Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Obama the new age Nazi?

President Obama signs the National Health Care bill into law on March 23, 2010.

This nearly 3,000 page bill contains, among other things, manditory requirements for membership in national health care which will be enforced by the IRS. There will be monetary penalties and jail for failure to be enrolled. The IRS is empowered to hire 17,000 new agents to assist in this enforcement. There are legislative moves to repeal the bill and several states attorneys general are filing lawsuits to challenge the constitutionality of the bill. It is not clear if any of the measures will be able to stop the bill.

This day in 1933 was also a very significant day.

“On March 23, 1933, the newly elected members of the German Parliament (the Reichstag) met in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin to consider passing Hitler’s Enabling Act. It was officially called the ‘Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich.’ If passed, it would effectively mean the end of democracy in Germany and establish the legal dictatorship of Adolf Hitler.

The ‘distress’ had been secretly caused by the Nazis themselves in order to create a crisis atmosphere that would make the law seem necessary to restore order. On February 27, 1933, they had burned the Reichstag building, seat of the German government, causing panic and outrage. The Nazis successfully blamed the fire on the Communists and claimed it marked the beginning of a widespread uprising.

On the day of the vote, Nazi storm troopers gathered in a show of force around the opera house chanting, “Full powers – or else! We want the bill – or fire and murder!!” They also stood inside in the hallways, and even lined the aisles where the vote would take place, glaring menacingly at anyone who might oppose Hitler’s will.

Just before the vote, Hitler made a speech to the Reichstag in which he pledged to use restraint.

“The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures…The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one.” – Hitler told the Reichstag.

He also promised an end to unemployment and pledged to promote peace with France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. But in order to do all this, Hitler said, he first needed the Enabling Act.

A two thirds majority was needed, since the law would actually alter the German constitution. Hitler needed 31 non-Nazi votes to pass it. He got those votes from the Center Party after making a false promise to restore some basic rights already taken away by decree.

However, one man arose amid the overwhelming might. Otto Wells, leader of the Social Democrats stood up and spoke quietly to Hitler.

“We German Social Democrats pledge ourselves solemnly in this historic hour to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism. No enabling act can give you power to destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible.”

This enraged Hitler and he jumped up to respond.

“You are no longer needed! – The star of Germany will rise and yours will sink! Your death knell has sounded!”

The vote was taken – 441 for, only 84, the Social Democrats, against. The Nazis leapt to their feet clapping, stamping and shouting, then broke into the Nazi anthem, the Hörst Wessel song.

They achieved what Hitler had wanted for years – to tear down the German Democratic Republic legally and end democracy, thus paving the way for a complete Nazi takeover of Germany.

From this day on, the Reichstag would be just a sounding board, a cheering section for Hitler’s pronouncements.”

From Learn History. org:

Full text of “The Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation”

“The Reichstag has enacted the following law, which is hereby proclaimed with the assent of the Reichsrat, it having been established that the requirements for a constitutional amendment have been fulfilled:

Article 1

In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich. This includes the laws referred to by Articles 85 Paragraph 2 and Article 87 of the constitution.

Article 2

Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.

Article 3

Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich government.

Article 4

Treaties of the Reich with foreign states which affect matters of Reich legislation shall not require the approval of the bodies of the legislature. The government of the Reich shall issue the regulations required for the execution of such treaties.

Article 5

This law takes effect with the day of its proclamation. It loses force on 1 April 1937 or if the present Reich government is replaced by another.

Heil Hitler!

Josef Goebbels:
“The authority of the Führer has now been wholly established. Votes are no longer taken. The Führer decides. All this is going much faster than we had dared to hope.”

Thursday, March 18, 2010

CENSUS WARNING and information before filing

If you ever wondered about the constitutionality of this census and felt somehow this was a violation of privacy or that the government is being too invasive, here is something to include with your census after you have only filled out the number of people in your home...Only the number of people in your home!

Is it constitutional?

What rights does the government have? What to say to census takers:

This post is long but is a compilation of articles I have received for the last several moths. I felt is was important to become educated on what the governnment wants and if it is within our rights to challenge it. I hope you find this info useful.

To Whom it May Concern,

Pursuant to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, the only information you are empowered to request is the total number of occupants at this address. My “name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, telephone number, relationship and housing tenure” have absolutely nothing to do with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives. Therefore, neither Congress nor the Census Bureau have the constitutional authority to make that information request a component of the enumeration outlined in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. In addition, I cannot be subject to a fine for basing my conduct on the Constitution because that document trumps laws passed by Congress.

