Federal Reserve Threatens Congress Over Bill To Audit them.

Federal Reserve Threatens Congress Over HR 1207: CALL YOUR SENATORS AND GET THIS BILL S 604 PASSED

On Thursday of last week, the Federal Reserve’s vice chairman, Donald Kohn, threatened to jack up interest rates if Congress continues to expose “some of the U.S. central bank’s most sensitive decisions to political scrutiny,” Reuters reported. “Any substantial erosion of the Federal Reserve’s monetary independence likely would lead to higher long-term interest rates as investors begin to fear future inflation,” Kohn told a House of Representatives Financial Services subcommittee.

Kohn’s threat came as Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve (HR 1207) has picked up 256 co-sponsors — more than 55% of the House of Representatives. HR 1207’s companion bill in the Senate, S 604, has already attracted 8 co-sponsors. Kohn and his boss Ben Bernanke are obviously very concerned over the prospect that the American people may soon have a look at their books.

Ron Paul: “political shenanigans” going on with the Fed.

Kohn went before Congress as debate rages over Obama’s plan for “regulatory reform,” in effect granting the Fed power to gobble up companies in national socialist fashion and consolidate banking and securities across the board. In order to quell outrage over this brazen power grab, Obama and his bankster advisers propose a token council of regulators advise the Fed.

On June 16, Goldman Sachs operative Timothy Geithnersaid: “When you have too many people involved, there’s an accountability problem.” In other words, Congress and the American people need to mind their own business. The Federal Reserve is an institution owned by the bankers, not the American people.

“Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are the United States government’s institutions,” Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency in 1932 during the “Great Depression,” had entered into the Congressional Record. “They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign swindlers.”

McFadden’s international swindlers are running scared from HR 1207 and public anger over last year’s engineered financial crisis and Fed-orchestrated “bailouts” of investment bank Bear Stearns and insurer American International Group.

“The Federal Reserve strongly believes that removing the statutory limits on GAO audits of monetary policy matters would be contrary to the public interest by tending to undermine the independence and efficacy of monetary policy,” said Kohn. He said accountability to the people would “cast a chill” on monetary policy deliberations held in secret behind closed doors.

Kohn then threatened to jack up interest rates. “The bond rating agencies view operational independence of a country’s central bank as an important factor in determining sovereign credit ratings, suggesting that a threat to the Federal Reserve’s independence could lower the Treasury’s debt rating and thus raise its cost of borrowing.”

Bernanke’s underling made no bones about the fact Paul’s bill is a direct threat to the “independence” of the Federal Reserve. “History provides numerous examples of non-independent central banks being forced to finance large government budget deficits. Such episodes invariably lead to high inflation,” he said. “Given the current outlook for large federal budget deficits in the United States, this consideration is especially important.”

Talk about doublespeak. In fact, the Federal Reserve is all about huge federal budget deficits and a mounting federal debt. The Federal Reserve was established in 1913 by the banksters for the purpose of creating debt-based money secured by thin air. The American people are seriously and terminally indebted to the bankers and currently owe over $400 billion a year in interest alone, with no hope of every paying off the principal, which is in the tens of trillions.

In 1910, before the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, the federal debt was a mere $1 billion, or $12.40 per citizen. Now the overall debt is over 80% of the annual output of the entire U.S. economy, as measured by the gross domestic product. When government “obligations” are considered, the debt balloons to an astronomical $56 trillion, or roughly $184,000 per American, according to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

It is simple, really — the larger the debt, the richer and more powerful the international bankers become. The Federal Reserve is their front organization and it runs roughshod over Congress.

The passage of HR 1207 is not certain and it faces an even more strenuous uphill battle in the Senate. It is, at this point, our only practical hope of auditing the Fed, revealing its numerous crimes, exposing its mega-grand theft scams, and delivering Donald Kohn, his boss Bernanke, and the minions of the international banksters to justice.

Private health insurance will be ILLEGAL...

This is from an editorial from Investor's Business Daily. It was not investigated and reported by ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, or anybody else - just little ol' IBD. Read it and weep for your country.

To those of you have have not yet responded, take a moment to let me know if you can make it tomorrow.

It's Not An Option
It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither.

..... What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.

..... The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

Book he authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population
Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology -- informally known as the United States' Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;

• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;

• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;

• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.

• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in their right mind would say such things. Read the full story, and see FULL SCANNED PAGES OF THE BOOK! you can also try and purchase the book online, amazon has sold out since this story broke. The book is no longer in print, you may however be able to find it in your local library.

