Monday, October 31, 2011

Halloween: A Magnificent American Festival

Ryan McMaken writes at LewRockwell:

But what a magnificent American festival it is. The smell of candles burning inside pumpkins, the sound of crunching leaves beneath our feet, and the chance to dress up and beg for free candy are all a recipe for childhood memories that easily rival the fun of even Christmas.

It's the trick-or-treating that the Brits seem to hate the most, but in America, the act of going door to door to beg for treats is as American as candied apples and pumpkin pie. Indeed, going door to door for treats was once considered the thing to do on numerous holidays. Thanksgiving especially was once considered a day for treat-hunting throughout the neighborhood, and for impromptu and raucous parades of strangely dressed citizens looking for a fun time.

Over time, these door-to-door parades were quashed by the guardians of the respectable middle classes who thought such activities too working-class and too un-bourgeois to be tolerated. Thus, they invented the Thanksgiving turkey dinner and the Thanksgiving football game rituals out of nothing in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in an attempt to replace the more spontaneous celebrations of the common folk.

But Thanksgiving was a cynical creation of government, and Halloween has never been a government-sanctioned holiday, so it is all the more encouraging that trick-or-treating thankfully survives in spite of all the efforts of fear-mongering suburbanites and crazed religious devil-fighters who do their best to ruin the holiday every year.

And what a testament to the inherent goodness of humankind that trick-or-treating survives. Every year, millions of Americans go out and drop quite a bit of money on treats for children, and then give it away for free. And, in all these years of trick-or-treating there are no documented cases of poisonings of children by strangers. Yes, some sick people have poisoned the Halloween candy of their own children, but the risk of being poisoned by some nut in your neighborhood is just about zero.

In spite of what the guardians of decency may have us believe, most people simply aren't interested in poisoning children. Instead, we Americans take great joy in handing out free stuff to people who ring our doorbells and demand candy.

This has been a favorite essay of mine since I first read it in 2009. Read the rest at LewRockwell.com. Happy Halloween everyone!


Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

Trick or Treat? (9-9-9 or Ron Paul's budget?)

Nicely put, Jack Hunter! 9-9-9 is just a trick, but Ron Paul's plan to Restore America by eliminating $1 trillion from the federal budget in the first year of his presidency and balancing the budget by year three... that would put America back on the path to freedom and prosperity. What a treat!


Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

Ron Paul Pumpkin Carving

Okay this is a pretty awesome video of someone carving a pumpkin into an excellent rendering of Ron Paul's face for Halloween. Hat tip: Lew Rockwell.




Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

"Banksta" Merch: T-shirts and Bumper Stickers

"Damn it feels good to be a banksta!"t-shirts, bumper stickers, and other merchandise, because these days, bankstas have it pretty good: make poor business decisions, get rewarded with a heap of taxpayer bailouts and loans.






Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

Bernie Madoff Ponzi Scheme Back in the Spotlight as Family Gives First Interview

Bernie Madoff's family speaks out for first time in new book and 60 Minutes and Today Show interviews:

The Atlantic Wire reports that in these interviews, Ruth Madoff, wife to Bernie Madoff, says she didn't know what a Ponzi scheme was when Bernie Madoff admitted what he had been doing:

Ruth Madoff: He called from the office and said, "I'm coming home with the boys, I have something to talk about." Came in, we went into a room, four of us, and he said, "I have a confession to make. I've been running a Ponzi scheme." He said, "$50 billion dollars."

Andrew Madoff: He said-- "Everything I've been doing is all a big lie." He said-- he said, "The business is-- is a Ponzi scheme, and it-- the firm is completely insolvent. And I'm broke." And then he just started sobbing. And I was-- I-- I was shocked. I-- it was-- I felt like my head exploded. I mean, I-- I don't think if he had told me he was an alien I could've been more surprised. He said that the firm had liabilities of $50 billion dollars. It never occurred to me that his business had anything like that under management. It was-- it was shocking.

The first thing Ruth Madoff reportedly asked her husband after his revelation was "What's a Ponzi scheme?"

