Obama: 'we stopped massacre in Libya'

Editor's Note: Says a president who had to apologize for more Afghan 'kill team' photos on the very same day.

Tomahawk missile launch/Wiki commons image

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A defiant President Barack Obama told Americans he had stopped a "massacre" in Libya, but bluntly warned that trying to oust Moamer Kadhafi by force could repeat the carnage of Iraq.

"As president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action," Obama said, mounting a robust defense of his decision to rain air strikes on Kadhafi's troops in a UN-mandated bid to protect civilians.

Obama spoke after Libyan rebels, enabled by pounding air attacks by international fighter jets, grabbed back government-held territory, and on the eve of a major international conference in London dedicated to Libya's future.

The president, in a major televised address at the National Defense University in Washington, also denied he had ceded leadership to US allies and had failed to lay out a clear strategy for war-weary Americans.

Revisiting Conflicts of Interest: Revoking the Corporate Charters of State Agencies

Marti Oakley, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

One issue seemingly untouched by the all the legal eagles out there who claim to be defending independent and family ranchers and farmers is, the conflict of interest with intent to benefit between the state corporations (in every state) operating as “Departments of Agriculture” and private and individual farmers and ranchers who are being prosecuted and persecuted as these state owned corporations are empowered to make their own laws to benefit their own interests and to enforce those laws with full knowledge that constitutional rights and protections have been fraudulently eliminated for the sovereign individuals.

The intent to benefit needs to be examined in depth.  Who will benefit and who has benefited should be paramount in revoking the corporate charters of autonomous corporations operating under the guise of "state agencies."  We are forced to fund through taxation, these private corporations which operate fraudulently as state agencies.  In addition, as corporations these fraudulent state agencies may conduct business for profit with other corporations to the detriment of the people.  As corporations they have only one duty:  to make a profit; even if it means destroying you and your livelihood to do it.

In researching for a remedy, I came across this Tort action.  While it may not be the answer, it should provide a foundation for suing state and agencies, agents and operatives.  It could also be extended to sue your legislature for failing to honor their oaths of office and defend your constitution and rights.  After all, none of this happened with out their knowledge and consent.  But then, your state government is a corporation too, so go figure.


Tort of Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage 
The elements of that tort of are:

• (1) An economic relationship between [the plaintiff and some third person] containing the probability of future economic benefit to the [plaintiff], and expectation to profit from lawful business.
• (2) Knowledge by the defendant of the existence of the relationship,
• (3) Intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship,
• (4) Actual disruption of the relationship, [and]
• (5) Damages to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.’  

(1) The economic relationship between the [plaintiffs] and some third person:
This relationship is specifically indicated by the relationship between independent and family agricultural producers [the plaintiff] and the third person [the consumer/buyer] of the products the plaintiff produces with the intent to profit.

In each and every state, incorporated agricultural agencies and their agents have enacted and enforced rules and regulations specifically designed and enforced to interfere with the prospective economic advantage of private producers.  No where is this more apparent than in the efforts by the state agricultural agency corporations to act under “the color of law” against milk producers; setting arbitrary standards and requirements and granting themselves the authority to:

• Unlawfully trespass onto privately owned property
• Deny due process of law
• Search and seize property without cause or warrant, and,
• Forcibly, end the right to engage in commerce as is the right of the sovereign
• To establish fictions of law and present them as enforceable: a willing fraud on the people.
• To deny the rights of sovereign individuals to engage in lawful business.
• To deny the sovereign the right to judicial review and fair treatment in common law.
• Through restraint of trade by the interfering party as defendant
• Impediment to proceed with a contract still subject to a condition precedent such as regulatory approval which is known to be arbitrary to the rights of the individual to engage in his trade.
• The forcing of signature to contracts presented as “permits”, “licenses” etc. for which the signatory does not know the full extent of said contract implied or otherwise, and which in most cases abrogates all of his/her constitutional rights and protections. 

