Post by PapaSmurerf on Mar 29, 2008 18:57:54 GMT -5
A Reading List
Friday, April 18, 2008
Edwin Vieira Jr.: Silver and gold guarantee freedom
Address by Edwin Vieira Jr.
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc. conference
GATA Goes to Washington -- Anybody Seen Our Gold?
Hyatt Regency Crystal City Hotel, Arlington, Virginia
gata.org/node/6244
Silver and gold are not merely valuable commodities, investments, and media of exchange. More importantly, they are key "checks and balances" in America's legal and political institutions.
The fight against the use of silver and gold as money that has been waged by bankers and rogue politicians since the 1870s as to silver and the 1930s as to gold -- and will intensify as fiat currencies collapse throughout the world -- is ultimately directed against America's national independence, her constitutional government, and every common American's individual liberty and prosperity.
The Constitution of the United States adopted a monetary system consisting of silver and gold coin, in which the standard is the "dollar," containing 371 1/4 grains (troy) of fine silver, with the values of gold coins to be measured in "dollars" according to the free market's rate of exchange between silver and gold. Neither the general government nor any state is authorized to emit paper currency.
These restrictions prevent rogue public officials from turning public debts into currency, as a means for redistributing wealth from society to political elitists and their clients in special-interest groups.
Furthermore, although the Constitution does not mention banks, either public or private, its only correct construction requires separation of bank and state -- extirpation of all inherently fraudulent fractional-reserve banking schemes -- and rigorous regulation of all other fractional-reserve arrangements that might operate fraudulently. (See Edwin Vieira Jr., "Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution," second revised edition, 2002.)
But since the early 1800s rogue politicians and bankers have steadily subverted the Constitution by forging an increasingly tight relationship between bank and state. Through the grant of one abusive special privilege after another, politicians have immunized fractional-reserve banking against the just economic and legal consequences of its own inevitable failures, so that public officials and bankers could turn both public and private debts into currency -- thus separating the supply and the purchasing power of currency from the economic discipline of the free market, and rendering those matters largely political in nature.
Under the Federal Reserve System, Americans no longer enjoy "money" in the economic sense but are subjected to what must be denoted as "political currency," with emphasis on the adjective. Political currency is emitted on the basis of political debts --that is, either 1) public debts or 2) private debts for the payment of which the creditors expect public bailouts if their debtors default.
Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve System is inherently unstable, and must lurch from one self-generated crisis to another, each increasing in severity, until its house of financial cards self-destructs.
Having separated society's medium of exchange from the production of real goods and services in the free market -- and instead linked the currency to creating, packaging, marketing, servicing, and eventually salvaging political debts -- the Federal Reserve system encourages, facilitates, and rewards irresponsibility on the part of both lenders and borrowers, in the private as well as the public sector.
For those who benefit from the system to continue to loot society, the supply of political currency must expand. For that supply to expand, political debts must increase.
True enough, political debts can increase, even geometrically, because political currency can be created (as the saying goes) "out of nothing" to float them. But real wealth cannot be generated simply by the emission of paper promises. Neither can new paper promises pay off old ones.
So, avarice being unlimited, insatiable, and imprudent, the whole operation must cumulate and culminate in an unsustainable bubble of debts that either implodes in a depression or explodes in hyperinflation.
Although the Federal Reserve System is fatally flawed, the wealth and power of elitists in high finance, big business, and the political class depend on maintaining it -- or replacing it in a timely fashion with something of equal serviceability for their ends.
As it cannot long be maintained, it must and will soon be replaced. With what remains a matter for speculation. Not open to the slightest doubt, however, is that, as crises have rocked the system, the establishment has always moved farther away from the Constitution -- deeper into the sump of lawlessness -- to shore up the banking cartel, and always at the expense of common Americans.
In the 1930s, in response to the collapse of the fractional-reserve racket, rather than reforming the operations of the banks, the Roosevelt administration and a pliant Congress seized the American people's gold and outlawed almost all public and private contracts promising to pay in gold. In the 1950s and through the 1960s, until the Nixon administration terminated redemption of Federal Reserve notes in gold in 1971, the inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve System drained off more than half of America's national stock of gold to foreign banks and the profiteers operating through them. And during the last few decades, surreptitious manipulation of the precious-metals markets has kept the price of gold (measured in Federal Reserve notes) suspiciously low, even as this country's financial structures have become increasingly shaky.
The price of gold has been manipulated for two reasons, one being the suppression of evidence, the other the throttling of monetary evolution.
First, an ever-increasing price of gold reflects the breakdown of the Federal Reserve System -- just as an ever-increasing temperature reveals that the human body is sick, and when it reaches a critical point that death is imminent.
Second, those who fatten off of political currency need to prevent ordinary people from realizing that only a return to silver and gold as common media of exchange can stabilize America's economy, and especially from actually employing silver and gold in preference to Federal Reserve notes in their day-to-day transactions. However, as the Federal Reserve System experiences ever-more-frequent, ever-more-serious, and ever-less-tractable problems, downward manipulations of the prices of gold and silver will become impossible. And that the system is beyond repair will become apparent to all.
At that point, the question will arise -- and behind the scenes doubtlessly already has arisen among bankers and politicians -- as to how and with what to replace the banking cartel.
When a political currency has failed, the traditional trick of the bankers and politicians has been to introduce a new, supposedly more stable currency -- often within a new, supposedly more stable banking apparatus. This was the sleight of hand that moved America from the independent state banks in operation prior to the Civil War, through the partially cartelized national banks created in the 1860s, to the fully cartelized Federal Reserve System established in 1913.
Throughout this devolution, the progression of illegality became increasingly stark.
The state banks violated Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the Constitution. But at least they operated only regionally. The national banks violated Article I, Section 8, Clause 2, and operated throughout the country. But at least their emission of paper currency was limited by the amount of public debt a generally thrifty Congress was willing to incur.
The Federal Reserve System, though, is a corporative-state (or fascist) structure that purports to delegate Congress' supposed monetary powers to private interests; and the system's bubble of both public and private debts will expand to the limit of the avarice of the cartel's operators, their clients, and their political henchmen.
