A CALL FOR ACTION?/? Chaos rules

Are you as dissatisfied as I am...with all that goes on in today's world?

I turn on the radio talk show and folks are complaining about the cost of gas, food, everything that is based on transportation of goods to us?

Well, what the hell are you going to do? Who controls us? Is it the gas and oil barons, Wall Street, speculators, just who? Are we the masters of deceit and greed?

Do we desire sooooo much, that it would be a hindrance to our freedom to consume less or to fire everyone in Washington and start fresh. Ooh? What did I say? Could there be a revolution on our future time line? Or are there too many sheep being led by our SHEEPLE to the slaughter?

I say there are too many sheep. We've been led down this merry path to bondage and now our very existence is determined by rag heads, Wishingtonians who sell our souls to the highest bidder.

God help us...we are a people (sheeple) in dire straits and looking for a real leader is just a few months away.

What choices do we have? Personally, I don't see any. I don't see a REAL LEADER on the horizon.

Oh, I see MISERY for CHANGE. But who are we kidding? The change that is needed is our resistance to really seeing what is real and what is true.

Is there no backbone in our world? One who would take the challenge to set things right. But he is coming and not the one expected. For those who have ears to hear...

Oh, if only the many could see what is really happening.

Just who is running the show around here?

Change just doesn't happen, it takes a grand amount of planning, such as we've never seen in our lifetime, but what and who is behind it all?

With spring nearly upon us, the Trilateral Commission will soon blossom into its annual conference -- scheduled for Tokyo, the weekend of April 24-26. This networking elite of politicians, bankers, industrialists and intellectuals from North America, Europe, Japan, and South Korea strives to shape foreign and economic policies of nations from behind the scenes. Who are these Commissioners -- and who commissioned them?

The notion of a tri-sphere concept, combining movers and shakers from three geographic regions, was first broached at a Bilderberg conference.

So what is Bilderberg -- and from where does it derive its authority?

It is an elite group of self-appointed global manipulators -- from North America and Europe -- who have met privately since 1954 to quietly influence governments.

Bilderberger banking bigwig David Rockefeller tapped Zbigniew Brzezinski to attend the April 1972 Bilderberg meeting in Knokke, Belgium, having taken a fancy to "Tripartite Studies" produced by the then-obscure Colombia University professor.

Appearing before Bilderbergers, Dr. Brzezinski made a pitch for inviting the Japanese into their secretive coterie on the basis that Japan had morphed into an economic powerhouse entitling it to play with the big boys. (South Korea joined that "sphere" much later.)

But the burghers of Bilderberg declined to integrate the Japanese into their own forum, a bilateral success for 22 years (by then) that had succeeded in fashioning a new order in Europe -- the Common Market and European unity. Instead, attendees sanctioned a new league and, thus, the Trilateral Commission was born.

Mr. Rockefeller and Zbiggy launched themselves through Europe and Japan on a recruiting drive.

Their "planning group" convened on July 23rd and 24th at Pocantico Hills, a Rockefeller estate overlooking the Hudson River. Mr. Rockefeller underwrote the expense from his own (deep) pocket, having discovered, decades earlier, that investing in high-level networking paid huge dividends.

With approval from "the highest political and financial circles" (an internal Commission memo), the trio selected chairmen and directors to represent each sphere of the tri.

The Commission quickly became a springboard for the presidency of Jimmy Carter. Mr. Carter, as governor of Georgia, had caught Mr. Rockefeller's eye as a potential president and, consequently, Zbiggy and Mr. Rockefeller lunched Jimmy in October 1972 at the Connaught Hotel in London, where they signed him on the spot to be a Commissioner. Jimmy also became David and Zbiggy's presidential candidate -- and the Commission bestowed him the power elite support (influence and money) he needed to "arise from nowhere."

The Trilateral Commission was not nowhere -- just nowhere (back then) to be found in the newspapers.

