Political

by

Restore the Republic by Jonathan Emord

Editor’s Note: We attended this year’s “Health Freedom Expo” near Chicago, Illinois this month and met the author during a presentation based on the title of his book. His insights illuminated how America has strayed from the constitutional republic the founders left us two hundred and forty years ago through extreme departures from the rule of law.

As the nation drowns in a sea of debt and over-regulation and as government offers no clear solutions, constitutional lawyer Jonathan Emord presents a bold plan to restore the republic. Drawing from law, history, and economics, Emord explains that each obstacle to power and arbitrary will that the Founding Fathers placed in the Constitution has been abandoned, transforming the limited federal republic defined by the Constitution (protective of individual liberty and sovereignty) into an unlimited bureaucratic oligarchy antithetical to the Constitution.

It is that transformation which created the seeds that have grown into limitless government, corruption, regulation of all aspects of life, destruction of free enterprise, planned economies, and a deprivation of economic and civil liberty. Having identified precisely why and how the United States has lost its foundational principles and its rights basis, Emord then charts a bold course to resurrect power limiting doctrines, eliminate excess government, and restore individual sovereignty and liberty.

Indeed, Emord offers a detailed plan for deregulating markets and weaning Americans from entitlements (including Social Security and Medicare), without leaving dependents destitute. In his foreword, Ron Paul describes Restore the Republic as “. . . an invaluable explanation of how constitutional bulwarks against big government were eroded-and how we can rebuild them,” concluding that the book is “highly recommended” for all “interested in regaining our lost liberties and restoring our republic.”

by

Cancer treatment is about making money…provoking thoughts…

By Rick Cantrell, PhD, MD, PsyD

The below is absolutely 100% true and as a doctor I have been telling people this for 15 years now. No one wants to listen. Folks need to wake up. Cancer treatment is about making money. It is a 120 billion dollar a year industry in the United States alone and estimated to be a 600 billion dollar a year industry worldwide.

A successful cancer case according to the American Cancer Society and the American College of Oncology and Hematology means that the person survives for 5 years. Both the American Cancer Society and the American College of Oncology and Hematology admit that a person is likely to survive cancer for 7 to 10 years even if they do absolutely NOTHING. Of course, only the doctors get those magazines – not you, the cancer patient.

Alternative medicine’s track record of curing cancer is 10 times higher than that of conventional medicine. Note that I say CURE.

Remember another thing. A TUMOR is just a symptom. It is not the cause of cancer.

Science is cause and effect. Remove the cause and the effect disappears.

I am in my third battle with cancer right now. I have not done any chemotherapy or radiation or surgery for any of my bouts with cancer. I survived leukemia, I survived Non Hodgkins Lymphoma and now I have Glioblastoma which is supposedly an incurable form of brain cancer. I was given two months to live 5 months ago.

I have been using Chinese herbs, high doses of vitamin C, acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy and nutritional changes. Yes, at first it got worse. It had metastasized to my lymph nodes, my lungs and my bones. As of this week, I am happy to say that there is no evidence now of any cancer in my lymph system or my bones. I had 6 tumors in my lungs, now there are only two. The tumors in my brain have shrunken tremendously. I never did any of their chemo, radiation or surgery.

Here is a very interesting statistic that you can only have access to by being a doctor. Every year more than 1,000 doctors oncologists (cancer doctors) are diagnosed with cancer. Less than 10% of them choose to do the treatment that they have been giving to their patients. Sort of like the fact that less than 25% of all pediatricians vaccinate their own children because of the fact that the risk of sudden death or serious side effects from the vaccination is higher than the risk of catching the disease one is being vaccinated for. This is not bullshit people – it is truth.

Medicine is about money, not about your health and the system traps people, especially the elderly, disabled and poor into a deadly treatment regime that puts them in an early grave. Meanwhile, all the jet set billionaires are flying off to Europe and paying big bucks for alternative treatments and getting cured.

Does alternative medicine work all the time? No. Of course not. Nothing works all the time. But there is a reason for that. You don’t die until it’s your time to die. Nothing can make you live longer than that time.

