Oct 12, 2010

LOL conspira-nut frenzy of the day

Just to get a break:

From DeadlineLiveOctober 12, 2010 

Michio goes cuckoo and says you are a terrorist if you are against the NWO. He claims that the NWO is Type 1 attainment on the Kardashev scale. He also spews the false “alien gospel” to set the public up for the coming fake disclosure of the grigori as ”Type 2 greys”. Type 3 is obviously God and His angels, but what will the illuminati say they are?
To see why you have been conditioned to accept a certain image of ‘grey aliens’ before they have even arrived, observe antediluvian depictions of the grigori/watchers- Google Image: dogu or wandjina (Note his constant referencing to sci-fi junk that Hollywood has been cramming into the heads of the sleeping sheep in order to condition them for the staged disclosure event.)

At the beginning of this clip Mr Kaku states that the EU was created to deal with NAFTA.
Like many others he doesn’t know, or understand (Or he is a liar) that the EEC was formed LONG before NAFTA. The EU just celebrated their 50th birthday 3 years ago. NAFTA was approved during the Bush / Clinton era, January 1, 1994.
Standard “Intellectual” argument here “forgetting” that centralization puts control into to few hands, and that this power has ALWAYS been abused. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
Before we become a “Type 1″ planet… We would need to be Type 1 people. I doubt that this will happen in my lifetime if ever. It requires a complete consciousness shift by humanity. A tall task!

Jack Blood


Just in from News From Underground:

And that's not the only bombshell noted by computer scientist J. Alex
Halderman, who, with his team of students, managed to hack into the infrastructure of DC's new Internet vote scheme, and testified about it all last Friday. 

Let us say again, as we have said so many times before, that Internet voting is an absolutely horrible idea--yet DC's election officials forged ahead with
their new system, to enable overseas and military voters to cast on-line ballots. 

Please read Brad Friedman's full report on Halderman's eye-popping
testimony-- and send it far and wide, as there are still too many people out there who believe that Internet voting is a swell idea. 

There is/ no substitute/ for hand-counted paper ballots. Certainly
elections based on that old-fashioned system have been stolen countless times--but the computerized alternatives are infinitely/ worse./ 

*Iran, China Also Hacked D.C. Internet Vote Scheme,*
*says U. of Michigan Professor*
by Brad Friedman 

Bombshells: 'White hat hackers' defended system by changing stolen
password & other startling revelations from D.C. hearing... 

*/* U. of MI Comp. Prof Fesses Up: 'Took Total Control of Server'*/
** D.C. Internet Voting Hacked with U. of MI 'Fight Song'*
* Experts Warn D.C. Officials About Internet Vote Scheme 

*Startling testimony offered by the U. of Michigan computer science
professor whose team penetrated D.C.'s 'pilot program' server for what
was to have been a live election beginning in just days...* 

A University of Michigan computer scientist and his team were not the
only ones attempting to hack the Internet Vote scheme that Washington
D.C. had planned to roll out for actual use with military and overseas
voters in this November's mid-term election. 

According to testimony given to a D.C. City Council committee last
Friday by J. Alex Halderman, asst. professor of electrical engineering
and computer science at University of Michigan, hackers from Iran and
China were also attempting to access the very same network
infrastructure, even as his own team of students had successfully done
so, taking over the entirety of the Internet Voting system which had
been opened for a first-of-its-kind live test.
[/See// our report last week// on details of what had already been
disclosed about Halderman's startling hack/ prior/ to last Friday's
"While we were in control of these systems we observed other attack
attempts originating from computers in Iran and China," Halderman
testified. "These attackers were attempting to guess the same master
password that we did. And since it was only four letters long, they
would likely have soon succeeded."
In his stunning public testimony --- before a single member of the D.C.
Board of Ethics and Elections (BoEE), and a nearly empty chamber ---
Halderman explained how the team had, by the time they discovered their
fellow intruders, already gained complete control of the system, it's
encryption key and its passwords. The system was developed as part of an
Internet Voting pilot program with the Open Source Digital Voting

As The BRAD BLOG reported last week, Halderman's team was able to take
over the system within 36 hours after it had gone live for testing.
After having "found and exploited a vulnerability that gave [them]
almost total control of the server software," his team was able to steal
the encryption key needed to decode "secret" ballots; overwrite every
single ballot cast on the test system; change the votes on those ballots
to write-in candidates; discover who had already been voted for and the
identities of the voters; install a script that would automatically
change all votes cast/ in the future/ on the same system; install a
backdoor to allow them to come back later; and then leave a "calling
card" --- the University of Michigan fight song --- which was programmed
to play in the voter's browser 15 seconds after each Internet ballot had
been cast. 