Bernie Madoff and the World's Biggest (Private) Scam

In December 2008, Bernie Madoff, a respected businessman and investor, was arrested and charged for committing the largest investment scam perpetrated by a single individual in history, amounting to $50 billion. Despite being a respected businessman, a former chairman of the NASDAQ, and a prolific philanthropist who helped manage many charities, his name is now synonymous with fraud and theft. He is the most hated man on Wall Street and for years now, he has been the target of a very public flogging by the media. He has become an object of scorn and ridicule- his name and legacy have been permanently stained with dishonor for his scam. What exactly did he do?

What is a Ponzi Scheme?

The scammer promises great returns on an investor's money, but instead of actually investing it and making money off of it, he pays out the returns with money from new investors. When the first round of investors get their fantastic returns, news spreads and attracts a third round of investors and the scammer uses their money to pay off the second round, and the process continues. This is essentially how Bernie Madoff scammed so many people. The scammer can keep it up for a while, but it is ultimately unsustainable because it requires more and more new investors to pay off prior investors. Eventually the scammer has to run with a big chunk of the money. The reason for the failure and arrest of Charles Ponzi (for whom the scheme is named) and Bernie Madoff is that they got too involved in the community and unwilling to grab and run.

The US Government and Federal Reserve Bank- The Real Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History

Sadly, America's political and economic leaders are pulling an even bigger scam of the same kind on the American people. I understand that this is a bold claim, but it is not a conspiracy theory and I am not claiming to have special knowledge that no one else does. I just want to get you to think about what you already know or can easily learn about how America's economy works. It is well known that the government and central bank (the Fed) control the money supply and inflate it by controlling interest rates and printing money. The scam works like this: The first round of investors is convinced to use credit to buy a house they cannot afford as an investment, "because housing prices are always going up." They get their returns with the increased value of their housing, which is caused by the second round of investors buying up homes using the artificially-expanding supply of credit. As news of housing values spreads, a housing boom, or "bubble," is fueled, attracting a third round of investors. Their demand pushes prices up to pay off the second round. And the process continues.

Why It's A Scam

It's just like a Ponzi scheme- in fact, it is one. It's just a little more elaborate. The first round of investors is convinced that it's a great investment because housing prices will rise dramatically, but they only rise so much because a second round of buyers has an artificially high demand for the housing, an artificially high-demand stimulated by an artificially-expanding supply of credit created by our central banking system. Like other Ponzi schemes, it is unsustainable because it depends on more and more investors to buy into it to keep the scheme afloat and pay off earlier investors. Eventually it will crash, or as they say, the bubble will "burst." And that is what we experienced in the credit crunch and housing crisis of 2008- the scheme collapsing because it's unsustainable.

The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions

I am not accusing the government or Fed of trying to scam us and run with our money. They had the best intentions and thought that by expanding the credit supply and stimulating a housing boom, they could fuel major economic prosperity. Like Charles Ponzi and Bernard Madoff, they got fooled by the game and seduced by the possibility of endless, freely flowing wealth. They thought they could manage it, keep it going, and use it for good purposes. Ponzi and Madoff became pillars of their community and got involved with many notable charities, but they hurt a lot of good people, including the charities, when their scams inevitably collapsed. Today their names are reviled and dishonored. Madoff is a truly hated person right now. Why are we Americans so blind that we cannot see this is what our own monetary system has done to us? Why isn't the US government being held to account for its scam and the millions of lives it has damaged?

Take Action

Contact your representative in Congress (feel free to contact everyone else's too!). Use one of these websites to get their contact information (Contacting Congress or USA.gov/contact) and make a quick phone call (it should take less than 5 minutes), saying the following or something similar:

Hello, my name is __________ and I am a constituent of Representative __________, residing in (your zip code).

I am calling about America's economic crisis. I want to urge __________ to make abolishing the Federal Reserve System and returning America to a sound fiscal and monetary policy his/her top priority.


Then if you haven't already, subscribe to this website using the form in the sidebar to the right so you can stay informed about the economy and all the other scams the government and media are running on the American public.

---

This article appeared in The Silver Underground.


Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

FACT: As the "7 billionth baby" is born, remember that overpopulation is not a threat to humanity nor to the global ecosystem

These are exciting times to be alive for sure! Today, humanity has reached an unprecedented milestone at the later stage of a steeply upward-sloping population curve, the birth of the world's seven billionth baby (hat tip: memeorandum), or to be more precise, the first baby to put the total human population at seven billion.

