Dr Mercola interviews Dr Andrew Wakefield

I knew when the corporate mockingbird media began synchronized demonization of Andrew Wakefield and his MMR Vaccine research, I should definitely check out what he has to say, and luckily I ran across this video. Very informative.

Wakefield makes some compelling arguments in this interview; arguments and details the corporate media would never permit. And, as he says, he’s not even anti-vaccine– he’s interested in making safe vaccines available, and has published some clinical case studies.  This is a story of corruption and collusion between Government, drug companies, and the medical establishment to silence crucial information that should be heard by all parents.

Former State Senator Nancy Shaefer and her husband both found shot dead

I’d never even heard of Nancy Shaefer til now, unfortunately. This happened in March of 2010.  I wonder if she fully knew who she was taking on… Satanic pedos and international child traffickers like DynCorp and Halliburton.  This illustrates how assasinating activists is like putting a megaphone to everything they’ve said.

AP is calling this a murder suicide.   Police, lawyers, family, doctors, medical examiners, and everyone connected to this case, you should get your hands on any documents such as autopsy and police reports, photographs and anything you can find, make copies and keep them in a safe place.

Words like this can change people’s thinking.  It’s like a beam of light shining on the demons that lurk in the shadows.  RIP.

The Fractional Fraud: Seven Myths of Money

Revolution Not

After discussing fractional lending practices with all kinds of people, I am able to say that most people don’t know where money comes from or what it is. The people that should know the most are actually the least informed thinking they know the most about our fractional reserve system. That is to say, the bankers were the most confident in their ignorance of money.

The best example I have of this is here when Matt, the Supervisor of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, continued to claim they weren’t a part of the fractional reserve system.

The most common myth about where our money comes from is that our money comes from the government. When the USA needs money, they print US Treasury Notes and exchange the debt with the Federal Reserve. The government can then spend the Federal Reserve Notes. This is approximately where 5% of the money comes from. This is not the preferred way of subsidizing the banks though. The government prefers to issue bonds which the banks (and others) buy, and then sell for a profit to the Federal Reserve private bank not but days or weeks later.

The second common myth is that our money comes from the Federal Reserve private bank. Again, they are involved in only 5% of the money creation when transacting with the government through the Treasury. This percentage has likely changed due Federal Reserve private bank creating trillions out of thin air for the bailouts, QE69 and POMO. How it has changed hasn’t yet been documented.

So, where does 95% of the money in the United States of America come from? That portion of money is loaned into existence, at interest, by the banks as the money for every mortgage and loan. This is the origination process.

Fannie and Freddie

The third myth is that Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac are involved with mortgage origination. They are institutions backed by the government that purchase mortgages on the secondary market. It specifically states on each of their websites that they are not involved with mortgage and loan origination.

The fourth myth is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide liquidity in the mortgage and loan market. Given that the money is loaned into existence for every mortgage and loan, there is no need for liquidity in the market as there is no market (because there is no product) before the loan is made. Why does money created out of thin air need a market then?

There is really something fishy with this. What happens on the balance sheets of the banks during the mortgage process? Let me show you…

The banks get the best of both worlds. An additional 100,000 is created out of thin air for the banking system, plus the liability can be claimed as an asset and sold to a government backed entity (to socialize the losses) thus pocketing the total sum of the loan on both sides. Then on top of that the banks act as the money collector for the mortgage holders thus gaining access to more money from the original loan.

In total, when a mortgage is originated, the banking system rips off the public both through inflation and claiming a liability as an asset to investors (like the government back entities).

You might be a little confused by this transaction table above. This leads to the fifth myth that the money in a bank is yours. When you make a deposit, you loan the money to the bank. To person B, the bank owes them that amount of money, but it’s not actually person B’s money. The bank uses this fact that your deposit isn’t yours any more by using it as reserve for more loans. That is to say, once a deposit is made, it’s their money, not yours.

What makes tender legal? Constitutionality

While laws exist proclaiming that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender, it is the equality and convertibility to gold and silver that makes it Constitutional and thus legal tender.

US Constitution – Article One – Section Ten – Powers prohibited of States

No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts

Nixon Shock
The Nixon Shock

President Nixon imposed a 90-day wage and price freeze, a 10 percent import surcharge, and, most importantly, “closed the gold window”, ending convertibility between US dollars and gold

This last component is still with us today but President Nixon didn’t have the power to do this.

US Constitution – Article One – Section 8 – Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To… To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Currently Congress is not doing this but that is beside the point for this article. Nixon did not have the Constitutional power to change the value of money. Only Congress had and has that power.

What is so strange is that Nixon’s unconstitutional act of regulating the value of money has caused the states to act unconstitutionally in every debt case involving Federal Reserve Notes since then.

This leads to the sixth myth that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender. There are laws defining the Federal Reserve Notes as legal tender for all debts. As the banks create money out of thin air, it is not gold or silver. Even our own government tells us that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender. Yet not a single person has been able to tell me how this is consistent with our Constitution. Given my understanding of the fractional lending process, our debt-money is not legal tender.