However quality of life comes into play. Those cancer patients who use alternative therapies for their cancer, yet still die from the illness, suffer a much higher quality of life. They die able to spend time with their families and even recognize their family members. They don’t become emaciated like those who do chemotherapy or radiation do and rarely is a person who goes under the treatment of chemotherapy able to recognize anyone for the last few days of their lives. Their bodies become ravaged to the point that you can’t even recognize them either. They suffer at a much much higher rate and they have one let down after another as doctors tell them, ahhh – it’s looking good, only to tell them on the next visit it’s looking worse, you need more chemo and radiation.

What is criminal about this is that YOUR DOCTORS KNOW THIS SHIT.

I took an oath as a physician. I have always followed it. That has certainly not made me successful financially as a doctor because I have consistently refused to go along with conventional medicine’s bullshit.

– Rick Cantrell, PhD, MD, PsyD

Cancer Update from Rick Cantrell:

  1. \Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.
  2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person’s lifetime.
  3. When the person’s immune system is strong the cancer cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.
  4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, but also to environmental, food and lifestyle factors.
  5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet to eat more adequately and healthy, 4-5 times/day and by including supplements will strengthen the immune system.
  6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastrointestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.
  7. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.
  8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction.
  9. When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.
  10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancer cells to spread to other sites.
  11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer cells by not feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply. CANCER CELLS FEED ON:
    > Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses , but only in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in color Better alternative is Bragg’s aminos or sea salt.
    > Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk cancer cells are being starved.
    > Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little other meat, like chicken. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.
    > A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C)..
    > Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer fighting properties. Water-best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.
  12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines becomes putrefied and leads to more toxic buildup.
  13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the body’s killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.
  14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-ssence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the bodies own killer cells to destroy cancer cells.. Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body’s normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.
  15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. Anger, un-forgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.
  16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily, and deep breathing help  to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.

Source: ICR’s Global Resource Center

by

Right-Wing Billionaires Behind Mitt Romney | Rolling Stone

Presidential politics has always been a rich man’s game. But now, thanks to the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United that upended decades of limits on campaign donations, financing a presidential race is the exclusive domain of the kind of megadonor whose portfolios make Mitt Romney look middle-class. “I have lots of money, and can give it legally now,” Texas billionaire and top GOP moneyman Harold Simmons recently bragged to The Wall Street Journal. “Just never to Democrats.”

In past elections, big donors like Simmons gave millions for advocacy groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. By law, such groups were only allowed to run issue ads – but instead they directly targeted John Kerry, drawing big fines from the Federal Elections Commission. Now, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, the wealthy can legally hand out unlimited sums to groups that openly campaign for a candidate, knowing that their “dark money” donations will be kept entirely secret. The billionaire Koch brothers, for instance, have reportedly pledged $60 million to defeat President Obama this year – but their off-the-book contributions don’t appear in any FEC filings.

Even more money from megadonors is flowing into newly created Super PACs, which, unlike advocacy groups, can spend every cent they raise on direct attacks on an opponent. Under the new rules, the richest men in America are plying candidates with donations far beyond what Congress intended. “They can still give the maximum $2,500 directly to the campaign – and then turn around and give $25 million to the Super PAC,” says Trevor Potter, general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center. A single patron can now prop up an entire candidacy, as casino magnate Sheldon Adelson did with a $20 million donation to the Super PAC backing Newt Gingrich.

The undisputed master of Super PAC money is Mitt Romney. In the primary season alone, Romney’s rich friends invested $52 million in his Super PAC, Restore Our Future – a number that’s expected to more than double in the coming months. This unprecedented infusion of money from America’s monied elites underscores the radical transformation of the Republican Party, which has made defending the interests of 0.0001 percent the basis of its entire platform. “Money buys power,” the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman observed recently, “and the increasing wealth of a tiny minority has effectively bought the allegiance of one of our two major political parties.” In short, the political polarization and gridlock in Washington are a direct result of the GOP’s capitulation to Big Money.

That capitulation is evident in Romney’s campaign. Most of the megadonors backing his candidacy are elderly billionaires: Their median age is 66, and their median wealth is $1 billion. Each is looking for a payoff that will benefit his business interests, and they will all profit from Romney’s pledge to eliminate inheritance taxes, extend the Bush tax cuts for the superwealthy – and then slash the top tax rate by another 20 percent. Romney has firmly joined the ranks of the economic nutcases who spout the lie of trickle-down economics. “Support from billionaires has always been the main thing keeping those charlatans and cranks in business,” Krugman noted. “And now the same people effectively own a whole political party.”