The Daily Caller reports:

'The United Nations estimates that the 7 billionth baby in the world will be born on Monday. The international agency has chosen Manila-born Danica May Camacho as the symbolic milestone baby, as first reported by the UK Guardian.

National Geographic will devote a year long series to mark the occasion, complete with questions like “Are there too many people on the planet?” and “Can we feed seven billion of us?”

Amid panic-laced prompts, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) has called the milestone a victory for mankind, as people are living longer and children are surviving childhood — with the caveat being that the world needs to reinvigorate its push for sustainability.'

To answer National Geographic's second question: Yes! We can feed the world's growing population easily without outstripping the world's resources. Starvation and hunger in the world today are not problems of overpopulation, but nearly always the result of war, corruption, and state central planning.

Furthermore, the human population will not continue to grow at this rate. The U.N. forecasts global population will peak in our lifetimes and actually begin to decline again as growing affluence leads to shrinking birth rates.

The entire alarmist modern narrative about human over-population outstripping the world's resources originated with an English economist named Thomas Malthus. But his observations and arguments simply do not prove that human population will continue to grow exponentially, nor that it will outstrip its food supply.

The following video is an excellent explanation of why, and I highly recommend you watch and share:



Finally, NPR has an excellent, non-alarmist video to help you visualize and understand global human population growth:



Let me say that on this remarkable day in human history, I applaud the U.N. for rejecting alarmist overpopulation fears motivated by the agendas of the eugenicists and environmental regulatory statists. I am more than pleasantly surprised and extremely encouraged by the U.N.'s celebration of human fecundity as a milestone and victory for mankind. It is!




Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Green Party Presidential Candidate Dr. Jill Stein: Annual Public Audit of the Fed is a "No Brainer"

In my role as a columnist at the California Independent Voter Network, I was lucky enough (or I should say, had a cool enough editor score this interview) to conduct a half hour interview by phone this weekend with Dr. Jill Stein, a Green Party candidate for president in 2012 who has been building a lot of momentum toward her party’s nomination in recent weeks, leading to her official announcement last week (video).

The full interview will be published Tuesday morning at CAIVN (and I’ll be sure to link to it here for those of you who are interested), but I couldn’t resist sharing a little sneak peek at what Dr. Stein had to say about monetary policy and the Federal Reserve with you fine readers at the Silver Underground.

Get the sneak peek at the Silver Underground.


Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

Are you listening, Obama??

Mr. President, I thought you were supposed to be the solution to Bush, not an unhinged third term for him! Are you listening, Obama?? Are you paying attention, America?? Democrats???


Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

AFRICOM: Washington's Silent War Across Africa

Oh you didn't know? Libya isn't the only African nation where Washington has committed billions of tax dollars to support dubious groups in foreign civil wars against enemies who pose no conceivable threat to the security of our country.

Read all about Washington's escalating military presence in Africa at AntiWar.com.


Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

They're going to have at least five more debates?

The big news item today is that after suggesting that he might not attend some of the upcoming GOP debates, Rick Perry's campaign has confirmed that he will attend "at least five more" debates. My first thought was: "They're having at least five more debates?" Whew! They're going through debates faster than Newt Gingrich goes through wives. If they keep this up, Mitt Romney's going to run out of positions to switch to. He'll have to start reusing some of his old ones.

Here, I'll save you the trouble and give you a quick summary of what all five (or more) of the debates is going to look like, courtesy of Saturday Night Live:




Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

Saturday, October 29, 2011

82%! Ron Paul Dominates Republican Assemblies Iowa Presidential Straw Poll

CNN reports:

Des Moines, Iowa (CNN) - Ron Paul has won two separate tallies for the National Federation of Republican Assemblies Presidential Straw Poll.

Paul won both the Iowa-voters-only count at the Saturday convention in Des Moines as well as a tally of non-Iowans who participated.

In the Iowa voters result, Paul took 82%. Following him were Herman Cain with 14.7%, Rick Santorum with 1%, Newt Gingrich with 0.9%, Michele Bachmann with 0.5%, Rick Perry with 0.5%, Gary Johnson with 0.2%, with Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman 0%.

