Buiter.

Professor Buiter, a former Monetary Policy Committee member who is now at the London School of Economics, said this increasing disenchantment would result in an exodus of foreign cash from the US.

The warning comes despite the dollar having strengthened significantly against other major currencies, including sterling and the euro, after hitting historic lows last year. It will reignite fears about the currency's prospects, as well as sparking fears about the sustainability of President-Elect Barack Obama's mooted plans for a Keynesian-style increase in public spending to pull the US out of recession.

Writing on his blog , Prof Buiter said: "There will, before long (my best guess is between two and five years from now) be a global dumping of US dollar assets, including US government assets. Old habits die hard. The US dollar and US Treasury bills and bonds are still viewed as a safe haven by many. But learning takes place."

He said that the dollar had been kept elevated in recent years by what some called "dark matter" or "American alpha" - an assumption that the US could earn more on its overseas investments than foreign investors could make on their American assets. However, this notion had been gradually dismantled in recent years, before being dealt a fatal blow by the current financial crisis, he said.

"The past eight years of imperial overstretch, hubris and domestic and international abuse of power on the part of the Bush administration has left the US materially weakened financially, economically, politically and morally," he said. "Even the most hard-nosed, Guantanamo Bay-indifferent potential foreign investor in the US must recognise that its financial system has collapsed."

He said investors would, rightly, suspect that the US would have to generate major inflation to whittle away its debt and this dollar collapse means that the US has less leeway for major spending plans than politicians realise.

Friday, January 8, 2010

VIDEO: Scumbag Senator Dodd Dumped

Gold and Silver to Explode with Treasury Issuance in 2010

by Dr. Jeffrey Lewis

Now that 2009 has come to a close, investors are looking forward to the happenings of 2010. One of the most important events is the issuance of nearly $2.2 trillion in Treasury bonds to fund government spending. Although $2.2 trillion seems relatively small compared to a federal debt just over $12 trillion, the size is magnified when you consider its impact on the markets.

2009 Treasury Sales

The 2009 Treasury issuance was relatively tiny due to the amount of quantitative easing enacted by the Federal Reserve. To help ease the credit markets, namely the Treasury markets which allow the government to spend money, the Federal Reserve printed over a trillion dollars and purchased several hundred billion dollars of US Treasuries, as well as nearly $1 trillion of "agency debt" or mortgage-backed securities.

After the Fed's buying spree, there was only $200 billion in fixed income remaining, creating a net issuance in 2009 of $200 billion. Of course, $200 billion is virtually nothing when it comes to the world economy and the amount of money in existence, and thus, $200 billion was consumed relatively easily, with no real impact on the marketplace.

The Situation in 2010

Fixed income issues are set to increase from $1.75 trillion to $2.25 trillion next year, with the difference mostly comprised of heavier borrowing by the Federal Government via the Treasury markets.

Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve has only $200 billion remaining in its quantitative easing fund to buy agency debt and US Treasuries, and the funds will only last until March under the program enacted early last year. This leaves a total of $2.05 trillion unfunded that must be borrowed to keep government programs in the black - at least with capital and not actual earnings.

Therefore, in the next year, the US Treasury will need to borrow more than $2 trillion without the help of the Federal Reserve. China has already said it is limiting its purchases of US Treasuries, and the government is proving its resolve by redeeming long-dated bonds and rolling them into short term debt. Other purchasers, such as Japan, have their own financial problems. The remaining countries, institutions, and other investors aren't too keen on earning low rates on what is quickly becoming riskier debt.

What is the solution? The Fed will simply need to print more money.

The Fed Will Have to Step in with its Printer

Remember, this recession was triggered due to a shortage of credit. To aid in both creating credit, as well as providing short term loans to businesses and government, the Federal Reserve began to create money to ease the burden. As a result, the Fed bought more debt than anyone else by a factor of 10.

Moving into next year, with the same credit problems and net issuance of $2.25 trillion, the Fed will have to further its quantitative easing (inflation) programs to keep the Treasury markets liquid. Should the Federal Reserve continue to print money to gap a shortfall in Treasury sales, the creation of $2 trillion would create inflation of 25% overnight. Obviously, as in all markets, inflation will not come out of the woodwork for a period of months and possibly up to two years, but it will eventually reach the market. Subsequently, in 2010, investors of all types need to be incredibly prudent with their money and protect their assets with precious metals.

