This article is definately a "must read".  The summary is that the credit card debt mess is far worse than the mortgage foreclosure mess.  The Banksters are guilty of massive illegal activities in foreclosure gate, including forging documents and signatures.  Apparently the same thing has happened with Credit Card Debt Collection!!!! excerpt:   From American Banker: "If sloppy record keeping and problems with false affidavits is a problem with mortgages, it's 100 times bigger in credit card accounts," says Michelle Weinberg of the Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago. Worse than mortgages, even? Let's just review the mortgage situation: Robosigning consists of blatantly illegal practices in which banks and mortgage companies had their employees sign affidavits and other documents without verifying the information therein; forge signatures on documents; backdate documents; falsely notarize documents; create new documents to replace missing ones; or some combination of all the above. Did I mention that all of this is illegal? Contrary to what the banks would have you believe, robosigning was not a one-off - it happened on a systematic level. So much so that some of the nation's largest banks (including Bank of America Corp. and  JPMorgan Chase & Co., ) were forced to halt foreclosures to "review" these practices in late 2010. The companies that did this claimed that they had to cut corners because they couldn't keep up with all of the paperwork created by the housing boom last decade. But we now know that this is not true - there's evidence that robo-signing goes back all the way to at least 1998. This all means that thousands of Americans were foreclosed upon erroneously and that even homebuyers and sellers in good standing may be unable to prove their rightful ownership. The problem is so big that Sheila Bair, the former head of the FDIC, acknowledged that they don't even know how big it is. It's so big that the b

The Constitution and Foreign Policy by Bart Frazier, Posted October 17, 2007 Protecting the country from invasion and securing individual rights are two of the vital functions of the federal government. At the same time the government is the greatest threat to our freedom. This was the subject of FFF's June conference, "Restoring the Republic: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties." An underlying theme, touched on by every one of the speakers, was the relationship between the state and the individual, for it is the individual who ultimately feels the effects of the government policies. For Americans, the rulebook for this relationship is the Constitution. In the United States, the Constitution is the primary connection between the individual and the state. It is the law of the land and the document that trumps all others when determining what the state may and may not do. The Constitution was designed to protect us, the people, from government. It is the government, however, that has advanced an overactive foreign policy for the past several decades, and it is the American people who now feel the adverse effects of the resulting blowback. It is the government that violates civil liberties, and it is the individual who feels the effects of government surveillance, detention, and torture.

Author David Malone digs into world events, suggesting that all the saber rattling over Iran and nuclear weapons is really about GOLD!   He argues that the dollar is rapidly being replaced as the world's "settlement" currency.  As a function, "settlement" is different than "reserve", but since WWII and the Basel Conference, the USA Dollar has been both the currency of "reserve" and settlement".  That is now changing, and fast! David further suggests that the Iraqi wars with Saddam Hussein were also about his use of the Euro to "settle" oil purchases.  It could also be argued that Muamma Gaddafi in Lybia was removed because he was organizing all of Africa to "settle" oil and other commodity purchases in GOLD, and not the USA Dollar. Are the Islamic wars really about oil?  Or are they about how oil purchases are "settled"? David further argues that Russia, India, China and Japan are actively pursuing a GOLD based settlement currency agreement series where the Chinese Yuan plays a central role.  Interestingly, all of these countries have cut agreements with Iran.  Which seems to have triggered the December 2011 Obama response banning any banks, both private and government controlled, from dealings with Iran.   It's increasingly looking like it's not the Iranian nuclear weapons program that is upsetting to Obama and his Bankster buddies.  It's the rapid replacement of the worthless paper USA dollar as a settlement currency. One of the interesting points the venerable "Veterans Today" news sight is making is that our military is being used to forcefully prop up an inflationary Bankster Dollar, and force oil producing countries into accepting that inflated Bankster Dollar as payment.  The one thing the International Bankster Cartel doesn't want is for the trade of important commodities, especially energy, to be paid for in GOLD instead of the worthless paper they control. excerpt: I think the stand-off with Iran in the Straits of Hormuz over sanctions is a

