Okay, so sooner or later on every show about the New World Order the subject of Assassinations comes into play. Now I have never been one to be too interested in the finer details of the JFK assassination; I don’t really care if there was one shooter, two shooters, a knoll that was grassy or not so grassy, etc.

Is There a Common Thread?

However, I am quite interested on a more “macro” level and looking at not just the assassination of JFK, but at all of the Presidential assassinations to see if there is a common thread. To that end some basic details need to be reviewed.

Lincoln

First there have been four successful Presidential assassinations, at least three of which were ardent opponents to the central banking monopoly of power. Starting with Abraham Lincoln, the first successful Presidential assassination, we see that the bankers and the President were diametrically opposed. Lincoln did serve the interest of the bankers in bringing the country into Civil War (both sides of which the banks financed). While engaging in the war Lincoln made two very significant changes in monetary policy, both were done to raise money for the civil war.

The first measure was the signing of the National Banking Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Banking_Act). This act tied the issuing of Bank Notes to government debt. In other words, it allowed National banks (and all but forbade smaller State chartered banks) to issue bank notes, or paper promises to provide real money, which circulated as currency. The reason this war time measure was taken was because the National bank reserves now had to be in the form of government bonds (debt). This is one of the main factors that funded the Civil War. The more money the National Banks created and used to buy government bonds, the more the government was going into debt to the bankers.

National Bank Notes - Created by Banks and Backed By Government Debt

The second measure, which was much less popular with the bankers, was the issuance of “greenbacks” from the Treasury. These greenbacks, or United States Notes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note), were actually issued by the government whereas today there are “Federal Reserve Notes” which are issued by the Federal Reserve, a corporation whose stock is owned by powerful multi-national banks. Greenbacks were the first non-debt based national currency since the Revolutionary War. This meant that when the government authorized and printed these greenbacks they could spend them into the economy (largely for the war effort) and there was no debt to pay back left in their wake. In most other cases the government needs to “borrow” new money that is created by bankers and pay the bankers back plus interest.

Does Your Money Say "United States Note"?

So Lincoln’s greenbacks were in direct competition with the National Bank notes. The more the government printed and used the greenbacks (US Notes) the less they were dependent on selling debt to the bankers in exchange for money (National Bank Notes) they created. Since the government’s war-time need for money was so huge the bankers didn’t mind too much sharing the market with the greenbacks. After the civil war ended, when the governments demand for cash was drastically reduced, the bankers wanted to kill the issuance of greenbacks so that any deficit spending of the government would mean the government, or by extension the general public, would become more and more indebted to the bankers.

While they did successfully stall any further issuance of greenbacks, Lincoln had big plans for the post-Civil War Reconstruction period. Notice the following quote from Lincoln taken from Senate document 23, page 91 from 1865:

• The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency… needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.”

Not exactly music to the ears of the bankers who were planning to have the power to issue all the currency in the form of national bank notes that were built on government debt. They would one day have their wish as is the case today when none of the money in your wallet says “United States Note” instead it is all issued by the authority of the “Federal Reserve” which is a privately owned bank under very limited government regulation. However, this dream may never had been able to be realized if Lincoln had been able to expand the US Notes to the point where they would have satisfied the nations need for currency and the public would have enjoyed the benefits of having money provided without the government going into debt in the process (as is the case today).

The Monetary War

So, what did the bankers do about it? Well, I must pause a moment just to say that the implication that is about to follow is somewhat speculative. In life there is always a difference between what you believe and what you can prove definitively, I just like to make it clear when I am presenting a belief. However, in the context of the other assassinations you will see that this is not such an unreasonable belief. I am of course referring to the fact that 5 days after General Lee surrendered, officially ending the war and opening the way for Lincoln to phase out National Bank Notes in favor of United States Notes, he was shot dead.

Again, all of the above is 100% fact, the only speculative portion being the implication that the bankers arranged the assassination. Look, of course Booth was the one who shot him and he was a Confederate that wanted to be immortalized in history. The stories we are taught in school about these events are “true” but are they the whole truth? Was he helped along, given access and other help to complete the difficult act of assassinating a world leader? In Latin there is an expression that is used to cut right to the heart of a matter: Cui Bono, which means “to whose benefit?”. I leave you with the facts above showing how the ones who had the most to gain from Lincolns death were the central (or national) bankers that wanted to keep control of the power to issue money.

