Monday, March 28, 2011

In Order to Disprove Glenn Beck and G. Edward Griffin About the Fed, Dave Neiwert Lies with Half-Truths and Angers Some Leftists

Even some liberals who frequent Crooks and Liars disagree with Neiwert and say G. Edward Griffin is right about the Federal Reserve. Neiwert cites Edward Flaherty as a Griffin "debunker", yet his analysis is filled with half-truths and lumps all Fed conspiracists together

by Larry Simons
March 28, 2011

Glenn Beck devoted his entire program Friday night to discussing the Federal Reserve and had G. Edward Griffin [author of The Creature from Jekyll Island] on as a guest. For quite some time, liberal blogger Dave Neiwert [of Crooks and Liars] has been on a crusade against Beck, and rightly so 90% of the time. Every once in a while Beck is accurate in what he says, but even the "broken clock is right twice a day" analogy doesn’t sit well with Neiwert when it comes to Beck.

In an attempt to debunk the often nutty Beck, Neiwert resorts to 15 seconds of "research" in his latest article titled, "As predicted, Beck goes full-bore Bircher with hour-long promotion of Griffin's anti-Fed conspiracy tome", by copying and pasting portions of analysis from economist Edward Flaherty, who resorts to half-truths when attempting to debunk Griffin’s book The Creature from Jekyll Island, a book that exposes the criminal Federal Reserve system.

Immediately hilarious was Neiwert’s title, in which he uses the words "As predicted", claiming that Beck’s having G. Edward Griffin on his show to discuss the "conspiracy" of the Federal Reserve was a "prediction" even after admitting that Beck said this:

"You, by the way, have to watch this show on Friday -- because there is some truth to that. The unbelievable history of the Fed. The, uh -- what is it, the uh, 'Monster,' is that what it was called? The Monster? The Creature of Jekyll Island. We will give you the truth and none of the crazy conspiracy theories on the Fed on Friday."

Wow. An amazing accomplishment for Neiwert: "Predicting" that Beck will talk about the Fed and G. Edward Griffin’s book when Beck himself said he would. Simply amazing.

Then, Neiwert, as he consistently does, pejoratively refers to the John Birch Society as if just the mention of it alone induces images of craziness and paranoia. Neiwert writes:

"Beck, as we all know, has previously demonstrated a fondness for the Birch Society, and this is consistent with that: Griffin, after all, was a close personal friend and longtime associate of Birch Society founder Robert Welch, and wrote a popular Birch book published in 1964, The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations."

And?

Here are the core principles of the John Birch Society. Let us behold their pure evil, shall we?

John Birch Society core principles:

  • Anti-totalitarian [my god, noooooo!]
  • Anti-socialist [noooooo, not that!]
  • Anti-communist [those evil bastards!]
  • For limited government [this would make the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, a nutjob according to Neiwert]
  • Defenders of the original intention of the Constitution [we can’t have this, now can we?]
  • Opposed to wealth distribution, economic interventionism and fascism.
  • Opposed to a one world government
  • Supports immigration reduction
  • Opposes the United Nations
  • Opposes NAFTA
  • Opposes CAFTA
  • Opposes the North American Union [cites the Security and Prosperity Partnership as evidence of NAU]
  • Supports ending the Federal Reserve

    In other words, our founding fathers would virtually be in complete harmony with the core beliefs of the JBS. Anyone who would disagree with this would most likely hold a distorted and alternative interpretation of the Constitution [probably in the same manner Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln did…both of which wanted government centralized and longed for America to be an empire with virtually no states rights].

    Neiwert then says Griffin has been completely debunked by some historian named Gerry Rough. Neiwert posts 3 links to a series of stories that he claims "show how fraudulent Griffin’s text is", without actually posting any of it within his article, which would have been pretty damning to actually include in his story debunked Griffin texts. Naturally, Neiwert refuses to do that, but simply relies on his readers to click the links and find out for themselves. Why should his readers actually do the work when Neiwert himself doesn’t?

    One thing I discovered when researching information about Rough was that Neiwerts 3 links seem to be among very very few websites that this man’s material can actually be seen on. In fact, I found no others. One website, that apparently is supposed to be Rough’s own site, "In Pursuit of Reason", is gone. Mention of that site is here, but when you click it, no site is there. Another mention of the site is here, at publiceye.org. Again, when you click it…no site.

    In fact, the very 3 links that Neiwert posts of the Gerry Rough writings take you to the archives of a site called floodlight.org, but the floodlight.org site itself is non-existent. Once again, when you go to floodlight.org…nothing.

    Another important fact that Neiwert conveniently omits from his story is that in Rough’s "debunking" of Griffin, he says this after posting an excerpt from Griffin’s book:

    "There are two errors that stand out in this citation. First, the citation is false. Griffin falsely cites Herman E. Krooss, Documentary history of Banking and Currency in the United States, volume III, pp. 190, 191. Volume III starts on page 1617, and pages 190 and 191 have nothing to do with the subject. Please see the update to this."

    When you click where it says "see update", Rough says this:

    "Apparently, there were mistakes made by both Griffin and myself on this one. Griffin's mistake was still wrongly citing his source. On page 346, Griffin cites Krooss, p. 190-191. This is correct. In Griffin's bibliography, he cites only volume III, both 1969 and 1983 versions. This is what lead me off in the wrong direction. The page number was cited correctly, but the volume number was cited incorrectly. The correct volume is volume 2, not volume 3.