I'm telling you: Ron Paul has got some seriously powerful supporters and immense grassroots support on the ground in the Iowa political machine, not to mention a top-notch, well-funded campaign operation that is working like crazy to make this happen. Keep watching Iowa.


Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

A Tale of Two Protests

It's a soldier's private funeral. Standing outside are members of an obnoxious little hate cult from Topeka, Kansas with signs that say "Thank God for Dead Soldiers." The police are out in force, but not to tell the tasteless protesters they should move along. They're out to protect the sign wavers. No one can lay a finger on them.

Now despite disagreeing vehemently with everything the Westboro Baptist Church stands for as well as their method of sharing it with the rest of us, I do believe they have the right to exercise their ugly, hateful speech freely in public places, and I would hate to live in a country where they could be violently intimidated. I'm glad that we can disagree with them, but tolerate them and even use our police to protect them from violence.

But just what can we say about a country whose same police are sent out not to protect Occupy protesters in Oakland, California, but to attack them? What can we say about a country that tolerates the use of its police in this manner? What can we say about a country that strives to the utmost to protect from violence some of its most hatefully intolerant citizens, but actually uses violence against peaceful protesters who dare to point out that the banking establishment is corrupt?

What can we say about such a country when the methods used by the police against these protesters-- including the use of chemical weapons-- are not even allowed in war zones against armed foreign enemies? Yet they're used against unarmed, peacefully protesting civilians in a park in Oakland?

I for one, am not generally sympathetic to the political views that seem to be coming from the majority of the Occupy protesters (though I am encouraged by their opposition to the banking elite), and I will likely spell out the reasons in detail here soon, but regardless of my disagreement with them, I cannot support the kind of police tactics that have been used against them, and I cannot help but notice the glaring inconsistency between our police treatment of them and of the nearly universally reviled Westboro Baptist Church.

Can't we all just get along (without aiming tear gas canisters at the heads of Iraq War veterans)?


Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

Quit Monkeying Around

Read this short cartoon explaining the results of an experiment a group of scientists conducted on monkeys, and you'll see exactly why it's so hard to actually change things that need changing.


Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

Federal Reserve poised to stave off "nightmare" deflation scenario with QE3

This article originally appeared at The Silver Underground.

---

Before we dive in to the latest news and commentary regarding the machinations of the Federal Reserve, let’s take a moment to examine the graph above. While an alarmist mainstream media has popularized Mann’s Hockey Stick in the minds of the chattering classes as a harbinger of global climate catastrophe, one hockey stick that no one seems to be aware of (save for the manic Glenn Beck), yet which spells out the mathematically inevitable collapse of our monetary and economic system, is that of the Adjusted Monetary Base for the U.S. Dollar.

Pictured above, the Adjusted Monetary Base is measured and published by the research arm of the Federal Reserve system, which is based at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. The simple definition of this measure, according to the St. Louis Fed is “the sum of currency (including coin) in circulation.” So the graph you see above shows the amount of money there is out there, the amount of U.S. dollars that exist and circulate in the economy. In the span of a single year, you can see that the growth rate in the supply of money went from steadily upward sloping, but nearly horizontal to suddenly and dramatically vertical, and that in just a few short years the entire supply of money would not only double, but triple!

Now just what can we expect to happen to the value of money if its supply increases so dramatically? According to basic, uncontroversial, textbook economics, we would expect its value to decrease. You would need more and more units of such a vastly increasing money supply to buy the same goods and services. That’s called inflation. I’m sure those of you reading this understand that easily enough, but if anyone you know needs it spelled out in the most simple and easy-to-grasp way, here’s a very short explanation I gave at an End the Fed march in Nashville last year.

But the “geniuses” at the central bank and in the punditry are all worried this week about deflation coming to America, not just deflation, but a “nightmare” deflation scenario. According to Joshua Dennerlein, an economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch in New York: “You run the models and that all points to deflation. Without some kind of monetary policy help you would definitely get deflation.” Gosh. It’s too bad Dennerlein can’t use all of his brilliant predictive powers to help Bank of America to turn a profit without bleeding its customers dry in fees or avoid “stupendously dumb” investment decisions. Or maybe Reuters should consult with more credible experts before reporting on the economic outlook.

