I know too many “ex-Glenn Beck fans” who are using the wrong approach in attempting to show you why Glenn is more of a threat to the American people than he is a truth-teller or savior.  I don’t entirely fault them because I understand their frustration as well as their “sense of urgency”.  The simple fact of the matter is that if  “We The People” do not begin to think for ourselves, and stop the conformity, we will continue to be misled, and we will get nowhere in our fight to regain our freedom and liberties.

In my quest to understand how our country has gotten to where it is, I found Glenn Beck.  Not only did he seem to have the answers, he was also providing me with excellent information about people and groups (the czars, ACORN, SEIU, Andy Stern, Anita Dunn, etc.) who surround and influence our president and our policies.  I was sure Glenn had stumbled on some pretty beefy information which offered a great explanation as to why our country was going to hell in a hand basket.

For months, I never missed a Glenn Beck show. At the same time, I continued my relentless research on the internet for as much “truth” as I could get my hands on and I’m convinced this allowed me to keep a healthy perspective on “truth”.  One day while watching Glenn – a warning signal sounded in my head.   In realizing just how massive of a following that Glenn was gaining, I cautioned myself to be careful and to keep an open mind.  As indicated by history as well as the bible, I understood that anyone who has the ability to gain such a mass following of people also has the ability to lead that mass astray.

IN ORDER TO SUCCESSFULLY DECEIVE – YOU MUST USE TRUTH

You cannot gain a mass following by telling lies.  In order to deceive, You MUST use the truth…  or at the very least, what might be acknowledged as truth by the masses (more on this later).

The majority who align themselves with Glenn Beck consider themselves to be “conservatives.”  If you fall into this category, you do not follow CNN or MSNBC because “you are able to see the lies.”  You can’t conform to their viewpoint because there isn’t enough truth in their message to keep your attention.  CNN or MSNBC cannot deceive you because you see no truth in their message.  Deception can only deceive if it looks somewhat like the real thing.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive

BEFORE YOU UNDERSTAND “HOW” – YOU MUST UNDERSTAND “WHY”

Many of you will refuse to believe that you are being deceived by Glenn Beck because you cannot fathom any reason why he would do this. Without considering the big picture, this is understandable.  Because of this, you have rationalized that the “Beck Bashers” must either be jealous of his fame and fortune or they are just “idiot liberals.” Before we can begin to explore “how we are being deceived”, we must first ask the question, “Why?” The short answer is controlled opposition, and this is where it is crucial for many of you to gain and keep an open mind!

Some of you reading this already know that the truth (whole, entire truth) will never be televised. But, as I temporarily did, you are holding on to the hope that somehow, Beck/FOX managed to break free of this rule.  You may even think that FOX has discovered that there is more money in telling the truth – so they are going to continue to do it – until the Obama Administration decides to silence them.  If you believe there is any threat of FOX being shut down or of Beck being taken off the air – let me guarantee – this will never happen. Why?  Because Glenn Beck is the most valuable player on Team Obama than anyone else.  Why?  Because the elites behind the New World Order who own “Team Obama” also own all of mainstream media.

If you have questions about the New World Order, the elite bankers, the Federal Reserve -you can find more information on this “Grand Delusion” Blog.

If you know anything about “reverse psychology” - you would know that the fake little war between the Obama Administration and FOX News did nothing more than to drive more people to FOX News to see what all the fuss was about. Borderline liberals flocked to FOX News because they believed that “if Obama was trying to silence FOX, they must be telling the truth.”  Oh – how easily fooled we are!

OUR OUTRAGE = A MASSIVE, PEACEFUL UPRISING/REVOLUTION?  UMM. NO.

How many of us are opposed to the way our government is running our country?  How many are opposed to the war? How many are opposed to the Federal Reserve? How many of us are frustrated, fed-up, sick and tired or afraid of what our future holds? How many of us now view our government as the enemy?  How many of us understand that in order to defeat any enemy, we need to think like the enemy?   What are they thinking?

The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves – Vladimir Lenin

Don’t underestimate the powers that be. Don’t underestimate those in control. They full well know that the only way they can reach their goal for the New World Order and One World Government is by controlling the opposition and making sure that the truth is kept from us. In fact, their biggest fear is that we will learn the truth because the truth WILL set us free! What chance would they have if we all rose up tomorrow against tyranny, against them?  They wouldn’t have a chance! There are way too many of us.  So don’t you think they have the foresight, the power, the money, the influence needed in order to carry out controlling the opposition by leading it? Yes!  Of course they do!

NOW THAT YOU UNDERSTAND “WHY” – LET’S TALK ABOUT “HOW”

One good way to determine if someone is “controlled opposition” is to not just look at what they are saying – but, more importantly, look at what they are not saying!

TACTIC #1 – CONTROLLED TRUTH

You will get just enough truth, but you will never get all of it, for it you did, you would surely rise up. Look at the “Federal Reserve.”  We know just enough about it to know we don’t like it.  Many of us want it audited and/or abolished.  What did Henry Ford say about the Federal Reserve?

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. –Henry Ford

Glenn Beck recently put together a very nice documentary called, “Live Free or Die.” While much truth was exhibited in his documentary, he stopped short at revealing the whole truth.  Don’t you think it would have been important to know that Prescott Bush (George W. Bush’s grand-father) played a major role in funding Hitler’s rise to power? If Beck wanted to arm you with the whole truth, he would not have left this information out.  Especially if it is “his calling” to warn you about our government and what they are capable of!

TACTIC #2 & 3 – MIND BENDING and DISINFORMATION

Beck instructs you to “Question Boldly” – but only those questions that he approves.  Don’t you dare question 9/11!

How many times has Beck said that the 9/11 Truther’s only account for 5% of the population? The truth is that the majority of the population question 9/11 and one third of the population believe that our government was involved.

Even if you are as dead set against the 9/11 Truth Movement as Beck claims to be – don’t you deserve the truth about the number of people who question 9/11?  Shouldn’t you be told about the 50 Senior Military, Intelligence and Government Officials who question the 9/11 Commission Report? Shouldn’t we discuss Senator Max Cleland – Former member of the 9/11 Commission, who resigned in December 2003 saying “I, as a member of the [9/11] Commission, cannot look any American in the eye… It is a national scandal… this White House wants to cover [9/11] up.”

Are you asking yourself why you didn’t know these things? The reason is because “they don’t want you to know.” You will not find the truth on mainstream news, not even FOX.

If you are led to believe that only a small, kooky minority question 9/11, or anything else for that matter – you probably won’t research it for yourself, but if you knew that the majority question it, you would either stand with the majority or spend more of your own time looking at the data and form your own opinions.

So, if the majority of the population question 9/11 – why did Glenn Beck attempt to ruin Debra Medina for not disavowing any group questioning 9/11?  Seems pretty irrational once you know the truth about the numbers, doesn’t it? In fact, Debra Medina should have responded, “Senator Max Cleland, former member of the 9/11 commissioner resigned over a possible cover-up and the majority of the American people have questions about 9/11 – so, in my desire to represent the people, I fully support questioning the 9/11 Commission Report.”

How many of you, without looking into any data or doing any of your own research are using terms such as “Truthers”, “Birthers” and “Tenthers” and attaching negative connotations to these terms against the groups and experts who have done their research?

Are you beginning to understand how you are being influenced through mind-bending and disinformation?

For more about 9/11 that you will never hear on mainstream TV, click here.

WOLF IN SHEEPS CLOTHING

If someone is placed into a position of amassing a great following for the purpose of controlling and deceiving – they are not going to appear as a wolf.  Glenn Beck has sparkly blue eyes, a great smile and a wonderful personality.  It is very hard not to like him – even when you understand that he is choosing monetary wealth over the well-being of his fellow man.

Many people believed that Josef Stalin was a good man, handsome with great personality.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, “The world has never seen greater devotion, determination, and self sacrifice, that have been displayed by the Russian people and their armies under the leadership of Marshall Josef Stalin.” In total, the estimated number of people killed under Stalin ranges between 10 million to 60 million.

Even Hitler was once loved by the people.  Don’t think for one second that a charismatic leader cannot lead you astray.

WHAT IS A JUDAS SHEEP?

Sheep are innate followers and very easily led astray. In New Zealand about 40 million sheep are led to slaughter each year. A specially selected castrated male sheep aptly called the “Judas” sheep leads the unwitting sheep to the killing floor. Unaware of what is about to happen, the sheep blindly fall in behind the Judas sheep and follow him to their deaths.

IN CLOSING

As I continued to watch Glenn Beck with an open mind, I began to see signs of deception.  I began to see signs of neo-conservatism.  I hadn’t even finished my “Arguing with Idiots” book.  Issues and actions that were extreme violations of the Constitution and our freedoms and liberties that were discussed all over the internet went for days unmentioned on his program. If and when they were mentioned, they were not given the attention they deserve.  Some were blown off entirely.

As I dug more and more into the 9/11 Truth Movement and I seen the legitimate questions coming from patriots, our war veterans, our military leaders, 9/11 commission members, aerospace engineers, experts, historians, pilots, architects and engineers, families of those killed, economists, I realized these people were not the “kooks” that Beck described. They were also not “dangerous” as Beck described.   I had to ask myself why he would mislead his followers.  Beck even went so far as to say that he “began hating the families of those who died on 9/11.” Someone who told us to “Question Boldly” suddenly had a zero tolerance level for questioning even from families who had more reason than anyone else to question.

I had no choice, in the face of all the evidence, to conclude that Beck is the ultimate deception because he makes the choice to deceive – as opposed to deceiving out of plain old ignorance.

I attribute much of my initial awakening to Glenn Beck -  but because I knew better than to give him my complete trust (I reserve that for God) – and I knew the importance of continuing to find truth on my own (as everyone needs to do, especially now), I knew when to part ways with him.  That ultimately led to me turning off the TV.  I do not get my news from the TV – because the truth isn’t televised and because you should never be bullied into asking or NOT asking any question.

If Beck were truly “bucking the system” – he would have went the way of Lou Dobbs.

Historical background – the establishment of capitalist supremacy

When the Industrial Revolution began in Britain, in the late 1700s, there was lots of money to be made by investing in factories and mills, by opening up new markets, and by gaining control of sources of raw materials. The folks who had the most money to invest, however, were not so much in Britain but more in Holland. Holland was the leading Western power in the 1600s, and its bankers were the leading capitalists. In pursuit of profit, Dutch capital flowed to the British stock market, and thus the Dutch funded the rise of Britain, who subsequently eclipsed Holland both economically and geopolitically.

In this way British industrialism came to be dominated by wealthy investors, and capitalism became the dominant economic system. This led to a major social transformation. Britain had been essentially an aristocratic society, dominated by landholding families. As capitalism became dominant economically, capitalists became dominant politically. Tax structures and import-export policies were gradually changed to favor investors over landowners.

It was no longer economically viable to simply maintain an estate in the countryside: one needed to develop it, turn it to more productive use. Victorian dramas are filled with stories of aristocratic families who fall on hard times, and are forced to sell off their properties. For dramatic purposes, this decline is typically attributed to a failure in some character, a weak eldest son perhaps. But in fact the decline of aristocracy was part of a larger social transformation brought on by the rise of capitalism.