    My error did not stop there, however. When I looked at the source, I only looked at the 1969 version. I should have looked at the 1983 version as well, just to make sure of my facts before drawing a premature conclusion. As it turned out, the 1983 version has two completely different editions: The paperback edition and the hardback edition. The hardback edition would have looked identical to the 1969 hardback edition, which I assumed correctly. The paperback edition has four volumes, just like the hardback edition. But the page numbers begin with page 1 at the beginning of each volume, unlike the hardback edition, whose page numbers continue sequentially with each volume. This explains the obvious disparity between the page numbers of Griffin's citation and mine. While I am not proud of my error, I am only too happy to point out and admit my errors where appropriate."

    This begs the question: How many other errors did Rough commit that he did NOT catch?

    Neiwert then mentions that Media Matters "has the complete rundown on Griffin" and links to a Media Matters page that lists several short stories about some of Griffin’s beliefs. Neiwert fails to tell his readers that not one story on the page offers a single refutation of Griffin’s beliefs. Hmmm. I wonder why.

    Neiwert laughingly says this, "Another terrific debunking of far-right Federal Reserve theories generally, including Griffin's texts, was provided by Edward Flaherty at Public Eye." Not only does Neiwert fail to mention what constituted the usage of the word "another", he lies and says that Flaherty’s "debunking" included Griffin’s texts. When you click the link he calls "the first part", you will see 6 references at the bottom of that page. The fourth reference is Griffin’s book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, but nowhere within the text on that page is any Griffin texts found. So, why is the reference to Griffin’s book listed under reference 4? God only knows. But that does not stop lying Dave Neiwert to claim that it included "Griffin’s texts", does it?

    Since Neiwert is not interested in facts or truth telling, it is only here at Real Truth that you can find that G. Edward Griffin has debunked Edward Flaherty, and not the other way around. At the site freedomforceinternational.org, Griffin lays out his responses to Flaherty’s supposed "debunking" of his book. Oh yeah, by the way, this is yet another thing Neiwert omitted from his story.

    Below are Flaherty’s stances on the Fed and Griffin’s responses.

    Flaherty:

    Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the publicly-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board.

    Griffin:

    Basically, Flaherty is correct as far as he goes. But, as we shall see in so many of his statements, he stops short of the entire truth. A half-truth is just as much of a deception as an outright lie. Flaherty says that the Board of Governors is politically appointed. This is true and it is supposed to make us feel safe in the thought that the President responds to the will of the people and that he selects only those who have the public interest at heart. The part of the story omitted by Flaherty is that the President does not select these people from his own personal address book, nor does he ask the public to submit nominations. With few exceptions, he makes appointments from lists given to him by the staffs of banking committees of Congress and from private sources that have been influential in his election campaign. The most powerful of all these groups are the financial institutions (including prominent members of the Fed itself) and the media corporations over which they have effective control.

    One does not have to be a so-called conspiracy theorist to recognize the tremendous influence that these institutions have over the outcome of presidential campaigns, and anyone with knowledge of how our current political system works will understand why the President makes exactly the appointments that the banks want him to make. All one has to do to see the accuracy of this appraisal is to examine the backgrounds and attitudes of the men who receive the appointments. While there is an occasional token individual who appears to come from the consumer sector of society, the majority are bankers deeply committed to the perpetuation of the system that sustains them. Anyone who would seriously challenge the power of the banking cartel would never be appointed. So, while Flaherty is correct in what he says, the implication of what he says (that the Fed is subject to control of the people through the political process) is entirely false.

    Flaherty:

    …nearly all the interest the Federal Reserve collects on government bonds is rebated to the Treasury each year, so the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed.

    Griffin:

    Here is another half-truth that is a whopper deception. It is true that most of the money paid by the government for interest on the national debt is returned to the government. That is because the Fed’s charter requires any interest payments in excess of the Fed’s actual operating expenses to be refunded. However, before we jump to the conclusion that this is a wonderful benefit, we must remember that the banking cartel is able to use tax dollars to pay 100% of its operating expenses with few questions asked about the nature of those expenses. After all of those expenses are paid, what is left over is rebated to the Treasury, as Flaherty says. There is no secret about this, and you will find an explanation of it in my book.

    Technically, there is no "profit" on this money. However, remember that creating money for the government is only one of the functions of the Fed. The real bonanza comes, not from money created out of nothing for the government, but from money created out of nothing by the commercial banks for loans to the private sector. That’s where the real action is. This is the famous slight-of-hand trick. Distract attention with one hand while the coin is retrieved by the other. By focusing on the supposed generosity of the Fed by returning unused interest to the Treasury, we are supposed to overlook the much larger river of gold flowing into the member banks in the form of interest on nothing as a result of consumer and commercial loans.

    Flaherty:

    The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jekyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks.

    Griffin:

    Here again we have a half-truth that functions as a deception. Plans for a return to central banking, indeed, were already known, but they were unpopular with the voters and large blocks of Congress. That was the very problem that led to the great secrecy. Frank Vanderlip, one of the participants at the Jekyll Island meeting, later confirmed that, if the public had known that the bankers were the ones creating legislation to supposedly "break the grip of the money trust," the bill would never have been passed into law. The facts presented in my book, and fully documented by references from original sources, show that my version is historical fact. Flaherty attempts to minimize these facts by implying that the original, secret meeting was not important because the first draft of the legislation was rejected.

