The Federal Reserve: History of Lies, Thievery, and Deceit

Comments Off

This is a very interesting and factual article:

The Federal Reserve: History of Lies, Thievery, and Deceit 

by Dr. Ken Matto

Former Congressional Candidate, 6th District N.J.

“I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.”

-Thomas Jefferson

Did You Ever Wonder Why The National Debt Keeps Going Up and Up?

One of the most ungodly and fraudulent institutions ever perpetrated on the American people and the world, is the Federal Reserve System which through deceit became the central bank of the United States in 1913. The idea came about on a meeting in Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia in 1910. The bankers in this country, especially J.P. Morgan, created a currency panic in 1907 in order to get the American people to accept the idea of a central bank.

A central bank already existed in England from as far back as 1694. The Rothschilds completely dominate the banking system. It is estimated their wealth goes into the trillions.

Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild boasted:

• “I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man that controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.”

The idea of a central bank is to so enslave the people of the country to a debt money system that you continue to collect taxes continuously which just covers the interest. The duped people of the United States are paying about $400 billion dollars per year to the IRS which is the collection agency for the Federal Reserve. By the way, the Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank with 10 private members. The Chase Manhattan Bank is a member which is owned by the Rockefellers who are Rothschild Agents. I will list the ten member banks at the end of this article..

At this point the citizens of the United States falsely owe these lemmings over 13 trillion dollars. Have you ever asked the following question?

WHO HAS THAT MUCH MONEY TO LOAN TO THE UNITED STATES?

Read the entire article @ Scion of Zion

, , , ,

What Makes Gas Prices Soar? More Than Just Oil

Comments Off

Just think if we didn’t have the deep sea moratorium and could drill in the continental United States.

It’s one of the biggest unknowns in the petroleum industry. Just how do
gas station owners decide how much you pay at the pump? A gas station
owner near Atlanta offers some answers.

Finance Armageddon

, ,

Amtrak Chief Bars TSA For Conducting “Illegal” Searches at Train Station

Comments Off

One more example to those that think by not flying they can avoid the illegal and unconstitutional searches done by the TSA at airports.

Amtrak Chief  Bars TSA For Conducting “Illegal” Searches at Train Station

Amtrak police chief bars Transportation Security Administration from some security operations

n
late February, the Transportation Security Administration took over
the Amtrak station in Savannah, Ga., and thoroughly searched every
person who entered. None of the passengers got into trouble, but the
TSA certainly did — big time.

Amtrak Police Chief John O’Connor said
he first thought a blog posting about the incident was a joke. When
he discovered that the TSA’s VIPR team did at least some of what the
blog said, he was livid. He ordered the VIPR teams off Amtrak
property, at least until a firm agreement can be drawn up to prevent
the TSA from taking actions that the chief said were illegal and
clearly contrary to Amtrak policy.

“When I saw it, I didn’t
believe it was real,” O’Connor said. When it developed that the
posting on an anti-TSA blog was not a joke, “I hit the ceiling.”

O’Connor
said the TSA VIPR teams have no right to do more than what Amtrak
police do occasionally, which has produced few if any protests and
which O’Connor said is clearly within the law and the Constitution.
More than a thousand times, Amtrak teams (sometimes including VIPR)
have performed security screenings at Amtrak stations. These screenings
are only occasional and random, and inspect the bags of only about one
in 10 passengers. There is no wanding of passengers and no sterile
area. O’Connor said the TSA violated every one of these rules.

A
posting in late February to the Transportation Security
Administration’s blog, which serves as a public relations tool of the
TSA, tried to explain why TSA agents took over the Amtrak station in
Savannah. But O’Connor said the “facts” as posted on the TSA blog were
incorrect. He said the blog indicated that Amtrak had approved of the
operation, but it had not. He called the TSA’s posting on blog.tsa.gov “inaccurate and insensitive.” As of the time this story was filed, the same posting remained on the blog.

CS Trains.com

, ,

Sarah Palin’s Unpresidential Calendar

Comments Off

Well I have to admit I’m sort of surprised about this.

