Archive for 04/07/2010
A message to all members of The Regulators Anti-Socialism Vigilance Committee
One of the primary reasons we are through with “Ning” is that they have been banning members across all Ning networks who post blogs on multiple forums, across Network boundaries. ALL Patriot networks have been losing their best bloggers because of this.
So please be warned that it is the “NIng” Marxists who are doing this, not your favorite networks. If there are any attorneys out there who receive this, PLEASE CONTACT ALL OF THE NETWORKS YOU ARE A MEMBER OF, IN THE Tea Party movement! IT IS TIME FOR A CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST Ning!
If THIS WEBSITE SUDDENLY DISAPPEARS WITHOUT WARNING, YOU WILL KNOW WHY. It is because Ning monitors ALL activity of a conservative nature, and they are IN BED with the SOCIALISTS!
If it does happen, we will be back on another network shortly. I have downloaded ALL of our members’ e-mail addresses into a CSV file. Meanwhile, you can protect yourself from being banned from Ning by only posting on one site. All things considered, NOW would be a good time to begin getting contact information from all of your close friends you have made across the country on Patriot networks. Otherwise, you may lose track of them indefinitely. BUT PLEASE DO NOT POST IT PUBLICLY FOR YOUR OWN PROTECTION. Share this information ONLY via onsite e-mail!
Visit The Regulators Anti-Socialism Vigilance Committee at: http://theregulatorsvigilancecommittee.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
February 23, 2009
[NOTE: As I’ve written many times before, the goal of the Power Elite (PE) is a World Socialist Government. Critical to coercing Americans to accept Socialism is the nationalization of key sectors of the economy, such as banking. I’ve indicated in the past that this type of coercion would be brought about by an economic crisis, such as the one we are currently experiencing. Relevant to this, Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas wrote “We Are All Socialists Now” (Newsweek, Feb. 16, 2009), and Matthew Richardson and Nouriel Roubini wrote “Nationalize the Banks! We’re all Swedes Now!” (The Washington Post, Feb. 15, 2009) which begins: “The U.S. banking system is close to being insolvent, and unless we want to become like Japan in the 1990s—or the United States in the 1930s—the only way to save it is to nationalize it.” Even Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham on ABC’s “This Week” (Feb. 15, 2009) indicated we should consider the possibility of nationalizing banks.
[And in case you think this crisis happened accidentally, just consider the fact that “the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) waived the 12 to 1 leverage ratios for the five biggest investment banks. Those banks then leveraged 40 to 1 and collapsed the worldwide financial system” (January 5, 2009 Financial Sense editorial by James Quinn of the Wharton Business School). Do you really believe no one could see what the disastrous results of going from 12 to 1 leveraging to 40 to 1 would be? When these banks started taking losses, Quinn has also pointed out, their capital was immediately wiped out and the problem was dumped in the taxpayers’ laps.]
In previous columns, I’ve mentioned the secret Nazi plan described in American official Sumner Welles’ The Time for Decision (1944). It was a plan (for a Nazi loss in WWII) which would come to fruition two generations later. It included Nazi agents going underground into two successive countries to avoid detection (Paul Dickopf went underground into Switzerland in 1942). These agents would eventually rise to positions of power in those second nations.
Welles must have learned of this secret plan when he was on friendly terms with the Nazi leadership long before the U.S. entered WWII. A Google search of “sumner welles portraits” shows a photograph of Welles and Hermann Goering on March 19, 1940. But why almost two years before the U.S. entered WWII would the Nazis plan for a loss? And why after WWII was there never an investigation of this secret plan? Robert Ludlum in his fictional The Apocalypse Watch referred to “The Brotherhood of the Watch” a global neo-Nazi secret organization formed in the days after the Third Reich’s defeat and exposed about 50 years later.
