When visiting your doctor be aware of how many carbon footprints it takes to get there...[Will they change miles per gallon (mpg) to 'carbon footprints per mile (cfpm)'?]

Source The Telegrph (United Kingdom)
Surgery bans elderly patient over her carbon footprint

An elderly woman was ordered to find a new GP because the “carbon footprint” of her two-mile round trips to the surgery where she had been treated for 30 years was too large.

Avril Mulcahy, 83, was told to address the “green travelling issues” over her journeys from her home in Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex, to the West Road Surgery. The surgery wrote to Mrs Mulcahy, telling her to register with a new GP within 28 days.

The letter said: “Our greatest concern is for your health and convenience but also taking into consideration green travelling issues. Re: Carbon footprints and winter weather conditions, we feel it would be advisable for patients to register at surgeries nearer to where they live.

"We would be very grateful if you could make the necessary arrangements to re-register at another practice.”

Mrs Mulcahy, a grandmother, believes the decision was made because she complained about a doctor.

“When I read through the letter, I found it absolutely ridiculous they were saying the reason was to decrease their carbon footprint,” she said. “I have been a patient at the practice for 30 years now, and there has never been any problem.
“To be treated like this, just because I live too far away or for what I feel is a reaction to my complaint, is disgraceful. It feels like they are just coming up with an excuse to get rid of me.”

Mrs Mulcahy said she was anxious and worried at having to try to find a new GP. “If they really cared, they could have found me a new practice instead of just basically saying do it yourself,” she said.

“It is a great worry to me as I am elderly and need to get repeat prescriptions for medication. This is really a stress I could do without. I won’t let it rest though, because I feel like I am being treated poorly.”

The West Road Surgery declined to comment. Andrew Stride, the head of governance, risk and customer services for NHS South Essex, said: “We would advise all patients who have concerns about any aspect of local NHS care to contact the patient advice and liaison service.

"While we are unable to comment on individual cases, we would like to assure patients there is a procedure GP practices need to follow before they can remove patients from their lists.”

This Man Obama: The worst that can happen will happen...Americans are not smart enough to dump him now...they'll wait for an election while he continues to do more damage...then it will be too late!

Unions...Are they a help or a hindrance?

Before you read this you might want to read Which States Have The Best Growth Rates In Personal Income? (Hint: It's not the union dominated states!)

See also: Government Workers Who Strike, Violate the Public Trust

Big Labor’s Top Ten Special Privileges
Source: National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation

Labor union officials enjoy many extraordinary powers and immunities that were created by legislatures and the courts. Union officials claim to rely on the support of rank-and-file workers. Yet, they clamor in the political arena to secure and expand their government-granted powers, including the powers to shake down workers for financial support and even to wage campaigns of violent retaliation against non-union employees.
The following list of special privileges reveals the extent to which union bosses have rigged our nation’s labor laws in their favor.