John Holdren, Ideological Environmentalist

John Holdren, Ideological Environmentalist
Forbes.com
Ronald Bailey, 02.03.09, 04:56 PM EST
A most dogmatic member of Obama's 'Green Dream Team.'John Holdren


President Barack Obama has nominated a Green Dream Team to guide the implementation of his ambitious climate and energy policies. John Holdren, a fierce ideological environmentalist, will be the leader of this team as the assistant to the president for science and technology and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Holdren's political environmentalism has been amply rewarded over the years. Today, he is the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, director of environmental research group the Woods Hole Research Center and a past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

In his salad days, Holdren was a fully paid-up member of The Limits to Growth club. For example, in his 1971 Sierra Club book, Energy: A Crisis in Power, Holdren declared that "it is fair to conclude that under almost any assumptions, the supplies of crude petroleum and natural gas are severely limited. The bulk of energy likely to flow from these sources may have been tapped within the lifetime of many of the present population." This sounds very much like contemporary prognostications of "peak oil."

In keeping with his dogmatic limits-to-growth convictions, Holdren joined his frequent co-author, eco-doomster Paul Ehrlich, in a famous bet against cornucopian economist Julian Simon.

In 1980, Holdren, Ehrlich and Stanford colleague John Harte picked a basket of five commodities--chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten--that they were sure were going to rise in price as they became increasingly scarce. They drew up a futures contract obligating Simon to sell Holdren, Ehrlich and Harte the same quantities of five metals that could be purchased for $1,000 10 years later at 1980 prices.

If the combined prices rose above $1,000, Simon would pay the difference. If they fell below $1,000, Ehrlich would pay Simon. Ehrlich mailed Simon a check for $576.07 in October 1990. Simply put, the combined real prices of the metals selected by Holdren and his colleagues fell by more than 50% during the 1980s, confirming cornucopian claims that the supply of resources over time becomes more abundant, not scarcer.

Despite his early peak-oil proclivities, Holdren did acknowledge in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists back in 1975 that "civilization is not running out of energy; but it is running out of cheap energy." But even then, he was clearly convinced that energy supplies would become ever more expensive. More recently, Holdren has declared that even "peak oil" is debatable.


Also near the beginning of his career, Holdren introduced in 1971--with his colleague and perennial population-alarmist, Ehrlich--the concept of the I=PAT identity. Human Impact on the environment is equal to Population x Affluence/consumption x Technology. All of which are supposed to intensify and worsen humanity's impact on the natural world.

History shows that the I=PAT identity largely gets it backward. Population is at worst neutral, while affluence and technology actually promote environmental flourishing. It is in the rich, developed countries that the air becomes clearer, the streams cleaner and the forests more expansive.

Holdren now apparently recognizes the power of human creativity to solve environmental problems by means of technological progress and economic growth. In his 2006 inaugural lecture as the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, he noted, "Advances in technology help meet basic human needs and drive economic growth through increased productivity, reduced costs, reduced resource use and environmental impact, and new or improved products and services."

Unfortunately, Holdren doesn't appear to have an adequate understanding of the economic process through which these technological advances are achieved. He seems to think new technologies arise full-blown from government agencies and university laboratories.

Holdren early on exhibited an unlovely tendency to try to enforce ideological conformity on his fellow scientists and activists. Back in 1972, he and Ehrlich disagreed with environmentalist Barry Commoner on whether population or technology was worse for environment. This dispute exploded into the public when Commoner disclosed a letter Ehrlich and Holdren had sent to numerous scientific colleagues revealing that the two had pressed Commoner not to debate in public which of the factors was most important because that would undermine the realization of environmental goals.

Commoner was outraged that the two wanted to shut down debate and enforce an environmentally correct united front. If this is what Holdren would attempt to do to an errant fellow environmentalist, it's no surprise the fury he visits upon those who don't accept the environmental litany of doom, such as Bjorn Lomborg, author of TheSkeptical Environmentalist.

Lomborg had the temerity to cite Holdren's humiliating lost bet with Simon in his book. In a 2002 Scientific American attack piece, Holdren characterized Lomborg's chapter on energy as being "devoted almost entirely to attacking the belief that the world is running out of energy," which "only a handful of environmental researchers, if any at all, believe this today."

