Joshua Roberts

BBC News – Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?.

Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?

YES – AND WE ARE GODDAMN PROUD OF IT – NOW GET THE HELL OFF MY PROPERTY

what do you think NORTHCOM is for dude? why do you think the police has been federalized and turned into an army? look at the baseline statistics on war expense, we are a NWO hijacked nation and have been used as the NWOs pitbull for almost a century… the rise of PMCs and groups like Blackwater et al. should really drive home the point in the baseline figures on war expense – but of course this is like the business world, endless front companies, holding groups and subsidiaries – endless derivative financial instruments etc. – the plebs are being used as a political football and an excuse for more police state, genuine dissent is being channeled into dead ends so that it cannot produce political momentum or, if it does produce political momentum, that force vector can be roped in and aligned for vertical integration within one or the other polarity of the false political paradigm – a paradigm engineered for precisely this effect and reinforced by a corporate media. system, a hijacked fourth estate, where even the so-called alternative media is merely a subsidiary of Halliburton.

Avaaz – The World vs. Wall Street.

hopey changey hope?

not ending in the oppressed coming to power through political activity?

hate to say it, but unless this all ends with several of you holding power in elected office

feels like a Western Spring, precisely as Biden et al. called for – and u know its fucked when they let Biden throw the chum in the water haha

never have i wanted to be wrong more

Panic of the Plutocrats – NYTimes.com

Panic of the Plutocrats

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: October 9, 2011

It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America’s direction. Yet the protests have already elicited a remarkably hysterical reaction from Wall Street, the super-rich in general, and politicians and pundits who reliably serve the interests of the wealthiest hundredth of a percent.

And this reaction tells you something important — namely, that the extremists threatening American values are what F.D.R. called “economic royalists,” not the people camping in Zuccotti Park.

Consider first how Republican politicians have portrayed the modest-sized if growing demonstrations, which have involved some confrontations with the police — confrontations that seem to have involved a lot of police overreaction — but nothing one could call a riot. And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009.

Nonetheless, Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, has denounced “mobs” and “the pitting of Americans against Americans.” The G.O.P. presidential candidates have weighed in, with Mitt Romney accusing the protesters of waging “class warfare,” while Herman Cain calls them “anti-American.” My favorite, however, is Senator Rand Paul, who for some reason worries that the protesters will start seizing iPads, because they believe rich people don’t deserve to have them.

Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor and a financial-industry titan in his own right, was a bit more moderate, but still accused the protesters of trying to “take the jobs away from people working in this city,” a statement that bears no resemblance to the movement’s actual goals.

And if you were listening to talking heads on CNBC, you learned that the protesters “let their freak flags fly,” and are “aligned with Lenin.”

The way to understand all of this is to realize that it’s part of a broader syndrome, in which wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is.

Last year, you may recall, a number of financial-industry barons went wild over very mild criticism from President Obama. They denounced Mr. Obama as being almost a socialist for endorsing the so-called Volcker rule, which would simply prohibit banks backed by federal guarantees from engaging in risky speculation. And as for their reaction to proposals to close a loophole that lets some of them pay remarkably low taxes — well, Stephen Schwarzman, chairman of the Blackstone Group, compared it to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.

And then there’s the campaign of character assassination against Elizabeth Warren, the financial reformer now running for the Senate in Massachusetts. Not long ago a YouTube video of Ms. Warren making an eloquent, down-to-earth case for taxes on the rich went viral. Nothing about what she said was radical — it was no more than a modern riff on Oliver Wendell Holmes’s famous dictum that “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.”

But listening to the reliable defenders of the wealthy, you’d think that Ms. Warren was the second coming of Leon Trotsky. George Will declared that she has a “collectivist agenda,” that she believes that “individualism is a chimera.” And Rush Limbaugh called her “a parasite who hates her host. Willing to destroy the host while she sucks the life out of it.”

What’s going on here? The answer, surely, is that Wall Street’s Masters of the Universe realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is. They’re not John Galt; they’re not even Steve Jobs. They’re people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens.

Yet they have paid no price. Their institutions were bailed out by taxpayers, with few strings attached. They continue to benefit from explicit and implicit federal guarantees — basically, they’re still in a game of heads they win, tails taxpayers lose. And they benefit from tax loopholes that in many cases have people with multimillion-dollar incomes paying lower rates than middle-class families.

This special treatment can’t bear close scrutiny — and therefore, as they see it, there must be no close scrutiny. Anyone who points out the obvious, no matter how calmly and moderately, must be demonized and driven from the stage. In fact, the more reasonable and moderate a critic sounds, the more urgently he or she must be demonized, hence the frantic sliming of Elizabeth Warren.

So who’s really being un-American here? Not the protesters, who are simply trying to get their voices heard. No, the real extremists here are America’s oligarchs, who want to suppress any criticism of the sources of their wealth.

—–

(Hello, I'm a scoundrel.)

viz. the use of phrases like “Republican politicians” and the general way he categorizes his thought/analysis

deliberate misinterpretation of rand paul’s statements and the putting of him in the same paragraph as Cain/Romney = Ron Paul attack

legislation associated with this “Volcker rule” incident was obviously a false positive designed to shore up the very too-big-to-failness that provoked the response in the first place (ordo ab chao baby!)

essentially we have a pro Obama piece by Krugman who is carrying water for the left side of the false paradigm

I could break down the last several paragraphs, making a case about this is honeyed rhetoric meant to shape public perception and ultimately neuter anyone who at least has the strength and conscience to be politically active/minded…

krug really appears to be a hardcore left gatekeeper for the hijacked system

he offers, like chomsky, or hedges for instance, an articulate analysis, incorporating our own Authentic Rhetoric and Analysis about the logistical reality, but only to steer the reader towards some Effectively politically neutral (and ultimately harmless to the NWO superstructure thereby), position or other. (voting for an obama, a romney or perry, etc)

OR

as our friend Karl puts it:

This is an outrage.