Privilege #1:	Exemption from prosecution for union violence. The most egregious example of organized labor’s special privileges and immunities is the 1973 United States v. Enmons decision. In it, the United States Supreme Court held that union violence is exempted from the Hobbs Act, which makes it a federal crime to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery or extortion. As a result, thousands of incidents of violent assaults (directed mostly against workers) by union militants have gone unpunished. Meanwhile, many states also restrict the authority of law enforcement to enforce laws during strikes.
Privilege #2:	Exemption from anti-monopoly laws. The Clayton Act of 1914 exempts unions from anti-monopoly laws, enabling union officials to forcibly drive out independent or alternative employee bargaining groups.
Privilege #3:	Power to force employees to accept unwanted union representation. Monopoly bargaining, or “exclusive representation,” which is embedded in most of the country’s labor relations statutes, enables union officials to act as the exclusive bargaining agents of all employees at a unionized workplace, thereby depriving employees of the right to make their own employment contracts. For example, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, the Federal Labor Relations Act (FLRA) of 1978, and the Railway Labor Act (RLA) of 1926 prohibit employees from negotiating their own contracts with their employers or choosing their own workplace representatives.
Privilege #4:	Power to collect forced union dues. Unlike other private organizations, unions can compel individuals to support them financially. In 27 states under the NLRA (those that have not passed Right to Work laws), all states under the RLA, on “exclusive federal enclaves,” and in many states under public sector labor relations acts, employees may be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment, even if they reject union affiliation.
Privilege #5:	Unlimited, undisclosed electioneering. The Federal Election Campaign Act exempts unions from its limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, as well as some of its reporting requirements. Union bigwigs can spend unlimited amounts on communications to members and their families in support of, or opposition to, candidates for federal office, and they need not report these expenditures if they successfully claim that union publications are primarily devoted to other subjects. For years, the politically active National Education Association (NEA) teacher union has gotten away with claiming zero political expenditures on its IRS tax forms!
Privilege #6:	Ability to strong-arm employers into negotiations. Unlike all other parties in the economic marketplace, union officials can compel employers to bargain with them. The NLRA, FLRA, and RLA make it illegal for employers to resist a union’s collective bargaining efforts and difficult for them to counter aggressive and deceptive campaigns waged by union organizers.
Privilege #7:	Right to trespass on an employer’s private property. The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 (and state anti-injunction acts) give union activists immunity from injunctions against trespass on an employer’s property.
Privilege #8:	Ability of strikers to keep jobs despite refusing to work. Unlike other employees, unionized employees in the private sector have the right to strike; that is, to refuse to work while keeping their job. In some cases, it is illegal for employers to hire replacement workers, even to avert bankruptcy. Meanwhile, union officials demonize replacement workers as “scabs” to set them up for retaliation.
Privilege #9:	Union-only cartels on construction projects. Under so-called project labor agreements, governments (local, state, or federal) award contracts for construction on major projects such as highways, airports, and stadiums exclusively to unionized firms. Such practices effectively lock-out qualified contractors and employees who refuse to submit to exclusive union bargaining, forced union dues, and wasteful union work rules. So far, just three states have outlawed these discriminatory and costly union-only pacts.
Privilege #10:	Government funding of forced unionism. On top of all of the special powers and immunities granted to organized labor, politicians even pour taxpayer money straight into union coffers. Union groups receive upwards of $160 million annually in direct federal grants. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. In 2001, the federal Department of Labor doled out $148 million for “international labor programs” overwhelmingly controlled by an AFL-CIO front group. Federal bureaucrats spend approximately $2.6 billion per year on “job training programs” that, under the Workforce Investment Act, must be administered by boards filled with union officials. Union bosses also benefit from a plethora of state and local government giveaways.

Preventing Obama Care From Gaining A Foothold...a way to go!

Idaho Nullification of ObamaCare Steams Ahead Despite Media Attacks
Source: ReadPeriodicals.com