(2) Knowledge by the defendant of the existence of the relationship
The corporate state agricultural agencies are fully aware that they:

• Are no longer operating as public servants and are in fact, agents and operatives of an autonomous corporation operating under a fiction of law intended to defraud the public on behalf of the Corporate government operating as THE UNITED STATES and its sub-corporations, the USDA/FDA
• That with this knowledge, these corporate agencies, agents and operatives are fully aware of the violations not only of valid state laws, but also the Constitution of not only the state, but the nation as well.
• That these corporate agencies, agents and operatives have full knowledge of the right of the sovereign to engage in lawful business and that their activities will disrupt that right to commerce. 

(3) Intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship,

• Corporate state agencies after first creating fictions of law then,
•  Proceed to act under the “color of law”.
• That these fictions and acts constitute a fraud on the public at large
• That these corporate agencies, agents and operatives are fully aware of the fraud
• That these corporate state agencies, agents and operatives have created a fraud intended to benefit private stakeholders and to further the business plans of federally held corporations operating as USDA/FDA and others. 

(4) Actual disruption of the relationship, [and]

• Have  harassed and threatened third partys (consumers)
• Have terrorized and harassed the plaintiffs
• Have suspended all access to markets and sales by agency declaration and physical seizure of land and/or property
• Have caused the plaintiff to lose or forfeit their right to engage in lawful business and to anticipated profits
• Have created and enforced arbitrary laws, regulations, fees, fines and threats of imprisonment if plaintiff did not forfeit his/her rights to engage in business.
• Have physically appeared in person on private property armed and dangerous and posing a threat to not only the business owner, but family members and employees.
• Have mounted a public campaign to negatively impact the products produced by the plaintiff and to condition the public thinking that the sale of the plaintiffs products was harmful.
• Have committed assault and battery, defamation and fraud and deceit
• Caused a third party to either terminate an at-will contract with the plaintiff according to its terms, or,
• Failed to renew a renewable contract with the plaintiff because of threat of prosecution from fictitious rule-making, harassment and threat by corporate state agencies acting under color of law. 

The corporate state agencies have required unnecessary and burdensome record keeping, fees, licensing, regulations, prohibitions, and unlawful interferences to impede the right to engage in lawful commerce.

These same corporate state agencies have acted to deprive the individual through independent rule-making authority for which there is no constitutional authority.

These impediments are and were designed to target segments of the agricultural community with the intent to limit, disrupt or to end entirely the individuals right to engage in business and the potential to profit.

That these impediments are and were created to benefit industrialized corporate interests and, under the color of law, to unlawfully seize privately owned lands and real property for the benefit of the corporate state.

That agents on behalf of the state corporation operating under various names but commonly known as the Departments of Agriculture, have with malice and forethought, using coercion and duress, interfered with legal trade and commerce:

Have disrupted the lawful businesses of private individuals.

Created arbitrary fictions of laws to facilitate that disruption

Have used force and threat against sovereign individuals who refused compliance with known violations of their sovereign rights.

(5) Damages to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.’

Departments of Agriculture in each state have been registered as private corporations.  As such, they no longer serve the public as each of them operates “for profit” and willingly and knowingly engage in activities known to profit the agency by their interaction with other private corporate stakeholders having a vested interest in ending competition, controlling market access and the buying and selling of numerous agricultural products.

As the corporate agencies which operate as a fraud have profited not only publicly, but also personally, each agent, operative, and agency should be held personally liable for the loss of income, the interruption of free commerce and the intent to benefit through the use of the creation of fictions of law used to persecute and prosecute sovereign individuals who refused to forfeit their constitutional rights to an unelected corporate agency.
 
Whether the corporations operating as "government" like it or not, we have rights.  While this little document may not be the end all, be all of remedies it could be the basis for mounting a countering action.

Before we will ever make any progress we must first move to revoke all state corporate charters and return our state government on all levels to one of "public service." As long as we allow every level of state government to incorporate we are in danger of losing any freedom we may have left.