Nonetheless, as unconstitutional and economically unsound as they were and are, all these schemes operated and even now operate under color of the national sovereignty and laws of the United States, subject in principle to overarching control by the American people. Indeed, Section 30 of the Federal Reserve Act still explicitly reserves to Congress the right to repeal, alter, or amend the system at will. But with the Federal Reserve System the bankers and politicians have gone about as far as they can go within the economic and political institutions of the United States. And they have separated paper currency from the discipline of free markets about as far as possible, while still pretending to maintain some semblance of a connection to free markets.
So as the Federal Reserve System shakes itself to pieces, the likelihood is that first, a new currency will arise outside of the United States in some regional supra-national entity such as the proposed North American Union; and, second, the value of this new currency will not be controlled by free financial markets but, instead, propping up the currency's value will be the excuse for extensive governmental intervention in and manipulation of the markets.
This plan is so alien to the experiences and desires of most Americans that its implementation will probably require a controlled meltdown of the Federal Reserve System to bludgeon them into accepting the North American Union as the only way to obtain a new, supposedly stable currency and to return to something approaching economic normalcy. Yet even a controlled meltdown, along with the accompanying absorption of the United States into a new Northern Hemispheric political order, will unavoidably generate extensive economic, social, and political unrest that will threaten the financial establishment's power.
Even dumbed-down Americans will not long suffer conditions of depression akin to those of the 1930s, let alone South American levels of inflation as well. Desperate people will ask questions and assign blame. Perhaps not just a few will abandon debt currency altogether and substitute silver and gold as their media of exchange. They and others will conclude that the Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional -- and therefore that its operations are arguably a complex of criminal offenses. (See 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242.)
Many will realize that the establishment's scheme for replacing Federal Reserve Notes with a supra-national currency is a political crime on a more stupendous scale yet, because it depends upon destroying both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Then an aroused people will take political action against the institutions and individuals responsible for foisting the funny-money scheme on their country.
On the other side, the establishment will not be idle. It will do anything and everything possible to maintain its position. Obviously the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence will be expendable, because the establishment has been trying to whittle away the former on a piece-by-piece basis over the years, and intends to do away with the latter at one fell swoop in the near future. So this country, as an independent nation, will be expendable too. And if this country, why not the freedom and prosperity of common Americans as well?
Will ordinary Americans -- at least 80 to 90 million of whom are armed -- meekly put up with a program aimed at their own country's assisted suicide? Why should they, when they have nothing to lose economically or politically? If they refuse to knuckle under, the establishment's only recourse will be to attempt to lock down the whole country under a para-militarized police state, perhaps with the assistance of "peacekeepers" from Canada and Mexico (for the employment of whom negotiations are apparently already in progress).
That is why careful observers conclude that the paranoia being generated by politicians and the big media over "homeland security" -- and the frenetic para-militarization of law-enforcement agencies at the national, state, and even local levels in the name of "homeland security" -- are not caused by or aimed at foreign "terrorists" at all, but instead target ordinary Americans in their own home towns.
The establishment is preparing to force justifiably angry Americans into line when its financial house of cards comes tumbling down, either in a controlled demolition or otherwise.
Americans will not be the only victims of such repression. The establishment must prevent other peoples, in other parts of the world, from jumping off the financial treadmill of political currency. That will require the use not only of economic and political pressure, but also -- indeed, especially -- of military coercion. For the provision of which the establishment will attempt to force common Americans to pay, and to send their sons and even their daughters off to fight, die, and be maimed and sickened in foreign lands.
Little good, then, will it do for an ounce of gold to soar to $2,000, $3,000, or higher -- and for silver to increase in value proportionately too -- if the ultimate consequences are a police state in America, then a supra-national regime replacing the United States, accompanied by endless military conflicts throughout the world.
In the grand scheme of things, gold and silver are far less important as economic investments or hedges against hyperinflation or depression than as guarantors of individual freedom -- and then to the fullest extent only when they are actually used as media of exchange throughout society. Silver and gold as currencies supply the foundation necessary for economic democracy and limited government; whereas fiat currencies inevitably function as the tools of fascism, socialism, and every other form of financial imperialism.
Thus, the fight over gold and silver as media of exchange is about more than mere money, let alone making money. For it is a fight with only two possible outcomes: either control of their own lives by the people themselves, or control of the people and their lives by political and economic elitists. To achieve the first and avoid the second no price will prove too great to pay.
-----
Edwin Vieira Jr. is a lawyer, author of "Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution," and a consultant to GATA. He lives in Virginia.
2007
Is Fascism in Fashion?
By Dr. Russell McDougal
www.howestreet.com/articles/index.php?article_id=6058
We all live in a particular time in history. It is very easy to get caught up in daily mundane life. The challenge is to take a step back and analyze the larger picture. What has happened to the Republic our Founding Fathers inspired?
This is a most controversial topic and I do not take it lightly. We are going to look at exactly what fascism entails. Your job is to evaluate exactly how closely the USA does or does not currently follow fascist ideologies. Would you recognize a fascist if you saw one?
June 1994
Economic Fascism
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_3/ts213l.html
When most people hear the word "fascism" they naturally think of its ugly racism and anti-Semitism as practiced by the totalitarian regimes of Mussolini and Hitler. But there was also an economic policy component of fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and '30s as "corporatism," that was an essential ingredient of economic totalitarianism as practiced by Mussolini and Hitler. So- called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a "model" by quite a few intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe. A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day. In the United States these policies were not called "fascism" but "planned capitalism." The word fascism may no longer be politically acceptable, but its synonym "industrial policy" is as popular as ever.
March 29, 2008
Treasury’s Plan Would Give Fed Wide New Power
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/business/29regulate.html?ei=5065&en=7ba12b1b93b17830&ex=1207368000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department will propose on Monday [31Mar08] that Congress give the Federal Reserve broad new authority to oversee financial market stability, in effect allowing it to send SWAT teams into any corner of the industry or any institution that might pose a risk to the overall system.
The proposal is part of a sweeping blueprint to overhaul the nation’s hodgepodge of financial regulatory agencies, which many experts say failed to recognize rampant excesses in mortgage lending until after they set off what is now the worst financial calamity in decades.