Idaho is widely considered to be a key state in the state nullification effort to stop the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" and the "Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 201 0." the two-part federal law more commonly known as ObamaCare. Last year the state's Republican-controlled Legislature passed, and Republican Governor CL. "Butch" Otter signed, the Health Freedom Act, directing the Idaho Attorney General to sue the federal government over an ObamaCare provision that requires citizens either to purchase health insurance or face a fine - and. possibly, even jail. Idaho joined more than a dozen other states in a joint lawsuit challenging the federal law on constitutional grounds that Congress had exceeded its enumerated powers. All told, 27 states have filed lawsuits to prevent imposition of the sweeping federal legislation upon their citizens. The lawsuits, however, may drag on for years, by which time much of Ihe foundation ofObamaCare may be laid, providing the program with a momentum and a large political constituency that will be difficult to overcome.
The nullification effort is aimed at preventing ObamaCare from being initiated in a significant number of states, by having the state governments utilize the principle of "interposition" - interposing themselves between the federal government's unconstitutional mandates and the citizens. Idaho's Gov. Otter spoke strongly against ObamaCare in January in his State of the State address, and specifically mentioned that Idaho is looking at the nullification approach. Idaho is considered by many political observers to be the state with the most favorable conditions for legislative enactment and signing by a Governor. Since Otter's speech, nullification moved from the theoretical level to the practical, as Idaho Representatives Vito Barbieri and Judy Boyle, and Senators Monty Pearce, Sheryl Nuxoll. and Steve Vick introduced House Bill 59 (H. B. 59) during the last week of January.
Anxious to prevent any nullification effort from gaining a foothold. ObamaCare supporters nationwide have been quick to try to stop the Idaho effort. John Miller, a Boise reporter for the Associated Press, has written several negative stories about the nullification proposal that have been given unusually prominent coverage in the national media. Although support for and opposition against ObamaCare have split generally along partisan lines, the Democrats received welcome aid from Idaho's Republican Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, whose office "blind sided" the nullification sponsors with an opinion strongly opposing their bill. The opinion was broadly circulated through Miller's Associated Press stories as H. B. 59 was about to be introduced.
The Attorney General's hostile opinion and the media kerfuffle caused a temporary delay in moving H. B. 59 forward, but as we write, the measure is scheduled for a hearing before the House State Affairs Committee on February 7. Senator Pearce informs The New American that he is "guardedly optimistic" that the bill will quickly pass both houses and be signed into law bv Governor Otter.

Read more: http://readperiodicals.com/201102/2275296931.html#ixzz1rJKucloh

Did Bill Clinton say that Obama is not eligible to be president?

Sheriff Joe expands Obama probe to Hillary supporters

Obama campaign, DNC accused of voter fraud in 2008

PHOENIX – Based on interviews WND conducted with insiders in Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign, Sheriff Joe Arpaio has decided to expand the scope of his law enforcement investigation into President Obama’s eligibility to include evidence and affidavits documenting alleged criminal activity by the Obama campaign in the 2008 Democratic Party primary race

Hollywood film producer Bettina Viviano and Hollywood-based digital photographer Michele Thomas have given Arpaio’s investigators the names of dozens of Hillary Clinton supporters willing to come forward with evidence and affidavits. Among their claims is that the Clintons were the first to charge Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution and that his birth certificate is a forgery.
Moreover, the Hillary supporters identified by Viviano and Thomas have argued that the pattern of questionable and possibly illegal activity suggests that the alleged act of producing forged birth certificate documentation for Obama may have been merely more of the same.
As WND reported, Viviano claims she heard Bill Clinton say that Obama is not eligible to be president. ...continues here

True yesterday, true today, and true tomorrow...the truth about party politics

See also: They all look alike in their robes but underneath they're all Democrats

The following is a true story...

SCOTUS History: Examining Obama's ignorance

Source: Politics Alabama

"But I have to say that this should earn Obama the Oscar for "Lying Through His Teeth With a Straight Face." Because it IS a lie, and Obama knew it when he said it. Not only is overturning laws a lot of what SCOTUS DOES, its what they are THERE for! How, then, could his statement even possibly be remotely accurate? It couldn't, and he knew it."

PresBo Ignorant Of SCOTUS History

I'm sure you've heard about this by now, but yesterday PresBo took some shots at the Supreme Court in advance of their ObamaCare ruling, and said the most remarkably ignorant thing. We'll look at the shots first.
According to PresBo, any ruling except upholding the law completely would be judicial activism of the worst kind. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-supreme-court-healthcare/2012/04/02/id/434583?s=al&promo_code=E93A-1

"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."

Where to begin? First, his comment about judicial activism could be read two ways. The first is that he has a feel for the Court's decision, and is warning them of what his campaign for reelection will look like. The second is that he is actually trying to influence their ultimate decision by applying public pressure.

Next, note his comments about "an unelected group of people." We're not talking about just some random group of people pulled in off the street, we're talking about the United States Supreme Court, comprised of men and women who were nominated by a sitting President and confirmed by Congress. How can he get away with this kind of crud?

Now let's examine Obama's ignorance.

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Ummm... what?