So Jimmy the peanut farmer got elected president in 1976, and Zbig became his national security adviser, the job he had coveted from the outset. Other Commissioners in the Carter Administration included Vice President Walter Mondale, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, Defense Secretary Harold Brown and Treasury Secretary Michael Blumenthal -- 18 in all, from 54 original members from the American sphere.

Together, this elitist clique messed things up real good: Soaring inflation, interest rates at 20 percent, and the world chessboard a horrible mess. President Carter's poor judgment caused confusion among our allies, laughter in the Soviet Union, and led, ultimately, to the hostage crisis in Iran.

"It completely justified our belief," a former senior CIA official told The Investigator, "that left to its own devices, the power elite is fully capable of causing another world war, not unlike their predecessors last century."

The CIA descended into decline, having had to endure Stansfield Turner as its director.

Said our CIA source: "Admiral Turner was more concerned about intelligence officers abroad engaging in extra-marital affairs than Iran imploding from within. He apparently mistook our agency for a missionary group."

As if things were not bad enough, Trilateral Commissioners David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger pushed President Carter into allowing the ailing Shah of Iran into the United States, a political miscalculation that precipitated the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Teheran and the resulting hostage crisis that sealed the fate of Jimmy Carter's one-term presidency.

Mr. Rockefeller quietly bailed from the monster he'd created, putting his money behind another horse from the Commission stable: George Bush One, a privileged East-coast preppie who had moved to Texas to prove his manhood in the oil biz.

But Mr. Bush lost to Ronald Reagan -- partly because the former California governor took a few jibes at "Trilateral Commission elitists" during his campaign to woo voters away from Mr. Bush in New Hampshire, where Commission membership had been whipped into a major issue just before its decisive primary.

Having enjoyed 15 minutes of fame during Jimmy Carter's presidency, the Commission then shriveled into just another think-tank opportunity for young men and women wishing entry to an international "Old Boy" network.

But now they're back!

Many of President Obama's picks for premier positions in his administration are Trilateral Commissioners. These include:

• Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner;

• National Security Adviser James Jones;

• Deputy National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon;

• Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair;

• State Department special envoys Richard Holbrooke. Dennis Ross, and Richard Haas;

• Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice;

• Lawrence Summers, Director of the National Economic Council;

• Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg;

• Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell;

• Paul Volcker, chairman of the Economic Recovery Committee.

(Gee, maybe President Obama will break Jimmy Carter's record?)

Ten days ago Adm. Blair clearly demonstrated how the "Old Boy" network functions: He tapped fellow Commissioner John Deutch to sit upon a spy satellite advisory panel.

Mr. Deutch, you may recall, was CIA director under Bill Clinton. "The worst director in CIA history," a former senior agency official told the The Investigator. You may also remember this: Soon after Mr. Deutch's departure from that job in 1996, he was discovered to have grossly mishandled government secrets. Mr. Deutch, it transpired, had downloaded 74 top secret documents onto four computers used at his home by other family members and connected by modem to the Internet -- on which Mr. Deutch also accessed Russian porn sites through his AOL account.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigated and produced a report to Congress stating: "Despite this knowledge (the risk of keeping secrets on un-encrypted computers), Deutch processed a large volume of highly classified information on these unclassified computers, taking no steps to restrict access to the information and thereby placing national security information at risk."

A senior CIA official privy to the classified version of the Senate Committee's report put it more bluntly for The Investigator: "Deutch allowed the Russians access to our biggest secrets."

Mr. Deutch was stripped of his security clearances. (They have now been restored.)

Anyone else would have been investigated for espionage. But an Old Boy like Mr. Deutch? Janet Reno's Justice Department worked out a gentle plea bargain. But while Mr. Deutch was in the midst of pleading guilty to a mere misdemeanor, brazen Bill, on the last day of his presidency, pardoned him, thereby vanquishing even a mild slap on the wrist for his fellow Commissioner. (Did we mention William Jefferson Clinton was a member of the Trilateral Commission when elected president in 1992?)

