Skip to content

Walter E. Williams: Democratic Tyranny – Girl, 6, Strip Searched at School – Gaddafi’s Gold Money Plan – Do We Need Agencies Like FEMA?

November 11, 2011

CNBC Removes Post-debate Poll Because Paul Was Winning

Health department tyrants raid local ‘farm to fork’ picnic dinner


Walter E Williams – Democratic Tyranny


Girl, 6, Allegedly Strip Searched At School WBNS-10TV


Gadhafi’s Gold-money Plan Would Have Devastated Dollar

| Print |  
Written by Alex Newman – New American
Friday, 11 November 2011 10:15
It remains unclear exactly why or how the Gadhafi regime went from “a model” and an “important ally” to the next target for regime change in a period of just a few years. But after claims of “genocide” as the justification for NATO intervention were disputedby experts, several other theories have been floated.Oil, of course, has been mentioned frequently — Libya is Africa‘s largest oil producer. But one possible reason in particular for Gadhafi’s fall from grace has gained significant traction among analysts and segments of the non-Western media: central banking and the global monetary system.According to more than a few observers, Gadhafi’s plan to quit selling Libyan oil in U.S. dollars — demanding payment instead in gold-backed “dinars” (a single African currency made from gold) — was the real cause. The regime, sitting on massive amounts of gold, estimated at close to 150 tons, was also pushing other African and Middle Eastern governments to follow suit.

And it literally had the potential to bring down the dollar and the world monetary system by extension, according to analysts. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a “threat” to the financial security of the world. The “Insiders” were apparently panicking over Gadhafi’s plan.

“Any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world’s central banks,” noted financial analyst Anthony Wile, editor of the free market-oriented Daily Bell, in an interview with RT. “So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward [for] removing him from power.”

According to Wile, Gadhafi’s plan would have strengthened the whole continent of Africa in the eyes of economists backing sound money — not to mention investors. But it would have been especially devastating for the U.S. economy, the American dollar, and particularly the elite in charge of the system.

“The central banking Ponzi scheme requires an ever-increasing base of demand and the immediate silencing of those who would threaten its existence,” Wile noted in a piece entitled “Gaddafi Planned Gold Dinar, Now Under Attack” earlier this year. “Perhaps that is what the hurry [was] in removing Gaddafi in particular and those who might have been sympathetic to his monetary idea.”

Investor newsletters and commentaries have been buzzing for months with speculation about the link between Gadhafi’s gold dinar and the NATO-backed overthrow of the Libyan regime. Conservative analysts pounced on the potential relationship, too.

“In 2009 — in his capacity as head of the African Union — Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi had proposed that the economically crippled continent adopt the ‘Gold Dinar,’” noted Ilana Mercer in an August opinion piece for WorldNetDaily. “I do not know if Col. Gadhafi continued to agitate for ditching the dollar and adopting the Gold Dinar — or if the Agitator from Chicago got wind of Gadhafi’s (uncharacteristic) sanity about things monetary.”

But if Arab and African nations had begun adopting a gold-backed currency, it would have had major repercussions for debt-laden Western governments that would be far more significant than the purported “democratic” uprisings sweeping the region this year. And it would have spelled big trouble for the elite who benefit from “freshly counterfeited funny-money,” Mercer pointed out.

“Had Gadhafi sparked a gold-driven monetary revolution, he would have done well for his own people, and for the world at large,” she concluded. “A Gadhafi-driven gold revolution would have, however, imperiled the positions of central bankers and their political and media power-brokers.”

Adding credence to the theory about why Gadhafi had to be overthrown, as The New American reported in March, was the rebels’ odd decision to create a central bank to replace Gadhafi’s state-owned monetary authority. The decision was broadcast to the world in the early weeks of the conflict.

In a statement describing a March 19 meeting, the rebel council announced, among other things, the creation of a new oil company. And more importantly: “Designation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”

The creation of a new central bank, even more so than the new national oil regime, left analysts scratching their heads. “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising,” noted Robert Wenzel in an analysis for the Economic Policy Journal. “This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences,” he added. Wenzel also noted that the uprising looked like a “major oil and money play, with the true disaffected rebels being used as puppets and cover” while the transfer of control over money and oil supplies takes place.

Other analysts, even in the mainstream press, were equally shocked. “Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power?” wondered CNBC senior editor John Carney. “It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.”

