July 31, 2012

Mitt Romney Says He Could Wage War on Iran Without Congress' Approval


Mitt Romney talks with Bob Schieffer on CBS's "Face the Nation", June 17, 2012 (Full Interview)

In Israel, Romney Declares Jerusalem to be Capital

July 29, 2012

AP - Standing on Israeli soil, U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Sunday declared Jerusalem to be the capital of the Jewish state and said the United States has "a solemn duty and a moral imperative" to block Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capability.
"Make no mistake, the ayatollahs in Iran are testing our moral defenses. They want to know who will object and who will look the other way," he said. "We will not look away nor will our country ever look away from our passion and commitment to Israel."
The presidential election hovered over the speech. The Old City formed a made-for-television backdrop behind Romney, while some of his campaign donors listened in the audience.

Romney's declaration that Jerusalem is Israel's capital was matter-of-fact and in keeping with claims made by Israeli governments for decades, even though the United States, like other nations, maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv.

He did not say if he would order the embassy moved if he wins the White House, but strongly suggested so in a CNN interview.
"My understanding is the policy of our nation has been a desire to move our embassy ultimately to the capital (Jerusalem)," he said, adding, "I would only want to do so and to select the timing in accordance with the government of Israel."
His remarks on the subject during his speech drew a standing ovation from his audience, which included Sheldon Adelson, the American businessman who has said he will donate millions to help elect Romney to the White House.

Romney's embrace of Israel was on display throughout the day when he met with Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and other leaders. He also visited the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest site, where he was mobbed by worshippers. In addition, Romney met with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

In his remarks, Romney steered clear of overt criticism of President Barack Obama, even though he said the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran "has only become worse" in the past five years.

In an unspoken rebuttal to Obama and other critics, Romney said, "It is sometimes said that those who are the most committed to stopping the Iranian regime from security nuclear weapons are reckless and provocative and inviting war.
"The opposite is true. We are the true peacemakers," he said.
The former Massachusetts governor also stepped back from a comment a senior aide made a short while before the speech.
"We recognize Israel's right to defend itself," he told the audience. Earlier, the aide, Dan Senor, previewed the speech for reporters, saying that "if Israel has to take action on its own, in order to stop Iran from developing the capability, the governor would respect that decision."
Israel is the second of three stops on an international trip for Romney in the weeks before he claims the Republican nomination at his party's national convention in Tampa, Fla.

He flew to the Middle East from Britain, where he caused a stir by questioning whether officials there were fully prepared for the Olympic Games. A stop in Poland will complete his trip.

Four years ago, then-U.S. Sen. Barack Obama also visited Israel as a candidate, part of a five-nation trip meant to establish his own foreign policy credentials.

In his speech, Romney said Syrian President Bashar Assad "desperately clings to power" in Damascus in the face of an attempted overthrow, but he did not call for his removal.

He noted that Egypt is now headed by an "Islamist president, chosen in a Democratic election. ... The international community must use its considerable influence to insure that the new government honors the peace agreement with Israel that was signed by the government of Anwar Sadat" more than three decades ago, he said.

A goal of Romney's overseas trip is to demonstrate his confidence on the world stage, but his stop in Israel also was designed to appeal to evangelical voters at home and to cut into Obama's support among Jewish voters and donors. A Gallup survey of Jewish voters released Friday showed Obama with a 68-25 edge over Romney.

Romney and other Republicans have said Obama is insufficiently supportive of Israel, noting statements the president has made about settlements and his handling of evident Iranian attempt to develop nuclear weapons.

Tehran is closer to developing nuclear weapons capability than before, Romney said. "Preventing that outcome must be our highest national security priority."

In a March speech before a pro-Israel lobby in Washington, Obama warned of "loose talk of war" that serves only to drive up oil prices. "Now is not the time to bluster," he said then. "Now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in and sustain the broad international coalition we have built."

It was unlikely that the day's events would settle the issue.

Obama's former press secretary, Robert Gibbs, told ABC's "This Week" that the administration has delayed Iran's nuclear program. The president has imposed U.S. penalties against Iran and worked to tougher strictures applied by other nations. There have been numerous published reports of a coordinated U.S.-Israeli cyberattack that caused damage to Iranian equipment vital to creating weapons-grade nuclear material.

Even so, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said before the speech that "all the sanctions and diplomacy so far have not set back the Iranian program by one iota."

Whatever the reality, the administration has taken steps in recent days to reassure Israel of its support.
Most notably, Obama approved an increase in assistance to strengthen a missile defense system that is designed to protect Israel from rocket attacks launched from the Gaza.

Senor's comments caused a stir in the hours leading to Romney's speech, a reminder of the controversy that Romney had created a few days earlier in London.

He later clarified his comments in a written statement, saying that the candidate "believes we should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course and it is his fervent hope that diplomatic and economic measures will do so. In the final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded."

Pentagon officials have spoken publicly about the difficulty of such a strike and American officials have expressed concern about the destabilizing effect such military action could have in the region, even if carried out successfully.


In Israel, Romney Talks Iran, Angers Palestinians

July 29, 2012

AFP - White House hopeful Mitt Romney held top-level talks in Israel over Iran's nuclear ambitions but quickly drew fire from the Palestinians for endorsing Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state.
"We must lead the effort to prevent Iran from building and possessing nuclear weapons capability," the Republican challenger said in a speech given on a rooftop overlooking Jerusalem's Old City in which he laid out key foreign policy issues facing Israel.
"We should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course," he said, expressing hope that diplomatic and economic measures would help achieve this aim, but adding that "in final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded."
"We recognise Israel's right to defend itself, and that it is right for America to stand with you," said Romney, the Republican challenger who will face off against President Barack Obama in November's US election.
Israel, which is widely believed to have the Middle East's only, albeit undeclared, nuclear arsenal, has warned that a military option cannot be ruled out to prevent Iran from developing atomic weapons capability. Tehran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only.

According to Israeli public radio, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Romney it was important to have "a strong and credible military threat" because sanctions and diplomacy "so far have not set back the Iranian programme by one iota."

The White House hopeful, who arrived in Israel from Britain late Saturday on a one-day visit, stepped into the quagmire of Middle Eastern politics when during his policy speech he hailed Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
"It is a deeply moving experience to be in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel," he said, in an apparent endorsement of a position held by the Jewish state but never accepted by the international community.
Netanyahu thanked him for his remarks, later telling him: "I want to thank you for those very strong words of support and friendship for Israel and for Jerusalem that we heard today."