Here are the 16 donors who have given at least $1 million each to elect Romney – and what they expect in return for their investment: Read more… 

by

Foster and Kimberly’s Response to John Robbins’ Critique of THRIVE

By Foster and Kimberly Gamble

As some of you may know, several of the people interviewed in our movie, THRIVE, have recently signed a public letter of dissociation from the film. Those signing the statement express feeling misled about the film’s content and find the message of THRIVE to be misguided. We sincerely apologize for whatever unwitting part we played in generating this sense of having been mislead and can say with utmost sincerity that this was never our intent.

We feel sad about how this was handled and that they dissociated without contacting us and without being specific about any objections. We nonetheless appreciate the opportunity to clarify some of the important issues THRIVE raises, and encourage people to see for themselves what we stand for in the film, which is available to watch for free at http://www.thrivemovement.com/the_movie in 14 different languages.

Each of the pioneers in THRIVE were invited because their expertise in a particular area had been helpful in our gaining an understanding of the bigger picture that includes, but vastly transcends, their sector of expertise – or anyone’s political affiliation. We clearly state this in the movie:

“The people in THRIVE do not necessarily agree with the themes, statements, claims or conclusions presented in the film or website, nor does their inclusion imply our full agreement with all of their views. The people interviewed have each contributed in some deep way to our understanding and we are grateful to them all.”

To facilitate a more fruitful conversation about what THRIVE offers, we’d like to specifically address a recent critique of THRIVE, written by John Robbins, entitled Humanity and Sanity: Standing for a Thriving World (and Challenging the Movie THRIVE).

Response to John Robbins

We appreciate the tireless commitment to humanity that John Robbins’ work reflects and we honor his choice to organize and speak out on behalf of those who feel that THRIVE’s message is somehow counter to his vision of a better world. Unfortunately, the process by which he has expressed his concern relies on misrepresentation of our film and its message, and describes our offering not by what we say or include in the film so much as by the associations of some of the people from whom we have learned certain information. It’s like saying the people who made the movie must be suspect because the stuff they didn’t include was really bad. This distracts from a more fruitful conversation where core issues and strategies can be discussed and debated with respect and curiosity so that our mutual process can indeed contribute something of value in these perilous times.

When unpacking Robbins arguments we notice:

  • He has not corrected a single fact from THRIVE;
  • He confirms the sociopathic and greedy destructiveness of a few banking elite controllers, but relies on “coincidence theory” to justify the success of the elite’s endeavors in every sector of human endeavor across the globe;
  • His solutions are more of what we’ve been doing that got us into the mess we’re in, and more of what hasn’t worked to get us out;
  • He derides free energy with no research or facts, while ignoring numerous eye-witness reports (including our own) and ignoring the brutal suppression of numerous inventors;
  • He implies that the mass of humanity is not compassionate or competent enough to take care of one another without an authoritarian state, even if they are prosperous and free.

We have repeatedly invited John to participate in a constructive and respectful public or private conversation to discuss the issues and to engage in a meaningful exploration of solution strategies.  Sadly, he has refused every time.

In just 5 months, millions of people have verified the usefulness of our movie and website, and THRIVE-inspired solution groups are forming in cities all over the world. So what is the need that THRIVE is meeting? We believe it is the call for bold new solutions that finally transcend the political polarity of left and right and reveal principles by which a lasting new paradigm of solutions can emerge and be sustained. Read more…

by

A Lesson for the Wall Street Journal on the NDAA | Tenth Amendment Center

Section 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) purports to authorize the President to designate all persons — including U.S. Citizens found within the U.S — as enemy combatants, subject to the Law of War, including; Indefinite detention without trial or charge, transfer to foreign jurisdictions or entities (commonly known as extraordinary rendition), and military tribunals. Essentially, the NDAA seeks to designate the United States as an active war zone in regards to allegations of terrorism, or support of terrorism, wherein our most cherished and basic Constitutional Rights are subject to the President’s discretion.