But the/ new/ disclosures offered before the committee on Friday,
including the hack attempts by computers in China and Iran, may have
been as explosive, if not more so, than the previous revelations. They
certainly illustrate and underscore a grave national security threat
present in electronic voting systems such as the one D.C. had planned to
use, as Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories computer scientist and
cyber-security expert Dr. David Jefferson told me during an interview
last Friday night on the nationally syndicated/ Mike Malloy Show/ which
I was guest hosting last week.
The hack of the system forced the D.C. election administrators to shut
down their plans for the pilot program which was to have gone live in
days, as encouraged and partially funded by the federal Military and
Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act, which allocated millions of
dollars for such Internet Voting pilot programs.
The revelations of the intrusion attempts from China and Iran, however,
would not be the only new, previously unreported bombshells Halderman
offered during his Friday testimony... 

*Defending the network...* 
"We gained access to this equipment because the network administrators
who set it up left a default master password unchanged," Halderman
explained to Councilwoman Mary Cheh. "This password we were able to look
up in the owner's manual for the piece of equipment. And once we did, we
found it was only a four-letter password."
The University of Michigan team made short order of hacking that simple
password, aided in no small part by the team having also/ taken over the
security camera apparatus/ inside the election board's actual data
center where the servers were located.
"Once we gained control of this equipment, we could watch in real time
on my desktop in Michigan as the network operators configured and tested
the equipment," he told the committee. "We could also watch them on
camera because we found a pair of security cameras in the data center
were on the same network as the pilot system and were publicly
accessible with no password at all."
When they'd discovered the foreign intrusions from Iran and China, the
"white hat" hackers from the U.S. actually took measure to protect the
D.C. system.
"We decided to defend the network by blocking them out, by adding rules
to the firewall, and by changing the password to a more secure one," he
explained during his testimony to a stunned Cheh.
"You changed the password of the BoEE system?" she interrupted him to ask.
"Of the pilot system, yes," Halderman responded. 

"/You/ changed it?!" Cheh asked incredulously. 
"We did, yeah, to something so that the Chinese and Iranian attackers
wouldn't get it," he said.
*As if that's not all bad enough...*
Halderman also made another dramatic disclosure during his testimony. As
his team was looking through the BoEE Internet Voting server, they made
another alarming discovery which he revealed rather dramatically by
pulling out some 937 pages printed out from a file the team had found
and downloaded from the system.
The team had discovered that the local election administrators appeared
to have conducted their own tests at some point by sending files to the
system that were either longer or shorter than the PDF-formatted ballots
that the system would have been expecting, in order to see if those
incorrect files were properly rejected in the event that a voter had
sent the wrong file instead of their ballot.
Those rejected test files remained on the server, however, where the
Michigan team of "hackers" were able to rifle through them.
"Some of the files were just a page with one sentence, 'This is a blank
ballot.' Others were much bigger. ... But one of the files, which I have
here," Halderman explained as he pulled out hundreds of pages to place
on the table, "one of the files was a 937-page PDF document."
"It appears to be the 937 invitation letters that BoEE sent to
registered voters. Each page contains the name and voter ID number of a
real voter along with the 16-character PIN that is the only password a
voter needs in order to use the system in the real election." 

"We found the document on the test bed server, a system that BoEE
invited the world to break into, and that we showed could be broken into
very easily," he continued. "We have no way of knowing who else has
access to this. The PINs in this document are the most critical secret
to protecting the whole voting system."
Livermore Labs' Jefferson, who has advised the last five CA Secretaries
of State on voting system security and represents as
one of their Internet Voting experts, explained the importance of this
revelation during my interview with him on Friday night.
"This was stunning," he told me. "This file is, in a sense, the holy
grail of voter security in the general election if this system were to
be used in the general election. Of course, it's now not going to be.
But had an adversary had a copy of that file, they would have been able
to cast votes for the legitimate voters, and if they'd cast them ahead
[of the actual voters], their votes would be accepted as legitimate and
the actual legitimate voters, when they tried to vote, would be denied
because of course you can't vote twice."
Halderman believes the use of that particular file as part of the BoEE's
testing procedures suggests that the administrators of the system are
not up to the task of securing such an important system. That same
concern has been expressed by critics of e-voting for years, given that
local elections supervisors, many of them with no computer science or
security experience at all, are often enabled with the task of keeping
complicated, sensitive, easily manipulated computer systems secure from
both outsider and insider attacks.
"I'm just deeply concerned that BoEE does not take security seriously
and that it fails to appreciate the security challenges that are faced
by any Internet voting system," Halderman said at the conclusion of his
prepared testimony.
*'All the votes had disappeared...'* 