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

VIDEO: Gerald Celente on The Alex Jones TV 29 Dec 2009

VIDEO: Gerald Celente on Coast to Coast AM 01-02-10

VIDEO: Gerald Celente Predicts US Dollar Currency Crisis in 2010

VIDEO: Gerald Celente Obamageddon

VIDEO: Obama's "Cloward & Piven Strategy" For Economic Collapse Videos #1 - 6

Here it is folks. Obama's plan for "change" Is this what you wanted/voted for ?? WAKE UP !

The methodology is known as the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and we can all be grateful to David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks for originally exposing and explaining it to us. He describes it as: The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

VIDEO: YEMEN? Connect The Dots

VIDEO: Health Care, The Patriot Act & The U.S. Constitution

VIDEO: The Truth Behind The Economic Collapse

Friday, January 1, 2010


By Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D
April 29, 2007

The gravity of the Duke University “rape” case has been seriously underestimated, even by many of its staunchest critics. The corruption of the criminal justice system by political ideology is far more advanced than has been brought out by most commentators.

The central point to be made about this case is precisely the one even most critics have not raised: It is far from unique. If such a blatant injustice can be perpetrated against men whose case attracts vast media attention – the supposed “disinfectant of sunlight” – what befalls those who languish in obscurity, victims of rigged justice that is less palpable? “If police officers and a district attorney can systematically railroad us with absolutely no evidence whatsoever,” said one defendant, “I can’t imagine what they’d do to people who do not have the resources to defend themselves.” Not what they “would do”; what they are doing.

Conservatives who rightly decry judicial “activism” in constitutional law have trouble understanding the equally serious corruption of the criminal justice system. Long before the Duke case, Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence Stratton described this legal underworld in their brilliant but neglected book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice.

Michael Nifong fits precisely the profile of prosecutor presented by Roberts and Stratton. They show how prosecutors and the media collude to ensure their victims are convicted by public opinion before their case ever goes to trial. “News of a forthcoming indictment is leaked to the press to put pressure on the accused by tarring him in the eyes of his friends, family, employer, coworkers, and the general public,” they write. “The charges may be largely made out of thin air, but the prosecutor benefits from the public’s presumption that the prosecution has a case.” This describes exactly what Nifong did. The fact that other prosecutors initially defended him is an open admission that they do it too.

The single-minded hype of the racial dimension had made this case appear exceptional. But the far more powerful ideological force driving this and other miscarriages of justice is not race hatred but institutionalized feminism. Race demagogues like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are easy targets for conservatives, but they do not command the institutional clout to politicize criminal justice proceedings on a large scale. There is little indication that white people are being systematically incarcerated on trumped-up accusations of non-existent crimes against blacks. This is precisely what is happening to men (and even some women), both white and black, accused of the kind of family and “gender” crimes that feminists have turned into a political agenda.

For every Duke lacrosse player, there are literally thousands of innocent men forced to stare down the wrong of police gun barrels, hauled off in handcuffs, and incarcerated without trial – all for “crimes,” not only that they did not commit, but that everyone knows did not take place.

Rape accusations have long been out of control. Almost daily, as David Usher has pointed out, men are released from prison after decades of incarceration because DNA tests prove they were wrongly convicted. And they are the lucky ones. While DNA has righted some wrongs, the corruption is so systemic that, as the Duke case shows, hard evidence of innocence is no barrier to conviction. Even the Washington Post has documented how feminist crime lab technicians fabricate and doctor evidence to frame men they know to be innocent. Yet the Post and others invariably blame law enforcement itself. Few point the finger at the very pressure groups that create the hysteria over rape and push for more convictions, as if they are a virtue in themselves.

William Anderson of Frostburg State University and Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal have both pointed out the parallel between the Duke case and the child abuse hysteria of the 1980s and 1990s, where feminist prosecutors like Nancy Lamb in Edenton, North Carolina, similarly whipped up public invective against parents they had jailed yet knew to be innocent. “The press was transfixed” by Lamb, Anderson writes, “with her flashing eyes and bobbed hair. Lamb was speaking ‘for the children,’ you see, and the press adored her. That she was making preposterous claims and attempting to destroy the lives of seven people despite all good evidence to the contrary was not even discussed.”