Sarah Palin’s Unpresidential Calendar

Yesterday Sarah Palin sent another signal that she probably won’t enter
the 2012 presidential race when it was announced she would be doing an
event in Denver on May 2—the same day as the first Republican
presidential debate.

Ms. Palin has agreed to appear in suburban Lakewood at a “Tribute to
the Troops with Sarah Palin,” a fundraiser for the families of fallen
soldiers in suburban Denver. John Andrews, a former GOP gubernatorial
nominee who heads the Centennial Institute, says Ms. Palin will not
accept a fee and all proceeds from the event will go to family members
who have lost breadwinners in combat.

The political significance of her acceptance lies in the fact that
the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library is set to hold the first debate
among presidential candidates on May 2, an event moderated by Brian
Williams of NBC and John Harris of Politico.com. “Presumably, this means
she will be doing [the fundraiser] instead of any other engagement on
the second [of May],” Mr. Andrews told the Denver Post.

Whatever the reason for Ms. Palin’s decision, she clearly is an
appropriate choice for the patriotically themed event. Her son, Track,
served with the U.S. military in Iraq from 2008 to 2009.

online.WSJ.com

Can geoengineering put the freeze on global warming?

2 Comments

Global Warming? Pleeeze ….it’s been admitted several times there is no such thing as Global Warming, even by the IPPC people at the UN in a big uproar at the end of 2009.

As you read this article see if you remember this from the article referred to above:

Global warming alarmists are scrambling to save face after hackers stole hundreds of incriminating e-mails from a British university and published them on the Internet. 

The messages were pirated from the Climatic Research Unit
(CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) and reveal correspondence
between British and American researchers engaged in fraudulent reporting
of data to favor their own climate change agenda. UEA officials
confirmed one of their servers was hacked, and several of the scientists
involved admitted the authenticity of the messages, according to the New York Times.
The article opined, “The evidence pointing to a growing human
contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked
material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.”

Climatologist
Patrick J. Michaels challenged that position. “This is not a smoking
gun, this is a mushroom cloud.” The e-mails implicate scores of
researchers, most of whom are associated with the UN’s Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization many skeptics believe
was created exclusively to provide evidence of anthropogenic global
warming (AGW).

Can geoengineering put the freeze on global warming?

Scientists call it “geoengineering,” but in plain speak, it means things
like this: blasting tons of sulfate particles into the sky to reflect
sunlight away from Earth; filling the ocean with iron filings to grow plankton that will suck up carbon; even dimming sunlight with space shades.

Each brings its own set of risks, but in a world
fretting about the consequences of global warming, are these ideas whose
time has come?

 

With 2010 tying as the world’s warmest year on
record and efforts to slow greenhouse gas emissions looking stymied,
calls are rising for research into engineering our way out of global
warming — everything from launching solar shade spacecraft to
genetically engineering green deserts. An international consortium of 12
universities and research institutes on Tuesday, for example, announced
plans to pioneer large-scale “ocean fertilization” experiments aimed at
using the sea to pull more greenhouse gases out of the sky.

 

Once the domain of scientists’ off-hours schemes
scrawled on cocktail napkins, such geoengineering is getting a serious
look in the political realm.

 

“We’re moving into a different kind of world,” says environmental economist Scott Barrett of Columbia University. “Better we turn to asking if ‘geoengineering’ could work, than waiting until it becomes a necessity.”

 

A National Academy of Sciences
best estimate has global warming bumping up average temperatures by 3
to 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Meanwhile, greenhouse
gas emissions that are largely responsible, most from burning the
modern economy’s main fuels, coal and oil, look set to continue to rise
for the next quarter-century, according to Energy Information Agency
estimates.

 

“That’s where geoengineering comes in,” says
international relations expert David Victor of the University of
California-San Diego. “Research into geoengineering creates another
option for the public.”

No longer eyed askance

 

“Geoengineering is no longer a taboo topic at
scientific meetings. They are looking at it as one more policy
prescription,” says Science magazine reporter Eli Kintisch, author of Hack the Planet: Science’s Best Hope — Or Worst Nightmare — For Averting Climate Catastrophe. “But it is yet to become a household word.”

