Non-Compliance Our Key to Resisting Tyranny | Gerald Celente Trends Blog: Non-Compliance Our Key to Resisting Tyranny
Just say NO : Mass Non-Compliance as a Means to Ending Tyranny ,People just don't seem to be getting it. If you're not in the family tree you might just end up hanging from it. No matter who you vote for or where you vote the government always gets in. The same government that's kept us all as debt slaves, imprisoned us with it's laws and brainwashed us with it's diverse propaganda about history, religion and fear of each other I always come back to: Compass & Square Divide & Conquer Keep divided keep conquered They shoot heroes don't they JFK MX MLK RFK...in the coming year we all will be faced with the same dilemma. that dilemma will force us all to either comply all the way to the grave, or make some extreme sacrifices.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Discover Is Refunding $200 Million To Credit Card Customers
Discover Is Refunding $200 Million To Credit Card Customers: A federal investigation spelled bad news for consumers and Discover alike when it determined the bank had duped people into signing up for payment protection plans and other add-on services they probably didn't need.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. have ordered Discover to cough up $200 million in refunds to more than 3.5 million customers.
The alleged deception was carried out between December 2007 and August 2011, and the services cost about $3 to $10 a month.
"The FDIC and CFPB have determined that Discover has engaged in deceptive acts and practices in or affecting commerce," said the government filing. "The FDIC further has determined that Discover has engaged in unsafe or unsound banking practices."
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. have ordered Discover to cough up $200 million in refunds to more than 3.5 million customers.
The alleged deception was carried out between December 2007 and August 2011, and the services cost about $3 to $10 a month.
"The FDIC and CFPB have determined that Discover has engaged in deceptive acts and practices in or affecting commerce," said the government filing. "The FDIC further has determined that Discover has engaged in unsafe or unsound banking practices."
B’Man’s Guest Post: DCDave’s “Was Katharine Graham Killed for 9/11?” « BuelahMan's Revolt
B’Man’s Guest Post: DCDave’s “Was Katharine Graham Killed for 9/11?” « BuelahMan's Revolt: Surviving operatives of the old Soviet bloc propaganda apparatus have to be impressed with how complete and thoroughgoing in case after important case in the United States is the suppression of important news by what still manages to call itself a “free press.” When this writer was able to obtain the long-secret official report on the violent death of Secretary of Defense James Forrestal and the Seeley Mudd Manuscript Library of Princeton University even sent out a press release dramatically announcing its availability, not a single newspaper, magazine, radio, or television station in the country reported it. The same thing happened when Kenneth Starr issued his long-delayed report on the death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster. It contained an addendum, ordered attached over Starr’s strenuous objections by the same 3-judge panel that appointed him, that thoroughly undermined his suicide conclusion. I have called the press silence about that addendum “The Great Suppression of ’97.” The press was similarly silent when Starr’s lead investigator, Miguel Rodriguez, resigned in disgust and when we published his resignation letter.
Napolitano Says Cybersecurity Executive Order Almost Ready
Napolitano Says Cybersecurity Executive Order Almost Ready
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano revealed September 19 that an executive order granting the president sweeping power over the Internet is “close to completion.”
Testifying before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Napolitano said that the order is still “being drafted” and vetted by various high-level bureaucrats. But she also indicated that it would be issued as soon as a “few issues” were resolved. Assuming control of the nation’s Internet infrastructure is a DHS responsibility, Napolitano added.
“DHS is the Federal government’s lead agency for securing civilian government computer systems and works with our industry and Federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government partners to secure critical infrastructure and information systems,” she informed senators.
Precisely which clause in the Constitution grants to the president specifically or the executive branch (of which DHS is a part) generally authority to exercise any sort of oversight of such matters was not cited by Secretary Napolitano.
Naturally, a document written 225 years ago would not include a reference to cybersecurity, but the principles of enumerated powers and limited government apply to any program or project of the federal government. According to the contract that created the three branches of the federal government, none of those departments may do anything unless specifically granted that authority in the Constitution.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano revealed September 19 that an executive order granting the president sweeping power over the Internet is “close to completion.”