Democratic lawmakers are all but certain to say the proposal does not go far enough in restricting the kinds of practices that caused the financial crisis. Many of the proposals, like those that would consolidate regulatory agencies, have nothing to do with the turmoil in financial markets. And some of the proposals could actually reduce regulation.
According to a summary provided by the administration, the plan would consolidate an alphabet soup of banking and securities regulators into a powerful trio of overseers responsible for everything from banks and brokerage firms to hedge funds and private equity firms.
While the plan could expose Wall Street investment banks and hedge funds to greater scrutiny, it carefully avoids a call for tighter regulation.
The plan would not rein in practices that have been linked to the housing and mortgage crisis, like packaging risky subprime mortgages into securities carrying the highest ratings.
April 2006
Leo Strauss: Neocon Guru
Is Lying about WMD Justified by Neocon Philosopy?
Abram Shulsky and Gary Schmitt
zfacts.com/p/765.html
As the neocon Christopher Hitchens explained,
"... the charm of the regime-change argument ... is that it depends on ... objectives that cannot ... be publicly avowed. Since Paul Wolfowitz is from the intellectual school of Leo Strauss ... one may even suppose that he enjoys this arcane and occluded aspect of the debate" (Nov. 2002).
Wolfowitz later admitted to Vanity Fair, that WMD was not the reason for the war, just the only public excuse they could agree on. Leo Strauss, the neo-con's philosopher/guru argued that the "wise men" have a moral justification to lie to protect themselves and their policies. See Shadia Drury, on Strauss, neocons and Iraq.
Leo Strauss Explained by a Neoconservative Straussian
Leo Strauss, Conservative Mastermind
By Robert Locke
FrontPageMagazine | May 31, 2002
... there is only one school of conservative intellectuals that has taken root in academia as a movement. They are the Straussians, followers of the late Leo Strauss (1899-1973). ... Strauss is an ambiguous, sometimes even troubling, figure, but he is essential to the conservative revival of our time. ... As a crude measure of his importance consider the following list of his students or students of his students: Clarence Thomas; Robert Bork; Paul Wolfowitz; Alan Keyes; William Bennett; William Kristol; Allan Bloom; John Podhoretz; John T. Agresto; and myself.
[Somehow he forgot the most famous of all, Irving Kristol.]
... He [Strauss] believes that contemporary liberalism is the logical outcome of the philosophical principles of modernity, taken to their extremes. In some sense, modernity itself is the problem.
Solari, Inc., January 1, 2007
THE SOURCE OF HOPELESSNESS: A REVIEW OF 'AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH'
By Catherine Austin Fitts, Solari Inc.
www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_the_tapeworm.070112.htm
[Catherine Austin Fitts served as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Federal Housing Commissioner at HUD in the first Bush Administration; she previously served as Managing Director and Member of the Board of Directors of the Wall Street investment bank, Dillon, Read & Co., Inc.]
The day after 9-11, a person whom I respect and care about a great deal said to me, "George Bush was anointed by God for a time such as this." He then asked me what I thought. I said that I thought that the Bush family was anointed by financial fraud, narcotics trafficking, and pedophilia. Stunned, he said, "If that is true, then it's hopeless." I replied that things were far from hopeless, but that for me solutions started with faith in a divine intelligence rather than affirming a dependent relationship with organized crime.
Last week I had dinner with a wonderful couple -- activists in the San Francisco Bay Area-- and the woman told me how wonderful she thought Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth was. She then asked for my opinion. When I gave it, she said, "If that is true, then it's hopeless." We then proceeded to have a rich conversation about why folks who used to call themselves "liberal" or progressive are in the same trap as folks who use to call themselves "conservative"
In order to respond to the problem of global warming, it is necessary to look at the ways that we as citizens support criminal activity by our government and how we as consumers, depositors and investors support the private banking, corporate and investment interests that run our government in this manner. This is easier said than done. When we 'get it' -- i.e., that we have to withdraw from a co-dependent relationship with organized crime in order to save and rebuild our world -- we can find ourselves struggling to envision the system-wide actions that are needed and feeling overwhelmed by the task of determining how to go about them personally and in collaboration with others.
My nickname for our current economic system is "The Tapeworm." For decades I have listened to Americans from all walks of life insist that we must find solutions within the system -- i.e. within the socially acceptable boundaries laid down by the Tapeworm. Believing that our solutions for addressing global warming lie within the system defined by the Tapeworm goes hand in hand with obtaining our media from companies controlled by the Tapeworm, and having to choose from among leaders anointed by the Tapeworm, such as Al Gore. This belief is, in fact, the source of our hopelessness.
George Orwell once said that omission is the greatest form of lie. Gore's omissions in An Inconvenient Truth are so extraordinary that it is hard to know where to start.
The U.S. Has Plans to Invade Iran Before Bush's Term Ends
By Walter C. Uhler
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10441.htm
09/29/05 "ICH" -- -- Bill Gertz is a right-wing national security reporter for the Rev. Sun Yung Moon's neo-fascist newspaper, The Washington Times. He's also a spigot from which flows much classified information illegally leaked by like-minded "patriots" seeking to advance their hawkish agenda in the military-industrial-congressional complex. And, frankly speaking, that's the only reason I pay any attention to him.
So I was hardly surprised when, on September 16, 2005, Gertz reported on the Bush administration's "computer slide presentation." which was aimed at persuading whoever would listen that Iran is working feverishly to build nuclear weapons.
According to Gertz, the report claims: "Iran's nuclear program is well-scaled for a weapons capability, as a comparison to [Pakistan's] nuclear weapons infrastructure shows…When one also considers Iran's concealment and deception activities, it's difficult to escape the conclusion that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons."