Yglesias tells us that some Occupy Wall Street protesters have picked up Ron Paulish monetary ideas — although some know better. I thought I’d say a word about one particular idea that sounds plausible to some people but is actually quite wrong: banning fractional reserve banking.

I know that’s a popular theme among some Austrians. But it’s actually neither a good idea nor even feasible.

The crucial thing is to understand what banks do. And it’s not mostly about money creation! Instead, what banks are for is helping to improve the tradeoff between returns and liquidity.

That’s a very quaint notion.  But were it true there wouldn’t be any such thing as systemic risk!

Why?

Simple: If you only loan against actual asset values there is no systemic risk possible; if you get in trouble you simply sell down the assets until you no longer are.  Since you’ve never “created money” there’s no systemic risk that can arise.  Ever.

Of course this isn’t how it works in the real world today.  That’s the “Bailey and Biddle” model from It’s a Wonderful Life, but pretending that we live in that world today is beyond fanciful.

For proof one need only look at the Credit Card in your wallet – or, for that matter, the student loan.  If you wish to get more esoteric you can look at the Credit Default Swap.

None of these are backed by capital in today’s banking system, but all should be – dollar for dollar.  Why?  Because all are claims on something that does not, today, exist!

That is functionally the precise same act as a naked short.  You put into circulation that which does not exist “on the come” that it will in the future.  In the case of stock that is naked shorted you’re counterfeiting the stock of the corporation in question – you’re representing that you have something to deliver (the stock) but only the company in question has the right to create (by issuance in exchange for capital) that stock.

In the case of naked credit creation unbacked by an asset the bank is effectively naked shorting the currency, betting “on the come” that production will in the future cause the government to issue actual currency with which to make the bet good!

That’s an outrage!  It’s also how we get massive asset inflation.

Krugman knows this, of course.  After all, he has a Nobel Prize and a PhD, right?  He can’t possibly be so ignorant as to claim that banking as currently practiced actually encompasses (mostly) lending against actual assets – that is, liquidity matching for a price – can he?

After all, were this the primary function of banks these days there could never be systemic risk, since lending against assets can’t cause it, as if the person who borrowed doesn’t pay you simply seize the asset and resell it into the market, extinguishing the debt without systemic consequence (the borrower, of course, goes broke by such a process, but that’s the risk of borrowing that which you can’t pay back!)

The claims of charlatans must be matched against the factual record of not only what has occurred before but what threatens to occur now.

PS: This is why I support – strongly – a “One Dollar of Capital” LAW for banks, and why you should too.

An American Spring

and they told you they were going to do it

and you went ahead and did it … you did exactly what they programmed you to…
.. but lets just forget about all of that for a second

IM SORRY AM I SUPPOSED TO BE IMPRESSED?

What?

Fox News is non stop fucking bullshit laced with strychnine?

WOW FUCKING NEWS TO ME….

stop stroking your dicks over nothing folks, we have serious problems here and drum circles around monolithic buildings wont fix it!

NOPE

not even if its the FRS building.

I hate to break this to you but someone has to tell you so it looks like its gotta be me.

if we Need to do this street action shit to make a cultural move, its already too late. people jerking off to MSM shit like this…

fuckin they created big cesspits like Fox et al. just so they could also create the “underground” shit like KOS and pretend to be hip…

FUCK MY SOCIETY – IM LIVING WITH MORONS WHO THINK THEY ARE GENIUSES

AND I USED TO BE ONE OF THEM

BEAM ME UP SCOTTY

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/white-house-dedicates-new-position-to-deal-with-unfavorable-online-media_b36292

Jesse Lee

I hope you are ready to have your own ass handed to you by the independent media

Because your boss is a traitor and belongs in a concrete box next to george bush and our other 7 recent presidents (JFK got a bullet for his Conspiracy Theories and Trutherism)

Jesse Lee – we will bury you, we will expose your actions

This is not a test of the emergency broadcast system

you are now about to witness the strength of street knowledge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfETrtdnZ0g

this looks shooped
i can tell from some of the pixels and from having seen many shoops in my time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCsclPeqhxA

after reading tarpleys first book on obama, long before he was elected, i said to myself “this guy was grown in a tank in the basement of the ford foundation”, in order to humorously and thoroughly characterize him…

i used to chuckle because it was so dead-pan accurate (obviously i dont mean he was grown in a tank literally but “it is as if” clearly) – and now, well its not funny anymore and has become a matter of desperation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc232AtgTfg

dont worry walmart is open late tonight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiteFb6Zwdg

for the life of me, i do not understand people’s hatred for alex jones, i have checked out all the arguments against the man and they are insubstantial, his daily work speaks volumes… yes, hes an egotistical, fat, domineering, white american male from texas who rants about how he is directly descended from a man who stood at the alamo – yes, thats what he is, he is a hill billy from texas – but it would be like hating professor griff for being a black man from the inner cities of the east coast, affectation real or imagined, needs to be overlooked

the substance is what counts

if it were not for russo, solitto and jones i would probably still be a sleep walker, tied up in the meaningless pursuit of a dead dream