Marti Oakley is a political activist and former op-ed columnist for the St Cloud Times in Minnesota. She was a member of the Times Writer’s Group until she resigned in September of 07. She is neither Democrat nor Republican, since neither party is representative of the American people. She says what she thinks, means what she says, and is known for being outspoken. She is hopeful that the American public will wake up to what is happening to our beloved country . . . little of it is left.  Her website is The PPJ Gazette.

Buy 1 Get 2 Free at Botanic Choice Buy 1 Bottle and Get 2 FREE (select items), plus Free Shipping on $25+ Expires 12/31/2010

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

The Hidden Slavery of Interest

Anthony Migchel
Activist Post - Contributing Writer

Most advanced political and economic debate is dominated by the Americans. Through films like Zeitgeist Addendum, The Money Masters and Money as Debt and books like those of Thomas Greco and Ellen Brown. They have been enormously important contributions to the awakening of the many (including myself!) towards the most pressing problem of our time, our monetary ‘system’.

The one notable exception is interest. Of course all the aforementioned sources have dealt with interest, but to my mind there has been no really comprehensive and satisfactory analysis of interest in the Anglo Saxon world. In fact, most analysts concentrate on the fact that money is debt. There seems to be some kind of consensus that debt is the heart of the issue. But it is not. Without interest, debt would not be a problem , as I worked out here.

Interest is one of the few things that is more profoundly understood in Europe, more specifically, Germany. Throughout the 20th century interest has been analyzed by some unknown, but brilliant thinkers. Silvio Gesell comes to mind, Gottfried Feder and later Helmut Creutz and their current 

Feder wrote a book ‘breaking the shackles of interest’ and later advised Hitler, who was to say time and again, that ‘the kernel of National Socialism is breaking the thralldom of interest’. Maybe that did some damage by association to the theme.

It is curious to realize, when studying Hitler, how close he came to the truth in his analysis (which was, no doubt, inspired by exactly the enemies he was purported to attack). It is mind boggling to realize how much the bankers were willing to give away and how they entrenched their supremacy by totally destroying him and his credibility.

Be that as it may, it is time to make fully clear what the scale of the interest problem is. We need to get rid of any misunderstanding, let alone underestimation of this most heinous tool in the hands of our Satanist masters.

Dealing with Interest

We’ll go through this point for point. Some points will in some way overlap others, but they are still worth mentioning because they widen our perspective. I’ll be quoting Margrit Kennedy a lot and I would strongly suggest going through her classic ‘Why we need monetary innovation’.

1. To begin with, I’ll put forward my standard example: a mortgage. Let’s say you want to buy a house and go the bank and get a loan. Say 200k. The simple truth is, after thirty years you will have payed back 600k. 200k for the principal and 400k (!!) in interest. Now this might be ok, or at least somewhat understandable, if you were borrowing this money from somebody else, who has been saving it. But as we know, this is not the case. The money is produced the moment the loan is granted by the bank. In a computer program. By pressing a few buttons.

So basically you pay 400k interest for pressing a button. Granted, the bank needs to manage the loan during the time it is being repaid. But the cost for this is still only a fraction of the income they get through the interest.

Now, we could stop here, because it is clear that the bank is ripping us off, also in legal terms, although they make the laws themselves, because there is no realistic service being delivered for the money.

But there is so much more, we must continue.

2. When the bank creates some money by giving you a loan, it takes the money out of circulation when you repay. Repaying debts means a diminishing money supply. The banks only provide the principal, in our previous example 200k. But after thirty years, 600k has been repayed and only 200k was created. So how can this be? How can 600k be repayed by 200k?

It can’t. Somebody else needs to get into debt to create sufficient liquidity to pay the 400k interest. And the borrower of the original loan must start competing for this liquidity with everybody else to obtain that, intrinsically scarce, cash.

