Friday, April 30, 2010

American Thinker: 'Sedition' Is Constitutional

By John Griffing

For the past year, the Obama administration, unable to win arguments based on facts and merit, has been moving to criminalize the political opposition in an effort to artificially control the debate. First, the DHS published reports classifying conservative viewpoints as terroristic. Then hate crimes legislation was introduced to squash religious speech regarding sexual deviancy. And finally, Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein claimed the power to ban "falsehoods," an infraction Sunstein in his infinite nonpartisan wisdom would define and determine. And now, the ultimate political A-bomb has been introduced into the public discourse: the charge of sedition.

That was the charge against Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin from Time Magazine's Joe Klein. "Sedition" is a historically loaded word, since it is primarily associated with the jailing of political opponents and has traditionally been hard to identify. Those in power usually wield the "sedition" slur as a bludgeon against anyone who stands in the way of their agenda, whatever that may be.

But due to the fact that so-called sedition is so frequently associated with issues of free speech, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled numerous times that anti-sedition laws are unconstitutional. Translation: Sedition is constitutional.

Anti-government sentiment is an American tradition. Some would even say that questioning the government and the sincerity of government policies is part of healthy democratic life. In fact, we should be skeptical of those who wish to stifle this sentiment. The Declaration of Independence even defends the idea of a "right to alter or abolish" the government. This is the famous right to revolution. Although lawyers have squabbled over the precise meaning of the words "alter or abolish," and certainly no one wants to see mob-led anarchy, this much is clear: In America, government does not rule subjects. "We the people" rule the government, and government serves at our will. We do not owe the president or members of Congress unquestioning loyalty. That kind of loyalty is the hallmark of another system defeated in two world wars, one hot and one cold.

In America, whenever government becomes destructive to its primary purpose, it must be replaced. And what is the primary purpose of government? The Declaration of Independence enlightens:

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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men ..." How far have we strayed from that maxim?

There were three major Sedition Acts historically: one passed during the Adams administration in the later part of the 18th century, one passed during WWI, and one passed during the FDR administration. Although the 1940 Smith Act is still on the books, all of these statutes have been nullified by the Supreme Court.

In Yates v. United States, the SCOTUS ruled that citizens could even go as far as to advocate the forceful overthrow of the United States government (as long as these discussions were passive in nature.) This case dealt with Communist subversives, a paradigm much more detrimental to the system by which Americans are governed than the much-hyped tea party movement, which simply seeks a return to constitutionally limited government.

Additional cases include New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and Watts v. United States. Although the Sedition Acts expired some years before these cases were decided, the wording is useful. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the SCOTUS declared, "Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history." In Watts v. United States, Justice William O. Douglas concurred: "The Alien and Sedition Laws constituted one of our sorriest chapters; and I had thought we had done with them forever ... Suppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by our Constitution." And finally, Watkins v. United States held that those accused under the Smith Act could rely upon the First Amendment as defense, holding that "[a] congressional investigation is subject to the command that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or press or assembly." This last case was especially relevant during the so-called Red Scare, when hundreds of suspected Communists were the left's cherished victims of America's own show trials.

This history reveals that, apart from cases where incitement can be shown, using the word "sedition" against political enemies is out of place in a free country. Any American may oppose government policies without advocating the violent overthrow of the entire political system. Those who capriciously bandy about terms like "sedition" are knowingly committing an act of slander, since the charge of sedition requires the intent to upset law and order, a motivation nowhere present in the political movement collectively referred to as the "tea party."

There are the occasional nuts on both ends of the political spectrum, but to tar half of America with such a firebrand word is to engage in willful deception and intimidation -- especially in cases like that of alleged offender Glenn Beck, who is on record promoting nonviolence.

Bottom line: If debates cannot be won based on the strength of arguments, and it becomes necessary to engage in threats and ad hominem attacks, then the debate has already been lost by whoever resorts to these lowbrow devices. Maybe Cass Sunstein should spend some time examining the "falsehoods" emanating from members of his own party, like Nancy Pelosi's decision to stop just short of calling conservative Americans Nazis. It is remarkable that we live in a time when the Speaker of the House can impugn her own constituents with the crudest label known to man and escape serious consequences.

The Obama administration and its journalistic allies must not be allowed to succeed in their goal of silencing free speech for short-term political gain. American freedom is too precious to allow it to be molested by those who would stoop to such dangerous name-calling.
on "'Sedition' Is Constitutional"

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

John Stossel: Liberalism is no longer about freedom | Washington Examiner

By: John Stossel
Examiner Columnist
April 8, 2010


I used to be a Kennedy-style "liberal." Then I wised up. Now I'm a libertarian.

But what does that mean?

When I asked people on the street, half had no clue.

We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they're for limited government, but they're pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion, and they often support "nation-building."