 

That may be changing, as the terms of debate
about geoengineering become clear. On the pro-research side, this
October the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology called for
more research into geoengineering, “to better understand which
technologies or methods, if any, represent viable stopgap strategies for
managing our changing climate and which pose unacceptable risks.” On
the more cautious side, a United Nations Environment Programme species
conservation meeting in Nagoya, Japan, ended that same month with a call
for, “no climate-related geoengineering activities,” without
environmental and scientific review.

What are the actual geoengineering proposals?

Ocean fertilization. Dumping iron filings
into the ocean to spur phytoplankton blooms is the saltwater version of
forestation. The increased mass of the plankton’s cells would swell
with carbon pulled from the air. On the downside, it may kill fish,
belch out other greenhouse gases such as methane, and hasn’t worked very
well in small trials.

 

Forestation. Intense planting of trees
and reclaiming deserts with hardier plants is one of the ideas endorsed
at the recent Cancun, Mexico, climate meeting, where representatives of
192 nations made some progress on an international climate agreement.
More fantastic versions, endorsed by Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson,
would rely on genetic engineering to produce trees that act as natural
carbon scrubbers, their trunks swollen with carbon pulled from the air.

 

Cloud engineering. Painting rooftops
white, genetically engineering crops to have shinier surfaces, and
floating blocks of white Styrofoam in the oceans are all proposals to
mimic the effects of clouds, whose white surfaces reflect sunlight.
Pumping sea salt into the sky from thousands of “spray ships” could
increase clouds themselves. Cost-effectiveness aside, such cloud-seeding
might end up dumping rain on the ocean or already soggy regions,
instead of where it’s needed.

 

Pinatubo a-go-go. As mentioned above, sulfur aerosols could be fired into the sky by cannons, released by balloons or dropped from planes.

 

Space mirrors. Hundreds of thousands of
thin reflective yard-long disks fired into a gravitational balance point
between the sun and Earth could dim sunlight. Cost aside, rocket
failures or collisions might lead to a tremendous orbital debris cloud
circling the Earth. And a recent Geophysical Research Letters space
tourism report suggests the rocket fuel burned to launch the needed
number of shades would dump enough black soot — which absorbs sunlight
and heats the atmosphere — to increase average global temperatures about
1.4 degrees.

 

“Most of the technologies are not yet proven and
are at the theoretical or research phase,” an August Congressional
Research Service report noted.

Entire article at USA Today

Can geoengineering put the freeze on global warming?

Comments Off

Global Warming? Pleeeze ….it’s been admitted several times there is no such thing as Global Warming, even by the IPPC people at the UN in a big uproar at the end of 2009.

As you read this article see if you remember this from the article referred to above:
Global warming alarmists are scrambling to save face after hackers stole hundreds of incriminating e-mails from a British university and published them on the Internet.

The messages were pirated from the Climatic Research Unit
(CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) and reveal correspondence
between British and American researchers engaged in fraudulent reporting
of data to favor their own climate change agenda. UEA officials
confirmed one of their servers was hacked, and several of the scientists
involved admitted the authenticity of the messages, according to the New York Times.
The article opined, “The evidence pointing to a growing human
contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked
material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.”

Climatologist
Patrick J. Michaels challenged that position. “This is not a smoking
gun, this is a mushroom cloud.” The e-mails implicate scores of
researchers, most of whom are associated with the UN’s Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization many skeptics believe
was created exclusively to provide evidence of anthropogenic global
warming (AGW).

Can geoengineering put the freeze on global warming?

Scientists call it “geoengineering,” but in plain speak, it means things
like this: blasting tons of sulfate particles into the sky to reflect
sunlight away from Earth; filling the ocean with iron filings to grow plankton that will suck up carbon; even dimming sunlight with space shades.

Each brings its own set of risks, but in a world
fretting about the consequences of global warming, are these ideas whose
time has come?