If I recall correctly, PresBo graduated from Harvard Law and considers himself a Constitutional Scholar. How, then, could he possibly missed the fact that reviewing laws passed by "a democratically elected Congress" is what the Supreme Court DOES. They've been overturning such laws for over 200 years... the first such case being Marbury v Madison in 1803. Since then, SCOTUS has overturned more than 150 acts of Congress, and also overturned more than 1,100 state statutes and city ordinances.

Given those facts, how can Obama claim that overturning ObamaCare would be "an unprecedented, extraordinary step"? Seems to me that the step, should SCOTUS take it, would be backed by ample precedent. So why did Obama make such a patently false statement? Politics.

If ObamaCare, his signature achievement and what he intended to be his legacy, is overturned, he will have to use that overturning in his campaign to get reelected. In other words, he was announcing his political strategy in such a way as to justify his future actions. I think this shows that Obama believes that complete overturn is a distinct possibility, and he's setting up a contingency plan to rescue his campaign.

But I have to say that this should earn Obama the Oscar for "Lying Through His Teeth With a Straight Face." Because it IS a lie, and Obama knew it when he said it. Not only is overturning laws a lot of what SCOTUS DOES, its what they are THERE for! How, then, could his statement even possibly be remotely accurate? It couldn't, and he knew it.

The Supreme Court isn't just a group of unelected people. And it is their job to correct Congress when they pass a law that exceeds their authority... even if they pass such a law with "a strong majority of votes." To imply otherwise is to denigrate the justices on the bench and to betray his own ignorance of how our country's government really works.

Can't remember? Try this at home.

This is a cut segment from a larger documentary on the brain titled "BBC - Get Smart"; It reveals some of the techniques used by world champion Andi Bell.

Andi holds the current world record for speed cards of 31.16 seconds. You can see more of his results at http://web.aanet.com.au/memorysports/competitor.php?id=11 .

Andi Bell isn't an autistic savant, meerly someone who has trained their brain to be able to memorize and codify information in the brain using advanced mnemonic techniques.  Read more here.

Eulogy: What is said after you're dead...this one might surprise you!

From: Thom

Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 10:26 PM

To: undisclosed recipients:

Subject: Perfect Eulogy

 

Trayvon Martin: What the MSM is not telling you (28 items, aka 'facts', count 'em!) [Required reading for Obama & Company]

Trayvon Martin Was Not Shot Because He Was Black (1)By Kevin McCullough @ Townhall.com
READER ADVISORY: The following editorial contains assertions that may seem contradictory to things you've seen in media coverage of this subject. For some, such assertions will be simple common sense. It is not the intention of the author to insult the readers; thus, these statements will be identified numerically in parentheses. (2)

