Joshua Roberts

EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN IS OUR ENEMY

WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EASTASIA
WE HAVE NEVER BEEN AT WAR WITH EASTASIA

2 + 2 = 5 and if you say otherwise you are with the al-qaeda’s

CAFTA and Dietary Supplements

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement in the next two weeks, and one little-known provision of the agreement desperately needs to be exposed to public view. CAFTA, like the World Trade Organization, may serve as a forum for restricting or even banning dietary supplements in the U.S.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission, organized by the United Nations in the 1960s, is charged with “harmonizing” food and supplement rules between all nations of the world. Under Codex rules, even basic vitamins and minerals require a doctor’s prescription. The European Union already has adopted Codex-type regulations, regulations that will be in effect across Europe later this year. This raises concerns that the Europeans will challenge our relatively open market for health supplements in a WTO forum. This is hardly far-fetched, as Congress already has cravenly changed our tax laws to comply with a WTO order.

Like WTO, CAFTA increases the possibility that Codex regulations will be imposed on the American public. Section 6 of CAFTA discusses Codex as a regulatory standard for nations that join the agreement. If CAFTA has nothing to do with dietary supplements, as CAFTA supporters claim, why in the world does it specifically mention Codex?

Unquestionably there has been a slow but sustained effort to regulate dietary supplements on an international level. WTO and CAFTA are part of this effort. Passage of CAFTA does not mean your supplements will be outlawed immediately, but it will mean that another international trade body will have a say over whether American supplement regulations meet international standards. And make no mistake about it, those international standards are moving steadily toward the Codex regime and its draconian restrictions on health freedom. So the question is this: Does CAFTA, with its link to Codex, make it more likely or less likely that someday you will need a doctor’s prescription to buy even simple supplements like Vitamin C? The answer is clear. CAFTA means less freedom for you, and more control for bureaucrats who do not answer to American voters.

Pharmaceutical companies have spent billions of dollars trying to get Washington to regulate your dietary supplements like European governments do. So far, that effort has failed in America, in part because of a 1994 law called the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. Big Pharma and the medical establishment hate this Act, because it allows consumers some measure of freedom to buy the supplements they want. Americans like this freedom, however — especially the health conscious Baby Boomers.

This is why the drug companies support WTO and CAFTA. They see international trade agreements as a way to do an end run around American law and restrict supplements through international regulations.

The largely government-run health care establishment, including the nominally private pharmaceutical companies, want government to control the dietary supplement industry — so that only they can manufacture and distribute supplements. If that happens, as it already is happening in Europe, the supplements you now take will be available only by prescription and at a much higher cost — if they are available at all. This alone is sufficient reason for Congress to oppose the unconstitutional, sovereignty-destroying CAFTA bill.

July 19, 2005

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Ron Paul Archives

via CAFTA and Dietary Supplements by Rep. Ron Paul.

OCCUPY TOGETHER | Rainyday Superstar.

99% Free

Focused on the tiny handful of elites at the very top who have dominated and squandered the potential of the human species for millennia

Regaining control of our monetary system has one easy, first step:

Register in the primaries to vote for Ron Paul in 2012. He is the one candidate who will actually dismantle the Federal Reserve System, the Central Bank, the Economic Moloch that sits at the center of our economy and devours the young of every generation

We can rebuild this republic.

we have the technology.

-Josh

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.

“Economics, especially monetary policy, is pure “ZZZZzzzzzz” to most people.”

THIS IS AN ENGINEERED STATE OF AFFAIRS

Just as people have been trained to salivate and bark on command with cliches like “conspiracy theory” etc. when confronted with their enslavement.

but for each human

there is some peculiar issue

some personal thing and by that avenue one may approach even the most abstruse subject

to teach is to make the student thirst like one in a desert for truth

nearly four decades of consistent , rigorous analysis and constitutionalism

we are lucky to have a guy like ron paul in a position to be our POTUS

people need to be getting educated and educating others

Jefferson explained this all to us already, about how we need a noble culture that understands what i like to call History 2.0 (or the actual history and nature of events – as opposed to what is “written by the victors”)

the NWO system cannot stand against a savvy populace who is politically aware and active, and from which continually emerge robust candidates.

if every person out ineffectually protesting in front of monolithic buildings

simply registered to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries…

if they would run for office and form robust political organizations or just Communities…

how is street action even conducive to sorting out these technically complex problems?

OCCUPY THE INTERNET

dont go to PlebStock

No Agenda Show for Thursday October 6th 2011

Homeland Security Application Monitors Crowds’ Faces, Races, and Eye Movements to Detect Would-Be Criminals

FAST Crime Department of Homeland Security

The Department Homeland Security is developing a system designed to apprehend you before you commit a crime. The Future Attribute Screening Technology, or FAST, is designed to analyze whether a person is likely to commit a crime, using a long list of factors. Some are akin to lie detection, such as breathing and heart rate, but the system also measures body movements, voice pitch changes, blink rate, breathing patterns, eye movements, body heat changes and prosody (changes in speech rhythm and intonation). The “prototype screening facility” is built to “detect cues indicative of mal-intent” using these algorithms. The system also analyzes factors like ethnicity, gender, age and profession.

The DHS has already conducted a FAST field test at an undisclosed location in the northeast. “It is not an airport, but it is a large venue that is a suitable substitute for an operational setting,” says DHS spokesman John Verrico.

The department views FAST as a tool for airport security, but it has other potential uses as well. A DHS document suggests a mobile version “could be used at security checkpoints such as border crossings or at large public events such as sporting events or conventions.”

The development of FAST has raised some eyebrows, including those of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a public interest research center in Washington, D.C. EPIC has obtained multiple documents, including one detailing the field test (PDF).

.

the rituals inversion will give birth to a new type of man

already he exists in a larval state

already the species has begun to open its eyes

i shall turn this spectacle of evil into a ceremony of light with one movement of my hand

(on a side note i do not fully support or endorse this youtube user or their views, nevertheless, parallel interests)

The Coming Economic Implosion Is a Set-Up! – YouTube.