quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Nah, you got it right champ! Which is why I was surprised. Nobody knows where hobart is!

Woohoo! Take it easy on the new comers man. Poor guys posting for the first time .

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Take it easy on the new comers man. Poor guys posting for the first time .

hehe, youre getting soft in your old age!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN hehe, youre getting soft in your old age!

Hence the iron palm bag and whacking the shit out of my shins . I get a new injury every day during training lol (eh, minor ones mind you ).

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by Funkesthesiac69 The Federal Reserve is a corrupt for-profit institution which monopolizes the creation of the money supply thus they exert more influence over our country and indeed the world than any president can George W. Bush's federal deficits amounted to 4 billion in his 8 years in office so where did the nearly 8 trillion dollars worth of additional debt originate? do your homework the united states is in for a long ride before it read this article for example http://market-ticker.denninger.net/...Government.html The problem has not been the solely the lack of oversight by the government in financial institutions but also the lack of oversight over the federal reserve. The Fed may not be responsible for 9/11 or the instigation of the world wars but it is certainly responsible for the current financial meltdown...if only we still had something backing our worthless currency? gold perhaps? all fiat empires have failed before us and we are about to witness the end of the American Imperialism that came to define the ill-fated Bush legacy. Regardless of whether you vote for Obama or John Mccain the fact that the fed essentially controls the government by determining without oversight or any accountability the size of the money supply and the nature of the fractional reserve system. The federal reserve is just about as "federal" as federal express. 911 may not have been an inside job but the fed is still a quasi-government agency that tyrannizes the poor for the benefit of the rich, just like nearly every central bank in the world Do not underestimate the influence and independence of the men behind the curtain

Thanks for the Zeitgeist summary. Question, have you even attempted to research the opposing viewpoints? I'm assuming you haven't. We don't need regurgitated half-truths and lies around here...we already have enough of that...George Bush doubled the national debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion. Where you get these $4 billion and $8 trillion figures, I have no idea...

Now, addressing your points...

1. The Federal Reserve monopolizes the creation of the money supply.

Well...duh...that's what a central bank is supposed to do. Imagine if any bank could print its own money, how chaotic would that be? Well, guess what? It's already been done. During the 1800's, states printed their own money, and of course, the system was confusing, chaotic, and needed to be reined in.

2. The Federal Reserve is not subject to oversight (i.e. audits).

You're clearly wrong. You need to study up on something called the Governmental Accountability Office, established in 1921, and of which is the audit, evaluation, and investigative arm of the United States Congress. Additionally, PRIVATE accounting firms are employed to do full financial audits on the Federal Reserve. For much more on this click ---> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHil.../flaherty6.html

3. Nothing backs the dollar.

You are wrong again. The value of all American goods, services, and assets are what back the dollar.

4. The Federal Reserve controls the government without oversight or accountability.

The Federal Reserve does not control the government by its control of the money supply. Firstly, control of the money supply was given to the Federal Reserve because it is much more pragmatic/practical to have one entity controlling one money supply than having 50 entities controlling 50 different money supplies (because states used to print their own money). Additionally, I said before the GAO and independent accounting firms audit the Federal Reserve EVERY YEAR!!! And if we're going to go down the "The Federal Reserve charges taxpayers interest for every dollar it prints"...well, all interest is rebated back to the Treasury, so there is NO NET INTEREST PAID EVER!! The Federal Reserve is non-profit. All profits are returned to the Treasury.

5. The Federal Reserve is as Federal as Federal Express.

The Federal Reserve is meant to the be the bank of banks. They are the lender of last resort. The Federal Reserve Bank should be more aptly named the Federal Reserve Credit Union, because the commercial banks who are shareholders of the Federal Reserve are called "member banks" just as shareholders of a credit union are called "members". That is the extent of the private interests in the Federal Reserve. The Congress elected the Federal Reserve's Board of Governor's, and it is they who run the Federal Reserve's mandates and policies. It is NOT run by the commercial banks.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You should engage in some critical thinking, examine what the Federal Reserve really does, and be a skeptic of everything, even the skeptics themselves...