And so-called liberals? They tend to be anti-gun and pro-choice on abortion. They favor big, powerful government - they say - to make life kinder for people.

By contrast, libertarians want government to leave people alone - in both the economic and personal spheres. Leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don't hurt anybody else.

Ironically, that used to be called "liberal," which has the same root as "liberty." Several hundred years ago, liberalism was a reaction against the stifling rules imposed by aristocracy and established religion.

I wish I could call myself "liberal" now. But the word has been turned on its head. It now means health police, high taxes, speech codes and so forth.

So I can't call myself a "liberal." I'm stuck with "libertarian." If you have a better word, please let me know.

When I first explained libertarianism to my wife, she said: "That's cruel! What about the poor and the weak? Let them starve?"

I recently asked some prominent libertarians that question, including Jeffrey Miron, who teaches economics at Harvard.

"It might in some cases be a little cruel," Miron said. "But it means you're not taking from people who've worked hard to earn their income (in order) to give it to people who have not worked hard."

But isn't it wrong for people to suffer in a rich country?

"The number of people who will suffer is likely to be very small. Private charity ... will provide support for the vast majority who would be poor in the absence of some kind of support. When government does it, it creates an air of entitlement that leads to more demand for redistribution, till everyone becomes a ward of the state."

Besides, says Wendy McElroy, the founder of ifeminists.com, "government aid doesn't enrich the poor. Government makes them dependent. And the biggest hindrance to the poor ... right now is the government. Government should get out of the way. It should allow people to open cottage industries without making them jump through hoops and licenses and taxing them to death. It should open up public lands and do a 20th-century equivalent of 40 acres and a mule. It should get out of the way of people and let them achieve and rise."

David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, took the discussion to a deeper level.

"Instead of asking, 'What should we do about people who are poor in a rich country?' The first question is, 'Why is this a rich country?' ...

"Five hundred years ago, there weren't rich countries in the world. There are rich countries now because part of the world is following basically libertarian rules: private property, free markets, individualism."

Boaz makes an important distinction between equality and absolute living standards.

"The most important way that people get out of poverty is economic growth that free markets allow. The second-most important way - maybe it's the first - is family. There are lots of income transfers within families. Third would be self-help and mutual-aid organizations. This was very big before the rise of the welfare state."

This is an important but unappreciated point: Before the New Deal, people of modest means banded together to help themselves. These organizations were crowded out when government co-opted their insurance functions, which included inexpensive medical care.

Boaz indicts the welfare state for the untold harm it's done in the name of the poor.

"What we find is a system that traps people into dependency. ... You should be asking advocates of that system, 'Why don't you care about the poor?'"

I agree. It appears that when government sets out to solve a problem, not only does it violate our freedom, it also accomplishes the opposite of what it set out to do.

Examiner Columnist John Stossel is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate.

Ten inconvenient truths about Obamacare | Washington Examiner

By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent
March 23, 2010

President Obama, with Vice President Biden at his side, makes a statement Sunday night following the final vote in the House for comprehensive health care legislation. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

President Obama is promising a massive campaign to sell the health care plan just approved by Congress -- starting with his signature on the Senate version of the legislation on Tuesday. The sales pitch begins even as the Senate considers a raft of modifications to the plan already approved by the House. But as the president makes his pitch, critics will be looking to knock down many of the central claims he and other Democratic leaders have made. Here are 10 inconvenient truths that could dog the president:

1. The cost of coverage will rise for the middle class.

According to Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a health care scholar at the free-market American Enterprise Institute, the new bill will actually make it more costly for middle class families to buy health insurance by forcing those who shop on the individual market to buy generous, but expensive plans mandated under the new law. Middle class families earning $88,000 or more a year won't qualify for health care subsidies. A family earning $100,000 would end up spending nearly a quarter of their net income on health care.

2. Health insurance premiums will go up for nearly half of Americans.

Health care premiums for those in the individual insurance market will rise 10 percent to 13 percent by 2016 under the plan, according to the Congressional Budget Office. While the cost of premiums will be subsidized with taxpayer dollars for 57 percent of those enrolled in the new government-run insurance exchanges, the 43 percent of enrollees who do not qualify for assistance will have to pay higher costs.

3. Health reform is unlikely to create new jobs.

The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, says that the health care reform bill will create "between 2.5 million to 4 million additional jobs over the next 10 years." But the fiscally conservative Beacon Hill Institute, part of Boston's Suffolk University, conducted its own analysis and found that in response to higher taxes and mandates on companies to provide insurance, "firms would be induced to fire or lay off workers" to the tune of 120,000 to 700,000 employees by 2019. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, found that the new taxes would kill 690,000 jobs per year.

4. Federal funding may cover abortion.

Obama agreed on Sunday to sign an executive order to reaffirm the Senate bill's "consistency with long-standing restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion." But pro-life groups say the executive order does not carry the force of a law and will do nothing to curb the provision in the bill they believe will allow taxpayer dollars to cover the procedure. "The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says," the National Right to Life Committee said.

