*Written by Rob Rimes.

I haven’t written as much as I’d like to in the last month. My real job has been insane and sucking out a lot of my creative energy the last several weeks. On top of that, I find it hard to stay motivated as the 2012 primaries draw to a close and my guy is in last place out of the four remaining candidates. I guess all this heathen can do is act religious and pray for a brokered convention and then a miracle. Fat chance, I know but there really isn’t much else I can do to bring Ron Paul to the big dance. I guess Plan B a.k.a. Gary Johnson is the next card to play but realistically, as I’ve stated before, this is such a long shot that I have to pretty much accept the fact that Johnson won’t even get invited to the debates and Romney will win the GOP nomination and most likely go on to lose to Barack Obama who will stop at nothing to rape the Constitution harder than he did before he had to worry about re-election.

Romney has racked up victories in Puerto Rico and Illinois as well as Guam and the Virgin Islands. Keep in mind however that Ron Paul really won the Virgin Islands yet the Republican establishment changed the rules so that Romney magically walked away with the most delegates. Not bad for a guy who didn’t finish first as the guy who did only got one delegate.. yes, one! Paul also potentially won Maine but the votes from several counties weren’t counted and Romney was awarded that state with only a few hundred votes separating him and Paul. Missouri has also been a haven for Paul supporters the last few weeks as he is taking over that state, yet the media ignores it, the establishment and police have been caught on multiple occasions manipulating the caucuses and they are still only talking about Santorum’s beauty pageant win a month ago where no delegates were handed out. The true caucuses that actually award delegates in Missouri haven’t handed out their delegates yet. The fact is, the media ignores the fraud and foul play even though it is practically wide out in the open. This is a disgusting and careless travesty that is all a part of a bigger plan. That plan is control – control by a giant duopoly two-party system that will do absolutely anything it can to hold on to it’s power: that same power that controls and manipulates the mainstream corporate media as well.

So as I sit at my dinner table, which has been converted to my writing desk, chewing on some terrible lo mein and sipping on a bottle of Hibiki 12-Year-Old Japanese whisky, I find it absolutely perplexing that after all the rhetoric, the hatred, the money spent and the time wasted – this country is only going to continue down a very dark path. It really doesn’t matter who wins between Obama or Romney and hell, Rick Santorum would probably be the worst president ever. What matters is the fact that America has failed once again and I am just sick of it: disgusted really.

With the mainstream media showing blatant bias and blatant irresponsibility in reporting accurately, there is nowhere for true Americans to turn to for fact-based reporting other than the Internet, which they are trying effortlessly to censor and control, mind you. With the Republican establishment on the national and many local levels playing dirty pool, it only proves to me that not only is the political system broken beyond any sort of reasonable repair, it is also just a predetermined game being played out by unknown decision makers who are shaping the world regardless of how any of us feel about it. When our angry voices fall on deaf ears and we are seemingly powerless to change anything within a perpetually tyrannical system, it may be time to break down that system and start over. At this point, this country may just need to completely fail and fall in shambles. Maybe it is true when that old adage states, “Things have to get worse before they can get better.” Maybe this is all beyond saving and America does have to crash and burn. I’m not opposed to that idea and truthfully, it probably needs to happen and is going to happen regardless of what any of us try to do about it.

Our greatest president Thomas Jefferson once said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Maybe this is what’s happening. It’s been over 200 years since those words were expressed and that’s a long time for the tyrants to get their claws into liberty’s flesh and tear it to shreds. Figuratively speaking, the tyrants drew first blood yet we, as the patriots, continue to take their abuse while kidding ourselves that our vote will change something. Sure, we’re all pissed and we all talk a big game about what we are going to do but so far, big picture-wise, we haven’t done anything to truly upset the establishment and regain order. How can we when the establishment fully controls the order and our votes and voices are often times casted aside through blatant voter fraud, establishment hijinks and a pen that has been held in several hands that were quick to sign off on executive orders?

The answer, in it’s simplest form, is that we must remain positive and vigilant. We must question everything our leaders tell us and hold them accountable. Even if our votes don’t matter, the people will always outnumber their masters and throughout history, it has been the downtrodden, sick-of-it-all masses that have torn down the castles and palaces of tyrants and taken their freedom back. I don’t think that the revolution needs to be a violent one, we’re beyond that unless of course the tyrants fully turn on us, which isn’t far-fetched thanks to the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA. However, we need not stoop to that level unless it comes to defending our lives, our families and our property. What I’m saying here is that the fight must go on, the message must continue to exist and grow and when there is an opening, and there will be – there always is, we must act. It’s the people who shape the world, not the few tyrannical schemers sitting fat atop the tree of liberty pruning its branches.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

Recently, in a memoir he published, a former Navy SEAL came forward claiming that he decked and knocked down former Navy SEAL, former professional wrestler, former Governor of Minnesota and television host Jesse Ventura. Chris Kyle, the SEAL who claims he did this, is a decorated sniper who has been awarded an almost uncountable number of medals. Now while I would hate to discredit someone of that stature, certain things about his story don’t add up and since Fox News is just about the only mainstream media source that is even talking about the issue, one can’t not question this situation. Plus, the incident took place over five years ago and it is just now being brought public? Sorry but that is incredibly fishy.

Another thing worth noting is that the book that Kyle wrote ‘American Sniper’ has been published by Harper Collins which is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, who also own Fox News. Now also taking into account that Bill O’Reilly has been vehemently opposed to Jesse Ventura for years and the former Governor has had plenty of spats with O’Reilly and his Fox News colleagues makes him a prime target for Fox News’ top ratings getter. It also probably doesn’t help Ventura that O’Reilly has never really been objective or fair and balanced, as he claims that he is. Hell, the O’Reilly Factor’s slogan “The spin stops here” is a blatant lie. O’Reilly often times refers to himself as a “journalist” even though he is a commentator. O’Reilly is either a horrible liar, as anyone with a single brain cell can see through this charade, or he just doesn’t know the difference between a journalist or a commentator. Another reason why O’Reilly may be coming at Ventura with guns blazing is because the former Governor has been very vocal about his support for Ron Paul, which is someone else that Fox News is trying to smear and brush under the rug, as if he were non-existant. In any event, this whole situation smells about as rotten as sack full of sweaty yeast infected orangutan vaginas, so I had to do some investigating of my own, since Bill O’Reilly the “journalist” apparently doesn’t have that magical ability.

Before I get into my investigating, let’s get into O’Reilly’s lackluster attempt. Now while taking Chris Kyle’s story at face value, O’Reilly and almost every other Fox News show promoted this guy and his book and pushed his tale as factual without actually checking on the story for themselves. This obviously outraged Ventura, who went on the Alex Jones Radio Show and said that this event never happened. Ventura said that he never disrespected a deceased Navy SEAL as Kyle claimed and that he never even met Kyle and therefore was never punched by the guy. Ventura went on to name the restaurant where the incident supposedly took place and said that the owner was a friend of his and people were free to call the guy and ask him if the story was indeed true. So what did O’Reilly do after Ventura brought all this up?

Well, O’Reilly didn’t call the bar owner. In fact what he did do was quote two eye-witnesses, who weren’t even actually interviewed, who claimed they saw the whole thing. The catch was that both of these witnesses were buddies of Chris Kyle and therefore, obviously had some biased input, as they don’t want to tarnish their homeboy’s credibility while he’s trying to pimp his book. O’Reilly before the show where he quoted these eye-witnesses was promoting the segment like he had the smoking gun and was going to expose Ventura. Billy O claimed that he had evidence to support his made up conclusion and when all was said and done, this evidence was placed at the very end of his show in the “Dumbest Things of the Week” segment. Okay, so is he admitting his evidence is dumb? Or is he trying to make a joke out of all this to absolve himself of any backlash after carelessly opening a can of bullshit worms? Also in this segment was a story about a Colorado high school senior who wanted to use a topless photo for her yearbook picture. As you can see, O’Reilly was now filing this story, that he made such a big serious deal about the week prior, into the trash bin.