Jefferson found yet another very serious flaw in the D.C. Internet
Voting system on his own --- one that had not yet been publicly reported
until my live interview with him on the/ Malloy Show/ Friday night.
He participated in the same open test the week before last, by casting
his own vote using D.C.'s test-bed system and closely following the
instructions he was given. After viewing and filling in the PDF version
of the ballot he was offered during the voting process, he saved the
file to his system, and sent it back in to the election server --- cast
his "vote" over the Internet --- as directed by the system.
Later, however, he made a startling discovery:
"After submitting the vote back, the ballot was still on my desktop as a
file so I opened it. And I discovered that all the votes had
disappeared. I had a blank ballot. Which means that I had sent a blank
ballot back to the District of Columbia, not the choices that I had made."
"I investigated further and discovered that anyone who used certain
combinations of browsers and what we call PDF plug-ins would have the
same problem," he told me on air. "In fact, unless you used a
[stand-alone] Adobe Reader --- which many people are familiar with and
many people use, but many don't --- unless you used that [versus the web
browser's internal PDF plug-in], you were pretty much guaranteed that
your votes would be erased the moment you saved them and you would be
"It was a very serious problem because I actually did follow directions.
I did not do anything wrong, and many voters would have had this same
problem," Jefferson explained. "a large proportion of them would have
cast, unknowingly cast, blank ballots. And once you do that there's no
recovery because you can't vote twice and the election officials are not
supposed to be able to find your ballot and fix it."
Had the system actually gone live, under the circumstances, hundreds of
ballots (the pilot program was to be done with the participation of some
900 overseas and military voters from D.C.) would likely have been
returned over the Internet completely blank to the BoEE for this
November's mid-term election. 

That is, of course, presuming the Iranians, Chinese, or anybody else who
might have had an interest in the election, not changed all of the
ballots to anything they wanted, or kept all of the voters from being
able to cast their ballots at all by using the PIN numbers the BoEE had
left on the server.
*A matter of U.S. National Security...* 

"Many of us have been arguing that election security is a matter of U.S.
national security," Jefferson, who has worked for more than a decade on
this issue, told me. He has done so as an adviser to both Republican and
Democratic Secretaries of State in California, testified to countless
official bodies about his concerns, and most recently worked on CA Sec.
of State Debra Bowen's landmark, 2007 "Top-to-Bottom Review" of all of
the state's electronic voting systems (all of which were found to have
been easily penetrated and quickly manipulated during the
first-of-its-kind public hack testing by an official state commission).
"Oftentimes the difference between one or another candidate for United
States Senator, say, you know, is only a few hundred votes. So it's
really important that it not be possible for foreign governments or
crazy self-aggrandizing hackers in other countries --- or in our own ---
to be able to modify votes and get away with it."
"But usually this warning that I have given many times, that this is a
national security issue, goes, well, people are somewhat skeptical about
it. It goes under-appreciated," Jefferson explained diplomatically
during our conversation.
"So here we have a case where not even a real election, just a test
election, but announced as open to all comers to try to hack, Alex
Halderman finds that not one but two teams from national rivals of the
United States, Iran and China, are already trying to probe around inside
it," he warned.
During his testimony, Halderman explained that he didn't "believe" the
Iranian and Chinese "attackers were/ specifically/ targeting the D.C.
voting system," but, he added, "this is a large part of why Internet
voting is so dangerous. The servers are going to face attacks from
powerful adversaries anywhere in the world."
A number of election and computer experts had warned the D.C. BoEE
against going live with their Internet Voting scheme in the days just
prior to the hack. The open tests proceeded nonetheless until
administrators finally discovered the University of Michigan fight song
was playing on web browsers after ballots had been cast.
Even though the system had been violated almost as soon as it had gone
up, "the attack was not detected by the officials for several days,
despite the fact that they were looking for such attacks (having invited
all comers to try) and despite the fact that the attackers left a
'signature' by playing the Michigan Fight song after every vote was
cast!" wrote Jefferson in a blog item at Verified Voting last week, just
after Halderman publicly revealed in his own blog item that he and his
team had been the "culprits." 

"Let there be no mistake about it," Jefferson wrote, "this is a major
achievement, and supports in every detail the warnings that the security
community have been giving about Internet voting for over a decade now."
"After this there can be no doubt that the burden of proof in the
argument over the security of Internet voting systems has definitely
shifted to those who claim that the systems can be made secure. ... This
successful demonstration of the danger of Internet voting is the real
deal," he said.
*'This isn't a solvable problem'...*
During his testimony last Friday, Halderman, and the others who
testified with him, made the same point as Jefferson, very clearly
arguing that existing computer technology and security safeguards simply
do not allow Internet Voting to be carried out securely at this time.
They testified that it could possibly revisited in the future, but not
for a decade's time.
Unlike banking on the Internet or via ATM, they explained, a process
which is open to oversight before, during, and after by all involved
parties, the secret ballot system used in U.S. elections --- where it's
impossible to verify the accuracy of the "transaction" after it's been
made and the identity of the voter must be kept forever a secret ---
cannot be done safely at this time on the Internet. 