Like rape, child abuse has been not simply blown out of proportion but politicized by feminism. This reached its apogee in the Clinton administration Justice Department. “From Janet Reno’s infamous prosecutions of Grant Snowden in Florida…to the McMartin case in Los Angeles, to Wenatchee, Washington in the 1990s,” writes Anderson, “the Edenton case was part of a line of what only can be called witch hunts in which state social workers badgered very young children until they came up with lurid tales – after having denied that those things occurred.” These social workers are, in effect, plainclothes feminist police.

The witch hunts were carried into adulthood through “recovered memory therapy,” another fraud perpetrated largely by feminist perversion of the psychotherapy industry, where wild, preposterous tales of childhood sex crimes were manufactured from a psychological theory. In Victims of Memory, Mark Pendergrast shows how the recovered memory hoax destroyed families, ruined lives, and sent innocent parents to prison.

But these are only the tip of the iceberg; at least they required convictions, however unjust. They are dwarfed by “crimes” in which men are removed from their homes and incarcerated without even a trial.

These are “domestic violence” accusations, where no evidence, formal charge, or trial are necessary for the plainly innocent to be hauled away in handcuffs. Defendants are passed by the thousands through mass processing centers that bear little resemblance to a court of law or receive summary punishment without the benefit of media scrutiny. Patently false accusations are not only permitted but rewarded in divorce courts, largely because they are effective weapons in lucrative custody battles that are the bread and butter for venal judges and lawyers, who do all they can to encourage more.

This is now so blatant that even the legal establishment has been forced to recognize it. “Michigan courts do not provide a fair, or impartial, tribunal for any domestic relations litigant,” according to Michigan Lawyers Weekly. “Instead, they customarily and regularly deprive litigants of due process of law.” It is now common knowledge that obviously trumped-up abuse accusations are frequently used, and virtually never punished, in divorce and custody proceedings. Thomas Kasper describes in the Illinois Bar Journal how knowingly false accusations readily "become part of the gamesmanship of divorce.” “Whenever a woman claims to be a victim, she is automatically believed,” says Washington state attorney Lisa Scott. “No proof of abuse is required.” Writing in the Rutgers Law Review, David Heleniak describes domestic abuse as “an area of law mired in intellectual dishonesty and injustice.”

Heleniak identifies six separate denials of due process in one state statute, which he terms “a due process fiasco”: lack of notice, denial of indigent defendants to free counsel, denial of the right to take depositions, lack of evidentiary hearings, improper standard of proof, and denial of trial by jury. One family court judge was caught instructing his colleague to violate the constitutional rights of male defendants. “Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order,” New Jersey municipal court judge Richard Russell stated at a government training seminar recorded by the New Jersey Law Journal: “Throw him out on the street... They have declared domestic violence to be an evil in our society. So we don’t have to worry about the rights.”

Also similar to the Duke case, the open politicization of scholarship by domestic violence advocates with an ideological agenda is also simply accepted. Domestic violence has become “a backwater of tautological pseudo-theory and failed intervention programs,” write Donald Dutton and Kenneth Corvo in the scholarly journal Aggression and Violent Behavior. “No other area of established social welfare, criminal justice, public health, or behavioral intervention has such weak evidence in support of mandated practice.”

These are not the excesses most people associate with feminism, which is precisely why they receive little scrutiny or opposition and why the feminists have been able to wreak such damage.

Many were appalled that the Duke faculty should publicly demand that the lacrosse players confess – as if professors are prosecutors, judges, and jurors. Yet precisely this modus operandi has long characterized “women’s studies” programs, hotbeds of trumped-up accusations that have polluted the curricula of thousands of higher education institutions with political ideology masquerading as scholarship, turned students and faculty into police informers, and incited young women into believing that every personal hurt is a crime of “violence.” “If a woman did falsely accuse a man of rape,” opines one graduate of such programs, “she may have had reasons to. Maybe she wasn’t raped, but he clearly violated her in some way.” A Vassar College assistant dean thinks false accusations contribute to a man’s education: “I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. ‘How do I see women? If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’” Such views have long been dismissed as belonging to the extremist margins, but we see the fruits of them at Duke.

This is mob justice at its most incendiary, because it is perpetrated by the educated. It vindicates James Madison’s observation that “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.”