The business of the capitalist is the management of capital, and this management is generally handled through the mediation of banks and brokerage houses. It should not be surprising that investment bankers came to occupy the top of the hierarchy of capitalist wealth and power. And in fact, there are a handful of banking families, including the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, who have come to dominate economic and political affairs in the Western world.

Unlike aristocrats, capitalists are not tied to a place, or to the maintenance of a place. Capital is disloyal and mobile – it flows to where the most growth can be found, as it flowed from Holland to Britain, then from Britain to the USA, and most recently from everywhere to China. Just as a copper mine might be exploited and then abandoned, so under capitalism a whole nation can be exploited and then abandoned, as we see in the rusting industrial areas of America and Britain.

This detachment from place leads to a different kind of geopolitics under capitalism, as compared to aristocracy. A king goes to war when he sees an advantage to his nation in doing so. Historians can ‘explain’ the wars of pre-capitalist days, in terms of the aggrandizement of monarchs and nations.

A capitalist stirs up a war in order to make profits, and in fact our elite banking families have financed both sides of most military conflicts since at least World War 1. Hence historians have a hard time ‘explaining’ World War 1 in terms of national motivations and objectives.

In pre-capitalist days warfare was like chess, each side trying to win. Under capitalism warfare is more like a casino, where the players battle it out as long as they can get credit for more chips, and the real winner always turns out to be the house – the bankers who finance the war and decide who will be the last man standing. Not only are wars the most profitable of all capitalist ventures, but by choosing the winners, and managing the reconstruction, the elite banking families are able, over time, to tune the geopolitical configuration to suit their own interests.

Nations and populations are but pawns in their games. Millions die in wars, infrastructures are destroyed, and while the world mourns, the bankers are counting their winnings and making plans for their postwar reconstruction investments.

From their position of power, as the financiers of governments, the banking elite have over time perfected their methods of control. Staying always behind the scenes, they pull the strings controlling the media, the political parties, the intelligence agencies, the stock markets, and the offices of government. And perhaps their greatest lever of power is their control over currencies. By means of their central-bank scam, they engineer boom and bust cycles, and they print money from nothing and then loan it at interest to governments. The power of the banking elites is both absolute and subtle…

“Some of the biggest men in the United
States are afraid of something. They
know there is a power somewhere, so
organised, so subtle, so watchful, so
interlocked, so complete, so pervasive
that they had better not speak above
their breath when they speak in
condemnation of it.”
– President Woodrow Wilson

The end of growth – capitalists vs. capitalism

It was always inevitable, on a finite planet, that there would be a limit to economic growth. Industrialization has enabled us to rush headlong toward that limit over the past two centuries. Production has become ever more efficient, markets have become ever more global, and finally we have reached the point where the paradigm of perpetual growth can no longer be maintained.

Indeed, that point was actually reached by about 1970. Since then capital has not so much sought growth through increased production, but rather by extracting greater returns from relatively flat production levels. Hence globalization, which moved production to low-waged areas, providing greater profit margins. Hence privatization, which transfers revenue streams to investors that formerly went to national treasuries. Hence derivative and currency markets, which create the electronic illusion of economic growth, without actually producing anything in the real world.

If one studies the collapse of civilizations, one learns that failure-to-adapt is fatal. Continuing on the path of pursuing growth would be such a failure to adapt. And if one reads the financial pages these days, one finds that it is full of doomsayers. We read that the Eurozone is doomed, and Greece is just the first casualty. We read that stimulus packages are not working, unemployment is increasing, the dollar is in deep trouble, growth continues to stagnate, business real estate will be the next bubble to burst, etc. It is easy to get the impression that capitalism is failing to adapt, and that our societies are in danger of collapsing into chaos.

Such an impression would be partly right and partly wrong. In order to understand the real situation we need to make a clear distinction between the capitalist elite and capitalism itself. Capitalism is an economic system driven by growth; the capitalist elite are the folks who have managed to gain control of the Western world while capitalism has operated over the past two centuries. The capitalist system is past its sell-by date, the banking elite are well aware of that fact – and they are adapting.

Capitalism is a vehicle that helped bring the bankers to absolute power, but they have no more loyalty to that system than they have to place, or to anything or anyone else. As mentioned earlier, they think on a global scale, with nations and populations as pawns. They define what money is and they issue it, just like the banker in a game of Monopoly. They can also make up a new game with a new kind of money. They have long outgrown any need to rely on any particular economic system in order to maintain their power. Capitalism was handy in an era of rapid growth. For an era of non-growth, a different game is being prepared.

Thus, capitalism has not been allowed to die a natural death. First it was put on a life-support system, as mentioned above, with globalization, privatization, derivative markets, etc. Then it was injected with a euthanasia death-drug, in the form of toxic derivatives. And when the planned collapse occurred, rather than industrial capitalism being bailed out, the elite bankers were bailed out. It’s not that the banks were too big to fail, rather the bankers were too politically powerful to fail. They made governments an offer they couldn’t refuse.

The outcome of the trillion-dollar bailouts was easily predictable, although you wouldn’t know that from reading the financial pages. National budgets were already stretched, and they certainly did not have reserves available to service the bailouts. Thus the bailouts amounted to nothing more than the taking on of immense new debts by governments. In order to fulfill the bailout commitments, the money would need to be borrowed from the same financial institutions that were being bailed out.

With the bailouts, Western governments delivered their nations in hock to the bankers. The governments are now in perpetual debt bondage to the bankers. Rather than the banks going into receivership, governments are now in receivership. Obama’s cabinet and advisors are nearly all from Wall Street; they are in the White House so they can keep close watch over their new acquisition, the once sovereign USA. Perhaps they will soon be presiding over its liquidation.

The bankers are now in control of national budgets. They say what can be funded and what can’t. When it comes to financing their wars and weapons production, no limits are set. When it comes to public services, then we are told deficits must be held in check. The situation was expressed very well by Brian Cowan, Ireland’s government chief. In the very same week that Ireland pledged 200 billion Euro to bailout the banks, he was being asked why he was cutting a few million Euro off of critical service budgets. He replied, “I’m sorry, but the funds just aren’t there”. Of course they’re not there! The treasury was given away. The cupboard is bare.

As we might expect, the highest priority for budgets is servicing the debt to the banks. Just as most of the third world is in debt slavery to the IMF, so the whole West is now in debt slavery to its own central banks. Greece is the harbinger of what is to happen everywhere.

The carbon economy – controlling consumption

In a non-growth economy, the mechanisms of production will become relatively static. Instead of corporations competing to innovate, we’ll have production bureaucracies. They’ll be semi-state, semi-private bureaucracies, concerned about budgets and quotas rather than growth, somewhat along the lines of the Soviet model. Such an environment is not driven by a need for growth capital, and it does not enable a profitable game of Monopoly.

We can already see steps being taken to shift the corporate model towards the bureaucratic model, through increased government intervention in economic affairs. With the Wall Street bailouts, the forced restructuring of General Motors, the call for centralized micromanagement of banking and industry, and the mandating of health insurance coverage, the government is saying that the market is to superseded by government directives. Not that we should bemoan the demise of exploitive capitalism, but before celebrating we need to understand what it is being replaced with.

In an era of capitalism and growth, the focus of the game has been on the production side of the economy. The game was aimed at controlling the means of growth: access to capital. The growth-engine of capitalism created the demand for capital; the bankers controlled the supply. Taxes were mostly based on income, again related to the production side of the economy.

In an era of non-growth, the focus of the game will be on the consumption side of the economy. The game will be aimed at controlling the necessities of life: access to food and energy. Population creates the demand for the necessities of life; the bankers intend to control the supply. Taxes will be mostly based on consumption, particularly of energy. That’s what the global warming scare is all about, with its carbon taxes and carbon credits.

Already in Britain there is talk of carbon quotas, like gasoline rationing in wartime. It’s not just that you’ll pay taxes on energy, but the amount of energy you can consume will be determined by government directive. Carbon credits will be issued to you, which you can use for driving, for heating, or on rare occasions for air travel. Also in Britain, the highways are being wired so that they can track how many miles you drive, tax you accordingly, and penalize you if you travel over your limit. We can expect these kinds of things to spread throughout the West, as it’s the same international bankers who are in charge everywhere.

In terms of propaganda, this control over consumption is being sold as a solution to global warming and peak oil. The propaganda campaign has been very successful, and the whole environmental movement has been captured by it. In Copenhagen, demonstrators confronted the police, carrying signs in support of carbon taxes and carbon credits. But in fact the carbon regime has nothing to do with climate or with sustainability. It is all about micromanaging every aspect of our lives, as well as every aspect of the economy.

If the folks who are running things actually cared about sustainability, they’d be investing in efficient mass transit, and they’d be shifting agriculture from petroleum-intensive, water-intensive methods to sustainable methods. Instead they are mandating biofuels and selling us electric cars, which are no more sustainable or carbon-efficient than standard cars. Indeed, the real purpose behind biofuels is genocide. With food prices linked to energy prices, and agriculture land being converted from food production to fuel production, the result can only be a massive increase in third-world starvation. Depopulation has long been a stated goal in elite circles, and the Rockefeller dynasty has frequently been involved in eugenics projects of various kinds.

‘The War on Terrorism’ – preparing the way for the transition

The so-called War on Terrorism has two parts. The first part is a pretext for arbitrary abuse of citizen’s rights, whenever Homeland Security claims the action is necessary for security reasons. The second part is a pretext for US military aggression anywhere in the world, whenever the White House claims that Al Qaeda is active there.

I emphasized the word ‘claims’ above, because the terrorism pretext is being used to justify arbitrary powers, both domestically and globally. No hard evidence need be presented to Congress, the UN, or anyone else, before some nation is invaded, someone is kidnapped and tortured as a ‘terrorist suspect’, or some new invasive security measure is implemented. When powers are arbitrary, then we are no longer living under the rule of law, neither domestically nor internationally. We are living under the rule of men, as you would expect in a dictatorship, or in an old-fashioned kingdom or empire.

Part 1: Preparing the way for a new social order

In a very real sense, the terrorism pretext is being used to undo everything that The Enlightenment and the republication revolutions achieved two centuries ago. The very heart of the Bill of Rights – due process – has been abandoned. The gulag, the concentration camp, and the secret arrest in the night – these we have always associated with fascist and communist dictatorships – and now they are not only functioning under US jurisdiction, but being justified publicly by the President himself.

Is there really a terrorist threat to the homeland, and would these measures be a sensible response to such a threat? People sre strongly divided in their answers to these questions. Quite a bit of hard forensic evidence has come to light, including links to intelligence agencies, and my own view is that most of the dramatic ‘terrorist’ events in the US, UK, and Europe have been covert false-flag operations.

From an historical perspective this would not be at all surprising. Such operations have been standard practice – modus operandi – in many nations, though we usually don’t get proof until years later. For example, every war the US has been involved in has had its own phony Gulf of Tonkin Incident, or its Weapons of Mass Destruction scam, in one form or another. It’s a formula that works. Instant mobilization of public opinion, prompt passage without debate of enabling resolutions and legislation. Why would the War on Terrorism be any different?

As regards motive: while Muslims have only suffered as a result of these dramatic events, our elite bankers have been able to create a police-state infrastructure that can be used to deal with any foreseeable popular resistance or civic chaos that might emerge as they prepare the way for their post-capitalist future.