    What he does not say is that the second draft that was passed into law was essentially the same as the first. The primary difference was that Senator Aldrich’s name was removed from the title of the bill and replaced by the names of Carter Glass and Robert Owen. This was to remove the stigma of Aldrich as an icon for "big-business Republicans" and replace it with the more popular image of Democrats, "defenders of the working man." It was a strategy advocated by Paul Warburg, one of the participants at the Jekyll Island meeting. The fact that Flaherty makes no mention of this suggests that he has not made an objective analysis but, instead, has presented a biased critique in the guise of scholarship. His statement that "the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks" cannot be taken seriously. The Federal Reserve is not a public body in any meaningful sense of the phrase.

    [Let me add that Flaherty, while admitting the meeting took place in secret, claims it was because "the participants knew that any plan they generated would be rejected automatically in the House of Representatives if it were associated with Wall Street. Because it was secret and because it involved Wall Street, the Jekyll Island affair has always been a favorite source of conspiracy theories." But, naturally, Flaherty completely omits the fact that each of the men went under aliases so that the meeting could be shrouded in complete secrecy. What would Flaherty argue the reason for going under aliases were? Neiwert, not concerned with facts, also omits this]

    Flaherty:

    The banking system is indeed able to create money with a mere computer keystroke. However, a bank’s ability to create money is tied directly to the amount of reserves customers have deposited there. A bank must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits to keep them from leaving to other banks. This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank’s operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money.

    Griffin:

    Flaherty presents facts that in no way contradict what I said in my book. I speak of rotten apples, and he speaks of sweet oranges. My book makes it clear that the bank’s ability to create money is tied to its reserves. The current average ratio (it varies depending on the bank) is about ten-to-one. In other words, for every one dollar on deposit and held in reserve, the bank can create up to an additional nine dollars out of nothing for the purpose of lending. The statement that the banks must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits is humorous when one considers the math. For example, let us assume for the sake of illustration that the bank pays 1.5% interest. Then it turns around and charges, let’s say 6.5% interest. That’s a spread of 5%. Although that’s a pretty good brokerage commission, it doesn’t sound exorbitant. But, here is another of those half-truths. Don’t forget that the bank uses each deposited dollar as a so-called reserve for creating up to an additional nine dollars in loans. It collects interest on these loans as well.

    Let us assume that the bank is not fully loaned up, as they call it, and has an average of only eight dollars in magic-money loans for every one dollar on deposit. In that case, it will collect 6.5% interest on all eight of those dollars. That means, based on each dollar placed on deposit, the bank will collect 52% in interest. After paying the original depositor the generous "competitive" amount of 1.5%, the bank actually receives a brokerage fee of approximately 50%. When Flaherty says that "This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank’s operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money," one can only wonder what banking system he is describing. It certainly is not the one in the United States.

    Flaherty:

    The Federal Reserve consistently resists attempts to audit its books. This is because any independent inspection would reveal the Fed’s treachery. Independent accounting firms conduct full financial audits of the Federal Reserve banks and the Board of Governors every year. The Fed is also subject to certain types of audits from the Government Accounting Office.

    Griffin:

    I never wrote or implied, as Flaherty says, that "any independent inspection would reveal the Fed’s treachery." What I wrote is: (1) The Fed resists external audit; (2) If it were audited by an independent party, I suspect there would be nothing illegal found; (3) The problem is not that it steals from the American people illegally but that it does so legally; (4) Therefore, we do not need to audit the Fed, we need to abolish it.

    Flaherty:

    No foreigners own any part of the Fed. Each Federal Reserve bank is owned exclusively by the participating commercial banks and S&Ls operating within the Federal Reserve bank’s district. Individuals and non-bank firms, be they foreign or domestic, are not permitted by law to own any shares of a Federal Reserve bank. Moreover, monetary policy is controlled by the publicly-appointed Board of Governors, not by the Federal Reserve banks.

    Griffin:

    Flaherty is basically correct, and I have never claimed in my book or in my lectures that it was otherwise. I do not appreciate being lumped together with those who claim foreign control over the Fed. The real danger in this line of reasoning is that it is often coupled with the argument that, if we could only get control away from foreigners and put it into the hands of Congress or the Treasury, then everything would be all right. In truth, even if the Fed were in the hands of foreigners, placing it into the hands of American bankers and politician would make little difference. The Fed does not need to be converted into a government agency. It needs to be abolished.

    Perhaps, the most damning aspect of Neiwerts efforts to ridicule Beck and debunk Griffin is from most of the people who left comments under his story at C & L. Some people actually claim to be "leftists", liberal and haters of Glenn Beck, yet still condemn Neiwert for his insane article. Here are just a handful of the many negative comments directed at Neiwert [which shockingly have not been deleted…I captured the screen shots just incase they are soon]:

    Event horizon

    "If a truthful statement is made is doesn't matter if it's Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, or Griffin. The FED and Wall St are one and the same and are killing the bottom 95% of this country. This clown is either not paying attention or in Wall St.s pocket. Do I have to abandon C & L too?"

    Geronimo

    "Ask Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler what he thinks about Conspiracy Theories. He wrote a book titled "War is a Racket" He was the most decorated marine at his time. He also helped stop the Business Plot of 1933 which was a corporate plot to overthrow FDR.