As I’ve written before, Hitler’s rise and demise were facilitated by the PE. In the same year (1942) the Nazi agent Paul Dickoff went underground into Switzerland and the U.S. was already in the war, “Standard Oil of New Jersey managers shipped the enemy’s fuel through neutral Switzerland and the enemy was shipping Allied fuel. The Chase Bank in Nazi-occupied Paris after Pearl Harbor was doing millions of dollars worth of business with the enemy with the full knowledge of the heard office in Manhattan. Ford trucks were being built for the German occupation troops in France with authorization from Dearborn, Michigan. Col. Sosthenes Behn, head of ITT, flew from New York to Madrid to Berne during the war to help improve Hitler’s communications systems and improve the robot bombs that devastated London. And ITT built the Focke-Wulfs that dropped bombs on British and American troops.” (Charles Higham’s Trading With the Enemy, p. xv).
As I’ve also written before, I.G. Farben’s war industries (e.g. chemicals, rubber, etc.) staffed and directed Hitler’s intelligence section and ran the Nazi slave labor camps. So why at the end of WWII were 87% of Farben’s industries still intact?
At the end of the war, U.S. Justice Department attorney James Stewart Martin (author of All Honorable Men, 1950) went to Germany to sort out the relationship of American and German businesses during the war, but he was thwarted in his efforts, saying: “We had not been stopped in Germany by German businesses. We had been stopped in Germany by American business. The forces that stopped us had operated from the United States but had not operated in the open. We were not stopped by a law of Congress, by an Executive Order of the President, or even by a change of policy approved by the president…. In short, whatever it was that stopped us was not ‘the government.’ But it clearly had command of channels through which the government normally operates. The relative powerlessness of government… is of course not new…. National governments have stood on the sidelines while bigger operators arranged the world’s affairs.” Relevant to this, it’s important to remember that the PE is NOT the government of any country, but the PE’s agents are IN the governments of countries.
In order to explain what the PE was doing, it is important to look at how they operate, and John J. McCloy as an agent of the PE is a useful example of this regard. In the 1930s, PE agent McCloy’s law firm of Cravath, de Gersdorff, Swaine & Wood were attorneys for I.G. Farben. This is perhaps one reason McCloy sat in Hitler’s box at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin (because the PE is neither right nor left politically, McCloy in late July 1961 went swimming with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in the Black Sea).
On October 29 of the same year (1936), American Ambassador to Germany William E. Dodd wrote to President Wilson’s chief advisor Col. Edward M. House expressing his surprise and wonder that “in spite of all the debts and all the huge losses since the great war, more than a hundred of our greater corporations have subsidiaries here and are of course involved in a great deal of the acute business which goes on. At the same time no corporation can take profits out of the country, although some I am told earn as much as half a million dollars a year…. Yet a great many of these corporations are supplying the means for rearmament, actually supplying arms. It’s strange to me that they are willing to risk the property of their stockholders in such a way.”
Four years later, Skull & Bones member Henry Stimson went to Washington to become President Franklin Roosevelt’s Secretary of War, and he brought McCloy with him as Assistant Secretary of War. To demonstrate the importance of McCloy, Stimson would later question “whether anyone in the Administration ever acted without having a word with McCloy.”
McCloy’s lawfirm had as one of its clients the Rockefeller family, and during WWII McCloy was a senior member of John D. Rockefeller III’s intelligence group, the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee (SWNCC). With this background, McCloy established the highly secret U.S. Army’s Psychological Warfare Division at the time of D-Day in 1944. It was also during this time from 1940 to 1946 that American Thomas Harrington McKittrick (an associate of J.P. Morgan Banking) was president of the Nazi-controlled Bank for International Settlements (BIS) where $378 million of the Nazis’ looted gold had been sent.
Some of our members were at this “Town Hall” meeting with LoBiondo. This “YouTube” was sent to me from one of those members. I thought it was certainly worth forwarding. Shouldn’t our elected officials at least be “familiar” with the Constitution? (Just kidding, they should know it inside and out) Especially LoBiondo, he’s been in office long enough to know it forwards and backwards or, is he just another career politician?
We cannot let up on these politicians!
Senate majority leader’s crowd can’t match multitude calling for his ‘retirement’
Posted: April 06, 2010
8:31 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
After more than 10,000 tea partiers descended on Sen. Harry Reid’s hometown of Searchlight, Nev., to demand an end to the Senate majority leader’s term in one of the largest political events in town history, Reid launched his re-election campaign – in front of a paltry crowd of 100 supporters.