But the Palestinians were infuriated, saying his remarks were "harmful to American interests in our region."
"They they harm peace, security and stability," Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat told AFP.
"Even if this statement is within the US election campaign, it is unacceptable and we completely reject it. The US election campaign should never be at the expense of the Palestinians," he said.
"Romney is rewarding occupation, settlement and extremism in the region with such declarations."
Israel, which occupied the largely Arab eastern sector during the 1967 Six-Day War and later annexed it, claims both halves of the city to be its "eternal and undivided capital."

But the Palestinians want the eastern sector as capital of their promised state and fiercely oppose any Israeli attempt to extend sovereignty there.

Most of the international community, including the United States, does not formally recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital due to the ongoing conflict, insisting the issue can only be resolved through final status negotiations.

Romney has consistently attacked what he says is Obama's weak and misguided Middle East policy, saying in January that the president "threw Israel under the bus," by defining the 1967 borders as a starting point for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

On Egypt, Romney said he would work to ensure Cairo's new Islamist President Mohamed Morsi would protect the 1979 peace treaty with Israel.
"With the Islamist president elected in Egypt we hope to use the considerable weight of the world's influence to ensure a continued commitment to the agreements of peace... with Israel."
In a show of support for Israel ahead of Romney's tour, Obama on Friday signed a law reinforcing US security and military cooperation with Israel as representatives of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC stood beside him in the Oval Office.

Read More...

July 30, 2012

Government and Corporate Media Use the Dubious Threat Posed by IEDs to Ramp Up Fear Ahead of Further Efforts to Demolish Posse Comitatus

In 2002, Northern Command, NORTHCOM, was formed within the Defense Department (previously known as The War Department). This group was formed to handle domestic situations involving terrorism with a force of about 2,000. As reported by The Washington Post and reprinted in The Dallas Morning News, President Bush authorized the strength of this group to increase to 20,000 by 20111. Part of their responsibility would be to confront domestic civil unrest. This responsibility belongs to the local authorities, police, state police, and perhaps the individual state National Guard as authorized by the respective governors. This new mission by federal troops is a clear violation of the Posse Cmitatus Act of 1878. Easy to hold President Bush solely responsible, however something sinister is at work here. With less than 60 days left in office why would President Bush issue such an authorization? He must know that on January 20th, 2009 when President Obama took office, he would not rescind this executive order. There is something suspicious going on here where our two party system and representative democracy is nothing but a façade. - PropagandaBuster, December 1, 2008



Phantom IEDs to Finish Off Posse Comitatus

July 30, 2012

Infowars.com - The remnants of Posse Comitatus stand between the Pentagon and the globalist dream of a police state in the United States. The 1878 law prohibits federal military personnel from working with state and local law enforcement. It has weathered sustained attacks following the September 11, 2001 attacks.

In 2007, Congress passed the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act. The legislation gave the president the authority to deploy federal troops to “restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States” during “a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition.”

Following senator Patrick Leahy’s warning that changing the 1807 Insurrection Act “subverts solid, long-standing Posse Comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the president to declare martial law,” Congress repealed the changes and restored the Insurrection Act in its entirety, thus limiting presidential power during an emergency.

The latest effort to weaken Posse Comitatus unfolded earlier this month when Lt. Gen. Michael Barbero, head of the military’s Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, told a partially closed House Committee on Homeland Security hearing that terrorists with IEDs – Improvised Explosive Devices – now threaten the United States.

“The domestic IED threat from both homegrown terrorists and global threat networks is real and presents a significant security challenge for the United States and our international partners,” Barbero warned.

“Since the successful attacks on September 11, 2001, externally based global threat networks have attempted numerous failed attacks such as the underwear bomb aboard Northwest Airlines fight 253 on Christmas day in 2009, the failed Times Square car bombing in 2010, and the ink cartridges packed with explosives aboard two separate cargo planes in 2010,” Barbero said. “These attempts clearly demonstrate the commitment of these threat networks to continue to employ IEDs against our homeland in traditional as well as new and creative ways. The use of advanced IED technology and sophisticated tactics, techniques, and procedures provide individuals and transnational networks with cheap and easily accessible means to achieve high visibility effect.”

Barbero’s examples are undermined by the questionable nature of the supposedly failed attacks. (See Kurt Haskell’s The Colossal Deceit Known As The Underwear Bomber Case and Paul Joseph Watson’s Times Square Bomber Linked With CIA-Controlled Terror Group.)

Despite a paucity of evidence that the United States does indeed face a threat by terrorists using IEDs, Republican Congressmen Peter King of New York, Daniel Lungren of California, and Michael McCaul of Texas, leaders of the House Committee on Homeland Security, sent out a clarion call.


“To me, it’s crazy that the guy who is the expert on IEDs overseas can’t coordinate with the Texas Rangers,” said McCaul, a former counterterrorism official with the Justice Department. “The military is unable to coordinate with state and local law enforcement, leaving a gaping hole in our security.”

“The threat is indeed real. IED attacks have been attempted multiple times in New York City already,” Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Browne told Politico.

The corporate media has done its part to magnify this unsubstantiated threat.

“Evidence of the threat has surfaced repeatedly,” the Houston Chronicle claims. “A car bomb was disarmed in New York City’s Times Square and explosives were detected in ink cartridges aboard two U.S.-bound commercial cargo planes in 2010. Improvised explosives in an airline passenger’s underwear nearly brought down a Detroit-bound airliner in 2009.”

In addition, according to the Christian Science Monitor, there is the possibility that IEDs may be used “in combination with a cyber attack.”

As Obama’s former chief of staff quipped, a good crisis should never go to waste, especially if it helps the government further militarize law enforcement and destroy Posse Comitatus.

“The accused shooter in the Aurora, Colo., movie theater massacre, James Holmes, allegedly deployed IEDs in his apartment, prompting federal law enforcement agencies to look into possible links to domestic or foreign-based terrorism,” the Chronicle reports.

Left unmentioned are the highly suspicious circumstances surrounding James Holmes and the irregularities of the “Batman” shooting, as the corporate media calls it.

The dubious threat posed by IEDs is only the latest effort by the government to ramp up the fear ahead of further efforts to demolish Posse Comitatus as well as dilute and diminish constitutional safeguards against unwarranted government power.