Another great piece of writing about the 2008 financial collapse, from Mike Taibi. excerpt: At first,  I couldn't remember where I knew that name from. But then I looked it up and saw an explosive Atlantic magazine story, published last year, called, "E-mails Suggest Bear Stearns Cheated Clients Out Of Millions." And then I remembered that piece, and it hit me: Jeffrey Verschleiser is one of the biggest assholes in the entire world! The story begins at Bear Stearns, where Verschleiser used to work, up until the company exploded, in large part because of him personally. Back in the day, you see, Verschleiser headed Bear's mortgage-backed securities operations. Toward the end of his tenure, his particular specialty began with what at the time was the usual industry-wide practice, putting together gigantic packages of crappy subprime mortgages and dumping them on unsuspecting clients. But Verschleiser reportedly went beyond that. According to a lawsuit later filed by a bond insurer called Ambac, Verschleiser also masterminded a kind of double-dipping scheme. What he would do is sell a bunch of toxic mortgages into a trust, which like all mortgage trusts had provisions written into their pooling and servicing agreements (PSAs) that required the original lenders to buy the loans back if they went into default. So Verschleiser would sell bad mortgages back to the banks at a discount, but instead of passing the money back to the trust, he and other Bear execs allegedly pocketed the funds. From the Atlantic story:

Reagan economist Arthur Laffer eviscerates the phony socialist investor Warren Buffett.  Totally!!!!  Beautifully done too.  The phony Buffett is fully exposed, and numbers are staggering.  You gotta love this! excerpt: The "Buffett Rule" would not tax the vast majority of his shielded income, including either his unrealized capital gains, which are currently taxed at zero percent, or charitable contributions, which are tax deductible. If the "Buffett Rule" were applied as President Obama proposes, then Mr. Buffett's federal tax bill would have been $14.4 million, rather than the $6.9 million he actually paid. As a fraction of his true income, his effective tax rate would only have risen from 6/100ths of 1% to 12/100ths of 1%. Mr. Buffett's donation to the Gates Foundation goes to the heart of my critique of his public call for higher tax rates on the rich. Just look at the second contractual condition for his ongoing pledge to the Gates Foundation: "The foundation must continue to satisfy the legal requirements qualifying Warren's gift as charitable, exempt from gift or other taxes." In other words, if his gift weren't tax sheltered he wouldn't give it. So much for "shared sacrifice." Incidentally, I'm not the first to question Mr. Buffett's commitment to "shared sacrifice" in balancing the federal budget. In a 2007 CNBC interview, when asked why he shelters his money through tax-free strategies rather than writing big checks to Uncle Sam, Mr. Buffett responded: "I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter's foundation, my two sons' foundations will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government." So Mr. Buffett thinks he and his family can put their money to better use than the government can. I guess he's really not so different from the rest of us after all.

Good stuff from Christopher Cook of the Western Free Press.

3. The major still-unanswered question from 9/11 may be this: Why did the CIA keep information about Khalid Al-Mihdhar - the 9/11 team member who was identified before the attacks as having a U.S. visa and tracked into the United States - secret from the FBI and other law enforcement agencies? Clearly this information could have been used to stop the 9/11 plot, yet CIA officials lied about it repeatedly, and have never been held to account either for their failure to inform or their lies. Do you have an answer? My hands started shaking. I didn't know what to think. "They just sent these reports," the [CIA chief of station*] said, seeing my reaction. I walked out of the room, sprinted down the corridor to the bathroom, and fell to the floor next to a stall. There I threw up. I sat on the floor for a few minutes, although it felt like hours. What I had just seen went through my mind again and again. The same thought kept looping back: "If they had all this information since January 2000, why the hell didn't they pass it on?" My whole body was shaking… I got myself to the sink, washed out my mouth, and splashed some water on my face. I covered my face with a paper towel for a few moments. I was still trying to process the fact that the information I had requested about major al-Qaeda operatives, information the CIA had claimed they knew nothing about, had been in the agency's hands since January 2000. The SWAT agent asked, "What's wrong, bud? What the hell did he tell you?" "They knew, they knew." -From The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against al-Qaeda. (*Redacted in original - text restored by Harper's). Reprinted by permission of W.W. Norton & Co., © 2011 Ali Soufan. Sadly no. To date we've never been told why the information wasn't passed to the team investigating the USS Cole attack, the State Department, or the Immigration and Naturalization Service, nor why he wasn't put on a no-fly list, al