In this context, notice what a contemporary had to say about Lincoln’s assassination, namely the statesman of Germany, Otto Von Bismark:

• “The death of Lincoln was a disaster for Christendom. There was no man in the United States great enough to wear his boots… I fear that foreign bankers with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America, and use it systematically to corrupt modern civilization. They will not hesitate to plunge the whole of Christendom into wars and chaos in order that the earth should become their inheritance”.

Unfortunately, this would not be the only President he would live to see assassinated. It is interesting how he puts the onus on foreign bankers that had been seeking to gain control of the issuance of money in the U.S. since its independence from Great Britian. What’s interesting is that often times xenophobia is blamed for any mention of “international bankers” but Bismark also being foreign to the United States was not speaking out of xenophobia but was just plainly explaining the state of affairs that was understood then but which has been obscured in modern history books and in the media.

Garfield

James A. Garfield was not a friend of the central bankers. Unfortunately for the bankers they didn’t know this until after he was inaugurated. Notice the speech he gave shortly after his rise to the office of President:

• “Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce… when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate”.

Quote is from just weeks before his assassination!

To give some context to the above statement, Garfield became in favor of forcing banks to provide the gold they claimed to have when customers came in to redeem their Bank Notes or withdraw their demand deposits. In the National Banking Act we discussed there were several loop holes where banks could avoid having to fork up the real money the certificates claimed to represent.

For banks this meant that their ability to, not just loan out their money but to create new money that had no gold to back it would be greatly reduced. In a sense, depositors would have a means of keeping a bank “honest” if Garfield had his way.

Now before his election the bankers may have thought he would be useful since he did oppose silver which the banks hated because again it competed with their National Bank notes. However, the reason Garfield opposed silver was because it had been overvalued as compared to gold but it became clear that he would be open to silver money if the exchange of Gold to Silver would be more equitable.

Anyway, to get back to the main point here, we can plainly see that President Garfield was not happy with the fact that a few powerful bankers had the power to control the volume of money in circulation, which he rightly equated with them being the unknown masters of society.

A few weeks after he is recorded as making that daring attack on the banking elite, he was shot by his eventual assassin. I say eventual because he did not die on the spot. It was a slow death that was hastened by his doctors that ruptured his liver while apparently attempting to remove a bullet. Thomas Edison even tried to help with this difficult bullet inventing a metal detector to find it, but to no avail.

What was the result? Ten years later the letter below was issued by the American Bankers Association in 1881. While reading the quote keep in mind that they are talking about what they will do three full years in advance:

• “On September 1st, 1894, we will not renew our loans under any consideration. On September 1st we will demand our money. We will foreclose and become mortgagees in possession. We can take two-thirds of the farms west of the Mississippi, and thousands of them east of the Mississippi as well, at our own price… Then the farmers will become tenants as in England.”

So the letter, while sounding sinister also sounds like they will just be enforcing their legal options – which is true. However, if Garfield had lived he would have drastically limited the power of the banks, or at least attempted to by limiting their ability for the banks to create money out of thin air. With the laws remaining in their favor it made the above letter more than idle words.

It may be wise to reflect on these statements made by Lincoln and Garfield and ask yourself this question: when was the last time you heard a President ardently denounce the banking system (not just bonuses to banking CEO’s which ironically could be considered one of the more legitimate aspects of banking by comparison)? Well, while you are thinking of the answer we will just tell you to make it easier: John F. Kennedy.

John F. Kennedy

Now, historically speaking, the Kennedy family was involved in many shady business dealings that are well documented and don’t need to be harped on here. My point in bringing it up is not to brand the Kennedy family as corrupt boot-legging Nazi-collaborators (although there is evidence to that effect) but to point out that the banking establishment had reason to believe that JFK would have been easy to manipulate. Also, he expressed in his campaign support for various spending programs that had the potential to put the government in greater debt to the banks by running deficits.

Banker Friend or Foe?