With the collapse, the bailouts, and the total failure to pursue any kind of effective recovery strategy, the signals are very clear: the system will be allowed to collapse totally, thus clearing the ground for a pre-architected ’solution’. Ground Zero can be seen as a metaphor, with the capitalist economy as the Twin Towers. And the toxic derivatives illustrate the fact that the collapse is actually a controlled demolition.

It seems to me inevitable, given the many signals, that martial law will be part of the transition process, allegedly to deal with the problems of economic collapse. Perhaps a collapse in the food-supply chain, due to a collapse in the energy-supply chain. The US emergency responses in New Orleans and again in Haiti give us more signals, actual test trials, of what kind of ‘emergency response’ we can expect.

First and foremost comes the security of the occupation forces. Those suffering in the emergency are treated more like insurgents than victims in need of help. In the case of Haiti, the US response can only be described as an intentional genocide project. When people are pinned under rubble in an earthquake, the first 48 hours, and 72 hours, are absolutely critical points, as regards survival rates. When the US military systematically blocked incoming aid for those critical hours, turning back doctors and emergency teams, they sealed the fate of many thousands who could have been saved.

One can imagine many nightmare scenarios, given these various signals, these ominous signs. World Wars 1 and 2 were nightmares that really happened, with millions dying, and these same banking dynasties orchestrated those scenarios and then covered their tracks. We must also keep in mind the Shock Doctrine, where catastrophe is seen as opportunity – when ‘things can be done that otherwise could not be accomplished’. We are still being impacted by the shock waves that were sent out on 9/11, and again when the financial system collapsed. And the the really big shock, the general collapse of society, is yet to come. The ultimate version of the Shock Doctrine: ‘If the collapse is total, we can accomplish any damned thing we want to accomplish’.

I won’t venture a guess about how this transition process will play out, but I do expect that it will be a nightmare of one description or another. Already the growing homeless population is suffering a nightmare, by any civilized standards. One day you’re living in a home whose value is going up, commuting to a good job, and the next thing you know your family is out on the streets. That’s a nightmare. The transition time will be a difficult time, but it will be a transition, it will be temporary, like a war. And like a war, it will enable social and economic reconstruction in the aftermath.

Consider how Japan and Germany were socially and politically transformed by the postwar reconstruction process. Those were exercises in social engineering, as were the preceding transformations under Mussolini and Hitler. Although the outcomes were quite different, in each case a total collapse / defeat was the preamble to reconstruction. A total collapse of the capitalist economy is simply the application of a proven formula. The second part of the formula will be some new social order, or perhaps some old social order, or some mixture. Something appropriate to a non-growth, command economy.

That’s part 1 of the War on Terrorism: it has enabled the creation of the police-state infrastructures required to to deal with the collapse of society, and to provide security for the reconstruction process.

Part 2: Preparing the way for global domination

Part 2 of the War on Terrorism is about the geopolitical dimensions of a non-growth-based global economy. Earlier I suggested that geopolitics was different under capitalism, than it was under sovereign monarchs. The whole dynamic was different, and outcomes were weighed on a different scale. Similarly, many things will change in a shift from chaotic, growth-oriented capitalism, to a centralized, micromanaged, economic regime.

Consider, for example, the significance of control over oil reserves. In a growth economy, profits were the prize, and controlling the markets and the distribution channels amounted to holding a winning hand in the game. The local dictators could manage things as they pleased, and take their cut of oil revenues, as long as they honored their contracts with the oil majors, who were happy to sell to the highest bidders.

In a non-growth economy, where the focus is on direct control over the supply and distributions of resources, it becomes necessary to secure, in the military sense, the sources of petroleum, and the routes for its distribution. It is no longer sufficient to merely profit from unbridled operations. Securing of the sources, and directly allocating the distribution, is the foundation for micromanaging the non-growth economy. This applies to other critical resources as well, such as uranium, and the rare minerals needed by the ‘defense’ and electronics industries.

In fact we are in the midst of a resource-grab war, with China and Russia making long-term energy deals with Iran and Venezuela, China buying up agricultural land in Africa, Washington making long-term deals for Brazilian biofuels, and there are many other examples. In many ways imperialism is reverting to colonial days, when direct administration was the model, rather than the capitalist model: profiting from corporate investments under dictators who suppress their populations.

There is a natural reversion to the dynamics of the ‘good old days of empire’ when the Great Powers of Europe focused their economic activity within their individual spheres of influence. Everyone knows that global resource limits are being reached, partly from population pressures, and partly from resource-exploitation practices. For this reason alone, we have the peaceful part of the resource-grab war.

In Iraq, Afghanistan, and now in Pakistan and Yemen, the US, with NATO support, is playing a very non-peaceful hand in the resource-grab game. It’s the hand of a bully, ‘I have the biggest gun, so I’ll take what I want’. These aggressive actions are very provocative to Russia and China, and threatening to their vital economic interests. An attack on Iran would be more than a provocation, it would be a direct slap in the face, a challenge: ‘Fight now or resign yourself to being subdued piecemeal’.

In addition to all this petroleum grabbing, the US has been surrounding Russia and China with military bases, and has recently accelerated the installations of anti-missile systems on their borders, over the strong objections of Russia and China. The US is being intentionally provocative, and it is threatening vital interests of these potential adversaries.

Alliances are being formed in response, on a bilateral basis, and in the form of the SCO. China and Russia are very close in their military cooperation, and technology sharing. Their strategic planning is based on the expectation of a US attack, and their strategic response is based on the principle of asymmetric warfare. For example, a million dollar missile capable of taking out a multi-billion dollar aircraft carrier. Or perhaps a handful of missiles capable of disabling the Pentagon’s command-and-control satellite systems.

Meanwhile the US is spending astronomical sums developing a first-strike capability, with space-based weapons systems, control-of-theater capability, forward-based ‘tactical’ nukes, etc. The new anti-missile systems are an important part of a first-strike strategy, reducing the ability of Russia or China to retaliate. These systems are more than just provocative. They are the modern equivalent of marching your armies up to your adversary’s border.

If there is a nuclear exchange between the major powers, historians will cite all of these things I’ve mentioned as ‘obvious signs’ that war was coming. Parallels would be drawn to the pre-World War 1 scenario, when Germany was eclipsing Britain economically, as China is eclipsing the US now. In both cases a ‘desperate attempt to maintain hegemony’ would be seen as the cause of the war.

There may or may not be a World War 3, but all of these preparations make it clear that our banking elite intend to preside over a global system, by hook or by crook. If they wanted a peaceful arrangement, a splitting of the third-world pie, so to speak, it could be easily arranged at any time, along with substantial nuclear disarmament. China and Russia would like to see a stable, multi-polar world; it is only our elite bankers who are obsessed with world domination.

It is possible that nuclear war is a ‘desired outcome’, accomplishing depopulation, and making the collapse even more total. Or perhaps China and Russia will be given an offer they can’t refuse: ‘Surrender your economic sovereignty to our global system, or face the consequences’.

One way or another, the elite bankers, the masters of the universe, intend to preside over a micromanaged global system. The collapse project is now well underway, and the ’surround your enemy’ project seems to be more or less completed. From a strategic perspective, there will be some trigger point, some stage in the economic collapse scenario, when geopolitical confrontation is judged to be most advantageous. It’s a multi-dimensional chess board, and with the stakes so high, you can rest assured that the timing of the various moves will be carefully coordinated. And from the overall shape of the board, we seem to be nearing the endgame.

Prognosis 2012 – a Neo Dark Age

2012 might not be the exact year, but it’s difficult to see the endgame lasting much beyond that, and the masters of the universe love symbolism, as with 911 (both in Chile and in Manhattan), KLA 007, and others. 2012 is loaded with symbolism, eg. the Mayan Calendar, and the Internet is buzzing with various 2012-related prophecies, survival strategies, anticipated alien interventions, alignments with galactic radiation fields, etc. And then there is the Hollywood film, 2012, which explicitly portrays the demise of most of humanity, and the pre-planned salvation of a select few. One never knows with Hollywood productions, what is escapist fantasy, and what is aimed at preparing the public mind symbolically for what is to come.

Whatever the exact date, all the threads will come together, geopolitically and domestically, and the world will change. It will be a new era, just as capitalism was a new era after aristocracy, and the Dark Ages followed the era of the Roman Empire. Each era has its own structure, its own economics, its own social forms, and its own mythology. These things must relate to one another coherently, and their nature follows from the fundamental power relationships and economic circumstances of the system.

In our post-2012 world, we have for the first time one centralized global government, and one ruling elite clique, a kind of extended royal family, the lords of finance. As we can see with the IMF, WHO, and the WTO, and the other pieces of the embryonic world government, the institutions of governance will make no pretensions about popular representation or democratic responsiveness. Rule will be by means of autocratic global bureaucracies, who take their marching orders from the royal family. This model has already been operating for some time, within its various spheres of influence, as with the restructuring programs forced on the third world, as a condition for getting financing.

Whenever there is a change of era, the previous era is always demonized in mythology. In the Garden of Eden story the serpent is demonized – a revered symbol in paganism, the predecessor to Christianity. When republics came along, the demonization of monarchs was an important part of the process. In the post-2012 world, democracy and national sovereignty will be demonized. This will be very important, in getting people to accept totalitarian rule, and the mythology will contain much that is true…

In those terrible dark days, before the blessed unification of humanity, anarchy reigned in the world. One nation would attack another, no better than predators in the wild. Nations had no coherent policies; voters would swing from one party to another, keeping governments always in transition and confusion. How did they ever think that masses of semi-educated people could govern themselves, and run a complex society? Democracy was an ill-conceived experiment that led only to corruption and chaotic governance. How lucky we are to be in this well-ordered world, where humanity has finally grown up, and those with the best expertise make the decisions.

The economics of non-growth are radically different than capitalist economics. The unit of exchange is likely to be a carbon credit, entitling you to consume the equivalent of one kilogram of fuel. Everything will have a carbon value, allegedly based on how much energy it took to produce it and transport it to market. ‘Green consciousness’ will be a primary ethic, conditioned early into children. Getting by with less is a virtue; using energy is anti-social; austerity is a responsible and necessary condition.

As with every currency, the bankers will want to manage the scarcity of carbon credits, and that’s where global warming alarmism becomes important. Regardless of the availability of resources, carbon credits can be kept arbitrarily scarce simply by setting carbon budgets, based on directives from the IPCC, another of our emerging units of global bureaucratic governance. Such IPCC directives will be the equivalent of the Federal Reserve announcing a change in interest rates. Those budgets set the scale of economic activity.

Presumably nations will continue to exist, as official units of governance. However security and policing will be largely centralized and privatized. Like the Roman Legions, the security apparatus will be loyal to the center of empire, not to the place where someone happens to be stationed. We have seen this trend already in the US, as mercenaries have become big business, and police forces are increasingly federalized, militarized, and alienated from the general public.

Just as airports have now been federalized, all transport systems will be under the jurisdiction of the security apparatus. Terrorism will continue as an ongoing bogey-man, justifying whatever security procedures are deemed desirable for social-control purposes. The whole security apparatus will have a monolithic quality to it, a similarity of character regardless of the specific security tasks or location. Everyone dressed in the same Evil Empire black outfits, with big florescent letters on the back of their flack jackets. In essence, the security apparatus will be an occupying army, the emperor’s garrison in the provinces.

