Interesting History of Fed Cover Ups

Ron Paul: Madame Speaker, I would like to enter into the record the following letter from Professor Robert D. Auerbach, a professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas. This letter provides additional information regarding remarks I made at yesterday's Financial Services Committee Humphrey-Hawkins hearing, remarks which Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke categorized as "bizarre."

- - - - -

Thank you Congressman Ron Paul for bringing these important facts to the public's attention

I thank Congressman Ron Paul for bringing to the public’s attention the Federal Reserve coverup of the source of the Watergate burglars’ source of funding and the defective audit by the Federal Reserve of the bank that transferred $5.5 billion from the U.S. government to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. Congressman Paul directed these comments to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke at the House Financial Services Hearing February 24, 2010. I question Chairman Bernanke’s dismissive response.

BERNANKE: “Well, Congressman, these specific allegations you've made I think are absolutely bizarre, and I have absolutely no knowledge of anything remotely like what you just described.”

The evidence Congressman Ron Paul mentioned is well documented in my recent book, Deception and Abuse at the Fed (University of Texas Press: 2008). The head of the Federal Reserve bureaucracy should become familiar with its dismal practices.

First, consider the Fed’s coverup of the source of the $6300 in hundred dollar bills found on the Watergate burglars when they were arrested at approximately 2:30 A.M. on June 17, 1972 after they had broken into the Watergate offices of the Democratic Party. Five days after the break-in, June 22, 2003, at a board of directors’ meeting of officials at the Philadelphia Fed Bank, it was recorded in the minutes [shown on page 23 of my book] that false or misleading information had been provided to a reporter from the Washington Post about the $6,300. Bob Woodward told me he thought he was the Washington Post reporter who had made the phone inquiry. The reporter "had called to verify a rumor that these bills were stolen from this Bank" according to the Philadelphia Fed minutes. The Philadelphia Fed Bank had informed the Board on June 20 that the notes were "shipped from the Reserve Bank to Girard Trust Company in Philadelphia on April 3, 1972." The Washington Post was incorrectly informed of "thefts but told they involved old bills that were ready for destruction."

The Federal Reserve under the chairmanship of Arthur Burns not only kept the Fed from getting entangled in the Watergate coverup, which the Fed’s actions had assisted, it allowed false statements about bills the Fed knew were issued by the Philadelphia Fed Bank to stand uncorrected. Blocking information from the Senate and House Banking Committees [letters shown in my book, Chapter 2] and issuing false information during a perilous government crisis imposed huge costs on the public that had insufficient information to hold the Fed officials accountable for what they had withheld from the Congress. Had the deception been discovered the Fed chairmen following Burns may have been forced to rapidly implement some real transparency to restore the Fed’s credibility. That would have reduced or eliminated many of the lies, deceptions, and corrupt practices that are described in my book.

The second subject brought up by Congressman Ron Paul is the exposure of faulty examinations of the Federal Reserve of a foreign bank in Atlanta, Georgia through which $5.5 billion was sent to Saddam Hussein that a Federal Judge found to be part of United States active support for Iraq in the 1980s.

On November 9, 1993, several federal marshals brought a prisoner, Christopher Drogoul, into my office at the Rayburn House Office Building of the U.S. House of Representatives. The marshals removed the manacles. Drogoul took off his jump suit and changed into a shirt, tie, and business suit. He immediately looked like the manager of the Atlanta agency with domestic headquarters in New York City of Banca Nazionale. Drogoul had come to testify about a “scheme prosecutors said he masterminded that funneled $5.5 billion in loans to Iraq’s Hussein through BNL’s Atlanta operation. Some of the loans allegedly were used to build up Iraq’s military and nuclear arsenals in the years preceding the first Gulf War.” [1]

Drogoul’s "'off book' BNL-Atlanta funding to Iraq began in 1986 as financing for products under Department of Agriculture programs."[2] The loans allegedly had been authorized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Since Drogoul told the committee he was merely a tool in an ambitious scheme by the United States, Italy, Britain and Germany to secretly arm Iraq in their 1980-88 war, the testimony was politically contentious and unproven. He was sentenced in November 1993 to 37 months in prison and he had already served 20 months awaiting his sentencing hearing.