Similar scenarios involving the global monetary system — based on the U.S. dollar as a global reserve currency, backed by the fact that oil is traded in American money — have also been associated with other targets of the U.S. government. Some analysts even say a pattern is developing.

Iran, for example, is one of the few nations left in the world with a state-owned central bank. And Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein, once armed by the U.S. government to make war on Iran, was threatening to start selling oil in currencies other than the dollar just prior to the Bush administration’s “regime change” mission.

Iran, for example, is one of the few nations left in the world with a state-owned central bank. And Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein, once armed by the U.S. government to make war on Iran, was threatening to start selling oil in currencies other than the dollar just prior to the Bush administration’s “regime change” mission.


Do We Need Federal Agencies Such as FEMA?

| Print |  
Written by Kelly Holt   –   New American
Friday, 11 November 2011 00:00
As a resident of tiny Smithville, Texas (between Austin and Houston), this past Labor Day I was able to observe firsthand the largest and most horrific wildfire in Texas history (which ravaged the area) and also its aftermath. The event — labeled the Bastrop County Complex fire — once again gave rise to the stories that restore one’s faith in people: Neighbors as well as citizens from states around the nation responded immediately to the plight of victims. Yet at the same time, the intrusion of the U.S. government agency FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency), with its bureaucratic regulations, provided a clear lesson on why federal aid is not the answer in such situations.The conflagration began in Bastrop County on September 4 when a downed tree sparked a power line. Given that Texas is in the midst of the most severe single-year drought since the 1950s, parched terrain and high temperatures provided the perfect fuel for immediate ignition. High winds spread the blaze at an alarming rate. It jumped the Colorado River and eventually destroyed nearly 1,600 homes and about 34,000 acres. Amazingly, only two people died as a result of the wildfire.The fire burned a six-mile-wide and 16-mile-long swath between Bastrop (the county seat) and Smithville — with major damage in rural areas outside the limits of the two towns.Private Response

For whatever reason, it appeared that tiny Smithville (pop. 4,000) was able to organize donation and volunteer efforts somewhat more quickly and efficiently than its troubled neighbors. Donations poured in from across the nation, and firefighters and volunteers didn’t wait for invitations. As a volunteer, your reporter witnessed the remarkable phenomenon of every person seemingly being in the right place at the right time, doing the right thing. Church kitchens produced hundreds of meals daily for firefighters, volunteers, and evacuees; empty warehouse space was opened to accept, organize, and distribute donations; keys to necessary buildings appeared; and forklifts with operators showed up to transport donations to the appropriate places — all in clockwork fashion.

Initially, county fire departments worked for three days straight without assistance from the nearby capital city of Austin (dealing with four fires of its own). And for more than a week, Smithville managed its donations and distributions unaided by federal or even state resources.

In the meantime, Texas Governor Rick Perry had requested an extension of an earlier disaster declaration (originally issued in December 2010) to include the Bastrop County Complex fire. Because of the elevated wildfire threat in Texas, the declaration had been kept in place all year, and departments statewide had already responded to literally thousands of fires. So, when the extent of the Bastrop inferno became apparent, Texas appealed to Washington.

Smithville Fire Marshall Jack Page, also the town’s Emergency Management Coordinator, explained the process of disaster declaration and FEMA assistance:

The “declaration” of a major disaster is necessary in order to claim reimbursements from the federal government. After the state declares a disaster, it formally requests assistance from the federal government. Then when the government (the President) confirms the disaster, the request is forwarded to FEMA. Then FEMA can move in and begin to help in the form of individual or public assistance, which goes to municipalities for reimbursement of public resources, overtime for firefighters, extra fuel costs for the trucks, lost or damaged equipment, etc. FEMA reimburses 75 percent of the costs, and locally we’re responsible for 25 percent of recovery costs.

All of which takes time. Smithville Mayor Mark Bunte reported, “It was about eight days before FEMA was functional with  the state.” By the time FEMA officials arrived, local efforts in Smithville were well under way and functioning efficiently.

The Problem with FEMA

But there were locals who questioned, not how, but whether FEMA should have been invited to help.

Federal management of emergencies has existed in the United States for over 200 years, but the modern agency known as FEMA was established as an independent agency (now serving within the Department of Homeland Security) and activated by executive order of President Carter in 1979. Over the years — through reorganizations, congressional assignment of increased responsibilities, and presidential executive orders — FEMA’s authority has grown to include an astonishing array of duties, from dam safety to counterterrorism. But following the agency’s colossal failure after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, its efforts were reevaluated.

