| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 |
|
|||||||||||||
| No More Legal Criminals | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Mar 8th, 2011 09:01 am |
|
101st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Cats out of the bagsThe FBI and CIA connection
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 14th, 2011 09:03 am |
|
102nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Hire liars, what do you expect?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Aug 30th, 2011 11:34 am |
|
103rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28979.htm Anyone, May I remind you, the reader, even if the reader is literally one person, that Joe's Law is the stepping stone, the foundation, from which my comments are launched, concerning the link above, specifically, and political economy generally. Power produced into abundance, or produced so as to have more power instead of less power, causes the price of power to go down, as power flows like sunlight on a hot summer day, and as the price of power goes down the political measure of money, increases, or in other words the power to purchase with money increases, or in other words there is, as a result of more power produced, making the price of power lower, deflation of the money unit, as the value of money increases, as power is produced to abundance, as the price of power lowers, and the increase in the power of money is due to the fact that power reduces the cost of production. The opposite happens when power becomes scarce, as the Legal Criminals willfully make power scarce, on purpose, because they can, because it is in their power to do so, because they have stolen our power, and our power is used against us, as we provide the means by which we suffer. Here is a quote from the link: "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else," U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, said in a statement. Please note how language is a form of political and economic currency, and language can be productive, and language can be very powerfully productive when language conveys accurate meaning, while the opposite can also be true, as language can become destructive as language is willful crafted so as to convey false meaning, targeting specific people who are thereby injured, weakened, and rendered powerless by those forms of currency known as lies. Why use the word socialism when the actual accurate measure of the events being reported are crimes. Why call a crime anything but what it is? Why help the criminals get away with their crimes by helping them cover up their crimes by calling their crimes socialism? Socialism is exactly what socialism is, according to the proponents of socialism, when the proponents of socialism speak the honest truth. Socialism is not what the people who are against socialism say it is when those who are against socialism lie about socialism so as to discredit socialism through the invention, production, transfer, and maintenance of those lies. Why side track an investigation that discovers crimes committed by now known criminals? Why call the crimes committed by the criminals by any other name? Why invent, produce, and maintain another white wash - whitey? I can rewrite the statement reported by one of the Legal Criminals so as to convey accurate meaning, rather than false meaning to whomever gains access to this report. Here, again, is the quote: "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else," U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, said in a statement. Take out the word socialism and place an accurate word in place of socialism. "This is a clear case of legal crime for the rich." That is yet, still, not an accurate report, since the use of the word "rich" is another twist, or spin, or cover-up of the facts, which can be fixed by taking out the false word and place an accurate word in place of the false word. Take out the false word rich and put the accurate word criminal in place. "This is a clear case of legal crime for the legal criminals." The report is as yet unclear, having no mention of the actual nature of the crime, but that can also be fixed, and that can be fixed in a general as well as a specific manner. A general manner is a manner whereby the communication intends to transfer accurate meaning of the actual crimes to the reader through the use of accurate language. "This is a clear case of legal criminals abusing the power of law to take more power from their targeted victims as the legal criminals abuse their exclusive legal power over the legal money supply." or "Those crooks wrote themselves a checks for trillions of dollars, and the tax payers are given the bill for anything they buy with that money that they stole from the tax payers, and here are there names, and here is where they live, and we can find out exactly what they did buy, so as to inform the sellers who sold them things for stolen money of the fact that they have participated in fraud by receiving stolen property, our money, in exchange for whatever those crooks bought with our money that they stole." We can give back what the Legal Criminals bought, once their purchases are repossessed, when the guilty are known, beyond a shadow of doubt, and as their crimes are know precisely. Why do the fellow Legal Criminals invent political spin? Why does anyone lie? Ask them, or is there a need to trust in their actions, not their words? How about taking away their licenses to commit the legal crimes they gave them selves? Who is the boss? Who did you hire to do the things you want done? If you hired liars, what does that say about what you want done? If you hired torturers, what does that say about what you want done? If you hired mass murderers, what does that say about what you want done? If you supply the means by which you suffer, what does that say about what you want done? The message continues, and it continues to spread democracy, or fight the war on drugs, or terrorism, or anything but fight the war on falsehood, or fight the war against legal crime. Here again: "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else," U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, said in a statement. What is wrong with you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone? Isn't that Liberty? Isn't that merely the naked truth behind all the false fronts? Isn't that a natural human condition whereby people no longer supply the means by which we suffer, when they have had enough of that suffering stuff, on their own dime? Why use words that describe the facts of Liberty if the actual target of those words happen to be legal victims, or those who are forced to pay involuntary taxes, by way of deceit, and by way of threats of terrible, and horrible violence, and by way of actual acts of terrible and horrible, aggressive violence upon those who try desperately to avoid paying those taxes to those legal criminals who then use that stolen tax money to commit even more destructive crimes? Why point to the victims and then make a very misleading claim that the victims are Liberated, or on-their-own, which they most certainly are not, since they are forced, by deceit, and forced by threats of violence, and forced by actual aggressive violence to foot the bills produced by those legal criminals, the same legal criminals who have names, and titles, and addresses, and bank accounts, and cars, and boats, and summer homes, and winter homes, and planes, and gold, and silver, and stocks, and bonds, and treasury bills, and who knows what else they have bought with the money they have stolen? Barry Sanders is one of them, like Barry Soetoro, they speak with forked tongue, and they do so for good reason; good for legal criminals. When the victims grow wiser it becomes more difficult to victimize them. The victims, once powerful, no longer wish to provide the means by which we suffer; once we know that we are providing the means by which we suffer, we take steps to stop providing the means by which we suffer, except for the masochists among us who prefer to suffer, and those who will pay whatever price is demanded by those who provide the suffering to those who desperately want to suffer. Have you become a well trained masochist hiding behind a thin veil of false patriotism? Look in the mirror, the thin veil is thinning. The torturers don't work for free, unless they are in it for the torture, not the money, which may account for more Legal Criminals than expected, but most are most definitely in it for the money, which is the power to purchase, or it isn't money, just look at the numbers. How many Legal Criminals are on the list? How much money was stolen this time? Suppose that there are 12 people on this current list, such as the 12 people on the Federal Reserve System of Legal Extortion Federal Open Market Committee. There you have 12 legal criminals. How much did those people steal? Go back to the title of the link at the top of this page. What is the amount that was stolen, this time, by those 12 Legal Criminals? First Federal Reserve Audit Reveals Trillions in Secret Bailouts Two Trillion? Three Trillion? Listen folks: Please I'm going to offer you a scale by which the measure of the crimes in question can be understood. If the Legal Criminals have been and are stealing one cent more than 1 Trillion, knowing exactly how much they steal, can represent the latest record breaking example of Grand Theft, so as to get the actual highest ever stolen number written accurately down into the Guinness Book of World Records, then we can begin to build the scale that shows the worst crime ever committed, as yet, in human history on one end of the scale, and the least is on the other end of the same scale. What is on the other end of the scale? Where is an example of the least crime so far known to mankind? I can offer a current measure of what is on the other end of the scale so as to get a better idea, a clearer understanding, of the full measure of the worst crime, as the worst crime is compared to the least crime. OK? Here: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/08/syracuse_15-year-old_gets_two.html Syracuse 15-year-old gets two to six years for 7-cent robbery Low end: 15 year old boy steals 7 cents, not 6 cents, and not 8 cents, 7 cents stolen. 1 boy 7 cents 6 years of what; gang rape, and other tortures raining down upon the criminal who is found guilty of stealing 7 cents, beyond any reasonable doubt according to 12 randomly selected peers who are each, individually gaining command of the license, the ultimate power, of veto on any crimes claimed to be crimes by anyone else in the current regime? High end: 12 members of the FOMC steals Trillions, give or take a few Trillions, more or less, which could mean 12 Trillion, one Trillion each. 1 cent is roughly worth 1 year of punishment; a specific kind of punishment, some kind of injury forced upon the boy who stole 7 cents, according to the unanimous agreement of all 12 jurors. 1 Trillion is how many cents? 1,000,000,000,000 That is one Trillion. 100 pennies in each dollar, so add 2 zeros, if you can, math can be such a bore. 15 zeros. 1,000,000,000,000,000 1 cent = 1 year of punishment, on the low end of the Just US scale. Do you get this, at all, or are you too stupefied to get it? Who is injured by the boy who stole 7 cents, and rather than pay back the 7 cents, where the boy is told to pay back the 7 cents, and the boy is asked to apologize when paying back the 7 cents, the tax payers are made to pay for the training of the boy to become a better criminal, the tax payers hire gangs to rape the boy, and other punishments - perhaps. Professional gang rapers charge a lot too, they don't work for free. Who is injured by all the cents stolen by those 12 criminals at the FOMC? How many cents is 15 zeros worth? How many years worth of punishment are the taxpayers told to pay for as just punishment is rendered upon those Federal Reserve criminals, where just us tax payers pay for that punishment, and as our power is used to accomplish these things on the same scale used for the criminals who stole