Despite the radical, unprecedented number of dollars in circulation, the banking establishment is worried about deflation and considering its stimulus options i.e. the best way to spend and start circulating even more newly-created dollars. Look at the graph above again. Just how could deflation be their worry? Because the Keynesians in charge of economic institutions (and all economic “thought,” it would seem) do not deal in reality. They deal in long-discredited economic models that hold it as an article of faith that inflation and economic downturns do not happen together: Inflation happens during economic growth, while deflation happens during recessions.

Instead of evaluating the value of money on the basis of its supply relative to other goods and services, the policy wonks are looking at the economy and seeing it slow to a crawl, signaling to them and their Keynesian models the imminent “nightmare” of deflation unless the Fed gets involved and creates some more money to throw around. Their method isn’t scientific. It isn’t empirical. It is based in faith, faith in a belief that was discredited by the stagflation of the 1970s. And THAT is your REAL nightmare scenario: stagflation in the United States– rising prices during an economic contraction, fewer jobs, decreasing opportunities, less production, and higher costs of living for the struggling masses.


Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

Thursday, October 27, 2011

China to bail out Europe??

The Financial Times reports:

"China is very likely to contribute to the eurozone’s bail-out fund but the scope of its involvement will depend on European leaders satisfying some key conditions, two senior advisers to the Chinese government have told the Financial Times.

Any Chinese support would depend on contributions from other countries and Beijing must be given strong guarantees on the safety of its investment, according to Li Daokui, an academic member of China’s central bank monetary policy committee, and Yu Yongding, a former member of that committee."

Kinda reminds me of the controversial "Chinese Professor" political ad that went viral last year:




Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

"I employ 150 people. How many do you employ?"

Libertarian commentator Peter Schiff speaks for the 1% at Occupy Wall Street. When he hits his loudest heckler with this question at the end of the video below, you should see her reaction!



Hat tip: Daily Paul


Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Vatican Calls for World Central Bank!

"In a new document, the Vatican decries 'the idolatry of the market,' and calls for a new 'global public authority' and 'central world bank' to govern the world’s finances."

Read my entire coverage at The Silver Underground.


Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

What About Fannie Mae Millionaires?

Hypocrisy with a lot of zeroes on the end of it:

"They are . . . not interested in asking millionaires and billionaires to pay a half a penny on the dollar for the sake of the future of our children and communities."

That was the reaction of Sen. Bob Menendez (D., N.J.) upon the defeat Thursday evening of the bill he sponsored that paired an element of President Obama’s jobs plan — funding for the hiring of some first responders and hundreds of thousands of unionized teachers — with a surtax on those earning more than $1 million.

Yet that same evening, Menendez and his fellow Democrats — as well as self-proclaimed socialist senator Bernie Sanders — voted unanimously to protect subsidies for millionaires’ mortgages. In fact it was another measure Menendez himself sponsored: an amendment to an appropriations bill that will allow Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Administration to back home loans as large as $729,750. With help from a handful of Republicans, his measure cleared the Senate 60–38.

This “conforming loan limit,” the maximum for mortgages Fannie and Freddie can buy and the Federal Housing Administration can insure, had expired at the end of September and reverted to $625,500. But Menendez proclaimed that Congress must raise the limit back to almost three-quarters of a million dollars in order to save the “middle class.” Not raising the limit “makes it harder for middle class homebuyers to get credit when credit is tight,” Menendez said.

But this definition of middle class is pretty, shall we say, rich. As a Wall Street Journal editorial noted, “the average sales price for existing homes in September was $212,700.” And even in Menendez’s home state of New Jersey, the median sale price of homes was only $303,100 in August, as calculated by Zillow.com, a prominent real-estate website. This amount is less than half of the $729,750 limit Menendez and the other Democrats said was necessary to protect the “middle class.”

Read the rest of the article at National Review Online.


Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

Police evict Occupy Oakland protesters with tear gas, smoke bombs, flash grenades

"Occupy Oakland protesters in a tent city at Frank H. Ogawa Plaza woke up with a start early Tuesday morning as hundreds of Oakland police surrounded the encampment, dressed in riot gear, and used tear gas, rubber bullets, and flash grenades to forcibly evict the hundreds of protesters there.