The investigative process is still underway in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. (3) Sanford police, county sheriffs, state and federal law enforcement are all compiling evidence of what happened the night that Trayvon Martin was shot to death. (4)
As your humble correspondent was returning to New York through Atlanta on Friday of this week, I did what I am often wont to do. I stopped for a bacon & jalapeno cheesesteak grilled sub sandwich at Charley's -- a popular Atlanta favorite. Over my left shoulder was the airport feed from CNN, and as the six or seven ladies operated the grill, called out the numbers, and delivered the delicacies, none of them could take their eyes off of the television feed.
At a particular point in the news feed CNN replayed a portion of the response of Robert Zimmerman Jr.'s appearance on Piers Morgan from Thursday evening. When Zimmerman Jr. made the claim that medical records will prove his brother's claims that he -- George Zimmerman, the shooter of Trayvon Martin -- had a scuffed back side of his head and a broken nose incurred from the scuffle preceding the shooting of Trayvon, the seven ladies behind the counter openly mocked, ridiculed, and heaped scorn at the television set. They muttered racial epithets under their breath.
They also spoke quietly, but loud enough for me to hear -- as a customer -- certain feelings about white people in general. (5)
In ways I have not seen in my forty-one years on this earth, this case -- or as it should be properly put -- the out-of-context reaction to this case has been perhaps the single most racially divisive event of my lifetime. (6) More than the O.J. Simpson verdict, more than the Rodney King case, more than any other incident I can call to memory -- the drummed-up reaction -- as was on display by the sandwich ladies -- made multiple customers in the Atlanta airport's Charley's cafe (in the B terminal) physically uneasy. (6)
The larger question for me this week is not so much the question of "why," because I can easily see how reinforcing racial divides helps a political party, a sitting president, people who peddle hate -- not very cleverly trying to disguise it as civil rights leadership, and even actors such as Sinbad and Spike Lee. No, the "why" of this matter seems easy to me. The larger question to me is, "how?"
Were I to query the ladies behind that counter, I am reasonably sure, based on answers they gave to questions that were not asked, that they genuinely felt that George Zimmerman was a white man who had targeted a black youth, conducted an act of violence on him because of his race, and was now being broadly protected by a system of whites.
But none of that happens to be true. (7)
George Zimmerman has nearly the same amount of Caucasian blood in him as President Obama does. (8) This alone -- in the President's case -- is an argument against his "whiteness," yet in the majority of early reports (and now, to those who talk behind sandwich counters) the truth doesn't matter.(9)
Zimmerman also has no history of racial animus towards black people. (10) One of his longtime friends, a former anchor for CNN -- who happens to be African American -- has been confirming this across as many media outlets as is possible. (11) Zimmerman and his wife -- it is now being discovered -- have been tutoring and mentoring at-risk African American youths for years, building into the lives of these at-risk children virtues and principals to live by.(12)
Zimmerman didn't target Martin because of race. (13) As a community watch volunteer, and as a licensed concealed-carry gun owner, Zimmerman had been concerned for some time about the amount of violent crime, break-ins, burglaries, and other felonies committed in his community. (14) In recent months, skinny tall guys in hoodies had been terrorizing the homeowners in the area. (15) Since the hoodie was pulled over his head, Zimmerman had no reasonable way to target merely an African American youth, but he did see a skinny tall kid -- that he did not recognize -- and felt if he saw something, he should say something.
According to 911 dispatch, Zimmerman was told that he did not need to follow Martin any further than he had. (Not, as some have reported, that he was actually instructed not to follow.) (16) According to Zimmerman, the police report, and as many as six witnesses: Zimmerman -- after getting off the phone -- retreated from his shadowing of Martin and returned to his SUV. (17) It is unclear as to why, but it is confirmed by multiple people who observed that Martin then turned and stalked Zimmerman. (18) Just when Zimmerman had gotten back to his vehicle, it is reported by witnesses that Martin violently assaulted Zimmerman. (19) And according to Robert Zimmerman, appearing on CNN on Thursday evening, Martin attempted to pull Zimmerman's gun. (20) Quickly the tussle turned serious. Both men in a fight for control of the firearm, one of them was shot seconds later.
The police -- once on the scene -- asked neighbors what they had seen and heard. (21) As many as six witnesses confirmed portions of Zimmerman's overall account. (22) Even so, Zimmerman was handcuffed, given medical treatment to clean up his wounds, taken to the police station, questioned, and released because his account was -- according to those who did the early investigating -- consistent with the evidence. (23)
Now a grand jury is looking into the matter, four different governmental levels of our nation's law enforcement are looking into it. (24) Police reports are being leaked to the press, and when every final bit of CSI material is catalogued a report will be made.
Robert Zimmerman wished to communicate to the Martin family the grief and sorrow that they feel for them. (25)
There are no such wishes being communicated to the rest of America for the damage that continues to be done in the violence that is the refusal to admit truth. (26) Those who do so would rather manipulate media and manufacture outrage all for political opportunity, vain publicity, or financial gain. (27)
Trayvon was not shot because he was black, and not one shred of actual evidence gathered thus far changes that fact. (28)

Then we have this...