Former FBI agent and author of Black Banners - the inside story of 911. Ali Soufan on The Colbert Report January 4, 2012 Ali Soufan on The Colbert Report Ali Soufan on Charlie Rose December 23, 2011 Ali Soufan on Charlie Rose Ali Soufan Testifies Before British Parliament December 13, 2011 On Tuesday October 18, 2011, Ali Soufan gave oral evidence before the House of Commons' Home Affairs Committee, on the "roots of radicalization." Read the testimony here: http://soufangroup.com/news/details/?Article_Id=191 Anthony Franks on The John Batchelor Show November 3, 2011 Anthony Franks interviewed on the John Batchelor radio show. The interview covered the recent Atmospheric report that examined the current local dispute over gas fields in the Eastern Mediterranean off the island off Cyprus involving U.S. Noble Energy Inc., and how the complex Turkish, US, and Israeli national interests intersected - and then how the interplay of regional energy politics impacts on the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as it seeks ways to maintain regional influence through an intelligence and military presence in Turkey and Kuwait. Ali Soufan on AC360: Anwar al-Awlaki October 1, 2011 Ali Soufan talks to Anderson Cooper about Anwar al-Awlaki and al Qaeda in Yemen Ali Soufan on Anderson Cooper September 28, 2011 Talking about The Black Banners and harsh interrogation techniques Ali Soufan on Hardball with Chris Matthews September 23, 2011 Talking about the relationship with Pakistan's ISI. Ali Soufan talks with Martin Bashir on MSNBC September 15, 2011 Could the CIA have thwarted the 9/11 Plot? Fox: Judge Napolitano Interviews Ali Soufan: Eyewitness to the War on Terror September 15, 2011 Former FBI agent Ali Soufan recounts his eight years of counterterrorism work for the FBI and explains why 9/11 could?ve been prevented as well as why torture doesn't work. Ali Soufan on Morning Joe: The Interrogator September 13, 2011 Ali Soufan visits MSNBC's Morning Joe to discuss "The Black Banners

Ali Soufan, the Lebanese-American FBI agent whose questioning of Qaeda members after 9/11 gleaned valuable intelligence - including confirmation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the mastermind of the attacks - reveals his face for the first time in a "60 Minutes" interview with Lara Logan to be broadcast Sunday, September 11 at 7 p.m. ET/PT on the CBS Television Network. Soufan used his fluency in Arabic and his understanding of Middle Eastern culture and religious ideology to learn information from captured al Qaeda members, including America's first high-value detainee after 9/11, Abu Zubaydah. Using a combination of "knowledge and empathy," says Soufan, he was able to build a rapport with Zubaydah, and Zubaydah accidently identified Khalid Sheik Mohammed as the 9/11 mastermind. "You need to connect with people on a human level - regardless, if they don't like you, want to kill you," Soufan tells Logan.