On March 27, tea partiers flocked from cities all over the nation to the small town of Searchlight, with a population of only 800. Crowd estimates at the “Conservative Woodstock” ranged from 10,000 to 30,000.
The event featured Gov. Sarah Palin and a host of other guests, including 2008 libertarian vice presidential candidate Wayne Allyn Root, WND columnists Roger Hedgecock and Melanie Morgan, Joe the Plumber, commentator Andrew Breitbart and former “Saturday Night Live” regular Victoria Jackson.
The following are photos of the massive rally taken by the non-profit group American Border Patrol:
American Border Patrol photo of tea party rally in opposition to Sen. Harry Reid
American Border Patrol photo of tea party rally in opposition to Sen. Harry Reid
American Border Patrol photo of traffic to get into tea party nearly two hours after start of rally
Just more than a week after taxpayers stormed Searchlight, Reid launched his re-election campaign near the tea-party site.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Reid was cheered on by more than 100 close supporters.
The Tea Party Express issued a release Monday headlined, “Harry Reid humiliated in ‘hometown.'”
“We did it folks,” Tea Party Express spokesman Sal Russo declared in the memo. “We stood up to the corrupt Senate Majority Leader and we showed the power of We the People.”
Reid can be seen addressing his supporters and taking a few jabs at Palin in the following video posted by Fox News:
Later, when Las Vegas Review-Journal reporters asked Reid what he thought of the 10,000 tea partiers who converged on Searchlight calling for his defeat, Reid said he understands anger at government and Washington during an economic recession. However, he said he was confused about what tea partiers mean when they cite the Constitution and call for liberty, freedom and limited federal government.
“The people who are really upset don’t really know why they’re upset,” Reid told the newspaper. “What do they mean?”
Fox News reported Reid canceled a scheduled appearance at a Mormon church Sunday because protesters threatened to show up.
By: Jim Meyers
Leading national security expert Frank Gaffney has a few choice words for President Barack Obama’s policies on the production and use of nuclear weapons — “reckless,” “dangerous,” “irresponsible,” “ill-advised,” “very risky” and “catastrophic.”
Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, also tells Newsmax that Obama is taking “considerable risks” with Americans’ security, and his policies could ultimately lead to the “disarmament” of the U.S.
Editor’s Note: See the full interview with defense expert Frank Gaffney below
And he says the policies raise questions about the president’s judgment “and his faithful execution of his constitutional responsibilities for the common defense.”
Gaffney was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in April 1987 to become assistant secretary of defense for International Security Policy, the senior position in the Defense Department with responsibility for policies involving nuclear forces, arms control and U.S.-European defense relations.
He also served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy.
The Obama administration is altering the country’s decades-old nuclear weapons policy to reduce the role and number of such weapons, with the target of a nuclear-free world, according to a newly released document called a nuclear posture review.
Obama would renounce the development of any new nuclear weapons, and commit the U.S. not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty — even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons.
He is also about to sign a “New START” [Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty] with Russia reducing long-range nuclear weapons.
In his exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Gaffney says: “Both the new nuclear posture review and the START treaty reflect the president’s overarching ambition, something that’s been a fixation of his going back to 1983 when he was a young radical at Columbia University, and that is with the idea of disarming the world.
“But as a practical matter the only country he can disarm is the United States, and I think both of these are steps in that direction.
“He is foreclosing any modernization of our nuclear deterrent. He is saying we’re not going to modernize our forces. The practical effect of the president’s decision not to modernize our nuclear deterrent is to condemn it to obsolescence, and [to lead] ultimately to the disarmament of the United States.”
Congress could reject the decisions Obama has made on the use of nuclear weapons and the modernization of our arsenal, and could opt not to ratify START, Gaffney says.
But “whether under a Democrat-controlled Congress dominated by leftists, who probably see more or less along the same lines as the president on the virtues of nuclear disarmament, it’s not clear that is going to happen,” he adds.