So excuse our suspicions about this so-called "power elite." Not because they're in charge again, but because they don't know what the heck they're doing. Conspiracy theorists yearn to believe these uber networkers rule the world. Truth is, our Beltway Establishment -- Democratic or Republican -- couldn't organize a binge in a brewery. These are the folks responsible, through negligence and profit taking, for where we are today -- ripped off by banksters and Wall Street, and Madoffs who made off.

"Obama for Change"? Maybe President Rhetoric meant spare change.

Alinsky again

If you don't know what is happening, and like staying focused on the daily diatribe of our country, we really need to take note of the origins of Socialism.

Noted on Glenn Beck yesterday, "Do we really know who Barack Obama is?

One answer, for now, answers the question. In blogs past, I bring up Saul Alinsky, a socialist thinker in the mid-20th Century, with whom Obama studied.

A really good analysis was published on Eagle Forum.

In order for us to know exactly where we are headed, we must know socialism's roots. There are those who have been putting these plans into motion from the beginning of time.

For those who have ears to hear...!

Congress's "power of the purse"

Following the signing of our future away by the 111th Congress, you may have noticed the DOW drop. Now at 2:08 CST, it is still down 356, at 7915.

Toxic billing, toxic government, toxic administration and its defiant attitude, "I won, get over it!"

From Wikileaks a report from the United States Congressional Research Service for members and committees of Congress states:

The federal budget implements Congress's "power of the purse" by expressing funding priorities through outlay allocations and revenue collections. Over the past decade, federal spending has accounted for approximately a fifth of the economy (as measured by gross domestic product--GDP) and federal revenues have ranged between just over a fifth and just under a sixth of GDP.

In FY2008, the U.S. government collected $2.5 trillion in revenue and spent almost $3.0 trillion. Outlays as a proportion of GDP rose from 18.4% in FY2000 to 20.9% of GDP in FY2008. Federal revenues as a proportion of GDP reached a post-WWII peak of 20.9% in FY2000 and then fell to 16.3% of GDP in FY2004 before rising slightly to 17.7% of GDP in FY2008.

The budget also affects, and is affected by, the national economy as a whole. Given recent turmoil in the economy and financial markets, the current economic climate poses a major challenge to policymakers shaping the FY2009 and FY2010 federal budgets. Federal spending tied to means-tested social programs has been increasing due to rising unemployment, while federal revenues will likely fall as individuals' incomes drop and corporate profits sink. As a result, federal deficits over the next few years will likely be high relative to historic norms.

In addition to funding existing programs in a challenging economic climate, the government has undertaken significant financial interventions in an attempt to alleviate economic recession. The ultimate costs of federal responses to this turmoil will depend on how quickly the economy recovers, how well firms with federal credit guarantees weather future financial shocks, and whether or not the government receives positive returns on its asset purchases. Estimating how much these responses will cost is difficult, both for conceptual and operational reasons.

Despite these budgetary challenges, many economists believe that fiscal policy (i.e., federal borrowing and spending) would be the most effective macroeconomic tool under current conditions. Past fiscal stimulus measures, which are being considered as possible options for 2009, have included extensions to unemployment benefits, aid to state and local governments, tax rebates, and expanded infrastructure spending.

Federal loans or loan guarantee programs may help provide liquidity to distressed financial markets and stimulate economic activity, but may also expose the federal government to substantial credit risks.

While many economists concur on the need for short-term fiscal stimulus, widespread concerns remain about the long-term fiscal situation of the federal government. The rising costs of federal health care programs and Baby Boomer retirements present serious challenges to fiscal stability.

Operating these programs in their current form may pass on substantial economic burdens to future generations.

NO sh*t Sherlock!

At the end of post DOW down 405, well Mr. Prez, looks like your henchmen, s'cuse me, Congressmen, know how to restore faith in the economy!

What does religion have to do with the stimulus?

Curious,after the prez's speech last night, I wanted to take a deeper look at this so-called "stimulus plan".

I found a note this morning referencing that no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. Health provisions?

These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department. Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Hm mm, but what does health provisions to do with the jump-starting of the economy?