U.S. District Judge Ernest Tidwell found that the United States had actively supported Iraq in the 1980s by providing it with government-guaranteed loans even though it wasn’t creditworthy. The judge said such policies “clearly facilitated criminal conduct."[3]

Gonzalez was drawn to Drogoul’s answer about the Fed examiner who had visited his Atlanta operation. Gonzalez said that:

"At the November 9, 1993 Banking Committee hearing I asked Christopher Drogoul, the convicted official of the Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro agency branch in Atlanta, Georgia, how the Federal Reserve Bank examiners could miss billions of dollars of illegal loans, most of which ended up in the hands of Hussein.

Mr. Drogoul stated:

The task of the Fed [bank examiner] was simply to confirm that the State of Georgia audit revealed no major problems. And thus, their audit of BNL usually consisted of a one or two-day review of the state of Georgia’s preliminary results, followed by a cup of espresso in the manager’s office.”

Gonzalez was appalled at the of lack of effective examination of a little storefront bank and also appalled by the gifts exchanged by officers of the New York Federal Reserve and the regulated banks in New York City where the main U.S. office of BNL was located. A description of what followed is in my book.

The Fed voted in 1995 to destroy the source transcripts of its policy making committee that had been sent to National Archives and Records Administration. Chairman Alan Greenspan had the committee vote on this destruction, telling the members: "I am not going to record these votes because we do not have to. There is no legal requirement." (p. 104 in my book.) Greenspan thus removed any fingerprints on this act of record destruction. Donald Kohn, who is now Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve, answered some questions I had sent to Chairman Greenspan about this destruction. Kohn replied in a letter on November 1, 2001 to me at the University of Texas that they had destroyed the source records for 1994, 1995 and 1996, they did not believe it to be illegal and there was no plan to end this practice. That is one reason why the Federal Reserve audit supported by Congressman Ron Paul is needed. The Fed must stop destroying its records.

- - - - -

Robert Auerbach is Professor of Public Affairs at the Lyndon Baines Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin. He was an economist with the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee during the tenure of four Federal Reserve Chairmen: Arthur Burns, William Miller, Paul Volcker, and Alan Greenspan. Auerbach also served as an economist in the U.S. Treasury's Office of Domestic Monetary Affairs during the first year of the Ronald Reagan administration and as a financial economist with the U.S. Federal Reserve System. Auerbach has been a professor of economics at the American University in Washington, D.C. (1976-83), and a professor of economics and finance at the University of California-Riverside (1983-93). He has written numerous articles, and two textbooks in banking and financial markets. He received two Masters degrees in economics, one from the University of Chicago and one from Roosevelt University, where he studied under Abba Lerner, and a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago, where he studied under Milton Friedman.

- - - - -

1 Marcy Gordon, “Banker Imprisoned in BNL Case Tells Story to House Committee,” The Associated Press, November 9, 1993.

2 U.S. Newswire: “Former Executive of Atlanta Agency of Italian-Owned Bank Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy”, from U.S. Department of Justice, Public Affairs, June 2, 1992.

3 Peter Mantius, “Drogoul given 37 months Judge in BNL case also blasts actions of U.S. prosecutors,” The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, December 10, 1993, Section A, p. 12.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/tx14_paul/Auerbach.shtml

Read More......

Amusing Riposte -- Oblermann

The hypocrisy of Keith

Read More......

The Minority Report on Healthcare Summit

House minority leader JoHn BoEhner's statement on President Obama's Healthcare Summit:

For his part, President Obama comes to the table with the same massive government takeover of health care that the American people have already rejected. In effect, the president’s proposal actually takes the 2,733-page bill that the Senate passed on Christmas Eve and manages to make it worse. Even more Medicare cuts. Even more tax hikes. Plenty of special-interest deals still in place. A trillion-dollar price tag.

This latest Democrats-only backroom deal snuffed out any chance that this summit could serve as the starting point for a bipartisan consensus. Democrats are instead hoping that this media event can be the gateway to a final push that involves circumventing the will of the people and jamming a bill through using parliamentary tricks.

This is the same arrogance and overreaching that the American people are so fed up with. It’s why Massachusetts happened. It’s why Americans waited for hours in the August heat to get into town hall meetings and make sure their voices were heard.

Indeed, we’ve been here before. Shortly after Labor Day, the president gave an address to Congress designed to resuscitate his proposed government takeover of health care. That speech was followed by an all-out media blitz. It was described as a “last-ditch effort,” “an opportunity to take back the initiative.” Nearly six months later, still no health care bill has been signed into law, tens of thousands more have lost their jobs and unemployment is still near 10 percent.

All this uncertainty is hurting small businesses, the engine of job creation in our country, while Americans are rightly asking: “Where are the jobs?”