Good legal commentary on the NDAA.  A couple of things are overlooked though.  One is that neither the Senate, House or Executive Branch of government has the authority to suspend, change or alter in any way through a bill, regulation or other instrument of law, the Constitution.  The only Constitutional means of changing the Constitution (or Bill of Rights amendments) is that of amending the Constitution.  A ratification process process requiring super majorities of Congress (67%) and the States (75%).
IMHO, both the NDAA and the Patriot-Act AUMF are un-Constitutional.  But as the Lawfare article points out, on those few occasions where this crap has been legally challenged, the Courts have upheld Habeas Corpus and the Constitution.
The more troublesome aspect of the NDAA is twofold.  One is that Obama assumes that the AUMF has already given him legal authority to stomp on the Posse Comitatus Act, and use the federal military as his own domestic police force.  Obama has also stated that under the 2001 AUMF, he can assault, arrest and detain any citizen indefinitely, without charges, writ of Habeas Corpus, or warrant.  (See Jonathan Hurley's account of the the legal seminar where Obama representatives explained their interpretation of AUMF, the Patriot Act and NDAA).  
That's a scary interpretation of the AUMF quite out of line with Bush understanding and actual implementation, and, more importantly, how the Courts ruled on Bush's actions in support of the Constitution. Anyone know where i can sign on to a petition presenting a Bill of Particulars for Articles of Impeachment?  It's past time. NDAA FAQ: A Guide for the Perplexed by Benjamin Wittes (Benjamin Wittes & Robert Chesney)
The volume of sheer, unadulterated nonsense zipping around the internet about the NDAA boggles the mind. There was a time-only a few months ago-when the NDAA detention provisions were the obscure province of a small group of national security law nerds.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the CNN entry/exit polling of Iowa caucus attendees demonstrates conclusively that Ron Paul ran away with the under 40 years of age vote! Does that mean that the conservative talk-show-troika, that tried to put the Libertarian darling into the dirt with their constant barrage of negative slams and pounding slurs, are baby boomer has beens? According to CNN, (one of troikite Mark Levin's favorite news orgs), Ron Paul won 48% of voters 17-29 yrs of age, and 26% of voters 30-44 yrs of age. In fact, RP swept all age brackets under 40 yrs. I been a daily Rush listener since 1989. Cant's take much of Sean Hannity, but have listened to every Mark Levin broadcast thanks to his pod cast. Had to shut off his show though when his recent guest host Mark Simone launched into the most disgusting and offensive assault on Ron Paul and Libertarians everywhere. Awful stuff. The truth is that, when threatened, Social conservatives can be just as rabid, offensive and demanding to wield the Constitution as cudgel to force individuals to live by their chosen values as the Socialist cabal they abhor. The distance between protecting your values from the clear and present danger of socialist attempts to outlaw conservative values, and using the Rule of Law yourself to similarly force your values on others seems to be a very short. So i choose the only "value" protected by the Constitution and Declaration of Independence: individual liberty, in the context of a system Mark Levin calls "ordered liberty", that promotes individual freedom and the God given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Very interesting post from Douglas French concerning the repubican primaries and F.A. Hayek's "Road to Serfom" comments on modern politics. Fascinating stuff. Hayek argues that, in politics, "the worst rise to the top", and he outlines three reasons why: .... Choosing is the problem. Informed people are more "nuanced" - they have many divergent opinions and views. Uniformity however drives the group dynamics behind a democratic process. Uniformity of opinion rules, and the less informed a person is, the more uniform and drawn to larger groups they will be. The "lowest common denominator" rule rules the democratic process. Mobocracy at work. .... Those on top, pursuing the political leadership positions, must appeal to the masses and weave together the groups driven by the "lowest common denominator" rule. The docile and gullible "are ready to accept whatever values and ideology drummed into them". Advantage to big media, the socialist assemblage ruling public education, and public workers unions. ..... Third, political leaders "don't promote a positive agenda, but a negative one of hating an enemy and envy of the wealthy. To appeal to the masses, leaders preach an "us" against "them" program." The great unwashed and uninformed being guided and driven "by emotion and passion rather than critical thinking." Not sure i agree with any of this, much as i admire and recognize the importance of Hayek and his seminal, game changing "Road to Serfdom". One reason is that some of the most informed people i know are goose stepping socialist hell bent on ending individual liberty - as in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", in exchange for Marxist social equality. Another reason i would disagree is that the salt of the earth "bitter clingers" Reagan Conservatives that rock the Tea Party movement are exactly what the establishment elites call the "uninformed masses". Not sure if that's what Hayek meant, but his viewpoint does look a

Good Summary.  Very insightful.  Here are the five: ...Negative campaigning works ..... The rules of campaigning have changed - message now more important than money (2nd) or manpower (3rd) ....... We're pretty shallow after all - "Candidates actual records in office mean a whole lot less than how a candidate makes us feel". ............ Iowa's worshiped "undecideds" are probably just low information voters.  "Iowa chose Obama in 2008, with undecideds breaking for him late.  How's that working out?"  Funny stuff. ................. About 75% of the Republican Party still doesn't want to nominate Mitt Romney:  "Romney's weakness is also Gingrich's weakness - neither seem to be reliable men of their word." Santorum and Perry are men of their word.   Funny finish to this gem.  A quote from Davy Crockett: "Y'all can go to hell, i'm going to Texas!"