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (May 26, 1894)

“Neither branch of the legislative department [House of Representatives or Senate], still less any merely administrative body [such as the Census Bureau], established by congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190. We said in Boyd v. U.S., 116 U. S. 616, 630, 6 Sup. Ct. 524, ―and it cannot be too often repeated, that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of government and it’s employees of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of his life. As said by Mr. Justice Field in Re Pacific Ry. Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 250, ‘of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.’”

Note: This United States Supreme Court case has never been overturned.

(Since the census was addressed without a name... " To resident at" , I will not be including my name because it has no bearing on the purpose of the census, besides they have all of our information anyway.)

If this post makes you nervous, I have included more information to help substantiate the above information.

Are you required by law to answer all the questions on the 2010 Census forms? What are the potential fines if you decide not to?

Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States requires that an "enumeration" shall be conducted every ten years "in a manner as [Congress] shall by law direct." The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states that the enumeration shall consist of "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

There have been no subsequent amendments to the Constitution giving Congress the authority to require an enumeration of the number of bedrooms or toilets in your house.

The first question of the 2010 Census asks, “How many were living in this house, apartment, or mobile home on April 1, 2010?” For those who support and defend the Constitution of the United States this is where the census form should end.

But, what are the implications for the person who wishes to take a stand against the encroachments of his unalienable rights by the ever growing bureaucracy of our central government? What if you refuse to fully comply?

The census form American are about to receive in the mail, or the census workers who may appear at the doors of American homes with their GPS devices, should be able to reference only the following from Title 13 the US Code:


Sec. 221. Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers

(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or
willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any
other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce
or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the
Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his
knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in
connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I,
II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to
the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or
farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not
more than $100.
(b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a)
of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances
described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is
false, shall be fined not more than $500.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person
shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his
religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

This is the current US Code written expressively for conducting the US Census.

However, we are dealing with a corrupt central government that claims the prerogative to interpret the law as it wishes. This is how we have come to live under a regime that believes it can declare anyone an enemy combatant and torture them up to and including the point of death.

Tsars and their apparatchiks in the US Census Bureau are not immune to this tendency operate with little to no regard for what the law actually says. The US Census Bureau has given the indication that they intend to disregard what Title 13 clearly says about limiting a person's failure to fully comply to not more than a $100 fine — a small amount to risk for many who may wish to take a stand in defense of the Constitution and the limited powers it grants to the central government.

Under the explanation of the American Community Survey (formerly the Census long form) the US Census Bureau claims the following:

The American Community Survey is conducted under the authority of Title 13, United States Code, Sections 141 and 193, and response is mandatory. According to Section 221, persons who do not respond shall be fined not more than $100. Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3571 and Section 3559, in effect amends Title 13 U.S.C. Section 221 by changing the fine for anyone over 18 years old who refuses or willfully neglects to complete the questionnaire or answer questions posed by census takers from a fine of not more than $100 to not more than $5,000."

At the bottom of its explanation, the Census Bureau provides a link to what should be the last word on the matter; Title 13 — the specific US Code for conducting the census as referred to in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution.

The Census Bureau does not provide a link to Title 18, the US Code for federal crimes and sentences, by which the Bureau claims the fine for incomplete census questionnaires is "in effect" amended and raised to "not more than $5,000".

(In his recent commentary on the census Congressman Ron Paul has repeated this claimed potential fine of up to $5,000.)

Could the Census Bureau just be flaunting a potential $5,000 fine threat to scare off those contemplating acts of non-compliance on their census forms? Here are the pertinent excerpts from Title 18, that the Census Bureau references to support its claim that Title 13 has been amended by Title 18 ? (emphasis added):


Sec. 3559. Sentencing classification of offenses

(a) Classification. - An offense that is not specifically
classified by a letter grade in the section defining it, is
classified if the maximum term of imprisonment authorized is - (1) life imprisonment, or if the maximum penalty is death, as a
Class A felony;

.(9) five days or less, or if no imprisonment is authorized, as
an infraction.

(2) Exception. - With respect to a person convicted of a
Federal offense described in paragraph (1), the court may impose
any lesser sentence that is authorized by law to take into
account any substantial assistance provided by the defendant in
the investigation or prosecution of another person who has
committed an offense, in accordance with the Federal Sentencing
Guidelines and the policy statements of the Federal Sentencing
Commission pursuant to section 994(p) of title 28, or for other
good cause.