So why did O’Reilly waste his audience’s time with these bullshit witnesses that he promoted heavily leading up to the show? Then again, anyone who watches this douchenugget is wasting their time regardless. Anyway, why didn’t O’Reilly take Ventura’s advice and call the owner of the bar and get him to make an official statement? Maybe Ol’ Billy Boy didn’t want to have someone come in and ruin this story. Maybe if he asked the owner for his account it would’ve ruined this pointless smear of an American hero who deserves the same amount of respect that Chris Kyle is getting from his News Corp. brothers. Well, being the pot-stirring jackass that I am, I couldn’t let justice not be served so I made a couple phone calls.

Last week I called the restaurant in question and asked to speak to the owner. When I called, he wasn’t in but I did get some information from the manager who picked up the phone. The manager said that he didn’t specifically remember if the event happened or not, as it took place over five years ago. The manager told me to try again to see if I could talk to the owner, who he claimed was hard to pin down.

I called the next day and had no luck and then called a third time and was cued in to something noteworthy. I was told by one of the managers that they were getting a lot of calls about the incident from other people. I asked if any major news organizations had contacted them like Fox and they said “no”. Aha! So O’Reilly didn’t even bother! Anyway, the guy on the phone told me that the owner wasn’t there but that he didn’t want to talk about it anyway and I agreed to not call back out of respect for their wishes not to be bothered. I was told however that even if it happened so long ago, an incident like that wouldn’t have been forgotten and that it would still be the talk of the bar, which it isn’t. In his own way, this was the manager’s confirmation that this story was most likely a fabrication. It’s really for you to decide but the point is, journalists, bloggers and concerned citizens working outside of the mainstream media circle have been trying to get to the bottom of this while the media giants didn’t even make a phone call to check and cover their own asses.

In fact, after O’Reilly quoted the bullshit witness testimonies, he brought on Greg Gutfeld and Arthel Neville to talk about it. Gutfeld tried to poke fun at Ventura being a 9/11 Truther because that’s all that he could do to try and discredit someone of Ventura’s stature, which is a much higher stature than Chris Kyle in my book. Neville added, “I tend to believe the Navy SEAL in this story.” She was referring to Kyle of course, as the three amigos didn’t mention or just simply forgot that Ventura too was a Navy SEAL. However, by her reasoning, both Kyle and Ventura would be telling the truth! That’s that good ol’ Fox News journalism for ya! I guess the fact that Ventura is a former SEAL and a former governor means nothing to these establishment cockpuppets. What’s sad is that I always liked and respected Gutfeld but ever since he became a co-host of ‘The Five’ he has been firmly assimilated into the mainstream media’s culture of bullshit. When on the television, Gutfeld always came off as the smartest and wittiest guy in the room but once getting himself out of that 3 a.m. time slot, he’s quickly regressed into being your run-of-the-mill mainstream shamster.

The purpose of this is not to say who is telling the truth or who isn’t, it is to show how the mainstream media takes potential bullshit at face value and disregards evidence in an effort to sell a story, that could be complete fabricated garbage. Fox News, as was confirmed, did nothing to really try and find a resolution to this story. Hell, they couldn’t even get an intern to pick up a phone and make a call? I made three calls and I run several websites with no real staff to speak of and I have a full-time job on top of that! If there is anything to learn from this, it is that you should question the trash that these ass clown talking heads try to shove down your throat. I wish we could trust the news coming from the top but this is just another account of why they are just lying bastards more interested in trash television than truth.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

Do you remember when Michele Bachmann was declared the frontrunner in the 2012 GOP primary race for the presidential nomination? It seems like it was eons ago even though it really wasn’t that far back. I guess the fact that we’ve had somewhere around 13,000 debates since then makes it almost a distant memory. It’s not distant to Mrs. Bachmann however, as she still believes that she is just dealing with some minor setback. The truth is, Bachmann’s once status as frontrunner was pretty much built on bullshit and since time has passed, she has become her own worst enemy, shown her true colors and gone on to defeat herself. Now I am not saying that this dingbat harpy even had a chance at winning this damn thing but just when she does have the opportunity to maybe move up a little bit, her complete lack of substance and general weirdness destroys her chances. People see through this woman’s hypocrisy and even the idiots that once supported her are now jumping ship onto Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney or Ron Paul.

Back about six or seven months ago, Michele Bachmann took part in the Ames, Iowa debate and she then went on to win their major straw poll. By winning that straw poll, Michele Bachmann was declared the immediate frontrunner over all the other candidates. It is funny because everyone gave her props for being in first and they gave Tim Pawlenty props for being in third. In typical mainstream fashion, they didn’t even mention that Ron Paul got second place. In fact, Michele Bachmann beat Ron Paul with 4,823 votes (28.55%) to 4,671 votes (27.65%)! Bachmann beat Paul with less than 1 percent! Yes, less than 1 percent! So how exactly was she declared the definitive frontrunner with such a narrow margin? Hell, Mr. Third Place Tim Pawlenty actually dropped out of the race immediately after the results were announced. Pawlenty is a vanilla bitch and will never have the balls to hack it in a real election.

So while the conservative media was cheering the Tea Party princess’ hard fought solid “victory”. They failed to mention the dirty scheme that was going on behind the scenes. Oh Jesus Dan Aykroyd Christ, sometimes reality is stranger than fiction and this is one of those times. Most people don’t know about how Bachmann pulled off this “win”, so let me break it down like mutant amino acids fueled by angeldust.

Michele Bachmann spent upwards of a million dollars to ensure her victory. How so, well she bought over 6,000 concert tickets for Grammy Award-winning country music superstar Randy Travis. She also paid for his concert and his fee to appear in Ames, Iowa that weekend. She also paid to bus in Randy Travis fans with the catch that they had to vote for Bachmann before they could enjoy the free entertainment. As you can see, Bachmann is a dirty scumbag.

However, even though she gave out 6,000 tickets, she still only got 4,823 votes, which means that a pretty large portion of the Randy Travis fans didn’t vote for her anyway. Bachmann got had but she deserved it. The point is, without this bullshit, would she have won? The answer is a solid “fuck no!” Hell, the fact that she beat Ron Paul by less than a percentage point is even more irritating. Without this crappy concert, Ron Paul would have won the Ames Straw Poll. Would the mainstream media have immediately crowned Dr. Paul as the frontrunner? Probably not. In fact, they probably would have given a shitload of props to Pawlenty for then getting second and T. Paw may have even stayed in the race a little bit longer. Hell, at second place, they may have made T. Paw the frontrunner and ignored Dr. Paul’s first place win as some sort of fluke due to his overly passionate supporters. Since when was having overly passionate supporters a bad thing? I guess it’s a bad thing when the mainstream press is scared shitless of the truth, as is the case with Dr. Paul.

So anyway, this brings us up to now, just a few days away from the Iowa Caucuses. Every single poll that I have looked at has Michele Bachmann in last place out of all the candidates. It is worth mentioning that Jon Huntsman isn’t participating, so he isn’t on the list. It’s crazy though because batshit Bachmann was the frontrunner after the last event in Iowa and now she is dead last and by a significant margin. How could this have happened?

Well, the fact that her Ames Straw Poll win was bullshit to begin with is a major reason. The fact that she has spent months on the campaign trail just spewing the same lame ass fucking catchphrases over and over again is probably another reason. Whenever asked questions at debates, if she doesn’t drop a tired catchphrase, she just talks about how bad Barack Obama is, not how she plans on beating him and fixing our problems. If she isn’t Obama-bashing she is talking about her 2,563 foster kids. If she isn’t doing either of those things, she is attacking other candidates. One thing she never does though, is offer solid solutions let alone any substance. When she does talk about policy, this self-described “constitutional conservative” spends her time explaining and defending why she needs to ignore the Constitution on certain issues, like bombing muslims for instance. She’s just a big ball of hypocritical crap trying to fill the cougar sex appeal void left over from Sarah Palin sitting this one out.