Actually, the chapter can be far more accurately described as critiquing the concept of peak oil. Lomborg opens it by citing a 2000 article from E: The Environmental Magazine entitled "Running on Empty," propounding the "peak oil" hypothesis. Clearly, some prominent environmentalists do still believe the world is running out of oil.

Later, an irritated Holdren complained that Lomborg had "needlessly muddled public understanding and wasted immense amounts of the time of capable people who have had to take on the task of rebutting him." Evidently, Holdren finds scientific and policy debates a bit tiresome.

When President Obama nominated Holdren, he declared, "The truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources--it's about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology."

Unfortunately, Holdren's record is far from reassuring on that score.

Ronald Bailey is Reason magazine's science policy correspondent.

Every Single Republican Congress Member Has Now Co-Sponsored Bill to Audit the Fed… Democrats, Its Up To You

Every Single Republican Congress Member Has Now Co-Sponsored Bill to Audit the Federal Reserve: Democrats, Its Up To You

Shared via AddThis

Holdren Forced To Respond To Controversy Over Totalitarian Population Control Proposals

Holdren Forced To Respond To Controversy Over Totalitarian Population Control Proposals

Shared via AddThis

We Now Have A Total Gangster Government

London Times: Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation

From The Sunday Times May 24, 2009
Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation
America's richest people meet to discuss ways of tackling a 'disastrous' environmental, social and industrial threat
John Harlow, Los Angeles



SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.


The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.
Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.
These members, along with Gates, have given away more than £45 billion since 1996 to causes ranging from health programmes in developing countries to ghetto schools nearer to home.



They gathered at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and president of the private Rockefeller University, in Manhattan on May 5. The informal afternoon session was so discreet that some of the billionaires’ aides were told they were at “security briefings”. (Why would a meeting of philanthropists need to be top secret?)
Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the summit was unprecedented. “We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different – maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal,” he said. (Is that because they are one?)
Some details were emerging this weekend, however. The billionaires were each given 15 minutes to present their favourite cause. Over dinner they discussed how they might settle on an “umbrella cause” that could harness their interests.
The issues debated included reforming the supervision of overseas aid spending to setting up rural schools and water systems in developing countries. Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority. (Isn't it interesting that Obama's new science advisor is also concerned with overpopulation. He wants to force abortions to stop overpopulation. See my posts earlier today)
This could result in a challenge to some Third World politicians who believe contraception and female education weaken traditional values. (See what they do there? they subtley say that if you dont believe in contraception, then you want to keep females from being educated. Because no educated woman would want to have alot of children. Only oppressed women who believe in "traditional" {read CONSERVATIVE} values.
Gates, 53, who is giving away most of his fortune, argued that healthier families, freed from malaria and extreme poverty, would change their habits and have fewer children within half a generation. (That is some logic, if you are happy, you will have less kids. Consider the thought processes and attitudes that are behind statements like these)
At a conference in Long Beach, California, last February, he had made similar points. “Official projections say the world’s population will peak at 9.3 billion [up from 6.6 billion today] but with charitable initiatives, such as better reproductive healthcare (In context i would take this to mean: if we educate women, they will have less children and/or more abortions), we think we can cap that at 8.3 billion,” Gates said then.
Patricia Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which gives more than £2 billion a year to good causes, attended the Rockefeller summit. She said the billionaires met to “discuss how to increase giving” and they intended to “continue the dialogue” over the next few months.
Another guest said there was “nothing as crude as a vote” (How enlightened of these billionaires NOT to take a vote on how they are planning to stop the reproduction of the masses) but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.
“This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” said the guest. “They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming.” (Read: We are so enlightened we cannot be hindered by any government, we must stop the ignorant masses from reproducing themselves into destruction. "we know better")
Why all the secrecy? “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government,” he said. (If they had nothing to hide, if they were truly philanthropists, without designs on controlling people, why wouldnt the left media positively spin the meeting? Maybe that silly Fox news network might report otherwise, but they are already marginalized by the rest of the media, so who cares. Editors note: Fox news Channel is the highest rated news network in the country. Check the numbers, MSNBC is #2, with CNN trailing behind.)

Taken from an exerpt of Ecoscience; written by John Holdren Science advisor to President Obama.
Read my other posts about Obama's science advisor. Could it be a coincedence that all of this is happening at the same time? Or could it be that the power elites are purposely keeping the lower classes in the dark?

Calling all freedom loving Americans!