In 2006, in answering the question of why FEMA failed so miserably in response to Katrina, Russell S. Sobel and Peter T. Leeson wrote for the Cato Institute an analysis of the agency entitled “Flirting with Disaster: The Inherent Problems with FEMA,” outlining the real costs of looking to the federal government for help after a disaster.

Sobel and Leeson’s report concluded that FEMA is inherently flawed — rife with problems of bureaucracy, poor coordination, and adverse incentives. They added, “Another important fact that must be realized is that natural disasters are prone to being politicized.”

Concerning politicization, the Cato report observed that FEMA “will cater to those who determine their budgetary allocations rather than to the citizens they are supposed to serve. The incentive is to help themselves by distributing money in ways that benefit them and their political careers.” The two authors participated in a study of all disasters from 1991-99 and found that states politically important to the President’s reelection bid had a higher rate of disaster declaration. Data from recent incidents also confirm these statistics. For instance, Sobel and Leeson found that when Bill Clinton was seeking reelection in 1996, he declared a record-setting number (75) of major disasters. The second-highest year (68) was 2004 — George W. Bush’s reelection year — when 90 percent of the increase in disaster declarations between 2003 and 2004 were in the 12 battleground states where five percent or less of the votes decided the election. The two men concluded that “nearly half of all disaster relief is motivated by politics rather than by need.” Incredibly, the authors claim that “for every representative a state has on the House disaster relief oversight committee, it receives about $30 million in additional funding when a disaster is declared.”

Critics point out that a top-heavy organization such as a large government agency cannot help but become bureaucratized, and that the problem is only compounded by giving it even more power, money, and authority. The Cato Institute’s report observed, “Nonfederal relief suppliers — particularly those in the private sector — are able to overcome those problems.” Authors Sobel and Leeson continued, referring to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina:

Thus it should come as no surprise that the real success stories in the Katrina relief effort came from those who flouted the bureaucratic decision making process and took action without explicit approval by FEMA. The U.S. Coast Guard, for example, began its helicopter rescue efforts without waiting for any other government agency’s approval or coordination.

Observers have noted that problems in coordination often center on the inability to get proper information to the right place at the right time. In a disaster, communications are often hampered considerably if not completely shut down. During the Bastrop County Complex fire, for instance, cellphone and Internet services were interrupted for approximately two days. As Sobel and Leeson accurately observed about disaster relief, “Coordination simply cannot be achieved by channeling demands through a centralized agency. Individuals with local knowledge and the ability to act on it must be allowed to make the decisions.”

One of the victims of the Bastrop County fire, musician Byron Smith, who lost his home near Bastrop, was able to observe FEMA’s bureaucracy firsthand. He noted that the local charities were much more helpful in meeting immediate needs than the government agency:

It seemed to me that FEMA was all about paperwork, and I began to ask, “How does this help me?” I didn’t get that kind of response from the charities. They were asking me what they could do for me, and we got immediate attention for our most immediate needs.

Part of FEMA’s required paperwork was that each fire victim had to present his FEMA case number when seeking any donated items from the Smithville distribution center.

Several representatives of the federal program AmeriCorps also came to Smithville to work with FEMA. However, because they found that many suggestions they made for action was already in place, they decided to move to the nearby town of Bastrop and implement Smithville’s organization there. But before they left, in what would seem a time-consuming and counterproductive effort, one AmeriCorps representative asked the leaders of Smithville’s distribution efforts (those on the front lines of handing out donated items to victims) to have volunteers “write down every item that goes out the door” (an idea the volunteers quickly jettisoned).

Three weeks after the wildfire — while victims were still coming in to the Smithville distribution center for help, and over the protests of the local volunteers — the city shut down the center, at FEMA’s suggestion, and the agency removed the enormous number of remaining items and stored them in a warehouse 70 miles away, awaiting the next disaster.

Though FEMA has improved its performance since Hurricane Katrina, the fact remains that by the time the federal officials arrived at the Bastrop County burn zone, volunteers had already had everything under control for more than a week.