Sec. 3571. Sentence of fine

(a) In General. - A defendant who has been found guilty of an
offense may be sentenced to pay a fine.

(b) Fines for Individuals. - Except as provided in subsection (e)
of this section, an individual who has been found guilty of an
offense may be fined not more than the greatest of -

(1) the amount specified in the law setting forth the offense;

...(7) for an infraction, not more than $5,000.

(e) Special Rule for Lower Fine Specified in Substantive
Provision. - If a law setting forth an offense specifies no fine or
a fine that is lower than the fine otherwise applicable under this
section and such law, by specific reference, exempts the offense
from the applicability of the fine otherwise applicable under this
section, the defendant may not be fined more than the amount
specified in the law setting forth the offense.

No doubt there are more than a few federal legal counsels that will argue in favor of the Census Bureau's claim that their reading of Title 18 means that census officials can threaten Americans with up to a $5,000 fine if they refuse to answer all the bureau's prying questions. The argument of the Census Bureau comes down to this though: Though the rules the Census Bureau is authorized to operate under are clearly defined in Title 13 of the US Code, they believe that they can supersede the intent and will of the Congress on the grounds that a special rule applicable to sections in one Title of the US Code can be interpreted as an implied amendment to an unrelated Title of the US Code. ("It's good to be King" is the shorter argument here.)

If the intent of Congress (not the US Census Bureau) is that Title 18 "amends" Title 13, then Congress needs to legally amend the law set forth in Title 13. By injecting its intention to apply a section of Title 18 to override the clear statements made in sections of the unrelated Title 13, the US Census Bureau is "in effect" indicating that it intends to follow the lead of the IRS and other federal agencies to rule and intimidate the American public through their own arbitrary interpretation and enforcement of the law.

An American wishing to defend the intent of the Constitution, or simply their own privacy, against the census questionnaire should only have to be at risk of being assessed with up to a $100 fine. However, the Census Bureau, likely sensing growing opposition to its extra-constitutional efforts, is attempting to intimidate people with its contrived threat of up to a $5,000 fine.

Are they just bluffing? It probably depends on how many people call their bluff.

End Notes: There have been no pertinent changes to the above US Code cited since the 2000 census. Amendments were made to Title 13 in 1976 which struck out the provision authorizing imprisonment for not more than sixty days for refusing or willfully neglecting to answer questions and the provision for authorizing imprisonment for not more than one year for willfully giving a false answer to a question. The last time the will of the Congress was tested then, deference was afforded to the side of the people.

Disclaimer: This author will be answering the census the same way he did in 2000: Question #1 only. Though a note was attached to the partially completed census form indicating a willingness to be assessed the $100 fine, no fine was assessed.

Most American's & Constitutional scholars have serious concerns over 'invasive' questions in the 2010 Census.

Questions on the 2010 Census Forms far-exceed normal Census head-count data questions. Citizens are being asked to provide very invasive personal information, including income & source data necessary to re-distribute citizen's assets.
Should the Obama Regime decide to force-through public re-distribution of wealth, the 2010 Census provides key information to enable.

The Census Bureau is 'not' a law enforcement agency, any fines or enforcement must be carried out by Law Enforcement personnel.

Please do your own research if you have any reservations about complying with the Census or the links provided below.

Non-compliance fines;
Below are just two of many Census Links available on the internet.. None as yet have reflected 'any' fines or arrests for non-compliance.
However, should you decide to comply with the Census honesty is highly recommended regardless of how you feel towards our ethically challenged Officials.

Subject: Census » fines

Threats to obtain personal information often back-fires.. Decisions made in haste often lead to a lifetime of regrets..


more info here:

Frequently Asked Questions about the Boycott the Census campaign

Why are you urging people to boycott the Census?

The U.S. Constitution says the purpose of the Census is to make an enumeration; that is,
to take an accurate count of Americans for the purpose of apportioning Congressional

But the federal government has gone far beyond that Constitutional mandate, and uses the
Census to ask dozens of probing questions, such as the color of your skin, the number of
toilets in your home, your disabilities, and even the number of cars you have.

In fact, the long form originally asks 53 questions, which is 52 more than the Constitution

Libertarians believe that these questions violate your privacy and
will be used as the basis for expanding the size, power
and cost of government.