Testifying before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Napolitano said that the order is still “being drafted” and vetted by various high-level bureaucrats. But she also indicated that it would be issued as soon as a “few issues” were resolved. Assuming control of the nation’s Internet infrastructure is a DHS responsibility, Napolitano added.
“DHS is the Federal government’s lead agency for securing civilian government computer systems and works with our industry and Federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government partners to secure critical infrastructure and information systems,” she informed senators.
Precisely which clause in the Constitution grants to the president specifically or the executive branch (of which DHS is a part) generally authority to exercise any sort of oversight of such matters was not cited by Secretary Napolitano.
Naturally, a document written 225 years ago would not include a reference to cybersecurity, but the principles of enumerated powers and limited government apply to any program or project of the federal government. According to the contract that created the three branches of the federal government, none of those departments may do anything unless specifically granted that authority in the Constitution.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Governor Romney Is Correct by Andrew P. Napolitano
Governor Romney Is Correct by Andrew P. Napolitano
As readers of this column and viewers of Fox News Channel may know, I have not hesitated to criticize Gov. Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign and the governor himself. I have argued that his message is muddled and his values are unknown beyond his ardent wish to improve economic conditions through the use of free market mechanisms rather than central economic planning, a position with which I agree entirely.
I have also maintained that his willingness to abandon, or not to accept, first principles has made these questions reasonable: If Romney is elected president, which Romney will show up for work on Jan. 20, 2013? Will it be the Romney who ran to the left of Ted Kennedy in 1994, the Romney who governed Massachusetts as Mario Cuomo governed New York, or the Romney who now claims to be a "severe" (his word) conservative? Will it be the Romney who spent the entire presidential primary season assuring conservative Republican primary voters that he’ll dismantle Obamacare on "Day One" (his phrase), or the Romney who told reporters last week that he approves of a limited federal role in managing health care? Or will it be the Romney who, when caught by the press saying something not intended for public consumption but demonstrably true, sticks to his guns?
A few months ago, at a private fundraiser, Romney spoke to supporters and contributors and observed that 47 percent of Americans do not pay any income tax, and thus his call for not raising taxes (though he wants to eliminate some familiar deductions, which is the functional equivalent of raising some folks’ taxes) will not resonate with the voters in that group. Then he went on to say that this is roughly the same 47 percent who are dependent upon the government for part or all of their subsistence; and to that subsistence of food, shelter, education and clothing, the feds have now added health care. Then he referred to those dependent upon the government as "victims" (his word). Then, among my leftish colleagues in the press, all hell broke loose.
The reason hell broke loose among most of the media is that Romney spoke a painful truth, and often a painful truth is difficult to accept. I have argued that FDR deliberately set out to create dependence upon the federal government – and hence upon virtually all Democrats in Congress and Republicans afraid to resist them – by establishing entitlement programs and inducing reliance upon them. FDR went so far as to lie to Americans when he stated that the federal government will "hold" (his word) your Social Security contributions for you until you retire, and then you’ll receive your nest egg of cash. We know he lied about this, because at the same time he was saying that the money deducted from your pay is yours, he dispatched Justice Department lawyers to argue in a constitutional challenge of Social Security before the Supreme Court that the money deducted from your pay is the government’s money, and the government can spend it as it wishes. The Supreme Court agreed with that argument.
As readers of this column and viewers of Fox News Channel may know, I have not hesitated to criticize Gov. Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign and the governor himself. I have argued that his message is muddled and his values are unknown beyond his ardent wish to improve economic conditions through the use of free market mechanisms rather than central economic planning, a position with which I agree entirely.
I have also maintained that his willingness to abandon, or not to accept, first principles has made these questions reasonable: If Romney is elected president, which Romney will show up for work on Jan. 20, 2013? Will it be the Romney who ran to the left of Ted Kennedy in 1994, the Romney who governed Massachusetts as Mario Cuomo governed New York, or the Romney who now claims to be a "severe" (his word) conservative? Will it be the Romney who spent the entire presidential primary season assuring conservative Republican primary voters that he’ll dismantle Obamacare on "Day One" (his phrase), or the Romney who told reporters last week that he approves of a limited federal role in managing health care? Or will it be the Romney who, when caught by the press saying something not intended for public consumption but demonstrably true, sticks to his guns?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)