My guess is that Trayvon's mom is in it for the money... Why in the world would any mother want to profit from her son's death?  Heck, the mourning period is not even over yet and this loving mom apparently has a love for money more so than her son...nobody takes out a patent over grief except the greedy.  You don't apply for a patent unless you expect to profit by it...this is truly bizarre! Read on... ~ Norman E. Hooben

Source: Reuters
Trayvon's Mom Wants to Trademark Her Son's Name
by Andrew Chow

Trayvon Martin's mother is standing her ground when it comes to the commercial use of her son's name. Sybrina Fulton wants to trademark two popular slogans that reference the unarmed teenager's killing.
Fulton filed trademark applications last week for "I am Trayvon" and "Justice for Trayvon," sayings that have appeared on T-shirts and hoodies in the wake of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin's shooting death in Florida, the Associated Press reports.

The Trayvon Martin killing has received worldwide notoriety. But his mother's trademark applications are not meant to make money off the tragedy, her lawyer told the AP.

Rather, Trayvon Martin's mother's trademark claims seek to protect her intellectual property rights for "projects that will assist other families who experience similar tragedies," her attorney said in an email to the AP.

When asked if Sybrina Fulton had any plans to profit off the trademarks, her lawyer replied, "None."

In general, a trademark can be a word, phrase, name, or symbol used on goods to set them apart from goods made by others. Any person who uses a mark on a product -- like the phrase "I am Trayvon" -- can claim common-law rights to its use.

But registering a trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office provides more legal protection. A registered trademark gives notice to the public that a certain mark is owned by a registrant. It also gives the trademark holder exclusive rights to use the mark nationwide.

In Sybrina Fulton's case, if her trademark applications are approved, she could try to force unauthorized clothing designers to stop using her trademarks, or take them to federal court.

Like other trademark applicants, Trayvon Martin's mother will likely have to wait at least three months to hear back from the Patent and Trademark Office about her trademark claims. It's not yet clear what kinds of "projects" Sybrina Fulton plans to use the trademarks for.

O Canada! We stand on guard for thee...O Canada! Your brilliance should shed down on we...

Canada’s 2012 Budget: Imposing Austerity on the World’s Most Resource-rich Country

by Ellen Brown

Canada, called the world’s most resource-rich country, is now being subjected to austerity measures like those imposed on third world countries in earlier decades. It is all done in the name of reducing a federal debt that got out of control in the 1970s, when Canada quit borrowing from its own central bank.  

Last week in Ottawa, the Canadian House of Commons passed the federal government’s latest round of budget cuts and austerity measures. Highlights included chopping 19,200 public sector jobs, cutting federal programs by $5.2 billion per year, and raising the retirement age for millions of Canadians from 65 to 67. The justification for the cuts was a massive federal debt that is now over C$ 581 billion, or 84% of GDP.  