Protesters report that there were at least 500 police and that many of them came from departments of neighboring areas. The police used loudspeakers to warn the protesters that chemical agents would be used to disperse them if they did not leave the area immediately. Following the warnings, police moved in on the camp in full riot gear to disperse the protesters by force."



Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Ron Paul 2012 Campaign Gets Aggressive

"When he first ran for the Republican Party's presidential nomination in 2008, Texas Congressman Ron Paul didn't expect his campaign to go very far. He was hoping to use the national platform of a presidential bid to share some of his libertarian ideas about the best way to reform government, but he was shocked to discover just how popular those ideas were."



Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

Monday, October 24, 2011

The Real Reason Washington Went to War Against Gaddafi in Libya

Note: this article first appeared at The Silver Underground. Please read it there and share their version to help me reach my incentive bonus! Thanks, --Wes

---

Leaning back against the cushions amid the billowing smoke of a dimly lit shisha lounge in the lavish 16th Arrondissement of Paris, I listened attentively to my new friend, a Moroccan in his late twenties, who like so many other North Africans, had come to France to make a better life for himself. Though young, he was a small business owner who worked long hours to fund his passion for world travel when off the clock. It was early 2011 and the “Arab Spring” was sweeping through the Middle East and North Africa. During my six week stay in Paris, my most urgent interest was in spending as much time with North African immigrants as possible, to learn about their culture, their politics, and their thoughts on the upheaval happening in the lands they called home.

As the conversation turned to NATO’s aggressive air war against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya, my Muslim friend pulled an iPhone out of his jean pocket and browsed Google for an image of French President Nicolas Sarkozy shaking hands with Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi as recently as 2008. “See this?” he intoned in fluent English with a thick French accent, “If you look at it from a distance,” he held the iPhone back, “you might think they are friends.” Then he held the image just inches from my face, “But if you look close, you can see Sarkozy is not comfortable. He is not giving a good handshake. He is standing away from Gaddafi a little. And look at his eyes. He knows. He knows what the West is going to do to Gaddafi.”

It might all certainly seem puzzling to the casual observer. Gaddafi was warmly welcomed into the world community in 2003 after announcing an end to his “weapons of mass destruction” programs. George W. Bush called Gaddafi “an important ally in the war against terrorism,” and the U.K.’s Tony Blair echoed these same sentiments. The U.S. and Gaddafi maintained close relations ever since, often using Libya as a destination point for the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program to “interrogate” terror suspects off the record and offshore in third world countries (a program that the Obama Administration has publicly admitted to continuing after taking the reigns from Bush and company).

So why the sudden regime change in Libya? Was my friend in Paris right? Had the governments in Paris, London, and Washington been planning this for some time already? The answer is likely yes, and the reasons are not hard to divine. Note, to begin with, the difference in Western governments’ response to Libya and their response to other protest movements of the Arab Spring. While protesters were shot and beaten in the streets of Egypt and Tunisia (and Iran two years earlier, during Mousavi’s Green Revolution), NATO governments sat by and watched. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even counseled the peaceful protesters in Egypt to remain calm and nonviolent. Then when an armed rebellion– unlike the peaceful protests elsewhere– broke out in Libya, the Western media and political establishment waxed indignant about the violence of Gaddafi’s regime, proclaiming that he “had to go.”

The glaring inconsistency gives lie to the claims of “humanitarianism” and NATO’s alleged desire to protect civilians in Libya. Likewise does the fact that NATO forces did not merely enforce no-fly zones and protect civilians. They quite clearly and actively undertook most of the heavy fighting for Gaddafi’s opponents, bombing strategic targets from the sky using information reported by French and English forces on the ground. The successful overthrow of Gaddafi would not have been possible without NATO’s air war. This was an aggressive intervention and regime change operation, not a humanitarian mission to protect civilians. That much is certainly clear. But why?

Follow the money. It goes so much deeper than fighting over oil interests in the Middle East, though that is a big part of it. It is actually about protecting the supremacy and hegemony of the U.S. fiat dollar. In the years and months leading up to the NATO intervention in Libya, Muammar Gaddafi was urging African nations to join together and begin trading in a currency other than the world’s reserve currency (the U.S. dollar), and move to use a gold-backed African “dinar” instead. It is no coincidence that sanctions and a full invasion of Iraq– also once a strong U.S. ally in the Middle East– occurred after Saddam Hussein announced plans to trade oil in Euros instead of dollars.