July 29, 2012

Israel Denies Report Obama Aide Shared Iran War Plan

Israel Denies Report Obama Aide Shared Iran War Plan

July 29, 2012

Reuters - A senior Israeli official denied on Sunday a newspaper report that President Barack Obama's national security adviser had briefed Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a U.S. contingency plan to attack Iran should diplomacy fail to curb its nuclear program.

The Israeli liberal Haaretz daily on Sunday quoted an unnamed U.S. official as saying the adviser, Thomas Donilon, had described the plan over dinner with Netanyahu earlier this month.

"Nothing in the article is correct. Donilon did not meet the prime minister for dinner, he did not meet him one-on-one, nor did he present operational plans to attack Iran," the senior official, who declined to be named given the sensitivity of the issue, told Reuters.

Haaretz said the briefing was the most significant effort by high-level U.S. officials who had visited Israel in the past month, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to try to dissuade Israel from launching its own military strike on Iran.

The report coincided with a visit to Israel by Obama's main rival in his reelection bid this November, Republican candidate Mitt Romney, who was due to meet the conservative Netanyahu on Sunday.

Haaretz said Donilon had told Netanyahu the Pentagon was planning for a possible decision to attack Iran's nuclear sites, and had shown him some of the plans.

The failure of talks between Iran and six world powers to secure a breakthrough in curbing what the West fears is a drive to develop nuclear weapons has raised international concerns that Israel, widely assumed to be the Middle East's only nuclear-armed state, may opt for a go-it-alone military strike.

Israel has warned the West it thinks it is only a matter of time before Iran's nuclear programme achieves a "zone of immunity" in which bombs will not be able to effectively strike uranium enrichment facilities buried deep underground.

Iran says its programme is solely for peaceful purposes.

On a visit to Jerusalem this month, Clinton said Israel and Washington were "on the same page" with respect to Iran, calling Iran's latest proposals to world power talks on the issue "non starters."

"Our own choice is clear, we will use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," Clinton said.

Bill Gates Wants to Spray Chemicals That Threaten the Food Supplies of Billions of People

Bill Gates Funds Scheme to Spray Artificial ‘Planet-cooling’ Sulfur Particles into Atmosphere

July 26, 2012

Natural News - Geo-engineers are finally coming out of the “chemtrail” closet, as reports are now emerging about deliberate plans in the works to dump untold tons of sulfate chemicals into the atmosphere for the purported purpose of fighting so-called “global warming.”

The U.K.’s Guardian and others are reporting that a multi-million dollar research fund, which just so happens to have been started and funded by Microsoft founder and vaccine enthusiast Bill Gates, is being used to fund the project. A large balloon hovering at 80,000 feet over Fort Sumner, New Mexico, will release the sulfates into the atmosphere within the next year.

The stated purpose for this massive release of toxic sulfate particles is that doing so will allegedly reflect sunlight back into the atmosphere, and thus cool the planet. But many environmental groups and advocates of common sense are decrying the idea as dangerous, and one that could result in permanent damage to ecosystems all across the globe.

“Impacts include the potential for further damage to the ozone layer, and disruption of rainfall, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions, potentially threatening the food supplies of billions of people,” said Pat Mooney, Executive Director of the ETC Group, a Canadian environmental protection group.

“It will do nothing to decrease levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or halt ocean acidification. And solar geo-engineering is likely to increase the risk of climate-related international conflict, given that the modeling to date shows it poses greater risks to the global south.”

But the Gates-backed cohort is persistent in its efforts to geo-graffiti the world, as its scientists insist that governments are not doing enough to fight back against the supposed environment impacts of global warming. If governments refuse to implement high enough carbon taxes to eliminate greenhouse gases, in other words, then Gates and Co. believes it has no choice but to “save the planet” by polluting it with sulfate particles.

Spraying the skies with sulfate particles will destroy the planet faster than ‘global warming’ ever could

Sulfate particles are toxic, though, and constitute the very same type of ambient particulate matter (PM) that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers to be a noxious air pollutant. Deliberately spraying the skies with tiny particles composed of any material, for that matter, is hazardous both to respiratory health in humans and animals, as well as to water sources, soils, and other delicate environmental resources.

“Sulfate particles from acid rain can cause harm to the health of marine life in the rivers and lakes it contaminates, and can result in mortality,” says an online water pollution guide (http://www.water-pollution.org.uk/health.html). A University of Washington (UW) report also explains that sulfate particles “contribute to acid rain, cause lung irritation, and have been a main culprit in causing the haze that obscures a clear view of the Grand Canyon.”

Blocking the sun with reflective particles will also deprive humans of natural sunlight exposure, which is a primary source for naturally generating health-promoting vitamin D in the body. So once again, Bill Gates is at the helms of a project that seeks to control the climate in artificial ways using toxic chemicals, an endeavor that is sure to create all sorts of potentially irreversible problems for humanity and the planet.


Vaccines must not be doing the trick fast enough for Bill Gates and the others who want to reduce the world population to 500 million. We know from his own words (see the video above) that Bill Gates is not interested in saving lives but in reducing the world's population through vaccines and other means—he's also big on genetically modified foods and atmospheric geoengineering. If he really wanted to help the less developed countries, he'd be trying to save lives by spending the funds of his foundation (a tax-free haven for his vast wealth as well as the fortunes of other billionaires) for clean water and sanitation—but the power seekers really don't want to stop all the deaths caused by famine and lack of clean water. Rather, their goal is to reduce the world's population by 90%.

Comment by vansak,The Huffington Post (U.S. Heat Wave 2012: What's Behind The Hot Weather?)
July 5, 2012

Wow - just came across this article & embrace the interest & varying perspectives on the matter. Now I fully recognize what I'm about to state is going to expose me to intense scrutiny & ridicule - something I have learned to deal with over the past year; nonetheless all of us deserve to know the truth behind this absolute ludicrous intensity of heat, or in other words intensity of solar radiation & electromagnetic frequencies, which of course includes the visible light spectrum thus the equally ludicrous record shattering celestial illumination of Jupiter, Venus, the moon, & the sun.

Back to this heat wave – I can’t get into the details now but last May I had a “rude” introduction to multiple phenomena including those of chemtrails which subsequently led to the startling discovery these substances being doused in the skies globally consisted of crystalline substances, i.e. liquid crystals. Since I have outlined overwhelming scientific observations supporting these claims, in which these substances inherently align into waveguides upon the introduction of an electromagnetic field, provided inherently via the earth, constructing what can be thought of as a virtual “molecular fiber optic” network or grid in the sky. Why is this relevant? Because these waveguides polarize EMF’s, just as they do in HD screens & devices, literally channeling solar radiation, bypassing much of the protective elements within the lower atmosphere (nitrogen, oxygen, etc) & directing it to the surface of the earth.