On a daily basis, you will need to go through checkpoints of various kinds, with varying levels of security requirements. This is where biometrics becomes important. If people can be implanted with chips, then much of the security can be automated, and everyone can be tracked at at all times, and their past activity retrieved. The chip links into your credit balance, so you’ve got all your currency always with you, along with your medical records and lots else that you don’t know about.

There is very little left as regards national sovereignty. Nothing much in the way of foreign policy will have any meaning. With security marching to its own law and its distant drummer, the main role of so-called ‘government’ will be to allocate and administer the carbon-credit budget that it receives from the IPCC. The IPCC decides how much wealth a nation will receive in a given year, and the government then decides how to distribute that wealth in the form of public services and entitlements. Wealth being measured by the entitlement to expend energy.

In a fundamental sense, this is how things already are, following the collapse and the bailouts. Because governments are so deeply in debt, the bankers are able to dictate the terms of national budgets, as a condition of keeping credit lines open. The carbon economy, with its centrally determined budgets, provides a much simpler and more direct way of micromanaging economic activity and resource distribution throughout the globe.

In order to clear the way for the carbon-credit economy, it will be necessary for Western currencies to collapse, to become worthless, as nations become increasingly insolvent, and the global financial system continues to be systematically dismantled. The carbon currency will be introduced as an enlightened, progressive ’solution’ to the crisis, a currency linked to something real, and to sustainability. The old monetary system will be demonized, and again the mythology will contain much that is true…

The pursuit of money is the root of all evil, and the capitalist system was inherently evil. It encouraged greed, and consumption, and it cared nothing about wasting resources. People thought the more money they had, the better off they were. How much wiser we are now, to live within our means, and to understand that a credit is a token of stewardship.

Culturally, the post-capitalist era will be a bit like the medieval era, with aristocrats and lords on top, and the rest peasants and serfs. A definite upper class and lower class. Just as only the old upper class had horses and carriages, only the new upper class will be entitled to access substantial carbon credits. Wealth will be measured by entitlements, more than by acquisitions or earnings. Those outside the bureaucratic hierarchies are the serfs, with subsistence entitlements. Within the bureaucracies, entitlements are related to rank in the hierarchy. Those who operate in the central global institutions are lords of empire, with unlimited access to credits.

But there is no sequestering of wealth, or building of economic empires, outside the structures of the designated bureaucracies. Entitlements are about access to resources and facilities, to be used or not used, but not to be saved and used as capital. The flow of entitlements comes downward, micromanaged from the top. It’s a dole economy, at all levels, for people and governments alike – the global regimentation of consumption. As regards regimentation, the post-capitalist culture will also be a bit like the Soviet system. Here’s your entitlement card, here’s your job assignment, and here’s where you’ll be living.

With the pervasive security apparatus, and the micromanagement of economic activity, the scenario is clearly about fine-grained social control, according to centralized guidelines and directives. Presumably media will be carefully programmed, with escapist trivia, and a sophisticated version of 1984-style groupthink propaganda pseudo-news, which is pretty much what we already have today. The non-commercial Internet, if there is one, will be limited to monitored, officially-designated chat sites, and other kinds of sanitized forums.

With such a focus on social micromanagement, I do not expect the family unit to survive in the new era, and I expect child-abuse alarmism will be the lever used to destabilize the family. The stage has been set with all the revelations about church and institutional child sexual abuse. Such revelations could have been uncovered any time in the past century, but they came out at a certain time, just as all these other transitional things have been happening. People are now aware that widespread child abuse happens, and they have been conditioned to support strong measures to prevent it.

Whenever I turn on the TV, I see at least one public-service ad, with shocking images, about children who are physically or sexually abused, or criminally neglected, in their homes, and there’s a hotline phone number that children can call. It is easy to see how the category of abuse can be expanded, to include parents who don’t follow vaccination schedules, whose purchase records don’t indicate healthy diets, who have dubious psychological profiles, etc. The state of poverty could be deemed abusive neglect.

With the right media presentation, abuse alarmism would be easy to stir up. Ultimately, a ‘child rights’ movement becomes an anti-family movement. The state must directly protect the child from birth. The family is demonized…

How scary were the old days, when unlicensed, untrained couples had total control over vulnerable children, behind closed doors, with whatever neuroses, addictions, or perversions the parents happened to possess. How did this vestige of patriarchal slavery, this safe-house den of abuse, continue so long to exist, and not be recognized for what it was? How much better off we are now, with children being raised scientifically, by trained staff, where they are taught healthy values.

Ever since public education was introduced, the state and the family have competed to control childhood conditioning. In religious families, the church has made its own contribution to conditioning. In the micromanaged post-capitalist future, with its Shock Doctrine birth scenario, it would make good sense to take that opportunity to implement the ‘final solution’ of social control, which is for the state to monopolize child raising. This would eliminate from society the parent-child bond, and hence family-related bonds in general. No longer is there a concept of relatives. There’s just worker bees, security bees, and queen bees, who dole out the honey.

Postscript

This has been an extensive and somewhat detailed prognosis, regarding the architecture of the post-capitalist regime, and the transition process required to bring it about. The term ‘new world order’ is too weak a term to characterize the radical nature of the social transformation anticipated in the prognosis. A more apt characterization would be a ‘quantum leap in the domestication of the human species’. Micromanaged lives and microprogrammed beliefs and thoughts. A once wild primate species transformed into something resembling more a bee or ant culture. Needless to say, regular use of psychotropic drugs would be mandated, so that people could cope emotionally with such a sterile, inhuman environment.

For such a profound transformation to be possible, it is easy to see that a very great shock is required, on the scale of collapse and social chaos, and possibly on the scale of a nuclear exchange. There needs to be an implicit mandate to ‘do whatever is necessary to get society running again’. The shock needs to leave people in a condition of total helplessness comparable to the survivors in the bombed-out rubble of Germany and Japan after World War 2. Nothing less will do.

The accuracy of the prognosis, as prediction, is of course impossible to know in advance. However each part of the prognosis has been based on precedents that have been set, modus operandi that has been observed, trends that have been initiated, sentiments that have been expressed, signals that have been given, and actions that have been taken whose consequences can be confidently predicted.

In addition, in looking at all of these indicators together, one sees a certain mindset, an absolutist determination to implement the ‘ideal solution’, without compromise, using extreme means, and with unbridled audacity. World wars have been rehearsals for this historic moment. The police state infrastructure is in place and has been tested. The economy is in the process of collapse. The enemy is surrounded with missiles. Arbitrary powers have been assumed. If not now, the ultimate prize, then when will there be a better opportunity?

Our elite planners are backed up by competent think tanks, and they know that the new society must have coherence of various kinds. They’ve had quite a bit of experience with social engineering, nurturing the rise of fascism, and then engineering the postwar regimes. They understand the importance of mythology.

For example there is the mythology of the holocaust, where the story is all about extermination per se, and the story is not told of the primary mission of the concentration camps, which was to provide slave labor for war production. And some of the companies using the slave labor were American owned, and were supplying the German war machine. Thus does mythology, though containing truth, succeed in hiding the tracks and the crimes of elite perps, leaving others to carry the whole burden of historical demonization.

So I think there is a sound basis for anticipating the kinds of mythology that would be designed for leaving behind and rejecting the old ways, and seeing the new as a salvation. There is a long historical precedent of era changes linked with mythology changes, often expressed in religious terms. There will be a familiar ring to the new mythology, a remixing and re-prioritizing of familiar values and assumptions, so as to resonate with the dynamics of the new regime.

The nature of the carbon economy has been somewhat clearly signaled. Carbon budgets, and carbon credits, are clearly destined to become primary components of the economy. As we’ve seen with the elite and grassroots supported global warming movement, the arbitrary scarcity of carbon credits can be easily regulated on the pretext of environmentalism. And peak oil alarmism is always available as a backup. As elite spokespeople have often expressed, when the time comes, the masses will demand the new world order.

The focus on control over consumption, resources, and distribution is implicit in the emphasis on energy limits, is latent in the geopolitical situation, as regards depletion of global resources, and is indicated by the need for a new unifying paradigm, as the growth paradigm is no longer viable.

The nature of the security apparatus has been clearly signaled by the responses to demonstrations ever since 1998 in Seattle, by the increased use of hardened-killer mercenaries at home and abroad, by excessive and abusive police behavior, by airport security procedures, by Guantanamo and renditions, by the creation of a domestic branch of the army, dedicated to responding to civil emergencies, and by the way Katrina and Haiti have been handled.

It would be a major mistake to think of those last two as bungled operations. They were exercises in collapse management of a certain kind, to be applied to certain populations, where the training and equipment appropriate for combat in Afghanistan is seen as being appropriate for administering aid to civilian disaster victims. These selected disaster victims will be seen primarily as threats to civil order, or perhaps undesirables to be incarcerated or eliminated. They will be demonized as rioters and looters. Assistance will comes later, if at all. And it can all be broadcast on TV, and somehow be seen as the way things have to be. These two exercises were not bungled at all. They were alarmingly successful, most notably in the case of the realtime PR mythology.

The limited role of national governments, being primarily allocators of mandated budgets, has been clearly signaled by long-standing IMF policies in the third world, and by the way the bankers have been dictating to governments, in the wake of the over-extended bailout commitments. The carbon entitlement budgeting paradigm accomplishes the same micromanagement in a much more direct way, and is the natural outcome of the push toward hard carbon limits.

NEW YORK (WABC) -- An Eyewitness News investigation talks to a police officer who reveals the pressure they are under to make quotas.

When Officer Adil Polanco dreamed of becoming a cop, it was out of a desire to help people not, he says, to harass them.

"I'm not going to keep arresting innocent people, I'm not going to keep searching people for no reason, I'm not going to keep writing people for no reason, I'm tired of this," said Adil Polanco, an NYPD Officer.

Officer Polanco says One Police Plaza's obsession with keeping crime stats down has gotten out of control. He claims Precinct Commanders relentlessly pressure cops on the street to make more arrests, and give out more summonses, all to show headquarters they have a tight grip on their neighborhoods.

"Our primary job is not to help anybody, our primary job is not to assist anybody, our primary job is to get those numbers and come back with them?" said Officer Polanco.

Eyewitness News asked, "Why do it?"

"They have to meet a quota. One arrest and twenty summonses," said Officer Polanco.

This audio recording exclusively obtained by Eyewitness News seems to back up Officer Polanco's assertion of a quota. You can listen to one officer as he lectures his rank and file officers during roll call at the 41st precinct.

"Things are not going to get any better. It's going to get a lot worse," said a police officer.

He lays out clearly that they need to bring in the numbers.

"If you think 1 and 20 is breaking your balls, guess what you're going to be doing. You're gong to be doing a lot more, a lot more than what they're saying," said the officer.

In another recording, the 41st Precinct Patrol Supervisor appears to step up the pressure to write more and more summonses:

"Next week, 25 &1, 35 & 1, and until you decide to quit this job to go to work at a Pizza Hut , this is what you're going to be doing till then. Do you understand?" asked the patrol officer.

"He's being clear, the only choice that we have is to do it," said Officer Polanco.

Eyewitness News asked, "Are you telling me they're stopping people for no reason, is that what you're saying?"

"We are stopping kids walking upstairs to their house, stopping kids going to the store, young adults. In order to keep the quota," answered Officer Polanco.