Michele Bachmann has nothing to say that is relevant to anything. She actually wants to do the exact opposite of what she claims she is. She is just your run-of-the-mill Orwellian doublethinker that can’t even look in the mirror and see the mountain of bullshit that is looking back at her. Bachmann has gone from Iowan star to Iowan afterthought simply because she has absolutely nothing to offer. Then again, 7 percent of the people in that state still support her. Who knows, maybe they were promised handjobs from Taylor Swift.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

1. Introduction:

This isn’t an attack on Herman Cain. I’m not going to be a complete dickhead to Mr. Cain as I was with Rick Perry in my article “American Psycho: The Ballad of Rick Perry“. However, as Herman Cain is leading in many polls and could legitimately win the Republican nomination if the primaries were held today, I do have to rip apart his platform and expose why this guy is not who we need running this country. Most of the reasons as to why you shouldn’t vote for Herman Cain should be blatantly obvious but yet, many of you still insist that he is the best choice out there. While he would be better than our current president Barack Obama and current Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney, Mr. Cain still isn’t worthy of the American throne and would ultimately perpetuate many of the problems we have right now.

Now I have met Herman Cain and have gotten to talk to him, albeit briefly. At that time I didn’t know much about him but there were rumors of him running for president so I felt that if he was in my neck of the woods, I’d have to go down to the event, shake his hand, get a picture with him and try to pick his brain on some things. As there was a large crowd lined up to kiss ass and praise this unproven potential candidate, I didn’t feel that it was the best time or place to air my grievances with the government in an effort to hear his solutions and ideas. I’d really need more time with him to fully discuss these things and I didn’t want to put him on the spot like that in front of hundreds of people. Knowing what I know about him now, I’d have no problem with it today. In fact, I’d have a camera with me.

Anyway, at the time, I did know that he was a staunch FairTax supporter and that alone had me initially interested in his campaign but then again so was Marco Rubio but he abandoned the issue once he got elected (I wrote about that in “Tea Flavored Kool-Aid, Part II: The Fall of Marco Rubio“). I left the event feeling like Herman was genuinely a good guy that cares for this country and I still believe this. However, I wasn’t aware of his association with the Federal Reserve at the time. If I was, my brief meet and greet with Mr. Cain would’ve been different. In fact, in his eyes, I would’ve just been one of those “ignorant” Paulites asking him “stupid” questions.

2. The Federal Reserve:

Now in regards to the Federal Reserve, Herman Cain has been a defender of their horrible and certifiably insane fiscal policies. Well, he has come out and talked some smack here and there about Ben Bernanke but truth is, if he were to give Bernanke props, he’d get booed off the stage and he knows this. Everyone hates Bernanke on the right. Now don’t get shit twisted, they don’t hate him because of Ron Paul taking him to school and spending a lot of his time trying to educate the masses on the tyranny of the Fed. Nope, people on the right hate Bernanke because Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly hate Bernanke. Many righties don’t understand why they hate him, they just know that they’re supposed to.

However, before Ben Bernanke, there was another just as tyrannical monetary dictator. That man was Alan Greenspan. Greenspan was Herman Cain’s boss when Mr. Cain worked for the Federal Reserve branch in Kansas City back in the 90′s. Recently when Cain was asked which past Fed chairman he would use as a model for a replacement for Bernanke, Cain without hesitation said, “Alan Greenspan”. Really homie? I guess the warning signs and economic lessons of history must’ve just passed this Super CEO by. Maybe Cain doesn’t realize that Bernanke is just the hellspawn of Greenspan. Maybe Cain doesn’t understand inflation. Then again, maybe Greenspan was one hell of a mentor and this Fed insider is going to bring about a Greenspan-style fiscal policy. No thanks bro, you can keep your Greenspan bullshit for your pizza parlor.

For those not educated on the horrendous shit that fucknut Greenspan gave us, here are a few examples. First, Greenspan was directly responsible for the housing bubble due to adjusting interest rates down to historic lows. He also contributed to the recession we’ve been dipping in and out of over the last few years. He recently dodged the bullet of responsibility on this when he blamed the recession on the Cold War. Yes, the fucking Cold War! Didn’t that end like over 20 years ago? Another thing that Greenspan gave us was trade deficits and bad economic policies that contributed to companies leaving the United States. Alan Greenspan was also the king of inflation. But yeah, this is who Herman Cain would use as a model for a new Federal Reserve chairman. This is who he selected without even putting any thought to the question. I guess those guys from the Federal Reserve have some sort of blood oath they all swear to. Suck my dick and I’ll suck yours.

Apart from just the Alan Greenspan issue, Cain has been overprotective about the Federal Reserve and has shown some pretty thin skin whenever the tyrannical and unconstitutional institution is criticized. First of all, I implore all of you to read “The Creature From Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin if you haven’t yet; especially if you are going to vote for Herman Cain. You need to know the history of the Federal Reserve and how and why it was founded. For Cain to have been a part of it should raise some damn eyebrows and for him to defend it should raise those eyebrows even more. What is he trying to hide by continuously downplaying the issue and trying to divert everyone’s eyes elsewhere?

You see, Cain has criticized those who criticize the Fed, especially Ron Paul supporters. He refers to them as “ignorant” and their questioning him about it as “stupid”. He has been pretty vocal about his distaste for us crazy Paulites, as he calls us. He said that we would find nothing if we were to audit the Federal Reserve. Funny, because not too long after he made that statement we were able to get a partial audit. In that partial audit we discovered a lot of tyranny and some pretty questionable acts. For instance, the audit this past July revealed that the Fed gave out over $16 trillion dollars in secret bailouts! That’s pretty fucking profound and that’s just scratching the surface! Yet, Mr. Cain said we wouldn’t find anything. Well Mr. Fed Insider, here is a breakdown of the secret bailouts which can be found on page 131 of the GAO (Government Accountability Office) Audit:

Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
and many more including banks in Belgium

Herman Cain says the Federal Reserve has nothing to hide. As my Aunt Rita used to say when one of us kids was lying, “Mmmhmm.” If anything, this just proves that a full audit of the Federal Reserve is absolutely necessary. Abolishment of the Fed would be even better.

Herman Cain also believes the Federal Reserve to be constitutional. On the Rusty Humphries radio show he said:

First of all, it’s not unconstitutional. What happened was, in 1913 the Congress of the United States designated the authority of the Federal Reserve to be created. So how can that be unconstitutional? Congress has to pass the law, Congress has to pass the authority to do things and that is what they did. So it is not unconstitutional number one.

Really dude? So with that logic, we should just accept all laws created by Congress whether tyrannical or not. So really, based off of your own point-of-view, you should shut the fuck up about Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and your confusing stance on abortion among many other issues. Cain is like a character from an Orwell novel.

3. TARP:

All this brings me to my next issue, which is the fact that Herman Cain supported the TARP bailouts. Yeah, that sounds like something a Fed insider would do. In fact he said that he supported it but didn’t know how they were going to implement it. M’kay, so to me, that sounds completely ignorant. He supported it without knowing the whole picture. Then after it turned to shit, which was obvious, even back then, to those who understand free market economics, he says he didn’t like it. So Herman Cain is essentially and unknowingly admitting that he is not only not a free market guy, as he has claimed, but that he doesn’t have the foresight to recognize the disastrous effects of this sort of fiscal policy. But hey! Now he’s got some economic advisors to guide him! If only Herman Cain would’ve absorbed Milton Friedman’s prophetic wisdom in his “Free To Choose” series. Hell, dude could’ve read anything from the heavyweights of the Austrian School and learned that this sort of policy would only lead us down a path of fiscal insanity.