    Google that shit. I trust Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler a lot more than I trust David Niewert. That's just the way it is. The truth trumps propaganda. Business Plot of 1933. Gen. Smedley Butler War is a Racket. Bottom line."

    damon466

    "As some others on here have stated I do believe the Fed is indeed a very bad thing for this country. In order to get the Fed the way we have it now, laws were passed at the midnight hour much like in Wisconsin !!! Just because an Idiot like Beck finally is Semi-right about something doesn't mean the Subject matter he is discussing is wrong. just means he is like a blind Squirrel and has finally found a nut !!! I mean come on, are you telling me you have such a hard time believing that a bunch of Banksters could get together and conspire to do something bad??? lol Liberals who blindly attack the right just like the right-wing nut jobs attack the left are no better in my eye.. in fact it makes us legit Progressives look bad. You give us a bad name. 1st off, the Fed needs to go period..!! it has managed to enslave the poor and middle class in almost a century. 2nd, 9-11 did indeed not go down the way the official record states it did.. What are all the blind Liberals so afraid to look at about 9-11? Why can't we find out the truth about what really happened on that day?? Is that so bad to ask?? Does that make me a Whacko 9-11 truther because i simply don't believe the lies our government (or moreso the lies the Powerful people and government at the time were and still are telling) is feeding us?? I mean, people in our Government have never lied to us now have they??"

    David762

    "The single most powerful entity in the USA is the Federal Reserve itself -- would They actually permit such a thorough and public audit? Could they even be forced to submit to an audit? I don't know. The Fed basically hold the economic viability and future of this country hostage to their machinations.

    But assuming both the best and the worst -- that we populists do get our audit of the Fed, AND that our worst fears about Their self-serving corruption are proven true, something would be needed to replace that private for-profit institution when it is dismantled and it's leadership are thrown into prison. From that premise, it would be easy to make the leap to the conclusion that "our" TBTFTBTJ Banksters and Wall Street Mobsters have conspired and colluded with the Federal Reserve for their personal financial benefit.

    One way to "pull the vampire fangs" of our corrupt banking and investment industries would be to implement the formation of publicly owned non-profit State Banks, like that of North Dakota's existing State Bank, under the auspices of the USA Treasury. "Our" TBTFTBTJ Banksters have been both publicly funded (taxpayer bailouts) and privately funded (secret Fed loans), none of which has "trickled down" to Main Street USA. The creation of these State Banks would ameliorate these dire economic conditions -- State funds would stay mostly in-state, rather than chasing the highest ROI with the lowest tax burden (usually zero) in the international economic arena. The credit crisis in the States and on Main Street USA would melt away, with an improving job and economic outlook -- something we are not seeing now with the Banksters."

    "I would be among the first to castigate Glenn Beck as a "wily as a fox" Reich-wing nutcase. I once saw a clip of Glenn Beck admitting that between his former (?) illicit drug use and alcoholism "He only had 2 brain cells to rub together, and one of them kept telling his body to breathe, breathe, breathe". Which explains a lot about Glenn Beck, imvho.

    But even a stopped clock displays the correct time twice a day, and in this particular case of the collusion, corruption, misogyny, and perfidy of the Federal Reserve Bank, he is mostly accurate. The Federal Reserve Bank was created as a private for-profit Central Bank, which it remains to this day. President Woodrow Wilson, who signed the enabling legislation for the Federal Reserve Bank, remarked as he left office that he regretted placing a viper in the bosom of liberty. The Federal Reserve has, and exercises, the power of expanding and contracting this country's money supply, creating repeated booms and busts which they profit from. The biggest, most powerful insider traders on Wall Street is the Federal Reserve itself, with the collusion of the TBTFTBTJ Banksters and Wall Street Mobsters.

    You ask for proof? The Federal Reserve Bank would need to be thoroughly and publicly audited in order to get that proof, and that is the one thing that they (the Federal Reserve) will not permit. I and many many others want the Federal Reserve audited, including both an arch-conservative Representative Ron Paul AND uber-liberal Representative Dennis Kucinich. Sometimes conspiracy facts are denigrated as conspiracy theories.

    David Neiwert's attack on those that would question the motives of those that want "our" Central Bank audited places him squarely in association with the shills and camp-followers of the crony corporatists that actually run this country -- that have economically run this country into the ground. I'm reasonably certain that that was not David's intent, but that is the result."

    bys1955

    "Seems like once you label something anti-semitic, you can cease being analytical. Your analysis really doesn't do much to point out any flaws in Griffin's treatise. Beck is popular because he does entwine some of the data into a narrative that makes a bit of sense at times. The problem with Beck is that he is a propagandist and actually proposes nothing useful, but that's why they hired him....hey kind of like Obama,--we believed his analysis and look we're in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and have corporations like GE paying zero taxes, radiated with broken monitors, etc.

    Haven't you guys at Crooks and liars looked at enough crooks and liars to realize there is a conspiracy going on ---this isn't happening by accident!"

    stormcrow60

    "Look, I hate Glenn Beck. I don't watch his television program nor do I listen to his radio show. I am a dyed in the wool Progressive... and I always have been since around age 17 when I left my conservative and fundamentalist upbringing behind. But I am a 911 Truther. I also believe the Federal Reserve is destroying America. I don't learn these things from Glenn Beck. Hell... I would not even know Beck is talking about this stuff if I did not read it here at C&L. But there is overwhelming evidence, both physical and circumstantial that points to the official accounting of 911 to be wrong. As time goes by, more and more people are coming to grips with this. Those who refuse to question the legitimacy of the official accounting of 911... and I'm not just speaking of folks on the street, but I'm also speaking of established experts ie, engineers, scientists, investigators, who cling to the permise that 911 was not an inside job... I believe these folks and these "experts" simply can not come to accept the reality that their goverrnment would attack it's own citizens. Or, should I say in the more recent common vernacular... consumers.

    Nobody can ever convince me that a jet airliner hit the Pentagon. The evidence points to some type of military missile. Nobody can ever convince me the Twin Towers could have been felled by the fires produced by the impacts of the jet air liners. The fires simply were not hot enough to cause the buildings to pancake and freefall as they did. And this unbelievable phenomenon happened not only once... but twice! Then, there is the inexplicable destruction of Building 7. Building 7 was not even brought up or discussed in the final report in the 911 Commission. Why not?