The power to print the world’s money is an enormous power. It allows the printers to use that money first for the resources they want to buy and the investments they want to make. Then once that money circulates and devalues the rest of the currency, everyone else gets to spend it. That power is currently the U.S. government’s last and only resort to sustain present out-of-control spending levels. That power is the only reason why food and gasoline prices have not risen as dramatically in America as they have elsewhere in the world. Once world governments stop trading in dollars and settle on some other kind of money for international commerce, the dollar’s collapse will be dramatic and final. The U.S. economy will take a catastrophic hit and its federal government will finally have no means to finance its enormous welfare state, warfare state, and regulatory state. It will finally have to deal with the reality that it is broke.

And that is why it is so crucial for the government in Washington and its client governments in London and Paris to immediately remove any world leader who speaks of trading in anything other than the dollar, putting a giant crack in the hegemony of the dollar as the world’s money. That is the real reason why NATO, led by Washington, went to war in Libya.

And PS: If you want to hear something that should make your hair stand on end after reading the above, note how as early as March, in the middle of the fighting, before the rebels in Libya had any idea (or had they?) of the outcome of their uprising, they actually created a central bank and designated a new central fiat currency for the new regime they were fighting to create. If that doesn’t reek of Western influence and advanced planning, if that doesn’t signal the real reason for the regime change in Libya, then all my powers of deduction are in vain:

Asia Times Online - Libya all about oil, or central banking?

‘Several writers have noted the odd fact that the Libyan rebels took time out from their rebellion in March to create their own central bank – this before they even had a government. Robert Wenzel wrote in the Economic Policy Journal:
“I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising. This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences.”
Alex Newman wrote in the New American:
In a statement released last week, the rebels reported on the results of a meeting held on March 19. Among other things, the supposed rag-tag revolutionaries announced the “[d]esignation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”
Newman quoted CNBC senior editor John Carney, who asked, “Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.”'


Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

[][][] [][][][]'s Moneybomb Closes in on $2M

Here's a screen shot of the total money raised today for the Black This Out moneybomb from [][][][][][][]2012.com at a little after 9:30pm Eastern. Somebody's having a good day!


Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

My Initial Post GOP Debate Thoughts

Romney won that debate. Perry's implosion is complete. Cain's rising star might just fall after the first 10mins of every other candidate making his 9-9-9 plan look as stupid as it really is. I was disturbed by Bachmann's super intense "mom gaze" part. Gingrich just likes the attention. Santorum wasted Gary Johnson's spot. And [][][] [][][][] was the only one up there who deserves your vote.


Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

Marijuana Milestone: California Medical Association and record 50% of Americans say legalize it!

These are two MAJOR developments in the fight to end marijuana prohibition:

"Even as it dismissed marijuana as having questionable medical value, the California Medical Association adopted a position urging the legalization of marijuana at its recent annual meeting. Representing over 35,000 physicians throughout California, this is the first statewide medical association to endorse the legalization of marijuana, a major milestone for opponents of marijuana prohibition."

And...

"While the federal government steps up its aggressive prosecution of the medicinal marijuana industry in California, the CMA's new position also comes at a time when more Americans than ever believe that marijuana should be legalized. According to Gallup's most recent poll, published Monday, 50% of respondents say that marijuana should be legalized, the largest ever percentage since Gallup started asking the question in 1969:"



Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page

Mitt RINO's RomneyCare Legacy

Over at the Left Coast Rebel blog, guest blogger Right Klik has compiled a truly revealing and thorough list of links to excellent information about the absolutely horrendous results of Mitt Romney's signature legislation as governor of Massachusetts-- "RomneyCare," a bill that socialized the state's medical industry and formed the model for Barack Obama's overhaul of the entire country's health care.

Among the facts that RightKlik provides:


And there's so much more!

Someone please explain to me how this guy is a top contender for the Republican Party's nomination instead of kicked out of the party to join the Democratic Party where he'd be more at home? Either a lot of Republicans have lost their freaking minds or I have. Oh yeah, and how is Romney a top contender for the GOP's nomination with a record like this, but Ron Paul's "too liberal" or "too extreme" to support?


Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page