"Yeah, they locked us up for nothing," said Zebulun Colbourne.

The Colbourne brothers say they and three other friends were the victims of quotas. All were arrested a few months ago after one of them had fallen while racing each other.

Eyewitness News asked, "You fell and that's how you hurt your eye?"

"Yeah, and they just wanted to arrest us. I told them I fell but that didn't matter to them," said Elijah Colbourne.

All five were accused of engaging in tumultuous and violent conduct that caused public alarm, given a summons for unlawful assembly and locked up overnight.

Eyewitness News asked, "So you're locked up waiting to see the judge, right?"

"Yeah," answered the Colbourne brothers.

Eyewitness News asked, "Then what do they do?"

"We don't see the judge, they let us out the back door after they kept us for a day and some change," said Elijah Colbourne.

The charges were dropped, but Officer Polanco says the patrolman still got 5 summonses toward their monthly quota.

"At the end of the night you have to come back with something. You have to write somebody, you have to arrest somebody, even if the crime is not committed, the number's there. So our choice is to come up with the number," said Officer Polanco.

One Police Plaza declined our requests to interview the 41st precinct commander. But, Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne said, "Police Officers like others who receive compensation are provided productivity goals and they are expected to work."

Officer Polanco says if they are just goals, why are officers who fail to make them, re-assigned to different shifts or relocated far from home.

It's the consequences of not making the numbers or quotas, he says, that forces officers to give out bogus summonses.

"I cannot be more honest than I've been. There's no reason for me to lie, there's no reason for me to get into the trouble I am, cause I just could've kept quiet and made the money," said Officer Polanco.

If you have a tip about this or any other issue you'd like investigated, please give our tipline a call at 877-TIP-NEWS. You may also e-mail us at the.investigators@abc.com and follow Jim Hoffer on Twitter at twitter.com/nycinvestigates

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." That is what Barack Obama promised the American people when he was asking for our votes during his 2008 election campaign. Not just this one time, but over and over throughout the campaign. You could ask Joe the Plumber.

Truly, this pledge was the centerpiece of his 2008 election success. I remember during one Presidential debate, Obama hotly disputed McCain's charge that Obama would run up spending so much that he would inevitably bury voters with tax increases. Obama responded by reiterating the above no tax increase pledge, and insisted further that for those making less than $200,000 per year, "your taxes will go down," emphasizing the point with a downward sweeping motion of his arm.

But after only one year in office, in a shocking Business Week interview on February 9, President Obama cavalierly dismissed these core campaign pledges. In response to a question asking, "If your deficit commission comes back and says we would recommend raising taxes on households earning less than $250,000 a year, would you accept that as part of a larger deal?" President Obama said,

"I don't want to prejudge the commission because the whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table, and let's see what folks can come up with. What I want to do is to be completely agnostic in terms of solutions."

Looks to me like President Obama owes John McCain an apology. If Obama was being honest back during that 2008 debate, he would have responded to McCain's tax increase charge by saying what he said on February 9, that "I want to make sure that all ideas are on the table, and let's see what folks can come up with," and that he was "completely agnostic" regarding a tax increase on working people.

After all, it is not like America's overwhelming long-term deficit problem is a new surprise to Obama. He knew perfectly well back in 2008 what he also told Business Week on February 9: "[T]he fact of the matter is that we have a structural deficit that is in place that was there before the recession…And that is going to require some big, tough choices that, so far, the political system has been unable to deal with."

Included in that political system unable to deal with those necessary big, tough choices is President Obama, who greatly exacerbated the deficit problem with his nearly $1 trillion, failed "stimulus" package just a year ago, followed just a few weeks later by the $400 billion omnibus spending bill, followed by his budget providing for an 18% increase in total federal spending in just one year, and for a one-third increase in federal welfare spending over two years. After those big, tough choices, with the "stimulus" money mostly flowing in this election year to try to buy votes, President Obama is now "agnostic" on tax increases on working people. Isn't this exactly what John McCain said would happen?

And while Obama is issuing apologies, he should also apologize to Senator McCain for his less than honest mischaracterization of McCain's proposal to extend tax credits for the purchase of health insurance to everyone, which Obama indignantly denounced as involving unprecedented taxation of employee health insurance. Such taxation is exactly what President Obama has now proposed in his government health care takeover plan earlier this week, also in violation of his pledge of no tax increases on working people.

The Presidential Commission to Raise Your Taxes

"The whole point" of President Obama's Commission is precisely to obtain political cover to abandon his central 2008 campaign pledge not to raise taxes on working people. He can then say that it wasn't his idea. The "experts" on the Commission made him do it, right after he says the tax increase is actually really Bush's fault.

None of the rest of us should let him get away with that garbage. If President Obama endorses a Commission proposal to raise taxes on working people in violation of his campaign pledge, I will be persistently pestering conservative, free market, and Republican leaders to join me in calling on him to resign. It is just too much of an abuse of voters and our democracy for a candidate to run for President promising so centrally to cut, rather than increase, taxes on working people, sneering at anyone who suggests anything to the contrary, and then to lead a crusade to do just the opposite once elected. If President Obama believes what he said in that Business Week interview, then he should have to resign and run again on what he actually believes, to maintain the basic integrity of our democracy.

Obama further clarifies the tax increase intent behind the Commission in saying, as quoted by the New York Post on February 12, "The notion that somehow we can just cut our way out of this problem is not true." Translation: he has already decided to break his pledge with a wicked tax increase. What is likely coming is a proposal for a Value Added Tax (VAT) as is widespread in Europe, where the tax is incorporated in the price of everything you buy. Far Left House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already endorsed that barnburner burden on working people. They know that between the Obama/Democrat budget and the health takeover bill they are already trying to squeeze more out of "the rich" than they can get.

The intent behind the Commission is further revealed by the Washington establishment figures President Obama appointed to head it, former Clinton White House insider Erskine Bowles, and retired Senator Alan Simpson, author of the failed 1986 immigration amnesty plan. Transparently, they will follow the shopworn establishment methodology for balancing the budget, which never works, and has no prayer of ever working.

That is for a convocation of wise, establishment, graybeards like the Commission to solemnly bargain over competing lists of spending cuts and tax increases, and come to some deal. The tax increases are then adopted permanently. But the spending cuts are never adopted, or if they are they are soon swept away in the next liberal budget.

Then the tax increases don't raise the revenue expected, because no one in establishment Washington can imagine that tax increases have negative incentive effects that reduce the expected revenue increases. So the deficit reappears, and continues until the voters can be fooled by the whole charade again. We have seen this over and over at the state level, as well as at the federal level.

How to Balance the Budget

There is only one tried and true way to balance the budget, which has worked every time it has been tried, including the last time the federal budget was balanced in the 1990s. It is a simple two step process. One, cut tax rates to improve incentives for savings, investment, job creation, business creation, business expansion, entrepreneurship and economic growth, to get the economy booming. You can't balance the budget by constantly chasing lower than expected revenues. With the economy booming, revenue surges consistently. Step two, slow the growth of spending, and let revenues surge past it.

When the Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, they were greeted by President Clinton's 1995 budget proposals that still projected Federal deficits of $200 billion per year indefinitely into the future. Those deficits remained despite a record tax increase in 1993 that contributed greatly to the Republican victories in 1994, and the infamous Bush tax increase/supposed spending cut deal in 1990 that led to his defeat in 1992.

The new Republican Congress cut the capital gains tax rate by 40%, and reduced other tax burdens on capital investment. They also cut total federal discretionary spending, as well as the subcategory of non-defense discretionary spending, with both actually declining from 1995 to 1996 in nominal dollars. In constant dollars, adjusted for inflation, the decline was 5.4%. By 2000, total Federal discretionary spending was still about the same as it was in 1995 in constant dollars. As a percent of GDP, Federal discretionary spending was slashed by 17.5% in just 4 years, from 1995 to 1999. Total Federal spending relative to GDP declined from 1995 to 2000 by 12.5%, a reduction in the Federal government relative to the economy of about one-eighth in 5 years. The House passed a budget in 1995 that actually cut federal spending by a trillion dollars over 10 years, and that was when a trillion dollars was real money.

As a result, $200 billion annual federal deficits, which had prevailed for over 15 years, were transformed into surpluses by 1998, which peaked at $236 billion by 2000. 

The Plan to Balance the Budget

To correct the budget mess President Obama and Congressional Democrats have made, we should start with tax reform that will maximize long-term economic growth. The current corporate tax rate is the second highest in the industrialized world, which leaves American companies uncompetitive in the global marketplace. The EU has slashed their corporate tax rate over the last decade from an average of 38% to 24%. Germany and Canada are slated to go below 20%. Our emerging competitors India, China, and Brazil have lower business taxes as well.

Cut the federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. Adopt an optional flat tax for individuals of 15% as well. Close both individual and corporate loopholes in return, including credits, special deductions, and exemptions. Keep the capital gains and dividends tax rates also at 15%, though a new study from Steve Entin at IRET argues persuasively that the revenue maximizing rate for cap gains is 10%. Abolish the counterproductive death tax and the unfair Alternative Minimum Tax, as multiple taxation of capital is never a good idea. We should take this as the revenue base we have to work with, and match long term spending to it.

We can save a trillion dollars just by terminating unspent stimulus funding, and ending, rather than re-funding, TARP bailouts. For everything else, other than Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, we should follow the brilliant suggestion of returning to the spending levels of 2007. That was just 3 years ago, and America was doing fine with federal spending at those levels. Apply that to national defense as well; 2007 was the height of the Iraq surge.

The beauty of this is that it makes so clear the real cause of currently exploding deficits: the runaway spending since 2007 by the Democrat Congress and the Obama Administration. The deficit for the last budget adopted by the Republican Congress was $162 billion in fiscal 2007. The deficit for this year is $1.6 trillion. This is why Rep. Jeb Hensarling was essentially correct to say to President Obama that "the annual deficits under the Republicans became the monthly deficits under the Democrats."

For the entitlements, what we need is fundamental structural reforms, not trying to just "cut our way out of this problem." Start by allowing young workers the freedom to choose to save a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes in their own personal accounts, with the accounts taking responsibility for an equivalent proportion of future Social Security benefits. Because long run market investment returns are so much higher than what Social Security even promises let alone what it can pay, workers would actually get higher rather than lower benefits through this option. Consequently, we can back up the accounts with a federal safety net guarantee that workers with the accounts would get at least as much as promised by Social Security.

Expand the accounts over time until they finance all the benefits currently financed by the payroll tax, replacing survivors benefits with life insurance, disability benefits with disability insurance, and even part of Medicare with health insurance. The payroll tax can consequently be phased out over time as well. These personal accounts dramatically reduce federal spending over the long run by shifting the payment of all these benefits from the public sector to the private sector. There would consequently be no need to cut these promised benefits. They are being replaced over time with better benefits from the private sector.

The general revenues now financing so much of Medicare can be used to provide means-tested vouchers for health insurance for seniors who could not otherwise afford such coverage, with such general revenue expenditures limited to grow no faster than the rate of economic growth. Medicare Advantage should be updated and expanded so that all seniors would be free to choose private coverage for Medicare, including Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).