However, I believe Cain knew what he was supporting. In fact, here’s a quote from an article he himself wrote in 2008 when supporting the big bank bailouts:

Earth to taxpayers! Owning stocks in banks is not nationalization of the banking industry. It’s trying to solve a problem…

Wake up people! Owning a part of the major banks in America is not a bad thing. We could make a profit while solving a problem…

The ownership by the taxpayers is going to be relatively small and nowhere near the amount needed to be called nationalization. So what’s the problem?

Now don’t tell Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, but if this works, and I believe it will, the Bush Administration will have gotten this one right.”

*rolls eyes. Here’s some more:

..the free market purists want you to believe that this is the end of Capitalism that we know it.

..the treasury has changed tactics and will buy equity positions called preferred stocks, which gives us taxpayers an ownership stake in their success for a limited period of time.

Preferred stock means that we get paid a dividend before any other stockholders…when they make a profit. You got a problem with that?

The free market purists objection to this is that it smacks at government control of banking industry, which is called nationalization. They are correct.

He recognized that it was nationalization of the banking industry, yet he still supported it. He recently came out in a debate and owned up to it, not that he could hide from it. Looking at it objectively though, being that he is a Republican presidential candidate and knowing that his voter base hated the bailouts, wouldn’t he come out and talk smack about them now? Where I sit, this is a bigger issue than all the Romneycare bullshit that sucks up so much debate time and hatred from the righties.

By the way, while on the subject of Romneycare, Herman Cain supported Mitt Romney for president last round in 2008. So does that make Cain cool with Romneycare? Well, he had to have been down with it at some point, right?

4. The 999 Plan and the FairTax:

Herman Cain got a lot of notoriety and Tea Party love due to his very passionate and very vocal support of the FairTax. He was one of the loudest voices championing in probably the best form of tax reform this country could ever have. In fact, when the debates started, he was front and center pimping out the FairTax every chance he could get. Somewhere along the line that shifted and he no longer mentioned the FairTax. Now he was talking about his 999 Plan, which was another style of tax reform that he claims simplifies every thing. It calls for 9% corporate tax, 9% income tax and 9% national sales tax (which doesn’t exclude state and local sales taxes added on top).

The 9% national sales tax is basically the FairTax (which by itself would be roughly 23%). The big difference here is that the FairTax calls for a repeal of the 16th Amendment, which would kill the income tax because the FairTax would be its replacement. The 999 Plan does not call for a repeal of the 16th Amendment.

Now many Cain supporters that are also FairTax supporters still seem to be on this guy’s dick, which puzzles me. He’s abandoned their pet issue in favor of his own plan. Many of these people consider 999 to be a stepping stone to get to the FairTax, including nationally syndicated radio talk show host, ‘The FairTax Book’ author and Cain’s BFF Neal Boortz. I think this assessment by Cain Brains is complete bullshit for several reasons.

The fact that the 999 Plan doesn’t call for a repeal of the 16th Amendment is completely careless and horrible. Not to be a negative Nancy here but say 999 is implemented and the 16th Amendment is not repealed, we would be stuck with the current tax code on top of this new 999 Plan. So we would have the current income tax, corporate tax and all other taxes on top of a 9% flat tax, a 9% corporate tax and a 9% national sales tax also on top of all local and state taxes. How could this plan even be developed without taking this into consideration? If Cain understands the FairTax, which he has proven that he does, how could he be so careless with his 999 Plan?

The FairTax and Flat Tax movements have always been somewhat at odds as the FairTaxers know that the Flat Tax will just lead us back to this point economically. You see, we already have a flat tax, it was implemented in the Reagan era. However, after decades of congressional meddling, we now have an out of control insane income tax system. You see, the flat tax can be tweaked and modified to the point that its whole existence is damn near pointless. Cain knows this, yet he includes it as one-third of his plan. It has proven to be a failure long-term. People just ignore history or just don’t know that we’ve been down this road already. To include a flat tax and essentially the FairTax (sales or consumption tax) in the same tax reform plan is fucking ridiculous.

Now one issue that everyone criticizing this plan brings up, is that what is to prevent 9-9-9 from becoming 15-15-15 or 23-23-23? The answer is “nothing”. There is nothing in the plan that will prevent congressional meddling and as we all know, as history has always proven, some people are just going to toy with it and we will be stuck up shit’s creek without not just a paddle but no boat as well. The fact of the matter is, trading a giant leviathan for three baby leviathans is never a good deal. The village may be safe from destruction for a little while but eventually the beasts will grow and the damage will be catastrophic!

Now the whole idea of this being a stepping stone is laughable. The reality of the situation is that Cain has abandoned the FairTax issue. I know that none of you FairTaxers out there want to believe it, especially since you’ve sent this guy a check already but that’s the truth. We’ve got ourselves another Marco Rubio here. The passion of the average FairTax supporter is dangerous because earning the love of the movement can bring a candidate to the dance. This is just another case of that. There is no way that 999 is a stepping stone. When has a stepping stone ever worked in Washington? Not only that, but both the 999 Plan and the FairTax are HUGE tax reforms. Does Cain think he will be able to accomplish two huge tax reforms in his presidency? That’s beyond fucking absurd.

First of all, most people already hate this 999 Plan to begin with, so good luck with that. But even if he were to pass it, he’d then have to convince everyone that the FairTax is better. Dude, no one is going to believe you at that point because you gave us a plan that you weren’t confident with and obviously weren’t even sold on. And if he is sold on the 999 Plan, then he’s not going to give us the FairTax. It’s a pretty easy assessment if you ask me. To think it is a stepping stone doesn’t make a lick of sense! Truth be told, if you really are looking for the FairTax candidate, get the fuck off of the Cain Train and get on the Gary Johnson Cruise Ship. He’s the only true FairTax supporter in this race now.

5. Misuse of Campaign Funds:

One fucked up thing Herman Cain has done is misused campaign funds. In fact, he has used funds to enrich himself and his associates. The biggest example of this is that he used over $100,000 of donated money to buy copies of a booklet from a corporation called T.H.E. New Voice, Inc. Problem is, Herman Cain owns T.H.E. New Voice, Inc.! Essentially, he is spending campaign money to buy campaign materials from a company that he owns and profits from. Sorry homies but this is just shady as fuck. When criticized about the issue, Herman Cain said:

If they know Herman Cain, they wouldn’t even make such an assertion. How’s that for political correctness!

What a dick. The more this guy talks, the more it is pretty obvious that he is his own biggest fan. Sorry Herman, we DON’T know you because you jumped on the scene a few months ago and have no political track record other than a failed attempt at a senate run in 2004 and your tenure as Director of the Federal Reserve’s Kansas City branch which is wrapped in secrecy.

Cain has been using every campaign stop to sell and promote his new book “This is Herman Cain!: My Journey to the White House”. What a title! He’s pretty full of himself already thinking he’s a shoe-in for the American throne. But anyway, one has to question if he is in this to truly become president or to make a profit. If it is to be president, then he needs to stop setting up shop to collect a profit from his Cain Brains at his campaign events. He should be focused on putting all that money towards the campaign itself. Then again, he’s just using that to make a profit off of as well. Either way, Super CEO Mr. Cain has this whole money making scheme figured out.

Apart from his fancy literature, Cain has also profited a lot from speaking engagements while he has been on the campaign trail. This year alone, Herman Cain has already banked $250,000 from making personal appearances. Between this and all the other campaign abuse shenanigans, the Daily Mail points out:

Political pundits have compared the situation to that of Sarah Palin, who lost her vice presidential bid but made hefty pay checks afterwards due to speaking fees, book sales, and television rights.

The other, more sinister, comparison is to Jim Wright, the former Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives in the late 1980s who resigned in the wake of an ethics investigation looking into the connection between bulk purchases of his book and gifts from supporting groups.

Granted other candidates throughout history have been guilty of similar self-promotional bullshit but that doesn’t excuse it and there should at least be an investigation into it. Wouldn’t Mr. Cain be all over Barack Obama if the roles were reversed? Hell, any of the candidates on the Republican stage would be pointing the finger.