However, shortly after JFK became President they were abruptly woken up by the fact that JFK was not afraid to discuss some touchy topics. Indulge me a bit in the following simplified timeline:

January 20th, 1961 – JFK enters office as the President of the United States. Three months later he gives what is often referred to as the “Secret Societies” speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association. In this speech he says that America had been “inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings.” He then went on to describe what can only be a description of the international banking elite when he said “we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.”

Some may say he was simply referring to the soviet empire, but yet if so there would be no reason to leave out any reference to the Russians. Also the connection to secret societies would have no relevance in the context of the Cold War. Not too say that they didn’t play a part in this “monolithic conspiracy” of which he was referring. We could speculate all day about the finer details but what is of much greater use is to examine the public record.

There were a few significant steps that Kennedy was taking that would have been hubris in the banking community. First, on October 11, 1963, Kennedy signed NSAM 263, initiating a withdrawal of 1,000 troops (roughly 5 – 10%) from the American presence in Vietnam. Other documents, including planning documents from the spring of 1963, show that this was the first step in a planned complete withdrawal. There is always some question with regard to government documents because often times there are several contradictory plans that are being championed by different interests in an administration.

The Role of Bankers Is Downplayed

What is known for a certainty is that the bankers, who had financed both sides of every war since the days of Napoleon, made major profits financing the war. In recent history, the banks are set up in multiple ways to profit from war. The most direct way is by ownership in most of the defense companies. Every company, individual and even government are in debt to the banks paying vast sums of interest to them annually which they shrewdly use to increase their ownership of not only defense companies but the Fortune 500 which they own directly and indirectly via holdings of the Federal Reserve. Another way the bankers, who own and control the Federal Reserve Corporation, make out in war time is by the debt built up by the Government which is justified as needed to win the war. Remember when the Government goes into deficit territory it makes up the budget difference by going to the federal reserve and giving them an IOU (or treasury bond) in exchange for newly created money.

What is also a matter of public record is what happened in Vietnam after JFK was assassinated; President Johnson drastically escalated the logistics police action into an all out war. I bring up Vietnam first because in actuality there was something much more threatening JFK had done to the banking elite. Wars come and go, but one thing the bankers don’t ever want to lose is their authority to create money.

Now JFK wasn’t about to take that power away from banks, but he did take an enormously significant step in that direction with the signing of Executive Order 11110. There is a scant description of the order on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110) but it does not express the significance of this order.

Executive Order 11110 ordered the re-circulation of more silver certificates, among other provisions. This may sound in itself insignificant, but remember that these silver certificates were “United States Notes” that were issued by the Treasury and represented real silver. This form of money, which was essentially Lincoln’s greenbacks, could be issued by the government and spent without creating debt. Just like the Vietnam troop withdrawal this was just a first step towards fulfilling Lincoln’s dream that “The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency…” as we discussed earlier. This would have put the power to issue money back in the hands of the government and taken it away (at least partially) from private bankers. That should strike the average person as strange that bankers can, in any way, create or issue money. This strange privileged has been compared to putting the police department under the control of the Mafia.

It took just five months after the signing of Executive Order 11110, and just one month after the signing of the first troop withdrawal from Viet Nam, for John F. Kennedy to be assassinated. Every President since has steadily increased the power of the privately owned Federal Reserve and none has said so much as a word about the reintroduction of the “greenbacks”, the United States Notes. The 150 year struggle for the central bankers not to take over has been nearly erased from the history books and no one in the media ever questions why we all walk around with money that proudly declares it was issued by a privately owned bank with the words “Federal Reserve Note”.

AJ on a Federal Reserve Note?

By

Jordan Kaufman

Jordan is host of the Las Vegas based radio program Corruption Radio, on KDWN 720 AM and is editor and main contributor of CorruptionRadio.com

Send Jordan your comments to Jordan@CorruptionRadio.com (VM: 702-560-1948). Follow on Twitter: CorruptionShow

On our radio program a common theme we stress is teaching the history of the transfer of power worldwide from monarchs to a small handful of powerful bankers. This is the core problem with how history is deceptively taught in most educational institutions. We are taught to believe that the power has shifted from Monarchs to individuals.