    As far as the Federal Resevre goes, it is simple fact that the Federal Reserve is run by a cabal of banking interests.

    And even though the Federal Reserve Act was created to offset banking interests in America... in fact... those appointed to sit on the Federal Reserve Board by Obama, and Bush43, and Clinton and Bush41 and Reagan are the same folks who oversaw the destruction of our economy. Why they are not all in prison and the keys thrown away is beyond me. But these same folks that sit on the Federal Reserve Board are bought and paid for by the monied interests. Thus, the bankers interests, whom the Federal Reserve Act was supposed to temper, still have control of America's money supply.

    The fact that these bankers lend us our own money at interest is enough right there to disband the Federal Reserve, or at least completely revamp it. Whether they are of Jewish descent or come from another planet, it makes no difference to me. But, it all starts with removing "corporate citizenship" and repealing the Citizens United decision. As long as corporations are legally seen as having the same inalienable rights as every individual American citizen... and as long as corporations can donate unlimmited and anonymous sums of money to our political election campaigns, we are simply doomed. Thomas Jefferson was quoted as saying:

    "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

    This quote purveys the circumstances we live in today. I take it as an affront that those of us who are not drinking the koolaid and have the audacity... the audacity mind you... to question the powers at be are lumped in with those such as Glenn Beck and the Birchers. Questioning our government and demanding turthful answers is our American right, and yet we are castigated for doing so. I am a Progressive that believes in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Every American that truly believes in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, needs to move toward one overwhelming coalition.

    Whether we are Progressives, Tea Partiers, Independents, union members, police, firefighters, school teachers, state and federal government workers, garbage collectors, small business owners, food service employees, health care workers, construction workers and everyone in between... we need to gather together in force and march on Washington. Imagine 10-15 million (or more) American citizens surrounding the White House and the Capital. Like Wisconsin, we would disrupt the governance of our nation by the monied interests and their Congressional lackeys and bring about real change. The military would be helpless... in fact, I wager they would join us. It is the only way to take back our nation. If not... we are dividing ourselves... even though in reality, we all have the same goals and pretty much seek the same sense of well being in our lives. If we do not come together to unseat the monied interests in America... and the world, we will all be enslaved. Take that in your craw and smoke it David Neiwert!"

    travis504

    "Suddenly the truth is anti-Semitic? Who founded the Federal Reserve, the Cherokee Indians?? No, it was Jewish banking families. Who has ALWAYS sat as the chairman of the Fed? The Chinese?? Look up THAT interesting bit of history.

    For C&L to run this type of story is bordering on lunacy. SImply tell the truth, no matter how much it hurts. C&L, you are about to lose a reader if you keep up this nonsense type of ignorant writing."

    Neiwert has this to say about the legitimacy of The Fed:

    "The Creature from Jekyll Island is in many ways a compendium of previous works claiming that the Federal Reserve is a fundamentally illegitimate -- and therefore deeply nefarious -- organization. Most of these theories were deeply anti-Semitic in nature, since they depicted the Fed's bankers as part of a Jewish cabal intent on destroying white American society. What sets Griffin's work apart is that -- like most Birch texts, which assiduously avoided anti-Semitism -- he manages to scrub out the anti-Semitic elements while keeping the paranoid conspiracist elements intact."

    Here is former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan admitting to Jim Lehrer that the Fed is an independent agency and no other agency of government can overrule actions taken by The Fed.

    It is said at the 7:50 mark


    Neiwert is debunked by Greenspan himself on the legitimacy of The Fed. Neiwert's usage of the word "nefarious" [meaning: evil] is meant to be a distraction from what those against The Fed are actually saying their real issue with The Fed is...that is, dangerous and a threat to liberty.

    Thomas Jefferson said, "A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army. We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."

    To be an advocate of a central bank, let alone the central bank [The Fed], is at it's very core, un-American and makes one an enemy of liberty. Dave Neiwert easily falls under this category.

  • Blogger.com users--please help

    Something is wrong with Blogger.com. For some reason, the posting function is malfunctioning. Whenever I post my stories under "Edit HTML" and then switch to "compose" in order to insert links or italicize or whatever I want to do under the compose part [I find it's easier editing under "compose"]---and then I switch back to "edit html", it consolidates my entire post into one continuous paragraph--and prior to yesterday, it has never done that. Why is this happening? Can anyone help?

    Please overlook posts that may look double-spaced and messed up. It's not my fault. I can't fix it. Something is wrong with blogger and thy won't fix it for some reason. I will fix all the structural errors in the posts when blogger fixes this.

    Thursday, March 24, 2011

    The Life and Times of ObamaBush: Obama Orders Limits on Miranda Rights For Domestic Suspects

    by Jonathan Turley
    March 24, 2011

    President Obama has continued his attack on basic constitutional and legal principles with an astonishing new order that allows investigators to not only hold domestic terror suspects for longer periods but to deny them Miranda rights under a strained interpretation of the public safety exception. Obama had attempted to get this change from Congress but was rebuffed. He has now again adopted a tactic of his predecessor and acted unilaterally to trump recognized constitutional rights.

    Past administrations have accepted that all domestic suspects are afforded the same protections under Supreme Court precedent governing Miranda warnings. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000), that the Miranda rights were constitutionally based.