We should also expand the enormously successful 1996 welfare reforms to the other 85 federal means tested welfare programs, sending the federal financing for those programs back to the states in the form of finite block grants that do not vary by matching state spending. This includes Medicaid, food stamps, and housing programs. The states would then redesign their entire welfare systems based on work by the able bodied, with states that succeeded in reducing costs rewarded by keeping the savings, and states that ran up costs paying for that themselves. Medicaid in particular could be reformed by providing vouchers for the purchase of private insurance for the poor, including HSAs, allowing them to escape the poor health care provided through the Medicaid ghetto, and enjoy the same health care as the middle class. The 1996 reforms succeeded in reducing the rolls of the old AFDC program by nearly 60% nationwide, portending enormous potential savings from expanding these reforms to the entire welfare system.

Other fundamental reforms can and should be adopted as well. We should bring back the Freedom to Farm policies of the 1990s, and phase out agricultural subsidies entirely. We should extend that to eliminating all other corporate welfare as well, exactly contrary to President Obama's crony capitalism.

House Republican budget chief Paul Ryan has already shown how similar reforms, including the tax reforms, would permanently balance the federal budget over the long run, as officially scored by CBO, with federal taxes and spending at their postwar average of 18.6% of GDP. This includes financing the transition to personal accounts entirely through the savings from the entitlement and spending reforms.

But don't expect President Obama's Washington Establishment Commission to come up with anything like this. They are primed instead to demand more taxes from working people through a VAT, so America can follow Europe into socialist oblivion. Republicans would best respond to Obama's Commission by appointing their own Commission headed by Paul Ryan. Include as well Newt Gingrich, Jeb Hensarling, Republican Governors, maybe Sarah Palin, and whatever reasonable Democrats can be found, which don't have to be elected Democrats.

Barack Obama is not inept, greedy or stupid and he isn’t one of  “us”.

He rose from obscurity to power with his top economics adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the co-founder of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission and he travels in the same circles as other members of the super-secret Skull & Bones Society at Yale University, who pretend to be running for president every four years.

The decision to have Obama preside over the greatest financial calamity since the Great Depression was made five years ago; the November election was a formality. (Why Joseph Biden will be the Next Vice President of the United States)

To believe otherwise, is to ignore the Bradley/Palin effect and the decision by John McCain to wait until his concession speech to shed the image of a nasty “grumpy old man.”

In September 2008, when the Obama campaign seemed to be slumping and their candidate’s long-standing lead in the polls had evaporated, the senator’s supporters openly worried that a potential victory might be slipping away. Then, providence joined the campaign: the failure of the giant investment bank Lehman Brothers followed by a global financial meltdown in the month of October.

And, “speaking of change”, escalating the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and his policies on Guantanamo, state secrets, renditions, executive power, bail-outs and the stimulus packages are for the most part identical to those of George W. Bush.

However, the policies at the Federal Reserve have changed…inexplicably, monumentally and historically:

As of October 2008, the men behind the Federal Reserve, all connected to the House of Rothschild, are no longer giving up what’s left of their real wealth so the middle class can live the American Dream, a nightmare for the planet.

Brian Deese, special assistant to president Obama for economic policy, in his first government position, shuffles back and forth from the West Wing to the Treasury Department rewriting the rules of American “capitalism” as he dismantles the US Housing, Automobile Industry and the American Dream. (The 31-Year-Old in Charge of Dismantling G.M., David E. Sanger)

Deese’s First Rule: Withdraw Credit and Liquidity:

Causing spending to fall even further, forcing companies to cut back on inventory and staff – Creating even more unemployment…263,000 jobs eliminated bringing the total to 39 million Americans who are no longer working or looking for work. (The September Employment Rate is 90%)

And that’s before the recently announced “planned three-year budget freeze on government discretionary spending.”

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913

One of the most important domestic acts in the nation’s history took the power to create money from the people and gave it to the robber barons of our filtered history books in theory for profit.

The Federal Reserve was instrumental in the development of America into a world power.

The United States, in its first decades, was a land of small farms and nearby towns with few cities of any consequence. The young nation seemed far more interested in becoming a successful experiment in democracy, rather than an economic power.

A central bank, necessary for a consumer society, large cities, a common medium of exchange, and a mechanism to regulate that medium were greeted with hostility, since many of the nation’s leaders disdained the urban life.

Anyone who spoke against the “Creature from Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin was silenced.

Presidents Garfield and McKinley, outspoken champions of “sound” money and opponents of a central bank, were suspiciously silenced permanently.

The conflict between rural values and urban reality ended when Woodrow Wilson “unwittingly ruined his country” and signed into law the legislation that put “the growth of the nation . . . and all our activities in the hands of a few scoundrels (men).”

Once those scoundrels got control of the supply of money in the Franklin Roosevelt Administration, they began to buy government securities at the rate of ten million dollars a week for 10 weeks, and created one hundred million dollars in new (checkbook) currency, which alleviated the critical famine of money and credit, and the factories started hiring people again.” (Secrets of the Federal Reserve, Eustace Mullins)

Now those scoundrels remain in control of the supply of money in the Barack Obama Administration, they are making generous interest payments to the banks for “parking” their TARP and other government taxpayer bailout money, which is aggravating the critical famine of money and credit, and the factories started laying people off (263,000 people in September bringing the total to 39 million Americans who are no longer working or looking for work).

One of the more absurd notions that found its way into the history books and the writings of economic experts, is that somehow these Robinhood barons (swindlers and scoundrels of history) were made wealthier by manipulating the Monopoly money they created out of “thin air” used to “alleviated the critical famine of money and credit” so the factories could start hiring people again and finance our consumer society.

In 1910, the men behind the Federal Reserve Rockefeller, Kuhn, Loeb and Morgan, all connected to the Rothschild’s global financial empire, owned or controlled one-sixth of the world’s real wealth—gold, silver and raw materials—not the fiat currency we call money.

And their real wealth, where is it now?

Used up, as in consumed, by the middle class so former members of the Third Estate (serfs and slaves) could have houses, cars, RVs, TVs and DVDs—the affordable things we take for granted which put the planet, according to the GEO4, a massive United Nations Report, at the “unknown points of no return.” (Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité – Providence, Miracle or What Really Happened)

The swindler’s and scoundrel’s wealth, not yours or mine, was eventually “cut, mined and hauled away,” so that Americans could “trash the planet” with that cheap stuff until October 2008.

Money control, Gustav Stolper wrote in “This Age of Fables” is, “the supreme and most comprehensive of all governmental controls and the 1838 quote:

“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws” (Incorrectly attributed to Mayer Amschel Rothschild who died in 1812).

Reflects the “maxim” of the House of Rothschild.

However, “money lenders of the Old World” cannot be talking about profits unless you believe The Rothschilds didn’t understand that they were about to give up $500 trillion of real wealth in exchange for $500 trillion pieces of worthless fiat currency.

During the last 100 years, those swindlers and scoundrels were able to distort the structure of relative prices; generate misallocations of labor and capital throughout the economy; rationalize new governmental interventions in the face of the market “instability” manipulate the patterns of and the profits from international trade which resulted in the Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, the stagflation of the 1970s, the dot-com and the housing market bubbles and unprecedented prosperity for the middle class.

Would we have a financial crisis to go with our environmental crisis if Wilson hadn’t ruined the country when he gave away the people’s right to print their own money and we had our own bank?

No.

North Dakota is the only state in the union to own its own bank. The Bank of North Dakota (BND) was established by the state legislature in 1919 specifically to free farmers and small businessmen from the clutches of out-of-state bankers and railroad men.

The state of North Dakota, one of only two states (along with Montana) expected to meet its budget in 2010. North Dakota was also the only state to actually gain jobs in 2009 while other states were losing them. Since 2000, North Dakota’s GNP has grown 56 percent, personal income has grown 43 percent and wages have grown 34 percent. North Dakota in 2009, had a budget surplus of $1.3 billion, the largest it ever had – in a state with a population of 700,000. (The North Dakota Model for Capitalizing Community Banks, Ellen Brown)

North Dakota, a land of small farms and towns more interested in remaining a successful experiment in democracy rather than an economic power.

At this point, it is advantageous to consider the efforts of writer Andrew Hitchcock:

“The Rothschilds have been in control of the world for a very long time, their tentacles reaching into many aspects of our daily lives, and are the hidden hand behind all the social cataclysms in history: The French and American Revolution, the Civil War, World Wars, the Industrial Revolution, the Federal Reserve (and our consumer society).”

John Sherman, a Rothschild protégé in a letter sent to New York bankers on June 25, 1863 in support of the then proposed National Banking Act, wrote:

“The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages…will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without suspecting that the system is inimical to their best interests.” (World War II And Pound, 1940-1945: The Anti-Semite Revealed, Ellen Cardona)

In other words, the “few that understand the system”, without a 20th century environmental perspective of the middle class “trashing the planet”, would not be capable of comprehending a system that would put the planet at the “unknown points of no return” because the environmental damage and pollution was the goal and not the unintended consequences of the Industrial Revolution and our consumer society.

The Federal Reserve isn’t evil because they print our money and make us pay interest on it; they are evil because they are in a metaphysical war with mother-earth (Gaea).

October 2008 marked the last day the “lender of last resort” would give up what’s left of their real wealth, used to con us into shopping for useless toxic stuff, to weaken their opponent, mother-earth. (Ominous Signs Are Aligned: Not A Particularly Good Sign (11-09))

I have been hearing a lot of chatter recently in coffee shops and lunch restaurants about the financial crisis in Greece. As I eavesdrop, the impression I get is that people are trying to convince themselves the problem is “over there.”  They discuss how Greece could have avoided the situation and debate what they should do now.  So naturally it is an isolated, country-specific problem “over there,” right?

But isn’t this déjà vu?  Haven’t we seen this before?

Indeed.  It is the same situation that has occurred in Iceland, Ukraine, Argentina, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, England, and countless other countries.  It is not a problem of individual countries, but rather the global monetary system that is built on debt and rules most countries.  So the problem is very much “over here.”  Most of the world, especially the United States, is just as vulnerable as Greece.  It is only a matter of time.

Debt-Based Money and Financial Predators

Countries are vulnerable to attack because their currencies are nothing but floating debt instruments controlled by bankers.  This means they are not countries as much as administrative districts for the banks that rule them.  This is why Thomas Jefferson said “banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies.”  Bankers and their Ivy League servants can overthrow a country more completely than an army can.

Financial predator George Soros has demonstrated this repeatedly.  He is lauded in the Financial Times of London and the Wall Street Journal as free market jihadis from the Chicago School and Harvard Business say he is just playing on a rational, fair, free market playing field.  Really?  So the Asian currency crisis of 1997 that impoverished many countries was a fair market transaction between several million poor peasants in rice fields and this billionaire predator working in conjunction with even more powerful debt lords behind the IMF?  That’s a “free market?”  Absolutely, and you are Batman.

Ivy League theory can spin any fiction into fact.  These economists are lost in their abstruse academic journals, insanely detached from real life.  They would no doubt think that a neighborhood kid stealing a pair of jeans from the local store is wrong, but a billionaire participating in a transaction that “steals” much more from millions of people and loots their country is just a shrewd free market investor.  They are advocating the equivalent of letting your kids sleep in a tent in your backyard just after a serial killer who has murdered twenty other kids moves into the neighborhood.  Why would we leave ourselves open to such a threat?  The United States is in this situation.  Literally, the door is unlocked and it is just a matter of time before the financial predators decide to enter.  Will we wakeup before it is too late?