The report also states that "Iran's uranium ore resources are insufficient for Tehran to produce enough fuel for civilian electrical power generating reactors. 'However, Iran's uranium resources are more than sufficient to support a nuclear weapons capability.'" [U.S. Report Says Iran Seeks To Acquire Nuclear Weapons," Washington Times, 16 September 2005]
Unlike the Washington Post's article on the subject two days earlier, Gertz predictably failed to mention that the slide show "dismisses ambiguities in the evidence…and omits alternative explanations under debate among intelligence analysts." He also failed to mention that several diplomats "said the slide show reminded them of the flawed presentation on Iraq's weapons programs made by then-secretary of state Colin L. Powell to the UN Security Council in February 2003" ["US Deploys Slide Show to Press Case Against Iran," Washington Post, 14 September 2005]
Moreover, in order to serve as water boy for the Bush administration, Gertz had to ignore (or discount) the recent report from Britain's prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies, which concluded that Iran "was at least five years away from producing sufficient material for 'a single nuclear weapon,'" Instead, Gertz obediently and dutifully noted that the Bush administration "is pressing the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] to refer the issue… to the United Nations Security Council," which "could then impose economic sanctions against Iran or possibly a future authorization for the use of force." [Ibid.] Ah yes, "authorization for the use of force"—the source of many a neocon and chickenhawk wet dream.
Published on Thursday, October 20, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
www.commondreams.org/views05/1020-26.htm
Attack Syria? Invade Iran? By What Constitution?
by Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith
Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on October 19, Condoleezza Rice was asked whether the Bush administration was planning military action against Syria. She answered, “I don’t think the President ever takes any of his options off the table concerning anything to do with military force.”
Last time we read the U.S. Constitution, the grave decision to use military force against another country was a matter for Congress to decide -- not an “option” for a President.
And last time we read the UN Charter, it provided that “all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”
We’ve been here before. President Bush used trumped-up fears (like mushroom clouds over American cities) and frauds (like imaginary “yellowcake” uranium) to fool the American people into attacking Iraq. Now we and the Iraqi people are paying the price.
With the American military bogged down in what Lt. Gen. William Odom, director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, calls “the greatest strategic disaster in United States history,” and with a majority of the American people saying the US made the wrong decision in using military force against Iraq, it may be hard to believe that the Bush administration is really contemplating further adventures.
But regimes facing military embarrassment are notorious for expanding the theater of war – witness Nixon’s expansion of the Vietnam war into Cambodia. And the same delusions that got us into Iraq – from imaginary threats of illicit weapons to dreams of welcome from cheering crowds – are being repeated about Iran and Syria.
War with Syria is already dangerously close. A series of clashes between US and Syrian troops have killed Syrians and, according to current and former US officials, raise the prospect that cross-border military operations may become a dangerous new front in the Iraq war. According to press accounts, US forces have crossed the border into Syria, sometimes by accident, sometimes deliberately. An October 1 meeting of top Bush officials in the White House considered “options,” including “special operations” against Syria. Bush administration officials are already laying the groundwork for attacks with the kinds of justifications they used to ensnare the U.S. in Iraq.
January 27, 2007
Bush Is About To Attack Iran
Why Can’t Americans See It?
by Paul Craig Roberts
www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts193.html
The American public and the US Congress are getting their backs up about the Bush Regime’s determination to escalate the war in Iraq. A massive protest demonstration is occurring in Washington DC today, and Congress is expressing its disagreement with Bush’s decision to intensify the war in Iraq.
This is all to the good. However, it misses the real issue – the Bush Regime’s looming attack on Iran.
Rather than winding down one war, Bush is starting another. The entire world knows this and is discussing Bush’s planned attack on Iran in many forums. It is only Americans who haven’t caught on. A few senators have said that Bush must not attack Iran without the approval of Congress, and postings on the Internet demonstrate world-wide awareness that Iran is in the Bush Regime’s cross hairs. But Congress and the Media – and the demonstration in Washington – are focused on Iraq.
What can be done to bring American awareness up to the standard of the rest of the world?
The Plan to Disappear Canada
Seal of the SPP. 'Deep integration' comes out of shadows.
By Murray Dobbin
Published: June 8, 2007
thetyee.ca/Views/2007/06/08/DeepIntegrate/
TheTyee.ca
If the machinations going on in this country regarding so-called "deep integration" were instead a communist conspiracy to take over the country (you will, of course, have to try hard to imagine this) the news media would be blaring the story.
Pundits would pontificate, editorialists would erupt, security forces would be unleashed.
Instead, a virtual conspiracy to make the country disappear through assimilation into the U.S. gets barely a mention.
But news of the scheme -- formally called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) -- is finally breaking out of the secret chambers of the ruling elite and the federal government. This is both good news and bad. It's good that ordinary citizens are finally getting a glimpse of the betrayal of their country. The news is bad because it reflects just how much of this scheme is already being implemented.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Biden Gives His Blessing to Derek Hale's Murderers
freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2007/05/biden-gives-his-blessing-to-derek-hales.html
Delaware's Attorney General is Beau Biden, who issued from the loins of Senator Joseph Biden -- serial plagiarist and democratic presidential aspirant. Beau Biden's office is presently defending the ten-man police squad that murdered 25-year-old Derek Hale, a retired Marine and Iraq combat veteran, last November 6. It is also presiding over an internal investigation of the incident, in which Derek -- an unarmed man, a stepfather to two young children who had just celebrated his first wedding anniversary, a veteran with no criminal record -- was repeatedly shot with a Taser and then gunned down at point-blank range as a young mother and her two children screamed in terror.
For those of us not born into the ruling elite, this arrangement is clearly a conflict of interest. For those in the tax-devouring class, however, this is standard operating procedure.
March 29, 2007
Death Squad in Delaware: The Case of the Murdered Marine
by William Norman Grigg
www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w10.html
He survived Iraq, only to suffer Death By Government in the "Land of the Free": Sgt. Derek J. Hale, USMC, ret. ~ RIP
Delaware was the first state to ratify the U.S. Constitution. It may be the first state to be afflicted with a fully operational death squad – unless a civil lawsuit filed on Friday against the murderers of Derek J. Hale results in criminal charges and a complete lustration (in the Eastern European sense of the term) of Delaware's law enforcement establishment.
Hale, a retired Marine Sergeant who served two tours in Iraq and was decorated before his combat-related medical discharge in January 2006, was murdered by a heavily armed 8–12-member undercover police team in Wilmington, Delaware last November 6. He had come to Wilmington from his home in Manassas, Virginia to participate in a Toys for Tots event.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Edwin Vieira Jr.: Silver and gold guarantee freedom
Address by Edwin Vieira Jr.