I first went public with this in May of 2011. Not even considering the science & physics I’ve outlined, if my claims were to hold merit this grid of waveguides would have a subsequent effect on EMF’s resulting in heightened temperatures across the globe as well as increased illumination of celestial bodies i.e. the “supermoon”.

As this article has outlined not only has this physical side-effect manifested, but it has done it in simply extraordinary proportions, generating the most unusual past 14 months of weather patterns, shattering heat records at an unparalleled rate. I came out with this last May, & so it also was the initial month of record shattering warmth which seems to only be escalating in magnitude.

I understand the inclination to dismiss this as why in the world would we intentionally be exposed to heightened levels of radiation? Well the answer will challenge all that we “think” we know about the nature of our reality. Please just take a moment to view some of what I have shared. In the end if you think it’s BS, that’s totally fine – just remember this info to call upon later. Take care, VanSak

“Supersun”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5t1jg9_l0

Science & Physics behind this radiation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j2QW8bzeMM

A multitude of scientific observations clearly pointing to liquid crystals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hFaE0432tQ



The Sixth Seal, the Seven Trumpets, and the Return of Christ

The first four seals in the Book of Revelation describe death of 1/4 of the earth by war, scarcity, famine, social injustice, plagues, etc. At the opening of the fifth seal, the souls in heaven ask: "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost Thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" They are told: "Rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled."

Following the cosmic disturbances of the sixth seal (great earthquake, sun turns black, moon turns blood red, stars fall to earth, sky rolls up like a scroll, every mountain and island moves), there is silence in heaven about 1/2 hour before the seventh seal is opened.

The seventh seal in the Book of Revelation reveals itself as the seven trumpets, described as "the wrath of the Lamb." The first four trumpets will bring destruction upon the earth (1/3 of trees burned up, all green grass burned, 1/3 sea turns to blood, 1/3 sea creatures die, 1/3 ships destroyed, 1/3 waters poisoned, 1/3 sun and moon and stars darkened).

At the fifth trumpet, Satan will be released from the bottomless pit to rule over his one-world government and religion. 'Locusts' will torment men without the seal of God for five months. "And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man. And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them."

At the sixth trumpet, the 200 million man army of the one-world government, the anti-Christian beast, will kill 1/3 part of men. Shorty after this, at the sounding of the seventh trumpet, Jesus will come in the clouds of heaven to deliver up his people. As the nations prepare for the Battle of Armageddon, the final battle, Jesus will return with His army from heaven to destroy the kingdom of the beast.

God will pour out the seven vials of His wrath upon the earth; the last enemy to be destroyed will be death, Satan. And the Lord will create a new heaven and a new earth, and He will bring New Jerusalem down from heaven to earth, and He will reign with His people forever and ever.

Related:

Olympic Opening Ceremony Promotes Socialist Healthcare, Homosexuality

Olympic Opening Ceremony Grapples with Weighty Issues

July 28, 2012

AFP – A celebration of free healthcare, the trade union struggle, the battle for women's rights and a fleeting lesbian kiss: the Olympics opening ceremony Friday did not shy away from weighty social issues.

Unsurprisingly, the show devised by Oscar-winning British director Danny Boyle drew accusations from the British political right that it had strayed into "leftie" issues.

Aidan Burley, a lawmaker from Prime Minister David Cameron's ruling Conservative party, tweeted:

"The most leftie opening ceremony I have ever seen -- more than Beijing, the capital of a communist state! Welfare tribute next?"

He followed that with:

"Thank God the athletes have arrived! Now we can move on from leftie multi-cultural crap."

Several people tweeted their support for his comments.

Alastair Campbell, former British Labour prime minister Tony Blair's communications chief, retorted on Twitter:

"Brilliant that we got a socialist to do the opening ceremony."

Cameron's Downing Street office distanced itself from Burley's comments, tweeting a message from the premier reading:

"The opening ceremony has been a great showcase for this country. It's more proof Britain can deliver."

Burley was removed from his job as aide to the transport minister last month after attending a Nazi-themed stag party in a French ski resort.

Ahead of the show, Boyle -- whose film "Slumdog Millionaire" won eight Oscars in 2009 -- denied he was pushing a political agenda.

"The sensibility of the show is very personal," he said.

"A group of us have created it, but we had no agenda other than... values that we feel are true.

"Not everybody will love that but people will be able to recognise as being honest and truthful really. I felt that very strongly. There is no b(expletive) in it, and there is no point-making either."

The show bringing the curtain up on the London Olympics began with sections showing idyllic rural Britain being overtaken by the Industrial Revolution, before moving on to a 10-minute sequence celebrating the state-run National Health Service (NHS).

Britain's first televised lesbian kiss -- from a 1993 episode of soap opera "Brookside" -- was shown in a fast-moving montage of flim and TV clips.

Later in the ceremony, dancers formed the shape of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament badge and other performers represented the struggle of trade union movements.

Democratic Party Adds Gay Marriage to Platform; As Attacks Continue, Chick-fil-A Getting Plenty of Support for Its Christian Values

The Democratic Party has added new language endorsing gay marriage in its platform draft, the Washington Blade reports. Sen. Harry Reid said in May that he believed the party would alter its platform in favor of gay marriage, after President Obama spoke out that month in favor of same-sex couples' right to marry. The Republican Party's platform calls for a constitutional amendment that would ban all same-sex marriages, even in states that allow them. [Source]

As Attacks Continue, Chick-fil-A Getting Plenty of Support for Its Christian Values

July 28, 2012

New American - While Chick-fil-A has determined to move past the controversy raised by its president’s recent comments on family, Christian values, and same-sex marriage, homosexual activists and their fellow travelers seem to have found an object worthy of their irrational rage. In mid-July, Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy told a Baptist publication that the restaurant chain his father, Truett Cathy, founded in the 1940s has always been run on strong Christian and traditional family values. He later told a nationally syndicated radio program that America was in danger of God’s judgment for its arrogant and anti-Christian embrace of same-sex marriage.

The resulting national backlash from the homosexual activist community — which, among other actions, encouraged a boycott of Chick-fil-A restaurants — prompted the restaurant chain to remind the public that it exists to sell chicken sandwiches, not fight political battles.

In a July 19 statement the chain said that it would “leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena,” and that its restaurants would continue to focus on treating “every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation, or gender.”