___________________

Ok so u trust Barack Obama in a debate that was not even fact-checked by the mainstream media (not credible and certaintly not fair and balanced) to give you the figures? you are certainly a critical thinker in that respect and yet you doubt my lack of skepticism? I am obviously enough of a critical thinker to disagree with many of zeitgeist's contentions about 911 and about the hegemonic role of the federal reserve system in instigating wars so don't doubt my capacity to be skeptical!
why not talk about the unconstitutional income tax?
In order to understand this issue, it is important to review the taxing clauses of the Constitution and the events that led to the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment. The Constitution divides all taxes into two classes: direct and indirect. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 grants the federal government its power to impose taxes:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

The above section is limited by Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…."

And Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:

"No Capitation, or other direct Tax, shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration…."

As contemplated by the Founders, direct taxes were required to be levied according to the rule of apportionment while indirect taxes were required to be levied according to the rule of uniformity. Thus, anytime Congress attempted to impose a direct tax; it was required to apportion the tax among the States according to the rule of apportionment.

In 1895, a legal controversy arose concerning a federal income tax statute. In that year, the United States Supreme Court struck down, as unconstitutional, the federal Income Tax Act of 1894. The Court concluded the tax imposed by the Act on “rents or income of real estate” was not significantly distinct from a tax on the property itself. Therefore, the Court classified the tax as a direct tax requiring apportionment among the several States.

Following this ruling, even though the Court did not hold that all income taxes were direct taxes, there was uncertainty as to whether the income tax was a direct or indirect tax. As a result, Congress sought to remove any confusion by passing an amendment to the Constitution. The Sixteenth Amendment, which was “allegedly” adopted in 1913, states:

"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Immediately after the Amendment was ratified, Congress enacted another income tax act similar to the 1894 Act. The new law was immediately challenged as unconstitutional. In 1916, the Supreme Court issued two decisions on the scope of the Amendment. These decisions were analyzed in a 1980 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report. The report, prepared by an agency of Congress, discussed the effect of the Sixteenth Amendment on the federal government’s power to tax:

The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution… Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity.

So if your such a critical thinker explain to me how the income tax is not a direct unapportioned tax?

[B][U]

Oh and btw how come alcohol prohibition needed an amendment to the U.S. constitution to be implemented and then repealed? could you say the same thing about the about the CSA (CONTROLLED Substances Act of 1970) which effectively scheduled drugs according to their government purported harm to society? Maybe it's because people stopped recognizing the constitution which specifically guarantees the right to life, liberty and property and started loosely interpretting the constitution to such an extent that it is for all intents an purposes now considered a non-binding "piece of paper" as Dubya likes to call it
So as a critical thinker would you agree with the patriot act?
As a critical thinker would you even contemplate the fact in America's history there were two other central banks which both failed miserably and were abolished? of course there was banking instability without a central bank and of course the longevity of the banks were shortened but by passing the federal reserve act the bankers who precipitated previous runs on the banks were essentially granted control over the federal reserve system, which in turn used its monetary power to consolidate its power by creating conditions ripe for the bank failures of the great depression further consolidating its power?
As a critical thinker I am quite skeptical that a bank with the power to create money at will even if it could be audited would allow for congress to audit it. Because they can issue the credit and currency they can bribe the congress into preventing such an audit to occur

The Federal Reserve has never been audited by the government
since it took over our money and credit in 1913. In 1975 a
bill, H.R. 4316, to require an audit was introduced in
Congress.

During the April, 1975 hearings, this author submitted a
statement favoring the audit, as did many others. Due to
pressure from the money controllers, it was not passed. No
audit of the Fed has ever been made.