    The Administration is claiming a categorical right to invoke the public safety exception for any terror suspect — a facially absurd assertions since terror cases may or may not involve an imminent threat. Jose Padilla was claimed as being involved in an imminent threat of an nuclear attack. That claims was later withdrawn by the Bush Administration.

    The public safety exception was recognized in New York v. Quarles, when a police officer got a rape suspect to tell him where a gun could be found in a grocery store. The Supreme Court allowed the incriminating statement to be admitted and ruled that it was “a situation where concern for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the literal language of the prophylactic rules enunciated in Miranda.” Notably, the Obama Administration is trying to achieve what it could not achieve in prior cases of coerced statements — to allow these statements to be introduced despite the contravention of a recognized constitutional right.

    The public safety exception has always been highly case specific and this would be the ultimate example of the exception swallowing the rule. Of course, as constitutionally based, Obama cannot unilaterally change the meaning of this right by simple decree.

    What is truly alarming is the failure of the Administration to tell anyone that (after being rebuffed by Congress) Obama simply went forward and ordered the change. The policy allows investigators to deny the protection of Miranda in “exceptional cases” where investigators “conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat.” Obviously, that would allow investigators to claim the need for timely intelligence in any case. What investigator (or approving supervisor) is going to say that this case is not really a pressing matter of public safety? Under Obama’s approach, an investigator can interrogate a suspect first and then, after he has incriminated himself, tell him that he could have remain silent.

    The disclosure of the policy further cements Obama’s legacy as a civil liberties nightmare. He is no longer viewed by civil libertarians as a disappointment, he is now viewed as a menace to fundamental rights.

    Once again, the Democratic leadership is virtually silent in the face of this circumvention of not only the Constitution but Congress itself.

    Commentary
    By Larry Simons

    In the 2007 Charlie Savage interview [with Obama] from the Boston Globe I mentioned in the story earlier today, Savage goes on to ask Obama this question:

    Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?

    Obama responds:

    First and foremost, I agree with the Supreme Court's several decisions rejecting the extreme arguments of the Bush Administration, most importantly in the Hamdi and Hamdan cases. I also reject the view, suggested in memoranda by the Department of Justice, that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. In my view, torture is unconstitutional, and certain enhanced interrogation techniques like “waterboarding” clearly constitute torture. And as noted, I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority.

    Some further points:

    The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.
    [Obviously still happening, as Turley’s article reveals]

    Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional. [Still happening]

    The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea. [Still happening]

    The creation of military commissions, without congressional authorization, was unlawful (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea. [Still in place, under an amended military commissions]

    Obama Should Be Impeached for Attacking Libya. Says Who? Joe Biden, That’s Who


    Videos from 2007 surface showing Joe Biden saying he would impeach President Bush if he attacked Iran. Biden is now rallying support for Obama’s unconstitutional attacks on Libya and violation of the War Powers Act. He’s not the only one changing his tune. Can you guess who else is?

    by Larry Simons
    March 24, 2011

    I am not na├»ve. I do realize Presidential candidates lie their asses off while on the campaign trail and promise things they never plan on delivering, but in my years of political blogging, there might not be a more blatant flip-flop than Vice President Biden and President Obama’s stances on Presidential war powers.

    The move of President Obama to take military action in Libya on March 19 has made liars and frauds of both liberals and conservatives. Those who supported Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq argue why Obama waited so long to take action, while supporters of Obama cheer him on, ignoring the fact that Obama’s military involvement in Libya is as unconstitutional as Bush’s war.

    Two of those Obama cheerleaders, Vice President Joe Biden and Barack Obama himself, have previously stated that the President does not have authority to unilaterally authorize military attacks that do not involve stopping actual or imminent threats to the United States.

    In 2007, on at least two different occasions caught on video, VP Biden is seen stating that he vowed to impeach then President Bush if he attacked Iran. In the video below, Biden says this:

    “I went to five leading scholars, constitutional scholars, and they drafted a treatise for me, it’s being distributed to every senator. And I want to make it clear…and I made it clear to the President [Bush]: That if he takes the nation to war, in Iran, without congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him. And that’s a fact. That is a fact……Iran is no immediate threat to the United States of America.”

    watch the clip


    On Hardball with Chris Matthews a short time after that speech, Biden said this to Matthews after Matthews asked if Biden still stood by his comment about impeaching Bush if he attacked Iran:

    “Yes I do, I want to stand by that comment I made…..The President has no constitutional authority to take this nation to war against of 70 million people unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does…if he does…I would move to impeach him.”

    watch the clip


    It appears that Biden clearly understood the Constitution, Presidential limits and the War Powers Act just over 3 years ago. My, oh my how things change.

    When Biden was running for President, he told his supporters that he would move to impeach Cheney first, then Bush. So, in other words, according to Joe Biden, neither himself nor Obama deserve to remain in office now that both have completely flip-flopped and defend President Obama’s military action in Libya, a nation [just like Iran in 2007] that is currently not attacking the United States nor is an imminent threat to the United States.

    Biden also defends Obama’s refusal to get congressional authority. Biden seems to have no problem whatsoever with Obama only getting authority from the United Nations. Are we now taking our marching orders from the U.N. and no longer from our own Congress in our own country?

    Biden is not the only one who once acknowledged that the President has no constitutional authority to attack a nation that is no threat to the United States. Boston Globe writer Charlie Savage conducted an interview on December 20, 2007 with then Senator Barack Obama. This was Savage’s second question to Obama:

    In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

    Obama replied:

    “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

    As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.”

    I am convinced now that when Obama said, “Change you can believe in”, he meant he was going to physically transform himself into George W. Bush.