So we're urging people to answer just one question:
How many people live in your home?

Wasn't there a raging controversy over the Census in 2000?

Yes, the Libertarian Party led a similar campaign in 2000, causing a firestorm over protest over the intrusive questions. The Census Bureau got the message, loud and clear. But instead of eliminating the inappropriate questions, Census bureaucrats are trying to reduce the public outcry by changing the name of the long form and sending it out in waves, rather than all at once. The long form is now called the American Community Survey, and it will be sent to 250,000 households a month starting in January 2005, instead of sending all of them out in 2010.

Don't let them get away with this PR gimmick! Regardless of how and when they send out the forms, the problem remains the same: Nosy Census bureaucrats have no business asking all these questions. So strike a blow for freedom, privacy and responsible government by refusing to answer every question but one: How many people live in your home?

What are some of the specific questions?

Question 8 demands that you pigeonhole yourself into one of 15 "official" racial categories: White; Black; African American or Negro; American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian Indian; Chinese; Filipino; Other Asian; Japanese; Korean; Vietnamese; Native Hawaiian; Guamanian or Chamorro; Samoan; Other Pacific Islander. If we live in America, arent we all Americans?

Question 17a asks if anyone in your home has any trouble "learning, remembering or concentrating."

Question 17b asks whether you have trouble "dressing, bathing or getting around in the home."

Question 24b asks how long it takes you to get to work, and Question 23a wants to know how you get there -- and there are an astounding 11 choices, including streetcar, bus, railroad, ferryboat, or taxicab!

Presumably the government will use this information to justify squandering billions of dollars on all sorts of boondoggles. In fact, a January 10 press release issued by the Census bureau says the data will be used to "allocate states' shares of more than $200 billion a year" in funding. Much of the data is also used by private companies to make marketing decisions, and is therefore a form of taxpayer-funded corporate welfare.

OK; I agree that the government has no business asking these questions. What's the solution?

We're suggesting that the Census Bureau replace the short form and the long form (the American Community Survey) with a one-question Census-On-A-Postcard. Click here to download the postcard. Then when you get your 53-question Census, send in the postcard instead!Boycott the Census!

Legal Authority to Ask Intrusive Questions Not Present in Constitution.

This Constitution and the Laws made in Pursuance thereof... shall be the supreme Law of the Land...all Judges shall be bound thereby...any the Contrary notwithstanding. [Article VI, Clause 2, of the Constitution of the United States of America

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void. Unconstitutional law bears no power to enforce, it purports to settle as if it never existed, for unconstitutionality dates from the enactment of such a law and not such time as branded in an open court of law. It confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. No courts are bound to uphold it and no persons are bound to obey it. [16 Am Jur 256]

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd vs.. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630, as protection against all governmental invasions ....of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. We recently referred [381 U.S. 479, 485] in Mapp vs.. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 656, to the Fourth Amendment as creating a ....right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully and particularly reserved to the people.''

Declaration To Make To Census Takers:

"I hereby affirm that the provisions of Title 13 ....requiring me to disclose my race, personal financial data, birth date, or any other personal,
private information to the Bureau of the Census, an agency of the United States government, constitutes an unreasonable, unwarranted search of my person, house, papers, and/or effects, and a governmental invasion of the sanctity of my home and the privacies of life. As such, these provisions violate the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, and are thus wholly void and I am not bound to obey them.

I have completed the only those sections of the Census form pertaining to the Constitutionally-mandated actual enumeration, as follows:

1. The actual number of people living at the address printed on the form, excluding untaxed Native Americans;
2. Age of each person in accordance with US Const. Amendment XIV, Section 2;
3. Sex of each person, in accordance with US Const. Amendment XIV, Section 2.

I have thus fulfilled my obligation to the attainment of the actual enumeration of the populace of the United States.

Any fine or other sanction that is levied by any office or organization stemming from the unconstitutional provisions of Title 13 in connection with my response to this or any other Census-related questioning will be challenged in a court of law."
ECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)]

The LAw and the Constitution, then and Now

As many of you know, what is constitutional to us and to this government means next to nothing. If they want to impose fines for something even if it is your right not to pay, you will have to decide if fighting for your right is worth the fines that may be imposed just because its what they want.

I personally will fill out the number of people in my home, no name, nothing else. It wasn't addressed to me, I questioned even opening it, it wasnt sent registered mail, it could have gone anywhere.....