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc. conference
GATA Goes to Washington -- Anybody Seen Our Gold?
Hyatt Regency Crystal City Hotel, Arlington, Virginia
gata.org/node/6244
Silver and gold are not merely valuable commodities, investments, and media of exchange. More importantly, they are key "checks and balances" in America's legal and political institutions.
The fight against the use of silver and gold as money that has been waged by bankers and rogue politicians since the 1870s as to silver and the 1930s as to gold -- and will intensify as fiat currencies collapse throughout the world -- is ultimately directed against America's national independence, her constitutional government, and every common American's individual liberty and prosperity.
The Constitution of the United States adopted a monetary system consisting of silver and gold coin, in which the standard is the "dollar," containing 371 1/4 grains (troy) of fine silver, with the values of gold coins to be measured in "dollars" according to the free market's rate of exchange between silver and gold. Neither the general government nor any state is authorized to emit paper currency.
These restrictions prevent rogue public officials from turning public debts into currency, as a means for redistributing wealth from society to political elitists and their clients in special-interest groups.
Furthermore, although the Constitution does not mention banks, either public or private, its only correct construction requires separation of bank and state -- extirpation of all inherently fraudulent fractional-reserve banking schemes -- and rigorous regulation of all other fractional-reserve arrangements that might operate fraudulently. (See Edwin Vieira Jr., "Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution," second revised edition, 2002.)
But since the early 1800s rogue politicians and bankers have steadily subverted the Constitution by forging an increasingly tight relationship between bank and state. Through the grant of one abusive special privilege after another, politicians have immunized fractional-reserve banking against the just economic and legal consequences of its own inevitable failures, so that public officials and bankers could turn both public and private debts into currency -- thus separating the supply and the purchasing power of currency from the economic discipline of the free market, and rendering those matters largely political in nature.
Under the Federal Reserve System, Americans no longer enjoy "money" in the economic sense but are subjected to what must be denoted as "political currency," with emphasis on the adjective. Political currency is emitted on the basis of political debts --that is, either 1) public debts or 2) private debts for the payment of which the creditors expect public bailouts if their debtors default.
Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve System is inherently unstable, and must lurch from one self-generated crisis to another, each increasing in severity, until its house of financial cards self-destructs.
Having separated society's medium of exchange from the production of real goods and services in the free market -- and instead linked the currency to creating, packaging, marketing, servicing, and eventually salvaging political debts -- the Federal Reserve system encourages, facilitates, and rewards irresponsibility on the part of both lenders and borrowers, in the private as well as the public sector.
For those who benefit from the system to continue to loot society, the supply of political currency must expand. For that supply to expand, political debts must increase.
True enough, political debts can increase, even geometrically, because political currency can be created (as the saying goes) "out of nothing" to float them. But real wealth cannot be generated simply by the emission of paper promises. Neither can new paper promises pay off old ones.
So, avarice being unlimited, insatiable, and imprudent, the whole operation must cumulate and culminate in an unsustainable bubble of debts that either implodes in a depression or explodes in hyperinflation.
Although the Federal Reserve System is fatally flawed, the wealth and power of elitists in high finance, big business, and the political class depend on maintaining it -- or replacing it in a timely fashion with something of equal serviceability for their ends.
As it cannot long be maintained, it must and will soon be replaced. With what remains a matter for speculation. Not open to the slightest doubt, however, is that, as crises have rocked the system, the establishment has always moved farther away from the Constitution -- deeper into the sump of lawlessness -- to shore up the banking cartel, and always at the expense of common Americans.
In the 1930s, in response to the collapse of the fractional-reserve racket, rather than reforming the operations of the banks, the Roosevelt administration and a pliant Congress seized the American people's gold and outlawed almost all public and private contracts promising to pay in gold. In the 1950s and through the 1960s, until the Nixon administration terminated redemption of Federal Reserve notes in gold in 1971, the inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve System drained off more than half of America's national stock of gold to foreign banks and the profiteers operating through them. And during the last few decades, surreptitious manipulation of the precious-metals markets has kept the price of gold (measured in Federal Reserve notes) suspiciously low, even as this country's financial structures have become increasingly shaky.
The price of gold has been manipulated for two reasons, one being the suppression of evidence, the other the throttling of monetary evolution.
First, an ever-increasing price of gold reflects the breakdown of the Federal Reserve System -- just as an ever-increasing temperature reveals that the human body is sick, and when it reaches a critical point that death is imminent.
Second, those who fatten off of political currency need to prevent ordinary people from realizing that only a return to silver and gold as common media of exchange can stabilize America's economy, and especially from actually employing silver and gold in preference to Federal Reserve notes in their day-to-day transactions. However, as the Federal Reserve System experiences ever-more-frequent, ever-more-serious, and ever-less-tractable problems, downward manipulations of the prices of gold and silver will become impossible. And that the system is beyond repair will become apparent to all.
At that point, the question will arise -- and behind the scenes doubtlessly already has arisen among bankers and politicians -- as to how and with what to replace the banking cartel.
When a political currency has failed, the traditional trick of the bankers and politicians has been to introduce a new, supposedly more stable currency -- often within a new, supposedly more stable banking apparatus. This was the sleight of hand that moved America from the independent state banks in operation prior to the Civil War, through the partially cartelized national banks created in the 1860s, to the fully cartelized Federal Reserve System established in 1913.
Throughout this devolution, the progression of illegality became increasingly stark.
The state banks violated Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the Constitution. But at least they operated only regionally. The national banks violated Article I, Section 8, Clause 2, and operated throughout the country. But at least their emission of paper currency was limited by the amount of public debt a generally thrifty Congress was willing to incur.
The Federal Reserve System, though, is a corporative-state (or fascist) structure that purports to delegate Congress' supposed monetary powers to private interests; and the system's bubble of both public and private debts will expand to the limit of the avarice of the cartel's operators, their clients, and their political henchmen.