    The War Powers Resolution of 1973 clearly states that the President can send the armed forces into action overseas only by the authority of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or there is an imminent threat of an attack. The President is to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and can only keep troops deployed for 60 days with an additional 30 days for withdrawal time.

    Section 1543 of the U.S. Code states:

    (a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported

    In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—


    (1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;


    (2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or


    (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;

    the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—

    (A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

    (B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

    (C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

    The fact that this can be understood by pre-school toddlers and even some farm animals makes it baffling that even some conservatives cannot grasp the War Powers concept. Tuesday night on Hannity, Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was asked by Sean Hannity:

    “So, did he [Obama] make a mistake by not seeking Congress' authorization, and do you view that as a violation of the War Powers Act?

    Gingrich responds:

    “ Well, no, the War Powers Act technically gives him 45 days. But it's a violation of common sense.”

    Actually, Gingrich’s brain is a violation of common sense. Where does Gingrich get the 45 days from? If a President had 45 days to get Congress’ authority, why get it at all? An entire military conflict could be over within 45 days!

    This issue has conservatives lying to protect Obama because they know Obama is violating the Constitution just as Bush did. Those who support Obama ignore the Libyan attacks entirely, because they realize in supporting Obama’s illegal military attacks, they must support Bush’s too.

    Friday, March 11, 2011

    Alex Jones Has Lindsey Williams On Again. Jones' Sites Still Not Posting Interviews in Story/Post Form So Fans Can Comment


    Why is PrisonPlanet no longer placing Lindsey Williams interviews under the Multimedia and Featured Stories sections like they always did prior to two weeks ago? Well, we know exactly why, don’t we?

    by Larry Simons
    March 11, 2011

    PrisonPlanet webmaster Paul Watson and Alex Jones just may be well on their way to capturing 2011’s Fraudie award. They could win the coveted award for their continual refusal to post “highly demanded” interviews with “oil insider” fraud Lindsey Williams within the Multimedia and Featured Stories sections of PrisonPlanet and the Featured Stories section at Infowars as they had always done prior to two weeks ago.

    Two weeks ago, as I previously reported, fans/listeners to the Alex Jones Show radio program were lighting up the comment boards in unprecedented condemnation of fraud Lindsey Williams for his snake-oil salesmen interviews he gives to Alex Jones. Angry fans were [and still are] fed up with Williams’ continual “shocking news” stories he claims to receive from his self-proclaimed connection to “oil insiders” [who mysteriously continue to feed to him their "elitist"/secretive plans when he blabs them to the world].

    Just 9 days ago, I showcased not only why Jones continues to conduct interviews with a guest that the majority of his audience overwhelmingly despises, but that Jones continually lies and claims that most of his audience demands the interviews. Also, ever since the comment sections were being bombarded with negative comments directed at Jones and Williams, Jones and PrisonPlanet webmaster Paul Watson have ceased to place the Williams interviews within the two main sections they had always been placed prior to the fan fury: Featured Stories and Multimedia.

    Now Watson and Jones hide the interviews off to the side of the page at the bottom on a tiny YouTube video, in which comments cannot be posted. It is true that if you go to the main video page at YouTube, you can still leave comments under the video [as many are still leaving negative comments there], but it is hardly the same thing. The bulk of visitors to PrisonPlanet are strictly Alex Jones followers, whereas the bulk of people who post comments under YouTube videos may or not be strictly Jones fans.

    It is pure deception and fraud on Watson and Jones’ part to exclude the Williams interviews from the Featured Stories and Multimedia sections [where they had always been], and then hide them away in a practically hidden section of the page where visitors have to scroll down to find [and cannot comment on]. Odd thing to do, especially since Jones claims the interviews are “highly demanded”.

    Just 2 days ago [March 9], Jones had Williams on again. Lo and behold, the interview is once again tucked away at the bottom of PrisonPlanet’s home page on a tiny YouTube video [see below], safe from public scourge. Alex Jones fans/listeners, once again, are stripped from their First Amendment right to administer dissent and condemnation onto the very people who claim to honor and protect free speech.


    The latest Lindsey Williams interview. Practically hidden away at the right/bottom of PrisonPlanet's home page

    Tuesday, March 8, 2011

    “Irreplaceable” Charlie “Crackhead” Sheen Gets Fired, Wields A Machete. No Mention of It on Prison Planet


    Where’s Alex Jones’ defense of this?

    by Larry Simons
    March 8, 2011

    Actor [and crackhead] Charlie Sheen was fired today from his hit show “Two and a Half Men”. It appears that the actor, who claimed to be “irreplaceable”, will be replaced after all. After hearing the news, Sheen did what any normal, sane and rational person would do: He went to the roof of a building wielding a machete while gulping down a bottle of Tiger Blood. Afterward he told a reporter, “Free at last, free at last”.

    Why is this latest installment in the nutball saga of Charlie Sheen not mentioned on Prison Planet? Didn’t Alex Jones and Paul Watson tell us this over a week ago?:

    “Firstly, Charlie Sheen is clean. Alex Jones spent considerable time with the actor recently and personally witnessed the fact Sheen is off the alcohol, is regularly exercising and is more focused than ever before.”

    It’s clear that Jones and Watson would have us all believe that it is normal and justified to go to the roof of a building and wave a machete. My deduction is that it is normal: If you’re a deranged lunatic.

    Jones and Watson said this over a week ago as well:

    “Secondly, it appears likely that CBS and Warner Bros. Television are trying to force Sheen to quit so they don’t have to fire him and buy out his contract.”