5. Four million people will lose their employer-based plans.

The new health care law will impose a list of benefits each health care plan will have to offer if they are to remain in business. The Congressional Budget Office also estimates that about 4 million people would lose their employer-based plan and be forced to buy plans on the new government exchanges.

6. Medicare will cut services along with costs.

The bill makes $528 billion in cuts to Medicare, including a $136 billion reduction for Medicare Advantage. The Medicare Advantage cuts will force 4.8 million seniors off the popular plan by 2019. An additional $23 billion in cuts to Medicare will come from a panel charged with slashing Medicare spending.

7. The bill will not pay for itself.

The CBO found that the bill would reduce the deficit by $138 billion over 10 years, but the savings was achieved by leaving out a $208 billion provision lawmakers will have to enact later to ensure doctors are adequately paid for treating Medicare patients. When the "doc fix" is included in the bill, it runs $59 billion in the red over the next decade. And former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin said that "if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games" the 10-year deficit would exceed $560 billion.

8. Higher Medicaid costs will gradually shift to the states.

The health care reform bill expands Medicaid to all non-elderly individuals up to 133 percent of the poverty line. The federal government would foot the bill for this expansion, but only until 2016. Beginning in 2017, states would gradually begin paying a portion of it. By 2020, states would cover 10 percent of the cost of Medicaid expansion.

9. Doctor shortages could lead to rationing.

A survey conducted by the Medicus Firm, a medical recruitment company, found that 46 percent of physicians said they would quit or retire if the Democratic health care reform bill becomes law. The survey noted that "even if a much smaller percentage such as ten, 15, or 20 percent are pushed out of practice over several years at a time when the field needs to expand by over 20 percent, this would be severely detrimental to the quality of the health care system."

10. The bill raises taxes for many individuals and businesses.

The bill imposes a 40 percent excise tax on insurance plans costing $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. It also raises revenue by increasing the Medicare payroll tax for those earning more than $200,000, plus a new 3.8 percent tax on unearned income for these earners. The bill also imposes new taxes on drug makers, medical device manufacturers and health insurers that are likely to be passed on to consumers.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Chicago Law Prof on Obama: “The Professors Hated Him because he was Lazy, Unqualified & Never Attended any of the Faculty Meetings”

Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, March 31, 2010, 10:13 PM

The highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law spoke out on Barack Obama saying, “Professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings.”
Doug Ross reported this and more:

I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

This photo of Barack Obama teaching in Chicago was posted in February 2008 at PrestoPundit. In this class Barack Obama was teaching his students the principles of Saul Alinsky. Notice the flow chart indicating the flow of money and power out of productive businesses (“CORP”) and into the political class (“MAYOR”):

The heading at the top reads “POWER ANALYSIS”. The sub-heading reads “RELATIONSHIPS BUILD ON SELF INTEREST”. The symbol on the arrow between “CORP” and “MAYOR” is the “$” sign.

Saul Alinsky came up with the idea of power analysis, which looks at relationships built on self-interest between corporations, banks and utilities. Barack Obama was teaching students in Chicago the Alinsky Principles.

Of course, this is not a surprise. After watching the bribes, kickbacks, lies and threats this past year as Democrats fought to take over the health care industry, it’s obvious that the only subject Obama excels at is Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals.

More… Isn’t it a bit odd that the only photo we’ve seen of Obama teaching, he’s explaining the Alinsky principles?

HE Is Amused By Us? : WesternFront America

HE Is Amused By Us?

For more than a year now we’ve stood in the rain and the cold and the heat and in hostile circumstances and on street corners and at rural crossroads and outside local and state and federal buildings, protesting a sorry excuse for a president and his merry band of Congresscriminals.

First HE had us labeled as domestic terrorists, then he didn’t know we existed, then HE called us teabaggers, then HE acknowledged his destiny to be a one-term president — and now HE is “amused” by us.

HE is amused by us? We are the reason Arlen Sphincter turned tail and joined his natural-born party when the backlash over his support of Zero’s $787 billion turtle tunnel bill threatened his re-election as a Republican, and we are now the reason Sphincter won’t even come close to winning his seat back against upstart Pat Toomey. We are the reason Scott Brown now sits in a seat formerly occupied for nearly half a century by a fat cretinous murdering drunkard whoring Democrat thief, the reason dirty Creigh Deeds was done in dirt cheap (a saying admittedly stolen from Pat Dollard), the reason New Jersey now has Gov. Chris Christie to rightfully gut it’s bloated government and eventually return power to the taxpayer, the reason sitting RINO Florida Gov. Charlie Crist will have to run as a Democrat-lite (an independent) to even have a chance at winning his battle to become a U.S. senator.

