Saturday, September 15, 2012

Formula for a New QE That Will Work!

The Federal Reserve

The Fed announced another round of quantitative easing and reiterated that it plans on keeping interest rates near zero for at least another year and a half.  

The Bernanke
Since QE hasn’t worked all that well in the past, why not try something different this time around. My idea makes a lot more sense. Instead of the Fed’s plan of buying 40 billion a month in treasury bonds through Goldman Sacs, (who by the way makes a pretty penny on each transaction) try something new and original. History shows trickle down doesn’t work.  Let’s try trickle up instead.

Break the 40 billion per month into $20,000 increments. Have an old fashioned draft style lottery using the IRS database for families or individuals earning less than $50,000 per year. Add in to this pool those receiving retirement social security of less than $50,000 per year.  Don’t worry if a name is in the pot twice (the banks are double dipping taking money from the Fed and screwing the customer at the same time with higher fees). From this pool, draw two million social security numbers and send out the checks, make them tax free---hey we’re redistributing the wealth here, and want the same tax breaks as the corporations and big banks get.  There will be two million winners each month instead of just a handful of banks and corporations.

Though it’s not as much money, the odds are better than winning the Publisher’s Clearinghouse Sweepstakes!

This will boost the economy several different ways. Some of these people may spend the money to pay off bills, reducing the debt of the masses. Some may even pay off their mortgage or catch up on their house payments; thus, helping the banking sector. Some will buy a new car. Some may just go shopping at the mall. Both of these options boost manufacturing. And maybe even some people will use their $20,000 windfall to start a new small business, creating jobs and putting more people to work!

All Fed has to do is print checks and mail them out (bolstering the U.S. Postal Service) or electronically deposit winnings to an account (Not as good for the Postal Service).

  • This idea will give people real hope they can believe in. 
  • It might even get more people to file with the IRS so they have a chance to win.
  • Two million winners a month is nothing to sneeze at. 

That would be twenty-four million people in a year, about a quarter of the 100 million households in the U.S.

This idea beats the heck out of just continuing to give the banks and Wall Street handouts, hoping the money will trickle down— this way the little guy at least has a chance. And let’s admit--- it makes as much sense as repeatedly doing the same thing over and over again with failed results.  And don’t forget another great advantage---- there is no cost for renting a helicopter.

Okay, go ahead and withhold 5% for taxes. That should cover processing, envelope, a paper check and the postage. We do want to make sure this idea doesn’t cost the taxpayer any money.

Friday, July 20, 2012

Ron Paul, The Constitution, and a Full Audit of The Federal Reserve Bank

A few facts and a little history first:

A conspiracy theory is an idea that a conspiracy exists without evidence supporting the theory.  A conspiracy is no longer a theory when the evidence proves the conspiracy.

Fact: The Federal Reserve Bank is not a part of the U.S. Government.  It is a privately owned bank. At one time this fact was said to be a rumor and it was considered a conspiracy theory. When the truth was revealed, we found that even the choice of its official sounding name was an intentional effort to hide its privately owned bank status.  Since the Federal Reserve Bank’s formation in 1913, its success was only possible if it could keep its purpose secret. In fact, history proves information about The Federal Reserve Bank was deliberately suppressed.

A book, written by Eustace Mullins in 1950, detailing the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank and the questionable congressional passage of the act that gave it power, was blocked from publication in the United States for two years. The book was banned and burned in other countries. Over the course of his lifetime, the author was ostracized by politicians and the influential moneyed elite. Praised by many today as a true patriot and the ultimate investigative writer, that is not how he was described by those in power. Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal Mullins was characterized by the FBI as an “insane… vicious… depraved… warped…degenerate homosexual… jackal… and prolific writer”.
The money behind Woodrow Wilson’s election was from those who benefited from passage of the act. He was promised the presidency if he would support the Federal Reserve Act. After passage, President Wilson regretted ever signing it into law and wrote, 

Woodrow Wilson
“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”  

Representative Dr. Ron Paul
Only in the last few years, thanks largely to research capabilities available through the internet and the efforts of U.S. Representative Dr. Ron Paul, have many citizens become aware the Federal Reserve is not a part of the government or under the control of the Treasury Department. The Federal Reserve is a privately owned central bank. 

The framers of the Constitution were opposed to the formation of a central bank.

Rep. Ron Paul and a growing number of members of congress have come to realize how the nation has been duped. Now millions of U.S. citizens have come to understand the politics surrounding the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank.

As of July 18, 2012, House of Representatives Bill 459 has 270 co-sponsors which assures its passage in the House.  The bill was introduced by Dr. Ron Paul.  Dr. Paul has sponsored numerous bills to remove power from the Federal Reserve Bank or dissolve it entirely. Early in his career, he began urging congress to at least have a full, clear and transparent audit of the Fed.  All of his requests met resistance until the financial collapse of 2008.  Finally, in 2009, the House did pass a full audit bill. 