An online budget game furnished by the local newspaper the Globe and Mail gave readers a chance to try to balance the budget themselves. Possibilities included slashing transfer payments for elderly benefits, retirement programs, health benefits, and education; cutting funding for transportation, national defense, economic development and foreign aid; and raising taxes. An article on the same page said, “The government, in reality, doesn’t have that many tools at its disposal to close a large budgetary deficit. It can either raise taxes or cut departmental program spending.”
It seems that no gamer, lawmaker or otherwise, was offered the opportunity to toy with the number one line item in the budget: interest to creditors. A chart on the website of the Department of Finance Canada titled “Where Your Tax Dollar Goes” shows interest payments to be 15% of the budget—more than health care, social security, and other transfer payments combined. The page was dated 2006 and was last updated in 2008, but the percentages are presumably little different today.
Penny wise, pound foolish
Among other cuts in the 2012 budget, the government announced that it would be discontinuing the minting of Canadian pennies, which now cost more than a penny to make. The government is focusing on the pennies and ignoring the pounds—the massive share of the debt that might be saved by borrowing from the government’s own Bank of Canada.
Between 1939 and 1974, the government actually did borrow from its own central bank. That made its debt effectively interest-free, since the government owned the bank and got the benefit of the interest. According to figures supplied by Jack Biddell, a former government accountant, the federal debt remained very low, relatively flat, and quite sustainable during those years. (See chart below.) The government successfully funded major public projects simply on the credit of the nation, including the production of aircraft during and after World War II, education benefits for returning soldiers, family allowances, old age pensions, the Trans-Canada Highway, the St. Lawrence Seaway project, and universal health care for all Canadians.
The debt shot up only after 1974. That was when the Basel Committee was established by the central-bank Governors of the Group of Ten countries of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which included Canada. A key objective of the Committee was and is to maintain “monetary and financial stability.” To achieve that goal, the Committee discouraged borrowing from a nation’s own central bank interest-free and encouraged borrowing instead from private creditors, all in the name of “maintaining the stability of the currency.”
The presumption was that borrowing from a central bank with the power to create money on its books would inflate the money supply and prices. Borrowing from private creditors, on the other hand, was considered not to be inflationary, since it involved the recycling of pre-existing money. What the bankers did not reveal, although they had long known it themselves, was that private banks create the money they lend just as public banks do. The difference is simply that a publicly-owned bank returns the interest to the government and the community, while a privately-owned bank siphons the interest into its capital account, to be re-invested at further interest, progressively drawing money out of the productive economy.
The debt curve that began its exponential rise in 1974 tilted toward the vertical in 1981, when interest rates were raised by the U.S. Federal Reserve to 20%. At 20% compounded annually, debt doubles in under four years. Canadian rates went as high as 22% during that period. Canada has now paid over a trillion Canadian dollars in interest on its federal debt—nearly twice the debt itself. If it had been borrowing from its own bank all along, it could be not only debt-free but sporting a hefty budget surplus today. And that is true for other countries as well.
Another way
Why are governments paying private financiers to generate credit they could be issuing themselves interest-free? According to Professor Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, it was all part of a concerted plan by a clique of international financiers. He wrote in Tragedy and Hope in 1964:
The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations.
Each central bank . . . sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.
In December 2011, this charge was echoed in a lawsuit filed in Canadian federal court by two Canadians and a Canadian economic think tank. Constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati filed an action on behalf of William Krehm, Ann Emmett, and COMER (the Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform) to restore the use of the Bank of Canada to its original purpose, including making interest free loans to municipal, provincial and federal governments for “human capital” expenditures (education, health, and other social services) and for infrastructure. The plaintiffs state that since 1974, the Bank of Canada and Canada’s monetary and financial policy have been dictated by private foreign banks and financial interests led by the BIS, the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), bypassing the sovereign rule of Canada through its Parliament.
Today this silent usurpation has been so well obscured that governments and voters alike are convinced that the only alternatives for addressing the debt crisis are to raise taxes, slash services, or sell off public assets. We have forgotten that there is another option: cut the debt through the use of publicly-owned banks that return the interest to public coffers. Cutting out interest has been shown to reduce the average cost of public projects by about 40%.
Game over: we win.

Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest of eleven books, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. She is president of the Public Banking Institute, http://PublicBankingInstitute.org, and has websites at http://WebofDebt.com and http://EllenBrown.com.

See also: Obituary Column: United States Of America (picture of the Bank Of International Settlements)

_______________________

In other news...

Top Obama Campaign Donor Accused of Fraud
A major contributor to President Barack Obama's re-election effort is accused of defrauding a businessman and impersonating a bank official.
Donor Abake Assongba gave more than $50,000 to Obama this election season. But her past legal troubles, which include unpaid debts, are creating a new headache for Obama's campaign.
The allegations were first reported Sunday by The Washington Post. Its report says Assongba tried to rip off more than $650,000 from a Swiss businessman and use the funds to build a multimillion-dollar house in Florida.
A campaign spokesman declined comment to The Associated Press but told the Post it reviews issues involving questionable donors. Obama's campaign returned $200,000 last month to two men whose brother was a Mexican fugitive wanted by federal authorities.

© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Top Obama Campaign Donor Accused of Fraud
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Christie Destroys Obama

America's Waning Days

"From Cassandra to Jesus Christ, it is amazing how often the doomed choose to ignore those who warn them of their coming fate."