FEMA is generally slow in responding to disasters — and not just because of bureaucratic ineptitude. According  to Sobel and Leeson: “FEMA has an incentive to delay action even if more disaster victims are harmed by its not entering than would be harmed if it entered prematurely.” How so? When FEMA errs on the side of caution, its mistake is not that visible. On the other hand, if FEMA were to immediately enter a disaster area — resulting, say, in rescue workers getting hurt — its mistake would be highly visible and would provoke widespread admonishment. A 2006 special report by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs noted that “FEMA has a longstanding policy of not putting its emergency responders in the path of a storm so that they will not be in need of rescue themselves.” This policy would naturally account for why FEMA takes so long to respond after a disaster.

The question then arises, why do communities line up for FEMA intervention? Many communities say it’s for the federal money.

Smithville’s Fire Marshall Jack Page told The New American that the magnitude of the Bastrop County Complex fire prompted both Smithville and Bastrop to accept federal help in spite of its attendant problems. The towns were free to reject FEMA’s help and continue their own efforts, but as Page explained, “The local municipalities would have suffered a real hardship without federal reimbursement. Since we are tax-based, it would take a long time to rebuild our community resources without it.” Page noted, however, that as far as he knew, residents and county offices were still waiting for the reimbursement from FEMA for a 2009 fire in the area.

And Bastrop musician Byron Smith observed another flaw in the FEMA reimbursement system: rewarding irresponsible behavior:

I’ve always been responsible and paid my bills on time, including my insurance premiums. I quickly learned that I was underinsured, but I had tried to do the right thing and be responsible. But, instead, because of that, I got at the back of the FEMA line behind many others who had never accepted the responsibility of carrying insurance.

I don’t understand, nor do I think it is right, that the responsible people should be penalized for being responsible. FEMA’s answer to me was that I could always seek an SBA loan for rebuilding, and if that failed, then I could come back for FEMA relief. Doesn’t make any sense.

The New American was hard-pressed to discover a modern-day community affected by disaster that had not sought relief from FEMA. Critics have noted that most contemporary Americans have developed a habit of turning to the federal government for solutions to their problems, and they rarely question the constitutionality or morality of agencies such as FEMA.

Before FEMA

But what did communities do before there was a FEMA? On September 8, 1900, an unnamed hurricane slammed into Galveston, Texas. It was destined to become the deadliest natural disaster ever to strike the United States. The most-often reported number of deaths was 6,000 — more than died in Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. And although there was no federal agency such as FEMA, volunteers from cities around the state showed up with water, boats, and other forms of help. Aid of all sorts came in from across the nation as well, and financial donations arrived from around the world. The city raised its own money, and received state — but not national — funds to build the enormous seawall that protects Galveston to this day. In fact, the city so routinely experiences hurricane damage that it now keeps a large sum of money ($14 million, according to various sources) in reserve for recovery efforts.

And further back in time, Texas historians recall the severe drought that plagued the Lone Star State in the 1880s. The “Texas Seed Bill” was drafted by Congress to provide federal relief to suffering farmers, but President Grover Cleveland vetoed the legislation, pointing out that the U.S. Constitution does not authorize any such action. He explained,

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

What happened next was remarkable. Private citizens donated 10 times more to the Texas farmers than the amount of federal aid legislated in the vetoed bill — proving the President’s point.

It is believed by many in the burn zone of Bastrop County, Texas, that Americans are more than willing and able to help others recover from disasters, and would not be so willing to accept FEMA relief if they understood these implications. Citizen volunteers in Smithville managed to come together in an organized fashion and privately provide help to 4,270 people. And they can do it again.

Photo: AP Images

This article is an example of the exclusive content that’s only available by subscribing to our print magazine. Twice a month get in-depth features covering the political gamut: education, candidate profiles, immigration, healthcare, foreign policy, guns, etc. Digital options available! For more information, click here.


Jerry Sandusky Rumored to Have Been ‘Pimping Out Young Boys to Rich Donors’

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Michael Hurley
November 10, 2011

In April, Pittsburgh radio host Mark Madden wrote a story revealing Penn State for much of the cover-up of Jerry Sandusky’s alleged child rape that has been exposed in the past week. While it didn’t raise many eyebrows back then, six months later it looks to be incredibly accurate.

On Thursday morning, just hours after legendary head coach Joe Paterno and university president Graham Spanier were fired by the school’s board of trustees, Madden was asked on The Dennis and Callahan Show what he believes the next piece of news will be.

What he said was twice as shocking as anything that’s been released thus far.

Read more


No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: