Controlled Party

[Alex Linder]

GOP Heads Off a Ron Paul Nomination at Tampa

by Joel Skousen
World Affairs Brief

Even though it might have been a symbolic gesture, the delegates behind Ron Paul were intending to at least get Rep. Paul nominated at the convention. It would give a great boost to the grand liberty movement Dr. Paul has built for the last 20 years and the rebellion against establishment control of the GOP. They only needed delegate majorities from 5 states to nominate the good doctor and to keep Romney from going uncontested before the convention. But alas, the illegal maneuvers of the RNC have robbed the movement of their last show before the cameras, and contrary to assurances by an "insider" within the RNC, Ron Paul will get no speaking slot.

James Hohmann of Politico.com has a summary of the GOP movement to stop Paul. "The Republican establishment has quelled the Ron Paul Revolution, at least for 2012. Using... procedural hardball, Mitt Romney's campaign and his allies who control the Republican National Committee [actually, Romney controls no one at the RNC. It is run by a cadre of hardcore globlists. They are only allied with Romney because he got to the nomination despite their attempts to derail him. Their control over his advisors is total and complete] have ensured that the Texas congressman will neither speak nor be formally nominated at next week's convention.

"The 168-member Republican National Committee approved a report Thursday by the Romney-friendly "committee on contests"that invalidated Paul delegates elected in Maine based on irregularities at the state convention [actually, the irregularities were on the part of the establishment leaders trying to change the rules to halt Ron Paul from winning a majority of delegates at the convention]. The RNC [arbitrarily, and without basis in any rule] voted to split the at-large delegation in half, effectively depriving Paul of control."

Justin Raimondo added other details. "The Republican party Establishment is eager to crush any public expressions of dissent – both inside and outside the convention hall. Ron Paul's supporters in the GOP learned that the hard way, as the Romneyites used their control of the party bureaucracy at the state and national levels [actually it wasn't Romneyites, but the old guard elite inside the GOP that have always controlled things at the top] to retroactively change the rules in order to unseat duly elected Paul delegates.

"In Maine, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Oregon, Oklahoma, and elsewhere, the party bosses have disenfranchised Paul voters – closing down party caucuses, rejecting as delegates anyone under 50, and calling the cops when all else failed. And while Ryder's rule change failed [changing the number of states to nominate a person from 5 to 10] – thanks to RRNC'er Morton Blackwell – the Romney people did sneak in an amendment that would require delegates to state in writing who they intend to vote for on the convention floor at least one hour before the vote [and the vote is being moved up to Monday because of the coming storm that might force the cancellation of the convention]

Hopefully, this will end the movement's false hope that you can take over or reform the Republican party. Even if we did, the media and key politicians would suddenly claim the Republican Party was "captured by extremists"and move to form a new party which they would instantly grant majority status. That's what they did in Israel when they formed Kadima.

And even if it were possible to finally expose the conspiracy which controls both parties, they would reform and create new parties with new names and fresh faces, but controlled by the same people. That's what they did in Italy in 1994 when all the major parties were exposed for corruption. Fighting secret combinations of power in government is extremely difficult once they have gained control of a majority in Congress, the courts, and the media, not to mention the secret organs of enforcement in the police state.

August 30, 2012

Joel Skousen is a political scientist, by training, specializing in the philosophy of law and Constitutional theory, and is also a designer of high security residences and retreats. Visit his website.

http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/skousen-j1.1.1.html

[America First]

IMO burying Ron Paul is to please anti Western evanjellyculls !

Pro-active Evanjellycull fanatic's, IMO as an empowered cult are used as a club for the very greatest enemy of Western freedom and security.

No history or facts can cause evanjellculls to ponder or deviant from their organized cult.

Tell them that now One group above all White's/others who when traveling will not have to be checked, X-rayed, grouped, or striped what so ever.

Evanjellyculls will respond by telling you they deserve special treatment.

http://www.revilo-oliver.com/news/19...he-road-ahead/

[N.B. Forrest]

WHAT?! The super-rich globalists who own the Repulingcunts didn't play fair?! Oh my! Cordelia dear, fetch the smelling salts - I feel the vapors coming on....

