The fact that a significant slice of the proceeds secured by Goldman through the AIG bailout landed in its own account–as opposed to those of its clients or business partners– has not been previously disclosed. These details about the workings of the controversial AIG bailout, which eventually swelled to $182 billion, are among the more eye-catching revelations in the report to be released Thursday by the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

The details underscore the degree to which Goldman–the most profitable securities firm in Wall Street history–benefited directly from the massive emergency bailout of the nation’s financial system, a deal crafted on the watch of then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who had previously headed the bank.

Read more

Bloomberg News

“Its frightening. We’ll be paying a trillion dollars in interest costs in 2020.”

Erskine Bowles, US Debt Commission

We’re on the road to paying a trillion dollars every year in interest alone by 2020 on the debt-money we are forced to borrow from a private banking cartel known as the “Federal Reserve.” This amount alone in the budget will eliminate all domestic priorities. At that point we will have been completely robbed of our freedom and prosperity and crushed by banker imperatives ruling our lives.

The question is will we ever get off the debt-money road to bankruptcy and currency crash before we take back what was given to us by the founders – i.e., a Congressional purse power and national money and credit creation authority? Or, must we wait until complete economic chaos occurs and thereby risk a total takeover of our economy, lives, and freedom by unelected bankers, both foreign and domestic, who dictate the terms and conditions of money creation and destruction of credit – the classic fascist end-game.

Read more

Somewhere along the way we’ve devolved from a society of people free to exercise our nearly unlimited rights to one in which every act and utterance requires a government permit, license or inspection — along with a tax, fee or fine.

Get a job, gather in a public park, drive, speak on a public sidewalk, sell vegetables from a stall, build on your property or carry a gun — you must meekly go stand in line and obtain paperwork from a government functionary.

Read more

Now go and stand in line and call yourself free. Satan loves a liar. Land of the freeless Home of the cowards.

Posted by Vin Suprynowicz

But they didn’t call it “The Department of Diverting Billions of Tax Dollars to the Statist, Ultra-Left Teacher Unions.” No, they called it the “Department of Education.”

Now, with the nation awash in unbelievable levels of debt, public attention turns inevitably to this tawdry and pointless department, which has never “educated’ anyone.

After all, the rising power of the unions and other educrat bureaucracies has paralleled almost exactly the collapse of test scores and other indicators of how well American children are being educated. It has paralleled nothing less than a massive swelling of de facto illiteracy and innumeracy.

Schools used to cost taxpayers far less per capita from the time of the founding up through the 1920s at least, and in most cases up through the mid-1960s. Yet today’s high school graduates would fail in any academic competition based on reading, writing, history, geography and arithmetic with American eighth graders of 60, 90, or 140 years ago.

Read more

Editor: This is exactly what tyrants do. Their favorite “what’s in a name” trick is to call anti-Christ laws “secular” instead of of being honest and admitting that they are establishing the religion of Marxism.

And remember that free government education is the 10th plank of the Communist Manifesto. Now bundle up your sweet children and send them off to the Marxist Propaganda Mills (aka public schools) and vote for edurates Republicrats and file those tax returns that enslave you AND your children.

Have a wonderful and blessed day.

Christopher Hansen

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1825 that he intended the Declaration of Independence to be “an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.” Yet, he did not propose the Declaration should “find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of….” The last statement is the clearest articulation of what Jefferson and other members of the founding generation thought of the Declaration. It was a restatement of the rights of Englishmen, modeled in large part by previous works of English and American law. The Declaration was not a radical document or a deviation from accepted constitutional norms, as the famous historian Gordon Wood suggests. But the idea that Jefferson and other founders would be modern liberals persists, and that is why Barack Obama can argue with a straight face that he is following the founding documents of the United States. Such thinking needs a “radical” correction, and a better understanding of the Declaration is the key.
In 1100, King Henry I of England agreed to restrictions on his power through the Charter of Liberties. The English barons rejected absolute authority and sought to preserve traditional decentralized “government.” Just over one hundred years later, King John was forced again by the English nobles to sign the Magna Charta. The “Great Charter,” as it is known in English, declared that the king was not above the law—making him essentially equal to the nobles—and it resisted the trend toward centralization in England. Though on the books, the Magna Charta was often ignored by more powerful English monarchs, but several of its provisions became the basis of English common law, most notably the writ of habeas corpus.

When England erupted in civil war in the seventeenth century, the Parliament asserted its authority, and by 1688 had become the driving force behind English law and policy. When King James II was expelled from England in 1688, the Parliament forced the incoming monarch, William of Orange, to sign the English Bill of Rights. It condemned James II for violating the rights of Englishmen, what the Parliament called the “laws and liberties of this kingdom,” and placed restrictions on the powers of the monarch. Jefferson essentially copied the form of the English Bill of Rights in writing the Declaration. Thus, Jefferson’s indictment of King George III was not a radical departure from accepted English practices. He was following English tradition, which in turn he adapted to American circumstances. This formed the American tradition, a conservative rather than radical tradition.

Additionally, Jefferson borrowed language from George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Resolves in drafting the Declaration. Mason asserted that “all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights…namely the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and maintaining happiness and safety.” Jefferson altered this in his original draft to “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” By “equal,” Jefferson meant that all citizens or freeholders are, as Mason wrote, born “equally free and independent” under the law. The barons of England asserted their legal equality with the king in 1100 and 1215. Jefferson was not stating anything new. And Jefferson simply shortened Mason’s language—which he borrowed from John Locke’s 1689 publication Two Treatises on Civil Government¬—to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Everyone understood that Jefferson equated “happiness” with property and safety.

Another famous historian, Joseph Ellis, contends that Jefferson viewed government as an “alien force.” But Jefferson never used that term. He argued that the colonists had suffered patiently under “a long train of abuses and usurpations” and an “absolute Despotism.” Thus, it was their “right” and “duty, to throw off such Government and to provide new Guards for their future security.” This had been done countless times in human history, and as recently as 1689 in England. Jefferson did not think the English system of government was tyrannical, and in particular did not denounce Virginia colonial government, only the “present King of Great Britain,” George III, deserved condemnation. Government had an obligation, in his words, to protect the “safety and happiness” of the people. That is not an anti-government view, but of course, Jefferson believed there should be limits on government power and, most importantly, the size and scope of government.

The Declaration of Independence did not “create” the “United States.” Jefferson called it the “united States,” or simply the States united. Virginia and Maryland both separately declared their independence from Great Britain, with Virginia doing so over a month before the Declaration was ratified in the Continental Congress. The colonies became “FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES.” Jefferson made a conscious decision to choose the word State. A State, in the 18th century, was a sovereign political entity. In the same document, Jefferson called Great Britain a “State.” Thus, Virginia, Massachusetts, New York, or any other American State, were equal to the mother country. They were not shires, parishes, counties, or provinces subservient to a “united States” government. The Declaration, then, is a decentralizing document, and the first governing document of the United States, the Articles of Confederation, reaffirmed that fact.

Most people mistake centralization as a “conservative” tendency. Human history proves otherwise. Centralization, whether political, cultural, or religious, does not conserve anything but the imperial traits of the centralizers, whether Marxists, theocratic zealots, or something else. Religions, cultures, customs, conventions, constitutions, economies, etc. are often ruined by the centralizers, and thus, centralization is always a “progressive” trend, not a conservative one, and typically the reaction to centralization is a conservative reaction, a push to preserve the culture, customs, or traditions of a particular people or place. Likewise, all empires have broken under the strain of conservative resistance to the imperial order. Jefferson and the men of the founding generation declared their independence to preserve English liberties. It was a decentralized, conservative movement.

Thinking of the Declaration and the War for Independence this way sheds light on who Americans are as a people. They are a naturally conservative group who love liberty and who are also inclined to preserve the traditions, customs, and cultures of their communities and families. Most men in the founding generation viewed “provincialism” as a badge of honor. They were Virginians, New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians, Massachusettians, and Marylanders first and foremost and Americans second. They defended the rights of their sister States, but did not want another State, foreign or domestic, interfering in the concerns of their local community. In the rush to force “our” will on other Americans (or on the world), we forget this lesson. The American tradition, as exemplified by the Declaration of Independence and the founding generation, favors limited, decentralized government that has as its only charge the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the maintenance of the cultures, customs, conventions, and constitutions of the States and local communities. The Declaration did not “create” new rights, it simply re-affirmed the old, and it is America’s conservative document.

When Joel Hansen told the voters of Pahrump on Wednesday night that the first thing that he would do when elected was to sue the Federal Government to stop Obama Care the voters started applauding.

When Joel Hansen told the voters of Pahrump that the next thing he would do would be to sue the Federal Government to force them to repay the costs forced upon Nevada by the Federal Government due to illegal aliens, the voters started to cheer.

When Joel Hansen told the voters of Pahrump that he would make sure that EVERY county in Nevada protected Nevadans’ right to keep and bear arms the place cheered even louder.

But when Joel Hansen told the voters of Pahrump that he would enforce the protections of individual rights guaranteed in the Constitutions of the USA and Nevada and prosecute sheriffs and DAs and every other public official that violated the rights of Nevadans the place started to ROCK!

It is time to make a difference. It is time to vote for Joel Hansen for Nevada Attorney General.

One of the unfortunate byproducts of being someone who is intelligent enough politically to think and vote according to issues rather than arbitrary party lines and vague labels like “liberal” or “conservative” is that, from time to time, in an effort to rail against an issue you’re deeply opposed to you have to work along side people you never would have expected. Politics, as they say, makes for some strange bedfellows. This actually becomes more pronounced the more open-minded and issue oriented you become.

With that said, on March 27th I attended the Tea Party Rally out in Searchlight, Nevada. I was there to protest against Harry Reid’s bid for reelection as well as “Obamacare.” As a result, I found myself in the company of a horde of strange bedfellows, many of whom were there primarily to be a part of what can only be described as a political orgy: the arrival of Sarah Palin. I wish I could say my metaphor was far from reality, however this is not the case. The crowd’s response and demeanor toward the former governor of Alaska was far more reminiscent a screening of “Debbie Does Dallas” than a serious political gathering. Instead, it was “Sarah Does Searchlight” with its very own tagline: “Everyone in the Republican Party scores when her campaign flies!” No, I’m not exaggerating. Yes, it was that obscene.

For those of you unfamiliar with Searchlight, Nevada you might want to pause and check it out on Wikipedia before continuing. It’s a speck about 60 miles south of Las Vegas, with a little under 600 people who live there. The only reason this event was held in a place that was ill-suited to dealing with 10,000 Tea Party Express participants (that’s right, nearly 17 times the actual population living there) is because it’s the birthplace of Harry Reid. Among these 10,000 weren’t just the common folk of southern Nevada either. I met people from states all over the country including Wisconsin, Texas, Colorado, Arizona and Alaska who had either followed the Tea Party all over the USA or who had come specifically to this event from outside Nevada specifically to see Princess Palin speak.

As much as it pains me to admit it, I was genuinely curious as to what was so magnetic about this woman that people would travel to this dead mining town in the middle of the desert from across the USA just to see her talk. That has to count for something, right? I’ve watched the news. I’ve seen the Katie Couric interview. I’ve heard she didn’t know Africa was a continent. I know she loves the word maverick more than anything else in a debate. Fine. However, I’ve never seen her in person though and I’ve never really had a chance to interact with droves of her followers. I know what it is that I can’t stand about her, but I have never really understood what her followers love about her. I guess this was my golden opportunity. I was about to be schooled on the magnetics of Palin.

As I stood next to the stage waiting to see one of the speakers that I had specifically come to see, Ms. Palin’s bus came into view and the crowd began to grow in collective excitement. Part of her sycophantic entourage emerged and moved into the crowd, clearing the way and inspecting the scene to make sure it was fitting. They started barking at people and even made note of the exposed speaker wires on the ground, telling security and stage managers that Ms. Palin couldn’t possibly be expected to walk near or over all those wires or through the dirt. That was it. Princess Palin hadn’t even emerged from her chariot and I’d already had enough of this nonsense. I asked one of the handlers if there was something wrong with this woman. What, she was a heartbeat away from being President and she couldn’t navigate in the dirt to the stage like the rest of us?

Before I got a response, I told them that they should ask some of the eager beaver men in the crowd to take their coats off and lay them in the dirt so Princess Sarah’s feet wouldn’t have to actually touch the dirty ground. (Maybe they could fetch us some rose petals too.) Sometimes, when you ask a question or make a request, it’s meant to be rhetorical—as in, you don’t require or even want an answer. I was being rhetorical here. Sometimes though, someone answers the call anyway and more often than not, it’s a response you probably don’t want.

A young man who was standing near me, in his early twenties and obviously painfully impressionable, stepped forward and said that he would be more than happy to lie down and let Princess Sarah walk over him to the stage. Yes, he said it. He said he would be okay to be Palin’s doormat. The initial shock froze me for a moment, and I paused, gathered myself and then scraped the brains from my exploded skull off the dirt and poured them back into my head. What would make someone want to do that? So, letting my cat like curiosity get the best of me, I foolishly asking him why.

And what was this noble gentleman’s response? “Because she’s so hot and I’d like to do her!”

Really? That’s it? It’s not because this guy thought that she was a champion of freedom or a sort of rebirth of neo-conservatism. Nope. He wanted to “do” her. Fantastic. What more does a person need to be qualified as a political leader? Unfortunately, this was in no way an isolated event. He was met by some satisfactory grunts and cheers from many of the other males in the group. Now I realize a woman who can shoot a gun in stilettos is more than some men can resist but wouldn’t this be better left to a conservative’s dream porn movie viewed in a faux-lesbian bondage nightclub financed by the RNC rather than a legitimate presidential candidate?

(As a side note, I had a friend who worked as an exotic dancer during the 2008 presidential campaign. Any guesses as to what one of the most popular requests for girls to dress up as was at the time? Lap dances from Sarah Palin lookalikes were all the rage apparently.)

To make a long story short, through epic will and tenacity, Ms. Palin did manage to make to the stage and deliver her speech. I can’t say I found myself as enthused or excited during the delivery as her followers since anyone with a brain and not blinded by the hormonal rush of wanting to “do her” could hear that the speech wasn’t so much a speech as it was a robot with a lot of makeup on delivering rote Republican talking points. It was a laundry list of problems with America but lacked any solutions aside from a call for a change in leadership. I had hoped that the passion of this crowd was backed up with some substance and some thought. Alas, I would only be met with disappointment. Sarah Palin is just another Neo-Conservative talking head, but unlike your Glen Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, guys want to “do her.” That’s it. That’s all the differentiates her from a vast sea of right wing shills on Fox News and conservative talk radio.

Now don’t get me wrong, I enjoy a good looking politician myself. In fact, I’ve found that they make the garbage a little easier to swallow—I mean, if you have to swallow it anyway, it’s nicer when the delivery boy is good looking. The problem with Sarah Palin is that’s all she brings to the party, the “do her” vibe and while it’s obviously a powerful thing, it isn’t everything. For instance, I spent some time in this crowd near Brian Sandoval, previously attorney general of Nevada and Federal Judge. Right now he’s running for governor and if he wins, believe me, I will refer to him exclusively as “Governor McDreamy.” How is this any different than the Palin followers? Sandoval, whether you love him or hate him, brings an actual resume to the table. He has some political experience, can deliver sentences that are more than talking points and provides valid reasons that he should be in a political office. He never ditched his own office to go “be a maverick” and doesn’t have a reality TV show. The “McDreamy” portion is just the icing, not the substance.

I’m genuinely curious, since no one at this rally managed to provide anything valid, can anyone out there give me a legitimate reason to like and support Sarah Palin? I really want to know.

Click Here