One objective of this blog is to encourage productive discussion and debate within the "comments" forum. Leaving comments has been made easier. No registration is required. Comments can be left anonymously. A Hassle free and easy forum to leave a comment. However, any inappropriate comments will be deleted by blog administrators. Thank you for commenting so your voice can be heard.

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Reptoids - Rothschilds - Masons - Illuminati

Reptoid - Rothschilds - Masons - Illuminati

What might they have in common?

Matt says that the Illuminati were amateurs. The second huge financial scandal of the year reveals the real international conspiracy: There's no price the big banks can't fix.
Conspiracy theorists of the world, believers in the hidden hands of the Rothschilds and the Masons and the Illuminati, we skeptics owe you an apology. You were right. The players may be a little different, but your basic premise is correct: The world is a rigged game. We found this out in recent months, when a series of related corruption stories spilled out of the financial sector, suggesting the world's largest banks may be fixing the prices of, well, just about everything.
He didn’t mention reptoids, but if you are curious check here.
If what Matt suggests is true:
that would leave us living in an era of undisguised, real-world conspiracy, in which the prices of currencies, commodities like gold and silver, even interest rates and the value of money itself, can be and may already have been dictated from above. And those who are doing it can get away with it. Forget the Illuminati – this is the real thing, and it's no secret. You can stare right at it, anytime you want.
You may have heard of the Libor scandal, in which at least three – and perhaps as many as 16 – of the name-brand too-big-to-fail banks have been manipulating global interest rates, in the process messing around with the prices of upward of $500 trillion (that's trillion, with a "t") worth of financial instruments. When that sprawling con burst into public view last year, it was easily the biggest financial scandal in history – MIT professor Andrew Lo even said it "dwarfs by orders of magnitude any financial scam in the history of markets."
$500 Trillion - almost as much as Donald Trump likes to think he is worth. But turns out that is not all that the Too Big To Fail Banks (otherwise known as the Reptoids - Rothschilds - Masons - Illuminati) have been up to. The evil twin has arrived!
That was bad enough, but now Libor may have a twin brother. Word has leaked out that the London-based firm ICAP, the world's largest broker of interest-rate swaps, is being investigated by American authorities for behavior that sounds eerily reminiscent of the Libor mess. Regulators are looking into whether or not a small group of brokers at ICAP may have worked with up to 15 of the world's largest banks to manipulate ISDAfix, a benchmark number used around the world to calculate the prices of interest-rate swaps.
But we have the FBI and CIA and the Justice Department to stop them, right? Apparently not. The banks mostly skated. Barclays got off with a relatively minor fine in the $450 million range, UBS was stuck with $1.5 billion in penalties, and RBS was forced to give up $615 million. Apart from a few low-level flunkies overseas, no individual involved in this scam that impacted nearly everyone in the industrialized world was even threatened with criminal prosecution.
Two of America's top law-enforcement officials, Attorney General Eric Holder and former Justice Department Criminal Division chief Lanny Breuer, confessed that it's dangerous to prosecute offending banks because they are simply too big. Making arrests, they say, might lead to "collateral consequences" in the economy.

So you get that, your money is just "collateral consequences" to the TBTF.
Michael Hausfeld of Hausfeld LLP, one of the lead lawyers for the plaintiffs in this Libor suit, declined to comment specifically on the dismissal. But he did talk about the significance of the Libor case and other manipulation cases now in the pipeline. "It's now evident that there is a ubiquitous culture among the banks to collude and cheat their customers as many times as they can in as many forms as they can conceive," he said. "And that's not just surmising. This is just based upon what they've been caught at."
All of these stories collectively pointed to the same thing: These banks, which already possess enormous power just by virtue of their financial holdings – in the United States, the top six banks, many of them the same names you see on the Libor and ISDAfix panels, own assets equivalent to 60 percent of the nation's GDP – are beginning to realize the awesome possibilities for increased profit and political might that would come with colluding instead of competing. Moreover, it's increasingly clear that both the criminal justice system and the civil courts may be impotent to stop them, even when they do get caught working together to game the system.
So Banks, the TBTF banks, own assets equal to 60% of the United States' GDP. Lord Acton would point out:
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Enemy Combatant = Police State!

