There are multiple reasons ... read the Project for the New American Century which is a manifesto from the NeoPoliticians. Israel wants us over there. They've made this clear with all their lobbying efforts and statements regarding their estranged neighbors. The war machine is profitable for international bankers and various big businesses. Oil is driving our economy (even though there are alternate methods, the petrolium industry is highly influential in squashing those other ambitious alternatives). Saddam refused to play the political game set up for him by the shadow govt. From my perspective those are the primary reasons why we're over there.

NetRunner.. you say it's just Bush and the neocons that want us to stay there.. this is only partially true.. .the neoliberals are supporting the same agenda. Watch as bush sets us up for war with Iran which will be urged by Israel and the new Dems in office will say that we have no choice but to perpetuate the war as before... Now with unconstitutional executive orders available at their disposal should they need them.

Executive order 51 FTW.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

>> ^choggie:
hmmmm, my prediction is some false flag op that speeds along further the fear of "terrorists" to the point that martial law is declared and never lifted-perhaps biological this time...

>> ^Tofumar:
What? Ron Paul is the most ideological of all the candidates. It's not "logical" to want to entirely defund Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, despite their widespread popularity. In other words, he's running on a promise to do these things--and many more which are just as silly and destructive--in spite of the "true opposition to his policy."
So, explain to me how it is that everyone else just has their political blinders on, but RP is really the only "logical" one. Because, frankly, you seem to have it exactly backwards. I mean, even the Republicans, with their dastardly foreign policy and love of corporate welfare wouldn't think of proposing the elimination of Social Security. Do you know why? Because it's a good program with good effects that is very popular across ideological lines.


First of all, I can't believe someone just defended welfare and Social Security. Like, seriously, can't believe it. I just vomited in my own freaking lap.

Here we have a system of retirement whereby money is forcibly being taken out of your paycheck and promised to be given back to you in regular installments after you retire. The problems are numerous. In the event of a generational population bubble, the system will have to pay out more than it’s taking in, resulting in all-out collapse or all-out inflation. Most people paying into the system today will not receive their promised money when it is time to retire. It has zero potential for investment growth, and due to inflation, the money you get later has considerably less puchasing power than it did when it was appropriated from you. The congress can and does raid the fund to pay for other things. It also feels like a tax if you’re poor and would rather spend the money on a better life. And last of all, if you die before retirement, the money can be transferred only to your spouse and no further. It is truly an illogical system and one that is difficult to abolish because of the massive dependencies it creates. So what is the alternative? What is it that Ron Paul advocates? It’s simple: people keep the fruits of their own labor and take responsibility to invest or do with their compensation of labor as they see fit. Of course, the liberals then come out with "but what about all the poor?" not realizing that it is inflationary Keynsian fiat economics, overregulation of the free market, socialist welfare programs, and high taxes to fund wasteful government that work in tandum to create the problem of poverty in the first place.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0501a.asp

Historical context of Social Security: passed in FDR's socialist New Deal programs. FDR and Hoover, of course, are widely criticized for turning what should have only been a recession into a depression. FDR also used an executive order to make ownership of gold illegal, a psychotic tyrannical order that was unconstitutional on two counts. The government was embarrassed and instead of blaming itself, blamed American citizens for "hoarding" and trying to protect their wealth with a non-inflationary asset. FDR is also the guy who refused to warn ships in Pearl Harbor of an impending Japanese attack so that he could use their deaths as a political device to rally Americans to go to war.

1984. They're behind schedule, but they're working on it!

I agree with you, and think both you and I have the nation's best interest at heart. I do love America, but I just don't feel as proud, or as free, as I once did. I really can't name any freedoms or liberties that I've lost, It's just a feeling that I have. And it's the fear that I could some day lose them. Legislation like the Patriot Act and HR 1955 and Executive Order 51 really make me want to put my tinfoil hat back on. All this legislation is intended to keep us "safe", yet between the lines of each seems written the powers to oppress and subdue us. You come across as thoughtful, rational, and patriotic. If it were up to you, I'd feel a lot more comfortable, but unless you're a senator all you and I can do is vote.