Paul should've gone third party and destroyed the chances of these fucking scum to beat the nigger, but oh no: those bright young boys were going to take over the Whore Party from within. Beat 'em at their own game, by Gawd!

Mebbe a Paul 2016 money-bomb will do the trick.

[Dylan Jones]

The biggest achievement of Ron Paul is showing the people the current system cannot be changed by playing in the gonif game.

[James Hawthorne]

But alas, the illegal maneuvers of the RNC have robbed the movement of their last show before the cameras, and contrary to assurances by an "insider" within the RNC, Ron Paul will get no speaking slot.

One word springs to mind with the 'Paulistas'

Naive

[Alex Linder]

The Triumph of the Reich-Publican Party

by William Norman Grigg

"There’s nothing American about what just happened," protested Nevada Republican delegate Wiselot Rouzard after the convention refused to seat the delegation from Maine. "This is the death of the Republican Party."

What Wiselot and fellow Ron Paul delegates had experienced was a memorable display of the Republican Party’s fetid essence. The tactics employed by the GOP establishment to isolate, intimidate, and ultimately to expel Ron Paul delegates were the natural product of the party’s totalitarian genetics. By using criminal means to impose a monolithic, top-down process in which an entrenched oligarchy can re-write the rules to suit its whims, the Republican Party was simply living down to its odious pedigree.

From its inception, the Republican Party has been devoted to a doctrine properly called national socialism – the fusion of politically favored corporate interests with national bank and an all-powerful, militaristic central government. This is why Dr. Paul’s noble attempt to cultivate a liberty movement within the GOP was ultimately as futile as seeking to create life in a test tube.

As Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo documents in his slender but potent volume Lincoln Unmasked, a century and a half before the lamentable advent of Barack Obama "The Party of Lincoln set out to fundamentally transform the American government from a decentralized confederacy of sovereign states to a consolidated, monolithic empire." The mission of the GOP, in a single phrase, was to supplant the republic with a reich.

The party’s objectives were described with admirable clarity by Ohio Senator John Sherman – brother to the infamous mass murderer Gen. William T. Sherman, who after putting Atlanta to the torch pursued an exterminationist "final solution" to the problem of the Plains Indians on behalf of the corporatist railroad combine. The Republican Party, Sherman proclaimed, sought "to nationalize as much as possible, even the currency, so as to make men love their country before their states. All private interests of individuals, all local interests, all banking interests, the interests of individuals – everything – should be subordinate now to the interest of the Government."

Mussolini would later digest that formula into a single pithy prescription: Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.

Dr. Paul and the movement he inspired have agitated for an end to everything the Republican Party cherishes – central banking, fiat money, centralization of power in the executive, militarism, crony capitalism, government regimentation of private life in the name of "morality." Thus it’s hardly a surprise that the RNC and its epigones treated the Ron Paul delegates with the same cultish hostility displayed by Landru’s followers toward those who were "not of the Body."

Witness the fact that objections by Paul delegates on the convention floor were shouted down by mouth-breathing party cadres chanting "USA! USA! USA!" (A more appropriate refrain, given the Party’s emphasis on unity uber alles, would have been: "Ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer!") Also of note were the Soviet-style methods used to suppress even the audible mention of Ron Paul’s name during the convention’s roll call.

"It’s a totalitarian process," lamented Yelena Vorobyov, a disillusioned 30-year-old Ron Paul delegate from Minnesota, referring to revised party rules – enacted by a patently fraudulent voice vote after key potential dissidents had been detained or effectively abducted – that stripped all power from state parties. What the RNC accomplished in Tampa is best captured in another German expression – Gleichschaltung, the "coordination" of all activities under the control of the party’s central committee.

What happened in Tampa was a relatively genteel version of the undisguised Brownshirt-style thuggery that had been employed by Party operatives during the primaries. Witness what took place during Louisiana’s state GOP convention on June 2, where Henry Herford – the convention’s duly elected chairman – was feloniously assaulted by a thugscrum of four Shreveport Police Officers, who acted on the orders of the Quisling faction within the state Party.

Herford was hospitalized for a dislocated prosthetic hip. In keeping with standard procedure, the uniformed assailants filed spurious charges against the victim.