Good luck !

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Why you should question your government

Your Federal Government At Work. This is why we should question those in power.Share
Saturday, March 6, 2010 at 8:20pm

The Chemist's War
The little-told story of how the U.S. government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition with deadly consequences.
By Deborah Blum
Posted Friday, Feb. 19, 2010, at 10:00 AM ET

It was Christmas Eve 1926, the streets aglitter with snow and lights, when the man afraid of Santa Claus stumbled into the emergency room at New York City's Bellevue Hospital. He was flushed, gasping with fear: Santa Claus, he kept telling the nurses, was just behind him, wielding a baseball bat.

Before hospital staff realized how sick he was—the alcohol-induced hallucination was just a symptom—the man died. So did another holiday partygoer. And another. As dusk fell on Christmas, the hospital staff tallied up more than 60 people made desperately ill by alcohol and eight dead from it. Within the next two days, yet another 23 people died in the city from celebrating the season.

Doctors were accustomed to alcohol poisoning by then, the routine of life in the Prohibition era. The bootlegged whiskies and so-cal! led gins often made people sick. The liquor produced in hidden stills frequently came tainted with metals and other impurities. But this outbreak was bizarrely different. The deaths, as investigators would shortly realize, came courtesy of the U.S. government.

Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.

Although mostly forgotten today, the "chemist's war of Prohibition" remains one of the strangest and most deadly decisions in American law-enforcement history. As one of its most outspoken opponents, Charles Norris, the chief medical examiner of New York City during the 1920s! , liked to say, it was "our national experiment in extermination." Poisonous alcohol still kills—16 people died just this month after drinking lethal booze in Indonesia, where bootleggers make their own brews to avoid steep taxes—but that's due to unscrupulous businessmen rather than government order.
I learned of the federal poisoning program while researching my new book, The Poisoner's Handbook, which is set in jazz-age New York. My first reaction was that I must have gotten it wrong. "I never heard that the government poisoned people during Prohibition, did ! you?" I kept saying to friends, family members, colleagues.

I d id, however, remember the U.S. government's controversial decision in the 1970s to spray Mexican marijuana fields with Paraquat, an herbicide. Its use was primarily intended to destroy crops, but government officials also insisted that awareness of the toxin would deter marijuana smokers. They echoed the official position of the 1920s—if some citizens ended up poisoned, well, they'd brought it upon themselves. Although Paraquat wasn't really all that toxic, the outcry forced the government to drop the plan. Still, the incident created an unsurprising lack of trust in government motives, which reveals itself in the occasional rumors circulating today that federal agencies, such as the CIA, mix poison into the illegal drug supply.

During Prohibition, however, an official sense of higher purpose kept the poisoning program in place. As the Chicago Tribune editorialized in 1927: ! "Normally, no American government would engage in such business. … It is only in the curious fanaticism of Prohibition that any means, however barbarous, are considered justified." Others, however, accused lawmakers opposed to the poisoning plan of being in cahoots with criminals and argued that bootleggers and their law-breaking alcoholic customers deserved no sympathy. "Must Uncle Sam guarantee safety first for souses?" asked Nebraska's Omaha Bee.

The saga began with ratification of the 18th Amendment, which banned the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcoholic beverages in the United States.* High-minded crusaders and anti-alcohol organizations had helped push the amendment through in 1919, playing on fears of moral decay in a country just emerging from war. The Volstead Act, spelling out the rules for enforcement, passed shortly later, and Prohibition itself went into effe! ct on Jan. 1, 1920.

But people continued to drink—and in larg e quantities. Alcoholism rates soared during the 1920s; insurance companies charted the increase at more than 300 more percent. Speakeasies promptly opened for business. By the decade's end, some 30,000 existed in New York City alone. Street gangs grew into bootlegging empires built on smuggling, stealing, and manufacturing illegal alcohol. The country's defiant response to the new laws shocked those who sincerely (and naively) believed that the amendment would usher in a new era of upright behavior.

Rigorous enforcement had managed to slow the smuggling of alcohol from Canada and other countries. But crime syndicates responded by stealing massive quantities of industrial alcohol—used in paints and solvents, fuels and medical supplies—and redistilling it to make it potable.