I wonder why?
The Fed not might have a new world order planned out but it is naive to believe that they don't have a vested interest in preventing itself from being audited for fraudulent activity because it likely would be found (i mean come on if u had the power to issue money wouldn't you deposit some secretly into an offshore bank account for your own personal wealth?)
And with no gold standard to back up the fiat currency we call the dollar we have entered into an age in which the Bretton Woods System reigns supreme and the relative value of currency is pegged to the value of other currencies. Face it man most americans live under the pretense of a free-floating exchange rate system when in fact we have a fixed exchange rate system! the same system that caused dollarization in many south american countries
what happens when the dollar collapses? there will be no currency to peg to and worldwide economic collapse ensues? does that remind you of our time at all mr. critical thinker?

Of course many of you will dismiss my arguments because you are simply unwilling to accept this sad fact, and unfortunately we are seeing the dire consequences of this fact more manifestly every single day
so ask yourself, and question your own assumptions
and please be respectful of my differing opinion

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Funkesthesiac69 Ok so u trust Barack Obama in a debate that was not even fact-checked by the mainstream media (not credible and certaintly not fair and balanced) to give you the figures? you are certainly a critical thinker in that respect and yet you doubt my lack of skepticism? I am obviously enough of a critical thinker to disagree with many of zeitgeist's contentions about 911 and about the hegemonic role of the federal reserve system in instigating wars so don't doubt my capacity to be skeptical! why not talk about the unconstitutional income tax? In order to understand this issue, it is important to review the taxing clauses of the Constitution and the events that led to the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment. The Constitution divides all taxes into two classes: direct and indirect. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 grants the federal government its power to impose taxes: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." The above section is limited by Article I, Section 2, Clause 3: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…." And Article I, Section 9, Clause 4: "No Capitation, or other direct Tax, shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration…." As contemplated by the Founders, direct taxes were required to be levied according to the rule of apportionment while indirect taxes were required to be levied according to the rule of uniformity. Thus, anytime Congress attempted to impose a direct tax; it was required to apportion the tax among the States according to the rule of apportionment. In 1895, a legal controversy arose concerning a federal income tax statute. In that year, the United States Supreme Court struck down, as unconstitutional, the federal Income Tax Act of 1894. The Court concluded the tax imposed by the Act on “rents or income of real estate” was not significantly distinct from a tax on the property itself. Therefore, the Court classified the tax as a direct tax requiring apportionment among the several States. Following this ruling, even though the Court did not hold that all income taxes were direct taxes, there was uncertainty as to whether the income tax was a direct or indirect tax. As a result, Congress sought to remove any confusion by passing an amendment to the Constitution. The Sixteenth Amendment, which was “allegedly” adopted in 1913, states: "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Immediately after the Amendment was ratified, Congress enacted another income tax act similar to the 1894 Act. The new law was immediately challenged as unconstitutional. In 1916, the Supreme Court issued two decisions on the scope of the Amendment. These decisions were analyzed in a 1980 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report. The report, prepared by an agency of Congress, discussed the effect of the Sixteenth Amendment on the federal government’s power to tax: The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution… Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity. So if your such a critical thinker explain to me how the income tax is not a direct unapportioned tax? [B][U] Oh and btw how come alcohol prohibition needed an amendment to the U.S. constitution to be implemented and then repealed? could you say the same thing about the about the CSA (CONTROLLED Substances Act of 1970) which effectively scheduled drugs according to their government purported harm to society? Maybe it's because people stopped recognizing the constitution which specifically guarantees the right to life, liberty and property and started loosely interpretting the constitution to such an extent that it is for all intents an purposes now considered a non-binding "piece of paper" as Dubya likes to call it So as a critical thinker would you agree with the patriot act? As a critical thinker would you even contemplate the fact in America's history there were two other central banks which both failed miserably and were abolished? of course there was banking instability without a central bank and of course the longevity of the banks were shortened but by passing the federal reserve act the bankers who precipitated previous runs on the banks were essentially granted control over the federal reserve system, which in turn used its monetary power to consolidate its power by creating conditions ripe for the bank failures of the great depression further consolidating its power? As a critical thinker I am quite skeptical that a bank with the power to create money at will even if it could be audited would allow for congress to audit it. Because they can issue the credit and currency they can bribe the congress into preventing such an audit to occur The Federal Reserve has never been audited by the government since it took over our money and credit in 1913. In 1975 a bill, H.R. 4316, to require an audit was introduced in Congress. During the April, 1975 hearings, this author submitted a statement favoring the audit, as did many others. Due to pressure from the money controllers, it was not passed. No audit of the Fed has ever been made. I wonder why? The Fed not might have a new world order planned out but it is naive to believe that they don't have a vested interest in preventing itself from being audited for fraudulent activity because it likely would be found (i mean come on if u had the power to issue money wouldn't you deposit some secretly into an offshore bank account for your own personal wealth?) And with no gold standard to back up the fiat currency we call the dollar we have entered into an age in which the Bretton Woods System reigns supreme and the relative value of currency is pegged to the value of other currencies. Face it man most americans live under the pretense of a free-floating exchange rate system when in fact we have a fixed exchange rate system! the same system that caused dollarization in many south american countries what happens when the dollar collapses? there will be no currency to peg to and worldwide economic collapse ensues? does that remind you of our time at all mr. critical thinker? Of course many of you will dismiss my arguments because you are simply unwilling to accept this sad fact, and unfortunately we are seeing the dire consequences of this fact more manifestly every single day so ask yourself, and question your own assumptions and please be respectful of my differing opinion