Conservatives cannot afford to be smug, for many have colluded in this degeneracy of the criminal justice system. When it comes to anything labeled as “crime,” conservative skepticism crumbles. The demand for conviction becomes unanimous and unchecked by any voice of restraint or reason.

Conservatives are correct that criminals often go free. What many fail to understand is that this happens because of a politicized judiciary that also sends the innocent to prison. The acquittal of Andrea Yates, convicted of capital murder in 2002 after admitting to drowning her five children, is the other side of the ideological justice coin. Yates was defended by feminists like Rosie O’Donnell, who expressed "overwhelming empathy” with her, and by the National Organization for Women. "One of our feminist beliefs is to be there for other women,” said Deborah Bell, president of Texas NOW. "We want to be there with her in her time of need.”

More than a decade ago, Michael Weiss and Cathy Young warned of this trend in their Cato Institute paper, Feminist Jurisprudence. Seen in the larger context of feminist justice, the Duke case demonstrates that the corruption of the criminal justice system by political ideology is now the greatest danger to American freedom, surpassing both Islamic radicalism and government measures against it. Judicial corruption – where avenues of legal redress are not only blocked but turned into instruments of injustice – is the most debilitating corruption, because it cripples the means to redress injustice elsewhere.

But what is most alarming is the complacence. At one time, the incarceration of the knowingly innocent would have incited outrage from Americans, who were known, even among Western societies, as staunch defenders of civil liberties. Today there is little outcry. Few have been concerned to know if this case is typical of many more or why the criminal justice system of what was once the freest society on earth is so compromised that law-breaking officials sit in judgement on law-abiding citizens.

This is where “social” justice has led us. Decades of pursuing this illusory, subjective, and politically defined “justice” have left Americans so incapable of distinguishing guilt from innocence that we are now inured to the most open injustice.

© 2007 Stephen Baskerville - All Rights Reserved


By Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D
January 15, 2008

A commonplace of the American Revolution held that citizens must have a love for liberty and a willingness to sacrifice and fight for it. Otherwise, no paper constitution alone can ever preserve their freedom.

Today, it is becoming equally commonplace that this spirit of liberty is leaving Americans, that we are becoming “a nation of sheep,” as Judge Andrew Napolitano puts it in a new book, who acquiesce in the progressive abrogation of our Constitution and liberty.

This is plausibly attributed to several factors: mass affluence, cultural decadence, the loss of religious faith. But I believe one major factor has been seriously overlooked: the breakdown of the family and the growth of divorce. Moreover, this is not some nebulous “cultural” contributor that somehow saps Americans’ willingness to defend their freedom. The cause-and-effect is directly demonstrable. The reason is that we are now raising our children according to the principles of tyranny.

Divorce sends many harmful messages to children and future citizens: that we can break vows we make to God and others; that family members may be discarded at will. But among the most destructive are about the role of government: that government is their de facto parent that may exercise unlimited power (including remove and criminalize their real parent) merely by claiming to act for their greater good.

While feminists push divorce-on-demand as a “civil liberty,” in practice divorce has become our society’s most authoritarian institution.

Some 80% of divorces are unilateral: the action of one spouse alone and over the objection of the other. One spouse’s “freedom” to leave a freely contracted marriage, therefore, means tyranny over the other spouse in forcibly separating him from his home, property, and most seriously, his children. And while marriage is an agreement freely entered into by both parties, with only a nominal role for the government, unilateral divorce must be enforced by the coercive machinery of the state. Otherwise, the involuntary divorced spouse may continue to claim the right to live in the common home, to enjoy the common property, and above all, to parent the common children. These must be curtailed, or at least controlled, by the state.

This entails a massive extension of government power – and straight into precisely the realm from which its exclusion until now virtually defines freedom and limited government: the realm of private life.

The moment either spouse files for divorce, even if the other is legally unimpeachable, the government takes control of the children, who become effectively wards of the state. Unauthorized contact by a parent becomes a crime, and the excluded parent can be arrested and incarcerated without trial through a variety of other means that by-pass constitutional due process protections: domestic violence accusations, child abuse accusations, inability to pay “child support,” even inability to pay attorneys’ fees.