Well, sort of. Industrial alcohol is basically grain alcohol with some unpleasant chemicals mixed in to render it undrinkable. The U.S. government started requiring this "denaturing" proce! ss in 1906 for manufacturers who wanted to avoid the taxes levied on potable spirits. The U.S. Treasury Department, charged with overseeing alcohol enforcement, estimated that by the mid-1920s, some 60 million gallons of industrial alcohol were stolen annually to supply the country's drinkers.

In response, in 1926, President Calvin Coolidge's government decided to turn to chemistry as an enforcement tool. Some 70 denaturing formulas existed by the 1920s. Most simply added poisonous methyl alcohol into the mix. Others used bitter-tasting compounds that were less lethal, designed to make the alcohol taste so awful that it became undrinkable.

To sell the stolen industrial alcohol, the liquor syndicates employed chemists to "renature" the products, returning them to a drinkable state. The bootleggers paid their chemists a lot more than the government did, and they excelled at their job. Stolen and redistilled alcohol became the primary source of liquor in the country. So! federal officials ordered manufacturers to make their products far mo re deadly.

By mid-1927, the new denaturing formulas included some notable poisons—kerosene and brucine (a plant alkaloid closely related to strychnine), gasoline, benzene, cadmium, iodine, zinc, mercury salts, nicotine, ether, formaldehyde, chloroform, camphor, carbolic acid, quinine, and acetone. The Treasury Department also demanded more methyl alcohol be added—up to 10 percent of total product. It was the last that proved most deadly.

The results were immediate, starting with that horrific holiday body count in the closing days of 1926. Public health officials responded with shock. "The government knows it is not stopping drinking by putting poison in alcohol," New York City medical examiner Charles Norris said at a hastily organized press conference. "[Y]et it continues its poisoning processes, heedless of the fact that people determined to drink are daily absorbing that poison. Knowing this to be true, the United States government must be charged with ! the moral responsibility for the deaths that poisoned liquor causes, although it cannot be held legally responsible."

His department issued warnings to citizens, detailing the dangers in whiskey circulating in the city: "[P]ractically all the liquor that is sold in New York today is toxic," read one 1928 alert. He publicized every death by alcohol poisoning. He assigned his toxicologist, Alexander Gettler, to analyze confiscated whiskey for poisons—that long list of toxic materials I cited came in part from studies done by the New York City medical examiner's office.

Norris also condemned the federal program for its disproportionate effect on the country's poorest residents. Wealthy people, he pointed out, could afford the best whiskey available. Most of those sickened and dying were those "who cannot afford expensive protection and deal in low grade stuff."

And the numbers were not trivial. In 1926, in New York City, 1,200 were sickened by poisonous alc! ohol; 400 died. The following year, deaths climbed to 700. These numbe rs were repeated in cities around the country as public-health officials nationwide joined in the angry clamor. Furious anti-Prohibition legislators pushed for a halt in the use of lethal chemistry. "Only one possessing the instincts of a wild beast would desire to kill or make blind the man who takes a drink of liquor, even if he purchased it from one violating the Prohibition statutes," proclaimed Sen. James Reed of Missouri.

Officially, the special denaturing program ended only once the 18th Amendment was repealed in December 1933. But the chemist's war itself faded away before then. Slowly, government officials quit talking about it. And when Prohibition ended and good grain whiskey reappeared, it was almost as if the craziness of Prohibition—and the poisonous measures taken to enforce it—had never quite happened.

Correction, Feb. 22, 2010: The article originally and incorrectly said that the 18

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Auto industry recalls, fabricated?

My father in law has been a truck driver for 30 years. He has been politically astute for many years longer and has been sceptical of anything the government has ever done, almost to the point I thought he had to be off a bit somewhere

When we get together we talk politics and current events and share ourthoughts on the issues and I have learned alot from his perspective and from his knowledge of American history and enjoy our time together and what I didn't or couldn't believe I enjoyed because they were great stories, I know better these days.

"One day we were discussing issues about the auto industry recalls and he had said something I was unfamiliar with and had to do with when he was driving cross country. I was rather disturbed. He says it this way:

"Did you know that a few years ago when I was driving my truck there were rumors of trucks brakes locking up and no one seemed to know why? Research was performed and the cause was found.

Evidentally, the power grid and trucks electronics experienced some interference causing the trucks brakes to lock up or for the engines to die, really strange problems, I as a diesel mechanic had never seen anything like this before. The final solution ,they were told, was to install a resistor or transistor to prevent further interverence." To my knowledge their have been no more problems since."