Two areas that show this steady shift of power are Campaign Finance Reform and the 17th Amendment. Starting with the 17th Amendment, most people have never even heard of it. What this amendment did was to fundamentally change the way Senators are elected. Before the amendment the state legislators would be the ones to vote for the Senator, thus proving the United States to be a Republic. The fundamental difference between a Republic and a Democracy is that in a republic elected representatives make decisions whereas in a Democracy direct voting, or mob rule, wins the day. It is interesting to note that some of the founding fathers of the United States referred to a Democracy as “two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner”.

What's For Dinner?

So, in the creation of the Constitution the Senate was put in place to make sure that somewhere in the process there would be representatives with cool heads, so that when the mob would be angered about something and the House of Representatives knew they were all up for re-election in less than 2 years, then the House would be respond to the whim of the people but the Senate would have cooler heads since they were elected by state legislators creating a level of abstraction between them and the mob. Then these two houses would come to some agreement so that the will of the people would be expressed but it would be tempered. In this way they referred the Senate to being like the saucer that a cup of tea sits on. Apparently people used to pour their tea on the saucer if it was too hot to cool it down, and this was the intention of the Senate.

While the founders expounded on the various benefits of this arrangement it does create a problem. The senators were hard to manipulate. If you think about it, the senators answered to one or two hundred of their counterparts in the state legislatures. If a company, bank, or other financial interest wanted to get the senator to do what they wanted they would have to curry the favor of hundreds of state legislators in order to put the pressure on the senator that would answer to the state legislature at the next election.

This was tedious for the banking elite, or for anyone wishing to manipulate legislation, and discouraged consolidation of power by dispersing it to hundreds of state legislators. Also, as the country expanded and new states joined the union the decentralization of power spread. For every 2 senators came another couple of hundred legislators that divided up the nations power.

A Different Sort of Senate

The solution to this problem for the bankers, and other moneyed interests, was the 17th Amendment. This 17th provided for direct election of senators. Sounds good to some; why should the state legislators decide? Why not let “the people” decide for themselves, was the argument. But understanding the nature of people the banking elite knew that the number one determining factor in most elections is name recognition. After the 17th amendment the banking elite could inject huge sums of money into any election where they wanted to decide the outcome. Most campaigns are determined by small sums of money in comparison to the wealth of the most powerful bankers. For example in the last presidential election the winning candidate raised 700 million in campaign contributions, mainly from large corporations filtered through the 527 groups. In the banker bailout alone the bankers are walking away with over 700 billion! And that is truly just the tip of the iceberg. One of the most powerful banking families are the Rockefeller family who, by some estimations, may have as much as 11 trillion (thats trillion with a “T”) under their control. In this light, the money to determine even the top election is tiny. Senators come even cheaper.

The next major change has come with “Campaign Finance Reform”. Now I know when people hear that they think “McCain-Feingold”, but lets take it back to the much more significant Campaign Finance Reform that took place in the early 1970s.

Before discussing the reform we should take a moment to see how elections worked and why they wanted to reform it in the first place. The way most congressional races worked were that they were determined by local or state party bosses. The way it would work is this: say you had a democratic stronghold like Chicago, for example. In Chicago whoever is run by the democrat party for congress is going to win (because most districts are either predominately democrat or republican). So if you can choose who will run in the general election you choose who is going to be elected. Unlike today, before the reform in the ’70s, there was not always a primary to decide who would be the Democrat candidate (or Republican). In fact, in most cases it was up to the local party boss. So if you were head of the Chicago Democrat party you essential got to decide who would be the congressmen representing the districts that fell in your city. This is the problem they were trying to fix when the put in the reforms of the early 1970’s that forced a primary if an appropriate amount of signatures were collected by more than one primary candidate.

However, as is the case much of the time the cure was worse than the disease. We see again that the pre-1970’s system, while having its problems for sure, spread power to local and state party bosses. Therefore if you are trying to consolidate power it is more difficult because you need to curry favor with hundreds of party bosses around the country. Also, the amount of corruption was limited since the congressman only had to please one party boss. Of course the party boss would have all his family members in plush government jobs, he would likely have business interests that would receive lucrative government contracts, along with various other favors. But the point is that the congressman only had to please one local party boss who was satisfied with a relatively small amount of privileges.

Transfering Power to Whom?