Republican lawmakers issued a statement Saturday urging President Barack Obama to treat Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, as an "enemy combatant."
Historically, the term “enemy combatant” referred to members of the armed forces of one Country with which another Country is at war.
In the United States the phrase "enemy combatant" was used after the September 11 attacks by the George W. Bush administration to include an alleged member of al Qaeda or the Taliban; and, was expanded to include all of those individuals that the “U.S.” believes it is able to hold under the laws of war until the war comes to an end (which could be a long time off in the case of the so-called "war on terror").
So, should 19 year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (who is a naturalized United States citizen, who is alleged to have committed a crime within the United States) be treated as an enemy combatant and questioned by interrogators without any right to due process? Or should the government read Tsarnaev his Miranda rights, notifying him of his right to remain silent as a criminal defendant, among other prerogatives? And, PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANTLY, SHOULD ANY UNITED STATES CITIZEN, WHO IS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME ON THE SOIL OF THE UNITED STATES, EVER BE DENIED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND BE TREATED AS AN “ENEMY COMBATANT?
The very core of American history, law and culture condemns the ideas of punishment before trial, denial of due process and secret government by fiat. The U.S. Supreme Court has held countless times that all persons confined by the government are presumed innocent until proven guilty, must be told the reasons for their confinement and are entitled to challenge those reasons promptly in a court.
The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, prohibits all levels of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1791, asserts that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (§ 1).
The concept of due process originated in English Common Law. The rule that individuals shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without notice and an opportunity to defend themselves predates written constitutions and was widely accepted in England and, was codified by the Magna Charta, an agreement signed in 1215.
Another Constitutional question which arises is why should a US citizen, who is alleged to have committed a crime on US soil, not be treated under the Constitution as a traitor who has committed Treason?
The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. It was noted by lawyer William J. Olson in an Amicus curiae in the case of Hedges v. Obama that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trial by military commission. Further Madison noted, the Treason Clause also was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “adhering to [the United States’s] enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is alleged to have committed a horrendous and brutal act which shocks the conscience; however, should he, OR ANY OTHER AMERICAN CITIZEN, then be declared an enemy combatant and denied rights followed under English common law for centuries and followed here in the United States for over 200 years? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Abandoning legal protections and provisions fundamental to the Constitution and which protect each of us from unwarranted Governmental control and powers is a slippery slope. What is some future President deems speaking out against the Government or the President deems a U.S. citizen and enemy combatant? (Ask those in Germany if such things cannot happen.)
Simply because the alleged actions of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are so heinous, does not mean we should abandon fundamental Constitutional rights and liberties. Republican lawmakers should watch what they wish for!

Remember, if the Government can deem any one Citizen of the United States an "enemy combatant" and take away their Constitutional rights and liberties, then the Government may take them away from any of us for any reason that the Government may deem appropriate (WITH NO RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW).
Benjamin Franklin summed it up best:
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Wednesday, April 17, 2013


Beg your pardon to certain women of the Senate, and FOUR republicans, and no disrespect to decent Eunuchs.
A eunuch (pron.: /ˈjuːnək/; Greek: Ευνούχος) is a man who (by the common definition of the term) may have been castrated, typically early enough in his life for this change to have major hormonal consequences. Eunuchs would probably be servants or slaves who, because of their function, had been castrated, usually in order to make them reliable servants of a royal court where physical access to the ruler could wield great influence (NRA, gun manufactures, lobbyist, etc.).  
With shouts of "Shame on you!" echoing in the chamber, the U.S. Senate failed to muster sufficient support Wednesday for a gun-buyer background check bill crafted by the bipartisan duo of Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and which is supported by nearly 90 percent of Americans.
Senate Republicans, backed by rural-state Democrats, blocked legislation Wednesday to tighten restrictions on the sale of firearms. The background check measure commanded a majority of senators, 54-46, but that was well short of the 60 votes needed to advance. Forty-one Republicans and five Democrats sided together to scuttle the plan.
Meet the "Nos" who support needless murder and death.
Four Democrats broke with their party and voted against the amendment, assuring that the measure would come up short of the 60 votes needed for passage. Three of those lawmakers — Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Max Baucus of Montana, and Mark Begich of Alaska — face competitive re-election races in deep-red states next year. The fourth, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, was elected to her first Senate term in 2012.
Among Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois, John McCain of Arizona and Pat Toomey, sided with Democrats. THEY SHOULD ALL BE AWARDED “PRESIDENTIAL MEDALS OF FREEDOM” FOR THAT. And John McCain you proved you are a “big-swinging” maverick!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a supporter of the plan, switched his vote to the prevailing "no" side to “permit him to call for a revote in the future” (cough, cough).
I ask each of the 41 Republican's and 5 Democrat's who voted against this plan, how they would have voted had it been their children or grandchildren who were killed mercilessly at the Sandy Hook travesty? I also say that the blood of future Americans who are killed senselessly are on YOUR hands. It is as if wish death on the innocent.
Senators meet those whose blood you have on your hands.
Would gun background checks solve all of the problems.....obviously not; but it would be a step in the right direction. Doing nothing makes no sense and says that the lives of the dead are meaningless.
As for assault-style rifles and high capacity ammunition, it makes no sense why anyone but our military needs them. Also gun manufactures make a lot of money by selling fear and weapons of mass destruction.
So today, the “noble” club of 100 Senators proved that they have no self-worth; that they are but mere puppets to their masters; and, that, sadly they lack “the balls” to do anything meaningful and worthwhile. Our founding fathers are crying in their graves (along with the innocent victims for which the Senators showed no remorse or care).
Obama's anger was apparent during his remarks, which were given as families of shooting victims and former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) -- a shooting survivor -- stood behind him. "All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington," Obama said.
Obama spoke on the failed measure Wednesday evening in the White House rose garden. He took to the podium after Mark Barden, the father of a Newtown victim. Obama placed blame on the gun lobby during his remarks. "The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill," Obama said. The president said the failure of the background check bill "came down to politics;" Republican Eunuchs doing as they are told by their masters.
One of the bolder eunuch, Paul Rand, had the temerity to say that Obama was using the Sandy Hook parents as “props; “although he seemed to have no issue with using the children as target practice. President Obama called out Paul on his tasteless comment about the parents being used as props and said to Paul, " really ? Really you believe I would do that ?" As Paul Rand has no problem with children dying, I assume he thinks everyone is as crass as he.