As I scanned the document, I found the following information contained in the bill under the whistle blower portion...

SEC. 1273. CLARIFICATION OF WHISTLEBLOWER RIGHTS RELATING TO SCIENTIFIC AND OTHER RESEARCH.

(a) In General- Section 2302 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(f) As used in section 2302(b)(8), the term `abuse of authority' includes--

`(1) any action that compromises the validity or accuracy of federally funded research or analysis;

`(2) the dissemination of false or misleading scientific, medical, or technical information;

`(3) any action that restricts or prevents an employee or any person performing federally funded research or analysis from publishing in peer-reviewed journals or other scientific publications or making oral presentations at professional society meetings or other meetings of their peers; and

Now where does religion play in the stimulus bill, notably the whistle blower section?

`(4) any action that discriminates for or against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of religion, as defined by section 1273(b) of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009.'.

(b) Definition- As used in section 2302(f)(3) of title 5, United States Code (as amended by subsection (a)), the term `on the basis of religion' means--

(1) prohibiting personal religious expression by Federal employees to the greatest extent possible, consistent with requirements of law and interests in workplace efficiency;

(2) requiring religious participation or non-participation as a condition of employment, or permitting religious harassment;

(3) failing to accommodate employees' exercise of their religion;

(4) failing to treat all employees with the same respect and consideration, regardless of their religion (or lack thereof);

(5) restricting personal religious expression by employees in the Federal workplace except where the employee's interest in the expression is outweighed by the government's interest in the efficient provision of public services or where the expression intrudes upon the legitimate rights of other employees or creates the appearance, to a reasonable observer, of an official endorsement of religion;

(6) regulating employees' personal religious expression on the basis of its content or viewpoint, or suppressing employees' private religious speech in the workplace while leaving unregulated other private employee speech that has a comparable effect on the efficiency of the workplace, including ideological speech on politics and other topics;

(7) failing to exercise their authority in an evenhanded and restrained manner, and with regard for the fact that Americans are used to expressions of disagreement on controversial subjects, including religious ones;

(8) failing to permit an employee to engage in private religious expression in personal work areas not regularly open to the public to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious private expression, subject to reasonable content- and viewpoint-neutral standards and restrictions;

(9) failing to permit an employee to engage in religious expression with fellow employees, to the same extent that they may engage in comparable nonreligious private expression, subject to reasonable and content-neutral standards and restrictions;

(10) failing to permit an employee to engage in religious expression directed at fellow employees, and may even attempt to persuade fellow employees of the correctness of their religious views, to the same extent as those employees may engage in comparable speech not involving religion;

(11) inhibiting an employee from urging a colleague to participate or not to participate in religious activities to the same extent that, consistent with concerns of workplace efficiency, they may urge their colleagues to engage in or refrain from other personal endeavors, except that the employee must refrain from such expression when a fellow employee asks that it stop or otherwise demonstrates that it is unwelcome;

(12) failing to prohibit expression that is part of a larger pattern of verbal attacks on fellow employees (or a specific employee) not sharing the faith of the speaker;

(13) preventing an employee from--

(A) wearing personal religious jewelry absent special circumstances (such as safety concerns) that might require a ban on all similar nonreligious jewelry; or

(B) displaying religious art and literature in their personal work areas to the same extent that they may display other art and literature, so long as the viewing public would reasonably understand the religious expression to be that of the employee acting in her personal capacity, and not that of the government itself;

(14) prohibiting an employee from using their private time to discuss religion with willing coworkers in public spaces to the same extent as they may discuss other subjects, so long as the public would reasonably understand the religious expression to be that of the employees acting in their personal capacities;

(15) discriminating against an employee on the basis of their religion, religious beliefs, or views concerning their religion by promoting, refusing to promote, hiring, refusing to hire, or otherwise favoring or disfavoring, an employee or potential employee because of his or her religion, religious beliefs, or views concerning religion, or by explicitly or implicitly, insisting that the employee participate in religious activities as a condition of continued employment, promotion, salary increases, preferred job assignments, or any other incidents of employment or insisting that an employee refrain from participating in religious activities outside the workplace except pursuant to otherwise legal, neutral restrictions that apply to employees' off-duty conduct and expression in general (such as restrictions on political activities prohibited by the Hatch Act);

(16) prohibiting a supervisor's religious expression where it is not coercive and is understood to be his or her personal view, in the same way and to the same extent as other constitutionally valued speech;

(17) permitting a hostile environment, or religious harassment, in the form of religiously discriminatory intimidation, or pervasive or severe religious ridicule or insult, whether by supervisors or fellow workers, as determined by its frequency or repetitiveness, and severity;

(18) failing to accommodate an employee's exercise of their religion unless such accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the conduct of the agency's operations, based on real rather than speculative or hypothetical cost and without disfavoring other, nonreligious accommodations; and

(19) in those cases where an agency's work rule imposes a substantial burden on a particular employee's exercise of religion, failing to grant the employee an exemption from that rule, absent a compelling interest in denying the exemption and where there is no less restrictive means of furthering that interest.

(c) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to create any new right, benefit, or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.

Well, looks like we really need to be "a-reading this here" information a lot more closely.

Does it matter? How close are we to finding out how our "representatives" have screwed us into oblivion? Whose pen is actively working to get this into law and why?

No one is reading this junk and laws are being set that folks will scan over it in their employee handbooks, not questioning, just blindly obeying...

After all, it is the law! There is a change coming. Are we ready for it?

Beware! It is coming!

Wishingtonia has a problem...it has NEVER held a real job. However, there is a real insanity taking place in the home of our guvment. No wonder they have HR 645 - the `National Emergency Centers Establishment Act'. Are we to believe that those of us, who don't agree with the elected officials, won't spend time recovering from an "national emergency (civil unrest, ie. displeasure with the crap they attempting to shove down our throats)" in these camps?

We Americans, have elected, not hired these idiots. Had they been hired, they would be more responsible in providing for the welfare of their families at home, the United States of America.

Obviously, when a "father" goes to work, he is expected to bring home the bacon...not the pork.

The idiots, who are elected have gotten it all wrong. They think their job is to "yack, yack", giving away their family's birthright to lobbyists, labor unions and special interest groups. Scary ain't it?

What's happening right now? Sixteen congressmen are secluded, in an attempt to spend America into a debt to stimulate jobs. Huh? Does that make any sense? Can their attempt to disgrace themselves bring us out of this depression?

What are they thinking? They aren't, and we are at the "lawmakers" stripping future generation's wallets. Is this any way for a "parent" to take care of its home.

What is happening? We have lost sight of who is taking care of the home front. It is not those that were hired to take care of us.

Thinking in business terms, what company would keep those folks hired who kept spending the precious profits in order to grow waterparks? You have to manage assets carefully.

So who of these wishingtonians are managing our assets correctly? With a possibility of them adding more to their bailout, not unemployed Americans pocketbooks.

Is one trillion dollars going to re-employ nearly 5 million folks? I doubt it and so do some of our hired help attempting to make the case.

Politics, not a real job, but a cushy one.

How did we get out of the last depression...WWII.

Are you ready for this? We go to war with Mexico. It's already begun, in fact, many years ago, folks elsewhere, namely wishingtonia, haven't discovered it yet. But the again, maybe they have and we are headed in the direction of no return.

Expect the unexpected. WWIII, America vs. Mexico. But you say, "That's not a world war." Oh really?

Let's see, add Cuba, Chavez, Russia to the mix and what do you call that? Remember the ships that were visiting Cuba via the Gulf of Mexico?

And where are we heading? Can you spell socialism? Hey, a war will put folks back to work won't it, and quick.

It is coming!

And by the way, the all night vigil to correct the "wrongs" in the bailout bill, in order to pass it...at 9:45 central, it was announced that they had decided to go home. I guess when the prez leaves town, its time for a vacation.

Hiding in the shadows

the real power behind the throne?
Good ole Alfred E. Newman?