This means that because of the combination of debt and interest, the money supply must grow forever. But we know that a growing money supply is the definition of inflation and that inflation is closely linked to rising prices. So inflation is inherent in the system. This sounds strange, because Central Banks raise interest rates to lower inflation, reasoning less credit will be issued because of rising prices for it. But the higher the interest rates go, the more money must be created to pay for this interest.

Just one of the perverse side effects of interest in the current wealth transfer system we call ‘finance’.

3. Due to interest, money circulates slower. This is a big problem, because the slower the money circulates, the more we need of it in circulation to meet our needs. And when you have interest bearing money as debt, that is quite a problem indeed. The reason for slower circulation is that it enhances the store of value function of money, with all it’s detrimental implications.

This phenomenon can be best seen when thinking about paying bills. If you know you can increase your money by postponing paying your bills, you will help the money circulate slower. People will be encouraged to hoard the money instead of spending it.

It is also more likely because of this reason rather than the growing cost of money which lessens inflation (or better, price rises) in the short term when raising interest rates. Because less money is circulating slower, demand falls.

4. Now, because of the fact that the principal is created but not the money to pay the interest, money is intrinsically scarce. Because of scarce money, capital is the scarce factor of production, whereas reason has it that labor should be the scarcer than capital. How else can we say we live in abundance?

I think it was Lietaer who pointed out the natural consequence of this state of affairs: competition. Economic actors in the current system compete with each other primarily for scarce working capital. Scarce money is a major driving force in the ever more competitive marketplace. Of course, the winners of this system have their lackeys (‘economists’) explain that competition leads to efficiency. But common sense dictates that humans are more effective when they can cooperate. Surely there is a place for competition in the market, but it has gotten totally out of hand and it is getting worse.

Scarce money because of interest is one of the more profound reasons for this trend.

5. So what of it you think. I was raised to be conservative in these matters and one should simply not get into debt, so you won’t pay interest.

Wrong. Not only because if nobody went into debt, there would be no money, but because companies go into debt to finance their production. They pay interest (capital costs) over these loans. And like any cost this must be calculated into the prices they ask for their goods and services.

And what percentage of prices can be related to interest? It depends on the kind of business, particularly how capital intensive it is. Going from 12% for garbage collection to 77% for renting a house. All in all about 40% of prices can be traced back to costs for capital. These figures are by Kennedy and they have been corroborated by an independent study done by Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands under the supervision of STRO, a leading monetary think tank in the Netherlands.

So, you lose 40% (!!!!) of your disposable income to interest through prices.

6. Interest is being payed by people borrowing money and received by people having loads of it. So it is per definition a wealth transfer from poor to rich.

It transpires, that about 80% of the poorest people pay more interest than they receive to the richest 10%. The next richest 10% pay as much as they receive. This means the vast majority is losing a substantial part of their money to interest. The richest own the banks or have a lot of money there.

We must keep in mind that this is totally for nothing, since most of the money is printed at the time it is loaned out.

How much money are we talking about? I have only figures for Germany, but reason suggests it is basically the same everywhere.

In Germany the poorest 80% pay 1 billion Euros in interest to the richest 10% PER DAY. Yes, that’s right, one billion euros per day. That is a grand total of 365 billion euro’s per year. That is one seventh of German GDP and extrapolating this to America, the poorest 80% must be paying at least a trillion a year.

It conclusively explains the old adage that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

This is the hidden tax that nobody is talking about.

This is the yoke that we carry.

This is the worst kind of slavery, because it is slavery without even realizing it.

This is interest and let it never be forgotten.

This is our mortal enemy and let us never take our eyes of it again, until it is thrown into the fire of hell, together with the usurers enslaving us with it.

Anthony Migchel is an Interest-Free Currency activist and founder of the Gelre, the first Regional Currency in the Netherlands. You can read all of his articles on his blog Real Currencies.

RELATED ARTICLE:
The After-the-Fed Solutions Debate Begins: Greenbackers Vs. Goldbugs

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page