6. The Police State, the PATRIOT Act & War Powers:

If Herman Cain had his way, he’d be standing on the bridge of a Super Star Destroyer while his Imperial Stormtroopers pillaged Hoth in an effort to thwart those homegrown terrorists. Why would I make such a correlation between Mr. Cain and Darth Vader? Well, let me explain.

Recently, in an interview with The Atlantic,  Darth Cain came out and said that he had no problem with warrantless wiretaps on American citizens if it was being done for counter-terrorism. He also said that he supports the biggest tyranical monstrosity of all-time, the PATRIOT Act. Cain in defense of the PATRIOT Act said:

If 90 percent of a counter-terrorism law is sound we shouldn’t worry about the other ten percent.

Wow! Really? That’s pretty fucked up. Nope, no need to worry about this 10 percent of tyrannical bullshit because this other 90 percent seems okay! When asked about the domestic side of counter-terrorism, he said:

I’m a little troubled by police officers being able to go into a home without a warrant or a court order… But that being said, I would rather error on the side of detection.. ..I also believe that we’ve got to give our intelligence agencies the leeway in order to be able to protect us.

It was Ben Franklin who said:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Herman Cain must’ve never read that quote, which doesn’t surprise me considering he has continually misquoted the Declaration of Independence as the Constitution.

Cain also doesn’t necessarily disagree with the tyrannical TSA he just feels that they “lack common sense”. For the record, Cain also said that harsher drug laws were needed. Apparently Cain is not educated on prohibition, Constitutional law, individual rights, property rights or common sense. Sorry folks but Cain has adopted the views of a neocon on these issues.

When asked about what he thought on Obama and the use of war powers in regards to the Libyan situation, Cain said:

My thoughts are less on whether he has the authority to do what he’s doing than why is he doing what he’s doing. Clarity of what he’s doing and why is more important than whether or not he has the authority to do it.

M’kay, that’s just fucking scary! Cain doesn’t care what the law is! All that matters is “what’s the motivation”. These two sentences sum this guy up pretty well across the board. This pro-Constitution Tea Party conservative really could give two shits about the law. We don’t need another king that thinks he’s above the law that just acts on his gut.

7. The Super CEO & Lack of Experience:

People keep touting how great of a business man Herman Cain is and that he is this political outsider that is going to take Washington by storm, clean up the girdlock and make our country as fiscally efficient as America’s 9th largest pizza chain. That all sounds great but Cain Brains are overlooking reality and are just accepting Herman Cain’s business prowess at face value.

To start, you can’t say that the man has no political experience, he does. Whenever Cain says that he is a Washington outsider, he’s full of shit. To be a director of a branch of the Federal Reserve one has to play the political game. That is not a position for drones. Granted he had a boss in Alan Greenspan but he still had to work within the political system and have a pretty solid understanding of it to be able to effectively hold that job. To think that this is a non-political position is asinine. Also, he did run for senate and has had some political experience in that aspect. This is not his first campaign, he is not going into this blindly.

However, lets entertain the idea that Cain is an inexperienced outsider, as he claims that he truly is. Why would any of us want that? One of his famous overused catchphrases when asked about his lack of experience against experienced candidates is:

Well, all the people in Washington D.C. have held public office before. How’s that working out for ya?

Typically the Cain Brains cheer when they hear this catchphrase; I cringe. Does not having experience against those who do, who have been shitty with it, somehow make you a better choice? Besides, not everyone in D.C. with experience is bad. The people that rally behind this are just easily swayed by catchphrases and slogans and can’t separate reality from Cain’s charismatic schtick. It’s like the Bachmann Bunch cheering every time Michele rambles incoherently and then adds, “Let’s make Barack Obama a One! Term! President!”

Herman Cain professing that his lack of experience is why we should vote for him is like a blind guy telling us that he should drive the bus because the last few drivers who could see got us into a few accidents. But then again, Cain’s been working and lobbying in D.C. for decades. His staff just can’t come up with a good one-liner to express the truth effectively.

As for being this great CEO, a lot of information has come out as of late that makes these claims seem somewhat overinflated. Yes he did work for several big companies and helped turn some of them around and on paper that makes him look like a business genius. Regardless of if he was the genius or if he just had good people around him is a moot point, as being the CEO he gets the credit. Well, he also gets the credit for some of the questionable things that have risen to the surface in regards to his potentially shoddy management style.

Recently, the Atlanta Post and Mother Jones Magazine, ran articles that talked about how Cain, as well as his board of directors, were being sued by the employees of Aquila, an energy company in the Midwest. Mother Jones describes Cain’s tenure at Aquila:

..scrubbed from Cain’s official story is his long tenure as a director at a Midwest energy corporation named Aquila that, like the infamous Enron Corporation, recklessly dove into the wild west of energy trading and speculation—and ultimately screwed its employees out of tens of millions of dollars.

In 1992, Cain along with Aquila’s board of directors allegedly steered employees to take money out of their retirement funds and to move it into company stock. Granted they didn’t put a gun to the heads of their employees but this was still the product of these unethical schemers worried about their own personal bottom lines. After doing this, the company left its conservative business model behind and became more aggressive by carelessly engaging in risky energy trading. Money was lost and the employees who dumped their money into company stock were super pissed. Their lawsuit claims that Cain and the Aquila board of directors violated a 37-year-old federal law that states that employers must responsibly manage employees retirement programs. Cain has been asked about this, not by conservative pundits mind you, but he and his campaign refuse to comment on the issue.

You see, between his desire to keep the Federal Reserve shrouded in secrecy on top of his questionable business actions and his verbal distaste of us “free market purists”, Mr. Cain is apparently a practitioner of corporatism not capitalism. Herman Cain is the living embodiment of what the Occupy Wall Street protestors are angry about, at least the smart ones who know why they are down there. This is why Herman Cain is so critical of the OWS protestors. After admitting that he didn’t have “all the facts” but suspected that the protests were orchestrated to distract from Obama policies, he told the protestors that if they aren’t rich, to “blame themselves”. While it can be said that there is some truth to that, you’re not going to gain any votes taking cheap shots at a whole movement.

You could blame Cain’s harsh words on his supposed inexperience but I really just think he has a hard time not putting his foot in his mouth. Cain needs to think before he speaks and that statement alone just alienated a huge segment of the country that he could’ve worked towards getting as supporters. What Cain should’ve done is gone down there like presidential candidate Gary Johnson did. Talk to the people, break some bread and discuss how we can come up with a solution. I mean, homie is a self-proclaimed “problem solver” or is that just another catchphrase?

Despite the conservative media’s claims, there are people down there with real concerns who want answers to real issues plaguing them. You can’t discredit an entire movement based off of an influx of idiots that have showed up to take the spotlight in interviews. Besides, it’s not like the media isn’t looking for idiots to showcase. Essentially, Fox News and other conservative media outlets are hypocrites that are doing exactly what they bitched about when the liberal media was looking for every excuse to discredit the Tea Party. But whatever, two wrongs make ratings.

8. Religious Intolerance:

One issue that irritates me about Herman Cain is that he has no respect for individual rights. Then again he probably thinks he does but his religious intolerance blinds him to reality. One example of this is when he said:

I believe that homosexuality is a sin because I am a Bible believing Christian. I know it’s a sin but I know that some people make that choice. It’s their choice. ..I believe it is a choice.

Wow dude, really? This is that typical Republican Evangelical bullshit that keeps the GOP in the stone-age and allows the Democrats to justifiably gain the support of gays, lesbians and other groups affected by this sort of bigoted intolerance. Herman Cain believes that homosexuality is a choice. Blind faith in such idiocy that has no scientific evidence to support it is well.. never mind, he is a faith driven man who disregards science. That’s not a shot at Christianity, it’s just a shot at this sort of right-wing stupidity.