The president’s health care media blitz was based on the notion that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they would come to like it. Now that just the opposite has occurred, the president has chosen to limit participation in the Thursday summit to administration officials and congressional leaders. America’s governors and state legislatures have been excluded. Their perspective from the front lines about the damage this massive government takeover of health care would do to cash-strapped states is apparently not welcome. That’s greatly disappointing, considering that measures have been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures opting out of a federal takeover of health care.

Also excluded from today’s summit is Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., co-author of a House-passed amendment barring federal funding of abortion. The Stupak-Pitts amendment — which reflects the will of the American people on the issue of federal funding of abortion — is supported by a bipartisan majority in the House, but was excluded from the president’s proposal. Pro-life Democrats in the House have already pledged to vote against this provision. Health care reform should be an opportunity to protect human life — not end it. This fundamental issue isn’t even listed as a topic for discussion at the summit.

The president can hold all the summits he wants, but the toothpaste is out of the tube: The American people don’t want this massive government takeover of health care. No summit or speech or sales pitch can fix a fundamentally flawed 2,000-plus-page health care bill that spends money we don’t have and kills the jobs we need to get our economy moving again.

Let’s listen to the American people and let’s start over.

Read More......

The Young Are Hammered by ObamaCare

Here is a video produced following analysis of the Senate Bill scheme. ObamaCare "is just another tax on young people."

Read More......

Health Care Policy Reform Ideas

On February 25, 2010, the White House is hosting the Bi-Partisan Summit on Healthcare. In view of that meeting, we are trotting out some of the better ideas aimed at reform.

The scary Chart to the left shows how dire is our economic prediciment with regard to funding entitlement programs. The rapidly escalating cost curve for medical spending threatens to truly bankrupt America. When the politicians talk about “bending the curve,” they are referencing the upward tilting curve in the chart.

The problem with the current ideas floating around Washington, D.C., is that they do not bend the curve. Indeed, there is a very good argument that the increased coverage of those plans may cause the curve to bend the wrong direction . . . up.

The Heritage Foundation has some ideas about bending the curve in the right direction. On the eve of the Summit, we are doing our duty and publishing some of those real reform ideas here.

Real Reforms That Could Control Costs and Improve Care

Congress could pursue a different approach, with the potential to improve the health care system and control or even reduce health care spending. To accomplish these objectives, Congress should:

Reform the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

The Medicare payment systems for physicians and hospitals reward behavior that increases spending, and Medicare is both the "800-pound gorilla" that drives many private payment systems and the model for the proposed public option. "Hospitals lose money when they improve care in ways that reduce admissions, and they lose market share when they don't keep pace in the local medical arms race. In this race there are no financial rewards for collaboration, coordination, or conservative practice."As Dr. Julie Bynum observed, "Physicians operate under the rules of a system that is rigged to reward high-cost care." Medicaid, on the other hand, contains cost by paying doctors so little that patients have difficulty obtaining care outside the emergency room.

Medicare and Medicaid should reward, not punish, health care providers for delivering high-quality care at a low cost. The most effective way to do this would be to empower beneficiaries to control their health care dollars directly, allowing them use their benefits to enroll in the health plans that deliver the best value according to their own preferences and values.

Empower patients and expand choice.

Outside of Medicare and Medicaid, most people have little choice in their health care plans. Those who have a choice are often limited to a small number of health plans provided through their employer. Federal regulations make it difficult and expensive for companies to offer a large menu of health plans, and hefty tax penalties discourage employees from buying individual health plans.

With the exception of consumer-driven health savings account (HSA) plans, tax laws encourage employer-sponsored health plans to set higher premiums--that is, more third-party payment--rather than implement incentives for efficient use of health services. A 2005 McKinsey study discovered that patients in consumer-driven health plans were twice as likely to inquire about cost and three times more likely to select a cheaper treatment plan compared to patients in traditional plans.

The tax laws and rules are wrongheaded. Regulations should be changed to allow more choices of health plans without tax penalties and greater use of HSA plans. This would encourage patients to make rational choices about day-to-day health care, while protecting them from the financial impact of truly serious illnesses and injuries. At the same time, competitive pressure from cost-conscious patients would reduce prices and improve quality for insurance-paid care, making everybody better off and rewarding providers who deliver quality care at lower prices.

Create a real national market for health insurance.