HE is amused by us? We’re the reason it took so long for HIM to get his precious signature – and likely final – achievement accomplished: Obamacare. We are the reason Obama needed to make the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback and the fake executive order preventing federal abortion funding just to squeak that monstrosity of freedom-grabbing piece of crap through by a Congresscriminal’s nose.

HE is amused by us? We’re the reason (so far) that 17 clownish Zombiecrat Congresscriminals and 5 Zombiecrat Senators are retiring. We’re the reason the battle for the Senate on April 15, 2010, looked amazingly red and the current map of the potential November makeup of the House of Representatives that, only 18 months ago was bluer that Babe the Blue Ox’s balls, now looks like Iran nuked the entire friggin’ nation, not that The One would do anything about nuclear attacks, either.

HE is amused by us? We are the reason Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Dickhead, Nevada) will lose in November, even with a third-party candidate running for his seat, why only a few supporters showed up to hear him recently speak in his hometown of Searchlight, where conversely thousands were drawn to hear Sarah Palin speak and where leftists threatened Andrew Breitbart.

HE is amused by us? We are the reason that, one by one, the names on the list in the following image will be sent into retirement, crossed-off to their bearers’ humiliation, eradicated from the American political landscape, forever.


HE is amused by us? We are the only thing that can prevent his vision of America’s future, a remade and broken-down shell that is mediocre and timid and lagging behind developing third-world countries in technology and capital and world prestige, our future grandchildren saying these first words:

HE is amused by us? We are this nation’s future, the purveyors of our government’s original core values of fiscal responsibility and limited government and free-market enterprise, the defenders of the intent of our Founding Fathers and their achievement – the creation of the greatest nation this earth has ever known … and will ever know. HE is the reason the Founders are turning over in their graves right now, screaming:

So let HIM be amused by us.
Below is a moonbat who showed up yesterday at the Atlanta TEA Party (I’ll give him credit for having stones but not for having brains), before we surrounded him, chanting “He’s not one of us,” following as the Georgia Capitol Police escorted him away from our rally, politely telling him “b-bye! Thanks for coming!”

We’ll be doing the same to pResident Barack Obama in November 2012. I doubt he’ll be amused by us then.
NOTE: All photos by Snarky Basterd’s crappy CrackBerry, taken 4/15/2010, on the grounds of the Georgia state capitol in Atlanta.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Funny how time and experiences change views






Cartoons from Across the Globe









































































HOW MANY REAL AMERICANS
WILL YOU SEND THIS ON TO?

Special army unit ready to be deployed on American soil just before Nov. elections (Update)

April 13, 5:16 PMConservative ExaminerAnthony G. Martin



Note: An update has been posted at the end of the article.

In October of this year, one month prior to the November midterm elections, a special army unit known as 'Consequence Management Response Force' will be ready for deployment on American soil if so ordered by the President.

(AP Photo/David Longstreath).

The special force, which is the new name being given to the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry, has been training at Fort Stewart, Georgia and is composed of 80,000 troops.

According to the Army Times,

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

The key phrase is 'may be called upon to help with civil unrest.'

This afternoon a local radio talk show host reported that he had been in contact with a member of the military. This military source stated that the armed forces have been alerted to the strong possibility that civil unrest may occur in the United States this summer, prior to the midterm elections of 2010.

The source described this as 'our long, hot summer of discontent' that could be eerily reminiscent of the summer of 1968 when riots broke out in many of our largest cities.

However, the summer of 2010 could well be much worse due to the players involved. In 1968 the major players were war protesters. This time, the outrage simmering beneath the surface of American society involves a broad cross-section of the heartland, and most of them are heavily armed.

It is highly unlikely that these citizens would ever initiate armed conflict of any kind. In their view, gun rights are for self-defense--and for defense against tyrannical government, which our Founders regarded as the most dangerous force on earth.

However, it has become clear that other groups may well initiate violence in order to start an 'incident' that would give Obama and a rogue Congress a reason to implement martial law, confiscate the citizens' guns, enforce curfews, and suspend all future elections until such time as it is deemed 'safe' to proceed with human liberty as encapsulated in the right to vote.

Tea Party members, for example, have been warned in recent days that members of Andy Stern's SEIU union and members of the organization formerly known as ACORN plan to infiltrate Tea Party gatherings in order to incite some sort of incident that could result in armed conflict.

In addition, all indications point to a humiliating defeat for the Democrats and Obama in November. Not only will the House in all likelihood transfer to Republican control, but it is increasingly possible for the Democrats to lose the Senate as well.

And there are Leftwing groups in this country that would use whatever means necessary to prevent that from happening.

ACORN has already gone underground, changing its name so as to fly beneath the radar screen. How many people will the group register to vote illegally?

And with Obama's plan to naturalize between 10 and 20 million illegal aliens, a brand new voter base for the Democrats will be in place prior to November.