The fundamental issues raised by the NDAA deserve better from the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board than that which appeared on April 30, 2012, entitled; “The Tea Party’s Inner ACLU.”  The editorial conducts a cursory and incomplete statutory and Constitutional analysis, and improperly blurs the lines between the rights of persons captured outside the U.S. and citizens within the U.S., to incorrectly conclude that: 1) the NDAA only applies to “terrorists,” 2) the president has the Constitutional authority to designate U.S. citizens within the U.S. as enemy combatants subject to the Law of War, 3) detainees have sufficient Habeas Corpus rights, 4) that the new Virginia law directs all state officials to not cooperate with Federal detainments of citizen terrorism suspects, and 5) that the Virginia law is unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, the Journal’s hasty analysis endorsing the Constitutionality of the NDAA’s enemy combatant status for U.S. citizens captured within the U.S., and objecting to state refusal to cooperate with Federal detainments pursuant to the NDAA, leaves readers with a misunderstanding the U.S. Constitution, the NDAA, and the current nation-wide NDAA nullification movement spearheaded by our organizations; the Tenth Amendment Center and the Rhode Island Liberty Coalition. Read more…

by

Health Care Reform and the Supreme Court (Affordable Care Act) | The New York Times

By Adam Liptak

On March 26, the Supreme Court began three days of hearings on challenges to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the health care reform bill pushed by President Obama and passed by Congress in March 2010 over bitter Republican opposition.

It is one of the most significant cases heard by the court in decades, with implications for the presidential race as well as the future of health care coverage. The decision, due in late June, is also likely to be a major factor in shaping the legacy of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., as well as Mr. Obama, whose signature domestic initiative is on the line.

Day Three

On the third day of health care arguments, the justices shifted their attention to a question with enormous practical implications: If they strike down a key provision of the sprawling law, what other provisions would have to fall along with it?

Justice Antonin Scalia said the whole law would have to go. “My approach would be to say that if you take the heart out of this statute,” he said, “the statute’s gone.”

Other justices considered a variety of possible approaches.

The issue took on practical urgency after some of the questioning the day before had suggested that the law’s core provision, often called the individual mandate, may be in peril. It requires most Americans to obtain insurance or pay a penalty.

Last year, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional, but it said the balance of the law survived.

The Obama administration argued for a middle ground: that if the mandate falls, two politically popular provisions must die with it — those that prohibit insurers from declining coverage or charging higher premiums because of pre-existing medical conditions.

The challengers to the law argued that the entire act must fall along with the what one lawyer called “its heart.’’ The court appointed an outside lawyer, H. Bartow Farr III, to argue the 11th Circuit’s position, that the mandate could fall alone.

The court separated the day’s arguments into two sessions. After the morning session, which focused on the effect of overturning the mandate, the afternoon’s hearing dealt with the law’s expansion of Medicaid, part of its attempt to reduce the number of Americans without health insurance.

In the second argument, the court’s more conservative justices expressed concern that the law’s Medicaid expansion was unduly coercive to states. The law would give states additional money to expand Medicaid – which covers largely lower-income households – and also add new rules about that coverage.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often the swing vote on the court, wondered whether Medicaid created accountability problems because the federal government set the rules but the states operated it.

The court’s more liberal justices expressed surprise that the expanded program, financed largely with federal money, was at all questionable on constitutional grounds. Read more…

by

Lost in Translation: An Important Note for International Reckoners | The Daily Reckoning

Buenos Aires, Argentina – If you’re planning a vacation to the United States of America in the foreseeable future, you would do well to refrain from employing any confusing colloquialisms in your social media updates prior to departure.

For Australians, that means no “cracking onto” members of the opposite sex…no getting “off one’s face”…no “tearing it up”…no “little rippers” and, we would think, no “barrakking” for anyone.

Our Irish friends will likewise wish to steer clear of referring to anything as “the gas,” from declaring intentions to “eat one’s head off” and from “throwing shapes,” “sucking diesel” or otherwise “effin’ and blindin’.”

We can only imagine to what extent our English Reckoners shall have to curb their delightfully colorful lingo to ensure a stateside journey (even relatively) free of let or hindrance at the gate, though we imagine no measure of self-censorship will be sufficient to guarantee a transit experience free of at least a touch of “Ye ol’ Liberty Grope.”

What’s all this caper then, eh? What’s the apple, the score, the bleedin’ apple core?

Apologies for the loose linguistics, weary reader. But a point begs its making; a point two British (would-be) tourists, Leigh Van Bryan and Emily Bunting, discovered the hard way just last week.