When the Senate bill, which became known as the Dodd-Frank Act, was passed, it only allowed a very restricted audit.  Viewing the actions of the Fed was confined to a very narrow, date specific timeframe surrounding the events of the 2008 crisis.  No one really expected to find anything that wasn’t already public.


In 2008, amid cries of protest, congress approved TARP, a $700 billion dollar bailout. Many tax payers did not want to be responsible for the repayment of the funds, because the funds were going to banks and private businesses.  The popular consensus was that many in the financial markets had been behaving like gambling addicts with taxpayer dollars.  The Federal Reserve Bank is fully backed by the U.S. government’s promise to repay. That means the taxpayer is ultimately responsible to pay the loans provided by The Federal Reserve Bank.

Senator Dodd
Senator Frank
The limited audit made possible by the Dodd-Frank Act resulted in the discovery that, in addition to the $700 billion loan bail out, the Federal Reserve Bank also loaned another $16+ trillion to private business and banks in other nations.  Repeat: In addition to the $700 billion TARP passed by congress, another $16+ trillion was loaned and neither the congress nor the taxpayers were aware of this fact.  

Yet the taxpayers are ultimately responsible for the guarantee that the loans are paid. Remember, this was found on a date limiting full audit.

If a date limited audit revealed this tightly held secret, what other loans might the taxpayers be responsible for without their knowledge? That is why Ron Paul, along with 270 co-sponsoring congressmen, has re-introduced the same full audit bill that was requested in 2008. There are millions of Americans who would like to know what an unlimited, full audit would reveal.

As stated, there is no doubt that HR 459 will pass in July 2012 because of the 270 co-sponsors. 

Now comes the challenging part.  In order for a bill to become law, it also must be passed in the Senate and then signed by the President.  Senate Bill 202 is now in place.  It was authored by Senator Rand Paul, Dr. Ron Paul’s son.  It is identical to House Bill 459.  Unfortunately, at this time it does not have adequate support in the Senate and without extreme pressure placed by the tax payer on their Congressmen, it appears doomed to fail.

Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke
The mainstream media consistently report the statements by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke that passing such a bill could add a political pressure factor into the decisions the Fed makes.

Let’s certainly hope so. 

The fact is that the decisions the Fed has made in the past are already highly politically motivated, as proven by the limited full audit.  The very passage of the Federal Reserve Bank Act of 1913 was politically motivated.  The Dodd-Frank Act that allowed the limited, full audit reveals only a small glimpse into their political motivations and possible conflicts of interest.   

It obviously takes the power of money, in enormous amounts, to be elected to high public office in this country. Look at today’s headlines for the evidence.  President Barak Obama is whining like a spoiled child because the presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, is receiving more contributions of campaign funds.

Look at who is contributing to their campaigns.  Both parties, Democrat and Republican, are receiving some of their the greatest campaign contributions from the very same banks, financial institutions, and corporations that received bail out funds from TARP.  Many of those same fund recipients received billions and trillions more from the Fed than were revealed to the government or the people. 

In order for a Senator to remain in office, he or she has to receive campaign contributions from somewhere.  If a Senator supports a full audit of the Fed, the truth would be certain political suicide.  The last thing the banks want is the exposure of their ties and possible conflicts of interest with the private bankers who own the Federal Reserve.  If the curtain was pulled back, it would reveal that the monetary power and control over our government has been the Fed’s very purpose all along. Those politicians that protect the Federal Reserve are its puppets and they will prosper; those that don’t are identified as flakes or troublemakers. 

The root of the gradual erosion of the U.S. Constitution and thus our republic has been the owners of the Federal Reserve and those who benefit financially or politically from its existence.  Starting and financing wars, foreign aid, and social security are all politically approved under the guise of helping the nation, but in truth, all these policies financially benefit the private owners of the central bank, known as the Federal Reserve Bank.

Unless the current U.S. Senate can be pressured by the power of the people demanding passage of SB 202 in its current form, there is little hope this nation will continue to exist long enough to return to our constitutional foundations which were designed to ensure our liberty.

The Federal Reserve is literally banking on the fact that the majority of U.S. citizens are too distracted putting bread on their tables or pursuing the newest forms of entertainment to take the few minutes necessary to make a call to their Senator and demand SB 202 be passed.  Of course, the Fed has a back up plan.  You can be assured the bail out recipients will call Senate offices and explain that in the next election cycle they won’t be receiving campaign contributions. Which is more important, the money or the vote?  No problem; with enough money the voting machines can be rigged.