If Cain believed in individual rights, he wouldn’t care about someone’s sexual orientation. What they do is no one else’s business and they are free to live in this society in any way they want, as long as what they do doesn’t infringe upon the rights of anyone else. Then again, people with Cain’s mindset feel that seeing two dudes holding hands in a park is an attack on them personally. How dare they infringe on his rights by being happy in front of him! On social issues Cain is no different than a guy like Rick Santorum or Pat Buchanan.

Cain also shows his intolerance with his incredible fear of Islam growing in the United States. Yes, we do not need Sharia Law in the U.S. but guys like Cain are so paranoid of it that they would have you believing that we are on the cusp of an Islamic revolution here in the United States. This sort of fear mongering breeds more hatred, more racism and more intolerance. Those truly affected by it are the Muslims that don’t practice the very rare extreme form of their religion. In effect, their religious freedom is hindered and criticized. Somehow the biggest offenders of this intolerance are Christians who disregard the fact that their religion also has an incredibly violent history that forced people to change wherever it staked its cross in the ground.

On the issue of abortion, Cain is all over the fucking place. He says he is “pro-life from conception.” When asked if he thinks that some form of abortion should be legal, he says “government shouldn’t be involved.” Then he says that “people shouldn’t be free to abort because if we don’t protect the sanctity of life from conception we will also start to play God relative to life at the end of life.” Uh huh.. what? Where does Cain stand on the death penalty? Well, he officially has no stance which means that he doesn’t believe his own words about playing God “at the end of life”. Cain says he is “pro-life period!” When asked if a woman is raped should she be allowed to abort the baby, Cain says, “That’s her choice. That is not government’s choice.” So then he is asked if abortion should be legal and Cain snaps back with “No!” WTF?! Anyone else confused?

9. Conclusion:

Now there are other issues with Cain besides all of this but this article is already pretty massive. The point is, after knowing all this, how could you vote for Herman Cain? He’s a pretty shitty candidate at the end of the day and he will only give us more of the same. Sure, he’d probably be better than Obama but that is not a reason to vote for him because frankly, he is not the best choice.

Truth is, if you have read this and still want to vote for him and want to continue to make excuses for all of these points, you are a part of the bigger problem. You shouldn’t vote for a candidate you have to make excuses for. No one is perfect but Cain is further away from perfect than some of the other choices out there. He is NOT going to pass the FairTax and hell, his 999 Plan is dead in the water right now. In fact, it is the sales tax part that has everyone up in arms. He’s considering changing the 9% sales tax to 9% of something else. The sales tax part is the FairTax part! If he omits it for something else or is even considering it, which he is, then he’s not really trying to bring the FairTax to the table. He’s sticking to his 999 Plan because it is a fucking catchphrase, nothing more.

When pressed by EVERYONE on how shitty the plan is, he can’t defend it. He gets visibly irritated and just says to go to his website and re-read it. This guy doesn’t have the confidence or the understanding to defend his magic plan and on top of that, his skin seems to be getting thinner and thinner on the subject. On a side note, the 999 Plan was created by his economic advisor who works for Wells Fargo and looks like a bald Ben Linus from ‘Lost’. Do you really want to trust a bald Ben Linus?

You see, Herman Cain is just charisma and catchphrases with little to no real substance. Voting for Herman Cain would be like voting for the WWE Intercontinental Champion. A few flashy words to fire up a crowd isn’t going to change the world let alone get us out of our current economic peril. Cain is a professional politician, contrary to what he claims, because he knows how to play the people, which is what he is doing. It has gotten to the point that I almost find it offensive. Unfortunately, too many people just can’t see beyond all of the colorful rhetoric. It kind of parallels Obama in a way.

All I’m saying is that you probably need to make a wiser decision. This “inexperienced” guy holding office is a scary thought. If you want more crony capitalism and a guy that admits he isn’t knowledgeable repeatedly and always turns to some secret advisor, then vote for Cain. Frankly, he is not presidential material; he is motivational speaker material. The problem is, too many have been duped by his over the top presence and are taken in with his message. The reality of the situation is that the message just isn’t clear and with Cain’s track record, could easily shift or change. You can’t rely on a guy that relies on his advisors to shape his gut reaction. Not that having advisors is a bad thing, but Cain’s let it be no secret, albeit inadvertently, that they are calling the shots. In the end, I think Cain just sees this as the start of a long-term business plan and that is unfortunate. This time next year he’ll probably be a co-host on ‘The Five’.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

Most people in America have never heard of the Fabian Society. When brought up in conversation, most people are pretty fucking dumbfounded. When one tries to discuss it, one is often times met with a strange sort of resistance from the casual observer of politics. Often times, when one delves deep into the Fabian Society while conversing, one is called a “conspiracy theorist” and even entertaining the idea of this little known Society is considered laughable to some. Some crazy bitch once screamed “Truther!” at me. The truth is, the Fabian Society has been a huge part of British politics since it was officially founded on January 4th, 1884. This semi-secret society was formed out of the short-lived group, the Fellowship of the New Life.

So being a British thing, why would the Fabian Society even have to be known to us Americans? Well, quite simply, this parasitic Society has penetrated our government and our economy and has set in motion a course of events that have already been ruining our nation for over a century. I wrote about their tactics already in my five part series “The Five Developmental Stages of the Progressive Beast” (Part I, II, III, IV and V). You should probably read all of those long ass articles. Once understanding how the Fabian Society works, you’ll see how it created a template used by the Progressives.

The Fabian Society was formed by intellectuals: powerful men with a lot of influence who wanted to cement themselves as the ruling class of the world. The mission of this semi-secret society was to establish a socialistic order, not just in England but worldwide. Operating under the radar, the Fabians were able to make some power moves and change the damn game pretty drastically. While the world was in fear of the communists, who established their brand of hardcore socialism through violent revolution, the Fabians stayed out of public view, tinkering with the system little by little. Where the communists got their way by force, the Fabians were getting their way by chipping away at liberty in small increments. They infiltrated the existing system and changed it, as opposed to just violently overthrowing it. Through propaganda and legislation, the Fabian Society changed our way of life so slowly, that most of us didn’t even notice. It’s like the boiling frog theory.

How did the Fabian Society pull the wool over the eyes of the people as well as opposing politicians? Well, to start, the word “socialism” was not to be used. Instead, they talked of benefits for the people. These benefits were welfare, medical care, higher wages and better working conditions. On one hand they called for social justice and socialist legislation behind a mask, while on the other hand they spoke out against the spread of communism. The reason for this was not because they opposed communist ideals, they just opposed the methods the communists used to obtain them. However, the Fabians were very aware that if the world was pointing the finger at Russia, China and all the other communist shitcocks that rose to power, that no one would be watching them and their slow-roasted socialism could flourish. In fact, the Fabian Society adopted the turtle as their symbol.

The three leaders of the Fabian Society in the early days were George Bernard Shaw and husband and wife, Sidney and Beatrice Webb. The Webbs, along with Shaw, would go on to found the London School of Economics. This is an important point that I will get into a little further into this article. Other prominent members of the Fabian Society were Annie Besant, Graham Wallas, Edward R. Pease, Hubert Bland, and Sydney Olivier. H.G. Wells was also a member at a point.

To see how motivated and twisted these people are, one just has to look at the Beatrice Webb House in Surrey, England. That house has a pretty creepy stained glass window (seen above) which has the following written on it:

Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire
To grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,
Would we not shatter it to bits, and then
Remould it nearer to the heart’s desire!

In describing the stained glass window, G. Edward Griffin in his book “The Creature from Jekyll Island” wrote:

Beneath the line “Remould it nearer to the heart’s desire!”, the mural depicts Shaw and Webb striking the earth with hammers. Across the bottom, the masses kneel in worship of a stack of books advocating the theories of socialism. Thumbing his nose at the docile masses is H.G. Wells who, after quitting the Fabians, denounced them as “the new machiavellians.” The most revealing component, however, is the Fabian crest which appears between Shaw and Webb. It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing!

Pretty straight forward if you ask me.

Fabian founder George Bernard Shaw’s words should be pretty chilling to anyone with their wits about them. In fact, here’s a quote from Shaw:

Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.