“But I hope there is going to be a response from the American people to some of these very risky ideas that I think most people are going to find defy common sense, and certainly are not prudent in a world in which countries like North Korea, Iran, China, Russia are [developing] nuclear threats, and perhaps other capabilities as well, in a way that will be very dangerous to us in the future . . .
“The American people are being confronted with a president who believes that he can take considerable risks with their safety and security. I think they probably won’t see it that way, and they’ll let their elected representatives know they don’t.”
Asked if Secretary of Defense Robert Gates opposed the new policies, Gaffney responds:
“We know for sure that during the last administration, when he was also the secretary of defense, he spoke very vociferously about the necessity of modernizing our nuclear forces . . .
“Anybody in a position of real responsibility who appreciates that it is and will remain vital to the security of the United States to have a credible, safe, reliable nuclear deterrent, will tell you you need to modernize the ones we have — because they’re increasingly not safe, increasingly not reliable, and certainly ever less effective.”
Obama has said he is now convinced the course Iran is on will provide them with nuclear weapons capabilities. Gaffney was asked if he is alarmed that the administration is not taking a more aggressive approach with Iran.
“It alarms me that at the very moment the president is acknowledging that he is, essentially, just going to get used to [a nuclear-armed Iran] — that one of the most dangerous countries on the planet, the Islamic Republic of Iran, is getting nuclear weapons — he is saying we’re going to permit the increasing devaluation, in fact disarmament, of this country.
“I just think that the juxtaposition of these two realities further raises questions about President Obama’s judgment and his faithful execution of his constitutional responsibilities for the common defense.”
The START pact Obama has agreed to sign limits the U.S. and Russia to 1,550 operationally deployed nuclear warheads. Asked if that will be enough to preserve our defense, Gaffney says:
“I don’t know what the right number is and I’m very leery of people who tell you they do know.
“The Russians are busily modernizing their forces. They have fewer numbers but they are going to have very modern nuclear weapons. Communist China is busily expanding both the number and the quality of the nuclear weapons in its inventory.
“At the same time every other nuclear power is modernizing its nuclear arsenal. Some of them are friends of ours, some of them are not necessarily. Then there’s the rogue states North Korea and Iran.
“When you put all this together, I’m not sure whether it is advisable for the United States to have fewer nuclear weapons than it has had. But it is catastrophic not to have whatever number we wind up with be as modern, as safe, and as reliable as we know how to make them. And President Obama has explicitly foreclosed that option.
“The only nuclear power in the world, actual or incipient, that will not be able to produce any nuclear weapons will be the United States of America. I think that is wrong. I think it is irresponsible. And I’m fearful it will prove reckless.
“Then there’s a whole class of weapons of which [the Russians] have thousands, unmatched by us, called tactical nuclear weapons, that aren’t counted in this treaty at all. Some of them are off the coast of the United States today, weapons the size of the weapon that devastated Hiroshima pointed at our cities. And they don’t count at all.”
Ronald Reagan had stated that his ultimate goal was the elimination of nuclear weapons. Newsmax asked Gaffney what he thinks Reagan would say about Obama’s policies.
“Having worked for him in the nuclear weapons policy business, I can tell you that President Reagan was committed to assuring the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent. Most of the nuclear weapons that we have still in the inventory today were deployed during his time in office.
“So while he had an aspiration, I think he was very clear that in the interval he was determined to maintain effective deterrent forces . . .
“I think he would be appalled by what is going on today, and probably most appalled by those who are using his sentiments about nuclear weapons to justify this reckless and ill-advised denuclearization of the United States that is going on under the Obama administration today.”
Asked if Obama would use nuclear weapons if he faced a crisis, Gaffney responds: “I think any president would be very, very reluctant to use nuclear weapons. This president, by virtue of everything he has said and done to date, I think would be exceedingly unlikely to do it.
“Here’s the rub: Most of our enemies — and we do have enemies in the world — probably have figured that out as well and may be emboldened by it.
“Even if he is persuaded that the circumstances require the use of nuclear weapons for the safety and security of the American people, and even if he were willing to use them, if this present practice persists of allowing our nuclear deterrent to atrophy, it’s not clear they’ll work when they should. And that I’m afraid would be a very, very dark day for America.”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.