"The scientific consensus is that Internet Voting is just too dangerous
today based on the limits of today's security technology," Halderman
testified. "Indeed, it will probably be decades, if ever, before the
technology is at a level where we can perform voting safely, purely over
the Internet."
Jeremy Epstein, a computer security and voting systems expert working
with Verified Voting who also testified on the same panel with
Halderman, said the history of computer security illustrates the problem
faced in devising a system that is secure enough for the task of
Internet Voting. He testified that he hopes the BoEE takes the right
lesson from what happened during this landmark event.
"What we found in forty years of experience is you can penetrate and
patch, and then you penetrate again and you patch again, and you
penetrate again and you patch again and you penetrate again and you
patch again and it/ never/ ends. If it ended, Microsoft would have
succeeded. We wouldn't all be having to reboot our computer and install
patches once a month for the past ten years. This is not something that
we can just say 'Please, BoEE, fix the problems and then we can do it.'
This/ isn't/ a solvable problem that way."
Indeed, even/ local/, precinct-based computerized voting and vote
counting offers a storied history of disasters and meltdowns (scores of
them documented in thousands of pages over the years here at The BRAD
BLOG), including a number of infamous hacks of both paper-based and
touch-screen e-voting systems, some of which were bullet-pointed in our
initial article on the D.C. Internet Vote hack, in which we had
speculated Halderman was likely behind it. Just weeks earlier, in late
August of this year, Halderman succeeded in implanting Pac-Man onto a
touch-screen voting system made by Sequoia without disturbing the
machines "tamper-evident" seals. And even D.C. elections have had their
own share of precinct-based e-voting disasters, such as their 2008
primary election when thousands of "phantom votes" for write-in
candidates were produced on their paper-based optical-scan voting
systems made by Sequoia Voting Systems.
Epstein lauded the D.C. BoEE for allowing this extraordinary test to
happen. An open invitation of this type, inviting hackers to try and
access an electronic voting system in the U.S., has never been done
before. He
"saluted" the Council on their "experiment."
"For the first time, what computer scientists have been warning could
happen in an election, we know that, in fact, it/ really/ could happen.
It isn't just a theoretical problem. It's a/ practical/ problem. So
nobody has ever assessed an Internet Voting election before this one. So
that's why it's wonderful what you did. And now we've learned it. So
let's move on and come back in ten years."
"Let me ask you this, from a legislative perspective," Cheh asked of
each of the panelists as the hearing was winding down, "should the
Council, by legislation, just shut this down?"
The answer from each one of those testifying was an unambiguous "Yes." 

/** * **/ 
* Transcript of Alex Halderman's complete BoEE testimony is posted here.
* Video of Halderman's testimony, as captured and posted by Princeton
Research Fellow Joseph Hall can be downloaded at the following links
[/Ed note: If time allows, we will try to edit the key portions of the
testimony down to a size that can be uploaded to YouTube, as both of the
files above are quite large./]...
High-res MOV(318mb) | Low-res MP4 (153mb)
* Brad's Interview (audio and text transcript) with David Jefferson is
posted here. 

Dear "Middle Class" Americans: Most Of You Are Debt Serfs With Zero Assets

Surveys show that Americans wildly underestimate the concentration of wealth in America. This disconnect between perception and reality shows the power of propaganda.

Americans have been trained to believe that membership in the "middle class" is their birthright if they "work hard" in the status quo. What income defines "middle class" is a function of locale and prevailing wages/costs ($100,000 in Manhattan or San Francisco isn't much because costs are so high), but in terms of purchasing power we can probably agree that middle class membership includes:
1. reliable private transport
2. a home with meaningful equity
3. healthcare insurance/coverage
4. a retirement fund of some sort
5. a college education/higher education or training
How many people "own" all of the above minimum standards has been drastically reduced by various factors.
Another measure of "middle class" is even simpler: a middle class household owns some wealth. It could be a retirement fund, a free-and-clear home, a business, income property or gold/cash/investments.
By that measure, the middle class comprises at best 20% of the populace.
The estimable Barry Ritholtz of the Big Picture blog recently published a chart which depicts the actual distribution of wealth in America and the perceived distribution of wealth--what people estimate based on their knowledge.
Estimates of Wealth Distribution Are Widely Wrong.

I have reprinted this chart of financial wealth (the SUV, boat, barcalounger, etc. are not counted as liquid assets/financial wealth) from time to time:


The first chart depicts total wealth, which includes depreciating assets that are illiquid (SUVs, boats, furniture, etc.) and typically overvalued. In terms of financial wealth, the top 20% own fully 93% of all assets.