Trillions, and as the same scale is used for the criminal who stole 7 cents? We pay in each case as we provide the means to punish the 12 criminals at the Federal Reserve who stole Trillions, and as we provide the means to punish the boy who stole 7 cents. A. Punish the boy at roughly year of punishment for each penny stolen B. Give even more power to the 12 who stole Trillions, so they have more power to use in the work that is necessary to steal more, and cover up those crimes, paying gangs who rape as a profession, and paying congressmen who white wash the false trials that are supposedly discovering the crimes committed by the people who have given themselves the license to write trillions of dollars worth of checks, whenever they want, and get away with it. Do you get it, yet? Are you still stupefied by their brilliance? What else is written in that news item? "No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the President," Sanders wrote. Suppose that the boy who stole 7 cents was beaten senseless along that road he went on after being caught for that crime of stealing 7 cents from that victim who had 7 cents before the boy stole that 7 cents. Now the boy may be dumbfounded, shaken, beaten, and in a stake of shock and awe, unable to make the right decisions, at the time of the beating, and afterwards. Suppose the boy recovers and realizes the truth, that it was wrong to steal the 7 cents, and even more wrong to get caught, obviously. Now suppose that the boy manages to get through all 6 years of training, paying his debt to "society", and what will you call a condition by which the boy, now a man, is trained to be a better criminal, that stealing can be profitable, so long as you don't get caught? Will you call that stultification? I will, because thieves, even if they are successful, getting away with stealing, so as to repeat their crimes indefinitely, are stupid people, they are stupefied, because they, by their crimes, provide the means by which they suffer, since they injure the people who produce the things worth stealing, and that road leads to scarcity, and that road leads to misery, and that road is the race to the bottom, and that road kills the goose that lays the golden eggs. Stupid people travel down that road willingly. Stupefied people travel down that road as a consequence of being rendered stupid somewhere along the natural way that people live in a condition known as liberty, which can be defined as a condition of life that avoids being stupefied by criminals with badges. Suppose, by chance, the boy is taught to only steal from the legal criminals, or whitey, or the rich, or some other group, suppose the boy is taught to attack a group, not the individuals who make up the group, until there is one from the group in sight, and only then is there one from the group singled out, and targeted for injury, whereby the idea, projected into the boys mind, is to attack the whole group by attacking one person at a time who is said to belong to the targeted group, and who cares which members of the group actually pay the price? Who cares? Who cares if the boy stole 7 cents? Someone does, or the boy wouldn't be facing 6 years of punishment, or training, or whatever word covers up the facts best for your feeble conscience, if you are a reader with a feeble conscience. If not, what are you? If someone does care enough about the boy who stole 7 cents, cares enough to help finance the 6 years of punishment, or training, or debt to society, or whatever word works best for those who care enough to finance that process, if someone cares enough for that: what explains the lack of care for those 12 criminals who stole trillions, more or less? Someone cares enough to give them Trillions more, for having stolen Trillions already. Someone cares enough to ruin the boys life for a 7 cent crime. Someone cares enough to reward the same Legal Criminals confessing to writing Trillions of dollars worth of checks by giving them even more power than the power they have already stolen. Why do people use language that covers up the facts? "No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the President," Sanders wrote. That is a cover-up. The United States government is run by criminals, and they have given themselves the license to torture, to kill, and even to mass murder, because they can, because they have stolen the power to do so, and because on one, as yet, has the power to stop them, and they are qualified to use the license they gave themselves, and they have passed all the test required to get that much power from you, the tax payers. If the facts are covered up, and the tax payers remain stupefied, legal crime perpetuates. The result of that process of stupification is the process by which the tax payers provide the means by which they suffer, and this is not news, this is old information; information that was once known by the average Joe tax payers, and the average Jane tax payers, before the process of stupification worked as well as it does now, so well as to leave only one survivor. Me. Are you jealous or envious? What explains the silence? Perhaps another survivor exists, but how would I know? "If such lending is not illegal, it should be. Our nation really did go through a liquidity crisis - a run on the short-term liabilities of financial institutions. There is only one way to stop a run: lend reserves without limit to all qualifying institutions. The Fed bumbled around before it finally sort of did that," Wray said. Wray doesn't get it, or he is paid to lie. They give themselves license. How do I know? How can you not know? I cannot write myself a check for Trillions of dollars, more or less, and so long as no one is counting, I might as well write a 12 Trillion dollar check, on the check, the check will have numbers, not "more or less", and not "trillions", where the person writing the check writes an open ended, blank, space, or the word "trillions" on the line where the amount of the check is recorded, no, the check will have an exact number, and the check will be exchanged