Calling all freedom loving Americans! The Staten Island Tea Party Needs your help! We are fundraising to help pay for promotional materials, post cards, signs and banners and pocket sized US Constitutions to be handed out to citizens! We need your help! Please support us in our effort to stop the wave of socialist policies being pushed through congress!

Any donation will help, $5, $10, $20 or more if you can afford it! You can paypal your donation by using the button below, Or contact me directly. Email me @ siteaparty@yahoo.com

Support the conservative wave against the socialist tide in congress today! Donate $25 or more and receive this limited edition T shirt by DOA Clothing. (High quality t shirt!!! DOA clothing sells at the same price point as Ed Hardy in retail outlets.)

Click to view larger image.



Thank you!
Danny Panzella
Director of marketing
The Staten Island Tea Party

A look at The Great Depression in the context of the current economic crisis.

A look at The Great Depression in the context of the current economic crisis.
By Danny Panzella
July 12, 2009

Today’s lesson: The Fed Reserve prints money, and then lends it to the US at x amount of interest. So every $1 is really $1+Interest. Obama says...I’m going to print as much money as I need to solve the econocrisis (paraphrased) so Obama spent 787 Billion on Stimulus 1.0 + Interest. Why are the powers that be intentionally bankrupting the country? For the answer take a look at "The Great Depression."

In 1921 Congressman Charles Lindbergh said:
“Under the Federal Reserve Act, panics are scientifically created. The present panic (Panic of 1920) is the first scientifically created one, worked out as we figure a mathematical equation.”

During the 1920’s a new type of loan called a “Margin Loan” surfaced. A Margin Loan was a loan that allowed an investor to put down only 10% of any stock’s worth with the other 90% of the stock’s cost being loaned through the broker.

The Margin Loan grew in popularity in the 1920s, creating a lot of wealth in the population. For that reason the term the “Roaring 20’s” was coined. This went on for a few years; the country’s economic system was prospering and generating wealth. Well the margin loan had a detonator button. A 24 hour repayment period if the loan was called due.

A few months before the stock market crash of 1929 a handful of the largest investors in the world including the Rockefellers, quietly sold off their stock investments. Then the financiers of the margin loans “randomly” called them due.

What resulted was an insane sell-off in the market and mass bankruptcies and mass withdrawals that caused 16,000 banks to close. What does the Federal Reserve do during this time? They buy up all the banks and other corporations for pennies on the dollar. Good deal! (Sound familiar?)

In an attempt to allegedly mitigate the econocrisis the government decided to abolish the gold standard under the pretext “helping to end the Great Depression”, which required all citizens to turn in their gold bullion to the National Treasury under penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Essentially robbing the population of what little wealth they had left, effectively making all the people that caused the Great Depression richer and even more powerful.

Think about it. The world’s wealthiest families have control of the financial system. They allow the population, a whole country to generate wealth for them. Then based on some “event” (A market crash, “bank run” etc. they repossess it through confiscatory taxation and by causing market crashes and deflations which flows the money right back into their coffers. The event is necessary to gain the compliance of the populace of the United States.

So let’s look at current events to see what the FED is up to today. Well they just lent Obama 787 Billion dollars. (You didn’t think the gov't had that money did you?) 787 Billion dollars + Interest. The American people are becoming savvier, so the “event” has become more intricately planned. After 9/11 we experienced a short recession. The population became depressed and afraid of another terrorist attack. So to make the population feel safe we go to war with terrorists (Borrowing more money from the FED to finance the war; the other way the Federal Reserve and its owners gain more wealth. This is a topic for an entirely different post, but in short: When the U.S. goes to war we borrow the money from the Federal Reserve (Of course, they control all the money, to even have one dollar you must borrow it from the FED with interest. Google the term: False Flag Operation.)

When is the best time to attack your enemy? The answer: when they are confused, disorganized and fearful. Their fear will cause them to act irrationally and in emotion driven ways. The FED lowers interests rates which stimulated the housing market (Don’t forget the “internet bubble” had just burst, so investors were already beginning to move their money out of the stock market and into the housing sector. Coincidence? Did the powers that be prepare the collective psyche of investors by creating the internet bubble?) The housing boom begins, a buying frenzy fueled by low interest rates drives up real estate values. Bankers begin introducing new and risky mortgage products into the marketplace. (Remember I said a confused and fearful public will act irrationally?) Subprime mortgages boom as people buy homes they can’t afford with ticking time bomb adjustable rate mortgages that are set to adjust to a higher rate 3,5, or 7 years later (Presumably after the housing boom is over and the market is in decline. Conventional wisdom says that the housing cycle is 7 – 12 years.)