I guess the reason for my post is to offer an alternative perspective on what may be the cause of these recalls. It sure seems coicidental to have all of these recalls fall on the heels of one another especially when the largest part of this began after the government got involved in the auto industry.

If this is any indication of how our government works, our founders had tremendoous foresight to keep our government "limited."

More government intervention in the auto industry?

Do you believe in conspiracy theories? I used to think those people were whack jobs that didn't have a clue about reality. I also used to think that "nerds" were stupid and no one would ever want to be one, feeling sorry for them for the way they looked.

Fortunately, as a child, I wasn't one who voiced how I felt about who they were and as a consequence of that gained many friends who were, some BTW, to be some of my closest friends today.

The reason why I say this is because just because something looks weird or sounds weird doesnt mean it is. It may be foreign or scary or uncomfortable but shouldn't be discredited just because those hearing it would rather remain ignorant of reality that do the research to find out the truth about a specific topic.

I cant help but wonder how many have heard conspiracies and ignored them as impossible only now to realize their was some truth, if not all true today.

Consider the present dismal decline of our country into submission. One instance of many is the government s intervention into the auto industry. Anyone with any sense understands that the government screws up anything they get their hands into and this industry is no exception.

Look back at the auto bailout when Obama said he had no desire to own the auto industry, then he bailed them out. Since then the industry has received more money. Chevrolet is troubled and has tried to compete with Toyota for years. Nissan second to Toyota leaving Chevy third or worse.

Isnt it surprising that all of a sudden Toyota is having issues with recalls on only the AMERICAN MADE CARS? First it was the gas pedal, then it was the brakes, what next?

Obama declared a day or so ago that the government may step in and have brake overrides installed in every car in the US.

What to my surprise? NOT!

Nissan today now has recalls on their brake systems AFTER Obama declares the possible mandate on all cars in the US.

Is Obama and congress truly playing a game of cat and mouse or is their any validity to what is really going on.

More thoughts:

Is this intervention of the government into the auto industry constitutional?

Is the government finding one more way to control the vehicles of the citizens?

If the government screws up everything, what makes someone think they wont screw this up and kill as many if not more than these supposed auto accidents?

Who will pay for these overide systems?


Is all Bushs' fault?

I get so sick of people telling me how bad GW was and how everything today is because of him. I even went so far as to ask when it would no longer be Bushs' fault and when the focus would be transferred to our new dictator in chief. The answer surprised me when it really shouldn't have..." It will always be Bushs' fault!" Is that a fact I said...

I received this today that pretty well sums up the facts in a nutshell...If it were Bush?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States , would you have said that he is clueless.

If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas , would you have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical idiot.

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had Okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer.

Thank you

Monday, March 1, 2010

How Does the 1 percent Control the 99 percent?

A great article sent to me this morning pretty well sums up the condition of this country. In step with other post, this one perhaps may be a bit more clear for those who still dont get it, maybe you will if you read it from a different writer. Nice Job Bob!

How Does the 1 percent Control the 99 percent?

“It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion whatever the state needs to do.”—Joseph Geobbels

We cannot understand modern despotism and police power unless we understand modern money.

Modern money in the United States and the whole world is fiat paper money and credit. It is under the total control of government (and the bankers).

This means that all government funding is with fiat counterfeit paper that is created in unlimited amounts and costs the government nothing. But it transfers wealth and savings of the people to the money creators and government through the depreciation of the currency.

The American people have no understanding of how the government gets everything literally for nothing. It is the source of all government power. The control of free and unlimited funding with created money in unlimited amounts guarantees the power and control of the 1 percent over the 99 percent.

The American people are taught voodoo economics. They have absolutely no understanding of reality.

So how does the 1 percent control the 99 percent? By gross deception at all levels:

By controlling all news media, printed and live.
By controlling all newscasters.
By controlling public education from start to finish.
By controlling the “healthcare” system. The public is kept sick by mass vaccinations.

Through fear campaigns:

Fear of disease to manipulate people to take mass vaccinations.
Fear of financial collapse for an excuse to increase fiat, diluting the purchasing power of the currency and destroying dollar assets of savers.

Fear of bogey-man enemies. Example: Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction.”
Fear through war propaganda that is waged by the military industrial complex. The words democracy and patriotism are heavy words used repeatedly. Perpetual war is possible because of unlimited access to funding with fiat paper money.