wow. you've collected quite a number of lies there. very efficient of you.

anyone that thinks the fed has never been audited is a fraud, and certainly not a 'critical thinker' and anyone that advocates the gold standard is ignorant of basic economics. seriously, go back to school and stop wasting our time.

___________________

And the contention that the federal reserve is "audited" every year by an independent organization and of course the federal reserve website says it can be audited which is not completely out of the question given the law you cited from 1921. ask yourself this would it be in the best interest of the media, of any media organization especially the main stream media to report the results of those audits if fraud was ever found? no because people would revolt against the system and the mainstream media does not want to cause mass rebellion
even if such an audit were undertaken every year and no "fraud" was found how could you ever be certain that the people doing the auditing weren't being bribed into lying or threatened of character assassination?

Oh and do you want to talk about operation northwoods?

FROM WIKIPEDIA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false flag conspiracy plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".

This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on foreign governments.

The plan states, "The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere." Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by then-Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and sent to the Secretary of Defense.

Several other proposals were listed, including the real or simulated actions against various U.S military and civilian targets. Operation Northwoods was part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative. It was never officially accepted or executed.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Origins and public release
* 2 Content
* 3 James Bamford Summary
* 4 Related Operation Mongoose proposals
* 5 Reaction
* 6 See also
* 7 Further reading
* 8 References
* 9 External links

[edit] Origins and public release

The main proposal was presented in a document entitled "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba (TS)," a collection of draft memoranda written by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) representative to the Caribbean Survey Group.[1] (The parenthetical "TS" in the title of the document is an initialism for "Top Secret.") The document was presented by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13 as a preliminary submission for planning purposes. The Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended that both the covert and overt aspects of any such operation be assigned to them.

The previously secret document was originally made public on November 18, 1997, by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board,[2] a U.S. federal agency overseeing the release of government records related to John F. Kennedy's assassination.[3][4][5][6][7] A total 1521 pages of once-secret military records covering 1962 to 1964 were concomitantly declassified by said Review Board.

"Appendix to Enclosure A" and "Annex to Appendix to Enclosure A" of the Northwoods document were first published online by the National Security Archive on November 6, 1998 in a joint venture with CNN as part of CNN's 1998 Cold War television documentary series[8][9]—specifically, as a documentation supplement to "Episode 10: Cuba," which aired on November 29, 1998.[10][11] "Annex to Appendix to Enclosure A" is the section of the document which contains the proposals to stage terrorist attacks.