Apparently rather chuffed at the upcoming prospect of a wee jaunt over the pond, Van Bryan and Bunting engaged in a bit of online banter before their big trip to the US. Mistake number one. The two were perhaps unaware that the Department of Homeland Security routinely trolls the global social media digital waves, setting up accounts to listen in on prospective threats to…um…the “Homeland.”

We can only imagine the hysterical frenzy that whipped around the DHS H.Q. when they discovered what Van Bryan, 26, had posted.

“Free this week for a quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America x”

Not that it should matter, but “destroy” is popular English slang for “party”…an easily Googlable fact, one would think, for the highly skilled heroes manning the control tower at the Twitter and Facebook Counter Terrorism and Special Operations Unit for Liberty and Freedom of the Homeland… Patriot… Liberty… uh, never mind.

After making their way through passport control at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) last week, the pair were promptly detained by armed guards/heroes/patriots. But the real trouble was still to come.

The two were then informed that the DHS was on to their scheme to “destroy” (read: party in) America and (Could it be? No! Sweet Mother of Mercy!) their sick and twisted plot to dig up the grave of Marilyn Monroe!

“3 weeks today, we’re totally in LA p****** people off on Hollywood Blvd and diggin’ Marilyn Monroe up!”

The pair explained that the tweet, which the DHS had considered a grave matter of national security was, actually, a reference from Family Guy, a popular television show produced in the Homeland itself…behind patriot lines!

“They asked why we wanted to destroy America and we tried to explain it meant to get trashed and party,” explained Bunting. “I almost burst out laughing when they asked me if I was going to be Leigh’s lookout while he dug up Marilyn Monroe. I couldn’t believe it because it was a quote from the comedy Family Guy which is an American show.”

Department of Homeland Security staff, brave unwavering professionals as they are, were not deterred from their mission.

“It got even more ridiculous because the officials searched our suitcases and said they were looking for spades and shovels. They did a full body search on me too” explained Bunting.

Perhaps because grave-robbing spades and shovels have little to do with (most people’s idea of) partying, the DHS were unable to find any in the pair’s luggage or, strangely enough, on their person. Nevertheless, this was no time to take chances:

“I kept saying to them they had got the wrong meaning from my tweet but they just told me ‘you’ve really f***** up with that tweet boy’.”

Van Bryan, apparently thought to be the leader of the non-existent operation, was then cuffed, thrown in a cage inside a van and whisked away to a location where he could not be of harm to Homeland citizens. Read more…

Source: The Daily Reckoning

by

Ron Paul to Congress: Freeze the Budget and Stop Plundering the American People!

By Ron Paul

One might think that the recent drama over the debt ceiling involves one side wanting to increase or maintain spending with the other side wanting to drastically cut spending, but that is far from the truth. In spite of the rhetoric being thrown around, the real debate is over how much government spending will increase.

No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it. Instead, the “cuts” being discussed are illusory, and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in projected spending increases. This is akin to a family “saving” $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini, and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes, when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda. But this is the type of math Washington uses to mask the incriminating truth about their unrepentant plundering of the American people.

The truth is that frightening rhetoric about default and full faith and credit of the United States is being carelessly thrown around to ram through a bigger budget than ever, in spite of stagnant revenues. If your family’s income did not change year over year, would it be wise financial management to accelerate spending so you would feel richer? That is what our government is doing, with one side merely suggesting a different list of purchases than the other.

In reality, bringing our fiscal house into order is not that complicated or excruciatingly painful at all. If we simply kept spending at current levels, by their definition of “cuts” that would save nearly $400 billion in the next few years, versus the $25 billion the Budget Control Act claims to “cut”. It would only take us 5 years to “cut” $1 trillion, in Washington math, just by holding the line on spending. That is hardly austere or catastrophic.

A balanced budget is similarly simple and within reach if Washington had just a tiny amount of fiscal common sense. Our revenues currently stand at approximately $2.2 trillion a year and are likely to remain stagnant as the recession continues. Our outlays are $3.7 trillion and projected to grow every year. Yet we only have to go back to 2004 for federal outlays of $2.2 trillion, and the government was far from small that year. If we simply returned to that year’s spending levels, which would hardly be austere, we would have a balanced budget right now. If we held the line on spending, and the economy actually did grow as estimated, the budget would balance on its own by 2015 with no cuts whatsoever.