Congress could further empower patients by creating a real national market for health insurance. Unlike the life insurance market in which a customer can buy any plan that he or she wants, patients can buy health insurance plans only in his or her state. States currently prohibit the purchase of health plans across state lines, and many states mandate costly benefit packages. These two restrictions combine to reduce consumer choice and increase costs and uninsurance rates in many states. Congress could pre-empt these limits using its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. Indeed, this power was written into the Constitution specifically to allow Congress to override restrictions on trade among states.

A real national market for health insurance would increase choices and reduce costs. People could buy policies tailored to their individual needs and preferences without states compelling them to purchase unnecessarily expensive coverage with mandated benefits they do not want. Patients would be free to choose between lower-cost catastrophic plans and higher-cost comprehensive plans, thus reducing the number of people who go without insurance due to high premiums.



Conclusion

Despite the rampant inefficiencies and extremely high costs of health care in the United States, it is still possible to make the American health care system even more inefficient and more costly. Regrettably, the health care bills passed by the House and Senate would do precisely that by saddling an already burdened system with more mandates, higher taxes, and less flexibility.

Instead, Congress should pass health care reform that increases patient choice and allows doctors and hospitals to be rewarded for providing high-quality, cost-efficient care. Any other reform will only deepen the current inefficiencies and introduce more problems.

Jason D. Fodeman, M.D., is a former Health Policy Fellow in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation and is currently an Internal Medicine Resident at the University of Connecticut. Robert A. Book, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow in Health Economics in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.

Read More......

Political Correctness: Obama Administration Dancing with Imams

John Brennan, Assistant to the President For Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, takes questions from the auidence at "A Dialogue on Our Nation's Security" held at New York Univeristy. This public forum was co-hosted by the White House Office of Public Engagement and the Islamic Center at NYU on February 13, 2010.

In this clip, Brennan takes a question from a Flying Imam, Omar Shahin.

You will recall that Shahin was the leader of the "flying imams." That group was made up of six Muslim clerics (led by Shahin) whose suspicious behavior — provocatively shouting “Allahu Akbar!” before boarding the plane, fanning out in the cabin before take-off, refusing to sit in their assigned seats, requesting seat-belt extenders, which they placed on the floor — led to their removal by a U.S. Airways crew in 2006. The group claimed discrimination against Muslims and sued the airline. They later settled for an undisclosed sum.

Read More......

Wind Turbine Manufacturing Heading Overseas

A February 9, 2009, ABC News story relates depressing news about green jobs in the wind turbine field.

The issue is over-regulation of manufacturing businesses in the United States. Unless something is done about the cost of operating a manufacturing facility here--whether its the high taxes or the onerous federal regulations related to labor, environmental, and employment laws--it appears unlikely we will see a return of manufacturing to these shores. Not even the new green industries are setting up shop here.

Despite all the talk of green jobs, the overwhelming majority of stimulus money spent on wind power has gone to foreign companies, according to a new report by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at the American University's School of Communication in Washington, D.C.

Wind turbines are powered by strong prevailing winds in Palm Springs, Calif. The American Wind...
Wind turbines are powered by strong prevailing winds in Palm Springs, Calif. The American Wind Energy Association came out with a report last week that showed a drop in wind manufacturing jobs in the United States for last year. But during that time, enough wind farms have been built to power 2.4 million homes and create lots of new, green jobs. (David McNew/Getty Images)

Nearly $2 billion in money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been spent on wind power, funding the creation of enough new wind farms to power 2.4 million homes over the past year. But the study found that nearly 80 percent of that money has gone to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines.

So Where Are the Jobs?

"Most of the jobs are going overseas," said Russ Choma at the Investigative Reporting Workshop. He analyzed which foreign firms had accepted the most stimulus money. "According to our estimates, about 6,000 jobs have been created overseas, and maybe a couple hundred have been created in the U.S."

Read More......

Gamecock Baseball Preview

Read More......

Trademark Fight to Save Baseball Emblem Losing Traction

This Blog wrote about a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Decision (Aug. 1, 2008) that stripped South Carolina of its right to trademark Ray Tanner's interlocking SC emblem.

On January 19, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Decision and rejected the University's appeal. See USC v. USC, 2009-1064 (Jan. 19, 2010).

The dispute between The University of South Carolina and the University of Southern California was over trademark rights to the two images below.