Supporters of homosexual marriage, however, have been unable to leave the issue and “agree to disagree.” Nothing less than the public shunning and humiliation — and, if at all possible, the total destruction — of the successful Christian business will do. Thus, along with the continued requisite Change.org boycott of the restaurant have come high-profile and politically motivated attacks in major cities where Chick-fil-A is quietly trying to conduct its business.

On July 19 Boston Mayor Thomas Menino got some free publicity by announcing that he would try to block the restaurant chain’s attempt to open a store in his town.

“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston,” Menino announced to the Boston Herald. “You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.”

Responding to rumors that Chick-fil-A was looking into opening a restaurant somewhere along the city’s Freedom Trail, a 2.5-mile brick path that commemorates the American Revolution and the nation’s quest for independence, Menino tried to correlate America’s own monumental founding with the attempts by homosexuals to normalize their aberrant lifestyle.

“That’s the Freedom Trail,” intoned the mayor as he co-opted America’s rich heritage for his own politics. “That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.”

In similar fashion, Chicago’s aggressively political Democratic machine mounted its own assault of the Christian company. On July 25 the Chicago Tribune reported that the city’s First Ward alderman, Poco “Joe” Moreno, would attempt to block Chick-fil-A’s attempts to open a restaurant in his neighborhood.

“If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the 1st Ward,” Moreno told the Tribune. Referring to Cathy’s reasonably Christian comments as “bigoted” and “homophobic,” Moreno complained that “because of this man’s ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward.”

Chicago’s mayor, Obama apparatchik Rahm Emanuel, attempted to ride the undercurrent of Moreno’s slavishly pro-homosexual comments, issuing a statement assuring Chicagoans that:

Chick-fil-A’s compassionate Christian values “are not Chicago values.” Emanuel insisted that Christian values “disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents” and would be “a bad investment” for the city.

As Moreno and Emanuel were posing as friends of the homosexual lobby, a more tolerant Chicago politician, Alderman Howard Brookins, Jr., said he would welcome Chick-fil-A to his 21st Ward.

“People’s personal beliefs, unless they are way out of bounds, should not go into the decision as to whether a company should come into a particular area,” Brookins told the Chicago Tribune. Alderman Brendan Reilly of the 42nd Ward, where Chicago’s only current Chick-fil-A is located, agreed with Brookins’ assessment, saying that unless there is evidence that the chain is actively discriminating against someone, the best philosophy is to live and let live. “If citizens find the corporation’s views distasteful, they can vote with their feet,” Reilly said.

Which is what the Jim Henson Company, owner of the “Muppets” franchise, has decided to do with regards to its contract with Chick-fil-A. According to the Los Angeles Times, the company responsible for Kermit the Frog, Miss Piggy, Ernie and Bert, and a host of other puppets that have enchanted children for over 30 years, had in recent months been working with Chick-fil-A to create toys for the restaurant chain’s kids meals. But the Jim Henson Company has now decided to pull the plug on the Chick-fil-A. The company took to its Facebook page to assure one and all that the

“Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years,” and to announce that it had “notified Chick-Fil-A that we do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors.”

In order to leave no doubts that it eschews the values embraced by Chick-fil-A and embraces the values of America’s minority homosexual community, the company added that

“Lisa Henson, our CEO, is personally a strong supporter of gay marriage and has directed us to donate the payment we received from Chick-Fil-A to GLAAD” — the aggressively homosexual Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

Of course, those Americans whose hearts and minds resonate with the Christian values embraced by Chick-fil-A have been doing some voting as well. As the restaurant chain was absorbing the non-stop attacks of pro-homosexual groups and their backers, conservative radio talk-show host Mike Huckabee suggested that supporters of traditional values celebrate a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, launching an I Support Chick-fil-A Facebook page where people could register their support for the company. According to Baptist Press News, by July 25 over 200,000 people had signed on to the page to say that they would support the cause by eating at Chick-fil-a on August 1.

“Let’s affirm a business that operates on Christian principles and whose executives are willing to take a stand for the Godly values we espouse by simply showing up and eating at Chick-Fil-A on Wednesday, August 1,” Huckabee wrote on the page. “Too often, those on the left make corporate statements to show support for same-sex marriage, abortion, or profanity, but if Christians affirm traditional values, we’re considered homophobic, fundamentalists, hate-mongers, and intolerant.”

Huckabee emphasized that “there’s no need for anyone to be angry or engage in a verbal battle. Simply affirm appreciation for a company run by Christian principles by showing up on Wednesday, August 1 or by participating online — tweeting your support, or sending a message on Facebook.”

Apparently, someone with access to the inner workings of Facebook’s online machine couldn’t tolerate the success of the campaign. On July 24 the “I Support Chick-fil-A” page disappeared from Facebook for 12 hours, prompting Huckabee to comment when it finally re-appeared:

“We caught a 12-hour bug — apparently it hits when large numbers of Christians support something and post about it on Facebook!”

Huckabee later wrote that Facebook had “decided to censor and delete the entire event page, and it was down for over 12 hours until they finally decided that maybe that wasn’t really smart.”

Meanwhile, Dan Cathy and the management of Chick-fil-A have determined that they will concentrate on keeping business as usual their main focus.

“From the day Truett Cathy started the company, he began applying biblically-based principles to managing his business,” the company said in a statement as it attempted to distance itself from the ongoing fray. “For example, we believe that closing on Sundays, operating debt-free, and devoting a percentage of our profits back to our communities are what make us a stronger company and Chick-fil-A family.”

The company said that its “mission is simple: to serve great food, provide genuine hospitality, and have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.”

The Rothschilds: the First Barons of Banking

In early July 2008, Baron Rothschild said that his family's business would be involved in bankruptcy restructurings in the U.S., a franchise they predicted would see a lot more activity in the months ahead. Rothschild believes that there is a New World Order. In his opinion, banks will deleverage and there will be a new form of global governance. The Rothschilds have worked for centuries: quietly, without fuss, behind the scenes. "We have had 250 years or so of family involvement in the finance business," says Rothschild. "We provide advice on both sides of the balance sheet, and we do it globally." By the 19th century, they ran a financial institution with the power and influence of a combined Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and perhaps even Goldman Sachs and the Bank of China today. The Rothschilds have been helping the British government -- and many others -- out of a financial hole ever since they financed Wellington’s army and thus victory against the French at Waterloo in 1815. In the 1820s, the Rothschilds supplied enough money to the Bank of England to avert a liquidity crisis. There is not one institution that can save the system in the same way today; not even the U.S. Federal Reserve. So how did the Rothschilds manage to emerge relatively unscathed from the financial meltdown? "You could say that we may have more insights than others, or you may look at the structure of our business," he says. "As a family business, we want to limit risk. There is a natural pride in being a trusted adviser."