We pay 35 percent more for our military today than we did 10 years ago, for the exact same capabilities. The same could be said for the rest of the government. Why has our budget doubled in 10 years? This country doesn’t have double the population, or double the land area, or double anything that would require the federal government to grow by such an obscene amount.

In Washington terms, a simple freeze in spending would be a much bigger “cut” than any plan being discussed. If politicians simply cannot bear to implement actual cuts to actual spending, just freezing the budget would give the economy the best chance to catch its breath, recover and grow.

  1. Ron Paul: Reduce Spending, Reform Government, Restore America’s Prosperity Today, 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul issued a statement outlining his opposition to the…
  2. Ron Paul: Stop Raising the Debt Ceiling Date: 05/23/2011 by Ron Paul The federal government once again has reached the limit of…
  3. Ron Paul on the Budget Control Act: Mr. Speaker, It’s Time to Tear up the Federal Credit Card! Ron Paul: This evening Congress is asked to vote for a bill that claims to…
by

How to Fix Congress – Start the 28th Amendment!

“If you want something in your life you’ve never had before, be prepared to do something you’ve never done before.”

Whether you agree fully or partially, or not at all,…please consider forwarding this on so that concerned voters can see this and decide for themselves to act, to forward or not.   Please read & thanks very much !

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified!  Why?  Simple!  The people demanded it.  That was in 1971…before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land…all because of public pressure.

I’m asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message.  This is one idea that really should be passed around.

CONGRESSIONAL REFORM ACT OF 2011

1. Term Limits. 12 years only, one of the possible options below..

A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2.  No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3.  Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately.  All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 10-1-11

The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message.  Maybe it is time.

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!

by

Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts | Unelected

The first ever GAO(Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months due to the Ron Paul, Alan Grayson Amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which passed last year. Jim DeMint, a Republican Senator, and Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator, led the charge for a Federal Reserve audit in the Senate, but watered down the original language of the house bill(HR1207), so that a complete audit would not be carried out.

Ben Bernanke (pictured to the right), Alan Greenspan, and various other bankers vehemently opposed the audit and lied to Congress about the effects an audit would have on markets. Nevertheless, the results of the first audit in the Federal Reserve’s nearly 100 year history were posted on Senator Sander’s webpage earlier this morning.

What was revealed in the audit was startling: $16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious — the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs.

To place $16 trillion into perspective, remember that GDP of the United States is only $14.12 trillion. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is “only” $14.5 trillion. The budget that is being debated so heavily in Congress and the Senate is “only” $3.5 trillion. Take all of the outrage and debate over the $1.5 trillion deficit into consideration, and swallow this Red pill: There was no debate about whether $16,000,000,000,000 would be given to failing banks and failing corporations around the world.

In late 2008, the TARP Bailout bill was passed and loans of $800 billion were given to failing banks and companies. That was a blatant lie considering the fact that Goldman Sachs alone received 814 billion dollars. As is turns out, the Federal Reserve donated $2.5 trillion to Citigroup, while Morgan Stanley received $2.04 trillion. The Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutsche Bank, a German bank, split about a trillion and numerous other banks received hefty chunks of the $16 trillion.

When you have conservative Republican stalwarts like Jim DeMint(R-SC) and Ron Paul(R-TX) as well as self identified Democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders all fighting against the Federal Reserve, you know that it is no longer an issue of Right versus Left. When you have every single member of the Republican Party in Congress and progressive Congressmen like Dennis Kucinich sponsoring a bill to audit the Federal Reserve, you realize that the Federal Reserve is an entity onto itself, which has no oversight and no accountability.

Americans should be swelled with anger and outrage at the abysmal state of affairs when an unelected group of bankers can create money out of thin air and give it out to megabanks and supercorporations like Halloween candy. If the Federal Reserve and the bankers who control it believe that they can continue to devalue the savings of Americans and continue to destroy the US economy, they will have to face the realization that their trillion dollar printing presses will eventually plunder the world economy.

The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows..

Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places

View the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve(July 21st, 2011): http://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/GAO-Fed-Investigation

Source: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-696
FULL PDF on GAO server: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf
Senator Sander’s Article: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3