It is clear from viewing the images side by side that the emblems are quite distinctive. In my 2008 blogpost linked above, we noted that University attorneys did a good job proving dissimilarity at trial. In fact, Southern Cal failed to produce any evidence to find similarity and that issue was undisputed. However, the Board overlooked the undisputed evidence presented of disimilarity, which is detailed carefully in my 2008 post, and ruled as follows:



The University asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review the trial Judges' decision on appeal. However, the appellate court did not consider the dissimilarity between the two images. At page 4, the Appeals Court stated, in part, as follows:

"South Carolina does not appeal . . . the Board's findings that the marks were legally identical . . . ."

Under the federal appellate rules, when a party fails to raise a factual issue on appeal, it cannot be raised later and is deemed decided.

Further confusing the issue was Southern Cal's use of a common law baseball emblem. That emblem is shown below with the description of its use as described by the Board in its original August 1998 Decision.



It is difficult to understand why the University's decided abandon the Board's grossest error in its appeal of the trial Decision. On the other hand, it would not be the first time an appellate court dodged a tough issue by alleging it was not raised by a party. Alternatively, perhaps the obvious dissimilarity would be relevant to disproving a Southern California action for damages down the road. Maybe the University decision was tactical, but if that is the case, why appeal in the first place?

To make matters worse, the Southern California lawyer used the opportunity of the legal victory on appeal to taunt South Carolina Gamecocks.

"I think they wanted to move away from the gamecock logo," Edelman said of South Carolina. "Something that is totally understandable."

He described the proud, noble and feisty Gamecock as "a goofy little chicken."

NBC Los Angeles .

The lead attorney representing South Carolina was Neil C. Jones, a partner at South Carolina's largest defense firm, Nelson Mullins. Jones is an Erskine College graduate who earned his law degree in Washington, D.C., at George Washington University Law School.

When asked to respond to the taunts of the winning attorney, Jones, cited his southern manners. NBC Los Angeles .

Perhaps if the University were represented by a South Carolina alum, our advocate would have reminded the Los Angeles reporter that the fighting Gamecocks are 2-0 against the goofy Trojans in football. The Gamecocks won football games in 1980, 23-13, and again in 1983, 38-14. Those are the type of facts an attorney needs to be prepared with when he gets an unexpected media call.

Technorati Tags: emblem, sc, interlocking, USC, federal, circuit, appeal, trademark,

Read More......

Mark 12: What Do We Owe God?

Our Bridgepointe Bible study group is studying Mark 12:13-17 today. In these passages, Jesus is presented with a trap question. He brilliantly answers and teaches us an important less about man's obligation to God.

The life in first century Palestine was not without Jewish politics. The Romans ruled Palestine, and set up a puppet Kingdom which was under their authority. The ruling elite were wealthy Jewish people called Herodians, after Herod the Great. The Herodians generally were subservient to Roman influences.

On the other side of the political spectrum, were the religious leaders, including the Pharisees. The Pharisees were nationalistic and generally disdainful of things foreign, including things Roman and Greek. Obviously, this could sometimes result in conflict since the culture was under the authority of the Roman government and its titular leader, Caesar.

It is interesting that the two political opposites united to confront Jesus. Apparently, both regarded Jesus, who was popular with the people, as a threat. Consequently, Mark 12:13-17 shows how they agreed upon a plan to trap him and undermine his influence.

Then they sent some of the Pharisees and the Herodians to Him to trap Him by what He said. When they came, they said to Him, "Teacher, we know You are truthful and defer to no one, for You don't show partiality but teach truthfully the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay, or should we not pay?"

But knowing their hypocrisy, He said to them, "Why are you testing Me? Bring Me a denarius to look at." So they brought one. "Whose image and inscription is this?" He asked them.

"Caesar's," they said.

Then Jesus told them, "Give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were amazed at Him.

The coins used to pay Caesar's “existance tax” bore his likeness and contained statements suggesting Caesar was divine.

The Pharisees believed that paying the tax would violate the Commandments because, in their minds, use of the tax coins suggested a violation of God's Commands against idol worship. The tax represented offering up subserviance to another God.

The Herodians believed that refusing to pay the tax would violate Roman law and would be treasonous.

Thus, the two camps figured Jesus would fall into their trap however he answered their question.

Jesus, however, first exposed the hypocracy of the Pharisees. He asked them to produce a coin, and they did! They were walking around with the coins in their pockets and they used them already as currency. Thus, the Pharisees already accepted use of Roman coins.

Then, Jesus showed them that the coins had the image of Caesar on them indicating that they were Casear's property to begin with. He said that it was alright to return the coins to Caesar.

The second part of Jesus answer harkens back to Genesis 1:27:

So God created man in His own image;
    He created him in the image of God;
    He created them male and female.

Using the image of Caesar, Jesus teaches us that while our money might belong to Caesar, people are God's creation. We are made in God's image. That means that like Caesar's coins, God owns our lives.

We have the freedom pay our taxes . . . or not. If we do not pay taxes, we are lawbreakers.

We owe the creator God our very lives. Like paying taxes, we also each have a free choice about whether we will give our life to God . . . or not.

Technorati Tags: When, Your, Priorities, Are, Challenged, Lifeway, Explore, the, Bible, Caesar, God, Taxes, Jesus, Christ, Repentence, Trust, Faith

Read More......

Here Some Slides From the Chicago Trip

Read More......

Southern Avenger Defines/Contrasts "Neo-Con"

Here is the Jack Hunter of Charleston (i.e., the Southern Avenger) defining Woodrow Wilson's neo-conservatism.

Hunter argues that the expansion of Neo-Cons within the Republican Party under the George W. Bush tended to blend the neo-con philosophy with conservativism, a political philosophy that emphasizes small government and liberty. Hunter argues further that conservatives need to segregate the neo-cons from the conservative movement because the two philosophies are inconsistent with one another.

Read More......

Gamecocks 2010 Signing Day Class

Read More......

Marcus Lattimore: Commits to Gamecocks

Here is a video of his February 2, 2010, announcement at his church in Spartanburg County. The dude with the black bag is former NFL running back Stephen Davis, an Auburn player in college.

The Gamecocks were battling Auburn for Lattimore's commitment. Gamecock fans across the State almost had a heart attack when Marcus pulled out the orange Auburn cap. But, when Sandstorm kicked in you knew he is a Gamecock.

Lattimore, who played football at Byrnes, is ranked by recruiting experts as one of the best high school running backs in the nation.

Read More......

Live Action Films Video: Abortion Clinic Counseling

The video embedded below was recorded September 8th, 2009 by Live Action. It shows the counseling women receive inside of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic. The clinic emphasizes that the baby is not human. They deny the baby has a heart.



Here are some links that contradict the clinic's claims.

LEARN MORE: Investigating medical misinformation and manipulation at Planned Parenthood, the nation's abortion industry giant.

Embryologists call Planned Parenthood counseling information absurd and scientifically erroneous.

At Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, we know that to truly take charge, you need information. You need facts. You need knowledge.

WATCH: The Beating Heart in Slow Motion: 4 1/2 Weeks Pregnant

Here is a quote from the medical treatise, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, P. 330 (K. Moore, 7th ed, 2003).

These cords canalize to form heart tubes, which fuse to form the tubular heart late in the third week. The heart begins to beat at 22 to 23 days. An inductive influence from the anterior endoderm stimulates early formation of the heart. Blood flow begins during the fourth week and can be visualized by Doppler ultrasonography.

CHECK THE FACTS AT THIS YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Read More......

Nice Bloomberg Piece on AIG//Geithner

Here is a link to writer David Reilly's Commentary, Secret Banking Cabal Emerges From AIG Shadows. This explains in good detail the credit default swaps asset bailout that primarily benefited Goldman Sachs. Here is a sample:

The New York Fed is one of 12 Federal Reserve Banks that operate under the supervision of the Federal Reserve’s board of governors, chaired by Ben Bernanke. Member-bank presidents are appointed by nine-member boards, who themselves are appointed largely by other bankers.

As Representative Marcy Kaptur told Geithner at the hearing: “A lot of people think that the president of the New York Fed works for the U.S. government. But in fact you work for the private banks that elected you.”

And yet the New York Fed played an integral role in the government’s bailout of banks, often receiving surprisingly free rein to act as it saw fit.

Consider AIG. Let’s take Geithner at his word that a failure to resolve the insurer’s default swaps would have led to financial Armageddon. Given the stakes, you might think Geithner would have coordinated actions with then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Yet Paulson testified that he wasn’t in the loop.

“I had no involvement at all, in the payment to the counterparties, no involvement whatsoever,” Paulson said.

Bernanke’s Denials

Fed Chairman Bernanke also wasn’t involved. In a written response to questions from Representative Darrell Issa, Bernanke said he “was not directly involved in the negotiations” with AIG’s counterparty banks.

You have to wonder then who really was in charge of our nation’s financial future if AIG posed as grave a threat as Geithner claimed.

Video of Kaptur cross examining Geithner is linked here.

Read More......