If we characterize the top 20% as "wealthy," then the next 20% would be the "upper middle class" (60% -80%) and the third quintile (60% - 40%) would be "middle class." In terms of financial wealth, the Great Middle Class owns a mere 6% of total assets.
The bottom 40% (the "working class" and "the poor") own less than 1%.
Clearly, Americans are holding a fantasy-view of their piece of the American Dream/middle-class membership. A number of people I know consider themselves middle-class based on their substantial income--but they own very few financial/liquid assets, and if they lose their jobs then their health coverage vanishes.
The net value of their vehicle(s) and other possessions is also near-zero in terms of net (value minus outstanding loan balance) worth on the open market.
Their "membership" in the middle class is tenuously based on perceived membership gained by consumer activities such as shopping at Whole Paycheck (Whole Foods), the brand of car they drive (net value, near-zero) and other status symbols they feel reflect their "values" and "membership" in the middle class.
Sadly, it's all delusory. Debt-serfdom and zero assets does not equate to middle class. When "membership" in the middle class ceases to mean owning meaningful wealth, it is no longer a middle class. It is instead a superficial consumption pattern of "aspirants" to what was once a true middle class.
When the average "middle class" American looks at this chart, they probably reckon this enormous rise in net wealth includes them. But as we have seen above, it doesn't; their "ownership" of this vastly increased wealth is a meager 6%. In other words, the vast majority of this increase flowed to the top 20%.

We can see the real situation in this chart: most of the increases in income went to the top slice ("the wealthy"):

I am not passing judgment here on whether this distribution is "good" or "bad" or if it is the result of global wage arbitrage or other factors. What I am saying is the disconnect between the nation's highly concentrated wealth and Americans' perception of wealth distribution reveals the power of propaganda.
The status quo's organs of influence (the mainstream media, status quo education, Central State, etc.) have very effectively "sold" the American public on their "membership" in an "ownership" society comprised of a Great Middle Class.
All of that is very clearly propaganda. The reality is the middle class owns almost none of the financial wealth of the nation, and thus its resilience in the face of economic adversity is as wafer-thin as its real financial wealth.
I think the evidence that people are catching on to this reality is growing.
For instance, here is insider/media personality Peggy Noonan's take on what might be characterized as "middle class" angst or anger:
Revolt of the Accountants.

For those who wonder why so many people have come to hate, or let me change it to profoundly dislike, "the elites," especially the political elite, here is one reason: It is because they have armies of accountants to do this work for them. Those in power institute the regulations and rules, and then hire people to protect them from the burdens and demands of their legislation. There is no congressman passing tax law who doesn't have staffers in his office taking care of his own financial life and who will not, when he moves down the street into the lobbying firm, have an army of accountants to protect him there.

Status quo Republican water-carrier Noonan misses the point, of course, which is thatthe Power Elites' army of apparatchiks and toadies is merely a reflection of this extreme concentration of wealth and power.
If we examine the top 20%, we find the top 1% hold most of the financial wealth of that group, and if we examine the top 1%, then we find the top 1/10th of 1% own most of the wealth of the top 1%.
Noonan sees the symptom--a well-paid army of toadies protecting the Elites' wealth and power-- and ignores the disease: the high concentration of financial (real) wealth. The one thing she does "get," however, is the rising hatred of the debt-serfs for the Power Elites.
Perhaps we in the U.S. will experience our own "Cultural Revoluton" in the years ahead.

 Now check out the 25 most unequal cities in America >

Join the conversation about this story »


A Detailed Look At Global Wealth Distribution

The Cost of Telling the Truth in the United States

The cost of telling the truth in the United States 
October 6th, 2010, Author: Patriot
Kourosh Ziabari

“Rick Sanchez is no longer with the company. We thank Rick for his years of service and we wish him well.” This frosty statement was the conclusion of Rick Sanchez’s 6-year-long career with the United States’ cable news network, CNN.

The award-winning Sanchez who had served in CNN’s Spanish service and covered the September 11 attacks for the network was fired on October 1 after granting an interview to the Sirius XM’s radio show “Stand Up With Pete Dominick” in which he implied that the Jews are dominating the mass media in the United States and just pretend to be a downtrodden, subjugated minority.

Sanchez criticized CNN’s Jewish “Daily Show” comedian Jon Stewart for directing offensive jokes at him in his nightly programs and called him a “bigot”. Answering a statement by Pete Dominick that Stewart belonged to a Jewish minority, Sanchez said: “Yeah, very powerless people. [laughs] He’s such a minority. I mean, you know, please. What—are you kidding? I’m telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart. And to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish, are an oppressed minority?”

The skirmish between the two renowned media personalities became public when Stewart scoffed at Sanchez who had said in his “Rick’s List” show that he had received a Tweeter message from the House Republican leader John Boehner. Stewart called it a case of “send a twit a tweet”. Sanchez responded by telling Pete Dominick that Stewart couldn’t tolerate the media achievements of somebody who is of an ethnic minority: “He’s upset that someone of my ilk is almost at his level.”

Rick Sanchez explained that he grew up in a poor family whose members, including his father and mother, were subject to prejudice and oppression due to their Hispanic ethnicity. He complained that someone with a sumptuous background such as Jon Stewart can’t relate to what he has experienced during his life.