Written by
Barbara Shoff
Edited by
Denise Snyder

Sunday, July 1, 2012

The Supreme Court’s Unconstitutional Actions Result in Constitutional Limbo for ACA

The SCOTUS actions were unconstitutional when they arrived at a 5-4 decision in favor of passing the Affordable Care Act.

SCOTUS is charged with determining whether the intent of legislation placed before them is constitutional. That is not what happened.

President Obama, supporting members of Congress, and the attorneys presenting the case, repeatedly argued that the defined wording within the act was for a "penalty" and not a "tax".  All of SCOTUS rightly found the use of the term "penalty", which was the intent of the act, unconstitutional.  That finding is where the court should have stopped.  To go beyond that specified determination and ruling on anything other than original intent was unconstitutional.  

From SCOTUS Dissenting Opinions:

“The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax. And it changes the intentionally coercive sanction of a total cut-off of Medicaid funds to a supposedly noncoercive cut-off of only the incremental funds that the Act makes available.
 The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching.
The five supporting Justices stepped beyond their Constitutional purpose by going further.

Perhaps those five favoring Justices allowed themselves to be unduly influenced by political demands to cross that line.

However, when they did cross that line, they effectively put the Act in limbo because Congress did not vote on a new tax. 

One can only hope the Justices' desire was to show the President and Congress how ludicrous the ACA was in the first place. 

It is unconstitutional to force a penalty on citizens using the Commerce clause for not buying something against their will

Instead POTUS offered a solution to passage of the act, by magically changing the word "penalty" to the word "tax".  Of course, the President and his supporters immediately jumped on this opportunity to “save” the act, but continue to refuse to call it a tax.

You would think, the President, whose expertise is supposed to be Constitutional law, would have at least taken a moment’s pause before cheering a victory.

Per the Constitution, legislation on taxes must be passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. This act was not passed using the word "tax", it was passed using the word "penalty".

As a tax, this would be the largest tax imposed on the American people in the entire history of our nation.  It targets the middle and lower income citizens; the very people who cannot afford to purchase even minimal insurance coverage in the first place and who the act was supposed to help.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

U.S. Politics, Government, Corruption V.S. The People

The only thing worse than the black out of information by mainstream media in this country is the propaganda they produce.

The media has been ripe with stories regarding the ongoing debate about whether photo identification should be used to curb voter fraud.  But...

There is a blackout by the news about the fraud and corruption that appears to be taking place in the Republican Party in 2012 involving possibly every state in the nation.  The only story that has hit the headlines is very brief. It informed the public that a class action lawsuit has been brought against the National GOP, which the party claim is frivolous. No details were provided.

Frivolous means “of no merit”.

If electronic voting equipment has been tampered with in many states, changing the vote to show the loser as the winner, is that frivolous?

If the designed rules for electing delegates are not being followed, is that frivolous?

If those who are elected as delegates are being denied their vote and told they will not be recognized as delegates, is that frivolous?

If there are threats and violent physical assaults on delegates, is that frivolous?

If some state leaders have to hide who their delegates support in order to protect against further violence, is that frivolous?

The reason the Founding Fathers framed our Constitution as democratic Republic was to avert the tyranny of a government working against the people it is to serve, in hopes of averting a bloody civil uprising.  It was to insure fair elections by the people so they could choose who would represent them.  Was that frivolous?

Today, in this nation the media: television, most radio stations, newspapers and news outlets on the internet are controlled by those who want to control the information the people receive.  And by controlling the information the people receive, control the perceptions in the minds of the people.  This way they can control the people.

This is what the government of China does to its people.

We, the citizens, in the United States at this time, do still have the internet that we can use to seek out the truth.  We cannot however, do searches under the heading of a news search from a news page we are on.  We must do it under a simple basic search.  If one searches under a news page, filtering restrictions limit the information available only to that which government approves.

A comparison of what can be found under a “news” page heading search, and through a simple basic search, can help determine what the propaganda is. Perhaps adding the words “the truth about” to your search will provide a new perspective on what you are being told by the mainstream media.

I beseech all who read this blog to do just that.  Right now.  Utilize critical thinking.  Determine for yourselves between real conspiracies and conspiracy theories.

We still have time to unite in a peaceful civil uprising.  The alternative will lead to total disaster not created by nature, but by mankind.   

Friday, June 22, 2012

Let's Talk War

The Constitution: Let’s Talk War

Article 1
Section 8
Powers Granted to Congress
Paragraph K

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water

The words “to declare war” appear only under Powers Granted to Congress.  No other place in the Constitution will you find the power to declare war. 

This is because the framers of the Constitution knew the “great experiment” had to be formed in such a way that there would be a balance of power, with no branch having more power than the other.  To give that power to the office of the President could result in tyranny. History had shown that a single individual (a king), could be swayed by politics of other nations and possible personal gain.