Legal jargon and clichés like “divorce,” “custody battle,” and “child support” have led Americans to acquiesce in this massive intrusion of state power over their freedom. We don’t say that the government arbitrarily took away someone’s children; we say he “lost custody.” We don’t say a legally innocent citizen was interrogated by government agents over how he lives his private life; we say there was a “custody battle.” We don’t say a citizen was incarcerated without trial or charge for debt he could not possibly pay and did nothing to incur; we say he “didn’t pay his child support.” These clichés and jargon inure us to tyranny.

But worst of all, we are raising generations of children to believe that police and jails exist not to protect us from dangerous criminals but to keep away one of their parents, and that the criminal justice apparatus may be marshaled against family members who have committed no legal infraction.

Using instruments of public criminal justice to punish private hurts turns the family into government-occupied territory. The children experience family life not as a place of love, cooperation, compromise, trust, and forgiveness. Instead they receive a firsthand lesson in tyranny. Empowered by the state and functioning essentially as a government official, the custodial parent can issue orders to the non-custodial parent, undermine his authority with the children, dictate the terms of his access to them, talk to and about him contemptuously and condescendingly in the presence of the children as if he were himself a naughty child – all with the backing of state officials.

Eventually the children understand that the force keeping away one of their parents is the police, who are the guarantors of the custodial parent’s supremacy. Thus the message the children receive about both the family and the state is that they are dictatorships, ruled by an arbitrary power which can be marshaled against private enemies and even family members for personal grievances. If a loved one disagrees with us or hurts our feelings or is simply no longer desired, there is no need for forgiveness because a telephone call will have him removed, and the police will make sure he stays away. And if the police can be used to arrest Dad because he does something Mom doesn’t like, what will they do to me if I do something Mom doesn’t like?

After witnessing this dictatorship over the non-custodial parent, the children may then experience it themselves. Lacking firm authority that is in any sense moral, as well as any effective restraints on her behavior, the custodial parent now exercises unchecked power over the children as well, a relationship that becomes increasingly strained and acrimonious as the children grow older, less credulous, and more rebellious. As the children react adversely to this destruction of their home and father, or as the cute and cuddly children become rebellious adolescents, they can be turned over to state agencies by their mothers, as large numbers now are. If more vigorous instruments are required, various arms of the state – psychotherapists, police, and penal institutions – can be marshaled against the children as well. Thus the drugging and institutionalization of children in foster care, psychiatric hospitals, juvenile detention facilities, and jails that has become increasingly familiar.

In July 2001, The Progressive magazine detailed how “parents” are now turning their troublesome teenagers whom they cannot control over to the police. Overwhelmingly, though the politically correct article does not point this out, these parents are single mothers. In the single-mother home, “Wait till your father gets home,” has been replaced by, “I can turn you over to Social Services.”

On the other hand, perhaps someday they can commandeer the police and jails against family members with whom they have differences or against anyone who hurts their feelings. While many children are materially impoverished by family breakdown, in other cases the systematic bribery dispensed by the divorce industry extends to the children themselves, who may be rewarded for their cooperation with material opulence, forcibly extracted from their father and used to corrupt his children and give them too a stake in his plunder and exile.

It is not difficult to see that this is a highly unhealthy system to have in a free society. In fact, the logic is reminiscent of another system of domestic dictatorship that once tried unsuccessfully to co-exist with free civil government. Politically, the most powerful argument against slavery – and what eventually did more than any other to bring about the realization of how threatening it was to democratic freedom – was less its physical cruelty than its moral degeneracy: the tyrannical habits it encouraged in the slaveholder, the servile ones it fostered in the slave, and the moral degradation it engendered in both. Such dispositions were said to be incompatible with the kind of republican virtue required for free self-government.

Abolitionist Charles Sumner’s warning of slavery’s impact on the moral development of white children growing up in slave societies was at least as alarming as concerns about cruelty to black ones. “Their hearts, while yet tender with childhood, are necessarily hardened by this conduct, and their subsequent lives perhaps bear enduring testimony to this legalized uncharitableness,” he wrote. “They are unable to eradicate it from their natures…. Their characters are debased, and they become less fit for the magnanimous duties of a good citizen.” Something similar may be seen today in the children of the divorce regime. No people can remain free who harbor within themselves a system of dictatorship or raise their children according to its principles.

© 2008 Stephen Baskerville - All Rights Reserved