“I can’t see someone not getting a job these days because they’re Jewish,” he said.

And Sanchez is right. The most prominent media conglomerates of the United States are being run by influential Jews. Turner Broadcasting System’s chairman and CEO Philip I. Kent is a Jew, TimeWarner’s CEO Jeffrey Bewkes is a Jew, FOX NewsCorp’s CEO Peter Chernin is a Jew, Chairman of the Board of the National Amusements theater chain Sumner Redstone is a Jew, Paramount CEO’s Brad Grey is a Jew, Walt Disney/ABC’s CEO Robert Iger is a Jew, CBS’s CEO Leslie Moonves is Jew and NBC Universal’s CEO Jeff Zucker is a Jew.

By firing the Cuban-American news anchor and host, CNN demonstrated that those who assert that the United States is a “beacon of freedom” just make baseless and unfounded claims.

Although the circle of Zionist journalists began to applaud CNN for firing Sanchez immediately after the statement of his expulsion was released, the public opinion is well aware of the veracity of what Sanchez tried to imply. The mainstream media which are linked to the multinational corporations are being controlled by a troupe of well-off propagandists who advocate the interests of the state of Israel in the United States and raise funds to holdup AIPAC and other Zionist lobbies.

Over the past decades, pro-Israel billionaires and influential Jews made serious attempts to take over the media companies of the United States and promote their interests this way. In April 2007, a Chicago billionaire, Sam Zell bought the Tribune Company which is America’s third largest newspaper chain and includes the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and 23 TV stations. Zell is a major contributor to AIPAC.

There are several such instances which show that the media in the United States have simply lost their independence and succumbed to the Zionist lobbies. Whoever tries to cross the red line by touching on this issue will be silenced, even at the cost of switching off the beacon of freedom!


Related: 'You cannot criticize Israel in this country and survive'Helen Thomas tells radio station

(Somewhat) related: 

Screen Time Linked to Psychological Problems in Children

Military still embedding active-duty PSYOPS troops at local TV stations

The After-the-Fed Solutions Debate Begins: Greenbackers Vs Goldbugs

By Eric Blair
Activist Post - Tuesday, October 12, 2010

The battle to expose the Federal Reserve has been long and arduous. It finally appears that after nearly 100 years of absolute economic control and near complete debasement of the dollar, the Fed's reign may be coming to an end.  Its eventual demise is certain according to Black Swan author Nassim Taleb and others.  With all the recent mainstream talk and speculation about the end of the Fed, it is time to debate solutions for the future of America's currency.  This may indeed be the most important discussion of our lifetime.

First, we must be aware that the Federal Reserve along with other foreign private central banks and the IMF have long had plans for a global currency.  This is not conspiracy theory mumbo-jumbo anymore, but rather cold hard fact.  Lew Rockwell wrote an excellent article summarizing the IMF's push for a global currency -- the Bancor.  The recent international currency war may be the beginning of creating a false demand for something more stable for international trade.  As all major currencies race to the bottom, the private banking cartel will surely offer their global solution.  We know what their solution will be -- continued debt slavery with more centralized control -- but what will the people's solution be?

There seems to be another currency war brewing right here in America.  The debate between the two most popular proposed solutions of adopting the Greenback or theGold Standard has just officially begun. Last week, Gary North, a Goldbug and author of Honest Money, wrote a scathing attack of Web of Debt author Ellen Brown, a Greenbacker.  He took select samples from her book in an attempt to tie her public bank solution to Hitler, but failed to address the "interest-free" philosophy of her policy. Despite that, he does manage to frame the Goldbug's argument against the Greenback, or public banking, as inferior:
Brown is a Greenbacker. She is open about this. Most people have never heard of Greenbackism. It has been a fringe movement in American political life ever since the 1860s. The Greenback Party in the 1870s was the first American political party to come out in favor of a pure fiat money economy, a paper money system controlled by Congress with currency irredeemable in gold coins or silver coins.
The Greenbackers are committed to paper money. They are opposed to any form of gold standard. They are opposed to fractional reserve banking. They are opposed to central banking, unless the central bank is 100% owned and controlled by Congress.
A rebuttal piece was then written by Interest-Free Currency activist Anthony Michgel in defense of Brown and the Greenbacker's where he goes after North and claims interest-bearing gold can never work:
What it is all about is the Goldbug people versus the Interest Free Money crowd. It is one of the most crucial debates around. As I have mentioned before both on this site and elsewhere, Gold is the preferred currency of the Banking Fraternity and they plan to reinstate it in their world currency, which is coming closer every day....
Because North has managed to do something profoundly dishonest and unwise. In this enormous article of his he actually does not mention the problem of interest at all.
This is so totally unfair to Brown’s work, because this is surely one of the most important aspects of her narrative....
Interest free money, either printed debt free by the Government or through interest free credit either by private organizations or again by the State, is simple, proven technology and centuries old.
Yes, many systems have been abused resulting in inflation.
No, interest bearing Gold is definitely not an acceptable solution.
Passions already seem to be running high in the opening round of this most critical debate that will surely shape the future of our economy and society.  Notably, both sides of this argument are in agreement that the Fed is a corrupt organization that must be ended.  North acknowledged that Ron Paul and Ellen Brown share this common ground, but says the Tea Party movement (liberty movement) has "no economic understanding" and "They cannot distinguish Ron Paul's opposition to the FED, based on the gold coin standard, from Ellen Brown's opposition, based on a fiat money standard. They are intellectually defenseless."