Only after Congress declares war, does the President have the power to decide how the war is to be fought.

It is “we the people” who elect congress.

Therefore, all wars without out declarations of war by congress are unconstitutional and against the law.

A war is a war is a war--- whether called a conflict, liberation, or insurgency suppression.

Why then, has the U.S. warred against other nations since the 1950’s?

The framers never foresaw a time when Congress would be as weak and incompetent as not to stand unified against a President.

Too few of our nation’s citizens know the Constitution.  Too few of our officials elected to Congress have truly studied the Constitution.

Tyranny has been alive and growing over the years.  This nation’s media, controlled by the wealthy elite, who have made much of their fortunes by supporting wars, suppress reporting the carnage to our nation’s people.  For if the masses truly saw the carnage, we would insist the wars be stopped.  Our Congress could end the funding immediately, but only if we the people make our voices heard. 

Marching in protest doesn’t seem to work.  E-mails, phone calls and letters apparently have little impact. The only thing that will work is to vote out those Congresspeople who continue to support the war funding and elect into congress those who have the integrity not to be paid off by the long reach of the Military Industrial Complex.

Once a war is in progress the only way to stop it, is to stop funding it.  And the constitutions states this power also goes to Congress.

Too many people in this country are apathetic, even as their sons and daughters die fighting unconstitutional, illegal wars.  We don’t want to get involved in politics so we don’t vote. 

Because the best way to support our troops is to end the wars they are fighting in. And a first step in solving the economic woes that plague this nation is to end the wars; citizens will need to become more involved in the political process. 

When we find we want change, we will have to register to vote, and then vote. (Of course, we will have to protect against voter fraud.)

We, the citizens of this nation must exercise our right to vote only for those who support an end to these wars and are willing to stop funding them.  

Once this is done, the Military Industrial Complex (those who make money at the cost of people’s lives) will cease to have the power.

The Constitution was designed to give the power to “We the people.”  It is time we reclaim that power.


Know the stance of your congressmen. Some say one thing and vote just the opposite.  A few minutes doing an internet search will reveal their voting record. 

Ask those running for office what his/her stance is on the issues.  Don’t let them beat around the bush,  asked them pointed questions and expect clear answers.

In Oklahoma Tom Coburn has voted against continued support of the wars and the infringement of personal liberties.  John Sullivan has not. 

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Can You Spot Propaganda?

It is amazing how many people today watching cable TV, reading newspapers or surfing web  articles believe they know what is going on in the world.  Chances are, most readers aren't getting the real truth.  

Today's mainstream media is fraught with yellow journalism.  Such journalism can be identified by several factors:
  • Headlines worded to sensationalize or scare the reader
  • Deliberate misinformation (lies)
  • Use of images that are either extremely unflattering or very flattering
  • Articles that read like a news story but are actually advertisements to get the reader to buy a specific product, concept or idea.
(Google Edward Bernays to discover just how long this public deception has been going on.)

But how is a reader to determine what is or isn't yellow journalism?  One search for the truth.  Fortunately, today with the internet, this is not a difficult task. (Be sure to do this while the U.S. still provides free access to information. This last sentence was a slant.)

The U.S. political machine has used the news media to shift public sentiment for years; like a game of three card monte. (Remember weapons of mass destruction? And that we invaded Iraq to fight terrorism?)  Our controlling powers are determined to slant information citizens receive so they can control the hearts and minds and have the majority of public opinion on their side.  

And, unfortunately there are many stories that never make it to the public view because the political powers want hide what they are doing.  Those stories don't make the headlines. (Remember how following WWII the majority of the German population swore they were clueless about the truth of the Holocaust?) 

Our politicians and their controllers continue to assure each other the American people are too lazy, and uneducated to do research for themselves.  They insist we rely on being spoon fed information and simply entertained by movies and television. And for many years we have.

If the public knew the truth they might be more than a little upset.

Too see if you can be enlightened try some simple searches like:
  • Truth about-Media, Politics and Mind Control
  • What is the truth about (fill in the subject--maybe try-- war in Panama)
  • Who owns and controls the media?
I was certainly amazed when I started doing this.  Another thing one can do is to search overseas news services and read about the same subject matter and determine how it is presented from a European or East Asian perspective.

I have been appalled by the stories I have seen lately especially when it comes to international conflicts and the current political races.  One might try some searches with the name of a specific political figures and add the words "truth about", or perhaps Egypt, Syria, Iran, Nicaragua again with the words "truth about" or perhaps even more revealing "history of U.S. involvement with".

If a person wants real transparency today don't rely on what you are being told; go to an internet search engine.  Be prepared.  You may feel you just entered the Twilight Zone.

Don't forget to search Edward Bernays--add U.S. public information