The Northwoods document was published online in a more complete form (i.e., including cover memoranda) by the National Security Archive on April 30, 2001.[12]

[edit] Content

In response to a request for pretexts for military intervention by the Chief of Operations of the Cuba Project, Brig. Gen. Edward Lansdale, the document lists methods (with, in some cases, outlined plans) the authors believed would garner public and international support for U.S. military intervention in Cuba. These are staged attacks purporting to be of Cuban origin.

1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba a cover and deception plan, to include requisite preliminary actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33 c, could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban reactions. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasized. Our military posture throughout execution of the plan will allow a rapid change from exercise to intervention if Cuban response justifies.

2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.

a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order):

(1) Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.

(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on base.

(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.

(4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).

(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.

(6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).

(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.

(8) Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.

(9) Capture militia group which storms the base.

(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires -- napthalene.

(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be in lieu of (10)).

b. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base.

c. Commence large scale United States military operations.

3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms:

a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.

b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.

The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.

5. A "Cuban-based, Castro-supported" filibuster could be simulated against a neighboring Caribbean nation (in the vein of the 14th of June invasion of the Dominican Republic). We know that Castro is backing subversive efforts clandestinely against Haiti, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Nicaragua at present and possible others. These efforts can be magnified and additional ones contrived for exposure. For example, advantage can be taken of the sensitivity of the Dominican Air Force to intrusions within their national air space. "Cuban" B-26 or C-46 type aircraft could make cane-burning raids at night. Soviet Bloc incendiaries could be found. This could be coupled with "Cuban" messages to the Communist underground in the Dominican Republic and "Cuban" shipments of arm which would be found, or intercepted, on the beach.

6. Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.

7. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba. Concurrently, genuine defections of Cuban civil and military air and surface craft should be encouraged.

8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.

9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.

a. Approximately 4 or 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent Intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs.

b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.

c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.

[edit] James Bamford Summary

Journalist James Bamford summarized Operation Northwoods in his April 24, 2001 book Body of Secrets:

Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.[13]

[edit] Related Operation Mongoose proposals

In addition to Operation Northwoods, under the Operation Mongoose program the Department of Defense had a number of similar proposals to be taken against the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro.

Twelve of these proposals come from a February 2, 1962 memorandum entitled "Possible Actions to Provoke, Harass or Disrupt Cuba," written by Brig. Gen. William H. Craig and submitted to Brig. Gen. Edward Lansdale, the commander of the Operation Mongoose project.[14][5][6][7]

The memorandum outlines Operation Bingo, a plan to, in its words, "create an incident which has the appearance of an attack on U.S. facilities (GMO) in Cuba, thus providing an excuse for use of U.S. military might to overthrow the current government of Cuba."

It also includes Operation Dirty Trick, a plot to blame Castro if the 1962 Mercury manned space flight carrying John Glenn crashed, saying "The objective is to provide irrevocable proof that, should the MERCURY manned orbit flight fail, the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba [sic]." It continues, "This to be accomplished by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans."

Even after General Lyman Lemnitzer lost his job as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Joint Chiefs of Staff still planned false-flag pretext operations at least into 1963. A different Department of Defense policy paper created in 1963 discussed a plan to make it appear that Cuba had attacked a member of the Organization of American States (OAS) so that the United States could retaliate. The Pentagon document says of one of the scenarios, "A contrived 'Cuban' attack on an OAS member could be set up, and the attacked state could be urged to take measures of self-defense and request assistance from the U.S. and OAS." The plan expresses confidence that by this action "the U.S. could almost certainly obtain the necessary two-thirds support among OAS members for collective action against Cuba."[15][13]

Included in the nations the Joint Chiefs suggested as targets for covert attacks were Jamaica and Trinidad-Tobago. Since both were members of the British Commonwealth, the Joint Chiefs hoped that by secretly attacking them and then falsely blaming Cuba, the United States could incite the people of the United Kingdom into supporting a war against Castro.[13] As the Pentagon report noted,