The actual cash is printed by the Treasury because our Constitution states that only the government can coin money but this is a loophole used by the bankers. They issue the money, and the government prints it. This is not the intention of the Constitution. All those strict constructionist judges out there should have an easy time turning over our monetary system on Constitutional grounds, only my fear is that they aren’t really strict constructionists. My fear for this is valid: they have extremely spotty records as strict constructionists especially when you read their arguments. The conservative wing of our judicial system seems more like the corporatists wing of the judicial system.

This has huge implications though. As the mortgage and foreclosure fraud works its way through the system, the easiest and best argument to shut down the banks is that they didn’t have consideration in the loan process. That is to say, the banks never had any skin in the game for the mortgage or loan. The loan document assumes that something of value is exchanged but the money was loaned into existence. Such Judges are activist in unconstitutionally defending Corporate Personhood and so I have doubts about their interpretation of money as defined by the Constitution.

This was just fine in the fractional system when on the gold standard as when they created the money out of thin air, it was instantly backed by gold. The problem was that they didn’t add any more gold to their reserves. This forced Nixon to take unconstitutional actions to preserve the system. The banks caused the Nixon Shock. In fact, what financial crisis haven’t the banks had a hand in?

Fractional Lending

Those of us that understand how loaning money into existence works, we have seen this chart or a variant there of:

The seventh myth is that the reserve ratio defines a relationship between how much of a deposit can become reserves. This is factually false. The Reserve Ratio only has to do with how much can be loaned into existence based on the reserves. The whole deposit can be used as reserves.

Wikipedia – Money Multiplier

(The money multiplier) number is multiplied by the initial deposit to show the maximum amount of money it can be expanded to.

I have created a new table to diagram what happens when you put facts together:

We get 500 in step A as the theoretical maximum by taking the initial deposit of 100 and multiplying by the money multiplier, 5. All the following steps take the proceeding maximum and multiply by 5 each time.

Once again, there is no link between deposits and reserves. If the bank chooses, the entirety of the deposit can be reserves. The math they use in the above example is entirely misleading on the side of the banks as they imply there is a connection between deposits becoming reserves via some reserve ratio.

This is the banks intellectually misleading even the brightest economists and financial experts. The banks even encourage misleading concepts within their own bank! Thanks for showing me that Matt! I’ve had similar conversations of ignorance with JP Morgan investment bankers, Wells Fargo Advisors, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, and 53rd. This does not bode well that our financial sector is so ignorant…. of simple financial concepts. Those of you who have gotten this far in the article. Are you still long on the financial sector?

Conclusion
With a $1 deposit, two banks can loan into existence an infinite amount of money. This also means, the banking system has the ability to loan money to itself to get out of any problem. With the kinds of reserve ratios that banks are now legally able to perform with, It has had the ability to create the money to get out of any problems which they create themselves. Now the Federal Reserve is taking on this role of printing money out of thin air so the banks can survive when it is the entire fractional reserve system that is the ponzi scheme.

Given that the only reason why Federal Reserve Notes have value is that they are limited in quantity, and inflation is all the Federal Reserve does in response to every problem regardless of whether there is too much money or too much inflation, we are in for a very hard landing of a type not experienced here in America for a long time: Hyper-inflation.

Lastly, all these arguments as to convertibility and tender can be turned around on the consumer. The banks don’t actually owe you your debt-money back because you loaned it to them and you don’t have any ability to claim that money was legal tender. If this is realized, a bank run would be inevitable and set in motion the hyper-inflationary collapse.

Comcast charging Level 3 internet backbone provider fees to transfer “competing content” to customers

BROOMFIELD, Colo., November 29, 2010

Level 3 Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: LVLT) today issued the following statement, which can be attributed to Thomas Stortz, Chief Legal Officer of Level 3:

“On November 19, 2010, Comcast informed Level 3 that, for the first time, it will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content. By taking this action, Comcast is effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of its broadband Internet access network, enabling it to unilaterally decide how much to charge for content which competes with its own cable TV and Xfinity delivered content. This action by Comcast threatens the open Internet and is a clear abuse of the dominant control that Comcast exerts in broadband access markets as the nation’s largest cable provider.

“On November 22, after being informed by Comcast that its demand for payment was ‘take it or leave it,’ Level 3 agreed to the terms, under protest, in order to ensure customers did not experience any disruptions.

“Level 3 operates one of several broadband backbone networks, which are part of the Internet and which independent providers of online content use to transmit movies, sports, games and other entertainment to consumers. When a Comcast customer requests such content, for example an online movie or game, Level 3 transmits the content to Comcast for delivery to consumers.

“Level 3 believes Comcast’s current position violates the spirit and letter of the FCC’s proposed Internet Policy principles and other regulations and statutes, as well as Comcast’s previous public statements about favoring an open Internet.