Add to this the growing unrest over continued high unemployment, the coming spike in interest rates and inflation, and the still-boiling outrage over the manner in which Obama and the Democrats shoved ObamaCare down the throats of the citizens, and all of the ingredients are present for a major F-5 tornado to sweep across the heartland.

To what extent would soldiers use deadly force during such 'civil unrest' should the Consequence Management Response Team be utilized? During the anti-war riots of the 1960s they killed student protesters. What about now?

The military source cited by the radio host today was asked this very question. He would merely say that the culture of the U.S. military is changing--half support Obama and the other half are dead-set against him.

His conclusion? There is no way to know for sure if they would obey an order to open fire on ordinary citizens.

Update: The Cato Institute published this warning when the program was launched in its first phase in 2008 (the program has been updated and expanded since 2008). The Founders insisted that standing armies were never to be used against American citizens on our own soil, no matter what violations of this principle have occurred in the years following. In the spirit of the Patriots and of real journalists government must be questioned constantly and held to intense scrutiny in order to preserve liberty.

Monday, April 12, 2010

BOMBSHELL – Whistle Blower Comes Forward With Solid Proof The Price Of Gold And Silver Is Being Manipulated By Major Financial Institutions - BlackListed News


Published on 04-12-2010Email To Friend Print Version
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

By Michael Snyder - BLN Contributing Writer

For a long time many of us have had very serious suspicions that the prices of gold and silver were being highly manipulated. But now, thanks to the mind blowing testimony of one very brave whistle blower, the blatant manipulation of the world gold and silver markets is being blown wide open. What you are about to read below is absolutely staggering. Once the American people learn how incredibly corrupt the world financial system is, it is going to change everything. The government that we are all trusting to guard the integrity of the financial system is failing to do that job. It turns out that the Commodities Futures Trading Commission has been sitting on solid evidence that the elite banking powers have been openly and blatantly manipulating the price of gold and silver. Even though they were basically handed a "smoking gun", they have done absolutely nothing with it. But now the information has gone public and the CFTC is red-faced.

Back in November 2009, Andrew Maguire, a former Goldman Sachs silver trader in Goldman's London office, contacted the CFTC's Enforcement Division and reported the illegal manipulation of the silver market by traders at JPMorgan Chase.

Maguire told the CFTC how silver traders at JPMorgan Chase openly bragged about their exploits - including how they sent a signal to the market in advance so that other traders could make a profit during price suppression episodes.

Traders would recognize these signals and would make money shorting precious metals alongside JPMorgan Chase. Maguire explained to the CFTC how there would routinely be market manipulations at the time of option expiries, during non-farm payroll data releases, during commodities exchange contract rollovers, as well as at other times if it was deemed necessary.

On February 3rd, Maguire gave the CFTC a two day warning of a market manipulation event by email to Eliud Ramirez, who is a senior investigator for the CFTC’s Enforcement Division.

Maguire warned Ramirez that the price of precious metals would be suppressed upon the release of non-farm payroll data on February 5th. As the manipulation of the precious metals markets was unfolding on February 5th, Maguire sent additional emails to Ramirez explaining exactly what was going on.

And it wasn't just that Maguire predicted that the price would be forced down. It was the level of precision that he was able to communicate to the CFTC that was the most stunning. He warned the CFTC that the price of silver was to be taken down regardless of what happened to the employment numbers and that the price of silver would end up below $15 per ounce. Over the next couple of days, the price of silver was indeed taken down from $16.17 per ounce down to a low of $14.62 per ounce.

Because of Maguire’s warning, the CFTC was able to watch a crime unfold, right in front of their eyes, in real time.

So what did the CFTC do about it?

Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

Which is extremely alarming, because the size of this fraud absolutely dwarfs the Madoff or Enron scandals. In fact, this fraud is so gigantic that it is not even worth comparing to any of the other major financial scandals of recent times.

But Maguire did not give up. He sent several more emails to the CFTC detailing the open manipulation of the gold and silver markets.

The CFTC did not reply.

Finally he sent them a final email: "I have honored my commitment to assist you and keep any information we discuss private, however if you are going to ignore my information I will deem that commitment to have expired."

The reply by the CFTC?

"I have received and reviewed your email communications. Thank you so very much for your observations."

No action.

No acknowledgement that anything was wrong.

No recognition that a massive crime had been committed.

Fortunately, that was not the end of it.

On March 25th, the CFTC held a hearing on alleged manipulation in the gold market by the major banking powers.

Maguire wanted to testify during that hearing but he was not invited.

But William Murphy, chairman of Gold Anti-Trust Action (GATA), was invited to testify. GATA has been compiling data on the manipulation of the gold and silver markets for quite a long time now.

Murphy was only given five minutes to deliver his testimony. He raced through his presentation so that he could get as much information on the record as possible.