With 2010 tying as the world’s warmest year on
record and efforts to slow greenhouse gas emissions looking stymied,
calls are rising for research into engineering our way out of global
warming — everything from launching solar shade spacecraft to
genetically engineering green deserts. An international consortium of 12
universities and research institutes on Tuesday, for example, announced
plans to pioneer large-scale “ocean fertilization” experiments aimed at
using the sea to pull more greenhouse gases out of the sky.

Once the domain of scientists’ off-hours schemes
scrawled on cocktail napkins, such geoengineering is getting a serious
look in the political realm.

“We’re moving into a different kind of world,” says environmental economist Scott Barrett of Columbia University. “Better we turn to asking if ‘geoengineering’ could work, than waiting until it becomes a necessity.”

A National Academy of Sciences
best estimate has global warming bumping up average temperatures by 3
to 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Meanwhile, greenhouse
gas emissions that are largely responsible, most from burning the
modern economy’s main fuels, coal and oil, look set to continue to rise
for the next quarter-century, according to Energy Information Agency
estimates.

“That’s where geoengineering comes in,” says
international relations expert David Victor of the University of
California-San Diego. “Research into geoengineering creates another
option for the public.”

No longer eyed askance

“Geoengineering is no longer a taboo topic at
scientific meetings. They are looking at it as one more policy
prescription,” says Science magazine reporter Eli Kintisch, author of Hack the Planet: Science’s Best Hope — Or Worst Nightmare — For Averting Climate Catastrophe. “But it is yet to become a household word.”

That may be changing, as the terms of debate
about geoengineering become clear. On the pro-research side, this
October the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology called for
more research into geoengineering, “to better understand which
technologies or methods, if any, represent viable stopgap strategies for
managing our changing climate and which pose unacceptable risks.” On
the more cautious side, a United Nations Environment Programme species
conservation meeting in Nagoya, Japan, ended that same month with a call
for, “no climate-related geoengineering activities,” without
environmental and scientific review.

What are the actual geoengineering proposals?

Ocean fertilization. Dumping iron filings
into the ocean to spur phytoplankton blooms is the saltwater version of
forestation. The increased mass of the plankton’s cells would swell
with carbon pulled from the air. On the downside, it may kill fish,
belch out other greenhouse gases such as methane, and hasn’t worked very
well in small trials.

Forestation. Intense planting of trees
and reclaiming deserts with hardier plants is one of the ideas endorsed
at the recent Cancun, Mexico, climate meeting, where representatives of
192 nations made some progress on an international climate agreement.
More fantastic versions, endorsed by Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson,
would rely on genetic engineering to produce trees that act as natural
carbon scrubbers, their trunks swollen with carbon pulled from the air.

Cloud engineering. Painting rooftops
white, genetically engineering crops to have shinier surfaces, and
floating blocks of white Styrofoam in the oceans are all proposals to
mimic the effects of clouds, whose white surfaces reflect sunlight.
Pumping sea salt into the sky from thousands of “spray ships” could
increase clouds themselves. Cost-effectiveness aside, such cloud-seeding
might end up dumping rain on the ocean or already soggy regions,
instead of where it’s needed.

Pinatubo a-go-go. As mentioned above, sulfur aerosols could be fired into the sky by cannons, released by balloons or dropped from planes.

Space mirrors. Hundreds of thousands of
thin reflective yard-long disks fired into a gravitational balance point
between the sun and Earth could dim sunlight. Cost aside, rocket
failures or collisions might lead to a tremendous orbital debris cloud
circling the Earth. And a recent Geophysical Research Letters space
tourism report suggests the rocket fuel burned to launch the needed
number of shades would dump enough black soot — which absorbs sunlight
and heats the atmosphere — to increase average global temperatures about
1.4 degrees.

“Most of the technologies are not yet proven and
are at the theoretical or research phase,” an August Congressional
Research Service report noted.

Entire article at USA Today

, , , ,

Dick Morris Calls Ron Paul “Horrific”, Hangs Up On Peter Schiff

Comments Off

Another phony conservative in my opinion is Dick Morris. He ran
the Clinton White House in 1995 but wants to pretend that he is for
limited govt. Puh-leeze!

Dick Morris Calls Ron Paul “Horrific”, Hangs Up On Peter Schiff

Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 395 other followers