Any of the contrived situations described above are inherently, extremely risky in our democratic system in which security can be maintained, after the fact, with very great difficulty. If the decision should be made to set up a contrived situation it should be one in which participation by U.S. personnel is limited only to the most highly trusted covert personnel. This suggests the infeasibility of the use of military units for any aspect of the contrived situation.[13]

The Pentagon report even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: "The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro's subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on [the U.S. Navy base at] Guantanamo."[13]


Ok so the U.S. government is irreproachable in every respect I assume?
And wikipedia is not reliable? well it sure as hell is more reliable than the official federal reserve website
And you accuse me of naivety (this is an acceptable spelling of the word)?
please
i am skeptical and I have good reason to be
and to have people to call me liars based probably on the fact that my pictures depict me as a college student, who has never before posted on this forum, because they are unwilling to even consider the alternative points of view? Even when I consider alternative points of view?
whatever, at least I tried to enumerate the factual evidence supporting my side of the argument and I respect your side of the argument but you must admit the U.S. government is hardly irreproachable! And u must admit that the power of politicians is overstated greatly in an era where 90% of the people are spoon fed bullshit by the corporate media
CNN does not equal politics
CNN does not equal truth
having a broad basis of knowledge from a variety of sources and then considering each in deciding what approximates truth is a much better approach

___________________

looks like trancer has found a lover.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Funkesthesiac69 having a broad basis of knowledge from a variety of sources and then considering each in deciding what approximates truth is a much better approach

Indeed .

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Indeed .

it is painfully obvious that our new friend here has done nothing of the sort.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Funkesthesiac69 Ok so u trust Barack Obama in a debate that was not even fact-checked by the mainstream media (not credible and certaintly not fair and balanced) to give you the figures? you are certainly a critical thinker in that respect and yet you doubt my lack of skepticism? I am obviously enough of a critical thinker to disagree with many of zeitgeist's contentions about 911 and about the hegemonic role of the federal reserve system in instigating wars so don't doubt my capacity to be skeptical!

Why are you changing the subject? Are you incapable of refuting my rebuttals of your ridiculous assertions about the Fed? We're not talking about Obama or the media. And yes, you are not a skeptic. Otherwise, you'de take these conspiracy theories with a grain of salt, and it's obviously, you've swallowed all of it without even examining opposing points of view. Congrats, you're officially a follower.

quote:

why not talk about the unconstitutional income tax? In order to understand this issue, it is important to review the taxing clauses of the Constitution and the events that led to the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment. The Constitution divides all taxes into two classes: direct and indirect. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 grants the federal government its power to impose taxes: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." The above section is limited by Article I, Section 2, Clause 3: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…." And Article I, Section 9, Clause 4: "No Capitation, or other direct Tax, shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration…." As contemplated by the Founders, direct taxes were required to be levied according to the rule of apportionment while indirect taxes were required to be levied according to the rule of uniformity. Thus, anytime Congress attempted to impose a direct tax; it was required to apportion the tax among the States according to the rule of apportionment. In 1895, a legal controversy arose concerning a federal income tax statute. In that year, the United States Supreme Court struck down, as unconstitutional, the federal Income Tax Act of 1894. The Court concluded the tax imposed by the Act on “rents or income of real estate” was not significantly distinct from a tax on the property itself. Therefore, the Court classified the tax as a direct tax requiring apportionment among the several States. Following this ruling, even though the Court did not hold that all income taxes were direct taxes, there was uncertainty as to whether the income tax was a direct or indirect tax. As a result, Congress sought to remove any confusion by passing an amendment to the Constitution. The Sixteenth Amendment, which was “allegedly” adopted in 1913, states: "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Immediately after the Amendment was ratified, Congress enacted another income tax act similar to the 1894 Act. The new law was immediately challenged as unconstitutional. In 1916, the Supreme Court issued two decisions on the scope of the Amendment. These decisions were analyzed in a 1980 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report. The report, prepared by an agency of Congress, discussed the effect of the Sixteenth Amendment on the federal government’s power to tax: The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution… Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity. So if your such a critical thinker explain to me how the income tax is not a direct unapportioned tax?