Chilling stuff; Constitutional Legal Expert Jonathan Turley explains Obama's claim that he can assassinate any American at any time.  Obama claims that congressional authorizations, the International rules of war and the international right to self-defense give him a legal basis for suspending the Bill of Rights at will, detaining citizens indefinitely without charges, and killing based on his own suspicions.  Incredible..... excerpt: It's even worse than coming into your house. President Obama has just stated a policy that he can have any American citizen killed without any charge, without any review, except his own. If he's satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world including in the United States.   Two of his aides just were just at a panel two weeks ago and they reaffirmed they believe that American citizens can be killed on the order of the President anywhere including the United States.   You've now got a president who says that he can kill you on his own discretion. He can jail you indefinitely on his own discretion   ***   I don't think the the Framers ever anticipated that. They assumed that people would hold their liberties close, and that they wouldn't relax those fingers ...

Incredible.  

Wow! Stunning summary of corruption and the determined undermining of the Constitution at the highest levels of government.

Not a big Peter Beinhart fan, but this article explains a large part of the Ron Paul phenom. After a life time as a big C Goldwater-Reagan Constitutional Conservative, this summer i made a full transition to big C Constitutional Libertarian. The tipping point for me was the GAO audit of the Federal Reserve, where they discovered $16.1 Trillion of taxpayer dollars missing from the Federal Reserve Bankster Cartel management books. It went to a who's who of international Bankster Cartel members. None of the taxpayer funded "financial collapse of 2008" bailout dollars went to the purposes chartered by their legislation. That includees the TARP $850 Billion, the Obama Stimulous $1 Trillion, and the mega FRBC $16.1 Trillion. No bad debts were purchased and retired. No rotting mortgage securities were swept up and restructured. No shovel ready jobs either. And no one in government or banksterism having caused the financial collapse went to jail. Instead, the perps feasted on the bailout dollars. The debt remains on the books of international Banksters, collecting interest, thirsting for foreclosure. The Bankster Cartel members are flush with cash, but not lending. By law (The Federal Reserve Act of December 23rd, 1913), FRBC members must keep a significant amount of their assets on "reserve" at the Federal Reserve, at 6% interest. In exchange for managing this process and the exploding money supply, the taxpayers of the USA are obligated by law to pay the FRBC 1% per year of (assets under management" (the money supply). Take note: the FRBC takes the 1% per year payment for their services in the form of GOLD!! They will not take payment in the form of paper notes labeled legal tender "Federal Reserve Notes". They only take GOLD. My transition to Constitutional Libertarian begins with a strct reading of the Constitution (the How), the Declaration of Independence, (the Why), and belief in the Rule of Law, not man. The concept of achievi

Congressman Ron Paul explains the NDAA - National Defense Authorization Act. This military budget and expense Act has been approved by the USA Senate, and includes presidential authorization to arrest and detain Americans without charges. The Act suspends the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It suspends Habeas Corpus. Ron Paul argues that what the Patriot Act does to destroy the 4th Amendment, the NDAA does to the Bill of Rights 5th Amendment. It seems to me that no representative can take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and then vote for either the Patriot Act or NDA Act. The Bill of Rights states exactly what government can't do. And now these traitorous bastards have done it anyway. And people wonder why Ron Paul is so popular? Americans love their Constitution and will demand representatives that will uphold and defend the individual rights and freedoms that sacred document protects.

Wow! Very detailed, documented and referenced analysis of Newt Gingrich's changing positions and consistent postitions on many issues. Well done. Verdict? He's a flip flopper and can't be trusted, but he's not the liar Mitt Romney's campaign is making him out to be. Which shouts loudly that Mitt can't be trusted either. No surprise there. All of which leaves us with Perry, Bachman, Santorum and Huntsman: all of whom have outstanding conservative credentials. I have soem doubts about Huntsman though. He is an established, proven conservative. His politices and plans are stellar conservative. Yet he came out of the gate as a raging establishment repubican "big government" moderate? Same as Romney. I guess the plan was to defeat conservative opponents with an appeal to independents? Doesn't make any sense to me. And the Tea Party has proven to be unmovable, powerful and uncompromisingly demanding. Factcheck.org

Download the Alex Jones podcast interview with Porter.