Now, why exactly is this crazy British socialist movement from over a hundred years ago a threat to America? Well, the answer to that isn’t too complex. Look around, the Fabian model is being used, most noticeably by the progressives. A slow moving socialist agenda, sold to the people as something else and gradually implemented law by law is the cause of America’s decay. Also, it’s not just a model followed by the progressive movement, it also has direct links to American bankers and politicians.

The London School of Economics, which was founded by the same intellectuals who started the Fabian Society, was the educational branch of their economic tyranny. Another one of the LSE’s founders, apart from the unholy trinity, was Lord Richard Burdon Haldane, a prominent and influential leader in the British Liberal Party and later the Labour Party. Lord Haldane described the purpose of the school:

Our object is to make this institution a place to raise and train the bureaucracy of the future Socialist State.

Still existing today, the school is one of the top institutions in the world for teaching economics and political science. However, their brand of teaching is of the same make and model as the Fabian Society’s. So, one could expect to go to this prestigious school and be indoctrinated with the fundamentals of socialist dogma. The disastrous and extremely flawed economic philosophy of John Maynard Keynes is the basis of LSE’s educational platform. I’m hoping those of you reading this are already aware of the horrible hold Keynesian economics has on the world and that it has been tested and tried for decades, only to leave the world in a state of global economic peril.

Throughout the years, the LSE has been funded by several questionable philanthropists. Most recently it was discovered that the school was receiving support from the Gaddafi Family in Libya. Yeah, the same dudes we’re trying to bomb the fuck out of as I write this (not that I agree with that war, by any means).

Going back to the beginning, the LSE has been funded by two families that should raise the eyebrows of conspiracy buffs and anyone who knows the real history of our own country’s central bank, the Federal Reserve. These two families are the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. These two powerful families are actually of the same bloodline believe it or not. Well, the Rockefellers came out of the Rothschilds’ bloodline, as did other powerful families such as the Morgans, the Kennedys, the duPonts, the Tafts, the Schiffs, the Warburgs, the Oppenheimers, the Kuhns, the Loebs and many others. It’s a pretty extensive web that still has a strong grip on American and British society today! If you don’t know these names and recognize their significance, do your fucking homework.

So the people who created the Federal Reserve, also funded and helped establish the London School of Economics with the Fabian Society. Knowing those who were involved in its creation and that their descendants still support it today, is not the only compelling part of this true story. What’s also compelling is the list of people who have attended this school. Many of them were world changers with such powerful presences that their spirits still flourish and influence the world now.

Some of the most important alumni of the London School of Economics are President John F. Kennedy, British Prime Minister and Labour Party leader Lord Clement Attlee, Canadian Prime Ministers Pierre Trudeau and Kim Campbell, economist Paul Krugman, League of Nations diplomat and United Nations co-founder Sir Charles Kingsley Webster, current leader of the UK Labour Party Ed Miliband, former British Chief of Staff Tom Scholar, former Bill Clinton and John Kerry advisor Alan Blinder, former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, FDR’s economic advisor Lauchlin Currie, former HUD Chief of Staff Bruce Katz, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, Joseph Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Vanessa Kerry, Chairman of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission David Rockefeller, the current Counselor to the President Pete Rouse and the list just keeps going and going! To deny the importance and influence of these people in American, British and even Canadian politics would be ludicrous! These are the people that have molded the world into what it is.

The Fabian Society and the London School of Economics are still going strong today. Their socialist reach has broken through the armor of the freest nations in the world. The Fabian influence on America has been visible since the start of the progressive movement in the late 1800′s. Where the Russians and the Chinese implemented collectivism quickly through force, America has implemented collectivism slowly through legislation and deception. Unfortunately now, the deception has gone so deep that people accept it and beg for it! The progressives and socialists in America want more! The rest of us are left wondering if we can even dig ourselves out of the hole, as deep as it is right now.

The truth is, the Fabians are winning. They have been winning for a long time. They must be relishing in their success on one hand while still moving the pieces on the chess board with the other hand. When looking at those in power, especially those who we vote in, it is our responsibility to educate ourselves on all of their affiliations. If the London School of Economics is on someone’s resume, you had better find out why. Without sensationalizing this, there are those who have gone to the school who turned out okay: Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek comes to mind. It’s up to you to scratch the surface and and find the truth.

*Taken from the New American.

The amount of publicity garnered by the secretive Bilderberg conference this year in St. Moritz, Switzerland, far surpassed the coverage afforded to past gatherings of the elite cabal, with major media outlets and international news wires finally reporting on the yearly event after refusing to do so for over five decades. Protests, the alternative media, and anti-Bilderberg politicians played an important role in spreading the news.

Bilderberg, named after the Dutch hotel where members first met in 1954, brings together some of the most influential figures on Earth. More than 120 top-level officials in government, banking, media, finance, business, think-tanks, armed forces, and even European royalty attend the confab every year.

Among the confirmed 2011 European and Canadian attendees were the British Chancellor of the Exchequer (“in his official capacity,” according to the Treasury), the President of the European Central Bank, the head of Canada’s central bank, the queens of the Netherlands and Spain, the Crown Prince of Norway, a representative of the unimaginably vast Rothschild banking empire, finance ministers, heads of state, and many more.

A reporter on the scene for the U.K. Guardian said there were also individuals in attendance who were not on the official list — a regular occurrence discovered almost every year. Among them were German Chancellor Angela Merkel, NATO Secretary-General Anders Rasmussen, and Socialist Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero of Spain. Microsoft founder and multi-billionaire Bill Gates was reportedlyspotted as well.

CONTINUED..

*Go HERE for the full page.

This is a master page with links to articles, videos, pictures and coverage of the secretive Bilderberg meeting, taking place over the 8-13th June 2011 in St Moritz, Switzerland.Background: What Is The Bilderberg Group?

The following articles provide some important information on the elite agenda of the Bilderberg Group and provide historical evidence outlining the Kingmaker power the group exercises:

Top Bilderberger: Eurozone Collapse Threatens Global Currency Agenda
Leaked Agenda: Bilderberg Group Plans Economic Depression
Leaked 1955 Bilderberg Docs Outline Plan For Single European Currency
Bilderberg Appointee Van Rompuy Is First EU President

CONTINUED..

My Two Cents: I read this in my most recent issue of Reason Magazine and was eagerly awaiting the electronic version, so I could share it. It’s written by Brian Doherty, the author of one of my personal favorite books: “Radicals for Capitalism”. End Two Cents.

*Taken from Reason. Written by Brian Doherty.

In the late 19th century, as today, a terrorist cabal detonated bombs in the heart of the Western world. Judged by the number of successful attacks on politicians and royalty, that force was more directly threatening to the inner circles of power than today’s radical Islam.

This episodic violence, loosely associated with the extremist wing of the anarchist movement, lasted roughly from 1880 to 1910. It claimed the lives of only about 150 private citizens but also killed a president, a police chief, a prime minister, a czar, a king, and an empress. Yet the wave of terror eventually receded. No one has lived in mortal fear of bomb-throwing, dagger-clutching anarchists for nearly a century. Will citizens in 2110 view radical Islamic terrorism as a similar historical curiosity, useful mostly for colorful storytelling?

I don’t know, and neither does Alex Butterworth, author of The World That Never Was: A True Story of Dreamers, Schemers, Anarchists, and Secret Agents. The book is a detailed chronicle both of the anarchists—intellectuals and peaceful activists as well as terrorists—and of the cops and spies who set out to nab and crush them. It is irresistible, while contemplating this history in 2011, to look for analogies that might illuminate the current war on terror.

Butterworth, an English historian, brings up that comparison casually in the introduction. It feels like a last-minute addition to give a long tale of days gone by a ripped-from-the-headlines promotional hook. The author himself never returns to the idea. But perhaps the rest of us should.