The Myth of Modern America

We must recognize that our monetary system is nothing but bank credit, i.e. debt, so it is entirely open to attack.  Even if you are not personally in debt, any savings you have is just a measure of how much another person, business, or government is in debt.  In our current system, no money gets into circulation except by borrowing from banks.  There is no other source!  The United States issues no sovereign money! That is not freedom ladies and gentlemen. We are hostage to the “illuminated” debt lords who enrich themselves by putting everyone else in debt servitude, which makes us vulnerable to predators like Soros.

The United States government has failed to do its job as dictated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution for 100 years—control and defend the value of our money.  Therefore, the United States is not a sovereign country, and the American people are not free.  It is time to admit the truth and either do something about it, or stop blowing up stuff on the 4th of July believing a myth.  If your Democrat and Republican politicians do not talk about this issue, they are either too ignorant to have the job, or they are getting banker kickbacks and staying quiet on purpose.  Either way, kick them out, stop voting for corporate puppets, and demand real leaders who will do their job (Texas has a chance with Debra Medina in their gubernatorial election).  No other issue matters at this point.  Most of politics is a ruse to distract you from the fact that your country and your economy are hostage to banks and financial predators.

The Unstable Mathematical Flaw of Our Economic Model

The only way for this system to keep running is for us to collectively go deeper in debt to the bankers.  That is why the US government continues increasing the debt ceiling.  They have no choice as long as they refuse to do their constitutional job and provide sovereign money that is not an interest-bearing debt to banks. Why must we go deeper in debt?  Our economic model is built upon fundamentally unstable math:  P < P+I. P is all the money in the economy at any given time (principal). I is the interest that compounds on top of P that must be paid back. So the economy is constantly running faster and faster to generate more P in order to payback P+I. That creates perpetual exponential growth, perpetual increasing velocity, and deeper servitude over time. I grows faster than P, and since production has been sent offshore, there is no way out of the black hole without borrowing more. This is precisely what people like George Soros prey upon—currencies stuck with an impossible debt load. This system guarantees an eventual attack. To repeat: we have no money unless we borrow. We have no way to pay it back unless we borrow more. Borrowing more is precisely what eventually kills the economy and allows predators to become billionaires while the rest of the population loses their life savings. What can be done about this?

Austerity:  What the Oligarchs Want to do

Typically when countries get attacked in these ways, they leave it up to the financial powers to tell them what to do.  The IMF comes in and protects capital holders by requiring the government to shutdown social services, thereby cutting off the lifeline of the lower classes.  This is class warfare in its most vicious form.  It literally results in starvation just to protect the cashflow of rich financiers who hold the country’s debt.  We also see Greece being required to outlaw cash for some transactions.  This is a strategic goal the financial powers have for the world.  A cashless society makes people completely hostage to electronic debit/credit cards controlled by the banks. Austerity is a bad plan for everyone except the upper class.

Premature Move:  End the Fed

Some say the solution is to end the Federal Reserve, thereby cutting off the financial powers at the top.  While it is the head of the monopolistic banking cartel which has no place in a free republic, eliminating it before any real monetary reform might only be the opening for the IMF to takeover.  It could also give the top predatory institutions like JP Morgan Chase more power over the people than they already have.  The Fed is to some degree a brake on these firms.  As long as Wall Street has a money monopoly, thanks to the government’s unbelievable response to the crash of 2008 shutting down smaller banks and consolidating Wall Street into a far more powerful group, I think we want a pseudo governmental organization providing some form of control.  At a minimum, we need real money first from a source other than this monopoly.

False Solution:  The Gold Standard

Many people say the gold standard would solve this problem.  But it only lasted 33 years and resulted in the banking system vacuuming up much of the gold into its own vaults!  The gold standard was a ruse.  It just required bank reserves to be gold, which demonetized silver and made people completely dependent on interest-bearing loans from the rich people who had the gold.  This is not a solution.  Gold held in our own hands is indeed debt-free money, which is why everyone reading this article should acquire some, but there is not enough gold to make it a useful medium of exchange in the current economy.  It would create a massively constrained money supply, which means we would be as dependent as ever on bank debt.  At this point the gold standard would be a step backward.

Real Solution:  Asset or Wealth Money

The solution is to create money that is not debt.  This would reduce the servitude relationship to bankers and the exponential growth of compound interest—the P < P+I problem. We the people need to make this happen. Expose the fraud of national elections by not voting until you find a leader willing to address this issue. But find such a leader! The ultimate fix must come at the federal level, but until real leaders replace the corrupt ones there now, efforts can be made at the state and local level. Find candidates like Debra Medina in Texas to overthrow the establishment in both parties. Turnoff the TV news dominated by zombie candidates and their political ads full of irrelevant talking points pumped out by the central PR machine in DC. Push your state legislatures to spend money into circulation, rather than borrowing from banks, for infrastructure projects approved by the people (see the Minnesota Transportation Act). Call your legislators, call them again, and have others call them. Take action on this issue! States would then be able to recover some of their constitutional autonomy rather than being unconstitutional hostages to the debt lords. You can also start local community networks that are based simply on serving others. In such a system, providing a good or service for your neighbor earns you a credit and your neighbor an equal debit, which gives her the incentive to do something for you or someone else in the community ledger.  This is not a macro solution, but it is at least a step toward recovering our humanity and bringing our communities together again instead of pitting everyone against each other fighting for limited bank credit. We do not need to be in debt to mega international banks to have an economy and create value!  Debt extracts value.  It is just a claim on someone else’s labor.  We would be far better off without much of the elite financial industry that enriches itself off our debt (though some deeply flawed economic statistics, e.g. GDP, would drop). The notion that we cannot work together without an oligarchy of banker middlemen is pure propaganda that has been pounded into our heads for years.  We must rise above it and start the process of eliminating debt and moving on a trajectory toward a more holistic life as sovereign communities and free individuals once again.  This is the only hope to begin the process of restoring the American Republic before a crisis far worse than Greece hits home.

The British government has called in the Israeli ambassador to discuss the use of fake UK passports by the alleged killers of a Hamas commander in Dubai.

Gordon Brown has also ordered an inquiry into the passports, which bear the names of six British-Israelis who are not the men pictured.

Dubai police believe 11 "agents with European passports" killed Palestinian militant Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.

The Israelis deny its secret service, Mossad, carried out the assassination.

Israel's foreign minister said there was no evidence to link Mossad but refused to issue any formal denial in line with a "policy of ambiguity" on security matters.

Avigdor Lieberman told Israeli Army Radio: "There is no reason to think that it was the Israeli Mossad and not some other intelligence service or country up to some mischief."

'Full investigation'

It is expected that the Israeli Ambassador, Ron Prosor, will meet with Sir Peter Ricketts, head of the diplomatic service, on Thursday.

The Serious Organised Crime Agency has been asked to look into the fraudulent use of the passports.

It has confirmed that photographs and signatures on the passports used in Dubai do not match those on passports issued by the UK.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said: "We have got to carry out a full investigation into this. The British passport is an important document that has got to be held with care."

The Foreign Office said the British embassy in Tel Aviv was ready to support those affected by the Hamas shooting case.

The men whose names appeared on the passports have dual British and Israeli citizenship.

They are Melvyn Adam Mildiner, Paul John Keeley, James Leonard Clarke, Stephen Daniel Hodes, Michael Lawrence Barney and Jonathan Lewis Graham. They all deny involvement in the killing.

Several of them have spoken of their shock at being implicated in the crime.

Salford-born Mr Hodes, 37, said he had not left Israel for two years and was "in shock".

"I don't know who's behind this. I am just scared, these are major forces," he told Israeli television.

The details of the suspects and their passport photos were released by officials in Dubai earlier this week.

Three of the other suspects used Irish passports.

Authorities in the Irish Republic have confirmed that while the numbers were legitimate, they did not match records for the names which had been used - Gail Folliard, Evan Dennings and Kevin Daveron.

Its Department of Foreign Affairs said officials were urgently trying to contact the three citizens who hold or have held passports with these numbers.

France and Germany have also reportedly raised doubts over the identities of two suspects who used a French and a German passport.

Mr Mabhouh was murdered in his hotel room in Dubai on 20 January.

Reports have suggested he was there to buy weapons for the Palestinian Islamist movement, Hamas.

Two Palestinian suspects were being questioned about the murder. Police said they had "fled to Jordan" after the killing and have not released their names.

Officials in Dubai, who have issued arrest warrants, said the team appeared to be a professional hit squad, probably sponsored by a foreign power.

They released CCTV footage which they said showed some of the suspects in disguises, including wigs and false beards, in the hotel near Dubai's international airport.

The suspects allegedly trailed Mr Mabhouh when he arrived in Dubai from Syria.

Ronald Reagan brought presidential deception to a whole new level. Famous for his sound-bytes, Reagan provided adoring republicans all they needed to know about their “say one thing and do another” sort of  president.

It was Mr. Reagan  who promised to get government off the backs of Americans and their entrepreneurs. It was Reagan who said that government was not the solution to our problems, it was the problem.

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language,” said Reagan, are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” (Please note that’s ten words, not nine, but Reagan rarely researched the written material given him, but did practice his delivery.)

Was it Reagan, who joked, “If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. And, if it stops moving, subsidize it.”?

The Great Communicator talked a good game, but did little to improve our lives; and, he had eight years in which to do it. The Reagan promises to inaugurate a new era of liberty and free markets, were worse than empty promises, Reagan assaulted our liberty, our future prosperity, and free markets with unprecedented spending, increased taxes, more governmental regulations, bigger bureaucracies, and unwise trade policies.

But, rabid Reaganites never noticed Mr. Reagan’s disseminations; they form their opinions from meaningless sound-bytes, rather than facts, that could cause them some painful self-inspection.

Government spending, during Reagan’s administration, was double that of the preceding Ford and Carter administrations. In fact, Reagan’s budget requests were only marginally smaller than what the democratic spendthrifts in congress wanted.

Reagan even asked for more foreign aid than Congress was willing to spend; but, he did push through congress a $8.4 billion increase to our enemies – the foreign, private International Monetary/Banking Cartel’s International Monetary Fund, back when a billion dollars was still an astounding amount of money.

Reagan tripled our Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion (Pardon me while I catch my breath.). It took former presidents 31 years to triple our debt, but Reagan did it in a mere eight years. Inflation is a cowardly and hidden way to increase taxes on the American people, and Reagan did plenty of that.

Reagan promised to cut personal income and business taxes, but the so-called Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act – the largest tax increase in American history up to that time – was enacted in 1982. Then Reagan proposed increased taxes on the trucking industry, which drove up prices of food and other commodities, all prior to his increase of $165 billion on Social Security taxes.

Then in 1986 came Reagan’s deceptive Tax Reform Act, (TRA) which shifted $120 billion from personal income taxes to taxes on small businesses, the fountainhead of what was once our middle-class affluence. The Reagan administration loudly promoted the lower tax rates of TRA, but said little about the increased taxes to our most valuable economic segment; nor was much made of how TRA repealed or reduced many tax deductions on all tax returns.

The government that Reagan claimed he wanted to get off the backs of the American people never came to pass, and Mr. Reagan made sure of it by initiating what would later become the greatest world-wide economic crash in recorded history, with his de-regulation of banks.