Rockefeller-owned Exxon had a net income of $11 billion in the first quarter of 2011. During the same quarter, Shell's profit rose 60 percent to about $9 billion. France's Total SA made about $5.8 billion, up 50 percent. ConocoPhillips' earnings rose 43 percent. Chevron's net income rose 36 percent to $6.21 billion.

Every penny increase at the pump takes $4 million per day from the American consumer. So a 10-cent increase is $40 million a day (or $14.6 billion per year). [A $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil translates into roughly a 25 cent increase in retail gasoline prices.]

The Federal Reserve Board, a group of private bankers (including the Rothschild and Rockefeller families) prints money out of thin air and loans it at interest to the U.S. government. In June 2012 alone, U.S. taxpayers paid $104 billion in interest to this tiny group of elite bankers.

The Netaid organization says that with just $13 billion a year the basic health and food needs of the world's poorest people could be met. [Source]

The investment banks (Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, etc.) used to lend money to Merchants Producers End Users and Speculators (companies/individuals that use the resources to make products using commodities), which allowed supply and demand to work. But in 2000 Congress passed laws that allowed the investment banks to trade commodities for themselves, so they bought warehouse storage tanks, leased ships themselves, etc. [the law, also known as the 'Enron loophole', also opened the door to unregulated trading of credit default swaps, the financial instruments blamed, in part, for the current economic meltdown]. The Federal Reserve, which is owned by a group of private bankers, gave them unlimited funds with which they now control the markets. The people are getting screwed by this arrangement and it must end. The Glass Steagall Act must be brought back along with contract limits on positions, and the Volker Rule must be enforced or THE BANKSTERS will rob us all. The banksters need JAIL TIME NOW. [William H., Oil Speculation Imposes “the Most Insidious Tax” on Americans]

Since passage of The Commodity Futures Modernization Act (which was approved in December 2000, just before Bill Clinton’s term as president ended—beware of Santa's secret legislation), financial speculators now account for more than 60% of some agricultural futures and options markets, compared to just 12% 15 years ago. Runaway inflation on food and gas prices will be a reality in the future (the Bible tells us this will be the case near the end). Financial speculators have flooded food commodity markets, creating massive inflation and sudden price spikes. In the past five years, the total assets of financial speculators in these markets have nearly doubled, from $65 billion in 2006 to $126 billion in 2011. [Source]

Eliminate the Fed (and the oil barons and Wall Street) and repeal the 'Commodity Future Modernization Act of 2000'. The fix is that simple. But the power seekers, the tiny elite who run the world, want the money and power for themselves; and our politicians and bureaucrats have sold us out to the power seekers for their own self preservation.



Flashback: Baron David de Rothschild Sees a New World Order in 'Global Banking Governance'

Originally published on July 11, 2008, before the global financial crisis came to the forefront of the business world and world media in September 2008.
UAE National - Among the captains of industry, spin doctors and financial advisers accompanying British prime minister Gordon Brown on his fund-raising visit to the Gulf this week, one name was surprisingly absent. This may have had something to do with the fact that the tour kicked off in Saudi Arabia. But by the time the group reached Qatar, Baron David de Rothschild was there, too, and he was also in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

Although his office denies that he was part of the official party, it is probably no coincidence that he happened to be in the same part of the world at the right time. That is how the Rothschilds have worked for centuries: quietly, without fuss, behind the scenes.
"We have had 250 years or so of family involvement in the finance business," says Baron Rothschild. "We provide advice on both sides of the balance sheet, and we do it globally."
The Rothschilds have been helping the British government -- and many others -- out of a financial hole ever since they financed Wellington’s army and thus victory against the French at Waterloo in 1815.

According to a long-standing legend, the Rothschild family owed the first millions of their fortune to Nathan Rothschild’s successful speculation about the effect of the outcome of the battle on the price of British bonds. By the 19th century, they ran a financial institution with the power and influence of a combined Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and perhaps even Goldman Sachs and the Bank of China today. In the 1820s, the Rothschilds supplied enough money to the Bank of England to avert a liquidity crisis.

There is not one institution that can save the system in the same way today; not even the U.S. Federal Reserve. However, even though the Rothschilds may have lost some of that power -- just as other financial institutions on that list have been emasculated in the last few months -- the Rothschild dynasty has lost none of its lustre or influence.

So it was no surprise to meet Baron Rothschild at the Dubai International Financial Centre. Rothschild’s opened in Dubai in 2006 with ambitious plans to build an advisory business to complement its European operations. What took so long? The answer, as many things connected with Rothschilds, has a lot to do with history. When Baron Rothschild began his career, he joined his father’s firm in Paris. In 1982 President Francois Mitterrand nationalised all the banks, leaving him without a bank. With just $1 million in capital, and five employees, he built up the business, before merging the French operations with the rest of the family’s business in the 1990s.

Gradually the firm has started expanding throughout the world, including the Gulf.
"There is no debate that Rothschild is a Jewish family, but we are proud to be in this region. However, it takes time to develop a global footprint," he says.
An urbane man in his mid-60s, he says there is no single reason why the Rothschilds have been able to keep their financial business together, but offers a couple of suggestions for their longevity.
"For a family business to survive, every generation needs a leader," he says. "Then somebody has to keep the peace. Building a global firm before globalisation meant a mindset of sharing risk and responsibility. If you look at the DNA of our family, that is perhaps an element that runs through our history. Finally, don’t be complacent about giving the family jobs."
He stresses that the Rothschild ascent has not been linear -- at times, as he did in Paris, they have had to rebuild. While he was restarting their business in France, his cousin Sir Evelyn was building a British franchise. When Sir Evelyn retired, the decision was taken to merge the businesses. They are now strong in Europe, Asia especially China, India, as well as Brazil. They also get involved in bankruptcy restructurings in the U.S., a franchise that will no doubt see a lot more activity in the months ahead.