The anarchists were considerably more precise in their attacks on political leaders, implying, perhaps, that they were more efficient, clever, or at least focused than today’s more civilian-oriented terrorists. Although their plots never approached the scale of 9/11, they did outdo the Islamists when it came to the number of successful fatal attacks within Western cities.

Might smarter, more effective intelligence and policing in the 21st century explain the difference? Butterworth provides stories and data relevant to that question but no decisive answers. He does not, after all, have access to a century’s worth of delayed revelations about our current twilight struggle. Still, the first war on terror does offer tantalizing hints about what we face when confronting organized nonstate international killers.

Butterworth’s walk through the  oft-told tale of 19th-century anarchism includes plenty of familiar material. Peter Kropotkin and Mikhail Bakunin, the Communards and the narodniki, the First and Second Internationals—all get plenty of attention. (So do many tangential stories, some interesting and some not, about the historical milieu in which they lived.) The freshest and most relevant parts of the book are Butterworth’s tales of cops and spies at war with anarchist radicals. The most valuable player in this battle against the international anarchist terror conspiracy—which didn’t actually exist, in the sense of one organization centrally planning attacks across national lines—was the Russians’ man in Paris, Peter Rachkovsky.

Rachkovsky started as a possibly sincere, possibly duplicitous mover in St. Petersburg’s radical underground in the late 1870s, after having been dismissed (for leniency toward political exiles) from a job as a prosecutor for the czar’s government. He ended up running the show for the Okhrana, the Russian secret police, in Paris, where so many radicals considered dangerous to the czarist regime had immigrated.

From 1885 until 1902, Rachkovsky was responsible for keeping anarchists under surveillance and on the run—and also, in many cases, financed and supplied with ideas. Butterworth notes that “prominent among his early initiatives were provocations designed to lure credulous émigrés into the most heinous crimes of which they may never have otherwise conceived.” Rachkovsky’s aim was to entrap his targets into committing acts that would help ensure that his job seemed of vital importance to the czar. This guaranteed him a solid berth in Paris that was lucrative both in salary and prestige—and, Butterworth’s research leads him to strongly suspect, in opportunities for corrupt under-the-radar dealings with a French government doing heavy business with Russia.

Rachkovsky wasn’t the first cop to use agents provocateurs among the French radicals. Louis Andrieux, the French prefect of police during the early 1880s, had been frustrated that all his spying on the anarchists failed to uncover a crime worthy of his time and attention, so he decided that “it was necessary that the act was accomplished for repression to be possible.”

Rachkovsky’s bosses in Russia and his hosts in Paris both feared the radicals, allowing the Russian agent to tighten the ties between the two nations. He succeeded so well that Butterworth argues he was partly to blame for the Russo-French alliance that helped make World War I such a bloody mess.

The British government, by contrast, initially resisted czarist efforts to capture Russia’s radical émigrés. In 1890 Vladimir Burtsev, wanted by the czarist police, boarded a British boat bound from Constantinople to London. When the ship found itself surrounded by Turkish police vessels with Russians on board, the captain refused their demand to hand over the fugitive, announcing: “This is English territory. And I am a gentleman!” But soon even Britain’s Special Branch ended up playing the spy and provocateur game.

Although Butterworth warns today’s governments and spymasters that future historians will “have access to the material necessary to hold those leaders to account for any deceptions they may have practiced,” his own research into the century-old fight indicates that that won’t necessarily be so. The current keepers of the Special Branch’s archives, which could shed light on the history of police behavior toward the radicals of the time, keep access to the relevant records “tenaciously guarded” even now.

It would be comforting to assume that one of the reasons the radical anarchists were able to gin up more consistent bombing action in the West than radical Islam does today was because their ideals—storming the bastions of illegitimate power, winning a better deal for the working man, crafting a future without any coercive authority—were more inherently inspiring than Shariah or a new Caliphate. These anarcho-radical movements were huge in the late 19th century. Star anarchist figures such as Kropotkin and Errico Malatesta could get tens of thousands, sometimes more than 100,000, fans to show up whenever they arrived in town. The number of people who subscribed to the anarchist movement’s many publications was in the tens of thousands in France alone. But the active participants in anarchist congresses numbered less than 1,000, and while many of those activists and intellectuals excused the violence, others opposed it. The number of people actively involved in planning and executing terror plots seems to be no more than a few dozen.

Terror then and terror now both hoped to inspire popular insurrection; both failed. Although anarchists referred to their violent actions as “propaganda by deed,” acts such as blowing up cafés or opera houses were really far more successful propaganda against anarchism than for it. Similarly, there is scant evidence that even the spectacularly destructive strike of 9/11 did much to help Al Qaeda recruit smart, useful, self-destructive folk willing to wage constant war on the decadent West. Suicide attacks in the name of jihad are only about 30 years old; they arose from modern circumstances and could disappear as those circumstances change.

To the powers of the time, the anarchist threat was not to be downplayed or doubted. After the anarchist-linked Leon Czolgosz assassinated U.S. President William McKinley, McKinley’s successor, Theodore Roosevelt, issued a pronouncement that presaged George W. Bush’s rhetoric about the post-9/11 threat of radical Islam: “When compared with the suppression of anarchy, every other question sinks into insignificance.” Collaborations of national secret police agencies created an ad hoc global force to fight the nonexistent global anarchist conspiracy, and the very advocacy of anarchist ideas was outlawed in most of the West.

As history has shown, Roosevelt was wrong about the significance of the anarchist threat. So was George W. Bush when he used the jihadist threat as an excuse for policies that may have done far more to damage America and elsewhere than they did to prevent attacks.

The legacy of the secret police war against anarchists is ongoing and ugly. Both the CIA and the KGB learned from the techniques of the Okhrana, and the authorities today still cling to the notion that policing terror sometimes means encouraging it. Many of the alleged terrorists captured over the past several years were influenced, and in some cases provided materials by, police informants, including the Miami Seven, the accused Rockford, Illinois, shopping mall bomber Derrick Shareef, and Sami Samir Hassoun, who was charged with conspiring to bomb a nightclub near a Dave Matthews concert in Chicago.

Likewise, Butterworth concludes from his scattered documentary record that provocateurs were close to the planning and/or financing of many headline-making anarchist bomb plots, and that the staff of the British radical magazine Commonweal may have consisted entirely of informants, unbeknownst to each other. (Even today, with unprecedented access to police files, Butterworth is often unsure who was reporting back to the cops.) The French grande dame of anarchy, Louise Michel, once joked, “We love to have [agents provocateurs] in the party, because they always propose the most revolutionary motions.” In his fanciful 1908 novel The Man Who Was Thursday, inspired by the milieu of anarcho-skullduggery that Butterworth chronicles, G.K. Chesterton describes a convocation of anarchist conspirators in which all of the plotters turn out to be cops sent to infiltrate the group.

Anarchists may have been relatively effective at decapitating power, but they were not a mortal threat to Western civilization, and neither are the Islamists. They do not warrant the suppression of civil liberties or the huge cost, in lives and money, of the wars waged by Bush and Barack Obama.

Cracking down on supposed terror threats, whether through mass arrests in the late 19th century or drone air attacks in the 21st, can create martyrs and encourage counterattacks. Many acts of anarchist terror were explicitly conceived to avenge comrades caught and killed or brutalized by Western governments. Sometimes the blowback is more long term, harder to predict, and more terrifying. The 1887 hanging of Alexander Ulyanov, a member of the Russian terror group People’s Will, inspired his younger brother to become the revolutionary known as Lenin.

Butterworth’s most important lesson for our current war on terror is buried in the middle of the book. Discussing the British police reaction to a bombing campaign—this one not by anarchists but by Irish nationalists—he comments that “the threat may have been smaller than those responsible for its policing liked to maintain.” That haunting thought should help guide American voters and politicians as they consider the future of the Second War on International Terror.

Senior Editor Brian Doherty is author of This is Burning Man (BenBella), Radicals for Capitalism(PublicAffairs) and Gun Control on Trial (Cato Institute).