"They arrested me for … resisting arrest, and they never said I was under arrest," Hereford commented after being released from the hospital. "And [they said] I didn’t leave when they told me to leave – but I never was told to leave."

Herford, who underwent a CAT scan on his hip and received a painkiller injection, didn’t sign his arrest papers.

"I can’t sign anything while I’m on a narcotic, and I told the police that," he explained.

Alex Helwig, a Ron Paul delegate and Chairman of the Rules Committee, made a formal motion to remove the chair. In a fashion reminiscent of a third world dictatorship, Helwig was seized by Shreveport Police and removed from the room. During his brief detention, Helwig suffered several broken fingers – a punishment favored by Mussolini’s Blackshirts – and when he returned to the event he walked with the aid of a cane.

During the convention, Doug Wead recounted, "Louisiana GOP officials ignored the vast majority of duly elected delegates and attempted to use illegally adopted rules to deny Ron Paul supporters an opportunity to attend the Republican National Convention in Tampa."

What happened in Louisiana was a detailed foreshadowing of what would later take place at the national convention. Once again, this is to be expected of those who preside over the GOP, which is America’s original socialist party.

In their valuable book Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists: Marxism in the Civil War, Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson, Jr. examine the role played by the "48ers" – veterans of the 18 interconnected revolutions that convulsed Europe in 1848-1849 – in creating the Republican Party, bringing Abraham Lincoln to power, and conducting the war against the South.

Lincoln, who would later slaughter hundreds of thousands of Americans in order to create a unitary national government, offered unqualified support to the proto-Marxist revolution of 1848. "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better," he insisted in a January 12, 1848 speech. "Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit."

The "48ers," note Kennedy and Benson, sought to overthrow the existing political order and then consolidate power over larger territories. They weren’t secessionists who sought merely to withdraw from an unsuitable political arrangement, as was the case with the American South.

The revolutions of 1848 understandably appealed to the idealistic impulses of people weary of absolutism. But, as Kennedy and Benson observe, this proved to be a familiar bait-and-switch, with those "freed from local decentralized control" were made subject to "centralized authoritarian control" in the name of Democracy.

The revolutionaries applauded by Lincoln lusted to reconstruct society through violence. In Germany, the stated objective of the revolution was to fuse a multitude of independent principalities into "a united indivisible republic." Again, this foreshadowed the work of Abraham Lincoln and the party that elevated him to power.

When the revolt of 1848-49 was crushed, the "48er" diaspora brought many of the most ambitious and radical of the revolutionaries to the United States, where many of them were instrumental in creating the Republican Party. Several of them – such as Joseph Wedemeyer, Charles A. Dana, Franz Sigel, August Willich, and Carl Schurz – played prominent roles in the war to conquer the independent South. Dana, a personal friend of Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, was assistant secretary of war under Lincoln.

The slogan-spewing herd poisoners who compose the GOP’s media auxiliary routinely depict Barack Obama as the embodiment of an ideology alien to America’s constitutional origins. If such people were burdened with a particle of intellectual honesty, they would recognize that to the extent this depiction of Obama is reliable, he is Lincoln’s true heir.

August 31, 2012

William Norman Grigg [send him mail] publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program.

http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w277.html

[Alex Linder]

Paul Craig Roberts looks into the surly throngs of neocohens and neckless and sees...Brownshirts? Get the eyes checked, grandpa.

http://lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts363.html

[James Hawthorne]

From its inception, the Republican Party has been devoted to a doctrine properly called national socialism – the fusion of politically favored corporate interests with national bank and an all-powerful, militaristic central government.

I hardly think so.

What happened in Tampa was a relatively genteel version of the undisguised Brownshirt-style thuggery that had been employed by Party operatives during the primaries.

Too funny.

[James Hawthorne]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

Paul Craig Roberts looks into the surly throngs of neocohens and neckless and sees...Brownshirts? Get the eyes checked, grandpa.

http://lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts363.html

The Republicans are the party of “freedom and democracy.” The Republicans are the party most controlled by the neoconservatives, who are strongly allied with Israel’s far right-wing government and are most hostile to the US Constitution

What no mention of jewish neoconservatives this time.

Meanwhile in “freedom and democracy” america, at their Tampa, Florida, nominating convention, the Republican Party showed its true colors. It is a Brownshirt Party.

Yes Grandpa Roberts needs his glasses.

[Eire]

Why are the paleocons ripping on the nazis?

[N.B. Forrest]

Originally Posted by Eire

Why are the paleocons ripping on the nazis?

The fools always do that. They should be calling the GOOPers "commissars" and "Chekist thugs". As has been said many times before, the goddam jew Bolshies killed far more people than the Nazis, who were a self-defense response to those mass murders.

[StanSki]

Unfortunately there isn't enough hunger among the people to bring about change, whether by mild or violent protest to downright revolution.

It's all a joke. And it's an insult to anyone that would like to participate in the process.

Overall it is a sham and the reason why the signers of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution wrote what they did about starting things over, by force if needed.

Again, everyone is to fat and lazy to do so. You could scream to high heaven about it and they wouldn't hear you.

[Roy Wagahuski]

The great american rebellion will never happen, either armed or unarmed. Wanna know why?

For the former: fear of certain death and/or imprisonment. And americans aren't smart enough for the latter.

Besides, the common amerikan's default measure of his freedom is his gun ownership. Foreclose on his home, starve him, niggerfy his kids, but never touch his guns and he'll remain a believer. It's why a full gun-ban will never come true, too.

At some point the slavemasters realized that pacifying illusions are more congenial to rule than overt bondages.

[Bret Masterson]

Ron Paul generated more grassroots support, cross party appeal (left/right), more smalltime donaters than any other republican - yet still could not win. The Paul campaign was useful in demonstrating you can't take over either party internally through a legitimate grassroots campaign, through popular appeal democratically - add to that, all 3rd parties are effectively nullified by state laws and media blackout.

When there is effectively no legal means for changing the structure of government, the disaffected will effectively point out to the establishment where all non-legal options will be put on the table, in coming years. It should be abundantly obvious that no political group can ever operate successfully without its own strongarm in media, to mislead and misdirect. A propaganda wing to compliment its own illegality.

[Bardamu]

Originally Posted by Bret Masterson

Ron Paul generated more grassroots support, cross party appeal (left/right), more smalltime donaters than any other republican - yet still could not win.

I don't think the majority of Republicans were Paulites. Maybe 10% (and that is generous).

[Alex Linder]

How the Council on Foreign Relations Controls Conservative Republicans

by Gary North

I sent a stripped-down version of my movie review of 2016 to my Tea Party Economist list. I knew it would outrage some of them.

Why did I do it? To make sure D'Souza sees it. The list is large. Someone will send it to him. I want him to know that the Old Right isn't buying his thesis that Obama's agenda is somehow uniquely wrong because it is anti-colonialist. Obama is a defender of the American Empire as Bush was. His agenda is that of one of the factions of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is not in bed with the neocons, meaning big on Israel, but the dominant foreign policy objectives of the CFR were pro-oil and therefore pro-Arab long before 1948, let alone the late 1960s, when the neocons showed up.

In domestic policy, his rhetoric is Democrat. But this is nothing new. The domestic policies of both CFR wings are the same: the maintenance of the American Empire, what President Eisenhower in his Farewell Address (1961) called the military-industrial complex. He should have called it the military-industrial-oil-banking-AIPAC complex. This is why Clinton had the Homeland Security legislation in reserve, and why Bush presented it to Congress when the nation was in hysteria over 9-11.

I have discussed Council on Foreign Relations Team A vs. Team B for 35 years. I have seen two anti-CFR people get through the screening.

The only exception to the vetting process over the last 80 years was Barry Goldwater. When he got the nomination, the eastern wing of the Republican Party walked out of the convention, and it would not provide the money to let him win. The media turned against him overwhelmingly. The Council on Foreign Relations members understood exactly what he meant in terms of a threat to them, and they torpedoed his campaign. They cared not at all that Lyndon Johnson would win. That was irrelevant to them. It is equally irrelevant to them today whether Obama wins or loses. He is expendable. So is Romney.

REAGAN

Ronald Reagan also seems to be an exception. Here was one case in which the elite really did have trouble suppressing his candidacy. He was too good with the media, and he had already proven twice that he could win in California. There were no real leaders in the Republican Party in early 1980 – before Volcker's recession – who were capable of beating Carter.

Reagan trounced George Bush in the primaries. He told his supporters in the "Reagan Right" that he would not select Bush as his running mate. Yet he reversed himself at the Republican National Convention. Not only did he put Bush on the ticket, he turned the White House over to James Baker III, Bush's senior advisor, then as now. Baker became Reagan's Chief of Staff. Bush became the Presidential nominee in 1988. He needed the VP position. No one since Herbert Hoover had been elected President without having been a governor, a U.S. Senator, VP, or a victorious general. As soon as Bush was inaugurated in 1989, he appointed Baker as his Secretary of State. Bush had been a Skull & Bones member at Yale. He was married into the family of Brown Brothers Harriman, the international private banking firm. He was a CFR member.

Reagan's initial cabinet contained only one person who could be regarded as a philosophical conservative, James Watt, the Interior Secretary. He was fired two years later. His replacement, William Clark, was conservative. He was pushed out by Michael Deaver. He lasted two years.

I have discussed the CFR's vetting process here.

The story of the CFR is well known to those of us who have been in the conservative wing of the party for over 50 years. It has been over half a century since Dan Smoot wrote The Invisible Government (1960). In late 1964, Robert Welch of the John Birch Society shifted his entire life's work from anti-Communism to anti-conspiracy, and forced the restructuring of the Birch Society's magazine, American Opinion. The story of the CFR/Federal Reserve alliance has been known to the hard-core Right for a generation. But it is still not known to the standard conservative, who came into the movement in 1980 or later.

NAIVE CONSERVATIVES

This is why any attempt to warn conservatives about the latest Republican Party presidential campaign is always regarded by them as an attack from the Left. They think of themselves as being on the far Right, and they cannot abide by any criticism based on the history of Republican politics, basic economics, CFR influence, or anything else. They just assume that the criticism has to come from somebody on the Left, because they have been trained to think that the national conservatives within the Republican Party's leadership do not share with Democrat liberals the same background, ideology, social networks, and screening. They are outraged by criticism. Why? Because they perceive that such criticism has an unstated implication: they have been taken in. No one wants to hear this.

D'Souza made a movie about Obama as anti-colonialist. This is utterly irrelevant in American foreign policy. Franklin Roosevelt was an anti-colonialist. He was an anti-British colonialist. He used World War II to replace British colonialism. Harry Truman completed the process. The Council on Foreign Relations supported this replacement. It still does. Truman's recognition of the state of Israel had serious opponents in the Council on Foreign Relations, most notably his Secretary of State, George C. Marshall. Obama is extending a pre-Israel (1948), non-neoconservative (post-1965) American agenda in foreign policy. D'Souza ignores all this in his movie. So what if Obama is anti-British colonialism? It has been gone for 50 years. The main theme of his movie is utterly irrelevant. It is simply a neocon propaganda film well within the orbit CFR opinion against the big-oil wing.

The standard Republican conservative, being ignorant of the history of American foreign policy since 1947, is blissfully unaware of this.

Here is an example that I received from one subscriber.

I am deeply offended by your liberal Mafia remarks. Your opinions are far from fact and in fact are B.S. right out of the liberal handbook. Sickening, misleading, untruthful and disgusting. America is not stupid as you seem to think. Look in the mirror!

I have been told this for over 40 years. In high school, I was taught by a very conservative civics teacher, who was legendary in Southern California. He was the most conservative public school high school teacher in the region. About a decade after I graduated from his class, I was a teaching assistant at the University of California, Riverside. One of his recent graduates had been in one of my sections. I knew nothing about this. Later, the teacher told me that this student had informed him that I was a communist. This was at about the time that I was writing my book on Marx, Marx's Religion of Revolution.

The student could not comprehend the meaning of communism. He could not comprehend the difference between the Old Right and conservatism. At that point, neoconservatism was only about three or four years old, so he probably was not familiar with that strand of political theory.

The conservative movement has always been filled with naïve people. People are attracted to a fringe movement, rarely because of their understanding of the mainstream, but only because they don't like the mainstream, and they are determined to take a stand against it. The subtleties of the political philosophy or economic theories of the group they joined are lost on them. They got excited. They committed. And they now send their money to the Republican Party, because it seems to be fighting all those terrible liberals. The thought that the two parties have been completely vetted at the top by the same group of elite deal-doers, who in fact are very famous people, does not occur to them. The fact that, at the top of American politics, the limits of discussion have been set by the same group of a few thousand people, is lost on them.

THE SUPERCLASS

When you realize that the process is international, as described in the book by David Rothkopf, Superclass, it seems beyond belief. How is it that approximately 6,000 people control virtually all of the agenda for the Western nations? Your typical conservative probably would believe this with respect to the internationalist connections of the elite. They would blame the impotent UN. But they seem to feel that this elite did not begin the screening process of the present leaders of both political parties three decades or four decades earlier. These people say that they do not trust the Ivy League, yet it never occurs to them that virtually everybody they are asked to vote for as President is a graduate of one of two or possibly three Ivy League universities. It never occurs to them that there is cause and effect in education. It never occurs to them the Ivy League universities are really, truly as good as the critics think they are with respect to their ability to set the terms of discussion, meaning the exclusion of the fringes on both the right and left, among those people who graduated from the system.

So, the political charade goes on. It will continue to go on until the day that the federal government does not have the ability to write the checks any longer. At that point, all over the world, the superclass will find that they have lost legitimacy in the eyes of the people, and they have lost the ability to control what happens at the local level.

The key to this is a combination of money and intellectual screening at the university and graduate school level. The elite defines the extreme limits of acceptable discussion. The elite leaders do not attempt to tell people what they ought to believe inside these limits. They do define what constitutes extremism and therefore what constitutes an unacceptable list of assumptions and policies within the network of the good old boys. Communism is out. It has always been out. Libertarianism is obviously out. Conservatism was out until Reagan was elected. There were a few early conservatives who got inside the gates, the most famous being William F. Buckley. Buckley got inside the gates early. He got into Yale, and he was tapped to join Skull and Bones. Then he went into the CIA. So, he was vetted very early.

To get into the inner sanctum, you have to abandon extremism. Whether you are from the Right or the Left, the extreme positions are not acceptable. People who have spent their lives trying to get into the inner ring understand the limits, and they accept them. This is how the limits of acceptable discourse are imposed on the people who formulate policy, advise presidents, and write for the establishment media outlets. None of this is understood by the average conservative in the Republican Party. I think it is much more understood by the far left members of the Democratic Party. People on the far left believe in politics, and they learn how the game is played early in their lives. Conservatives do not.

So, it is easier for the CFR to control the terms of discourse on the Right than on the Left, or so it seems most of the time. The far Left did get sucked in by Obama's rhetoric in 2008. It is highly unlikely that they will be sucked in again. They will probably vote for him. I doubt that they will vote for Romney. They will not vote the same enthusiasm this time. Voting to keep Guantanamo Bay filled with prisoners for another four years is probably not high on their list of political mobilization.

Conservatives think Guantanamo is great. So, anybody who thinks Guantanamo should be shut down, as I do, is perceived automatically as somebody on the Left. This is because there has been a long tradition within the conservative movement to suppress civil rights. People who got into the movement, and have spent time in the movement, assume that the suppression of civil rights is okay. This is why Bush was able to get the Patriot Act passed, when Clinton did not have the courage to introduce it to Congress. It is easier to get conservatives to vote for something like this than it is to get Democrats to vote for it. Of course, in a time of crisis, most politicians will vote for anything that suppresses civil liberties.

CONCLUSION

If the followers of Ron Paul will ever make any difference, they are going to have to spread out and burrow in. They are going to have to go back to their hometowns, get active in local politics, and spend the next 25 years or even 50 years figuring out how the local system runs, and then taking it over. This has to be a bottom-up transformation. There is no possibility of capturing power at the top of either party. To capture control of either party will require fringe people to go to the local county level and to spend at least a generation, and maybe two generations, building a political network that will enable them to control the terms of discourse at the top. They have to do an end run around Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. This will not be easy.

September 3, 2012

http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1193.html