    Obviously, that assumption was wrong. Will Jones and Watson admit they were wrong? Don't count on it.

    Some say that Sheen has the right to be angry because he has a case for breach of contract. Warner Bros. Television sent Sheen’s lawyer a letter today that says there is a clause in Sheen’s contract stating they can fire a performer who commits “a felony offense involving moral turpitude.”

    The bottom line is this: Sheen is a bona fide and certified nut, and you will not see this story on Prison Planet unless it is in the context of defending Sheen. How can you defend someone who sports a machete? Prison Planet will find a way.

    Watch lunatic Sheen wave the machete here.

    Wednesday, March 2, 2011

    Just Seven Days After Angry Alex Jones Fans Flooded Comment Threads with Overwhelming Opposition to Fraud Lindsey Williams, Jones Has Him Back


    Jones claims “listeners demanded” another Williams interview despite the fact that there is no story/post mentioning Williams on the program [preventing fans from posting comments in opposition] on any of Jones’ sites. Prison Planet doesn’t mention the “demanded” interview at all and Infowars only mentions it in a small box in the corner of the homepage

    by Larry Simons
    March 2, 2011

    Last Tuesday and Wednesday, the comment threads to stories titled, “Lindsey Williams to Break Bombshell Info on Alex Jones Show” and “Oil Prices Skyrocket In Line with Williams’ Latest Revelations”, posted on both Alex Jones’ sites Prison Planet and Infowars amassed into a shitstorm of condemnatory comments from angry and fed up listeners. Many comments were directed at Jones for continually inviting Williams, who listeners now regard as a complete fraud and a pitchman for his own products, on his radio show.

    Anger was also directed at Williams’ garrulous nature of his messages. Many listeners posted comments saying that Williams takes 30 minutes to reveal 4 minutes of relevant information. I covered this story last week highlighting the fact that not only were many fans outraged at Williams’ long-winded “revelations”, but also at his snake oil salesman-like plugs of his books and DVD’s. Some have even suggested that Jones allows Williams to use The Alex Jones Show as a platform for plugging Williams’ merchandise and that Jones may even receive a cut from the profits in exchange for airtime.

    Not only does Jones not take heed to the overwhelming criticism he received from last week’s interview with Williams, but he brings Williams back yesterday [March 1] and says this:

    “I wanted to have him [Williams] back up for a part three interview because listeners have demanded it”Jones says this at 7:31 into this video


    For the love of god, can someone please tell me what listeners Jones is referring to? Sure, the comment threads last week had some positive comments about the interview, but easily at least 75% of the comment boards were extremely negative toward Jones and Williams. That translates to “listeners have demanded it” to Jones?

    If what Jones claims is true and “listeners have demanded it”, I would love for Jones to explain why, on his own YouTube page TheAlexJonesChannel, he does not include the portion of video where he states, “I wanted to have him [Williams] back up for a part three interview because listeners have demanded it” on any of the two videos that show yesterday’s Williams interview? Jones made that statement roughly 3 minutes before the interview actually began [when Williams began speaking], but the video on Jones’ YouTube page begins roughly 52 seconds before the interview begins, omitting the aforementioned Jones statement. Why the omission Alex? Hmmm?

    Is it because Jones knows that if that particular portion of the video was included, he would be bombarded with comments from even more infuriated listeners who would wonder [like I did] where these listeners are who “demanded” another Lindsey Williams interview? Luckily, I was able to find another YouTube video that showed the complete interview Jones conducted with Williams. You would think Jones himself would include his entire radio program [unedited] on his own YouTube page. No, you have to go elsewhere for it.

    Also, if Jones’ claim that “listeners have demanded it” were true, why does Jones completely omit posting this very interview on either of his sites, Prison Planet or Infowars? As of this writing [1:18am EST on March 2] the latest Williams interview is nowhere to be found on both sites. There is not even a mention of the interview at all on Prison Planet [as if it didn’t even happen]. Infowars does mention that Williams was on The Alex Jones Show on Tuesday. Not in a story or post, but only on the upper right corner of the Infowars home page.


    screenshot from Infowars showing the only mention of the Williams interview

    So, there you have it. The BIG interview that “listeners have demanded” is not posted anywhere on both Prison Planet and Infowars. I have frequented both sites often and I will tell you, Jones always posts the YouTube videos to his interviews with Williams…except for now, seven days after the comment threads on postings of Lindsey Williams interviews lit up like a Las Vegas marquee, blasting Jones and Williams for their incessant fearmongering and fraudiness.

    A “highly demanded” interview never sees the light of day on both Jones’ popular sites and Jones claims he is a champion of free speech and an “infowarrior”, yet he blocks his own major stories from being posted on his own sites? Why the cover-up Alex?

    It is quite possible that the posting of the Williams interview [from March 1] will magically appear on both sites Wednesday. If it does, it will be the longest period of time Jones and Co. ever waited before posting an interview [they are usually posted within hours], especially one "demanded" by listeners.

    UPDATE:
    It appears the interview with Lindsey Williams has surfaced on Prison Planet but still not as a link to a story in which comments can be posted. It appears as a tiny YouTube video that is practically hidden away at the bottom right hand corner of Prison Planet’s home page. Odd place for an interview listeners “demanded”.

    Keep in mind this is the very same aforementioned video from Alex Jones’ YouTube page in which he omits the 3 minutes prior to beginning of the interview, therefore omitting Jones saying, “I wanted to have him [Williams] back up for a part three interview because listeners have demanded it”.

    Screen shot from the bottom right hand corner of Prison Planet’s home page


    Infowars now does not mention the interview at all.