It seems a bit arrogant of North to suggest the liberty movement is confused about why Ron Paul and Ellen Brown support ending the Fed, and it's also disingenuous to say that one side of the growing movement is "intellectually defenseless" because of disagreements about the solution. Especially when Brown's public banking movement appears to be immediately workable and is gaining ground with the first pragmatic step being to establishing state banks -- as proven in North Dakota -- who has a state-owned bank and boasts the lowest unemployment and the only budget surplus of the United States.
The public banking movement opposes the Federal Reserve, like Paul, because it is unconstitutional, but also for a variety of other intellectually defensible positions, starting with the fact that they are a private monopoly who care not for Americans or the country.  There are very real concerns that this group of banksters may maintain dominance of a gold-based system since they already have possession of most of the world's gold -- including much of the mining as well. Furthermore, if they can continue to create money on a fractional basis -- even if backed partially by gold -- and can continue to charge and determine interest, they'll still possess the power enslave-by-debt people, industry, and entire nations.  Finally, the private profit motive of international banksters, driven by interest, has historically proven to encourage wars as evidenced by their funding of both sides of all wars.  This would also seem to give them dubious power to determine the outcome of those wars.

In turn, it's a given that the liberty movement supports the restoration of the Constitution which clearly states that the coinage of money shall be in gold and that only the elected Congress is authorized to issue and control it. However, the Constitution says nothing of allowing a fractional reserve gold standard run by private bankers which is promoted by some Goldbugs. Furthermore, some Constitutionalists still maintain the strange notion that the government should belong to the people.  Therefore, if we were able to restore the Constitutional principle for a government of, by and for the people, it would seem that interest-free currency issued and controlled by our elected government would be considered more constitutional than the current system.

It is true that gold has been valued in society for thousands of years and it will likely continue to maintain its terrific investment value for the foreseeable future. Gold clearly has a physical value derived from the incredible energy it requires to mine and refine it.  But gold, as a limited resource, is interest bearing and can be hoarded by those with the wherewithal to do so.  This would seem to suggest that gold could then be manipulated by the few who control vast sums of it.  And that sounds a lot like the economic tyranny we face today with the private Fed.

North attacks Greenbackers because they "are opposed to central banking, unless the central bank is 100% owned and controlled by Congress" as if to say, how dare the people demand ownership of their own currency.  It shows a blinding distrust for Constitutional government and obvious preference for private banking interests.  Goldbugs seem caught up on the fact that a unit of exchange must have intrinsic value, either backed by gold or as an instrument of debt, or both. They feel so strongly that fiat currencies are utterly unreliable, but spend little time discussing the motive behind the interest and supply manipulators. Additionally, it is unfair to suggest that fiat currencies are not redeemable in gold as any widely acceptable unit of exchange can be traded for gold.  Currently, one can buy an ounce of bullion for around 1400 Fed-deflated U.S. fiat Dollars.

I don't want people to get the wrong impression.  I believe gold is a great investment, especially in these turbulent times.  And I also believe gold has a place in securing America's currency. However, I worry that those who hold dear that a currency must be backed partially by gold to have legitimacy are susceptible to supporting a global currency if it includes gold as part of its currency basket.  Perhaps I'm naive, but I'm not sure why a combination of  the two solutions is not feasible, with interest-free paper Greenbacks redeemable in gold or silver, while also producing silver and gold coins for circulation -- all tightly controlled by Congress, not a private organization, as per the Constitution.  After all, Fort Knox is supposed to be the people's gold, right?

Let the debate begin.  Tell us what you think should be the best system to replace the Fed.  

Eurocracy: how long the Irish are going to tolerate this?

From The Daily Bell, Tuesday, October 12, 2010 – by  Staff Report

The Governor of the Central Bank, Dr. Patrick Honohan, said that Irish people will have to pay more tax to help fill the gap in the public finances. "On the tax situation, I fully agree with [EU economics commissioner] Olli Rehn," Dr. Honohan told an audience of bankers at the International Institute of Finance in Washington. He had just explained that the tax-to-GDP ratio in Ireland must increase. "There is no credible way of correcting the public finances that doesn't require a higher tax ratio," he said. However, he believed people jumped too quickly to the conclusion that Mr. Rehn advocates higher corporate tax in Ireland. "I think such a policy is very far from being present," Dr. Honohan said. "The Government have made their position on corporation profits tax very clear. – Irish Times

Dominant Social Theme: The Irish will pay and pay. It's good for them.