>> ^LeadingZero:

Say the United States government, military and intelligence agencies actually did turn into a full out Orwellian society; they monitored our every movement, watched and limited our every purchase, controlled what films and books are produced, posted cameras on every corner, required us to report every anti-government utterance made by our neighbors, etc...

I wonder how much Bernanke can actually do. The only instrument the Fed has to immediately act on the stock market is the interest rate. But back in December, Bernanke and everyone else knew that cutting interest rates would promote inflation and another credit bubble. So he decided against it, just like the European Central Bank decided this week.

But the market tanked, because traders don't give a damn about inflation. Actually, they can't even care about long term perspectives, because if they did the market would crash. They want to see stocks rising in the short term, and it's up to Bernanke to keep the music going.

Back in December, Bernanke made the responsible choice of controlling inflation and preventing further long-term damage to the economy. Bernanke was hoping Bush's tax rebate proposal would have some effect, but it didn't. On MLK day, world markets took a dive and the forecast for the next day was a historic plunge on the Dow. It was already being called the Black Tuesday.

So Bernanke and the board of the Fed convened and decided on a 0.75% emergency rate cut, because the way they saw it, they could either have a crash right then or worry about the dollar some other day. They decided to postpone the problem, and made the cut.

It worked for a day. The Dow closed lower, but it didn't crash. On Wednesday, it degenerated during trading hours and it was pretty obvious that traders were going short. In came the PPT, the Plunge Protection Team, also known as the Working Group on Financial Markets. Created by an executive order by Reagan, these guys give recommendations to the private sector for "enhancing the integrity, efficiency, orderliness, and competitiveness of [United States] financial markets and maintaining investor confidence". No one knows what the hell they talk about in their meetings, no one has access to the minutes and they respond to no one -- not even to Congress.

The rally on Wednesday afternoon had all the signs of concerted stock manipulation originating in the futures market. The rise started tentative at best, but the index was propped up by very well timed buying over an essentially perfect trendline. The first leg of the rise scared the folks who were short, but a lot held on. But they couldn't handle the second leg, closed their positions and made the stocks surge up with incredible volume.

The panic is over, at least for now. But the market's pricing in a 0.5% cut for the Fed's next meeting, which happens in a week. If they don't cut, the markets will fall AGAIN.

Ron Paul said many times that the credit problem is like an addiction, and I can't think of a better description.

NORAD has the ability to see trajectory based blips on their radar that are not using a transponder. These are usually highlighted on their radar screens as an unidentified craft. Dick Cheney was in control of NORAD by executive order just a few months before 9/11.

Confusion? - Yes...
Deliberate? - Unknown
NORAD Commander (Cheney) was in the basement of the Pentagon having an unusual conversation with an airman right before the crash in the Pentagon as reported by Mr. Mineta.

Was the Pentagon truly defenseless? Highly unlikely - details of air defense capabilities for the Pentagon are top secret.

False flag operation? Motives do exist according to the PNAC's desire for a "New Pearl Harbor" in order to expedite "their plans"(Wolfowitz,Cheney,Rumsfeld to name a few on the PNAC "think tank"). Pres. Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq and quickly abandoned the "search" for the "elusive" Osama Bin Laden.

We were quickly told how the "terrorists" pulled such an amazing feat off with extremely crude weapons and was supposedly orchestrated from a cave halfway around the world. 6 of the 19 accused terrorists are still alive today, so this story doesn't add up, among other flaws in the official story.

We want to believe we were told the truth.. that our government would never lie to us and commit or enable such a heinous crime, however many top level government and military officials have gone on the record protesting the official story.

Any logical criminal investigator would have to agree that the official story has many holes in it. Some evidence still exists but much of it was quickly shipped with armed guards to be permenantly destroyed in Communist China thanks to Rudy Giuliani.

It doesn't look good for this administration, however many people are refusing to look at the inconstencies of the official story.

President Bush is overreaching his powers... excessively...