Very curiously, the live television broadcast of the CFTC hearing suffered a technical failure the minute before Murphy began his testimony. The technical failure was corrected the minute after Murphy was finished.

Coincidence?

Well, it turns out that there were are lot of coincidences surrounding this hearing.

But we'll get to that in a minute.

When Murphy finished his statement, the panel asked him for some hard proof of market manipulation. Murphy shocked the panel by revealing the name of Maguire and explaining how Maguire had informed the CFTC Enforcement Division of the market manipulation that was taking place by JPMorgan Chase. The CFTC panel seemed stunned by the revelation and seemed reluctant to learn any further and asked nothing else about it.

Video of Murphy's revelation to the panel is posted below....

In another "coincidence", Maguire and his wife were subsequently injured and hospitalized when their car was struck by a hit-and-run driver in the London suburbs.

When a bystander who saw the "accident" tried to block the other driver from getting away, the other driver accelerated directly towards the witness, forcing him to leap out of the way to avoid being hit. The hit-and-run driver’s car then hit two additional cars as he left the area.

But Maguire and his wife were fortunate.

In the past, other would-be whistle blowers that had evidence regarding the manipulation in the gold and silver markets died in "unusual accidents" before they were able to bring their evidence to light.

But there were even more "coincidences" surrounding this hearing.

A week before the hearing, the CFTC announced that they had had a fire in the room where its gold and silver records are held.

Isn't that convenient?

In addition, after the hearing was over, Murphy was contacted by a number of major media outlets for interviews.

Within 24 hours, every single interview was cancelled.

Every single one.

Is that a coincidence too?

It appears that some very powerful people do not want this information to get out.

It also shows how corrupt the mainstream media has become.

This is a story that is so much bigger than the Madoff scandal or the Enron scandal that it is not even funny.

And yet the mainstream media is avoiding it like the plague.

But there were additional bombshells that came out during the hearing as well.

During the hearing it was revealed that the gold manipulators have accumulated a huge short position in gold and that these huge short positions are "naked", which means that these positions are not hedged.

These massive short positions have put some of the largest financial institutions in the world in an extremely vulnerable position.

In addition, it has now come out that most "gold" that is traded is not backed by the actual metal itself. For years, most people have assumed that the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA), the world's largest gold market, had actual gold to back up the massive "gold deposits" at the major LBMA banks.

But that is not the case.

People are now realizing that there is very little actual gold in the LBMA system.

When people think they are buying "gold", they are actually just buying pieces of paper that say they own gold.

In fact, during the CFTC hearings, Jeffrey Christian of CPM Group confirmed that the LBMA banks actually have approximately a hundred times more gold deposits than actual gold bullion.

Uh oh.

So what happens if everyone decides that they want actual physical delivery of their gold?

It would be such a mess that it is painful even to think about it.

The truth is that right now most of the trading activities on the London exchange are just paper for paper.

But people get into gold because they want to be in a real commodity.

In fact, there are thousands of clients around the globe who think they own huge deposits of gold bullion, and are being charged large storage fees on that imaginary bullion, but what they really own are a bunch of pieces of paper.

If there comes a time when everyone starts asking for their gold it is going to create a squeeze of unimaginable proportions.

Maguire explains this situation this way: "for 100 customers who show up there is only one guy who is going to get his gold or silver and there’s 99 who will be disappointed, so without any new money coming into the market, just asking for that gold and silver will create a default."

The truth is that it is absolutely impossible for the LBMA to ever deliver all the gold and silver owed to the owners of contracts.

Yes, it is a gigantic mess.

But this type of things is not entirely unprecedented. For example, Morgan Stanley paid out several million dollars back in 2007 to settle claims that it had charged 22,000 clients storage fees on silver bullion that did not exist.

So what is the bottom line?

The bottom line is that the precious metals markets are cesspools of fraud and manipulation.

The markets have been suppressed by the major financial institutions for years, and this has created the potential for a "squeeze" in the precious metals markets that could send the prices of gold and silver into the stratosphere.

You see, the reality is that there would be no gold left in the entire world if all the Gold ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) asked for physical delivery.

Are you starting to get the picture?

In fact, Maguire claims that the naked short selling scam by the major financial institutions is well into the trillions of dollars, making it by far the biggest financial fraud in history.

Maguire calls what has been going on "financial terrorism", and he accuses the financial institutions involved in this fraud of "treason" for putting national security at risk.

And national security is at risk.

Because if the true extent of this fraud comes out, it could collapse the entire financial system.

If you have never heard an interview with Andrew Maguire, we encourage you to listen to the audio interview posted below. It will really open your eyes to what is going on in the precious metals markets....

The Century's Biggest Fraud Revealed

This is one of the biggest financial stories of the decade. Because it is complex, most Americans will not understand it. But the fraud and manipulation in the gold and silver markets has the potential to cause a massive economic collapse even without all of the other factors talked about on this blog.