Does he expect governments to play a larger role in financial markets in future?
"There is a huge difference in the Soviet-style mentality that occurred in Paris in 1982, and the extraordinary achievements that politicians, led by Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, have made to save the global banking system from systemic collapse," he says. "They moved to protect the world from billions of unemployment. In five to 10 years those banking stakes will be sold -- and sold at a profit."
Baron Rothschild shares most people’s view that there is a New World Order. In his opinion, banks will deleverage and there will be a new form of global governance.
"But you have to be careful of caricatures: we don’t want to go from ultra liberalism to protectionism."
So how did the Rothschilds manage to emerge relatively unscathed from the financial meltdown?
"You could say that we may have more insights than others, or you may look at the structure of our business," he says. "As a family business, we want to limit risk. There is a natural pride in being a trusted adviser."
It is that role as trusted adviser to both governments and companies that Rothschilds is hoping to build on in the region.
"In today’s world we have a strong offering of debt and equity," he says. "They are two arms of the same body looking for money."
The firm has entrusted the growth of its financing advisory business in the Middle East to Paul Reynolds, a veteran of many complex corporate finance deals.
"Our principal business franchise is large and mid-size companies," says Mr Reynolds. "I have already been working in this region for two years and we offer a pretty unique proposition. We work in a purely advisory capacity. We don’t lend or underwrite, because that creates conflicts. We are sensitive to banking relationships. But we look to ensure financial flexibility for our clients."
He was unwilling to discuss specific deals or clients, but says that he offers them "trusted, impartial financing advice any time day or night." Baron Rothschilds tends to do more deals than their competitors, mainly because they are prepared to take on smaller mandates.
"It’s not transactions were are interested in, it’s relationships. We are looking for good businesses and good people," says Mr Reynolds. "Our ambition is for every company here to have a debt adviser."
Baron Rothschild is reluctant to comment on his nephew Nat Rothschild’s public outburst against George Osborne, the British shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nat Rothschild castigated Mr Osborne for revealing certain confidences gleaned during a holiday in the summer in Corfu.

In what the British press are calling "Yachtgate," the tale involved Russia’s richest man, Oleg Deripaska, Lord Mandelson, a controversial British politician who has just returned to government, Mr Osborne and a Rothschild. Classic tabloid fodder, but one senses that Baron Rothschild frowns on such publicity.
"If you are an adviser, that imposes a certain style and culture," he says. "You should never forget that clients want to hear more about themselves than their bankers. It demands an element of being sober."
Even when not at work, Baron Rothschild’s tastes are sober. He lives between Paris and London, is a keen family man -- he has one son who is joining the business next September and three daughters -- an enthusiastic golfer, and enjoys the "odd concert." He is also involved in various charity activities, including funding research into brain disease and bone marrow disorders.

It is part of Rothschild lore that its founder sent his sons throughout Europe to set up their own interlinked offices. So where would Baron Rothschild send his children today?
"I would send one to Asia, one to Europe and one to the United States," he said. "And if I had more children, I would send one to the UAE."

The Start of the Global Financial Crisis (2008)

Timeline of Events in September 2008 Causing the Global Recession

Originally Published on January 4, 2009

Suited101.com - The global financial crisis came to the forefront of the business world and world media in September 2008, with the failure and merging of a number of American financial companies. It was not a surprise -- many business journals had been commenting on the stability of the leading American and European financial firms following the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis. Much of the American economy is built on credit with firms borrowing money from other firms and the general consumer borrowing money for homes and cars. Many people were taking advantage of the housing boom in the US when it ended, leaving both investors and mortgage companies in trouble.

Timeline of Events Leading to the Global Financial Crisis

On 7 September 2008, it was announced that two firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would be nationalised to try to ensure the financial stability of the two firms.

One week later, on the 14th September 2008, it came to light that the financial services firm, Lehman Brothers, would file for bankruptcy after being denied support by the Federal Reserve Bank. Later the same day, the Bank of America announced that it would be purchasing Merrill Lynch.

Due to the above factors, there was major instability on the global stock markets with major decreases in market value between the 15th and 17th of September 2008.

On the 16th September, the American International Group (AIG), which suffered due to its credit rating being reduced, was helped by the Federal Reserve which created an $85 billion credit facility to stop it from collapse.

Over the next two weeks, more banks failed and the two remaining banks-Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley converted into 'bank holding companies' so that they had more access to market liquidity. Numerous plans were put forward with intent to solve the crisis and in the end President George W. Bush and the Secretary of the Treasury announced a $700 billion financial aid package intented to limit the damage that the previous few week's events caused. The plan was received well by investors on Wall Street and around the world.

On 28th September it was announced that Fortis, a large banking and finance firm would be semi-nationalized with Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands investing over 11 billion Euros into the company. On Monday 29th September, it was announced that the US bank Wachovia would be bought up by Citigroup (this deal fell through in early October 2008 and Wachovia opted for a more favourable offer from Wells Fargo) and stock market values fell dramtically in both the US and Europe. Later that day, Iceland nationalized the Icelandic lender Glitnir.

Finally, on Tuesday 30th September 2008, stock markets begain to rise again, although the credit markets remained very tight. It was also announced that 9 billion Euros was being made available for the bank Dexia by France, Belgium and Luxembourg.

Consumer spending has fallen, and banks are much less likely to approve loans, and with many countries now in a recession, there will me more hard times ahead.

The events described above started a plethora of problems in the economic and political world and continued through the end of 2008 into the beginning of 2009 and is likely to continue effect the world for months and years to come.

Read more here and here...

A Nation of Government Dependents Welcomes Wealth Redistribution

Shocking Video of Howard Dean Declaring That It Is the Job of the Government to Redistribute Our Wealth

February 9, 2011

The Economic Collapse - In the shocking video you are about to watch, Howard Dean declares that it is the job of the government to redistribute our wealth. Not only that, he says it in such a way that indicates that he believes that such a notion should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Well, while it is true that the United States has become a highly socialized nation, the reality is that this is not what the founding fathers intended. The founders intended for us to live in a land where we would have enough freedom and enough liberty to be able to work hard and enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They did not intend for a gigantic federal government to take huge amounts of money from one group of people and give it to another group of people.

In any nation where a large scale redistribution of wealth is happening, the incentive to work goes right out the window. Pretty soon you end up with an entire class of people that have learned how to "make a living" by being a parasite of the government, and that is not good for any economy.

If our founding fathers were alive today, they would be horrified by what we have turned into. In 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following....

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

The sad truth is that democracy starts to break down once people start realizing that they can vote themselves money out of the national treasury. In fact, that is a very large part of what politics in America is all about today. Politicians are constantly promising what they are "going to do" for various groups of people.