1. An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.

2. The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.

3. The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.


Let’s start with number one. Bear in mind that the so-called Protect America Act that was stampeded through this great body in August provides no—zero—statutory protections for Americans traveling abroad from government wiretapping. None if you’re a businesswoman traveling on business overseas, none if you’re a father taking the kids to the Caribbean, none if you’re visiting uncles or aunts in Italy or Ireland, none even if you’re a soldier in the uniform of the United States posted overseas. The Bush Administration provided in that hastily-passed law no statutory restrictions on their ability to wiretap you at will, to tap your cell phone, your e-mail, whatever

i.e.

1. “I don’t have to follow my own rules, and I don’t have to tell you when I’m breaking them.”

2. “I get to determine what my own powers are.”

3. “The Department of Justice doesn’t tell me what the law is, I tell the Department of Justice what the law is.”

"Execute Order 66!"

Actually RadHazG, you're right and wrong from my understanding. Yes she was covert, the following quote from General Hayden, head of the CIA, was read into testimony at a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

---During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information.---

Keyword search of the following should turn up the relevant section for that quote. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/plame/plame_transcript_031607.html

In the sentencing memo used in the Libby trial she is also referred to as covert repeatedly. Link to that here, though it's a large PDF file so be aware. My understanding is that she was what's called NOC or Non-Official Cover. Those are the ones who don't even have the protection of diplomatic immunity and that's why the CIA was pissed about this.

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/files/libby_governments_sentencing_memo.pdf

Libby wasn't going to do time over outing her though, that was over two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction and one of lying to the FBI to block the investigation. The outing I'm not sure we're at the bottom of yet, they say Armitage played a key role in it but nothing I've seen there explains why Libby would have lied. There's something we're missing still I think.

The countries political past pretty much speaks for itself.

The previous president Joseph Estrada, who was a popular actor before gaining office, was taken down by charges of corruption, the impeachment court, whose majority were political allies of Estrada, voted not to open an envelope that was said to contain incriminating evidence against the president. The final vote was 11-10, in favor of keeping the envelope closed. Leading to political upheaval and finally to the Armed forces withdrawing their support in favor of the vice president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

In late September 2005, Arroyo issued an executive order stating that demonstrations without permits would be pre-emptively stopped. Then members of the military testified in Congressional hearings that they were defying a direct order not to testify about their knowledge of the election scandal. The opposition and militant groups have accused the Arroyo administration of moving towards an undeclared version of martial law. The "no permit, no rally" policy followed by the Calibrated Preemptive Response policy are both aimed at regulating street rallies. There is the issuance of Executive Order No. 464 forbidding government officials under the executive department from appearing in congressional inquiries without President Arroyo's prior consent.

Those are things we all can agree on without inserting what you termed as the "religious dogma."

We can agree to them to a certain degree, but the punishment for all of these, including making love to another person, is death. I dont think Jesus agreed with that, but my point is this: You and I can, with a single sentence, easily surpass all the morality of the bible, Why? because we live in a world that has come a very long way the last 2000 years, specifically all the knowledge we have gained in all walks of life.

This is how you choose the bits from the bible that fall in line with reasonable thinking anno 2007. The fact that some of it, specially some of Jesus' thinking, is still relevant to this day is, as I said, a major achievement, considering the tribalized, ancient culture Jesus lived in. This is why I keep saying Jesus must be considered as one of the greatest moral thinkers of all time.

Consider the Jains "10 commandments": "Do not injure, abuse, torture, enslave,insult,torment or kill any creature or living being" These people are strict vegans, and wear facemask so they wont swallow and kill insects. The Inquisition, the Crusades, Islamic terrorism etc would be IMPOSSIBLE to justify or invent based on Jain thinking, but from a simple reading of the bible, it is not hard at all to see how these insane crimes can be committed, it has the recipe for most of them, and in some cases, outright executive orders from the creator of the universe himself.

And finally ,No, I dont repair bicycles :http://www.videosift.com/video/Monty-Python-Bicycle-Repair-Man

Darn, too easy (and you probably have SiftBot helping you)...

Here's the bonus question, for double the magic brownie points:

What is the hometown and state of the first vice president of the US president who issued the executive order that proclaimed emancipation?