Free-Market Analysis: We have been arguing for a while that austerity is a promotion and that the real idea behind it is to ensure the EU doesn't go under as a regional entity and also, just as important, that the European middle-classes lose even more ground. Sub dominant social theme: "You better concentrate on paying taxes while we work at perfecting society here in Brussels."

While we've been suspicious of austerity for a while as an elite promotion, Dr. Patrick Honohan's recent statements (see article excerpt above) seem to confirm it. They are certainly predictable. The central banker is concerned about the opinion of his peers when it comes to Irish solvency. "There is no credible way of correcting the public finances that doesn't require a higher tax ratio," he intones. Not under current circumstances, anyway.

Well how about this? Leave the EU and deregulate where possible. After that disband the government except for a minimal core dealing with poverty issues. Begin the transition to gold backed money and shut down the central bank. Devalue as part of the process. In about a month, Ireland would be back on its feet, figuratively speaking, we estimate. Even if it didn't work, you'd have half of Brussels camping out in Dublin with "new ideas" to get Ireland off the hook. But that's not what is going to happen if the Honorable Honohan has his way. There's nothing to do but raise taxes. Can't default after all. The banking community would be most disgruntled.

The Economist, predictably, stands behind Honohan. The magazine has published a gloomy assessment of Ireland that comes to the same conclusions. What a coincidence! The moment is critical, the magazine intones. (So many EU crises that we lose track!) Here's how the article begins:
How now Brian Cowen? ... Ireland's prime minister struggles to reassure investors and voters ... It is "a critical moment", says Garret FitzGerald, a former Irish prime minister. As the Irish people brace themselves for even more fiscal austerity, the challenge for the political class, Mr. FitzGerald suggests, is to put country before party so as to ensure that Ireland avoids Greece's fate—a loss of economic sovereignty and a euro-zone bail-out. To do this Brian Cowen, the prime minister, must take some more tough decisions, and soon ... Olli Rehn, the EU's economics commissioner, has said that they must include sector-specific adjustment measures. By January, when the government is due to resume borrowing, Mr. Cowen needs to have done enough to convince bond investors that there is a credible plan in place to bring the budget deficit down to 3% of GDP by 2014.

We really wonder how long the Irish are going to tolerate this. The Economist tells us that household wealth has dropped by a third and that the real-estate and building sector has virtually dried up. Honohan's take: "During the property boom, 13 per cent of the Irish work force was involved in construction, twice the percentage before the boom. 'Now, of course, it has collapsed,' Dr. Honohan said. 'The banks just imported funds on a large, large scale.'"

When exactly will the Irish realize they've been rolled? The Irish voted twice on the Lisbon treaty, defeating it the first time by a margin of 53.4 per cent to 46.6 percent before finally ratifying it – and giving the EU nation-like powers. The second time around the pressure must have been intense, but even as the Irish voted their economy was falling down about their ears. The idea was that the EU would help Ireland cushion the economic blows. Did that really happen?
Not from what we can tell. Ireland has been held up approvingly by EU pooh-bahs as a country that has not shirked to drink its medicine. The Irish, the story goes, have realized that their own profligacy caused the current predicament and each Irishman and lass is now dedicated to belt-tightening until the banks are paid off and the economy is stabilized.

Does this perspective have some truth to it? Our take is that the EU elites poured money into the PIGS to smooth the way toward a more perfect union. It's almost uncanny, in fact, how quickly EU economies collapsed once the Lisbon Treaty was finally ratified. It's what the Greeks are upset about, we imagine, and the Spanish as well. If we are correct on this point, there are plenty of Europeans who feel a bit like they are victims of a bait-and-switch. They gave up sovereignty for financial security and ended up with neither.
Austerity, as it has been described, is mostly focused on a reduction of the public sector. But from our point of view it is a middle-class killer, generally. 

The whole EU experiment is about increasing elite control over the European population. And the best way to do it is via further impoverishment and increased regulation, both of which the EU is providing aplenty. The power elite seeks closer world governance and the pesky EU countries with their defiant national histories stood in the way of global consolidation. The stakes, in fact, are very high for investors as well as EU citizens, and certainly it is possible that the Eurocrats at the behest of their elite bosses will pull it off.

Conclusion: On the other hand, continually worsening conditions and the truth-telling of the Internet may finally undermine the austerity promotion. Certainly, we will be surprised if the austerity project moves ahead smoothly either in Ireland or elsewhere. We expect considerable bumps in the road as it becomes clearer what exactly "austerity" entails and for whom. In this regard, Honohan has been most enlightening.