Some very powerful people have been doing some really, really bad things. Once people understand the truth, they will never look at the financial markets the same way again. Already, faith in the major financial institutions of this country has been shaken by revelations about what has been going on over at Goldman Sachs. The American people have no more appetite for any more financial scandals or for any more Wall Street bailouts. But if the fraud and manipulation taking place in the precious metal markets ever gets totally exposed it will change the U.S. financial system forever.

Please get this information out to as many people as you can. There are a number of very powerful people who are not going to be pleased that sites like this are attempting to get the truth about this massive scandal out.

Share and Enjoy:

Friday, April 9, 2010

Who's Been Fibbing Then? Evidence That Obama Was Deeply Involved in Socialist New Party "Sister Organization"

Did Barack Obama, or someone close to him, deliberately mislead voters about the extent of the US president's involvement in the socialist Chicago New Party?

In the run up to the November 2008 elections, evidence surfaced that Barack Obama had joined and been endorsed by the Chicago New Party, during his successful 1995/96 Illinois State Senate run.

According to Obama's "Fight the Smears" website;
Right-wing hatchet man and conspiracy theorist, Stanley Kurtz is pushing a new crackpot smear against Barack falsely claiming he was a member of something called the New Party.
But the truth is Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party. In all six primary campaigns of his career, Barack has has run as a Democrat. The New Party did support Barack once in 1996, but he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.
Stanley Kurtz also queried Carol Harwell, Obama's campaign manager at the time: She said
“Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.”
This despite evidence that Obama was heavily involved in the New Party in 1995 and according to New Party News of Spring 1996, page 1, was a bona fide New Party member (see below).


I now present evidence that Obama was involved as early as 1993, with a New Party "sister" organization - Progressive Chicago.

This organization was formed by members of the New Party as a support group for "progressive" candidates. It's main instigators included New Party members Madeline Talbott of Chicago ACORN and Dan Swinney, a Chicago labor unionist.

In an April 27, 1993 letter to prospective Progressive Chicago members, Dan Swinney wrote;
"I recently have become interested in the New Party as well as committed myself to see if we can build a Progressive Chicago network, working with Madeline Talbott of ACORN - the local New Party convener.
I wanted to introduce you to the NP and Progressive Chicago and would like to talk to you about it to see if there is a role you want to play."

A circa 1993 Progressive Chicago introductory pamphlet stated;
Progressive Chicago was started by members of the New Party who wanted to be able to put together an organization strong enough to win: If that means supporting a candidate running as a Democrat, then fine. If that means running our own candidates in aldermanic or state representative races on whatever line that gives them the best chance of winning, fine.
A Chicago New Party organizing report of June 2 1993 specifically named Progressive Chicago as a "sister organization";
At some point in the future we will have elections for a steering committee, but at this point we are concentrating on building up the internal organization...to build up our sister organization, Progressive Chicago. Once we have built up our membership for the two organizations, we will then elect a steering committee and move forward...

Progressive Chicago would be a support organization for progressive political activity...This organization is modeled on Progressive Milwaukee and Progressive Dane...

We hope that Progressive Chicago will be able to rebuild the shattered Harold Washington Coalition and be a leading force in supporting progressive coalitions and progressive change...


The New Party and Progressive Chicago were always financially intertwined. According to an undated Progressive Challenge call for members;

If you're already a member of the New Party, we have an agreement with them that $5 of the New Party dues will automatically go to Progressive Challenge.

According to the organization's literature, Progressive Chicago aimed to;
Unite progressive activists and organizations for progressive, grassroots electoral activity in local elections.
It is a renewal of the old Harold Washington coalition; activists and academics; women; unemployed and union; gay and straight; community organizations and churches; African American, Latino, Asian, native American and white; seniors and people with disabilities; low income and middle income; west and south side..
It was the election of the leftist Harold Washington in 1983 that inspired Barack Obama to move to Chicago two years later.

The Harold Washington coalition, was led by an alliance of Chicago communists, socialists and "community activists", just like both of its direct descendants, the New Party and Progressive Chicago.

Key Progressive Chicago leaders included;
People targeted or solicited to join Progressive Chicago included Obama political mentor and Communist Party affiliate Alice Palmer, Communist Party member Frank Lumpkin, Rev. Jim Reed of Christians for Socialism and Democratic Socialists of America associates Miguelle Del Valle, Carole Travis, Clem Balanoff, Sue Purrington and Jane Ramsey.

Barack Obama was probably approached to join Progressive Chicago as early April 7, 1993 as this unsigned handwritten note suggests.


According to the same note Obama was "more than happy to be involved";

By September 1993 Obama was one of 17 people listed as a signatory on all Progressive Chicago letters - as shown by the second page of this September 22 Progressive Chicago letter to Joe Gardner.