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/fract/sect16.htm

"Any Federal Reserve bank(i.e. - any bank that is a member of the Federal Reserve) may make application to the local Federal Reserve agent for such amount of the Federal Reserve notes hereinbefore provided for as it may require. Such application shall be accompanied with a tender to the local Federal Reserve agent of collateral in amount equal to the sum of the Federal Reserve notes thus applied for and issued pursuant to such application."

"Any Federal Reserve bank may at any time reduce its liability for outstanding Federal Reserve notes by depositing with the Federal Reserve agent its Federal Reserve notes, gold certificates, Special Drawing Right certificates, or lawful money of the United States(please notice how 'Federal Reserve notes' and 'lawful money of the United States' are separate)."

Yes, Congressional meetings with him - "Greenspan asks Congress to hold off on tax cutting." They didn't exactly request his presence. He went there to request something from them. What meetings are you speaking about? Here's what I've found for your search term, and it includes no time(within the first 6 pages at least) that the Congress specifically requested Greenspan's presence, only articles pertaining to his specific requests from Congress when he has chosen to meet with them. Maybe you should google it yourself before informing me to.

http://www.google.co
m/search?q=greenspan%2Fcongress&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

I urge you to read Milton Friedman's book before attempting to continue with me, because most everything you've said within the last three paragraphs of your statement is directly addressed within his book, including how much power the government really has over the Fed.

You're convinced that the government makes money - why? In the Act itself, it is CLEARLY stated that Federal Reserve banks must exchange collateral for the notes they receive - do you know what that collateral usually is? In many cases, the collateral are the land deeds with enough value to cover the value of the Federal Reserve notes the member banks want - and yes, even the United States government must make that collateral.

Perhaps "lawful money of the United States" is what you are talking about when you say "the government *makes* money." In that case, I'd like to ask how many Silver, Gold, or Platinum American Eagle coins you own, and where you have used them, or how many Kennedy five dollar bills( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110 ) you own, and where you have used them? Technically speaking, those are the only forms of "lawful money of the United States" left in circulation today, whereas the Kennedy notes, under Executive Order 11110, were backed by silver, and the American Eagle coins ARE made of the metals that back them(in high purity, valued by the troy ounce - check http://www.monex.com for more information). Please note that the value of prior silver and gold-backed notes was repealed by the Nixon Administration.

Some countries may have printed money, sure - even the Federal Reserve did, and, in the meantime they gained a good amount of land and value in other commodities because of it - as a matter of fact, if you haven't noticed, War in general is a big money-making venture, by itself. And collateral must be traded for the amount of notes that is placed into the American economy, by the Federal Reserve Act itself(as seen above). Why do you think the United States initiates so many wars?

He has some interesting points, certainly, but this wasn't a brilliant interview. The interviewer doesn't really probe Bartmer assertions, rather just agrees with him (almost short of putting words in his mouth at times).

The fact that not even anything has been leaked regarding the installation of demolition charges in the WTC, just makes me discount the whole 'controlled collapse' theory. Be they blueprints, executive orders, memos or whatever, show me anything that gives evidence for such a claim - but don't try to tout a theory as being irrefutable. Something the 911 'Truth' guys like to do.

These failings of the authorities to properly investigate the wreckage is concerning, but this does not therefore conclude that something dodgy went on behind the scenes. There is definitely a story we're not hearing, so lets push for investigations (like Bartmer says) rather than trying to prove negatives.

Gov. Rick Perry signed an executive order making Texas the first state to require that schoolgirls be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

He received campaign contribs from Merck, the developer of the vaccine....surprise.

So, one more justification for bullshit, the kind that makes paradise, that much more entertaining, and challenging.

Again, look at the people you vote for, before you lsten to what they have to say....the eyes tell all,.....that's why this sifter did not waste his vote on another asshole......voted for Kinky Freidman, the jewish commedian, and slept better knowing I had no part in another asshole, getting what they wanted.

Civil Disobedience should be the unspoken law of the masses
but that just doesn't jibe with being comfortable, and not making anyone angry or life too hard for oneself........the world is becomming irreconcilably pussified....kinda like France.....