Nonetheless, as unconstitutional and economically unsound as they were and are, all these schemes operated and even now operate under color of the national sovereignty and laws of the United States, subject in principle to overarching control by the American people. Indeed, Section 30 of the Federal Reserve Act still explicitly reserves to Congress the right to repeal, alter, or amend the system at will. But with the Federal Reserve System the bankers and politicians have gone about as far as they can go within the economic and political institutions of the United States. And they have separated paper currency from the discipline of free markets about as far as possible, while still pretending to maintain some semblance of a connection to free markets.
So as the Federal Reserve System shakes itself to pieces, the likelihood is that first, a new currency will arise outside of the United States in some regional supra-national entity such as the proposed North American Union; and, second, the value of this new currency will not be controlled by free financial markets but, instead, propping up the currency's value will be the excuse for extensive governmental intervention in and manipulation of the markets.
This plan is so alien to the experiences and desires of most Americans that its implementation will probably require a controlled meltdown of the Federal Reserve System to bludgeon them into accepting the North American Union as the only way to obtain a new, supposedly stable currency and to return to something approaching economic normalcy. Yet even a controlled meltdown, along with the accompanying absorption of the United States into a new Northern Hemispheric political order, will unavoidably generate extensive economic, social, and political unrest that will threaten the financial establishment's power.
Even dumbed-down Americans will not long suffer conditions of depression akin to those of the 1930s, let alone South American levels of inflation as well. Desperate people will ask questions and assign blame. Perhaps not just a few will abandon debt currency altogether and substitute silver and gold as their media of exchange. They and others will conclude that the Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional -- and therefore that its operations are arguably a complex of criminal offenses. (See 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242.)
Many will realize that the establishment's scheme for replacing Federal Reserve Notes with a supra-national currency is a political crime on a more stupendous scale yet, because it depends upon destroying both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Then an aroused people will take political action against the institutions and individuals responsible for foisting the funny-money scheme on their country.
On the other side, the establishment will not be idle. It will do anything and everything possible to maintain its position. Obviously the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence will be expendable, because the establishment has been trying to whittle away the former on a piece-by-piece basis over the years, and intends to do away with the latter at one fell swoop in the near future. So this country, as an independent nation, will be expendable too. And if this country, why not the freedom and prosperity of common Americans as well?
Will ordinary Americans -- at least 80 to 90 million of whom are armed -- meekly put up with a program aimed at their own country's assisted suicide? Why should they, when they have nothing to lose economically or politically? If they refuse to knuckle under, the establishment's only recourse will be to attempt to lock down the whole country under a para-militarized police state, perhaps with the assistance of "peacekeepers" from Canada and Mexico (for the employment of whom negotiations are apparently already in progress).
That is why careful observers conclude that the paranoia being generated by politicians and the big media over "homeland security" -- and the frenetic para-militarization of law-enforcement agencies at the national, state, and even local levels in the name of "homeland security" -- are not caused by or aimed at foreign "terrorists" at all, but instead target ordinary Americans in their own home towns.
The establishment is preparing to force justifiably angry Americans into line when its financial house of cards comes tumbling down, either in a controlled demolition or otherwise.
Americans will not be the only victims of such repression. The establishment must prevent other peoples, in other parts of the world, from jumping off the financial treadmill of political currency. That will require the use not only of economic and political pressure, but also -- indeed, especially -- of military coercion. For the provision of which the establishment will attempt to force common Americans to pay, and to send their sons and even their daughters off to fight, die, and be maimed and sickened in foreign lands.
Little good, then, will it do for an ounce of gold to soar to $2,000, $3,000, or higher -- and for silver to increase in value proportionately too -- if the ultimate consequences are a police state in America, then a supra-national regime replacing the United States, accompanied by endless military conflicts throughout the world.
In the grand scheme of things, gold and silver are far less important as economic investments or hedges against hyperinflation or depression than as guarantors of individual freedom -- and then to the fullest extent only when they are actually used as media of exchange throughout society. Silver and gold as currencies supply the foundation necessary for economic democracy and limited government; whereas fiat currencies inevitably function as the tools of fascism, socialism, and every other form of financial imperialism.
Thus, the fight over gold and silver as media of exchange is about more than mere money, let alone making money. For it is a fight with only two possible outcomes: either control of their own lives by the people themselves, or control of the people and their lives by political and economic elitists. To achieve the first and avoid the second no price will prove too great to pay.
-----
Edwin Vieira Jr. is a lawyer, author of "Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution," and a consultant to GATA. He lives in Virginia.
2007
Is Fascism in Fashion?
By Dr. Russell McDougal
www.howestreet.com/articles/index.php?article_id=6058
We all live in a particular time in history. It is very easy to get caught up in daily mundane life. The challenge is to take a step back and analyze the larger picture. What has happened to the Republic our Founding Fathers inspired?
This is a most controversial topic and I do not take it lightly. We are going to look at exactly what fascism entails. Your job is to evaluate exactly how closely the USA does or does not currently follow fascist ideologies. Would you recognize a fascist if you saw one?
June 1994
Economic Fascism
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_3/ts213l.html
When most people hear the word "fascism" they naturally think of its ugly racism and anti-Semitism as practiced by the totalitarian regimes of Mussolini and Hitler. But there was also an economic policy component of fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and '30s as "corporatism," that was an essential ingredient of economic totalitarianism as practiced by Mussolini and Hitler. So- called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a "model" by quite a few intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe. A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day. In the United States these policies were not called "fascism" but "planned capitalism." The word fascism may no longer be politically acceptable, but its synonym "industrial policy" is as popular as ever.
March 29, 2008
Treasury’s Plan Would Give Fed Wide New Power
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/business/29regulate.html?ei=5065&en=7ba12b1b93b17830&ex=1207368000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department will propose on Monday [31Mar08] that Congress give the Federal Reserve broad new authority to oversee financial market stability, in effect allowing it to send SWAT teams into any corner of the industry or any institution that might pose a risk to the overall system.
The proposal is part of a sweeping blueprint to overhaul the nation’s hodgepodge of financial regulatory agencies, which many experts say failed to recognize rampant excesses in mortgage lending until after they set off what is now the worst financial calamity in decades.