First of all, critical thinking is simply the examination of BOTH sides of an issue, without any preconceived opinion. I have had your exact opinion on this issue before, until I examined the other side of the issue, critically, and decided there really isn't a lot of meat to your side of the argument.

To answer your question, "explain to me how the income tax is not a direct unapportioned tax?" First off, I will not prove a negative, because that would be a negative proof fallacy. Instead, I'll prove to you how it is an indirect unapportioned tax. In your deluge of court cases you posted, you conveniently left out one...Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881)...this court case reinforced the legality of the Revenue Act of 1864, which taxed "the gains, profits, and income of every person residing in the United States, or of any citizen of the United States residing abroad, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, or salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation, carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever [ . . . ]"

The Supreme Court has time and again upheld the constitutionality of the income tax. Do I personally like the income tax? No. If I had my way, all taxes except for a national sales tax, would be abolished. Income, corporate, property, etc. But the income tax is constitutional.

quote:

Oh and btw how come alcohol prohibition needed an amendment to the U.S. constitution to be implemented and then repealed? could you say the same thing about the about the CSA (CONTROLLED Substances Act of 1970) which effectively scheduled drugs according to their government purported harm to society? Maybe it's because people stopped recognizing the constitution which specifically guarantees the right to life, liberty and property and started loosely interpretting the constitution to such an extent that it is for all intents an purposes now considered a non-binding "piece of paper" as Dubya likes to call it.

Stop changing the subject.

quote:

So as a critical thinker would you agree with the patriot act? As a critical thinker would you even contemplate the fact in America's history there were two other central banks which both failed miserably and were abolished? of course there was banking instability without a central bank and of course the longevity of the banks were shortened but by passing the federal reserve act the bankers who precipitated previous runs on the banks were essentially granted control over the federal reserve system, which in turn used its monetary power to consolidate its power by creating conditions ripe for the bank failures of the great depression further consolidating its power?

Again, changing the subject. Are we talking about the Federal Reserve, or the Patriot Act?

The first two central banks of the USA, were hardly the central banks we know of today. They were not regulatory bodies, had no monopoly on money supply, and were not lenders of last resort. The Second Bank especially, was simply a depository for government tax revenue. They made loans to anyone they wanted to make a loan to, backed by tax revenue. Ultimately, this led to corruption. The Federal Reserve System is completely different. They don't keep tax revenue from the Federal government. They are strictly, a regulatory body, charged with maintaining the stability of the currency and of the financial system of the country, and are the "lender of last resort". They make loans only to member banks, not just to anyone they want. You're comparing apples to oranges.

What the hell is your alternative? Who is going to regulate the financial system, control money supply, be a lender of last resort, etc. etc.???

And with that, I have to go to sleep, I'll certainly answer the rest of your stuff tomorrow...

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN it is painfully obvious that our new friend here has done nothing of the sort.

"The LORD PKC is my shepherd; I shall not want moonbatiness. It maketh me to lie: he leadeth me beside JREF. He restoreth my intellectual honesty: he leadeth me in the paths of academia for his name's sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of paranoia, I will fear no moonbat: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me... lol [this part needed no revision, other than the lol]. Thou preparest a thesis before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with the oils of academia; my cup runneth over. Surely Krypton and Trancer-X shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD PKC for ever."
PKC 23

I think the only reason my plagiarized and revised Psalm 23 seems fitting at the moment is because I've been reading Capital for the last 6 hours... and now I'm really blazed... I needed something to cut through the dryness and seriousness. =P

EDIT: THC induced typo.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

Last edited by shaolin_Z on Oct-08-2008 at 07:02