Campaign Finance “Reform”

Now with the 1970’s campaign finance reform a few things changed. As mentioned, it made it much easier for candidates to force a primary election to decide who would be the party’s candidate. Now money could be injected into campaigns to determine who would come out on top. With this change came the creation of Political Action Committees (PAC) which created the “Special Interest Groups” that everyone has been beating up on. It also shifted power from the local party bosses to the national parties who could receive an almost unlimited amount of “soft money” that could be spent to elect their candidates.

Now a congressional candidate needs to please every special interest group, not to mention every corporate and banker interest that provided the soft money through the national parties.

We hardly have time to get too deep into the most recent Campaign Finance Reform, McCain-Feingold, but suffice it to say that it has not “taken money out of politics” nor has it returned the “power to the people”. What it has done is drastically increase the power of the 527 groups that are not as restricted as the PAC’s. It took this power from the national parties that were the brokers of the large corporate and banker contributions of the past.

Their Names Were Known

So by all this power is even more consolidated. Those flush with cash, mainly the small banker elite and the companies that are under their control, can directly inject money to determine the outcome of elections. The power has slowly shifted from state legislators, to local party bosses, then to national parties, and now directly to the wealthiest banking elite. While bankers have been the dominate holders of power since the demise of the Monarchs, never before in history has so much power been so consolidated in the hands of a few than it is today. And unlike the pharaohs, the Caesars, the kings and emperors, most people don’t even know their names.

By

Jordan Kaufman

Jordan is host of the Las Vegas based radio program Corruption Radio, on KDWN 720 AM and is editor and main contributor of CorruptionRadio.com

Send Jordan your comments at Jordan@CorruptionRadio.com (VM: 702-560-1948)

Patrick Carmack, producer of the astounding documentary Money Masters, will be on Corruption Radio on October 10th.

Best Documentary... Ever!

Money Masters

In 1995 Mr. Carmack began extensive research in economics and finance resulting in the filming of

The Money Masters video which he produced and which exposed the 300-year history of the fractional reserve banking scheme, which has caused the present worldwide economic Depression. Tens of thousands of dvds and millions of viewers later The Money Masters has been hailed by many as the most informative, influential and eye-opening video about the modern world’s corrupt banking power structure. It has been endorsed by Arun Gandhi (Mahatma’s grandson, head of the MK Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence); Nobel Laureate in Economics Dr. Milton Friedman; Dr. D. James Kennedy; Malachi Martin; Edward Griffin (author of The Creature from Jekyl Island, A Second Look at the Federal Reserve); Aaron Russo (Producer of America: Freedom to Fascism); Dr. W. Cleon Skousen, and other prominent monetary reformers.

Money Masters

More About Patrick Carmack

After earning his Juris Doctorate, Pat completed numerous additional courses in psychology and philosophy. A former administrative law Judge at the Oklahoma State Corporation Commission, member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar, former CEO of an independent petroleum exploration and production company, founder and former Chairman of the International Caspian Horse Society, and President of a non-profit educational foundation. He is President of the Great Books Academy Homeschool Program, a k-College program (greatbooksacademy.org) and the Angelicum Academy (angelicum.net). Pat participated in Dr. Mortimer J. Adler’s last several Socratic discussion groups and moderated the first live-audio Socratic groups online (2000 AD) and numerous online groups since, as well as at Great Books evening programs in Seattle.  He has been a speaker on educational topics at various conferences in the US. and Europe. Pat lives on Eagle Mountain overlooking Colorado Springs.

[This article was originally published in the Freeman, July 13, 1953 by Ludwig Von Mises]

Most people take it for granted that the world will never return to the gold standard. The gold standard, they say, is as obsolete as the horse and buggy. The system of government-issued fiat money provides the treasury with the funds required for an open-handed spending policy that benefits everybody; it forces prices and wages up and the rate of interest down and thereby creates prosperity. It is a system that is here to stay.

Now whatever virtues one may ascribe — undeservedly — to the modern variety of the greenback standard, there is one thing that it certainly cannot achieve. It can never become a permanent, lasting system of monetary management. It can work only as long as people are not aware of the fact that the government plans to keep it.