“While the network neutrality debate in Washington has focused on what actions a broadband access provider might take to filter, prioritize or manage content requested by its subscribers, Comcast’s decision goes well beyond this. With this action, Comcast is preventing competing content from ever being delivered to Comcast’s subscribers at all, unless Comcast’s unilaterally-determined toll is paid – even though Comcast’s subscribers requested the content. With this action, Comcast demonstrates the risk of a ‘closed’ Internet, where a retail broadband Internet access provider decides whether and how their subscribers interact with content.

“It is our hope that Comcast’s senior management, for whom we have great respect, will closely consider their position on this issue and adopt an approach that will better serve Comcast and Comcast’s customers.

“While Comcast’s position is regrettable, Level 3 remains open and willing to work through these issues with Comcast. However, Level 3 does not seek any ‘special deals’ or arrangements not generally available to other Internet backbone companies.

“Given Comcast’s currently stated position, we are approaching regulators and policy makers and asking them to take quick action to ensure that a fair, open and innovative Internet does not become a closed network controlled by a few institutions with dominant market power that have the means, motive and opportunity to economically discriminate between favored and disfavored content.“

About Level 3 Communications
Level 3 Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: LVLT) is a leading international provider of fiber-based communications services. Enterprise, content, wholesale and government customers rely on Level 3 to deliver services with an industry-leading combination of scalability and value over an end-to-end fiber network. Level 3 offers a portfolio of metro and long-haul services, including transport, data, Internet, content delivery and voice. For more information, visit www.level3.com

…

Wells Fargo banker admits mortgages create money out of thin air

Unchecked creation of new fiat money backed by no assets is at the core of this ongoing planned slide into debt slavery.  While on the surface one might assume that a house is a reasonable asset to “back” the creation of this new money, this is not how it works.

For one thing, there isn’t just one mortgage for each new house built.  A single house could have dozens of mortgages on it over the existence of the house, each time creating new fiat money and resulting in this new money + interest being paid back to the bank over the term of each mortgage.   A $100k house could be foreclosed after $90k has already been paid, giving the bank both the house AND the majority of the money they created initially (out of nothing).   They will then turn around and create yet another new mortgage and thus new money.  This in no way represents the real expansion of the economy and is obviously not a reasonable asset to back our currency.

What’s shocking is that someone actually got a banker to admit to this, and I do know for a fact this is authentic…

From Revolution Not

“The short answer would be yes (promissory notes are the backing for new money) if you look at it that way we do loan money out of “thin air”. We are able to loan money just like any other bank is able to.”

- Ryan S.  Loan Administration Manager, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

So, the very root of what a mortgage is and how it works is based on fraud. It is unconstitutional and cannot hold up in court if one reads the Constitution, even a strict constructionist view point.

Read more…

Placebo fraud rocks the very foundation of modern medical science; thousands of clinical trials invalidated

(NaturalNews) You know all those thousands of clinical trials conducted over the last few decades comparing pharmaceuticals to placebo pills? Well, it turns out all those studies must now be completely thrown out as utterly non-scientific. And why? Because the placebos used in the studies weren’t really placebos at all, rendering the studies scientifically invalid.

This is the conclusion from researchers at the University of California who published their findings in the October issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine. They reviewed 167 placebo-controlled trials published in peer-reviewed medical journals in 2008 and 2009 and found that 92 percent of those trials never even described the ingredients of their placebo pills.

Why is this important? Because placebo pills are supposed to be inert. But nothing is inert, it turns out. Even so-called “sugar pills” contain sugar, obviously. And sugar isn’t inert. If you’re running a clinical trial on diabetics, testing the effectiveness of a diabetes drug versus a placebo then obviously your clinical trial is going to make the diabetes drug look better than placebo if you use sugar pills as your placebo.

Some placebo pills use olive oil which may actually improve heart health. Other placebo pills use partially-hydrogenated oils which harm heart health. Yet only 8 percent of clinical trials bothered to list the placebo ingredients at all!

Stay with me on this placebo issue… because it gets even more bizarre…

Read more

‘Foreclosure mill’ gave employees jewelry, cars, houses to forge documents: testimony

(RAW STORY)   According to sworn statements released by the Florida Attorney General’s office, one of the state’s “foreclosure mills” bribed employees with jewelry, cars and houses to forge and alter documents required by courts conducting foreclosure proceedings.

Kelly Scott and Mary Cordova, two former employees of Florida attorney David J. Stern, were close to the process. Both described to investigators a secretive system designed to speed up foreclosures, and their testimonies seem to match up with claims made by Tammie Lou Kapusta, another former Stern employee.

Their statements were published online Monday afternoon.

Read More

Physics professor Harold Lewis calls global warming pseudoscientific fraud; resigns from American Physical Society

Physics professor Harold Lewis has resigned from his 67 year membership in the prestigous American Physical Society because of its endorsement of global warming, calling it the “greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life.”  He sent this letter to Curtis G. Callan, President of APS.

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)