On December 31, 1993, Progressive Chicago wrote to all key members, including Obama, inviting them to a January 19, 1994 meeting.

Clearly Obama's involvement in Progressive Chicago was high level and lasted at least several months.


It appears beyond doubt that Barack Obama was involved, more than two years before his Illinois State Senate run, with a New Party founded, "sister organization" - Progressive Chicago.

It is clear that ACORN and SEIU played a big role in Progressive Chicago, as did Marxist activists from Democratic Socialists of America and Committees of Correspondence.

In 2008, the US media went into a frenzy when it was alleged that Sarah Palin's husband had been involved in the Alaska Independence Party.

The same media apparently believed the Obama camp's assurances that their candidate had never been meaningfully involved in the New Party - and even if he was, it wasn't really socialist anyway.

Here is hard evidence that Obama was involved in a New Party "sister organization", founded by New Party members and run by hard core socialists.

Perhaps some brave journalist might seek redemption and forgiveness from the American people by asking the President some tough questions?

It shouldn't be too hard. The evidence is all here.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Obama hates America and its Constitution : WesternFront America


By Gordon Bishop

obama-hates-america After more than a half-century as a columnist and investigative reporter, I’ve come to the scary conclusion that Barack Hussein Obama, a black African Arab, hates America and plans to destroy capitalism because he is a pro-terrorist Marxist Communist who grew up in an Indonesian Muslim country.

Every thing Obama (or is it really Osama?) has done as an Illinois State Senator, U.S. Senator for 2 years and, since taking over the reins of federal government last year, has been anti-American.

Obama’s agenda is to transform America into a Socialist Marxist Nation State, as fast as he can. He’s spending trillions and trillions of dollars of borrowed money (with interest) to make his “historic transformation,” ruining the United States in the process.

This radical crook from Chicago became a politician because his close friend, Bill Ayers, launched Obama’s career in his crazy Chicago home.

Ayers is a radical terrorist who blew up some federal buildings because he, too, hates America, even more than his sidekick, Barack Hussein Obama.

This anti-America terrorist sympathizer flies around the world in our costly Presidential Jet Plane, blaming America for almost all of the problems facing socialist nations.

We haven’t seen anything like this since Vladimir Lenin, the father of Communism and, of course, anti-America, and his evil successor, Joseph Stalin, another Russian mass murderer who was a brutal dictator akin to Adolph Hitler.

Priority Number 1 for the ‘Big 0.’ is to destroy America’s economy. After that, the commies can take over and control all of our public and private sector businesses and jobs.

If you think it’s bad now, wait’ll you see what America looks like by the end of this year.

Instead of empowering the private sector to generate jobs, Obama already has hired more than 100,000 federal government jobs, adding tens of thousands of IRS bureaucrats to steal our hard-earned money — another burden on America’s taxpayers.

I’m surprised that more than 20 million unemployed Americans aren’t rioting in the streets of their hometowns.

One thing Obama has done is to create a bankruptcy environment that led to a new independent party, called simply “The Tea Party.”

It will be The Tea Party movement that takes out Obama and his Chicago thugs — his Marxist Commie followers from coast-to-coast.

This will be the Second American Revolution, thanks to Obama’s inept failure to protect America from an inevitable Depression.

Obama’s unconstitutional health care law (Obamacare) already faces scores of lawsuits now pending before the United States Supreme Court. And this slippery weasel who captured the White House is a Harvard Law School graduate, as is his wife, Michelle.

You know what the greatest writer in the English language (William Shakespeare) warned some 400 years ago: “First, kill all the lawyers!” The Obamas and many of their friends and supporters are lawyers.

Just what America doesn’t need!

All of those self-hating, self-indulgent Americans in the bankrupt liberal cities love nothing more than bankrupting America. They see it as the only way to wipe out the law-abiding conservatives who want to get rid of the far left liberal radicals killing our economy — and our educational system.

Yes, more than 93 percent of America’s colleges and universities are run by liberals who believe that Big Government is the best way to solve all of our economic problems.

The Great One — President Ronald Reagan — declared: “Government is the problem, not the solution.”

The Obama White House and Congress are doing everything they can to destroy Ronald Reagan’s enormous popularity and success initiatives during the 1980s.

Reagan’s legacy is that he cut taxes and generated millions and millions of jobs, so working taxpayers and voters could enjoy more than 8 years of “Reaganomics.”

Reagan stood up to the Communists when he demanded that Russia’s leader Gorbachev “Tear down that Wall” dividing Germany. The Germans returned to freedom and liberty.

Obama considers European Communists as his allies.

This Marxist President in the White House will not stand up for America.

Why?

Because he’s not a citizen of America. In Obama’s campaign for the presidency, he announced: “I am a Citizen of the World!” He never mentioned America.

Yes, this egotistic, arrogant dictator wants to control the world. America is just not big enough for this destructive madman.

As always, “God Bless America.”