Democratic lawmakers are all but certain to say the proposal does not go far enough in restricting the kinds of practices that caused the financial crisis. Many of the proposals, like those that would consolidate regulatory agencies, have nothing to do with the turmoil in financial markets. And some of the proposals could actually reduce regulation.
According to a summary provided by the administration, the plan would consolidate an alphabet soup of banking and securities regulators into a powerful trio of overseers responsible for everything from banks and brokerage firms to hedge funds and private equity firms.
While the plan could expose Wall Street investment banks and hedge funds to greater scrutiny, it carefully avoids a call for tighter regulation.
The plan would not rein in practices that have been linked to the housing and mortgage crisis, like packaging risky subprime mortgages into securities carrying the highest ratings.
April 2006
Leo Strauss: Neocon Guru
Is Lying about WMD Justified by Neocon Philosopy?
Abram Shulsky and Gary Schmitt
zfacts.com/p/765.html
As the neocon Christopher Hitchens explained,
"... the charm of the regime-change argument ... is that it depends on ... objectives that cannot ... be publicly avowed. Since Paul Wolfowitz is from the intellectual school of Leo Strauss ... one may even suppose that he enjoys this arcane and occluded aspect of the debate" (Nov. 2002).
Wolfowitz later admitted to Vanity Fair, that WMD was not the reason for the war, just the only public excuse they could agree on. Leo Strauss, the neo-con's philosopher/guru argued that the "wise men" have a moral justification to lie to protect themselves and their policies. See Shadia Drury, on Strauss, neocons and Iraq.
Leo Strauss Explained by a Neoconservative Straussian
Leo Strauss, Conservative Mastermind
By Robert Locke
FrontPageMagazine | May 31, 2002
... there is only one school of conservative intellectuals that has taken root in academia as a movement. They are the Straussians, followers of the late Leo Strauss (1899-1973). ... Strauss is an ambiguous, sometimes even troubling, figure, but he is essential to the conservative revival of our time. ... As a crude measure of his importance consider the following list of his students or students of his students: Clarence Thomas; Robert Bork; Paul Wolfowitz; Alan Keyes; William Bennett; William Kristol; Allan Bloom; John Podhoretz; John T. Agresto; and myself.
[Somehow he forgot the most famous of all, Irving Kristol.]
... He [Strauss] believes that contemporary liberalism is the logical outcome of the philosophical principles of modernity, taken to their extremes. In some sense, modernity itself is the problem.
Solari, Inc., January 1, 2007
THE SOURCE OF HOPELESSNESS: A REVIEW OF 'AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH'
By Catherine Austin Fitts, Solari Inc.
www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_the_tapeworm.070112.htm
[Catherine Austin Fitts served as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Federal Housing Commissioner at HUD in the first Bush Administration; she previously served as Managing Director and Member of the Board of Directors of the Wall Street investment bank, Dillon, Read & Co., Inc.]
The day after 9-11, a person whom I respect and care about a great deal said to me, "George Bush was anointed by God for a time such as this." He then asked me what I thought. I said that I thought that the Bush family was anointed by financial fraud, narcotics trafficking, and pedophilia. Stunned, he said, "If that is true, then it's hopeless." I replied that things were far from hopeless, but that for me solutions started with faith in a divine intelligence rather than affirming a dependent relationship with organized crime.
Last week I had dinner with a wonderful couple -- activists in the San Francisco Bay Area-- and the woman told me how wonderful she thought Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth was. She then asked for my opinion. When I gave it, she said, "If that is true, then it's hopeless." We then proceeded to have a rich conversation about why folks who used to call themselves "liberal" or progressive are in the same trap as folks who use to call themselves "conservative"
In order to respond to the problem of global warming, it is necessary to look at the ways that we as citizens support criminal activity by our government and how we as consumers, depositors and investors support the private banking, corporate and investment interests that run our government in this manner. This is easier said than done. When we 'get it' -- i.e., that we have to withdraw from a co-dependent relationship with organized crime in order to save and rebuild our world -- we can find ourselves struggling to envision the system-wide actions that are needed and feeling overwhelmed by the task of determining how to go about them personally and in collaboration with others.
My nickname for our current economic system is "The Tapeworm." For decades I have listened to Americans from all walks of life insist that we must find solutions within the system -- i.e. within the socially acceptable boundaries laid down by the Tapeworm. Believing that our solutions for addressing global warming lie within the system defined by the Tapeworm goes hand in hand with obtaining our media from companies controlled by the Tapeworm, and having to choose from among leaders anointed by the Tapeworm, such as Al Gore. This belief is, in fact, the source of our hopelessness.
George Orwell once said that omission is the greatest form of lie. Gore's omissions in An Inconvenient Truth are so extraordinary that it is hard to know where to start.
The U.S. Has Plans to Invade Iran Before Bush's Term Ends
By Walter C. Uhler
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10441.htm
09/29/05 "ICH" -- -- Bill Gertz is a right-wing national security reporter for the Rev. Sun Yung Moon's neo-fascist newspaper, The Washington Times. He's also a spigot from which flows much classified information illegally leaked by like-minded "patriots" seeking to advance their hawkish agenda in the military-industrial-congressional complex. And, frankly speaking, that's the only reason I pay any attention to him.
So I was hardly surprised when, on September 16, 2005, Gertz reported on the Bush administration's "computer slide presentation." which was aimed at persuading whoever would listen that Iran is working feverishly to build nuclear weapons.
According to Gertz, the report claims: "Iran's nuclear program is well-scaled for a weapons capability, as a comparison to [Pakistan's] nuclear weapons infrastructure shows…When one also considers Iran's concealment and deception activities, it's difficult to escape the conclusion that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons."
The report also states that "Iran's uranium ore resources are insufficient for Tehran to produce enough fuel for civilian electrical power generating reactors. 'However, Iran's uranium resources are more than sufficient to support a nuclear weapons capability.'" [U.S. Report Says Iran Seeks To Acquire Nuclear Weapons," Washington Times, 16 September 2005]
Unlike the Washington Post's article on the subject two days earlier, Gertz predictably failed to mention that the slide show "dismisses ambiguities in the evidence…and omits alternative explanations under debate among intelligence analysts." He also failed to mention that several diplomats "said the slide show reminded them of the flawed presentation on Iraq's weapons programs made by then-secretary of state Colin L. Powell to the UN Security Council in February 2003" ["US Deploys Slide Show to Press Case Against Iran," Washington Post, 14 September 2005]
Moreover, in order to serve as water boy for the Bush administration, Gertz had to ignore (or discount) the recent report from Britain's prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies, which concluded that Iran "was at least five years away from producing sufficient material for 'a single nuclear weapon,'" Instead, Gertz obediently and dutifully noted that the Bush administration "is pressing the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] to refer the issue… to the United Nations Security Council," which "could then impose economic sanctions against Iran or possibly a future authorization for the use of force." [Ibid.] Ah yes, "authorization for the use of force"—the source of many a neocon and chickenhawk wet dream.
Published on Thursday, October 20, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
www.commondreams.org/views05/1020-26.htm
Attack Syria? Invade Iran? By What Constitution?
by Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith
Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on October 19, Condoleezza Rice was asked whether the Bush administration was planning military action against Syria. She answered, “I don’t think the President ever takes any of his options off the table concerning anything to do with military force.”
Last time we read the U.S. Constitution, the grave decision to use military force against another country was a matter for Congress to decide -- not an “option” for a President.
And last time we read the UN Charter, it provided that “all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”
We’ve been here before. President Bush used trumped-up fears (like mushroom clouds over American cities) and frauds (like imaginary “yellowcake” uranium) to fool the American people into attacking Iraq. Now we and the Iraqi people are paying the price.
With the American military bogged down in what Lt. Gen. William Odom, director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, calls “the greatest strategic disaster in United States history,” and with a majority of the American people saying the US made the wrong decision in using military force against Iraq, it may be hard to believe that the Bush administration is really contemplating further adventures.
But regimes facing military embarrassment are notorious for expanding the theater of war – witness Nixon’s expansion of the Vietnam war into Cambodia. And the same delusions that got us into Iraq – from imaginary threats of illicit weapons to dreams of welcome from cheering crowds – are being repeated about Iran and Syria.
War with Syria is already dangerously close. A series of clashes between US and Syrian troops have killed Syrians and, according to current and former US officials, raise the prospect that cross-border military operations may become a dangerous new front in the Iraq war. According to press accounts, US forces have crossed the border into Syria, sometimes by accident, sometimes deliberately. An October 1 meeting of top Bush officials in the White House considered “options,” including “special operations” against Syria. Bush administration officials are already laying the groundwork for attacks with the kinds of justifications they used to ensnare the U.S. in Iraq.
January 27, 2007
Bush Is About To Attack Iran
Why Can’t Americans See It?
by Paul Craig Roberts
www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts193.html
The American public and the US Congress are getting their backs up about the Bush Regime’s determination to escalate the war in Iraq. A massive protest demonstration is occurring in Washington DC today, and Congress is expressing its disagreement with Bush’s decision to intensify the war in Iraq.
This is all to the good. However, it misses the real issue – the Bush Regime’s looming attack on Iran.
Rather than winding down one war, Bush is starting another. The entire world knows this and is discussing Bush’s planned attack on Iran in many forums. It is only Americans who haven’t caught on. A few senators have said that Bush must not attack Iran without the approval of Congress, and postings on the Internet demonstrate world-wide awareness that Iran is in the Bush Regime’s cross hairs. But Congress and the Media – and the demonstration in Washington – are focused on Iraq.
What can be done to bring American awareness up to the standard of the rest of the world?
The Plan to Disappear Canada
Seal of the SPP. 'Deep integration' comes out of shadows.
By Murray Dobbin
Published: June 8, 2007
thetyee.ca/Views/2007/06/08/DeepIntegrate/
TheTyee.ca
If the machinations going on in this country regarding so-called "deep integration" were instead a communist conspiracy to take over the country (you will, of course, have to try hard to imagine this) the news media would be blaring the story.
Pundits would pontificate, editorialists would erupt, security forces would be unleashed.
Instead, a virtual conspiracy to make the country disappear through assimilation into the U.S. gets barely a mention.
But news of the scheme -- formally called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) -- is finally breaking out of the secret chambers of the ruling elite and the federal government. This is both good news and bad. It's good that ordinary citizens are finally getting a glimpse of the betrayal of their country. The news is bad because it reflects just how much of this scheme is already being implemented.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Biden Gives His Blessing to Derek Hale's Murderers
freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2007/05/biden-gives-his-blessing-to-derek-hales.html
Delaware's Attorney General is Beau Biden, who issued from the loins of Senator Joseph Biden -- serial plagiarist and democratic presidential aspirant. Beau Biden's office is presently defending the ten-man police squad that murdered 25-year-old Derek Hale, a retired Marine and Iraq combat veteran, last November 6. It is also presiding over an internal investigation of the incident, in which Derek -- an unarmed man, a stepfather to two young children who had just celebrated his first wedding anniversary, a veteran with no criminal record -- was repeatedly shot with a Taser and then gunned down at point-blank range as a young mother and her two children screamed in terror.
For those of us not born into the ruling elite, this arrangement is clearly a conflict of interest. For those in the tax-devouring class, however, this is standard operating procedure.
March 29, 2007
Death Squad in Delaware: The Case of the Murdered Marine
by William Norman Grigg
www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w10.html
He survived Iraq, only to suffer Death By Government in the "Land of the Free": Sgt. Derek J. Hale, USMC, ret. ~ RIP
Delaware was the first state to ratify the U.S. Constitution. It may be the first state to be afflicted with a fully operational death squad – unless a civil lawsuit filed on Friday against the murderers of Derek J. Hale results in criminal charges and a complete lustration (in the Eastern European sense of the term) of Delaware's law enforcement establishment.
Hale, a retired Marine Sergeant who served two tours in Iraq and was decorated before his combat-related medical discharge in January 2006, was murdered by a heavily armed 8–12-member undercover police team in Wilmington, Delaware last November 6. He had come to Wilmington from his home in Manassas, Virginia to participate in a Toys for Tots event.