for something, something known. Who can, if you and I can't, write Trillions of dollars worth of checks, and get away with it? No one, no one without the legal license to do so, can write Trillions of dollars worth of checks, buy Trillions of dollars worth of purchases, no one, not without which the check writer is punished for those crimes, not without the legal license to do so, and it is an exclusive license on purpose. In whose interest is it to support that exclusive license? The report let's the reader know that someone has given themselves the license to write Trillions worth of checks and get away with it. The other report about the boy criminal who stole 7 cents is offered so as to build a scale of value, so as to contrast one report with another report, seeking a more exact, less ambiguous, measure of the crimes, as the boy gave himself license to take 7 cents from someone else, but that license was then revoked, and more was done in the way of "Just US" in that event with that boy, according to that report, where that boy gave himself license to write a check for 7 cents; not an actual check, and not an actual license, the boy simply stole 7 cents, compared to the National Banking fraud in progress, where Trillions are stolen, and the rate of theft can't be measured in pennies, because the number of pennies being stolen each second is too big of a number for a person to understand exactly how big that number is, as each second goes by, as the incomprehensibly large number of pennies are stolen each second. "If such lending is not illegal, it should be. Our nation really did go through a liquidity crisis - a run on the short-term liabilities of financial institutions. There is only one way to stop a run: lend reserves without limit to all qualifying institutions. The Fed bumbled around before it finally sort of did that," Wray said. Wray is one of those people who are stupefied, or he knows better and his words are willfully designed to deceive intended victims. Here is this guy Wray, and he claims that these other guys "bumbled around". Does Wray give himself license to write Trillions worth of checks, and get away with it? Who is bumbling around? Are you as stupefied as Wray? "But then it turned to phase two, which was to try to resolve problems of insolvency by increasing Uncle Sam’s stake in the banksters’ fiasco. That never should have been done. You close down fraudsters, period. The Fed and FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Commission) should have gone into the biggest banks immediately, replaced all top management, and should have started to resolve them," Wray said. Now Wray targets another group of people. The new targeted group of people are no longer the Bumbling Fed group of people, now the group of people targeted are the banksters who have done something along the lines of creating a "bankster's fiasco". More bumbles bumbling around? 1. The Fed bumbles around 2. Banksters create fiascoes Wray has yet to report the facts, but perhaps Wray is getting paid by those same people who are the actual people who are bumbling around creating fiascoes, someone has to hire someone to spread the lies, and who lies for fun and profit? Who lies for pay? Who pays? What can you buy for 7 cents? What can you buy for 12 Trillion, more or less? Could you buy World War III, and regime change, out with The Dollar Hegemony and in with a New World Reserve Currency, perhaps one that is based in Asia? What is the real news here, in this twisted make believe world where the most powerful people continue to make mistakes while the least powerful continue to pay for those mistakes? "I think this (the first ever GAO audit) was a good start to uncovering what the Fed did so that we can begin to determine whether similar actions should ever be permitted again," Wray wrote, adding, "my preliminary answer is a resounding no." A resounding maybe? How about the boy who stole 7 cents? Did someone claim that the boy was just another socialist for the rich, taking 7 cents from Peter, to pay Paul, and he is Paul, the socialist, and Peter is the individual left alone, except in this case where Peter is the individual left alone without his 7 cents, and Peter is the individual left alone with the bill to teach Paul how to be a better socialist? Is the boy bailed out with a free 6 year ticket to falsehood university? FU Where is that blindfolded lady holding the scale, did some lone gunman commit her suicide too?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 7th, 2011 11:14 am |
|
104th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
The Face of Imperialism"Michael Parenti's The Face of Imperialism is a powerful, frightening, and honest book.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Dec 17th, 2011 08:05 am |
|
105th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
War Criminal at large
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jan 25th, 2012 12:09 pm |
|
106th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Legal Crime CentralThe largest banks are bigger than they were when he took office and earned more in the first two-and-a-half years of his term than they did during the entire eight years of the Bush administration. That’s confirmed by industry data. What else: “The bankers then returned to Switzerland and treated their conduct as blameless since Swiss law says tax evasion is no crime. The Swiss bank before us deliberately entered United States, actively sought U.S. clients and secretly helped those U.S. clients defraud the United States of America.” Swiss law says tax evasion is no crime? Tax evasion is no crime? Voluntary taxation? Does someone, somewhere, actually think that voluntary taxation is wrong? Can someone explain why voluntary taxation is wrong, without saying the same things said by every other criminal that ever walked and talked?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 08:23 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Power Independence > Networking > Expanding Connectivity > No More Legal Criminals | Top |