Benjamin Franklin once stated the following....

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Not that our founding fathers were against charity. In fact, they believed in it very much. It is just that they did not believe in repressive taxation by a huge national government and they did not believe in large scale redistributions of wealth.

With all of that in mind, watch this shocking video of Howard Dean declaring that it is the job of the government to redistribute our wealth....

Obviously Howard Dean envisions an “America” that is very different from the one that our founding fathers intended.

But does that mean that all government welfare programs are bad? Of course not. In fact, if we were to cut them all off today we would have millions of people starving in the streets.

A very large percentage of Americans today don’t even know how to take care of themselves. If we pulled away all government support all of a sudden there would be chaos and anarchy in the streets.

The sad reality is that we have tens of millions of Americans that are now deeply dependent on the socialist system that we have established. Unfortunately, this is what socialism does – it turns people into pets of the government. Our society should be teaching people to be self-sufficient, but instead we are teaching people to allow the government to take care of them from the cradle to the grave.

So does that mean that our founding fathers would be in favor of the rampant corporate greed that we are witnessing today?

Of course not.

As I have written about previously, the founding fathers were against all large concentrations of power. During the Boston Tea Party, it was the tea of perhaps the most powerful corporation in the entire world at the time (the East India Trading Company) that our founders dumped into the harbor.

If you study early American history, you soon come to realize that corporations were generally very limited in scope and size for many, many years. The era of the giant corporation is relatively new, and our founding fathers never intended for our society to be dominated by gigantic international corporations.

So when the Democrats argue that we should give more power to the federal government and the Republicans argue that we should give more power to the big corporations, they are both wrong.

Our founding fathers did not intend for our federal government to have nearly so much power, and they did not intend for big, wealthy corporations to have so much power either.

Fortunately, many Americans today are getting back in touch with those principles. There is a growing dissatisfaction with the size of government and, according to Gallup, two-thirds of Americans are now dissatisfied with the size and influence of major corporations in America today.

However, it is one thing to discuss the finer points of political and economic philosophy, but it is another thing altogether to deal with the reality of tens of millions of people that cannot feed themselves. As I have mentioned many times before, there are over 43 million Americans on food stamps today. So what are we going to do with all of them? Allow them to starve? Almost 53 million Americans receive Social Security payments. What are we going to do – cut off Social Security and watch millions of elderly and disabled people freeze to death in their own homes? Of course not. [The largest-ever federal payroll hit 2.15 million people in 2011, which does note include Department of Defense employees and all members of the military; the true size of the federal government, including contractors, is much larger: it is estimated to be 15 million or more.]

But we have got to start swinging the pendulum back in the other direction. Right now one out of every six Americans is enrolled in some kind of anti-poverty program run by the federal government.

How many Americans being taken care of by the federal government will be too much?

One out of five?

One out of four?

One out of three?

Eventually the entire system crumbles when there are too few people still willing to work hard.

If you ever get the chance to visit a communist country you should. You will notice that nobody really works very hard. That is because there is no incentive to work hard. Very little real wealth gets produced and everyone suffers for it.

So does that mean the U.S. system works?

Of course not.

What we have in the United States today is not real capitalism. It is more aptly called “corporatism”. The big corporations and the big financial institutions have accumulated an absolutely stunning amount of economic power and over the decades they have gotten the government to tilt all of the rules of the game in their favor.

In America today, it is really hard for the average person to start a successful business. The big, powerful international corporations that dominate our economy are everywhere.

So most Americans today have to rely on working for an employer. Unfortunately, the big employers have started to realize that they can make much larger profits by shipping our jobs overseas. That is really bad news for the U.S. middle class.

Well, can’t we just tax all of these big corporations like crazy and even everything out? Unfortunately it just does not work that way in today’s global society.

As I have written about previously, the ultra-wealthy and many of the biggest corporations have figured out how to “minimize” their tax burdens. While you and I are being taxed into oblivion, the global elite have figured out how to move their money around to escape taxation as much as possible. In fact, it is estimated that today approximately a third of all the wealth in the world is held in “offshore” tax havens.

Ultra-wealthy individuals and mega-powerful corporations can call just about anywhere “home” in today’s global economy. That is just the way the world works now.

In order to “tax the rich”, you first must get legal jurisdiction over their money.

Our tax system has become entirely unfair and it simply does not work. The whole thing needs to be scrapped.

But as we discuss tax policy, there are tens of millions of Americans that are living in poverty.

So what are we going to do about the growing number of Americans that cannot even feed themselves without government help? Well, the truth is that what they really need is not more handouts. If you give people handouts, they will just need more handouts tomorrow.

No, what all of these Americans really need are good jobs. Unfortunately, there are a whole lot less good jobs in America today than there were ten years ago.

Our politicians have stood by as the giant corporations have moved thousands of facilities over to places such as China and India where they can legally pay people slave labor wages.

Since 2001, over 42,000 U.S. factories have closed down for good, and that number is going to continue to increase unless someone stops it.

But nobody is.

Virtually all of our politicians are just standing off to the side with their hands in their pockets.

So now we have 19.3 percent of the workforce that is either unemployed or underemployed.

Our entire economic system is breaking down. Millions of Americans families are scrambling to find some way to survive. Over the past two years, U.S. consumers have withdrawn $311 billion more from savings and investment accounts than they have put into them.

Other Americans are going very deep into debt because they don’t have any other options. When they finally can’t keep up with all the debt, many of these families are losing their cars and their homes.

We are in the middle of an economic nightmare that is absolutely unprecedented. “Redistributing the wealth” would just be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic at this point. It would not fix a darn thing.

When our politicians promise that a little “change” here or a little “tweak” there will get our economy back to normal, they are lying to you, and most of them know it.

What we need is a comprehensive overhaul of our entire economy. Basically what we need to do is to go back to the blueprint (the U.S. Constitution) and essentially start over.

But most Americans are not ready for that. Most Americans are still enjoying the tremendous prosperity that the biggest debt binge in the history of the world has purchased for us. Most Americans still do not believe that an economic collapse is really coming.

But a massive economic collapse is coming. This whole thing is going to come crashing down and it is not going to be pretty.

Editor's Note: Americans are the most charitable people in the world. When government taxes the people, it takes from them a portion of their wealth with which they could contribute to charitable causes of their choosing. This is how a government redistributes wealth and, in turn, creates a society of dependents who will vote for whomever promises them the most benefits from the public treasury.

Related: