Crash will happen this month & Roads point to mid-November crunch

Via Survival

Gerald Celente: The Crash will happen sometime this month

EU preparing bank rescues amid Greece doubts.

Hunker Down to Weather the Next 10 Years

Via Survival

Meteorologists look into the future every day. While this afternoon's weather is usually an easy call to make, things get a little dodgier with a 10-day forecast, much less the 10-year forecast.

But veteran Iowa State Univ. meteorologist Elwynn Taylor didn't flinch when Farm Equipment tasked him with providing a weather outlook for the next 10 years.

"There are indications that the climate will become increasingly volatile over the next 20 years. Dry years will be drier and wet years will be wetter. Volatility may not be permanent, but it will be a fixture for the next 10-20 years," Taylor says.

MORE

PROVING VOTER FRAUD: DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT IS A MYTH

Via Truth To Power

Ed Rivera
VERBATIM POST
==================

The seemingly conflicting principles found in the Four Organic Laws of the United States of America cannot be reconciled by propaganda suggesting the elimination of the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777. The Organic Laws can and must be read as a harmonious whole.

The following from the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 requires no proof: “WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The equality of men and the unalienable nature of their rights precludes, for example, the unlawful taking of the life of one man by all of the other men. No unlawful act is made lawful by the complicity of the entire society. The logic of a completely righteous society rests on a supernatural Creator, which is the premise of the First and Second Organic Laws, the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777.

Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, actually requires the States of the United States of America to grant privileges and immunities without requiring allegiance from those within the state who will not submit to majority vote and rule. Unalienable rights are not subject to majority vote, so they are secured in the Articles of Confederation by imposing duties on government without a direct means of raising revenue.

The Third Organic Law establishes a temporary government for the Northwest Territory owned by the United States of America. The Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 establishes majority rule subject to the supervision of the United States in Congress assembled under the Articles of Confederation.

The Fourth Organic Law, the “Constitution United States of America—1787,” is the official title given, in volume one of the United States Code, for the Constitution of the United States, which results when nine States ratify the Constitution of September 17, 1787 and George Washington takes an oral oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” This Constitution makes permanent the House of Representatives established by the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787.

Although the House of Representatives consists of Representatives elected by the majority vote of citizens of all the States, that vote can still have no effect on the unalienable rights of the free inhabitants of the states. The legislative power of the House of Representatives is limited to the territory owned by or ceded to the United States of America, hence, the title “Constitution of the United States of America—1787,” confirms it is a revision of the Articles of Confederation. That nomenclature alone should be sufficient to dispel the unfounded claim that the Constitution of the United States replaced or superseded the Articles of Confederation.

It is voter fraud to suggest that any number of voters can elect a President of the United States or a President of the United States of America. There is nothing democratic about a government that consists of legislators who are territorially limited to lands owned by the United States of America.

Only my” Basic Course in Law and Government” teaches how the Declaration of Independence frees the American people from government good or bad and forces the States to make it an option and not an obligation. You must take the Course to learn the truth government doesn’t want you to know. Contact me at edrivera@edrivera.com

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera

Fed rule limits credit cards for stay-at-home parents

Via Borepatch

Another unbelievable! Screw you Big Brother.
===========================================

A federal rule kicked in Saturday that will prevent many applicants from qualifying for new credit card accounts.

The Federal Reserve's rule told credit card companies that they no longer can consider household income when assessing the creditworthiness of an individual who applies for his or her own card. Under the rule, only an individual's own salary or other income -- rather than combined household income -- can be considered.

One major effect of the new regulation: Stay-at-home moms (or dads) without significant outside income no longer will be able to open their own credit card accounts -- and establish their own credit histories to build their credit scores. Compliance with the rule became mandatory Oct. 1, 2011.

"From an economic standpoint, this is a whopper," said Manisha Thakor, founder of the Women's Financial Literacy Initiative, a financial fellow at Wellesley College and a Houston-based financial analyst. "Not only will be harder to build a credit score, but this ruling is tantamount to assigning a zero dollar value to the work stay-at-home parents do day in and day out to keep households running."

MORE

Auditing the Fed: October 4th, 2011 Ron Paul

Via The Excavator

October Issue of The Stainless Banner

The Stainless Banner Volume 2, Issue 8.pdf 1225K View Download It is with great pleasure that I attach the October issue of The Stainless Banner featuring the battle of Missionary Ridge. Articles include: Bragg’s Original Report on the battle Cleburne’s Original Report of his fight at Tunnel Hill and Ringgold Gap Grant’s Original Report A look at the life of Major General Evander Law Cleburne’s Adjutant details Cleburne’s stand on Tunnel Hill Was the Confederate soldier a rebel? Guest Historians David Burt and Craig Barry share their fascinating article on the relationship between Confederate buyers and the middlemen that helped them secure weapons and other military supplies. Save in Defense Due to my illness in late June and early July, the final chapter in the trilogy has been delayed. But it is with the editor and should be released by the first of November.

Dixieland's Male Peacock

I assume he descends from the family that was mentioned about 200 years ago, as they always stay at the same location in my experience.

Bud Robertson At Lee Chapel

Old Virginia Blog
VERBATIM POST
====================

Remembering Robert E. Lee Program ~
October 10, 2011 at 12:15pm

The Fall program honoring Robert E. Lee
will feature Dr. James I. Robertson, Jr.,
noted author and Civil War Scholar.

Topic: "Lee and the Mobilization of Virginia Forces, 1861"

Booksigning in the Lee Chapel Museum Shop at 10:30am

will feature many of his books, plus autographed copies of Dr. Robertson's new book,

"The Untold Civil War; Exploring the Human Side of War."

will be pre-sold. This book will be released later in October .

Flagging the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts

Twenty years after Gen. Robert E. Lee rode into Appomattox and surrendered his tattered army, ending the War Between the States, a memorial chapel was built in Richmond in memory of the 260,000 Confederate soldiers who died during the conflict.. The Pelham Chapel – Confederate War Memorial is designated a National Historic Landmark by the U.S., and has been granted the status of Confederate Monument by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The organ in the chapel was donated by a group of Union veterans from Lynn, Mass. One of the contributors to the soldiers’ home that surrounded the chapel was Gen. Ulysses S. Grant. And a Union private from Massachusetts donated his annual pension to support the home. A pair of Confederate flags had flown over the Confederate Memorial Chapel in Richmond since 1887. Those two flags did not trouble the Union soldiers who donated the organ to the chapel; nor did they trouble Ulysses S. Grant. They were placed there by Confederate Veterans, to memorialize the Confederate dead, and honor the living.

Fast forward 150 years…on the eve of the Sesquicentennial Commemoration of the War Between the States, June 1st, 2010, these two Confederate Battle Flags were forcibly removed from the Memorial by a restriction in the lease renewal, at the insistence of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts.

MORE

Why We Oppose the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) & Support the Parental Rights Amendment

Parental Rights

Homeschool Legal Defense Association
===================================

Imagine an Air Force mom, serving her country on a month-long deployment, who learns that her daughter has been secretly removed by local authorities, claiming the child has been “abandoned.” Children begin mandatory sex-education at the age of four, regardless of their family’s opinions, beliefs, or convictions, and parents are imprisoned if their children fail to receive any of their mandatory vaccinations. Parents live in a state of constant supervision and suspicion.

Imagine if your national government had the audacity to appoint a “guardian” to monitor your child from birth, charged with the legal responsibility to evaluate your decisions as a parent and armed with the legal authority to “intervene, prevent or rectify” any violations of your child’s rights. Public and private schools alike are policed by the national government, and classes begin with singing about the principles of peace, tolerance, and the United Nations. Your child’s confidential medical records, stored in a nation-wide electronic register from birth until age twenty, can be accessed at any time, without your knowledge, by any physician, teacher, or government social worker in the nation.

Now stop imagining, because for parents in the 193 countries that have ratified the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child, each of these scenarios is true.

Constant Supervision and Suspicion

Since its adoption by the United Nations in 1989, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has become the most widely accepted international agreement in history, ratified by every nation of the world except for the United States and Somalia. All signatories pledge to protect children’s rights, foster their development, and uphold their best interests by re-writing their national laws to conform to the standards set forth in the treaty.


While all this may sound harmless and even commendable, the reality is that the Convention allows and even demands that national governments interfere in the decisions of individual families and parents. By invoking the “best interests of the child ,” policymakers and government agents have the authority to substitute their own decisions for those of the child or parent. In short, parents lose their rights to be parents, and become merely caregivers. The result, as parents across the globe are now discovering, is that the family is being steadily undermined, often with tragic and devastating results for the very children who are supposed to be protected.


The Need for Vigilance

Thankfully, the United States still remains the sole organized government of the world that has rejected the Convention on the Rights of the Child, because our elected leaders emphatically rejected the Convention’s incursions on American law and the American family. America believes that international committees and courts should have no authority in the affairs of her families, and that the right and responsibility of lawmaking should be wielded only by her own sons and daughters.


This emphatic resistance, however, must be more than simply a one-time stand, for without vigilance on the part of its citizens, America is unlikely to remain the last stalwart defender of parental rights. Nations across the globe are reaffirming their commitment to the Convention every day, and domestic scholars, activists, judges, and politicians continue to urge us to join them.


To challenge their cries, ParentalRights.org is taking a closer look at countries who have been recently cited by the United Nations as “model-governments” in the battle for children’s rights. Beneath their shiny veneer of success are stories and movements that reveal the dangers taking shape beyond our borders. Americans everywhere need to be informed about the true nature of the international movement for “child rights.” In short, they need to hear the stories of real parents, in real countries, who are becoming the real casualties of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

====================================

What Is the Parental Rights Amendment?

The Parental Rights Amendment would add the following text to the United States Constitution:

SECTION 1 The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right. SECTION 2 Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served. SECTION 3 No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

Section 1 places the existing Supreme Court doctrine that parental rights are fundamental rights into the text of the Constitution. This doctrine is quoted from Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

Section 2 continues traditional Supreme Court doctrine allowing for extremely limited government involvement to prevent proven child abuse or neglect, and only if no other solution is available. The wording quotes Gonzales v. O Centro Espirito Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, 548 U.S. 418, 430-431 (2006) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972).

Section 3 deauthorizes the Senate from ratifying any treaty that would interfere with these rights, and deauthorizes judges from using international law to interpret American laws on parental rights issues.

[For a more in-depth treatment of the text, click here.]

Herman Cain Does Not Get the Federal Reserve Issue

Via Conservative Heritage Times

Intellectual Conservative
VERBATIM POST
============================

By Dan Phillips, on October 3rd, 2011

Is the Ron Paul campaign on an orchestrated campaign to challenge Herman Cain about the Federal Reserve?

Rising Presidential candidate Herman Cain reportedly complains in his new book, This is Herman Cain, that Ron Paul’s campaign is orchestrating an effort to “nail” him on the Federal Reserve. Cain is a former chair of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

According to the Daily Caller Cain writes:

“…Paul’s campaign ‘sends one of its ‘Paulites’ everywhere I show up…’
‘I get the same stupid question at almost every one of these events,’ Cain writes. ‘I know it’s a deliberate strategy. How can a person randomly show up at a hundred events and ask the same stupid question to try to nail me on the Federal Reserve? It’s really becoming annoying more than anything else.’”

First of all, I can pretty much assure Mr. Cain that this is not an orchestrated effort by the official Paul campaign. As someone who was involved in helping pull off the last minute effort that secured Ron Paul a second place finish in the Georgia GOP straw poll, I can testify that the official campaign isn’t that organized. And I say that not as a slight. Just as a nod to reality. The official Paul campaign is busy with their candidate’s own itinerary. I’m sure they don’t have the time or manpower to coordinate that kind of systematic effort to harass rival candidates.

I can confidently assure Mr. Cain that what he is experiencing is actually a spontaneous grassroots effort by Paul supporters, as so much of the Paul campaign is spontaneous and activist driven, to highlight a glaring weakness in a principle primary competitor. I’m surprised this upsets Mr. Cain so. One candidate highlighting a perceived weakness in a rival candidate’s platform is quite common really and is sometimes referred to by some of us as politics.

But what this demonstrates, beyond Mr. Cain’s naiveté and thin skin, is that he really has no idea what the Federal Reserve issue is all about. He says it is not true that he doesn’t support an audit of the Federal Reserve. OK so he does now, although this represents a reversal of his past opinion as documented in the New American article linked above. He just doesn’t think an audit will find anything.

In Dec 2010 when Cain was guest hosting the Neil Boortz Show, he said this about the Fed (my comments in bold):

“Some people say we ought to audit the Federal Reserve. Here's what I do know. The Federal Reserve already has so many internal audits it's ridiculous. I don't know why people think we're going to learn this great amount of information by auditing the Federal Reserve.... Here's the advice I've given to people who are worried about an audit of the Federal Reserve. Call them up and ask them! (Aww! How cute!) You can stop by and have one of their P.R. people or one of their public relations people explain to you how the Federal Reserve operates. (I hope you know a good bail bondsman.)”

Good luck to anyone who chooses to follow-up with Mr. Cain’s just “ask them” advice.
What boggles the mind is how a “conservative” talk radio host who is supposed to have his ear to the ground of grassroots conservatism can be so clueless as to what is really behind the calls to audit the Fed. I’ll let Mr. Cain in on something although I really don’t think it is that much of a secret. The activist Paul supporters who are calling for an audit of the Fed don’t really want to audit the Fed. THEY WANT TO SHUT IT DOWN! The purpose of a Fed audit is not to ensure all the numbers balance moment to moment but to demonstrate the corruption and fantasy accounting that is inherent in the enterprise of central banking.

Personally, I have never quite understood how you would even go about starting to audit the Fed. I’m no accountant, but I do know enough to know that accounting deals with such things as debits, credits, account balances, assets, liabilities, etc., and that there are general accounting rules and principles by which an honest audit would proceed. How then do you audit an entity that is empowered to CREATE MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR? Would the accountant note “and here magic happened” to explain a new infusion of cash (or more likely photons on a computer screen)? Heck, at least Enron and Bernie Madoff had to engage in some “creative accounting” to cover up their chicanery. Not even they claimed the ability to create money out of nothing.

Again, it boggles the mind that Mr. Cain does not realize the fundamental concerns that underlie the rise in anti-Fed activism, a rise that is largely attributable to candidate Paul. Or perhaps he does understand the concerns and is seeking to deflect them, former employee of the Fed that he is. Either way, Herman Cain is not qualified to be President, and he is certainly not qualified to carry the banner of conservatism in this campaign. That an unrepentant former chair of a Federal Reserve branch is actively campaigning with some success to become the consensus “conservative” candidate is a testimony to the sorry state of the “conservative” consensus already.

Dr. Dan Phillips is an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Mercer University School of Medicine in Macon, Georgia. He specializes in the treatment of drug and alcohol addiction. | Dan Phillips | phillips_de@mercer.edu

Top ten anti-material sniper rifles in the World

Via Western Rifle Shooters Association

Obama Presidency by the Numbers

Via The Feral Irishman

Occupy Wall Street – Lighting The Fuse To Begin A Bloodbath

Marxists promise an “American Fall”, goading useful idiots into what may become the violent end-game of their revolution.

This blog has been warning since 2008, that the regime being put into power at the White House was going to wage a Marxist revolution. Since Obama took office, the patterns and efforts of this regime were an amalgamation of the programs and efforts by last century’s most notorious madmen and despots with a twist; instead of capitalizing on woe and misery to pit one group against another in order to achieve power – this time, they would create the misery first by collapsing our system, while stoking hatred for their political adversaries to foment the REAL CHANGE they seek to impose.

The contempt the Ruling Class have for Conservative America is no shock. What is surprising, is how quickly the demonization and castigation of the political enemies of this regime, has led to overt calls for violence and bloodshed by the useful idiots who support this regime, and by those with the shared targets of contempt, whether it be those with wealth, banks, corporations, Jews or Republicans. In response, there are increasing calls for violence from the Libertarian/anarchist movement, and the boiling rage of Conservative TEA Party Americans who are being pushed into a corner.

MORE

B&W pictures of times past

HERE

GOA Action Alert: Illinois Congressman Battles Anti-gun Group

The U.S House gaveled back into session yesterday after a weeklong recess, and one Representative spent part of the break sending a message to anti-gunners in his home state.

Rep. Joe Walsh, a Republican representing a suburban Chicago district, took Illinois to task for being the only state in the country to completely ban concealed carry for its citizens.

“We are an embarrassment,” Rep. Walsh said, speaking to a gathering of local Tea Party activists. “We are the last state standing when it comes to concealed carry. There's no issue when it comes to freedom that matters like this, like the Second Amendment.

“The most important amendment in that Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment. It protects every other amendment. It is the last line of defense between us and our government.”

Not surprisingly, Walsh was attacked for his efforts to protect gun rights by the Brady Campaign. Dennis Henigan, acting president of the disarmament group, called on Walsh to offer an “explanation” of his comments.

Rep. Walsh replied in a letter to Henigan, in which he reiterated his willingness to fight for the Second Amendment rights of all Americans:

I am happy to today respond to Mr. Henigan’s request for clarity when I emphasized that the Second Amendment is the most important amendment in the Constitution – because it protects every other amendment. I hope I was clear in that and wanted to send this letter to help ensure that message is clear.

Illinois is now the only state in the entire nation that doesn’t allow lawful Americans to carry a firearm. Violent crimes continue to decrease even as more states such as Wisconsin – that recently passed a concealed carry permit [law] – repeal archaic laws crafted to restrict gun rights.

We need not forget that freedom was gained and will always be maintained by a strict interpretation of our Constitution and this certainly includes the Second Amendment.

Gun rights advocates are on the front lines in defending our freedoms. I stand with them in this noble mission and will always be an outspoken advocate for Second Amendment rights and particularly, a repeal of Illinois laws preventing the right-to-carry.

Gun Owners of America applauds Rep. Walsh for taking on the anti-gunners both in Illinois and on the national stage—we need more people like that in Washington.

Does your own Representative support your right to keep and bear arms? Let’s find out.

Georgia Rep. Paul Broun recently introduced H.R. 2900, a bill that will simply allow for interstate recognition of concealed carry provided that one can lawfully carry in his home state.

Rep. Broun’s bill, the “Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act,” does not establish national standards or in any way dictate what states do with respect to concealed carry. The bill also does not rely on an expansive view of the Constitution’s commerce clause for justification and it includes interstate carry even for states that do not require government issued permits.

The SAFE Act, H.R. 2900, merely recognizes that constitutional rights do not evaporate at the state line and that citizens should not be turned into disarmed victims by the government when leaving their home state.

So please ask you Representative to join with Reps. Broun and Walsh in protecting the right to self-defense both at home and while traveling.

Click here to send your Congressman a pre-written letter.

U.S Citizens

Jacksonville , NC Daily News