The Alleged Blessings of Inflation

The alleged advantages that the champions of fiat money expect from the operation of the system they advocate are temporary only. An injection of a definite quantity of new money into the nation’s economy starts a boom as it enhances prices. But once this new money has exhausted all its price-raising potentialities and all prices and wages are adjusted to the increased quantity of money in circulation, the stimulation it provided to business ceases.

What's Your Money Really Worth?

Thus even if we neglect dealing with the undesired and undesirable consequences and social costs of such inflationary measures and, for the sake of argument, even if we accept all that the harbingers of “expansionism” advance in favor of inflation, we must realize that the alleged blessings of these policies are shortlived. If one wants to perpetuate them, it is necessary to go on and on increasing the quantity of money in circulation and expanding credit at an ever-accelerated pace. But even then the ideal of the expansionists and inflationists, viz., an everlasting boom not upset by any reverse, could not materialize.

A fiat-money inflation can be carried on only as long as the masses do not become aware of the fact that the government is committed to such a policy. Once the common man finds out that the quantity of circulating money will be increased more and more, and that consequently its purchasing power will continually drop and prices will rise to ever higher peaks, he begins to realize that the money in his pocket is melting away.

Then he adopts the conduct previously practiced only by those smeared as profiteers; he “flees into real values.” He buys commodities, not for the sake of enjoying them, but in order to avoid the losses involved in holding cash. The knell of the inflated monetary system sounds. We have only to recall the many historical precedents beginning with the Continental currency of the War of Independence.

Why Perpetual Inflation Is Impossible

The fiat-money system, as it operates today in this country and in some others, could avoid disaster only because a keen critique on the part of a few economists alerted public opinion and forced upon the government cautious restraint in their inflationary ventures. If it had not been for the opposition of these authors, usually labeled orthodox and reactionary, the dollar would long since have gone the way of the German mark of 1923. The catastrophe of the Reich’s currency was brought about precisely because no such opposition was vocal in Weimar Germany.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE!

On October 3rd, Jason Bermas will be interviewed on Corruption Radio to discuss his new film Invisible Empire.

We will also be discussing the New World Order basics, JFK and what made him unique, and much more!

Bermas was also instrumental in Loose Change: Final Cut, Fabled Enemies, and is the host of his own radio program.

Many also know Jason from his guest appearances on the syndicated talk radio program The Alex Jones Show.

See the official trailer below:

Please click on the video to view in YouTube so you can rate the video and leave comments! Enjoy!

UN chief Ban Ki-moon visited Wednesday a vault carved into the Arctic permafrost, filled with samples of the world’s most important seeds in case food crops are wiped out by a catastrophe.”The world faces many daunting challenges today, one of the greatest of which is how to feed a growing population in the context of climate change a bundled-up Ban told reporters after he toured the site in the Svalbard archipelago some 1,200 kilometres (745 miles) from the North Pole.

Global Seed Bank

“The seeds stored here in Svalbard will help us do just that. Sustainable food production may not begin in this cold Arctic environment, but it does begin by conserving crop diversity,” he said.

Read Entire Article

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

Rockerfeller: Power Hungry

The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

[...]

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said.

Read Entire Article

(NaturalNews) It’s emblazoned across the front page of USA Today, just underneath a subhead declaring Michael Jackson was, indeed, killed by a drug overdose: “Flu could infect half of USA.” The article goes on to describe the predicted number of deaths expected in the U.S. (30,000 – 90,000 Americans) as well as the actions being taken by the government to protect Americans from the coming swine flu pandemic.

Deadly Shots

That advice reads sort of like a comic book of health care advice for kindergarteners: Wash your hands, cover your mouth if you cough and let “the grownups” take care of the rest by injecting you with a vaccine. Curiously absent from all the health advice being handed out on the swine flu by the White House, the CDC, the WHO and even the FDA is any mention of Vitamin D or other natural remedies that offer enormous protections from influenza infections.

Read Entire Article

The “watermelon” analogy is a little off (you know Green on the outside but Red on the inside). Environmentalism is really Green on the outside and Black on the inside, in the sense that it is really a glorified death cult. The green movement is simply packaging, not really for communism but for the dark eugenics agenda.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/having-children-brings-high-carbon-impact/

Babies Are Bad?

–Jordan Kaufman