America is and was badly in need of government de-regulation of government, but not of the private banking cabal. Mr. Reagan de-regulated at exactly the worse place possible. It could even be said that Reagan is the “Father of the World’s Greatest Depression.”

It was, also, Reagan who appointed the little reptile – Alan Greenspan – as chairman of the Federal Reserve System, the gremlin, who along with Bill Clinton, carried Reagan’s banking de-regulation policies to the ultimate crime against humanity.

And Reagan’s trade policies? All protectionism, which drives up the price of imported consumer goods; but, that is all too boring to go further into.

I will say Reagan’s lies sounded better and were more convincing than Obama’s empty promises; but then again, Reagan was a far better actor than Obama is. But politically? There’s little difference between what Obama is and what Ronald Reagan was.

The great Reagan legacy? What a crock of crap!

Until our republican voters wake up and stop supporting democratic politicians, who call themselves republicans – and until democratic voters come back to the real world of reality, and stop supporting fascists, who call themselves democrats, our lives, in our once great country, will continue to deteriorate.

Three, two, one – Wake Up America!

Under the guise of “protecting Americans” and choosing itself in so-called “national security,” the current Obama administration wants to be able to control the ability of people and organizations to access the Internet.

This concept on its face seems very harmless and in the best interest of the country, however, having the ability to “turn the Internet off or shutting down sites that Obama considers “dangerous” including particular political groups, individuals or organizations who espouse differing views has far reaching political, financial, moral and legal implications.

Such a policy imposed under Executive Order to control what enters Internet sites and what is shared daily would stifle free speech in direct violation of the First Amendment rights of all Americans.

During the elections in Iran, its citizens using Facebook and Twitter got out 95% of the news from Iran. In America would our social sites be shut down if enough people using them “dared” to question the current political regime in power at any given time? Sitting ominously in the Senate is the Rockefeller Bill S. 773 to takeover the Internet in emergencies. As we all know, once taken over, we will never get it back the way it was before. This is what elitists have in mind for us.

America’s brightest minds and taxpayers funds made the Internet happen, and now there are indications that the Obama administration is moving quietly to allow control of the web to move from the US to foreign powers. Such a transfer of power and control would change the future of mankind. This would be affected via our Department of Commerce.

America controls the Internet via the Domain name System (DNS), and the servers that serve the Internet. They are managed by IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, which operates via the Department of Commerce, being responsible for global cooperation and coordination of the DNS, IP addressing, and other Internet protocol sources. Without these elements one would not have access to the Internet.

Over the years, the UN and others internationally have been pressing the US to give away control and management to an international body. Those thirsting for this power are the UN and the International Telecommunications Union, which coordinates international telephone communications. Their argument is that the Internet has become a powerful and dependent form of communications, that is dangerous and inequitable for one nation to control and manage.

Our President has agreed to relinquish some control over IANA and its governance. Foreign companies and countries would have a greater say in what goes on in the Internet. This is the foot in the door. Before you know it the UN will have control and censorship will begin. No control should be given to any other country or body. It is not only our Internet; it is a matter of national security, which our government is up too. The world has been allowed to share this miracle free and without censorship or restriction. Do we want to end up like the Chinese, where their communist government recently told Google to censor the Internet? Do we want the UN to use the Internet as a source of funding? Do we want the UN or any participant country to restrict what we can say or do on the net? Do we want limitations on free speech? That is what the UN has planned for us. The Internet will no longer be a vehicle of free speech. Why would we want to give away one of our most precious and greatest assets for nothing to a group that is bent on enslaving us via one-world government? Once our control is gone we will never get it back.

The Council on Foreign Relations, literary house organ that we have subscribed to for 50 years, Foreign Affairs, tells us that many governments feel that, like the telephone network, the Internet should be administered under a multilateral treaty. They view ICANN as an instrument of American hegemony over cyberspace and that its private-sector approach favors the US and gives it oversight authority, and that other nations have no say as to what goes on in the Internet. Then again, we did invent it and do own it. Its private construction was deliberately implemented to keep government out of the net, not for the US or any other government or body to control it. South Africa, Brazil and China as stooges for one-world interests are demanding an international treaty, so the UN can control it. Adding to the demands are the intellectually void countries of Zimbabwe, Cuba and Syria. These three paragons of peace and prosperity want the UN to tell us how to run our Internet.

UN bureaucrats and ministers from under-developed nations in particular say the US has undue influence over how things run on line. They want a treaty under which their regimes cannot be criticized. They want Internet surveillance and the power to tax domain names to pay for universal access and, of course, to fund their regimes. They in their protestations have no intention of stopping spam because much of it emanates from their countries. They want all kinds of censorship. Can you imagine what China or Cuba’s demands would be? China and Cuba are both dictatorships. Why would such one-party states be allowed in the UN, never mind telling us how censorship would work? Both jail people for political decent and sometimes execute them. We can also throw Iran in for good measure. This is a nation with one political party that in 2003 jailed 80 journalists and activists. Then Iran wants UN control so that thousands of immoral websites can be banned. This war by the internationalists to control the Internet is not new. It began in 1999. That is when the UN proposed taxing all e-mail messages to pay for development aid.

You cannot legislate morals. That is reflected in our unsuccessful ventures into legislation of alcohol, drugs, sex and tobacco and now the UN wants to legislate all kinds of content. Are we to allow the curtailment of our First Amendment rights? We do not think so. Are we to tolerate Cyber Patrols or Net Nannies?

In addition we now have cyber crime investigators pushing for the creation of a national web interface linking police computers. 89% of police say they want to look into e-mail accounts in a broad push by law enforcement agencies to alter the ground rules of online investigations. They want laws requiring Internet companies to store data for up to five years and they want instant access to police inquiries instead of waiting hours or days for responses from Internet companies. They want emergency access like the FBI had and terribly abused that privilege to get phone numbers. In the Internet the police want information now not after a review of whether the request is appropriate.

This is where the President wants to take us and we do not like it. Be sure to contact your house and Senate representatives and let them know how you feel about this abridgment of your privacy and your rights. If you do not act now, it may be too late later.

- Bob Chapman

Most Americans have no idea what is happening to the economy. Many people think America is emerging from a vicious little recession, and will soon be back on the road to prosperity. America always has, so it always will, is the common reasoning.
Yet this time, things may turn out very different.

On January 8, cnbc reported that the U.S. Federal Reserve purchased an unprecedented 80 percent of all U.S. treasury securities issued in 2009.

This is earth-shaking, game-changing news with possibly lethal repercussions. Here is why.

During 2009, the federal government ran a $1.4 trillion deficit—the largest deficit in the history of both America and the world. It was over three times the size of the previous year’s record-breaking deficit. And if the government has its way, 2010’s deficit may be even greater.

Since Americans save so little money, foreigners have come to provide almost all of the federal government’s borrowing needs in recent years. They accomplish this by purchasing U.S. treasury bonds. This was something foreign nations were happy to do since they earned interest on their money. Plus, big-spending Americans tended to spend the borrowed money purchasing foreign-made goods, so a good proportion of the money cycled right back to them.

Not wanting to give up their standard of living, Americans too willingly went further into debt, even as American industry and other wealth-producing sectors of the economy were being shut down and shipped overseas.

For example: From 2006 through November 2009, Beijing lent $527 billion to America through treasury purchases alone. Hong Kong lent an additional $100 billion. Other countries like Japan lent hundreds of billions more. Then there was the hundreds of billions of dollars they lent to government-sponsored entities like mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

During this time, American industry was being hammered. Jobs were being outsourced and offshored by the millions to places like China and India. In 2004, the Boston-based consultancy Forrester estimated that a relentless 15,000 jobs per month were moving out of America. Forrester predicts that America will see another 3.3 million jobs offshored over the coming 15 years.

But now it is as if the foreign nations see the writing on the wall. They are beginning to realize that America is addicted to debt and that their loans might never get repaid.

Now, all of a sudden America’s most important source of lending is drying up.

For five months in a row, not only has China stopped lending money to the federal government, it has actually sold some of its treasuries. Is China trying to quietly get out as much of its money as possible while it can? Even oil-exporting nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iraq and Venezuela have been net sellers of treasuries since March. Thus, two of America’s four most important foreign creditors are awol. And Japan, one of America’s other most important creditors, has massively curtailed its lending to America.

All things being equal, this exodus of foreign money would have caused massive credit contraction capable of smothering America—interest rates skyrocketing into the double digits, zombified Wall Street banks with broken business models, small businesses unable to roll over their debts, a housing market in a renewed free fall, soaring consumer bankruptcies, and unemployment far worse than the Great Depression.

But so far, this has not happened. Why? Faced with the above list of catastrophes, the Federal Reserve decided to risk the biggest catastrophe of them all in a forlorn attempt to avoid the inevitable financial reckoning.

To save the economy, the Federal Reserve would risk sacrificing the dollar.

The Federal Reserve began doing the one practice anathema to all fiat-currency-based economic systems: It began creating money by divine right. With foreigners unwilling or unable to provide the money the U.S. government needed to pay the bills, the Federal Reserve simply created more dollars from nothing by adding additional bookkeeping entries to its logs.

Remember that $1.4 trillion deficit that America ran this last year? Eighty percent of that—$1.12 trillion worth—was funny money. The U.S. government needed money, so the Fed simply turned on its digital printing presses and electronically sent over some 1s and 0s.

But the Fed didn’t just print up money to give to the government to spend. It also created close to $1 trillion to prop up asset prices in America. It printed up money to give to the big banks and to purchase toxic mortgages from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was theft and highway robbery on the grandest of scales because the Fed did nothing to earn this money—it simply said they had the money, and it was so. Consequently, all other money in circulation became worth less. The Fed now has over $2 trillion worth of assets on its balance sheet. This is mostly money that the Fed willed into existence over the past year.

No wonder foreigners are beginning to flee the dollar. The Fed is doing what every failed fiat currency system in the history of paper money has done. When push comes to shove, the temptations of the printing press are too great. Governments always take the seemingly easy way out—simply printing up whatever money is needed, and with disastrous results that always end the same way.

Once you start down the money-printing road, it is almost impossible to turn back. The history of money printing says the dollar is doomed. It is a lesson of history that the Fed has failed to learn.

Maybe that is why the Chinese have dumped their Fannie and Freddie investments. During 2009, they took the Fed’s newly created money and ran, while the dollars still had some value remaining.

America’s foreign financial partners are beginning to abandon it. And for good reason. The dollar has lost almost a third of its value over the past decade.

But did you know that this exact scenario in which America finds itself was prophesied thousands of years ago?

Speaking of the modern nations descended from ancient Israel, of which America is currently the most geopolitically prominent, the Prophet Jeremiah warned that a time would come when America’s trade partners would abandon it despite America’s best attempts to pretty itself up and make itself look good. “And when you are plundered, what will you do? Though you clothe yourself with crimson, though you adorn yourself with ornaments of gold, though you enlarge your eyes with paint, in vain you will make yourself fair; your lovers will despise you; they will seek your life” (Jeremiah 4:30; New King James Version).

America has two choices. Raise interest rates to try and attract its economic lovers back to lend more money (which means that America’s debt payments would mushroom, potentially derailing the economy), or continue to destroy the dollar to pay off the bills. Neither option is a good one. Expect America’s foreign lovers to continue voting with their feet—as they head out the door.