Income tax controls the population by forcing “voluntary” disclosure of personal information.
Information about the people is typical and necessary to tyranny. Fear of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is awesome.

Government at all levels promotes the state over the individual person. Personal freedom is the enemy of the state. In all things the state promotes the collective man and the collective mind.
The virtue of individualism always gives way to group dynamics through the group psychosis of altruism. The state can manipulate the crowd far easier than the individual.

The bigger bureaucratic government is, the more it fears the people. The government has to control the population in order to control the government.

Only the power of propaganda keeps the people from overthrowing the government by force.
Also, government (the 1 percent) holds the police power and the military power, the main purpose of which is the silent force to contain the population. Even though the population in the U.S. is armed, there is no general awareness that government is enemy No. 1.

Toward the last days of a fiat regime, confidence in government accelerates on the downside and the risk of armed violence escalates. Hence, stepped-up oppression of the government against the people.

Gold rises and is hoarded. Controls at all levels are intensified with the strategy that the bigger counter-force will prevail. Government bets that its own police and military will not mutiny.
Pensions and pay loom large in the collective mind of Federal police and armed forces. None realize that their pensions in fiat will be worthless.

Modern propaganda in America hides behind and is passed off as science and research.
In the last days the people begin to realize that their “elected” representatives are really employees of the Federal Government. Modern government, especially the U.S. government, operates above the threshold of the intelligence of the people. The people are controlled because they can’t discern between hocus-pocus and reality.

The fiat paper money mentality is something for nothing and the government obliges with bread and circus. The population is unaware that they are unaware. Criminal government is recognized when the rule of law breaks down, as now.

The control by the 1 percent of the 99 percent can be summed up in two words: “Psychological warfare

March 1, 2010 by Bob Livingston

After reading Bob's article, it would be a good time to look up the 1848 Marx's communist manifesto ( postd many tiomes here) to get a real appreciation of where we are today using the examples above.

Another great example would be the new emerging socialist movement called the coffee party, the socialists who support government and stand with them to fight those who oppose change.
Almost unbeleievable that these people can find comfort pushimng anti-Ametrican sentiments under the umbrella of "free speech" Test yourrself to see where you stand, are you a communist or an American patriot? ( HINT: They say the founders left us a this true?) Do your homework to see if you have been misled like they have.

" When government fears the people there is liberty, when the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

Final words regarding state legislature

Last week I decided to send my thoughts to the state legislature. I have been so tired of getting angry at my television and reading about all of the decisions our state has been making, as well as our elected officials nationally I felt I had to.

After my expression to the legislature I was not surprised that few wrote me back, only three, in fact, which to me is extremely poor considering the fact that it was easy to see I was upset with them, proof positive, I believe, that our officials could really care less about what we think.

Kudos, By the way to Senator Smyser who was brave enough to write me back and endure some apparently difficult questioning after I was warned repeatedly by other representatives to back off because I was too hard on her, Shame on you boys!

After going through my emails and questions I felt should be answered I did find perhaps I could have worded them a bit differently but didnt because I am sick of watching the dancing around being politically correct to those who are supposed to be representing the people, skirting the issues and being as indirect as possible.

When I recieveed an email from Senator Smyser asking me to speak on the phone rather than email, she was pleasant and answered all of questions exactly the way they were asked. She said that she appreciated my position and understood how angry I was and said she also appreciated my decire to say what I meant they way I said it. She didn't need any backup from politically correct MALE senators and reps, she did well all by herself, apparently with more Gusto than the men that didnt even bother to answer my concerns.

It is my belief that we have a neutered male culture these days, no testosterone, no backbone and not willing to stand for what they believe in, at least in the public arena without backing down. I would prefer we all believed the same way but since we dont, stand for what you believe... just stand for it without waivering in the wind, it makes you look like you dont know what to believe or you believe different things to different people...

Anyway, thank you to Senator Smyser for your willingness to speak with me when so many others would not engage in the concerns of thier constituents, so true to form of todays elected officials, its all about the career, isnt it?

I stand on my original statement, "If you are running for office as an incumbant and your desire is to further your career before your honest represention of the people, I hope the political winds blow such that you are removed and a lesson is learned.

A recent poll indicated that Idaho had the most conservative state legislature in the country, I guess I should be happy with what I have and be unwilling to wish for anything better because it would appear that that really isnt going to happen...

Two glasses of your favorite beverage, one has a small amount of poison and the other has a bit more...which one would you drink?