While the boom is happening the banks want to cash in so they need to find ways to lend more money. So they decide to “securitize” these subprime loans. Basically making them into a large investment instrument and selling it to investors. So let’s think about this, they took risky loans and sold them to investors. Why would an investor want to buy a package of millions of loans that have a high probability of defaulting? Because they were insured by the United States Government! That’s why! In a sense these investment packages were laundered through the government through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Who took bought the packages from the banks, stamped them as grade A investments and then sold them to investors who were thrilled to buy “safe” government insured investment products. (Do you think the government had the money to insure all of those loans when they went bad? We now know that answer.)

So companies like AIG take the insurance premiums they are paid by their customers and invest them to make a profit. (In case you didn’t know, that is the main purpose and income stream of an insurance company. It’s not to insure you against hardship. It’s to take your premiums and invest it for a profit. ) So AIG invests in one of these Government insured, grade A investments. The investment fails and guess what? AIG is now in trouble along with thousands of other companies like Chrysler, GM, hundreds of banks etc.

The gov’t says we can’t have the largest insurance company in the world go belly up! People will lose their jobs!! (Another “event”) So the American people agree that we can’t let so many people lose their jobs! Give them TARP!! And the bailouts begin. Which brings me full circle to Stimulus 1.0. (With the possibility of a Stimulus 2.0 on the way.)

We are now indebted to the Federal Reserve Bank in such a way that we can never repay it. One last note: Your federal income tax dollars are used solely to pay the interest we owe the Federal Reserve. The ONLY answer is to continue to raise taxes, until the FED steals all of our wealth, and property. (What happens when people can’t pay their taxes? The gov’t repossesses their land.) So in the context of what was discussed in this article lets think about the implications of the following initiatives currently happening in congress:
• The Climate Bill AKA Cap and Trade AKA Tax and Kill: Basically an energy tax which will drive up prices of every single product it takes energy to produce. More disguised taxes to continue to confiscate the property of Americans.

• The Patriot Act and other subsequent bills that are taking away the rights of Americans. For instance, the president has the right to declare a state of emergency for no defined reason. This gives him powers to enact martial law. Effectively turning the country into an authoritarian police state (Google the definition) for no reason at all. Congress does not even have the right to review the action for 6 months, giving the president dictatorial powers.

• There are bills being debated in congress right now to eliminate the 2nd amendment right to bear arms.

• There are bills being debated in congress to limit free speech, they are beginning to label conservative thought as hate speech. In official memorandums Homeland Security has labeled people who are prolife, and veterans returning from Iraq as potential domestic terrorists. This stretches into the media, where they are beginning initiatives to limit the amount of “conservative” talk show hosts on radio. I thought conservative was an objective term? Who decides what is conservative?

• The president refuses to support Iranian citizens protesting for freedom from an oppressive dictator who pretends to be a democratically elected president. While at the same time, he calls for a dictator who was mentored by Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro to be reinstated as president. He was legally removed from the president by the supreme court of Honduras because he illegally tried to remain in office for a 3rd presidential term. How long will it be before the president has one of his cronies in congress declare what a wonderful president he is, and that we should extend term limits so he can stay a third term? Or maybe indefinitely? It’s a slippery slope my friends.

• Privacy is being attacked through bills that will force Americans to have a National ID Card with a radio frequency chip inside of it that can be used to track your whereabouts. They are moving to integrate this with your driver license. So now you have to submit to being tracked if the gov’t so decides for the privilege of driving. (Eventually they want to also merge your debit and credit cards with this same ID, so now they can track your spending as well. Think of the possibilities here. The FDA will know if you buy too much junk food and maybe they will fine you for that. After all if you are unhealthy it will cost the national healthcare system more money to treat the illness that come along with high cholesterol or obesity. Or maybe a Homeland security computer will red flag you for investigation or arrest if you purchase (even innocently) the right combination of household chemicals that could be used to make a bomb.

It goes on and on. All of these issues are interconnected. They may not seem like it, but think about it. Consider the relationships of all these issues and the many more that are being debated in our society. We must get angry; we must wake up and use the weapons of democracy to fight this battle. It is not too late. We can vote to have the Federal Reserve Act repealed and destroy some of the links to power that the FED and its owners have. Stay tuned.

Ill leave you with this…



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMBZDwf9dok