Breathing Together - Conspiracy Theories Discussion

Tom23 · **Posted:** Sun Sep 20, 2009 2:12 pm

ptb wrote:

MtnLife4u wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=879A14495D29C64F (8 parts)

The following critical comments are intended to stimulate further debates. They are not personal attacks on anyone.

The above 8 vidoes are full of half truth and contradictions.

The author had complete misunderstanding of economic laws. In this critique, I will only bring out one glaring mistake : WWII brought economy out of the Great Depression.

In episode 3, the author argued that it was the money expaned in WWII that ended the great depression (time 9:15). The author had fallen prey to standard propaganda promoted by one branch of Powers That Be, the Military-Industrial Complex.

War is the exact opposite of free market economy.
Free market economy promotes voluntary exchange and peaceful co-existence.
War destroy lives and capital stocks. War does not improve economic well-being.

In episode 6, the author quoted Frederic Bastiat (time 1:01)

Unfortunately, the author apparently did not study Bastiat carefully. The author had committed the all-too-common error pointed out by Bastiat: "The Broken Window fallacy" or "That which is seen and that which is not seen".

That Which Is Seen: During WWII, men were drafted to the front line and many "jobs" and "money" are available for war efforts : making weapons. On the surface,the unemployment had improved.

That Which Is Not Seen: By allocating all resources toward the war efforts, general living standard declined. There were rations on fuel, butter, and other consumer goods. One cannot eat bullets, machine guns, bombs and fighter airplanes.

The truth is that it was the return to free market principle after WWII that ended the Great Depression.

No offense taken, and I doubt that Mountain has a problem with this either.

I find myself in agreement with your position on WWII vis a vis the economy. This went right by me when I was watching the film; I am constantly fighting the "Social Studies" indoctrination I received in the public school system, I have been fighting it all of my adult life, and obviously the job is far from done. That WWII thing is one of those truisms that were put into my mind like little pebbles before my critical faculties were developed enough to allow a defense - Dad did his best to counter this, but he could do just so much.

Frankly, in my (and my late father's) opinion the economic policies pursued by the Roosevelt Administration turned what would have been a 3-4 year bust into a 12 year nightmare. They also planted many of the dragon's teeth we are harvesting today and will be harvesting in the near future. Between Wilson & Roosevelt it is a miracle we still have a country at all. Now we are making the same errors all over again, and this time they may well doom our nation.

I will read up on Frederic Bastiat, since I am currently ignorant of the bulk of his work. I am interested in any light you can shed on the interest quandary in the context of an essentially fixed-supply commodity-based currency - this is what made the deepest impression on me when I viewed this film. I will, of course pursue what Bastiat, Adam Smith, and others have had to say on this subject as well but you seem to me to be rather well versed in this subject area and could perhaps point me in a fruitful direction. A truly free market economy would be nice, but IMO we have not had one of those for almost a century. Certainly not since 1913 or so.

The Law by Frederick Bastiat
Translated by The Foundation for Economic Education (This site is a real gold-mine!)

Frederick Bastiat wrote:

The Desire to Rule over Others

This must be said: There are too many "great" men in the world -- legislators, organizers, do-gooders, leaders of the people, fathers of nations, and so on, and so on. Too many persons place themselves above mankind; they make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it.

Now someone will say: "You yourself are doing this very thing."

True. But it must be admitted that I act in an entirely different sense; if I have joined the ranks of the reformers, it is solely for the purpose of persuading them to leave people alone. I do not look upon people as Vancauson looked upon his automaton. Rather, just as the physiologist accepts the human body as it is, so do I accept people as they are. I desire only to study and admire.

My attitude toward all other persons is well illustrated by this story from a celebrated traveler: He arrived one day in the midst of a tribe of savages, where a child had just been born. A crowd of soothsayers, magicians, and quacks - - armed with rings, hooks, and cords -- surrounded it. One said: "This child will never smell the perfume of a peace- pipe unless I stretch his nostrils." Another said: "He will never be able to hear unless I draw his ear-lobes down to his shoulders." A third said: "He will never see the sunshine unless I slant his eyes." Another said: "He will never stand upright unless I bend his legs." A fifth said: "He will never learn to think unless I flatten his skull."

"Stop," cried the traveler. "What God does is well done. Do not claim to know more than He. God has given organs to this frail creature; let them develop and grow strong by exercise, use, experience, and liberty."

Now this is my kind of guy - and the rest of this work is just as good or even better. Well worth the read, believe me (speaking to the other readers, ptb - I'm sure you are well familiar with this work). Thank you for introducing me to Frederick Bastiat, ptb - I will pursue the rest of his works relentlessly.

Just read The Broken Window Fallacy - and found another great site in the course of my searches. Thanks. :hello:

Tom23 · **Posted:** Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:16 pm

ptb wrote:

In episode 6, the author quoted Frederic Bastiat (time 1:01)

This is the quote in question:

Frederic Bastiat wrote:

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

This is how Frederic Bastiat defined "plunder":

Frederic Bastiat wrote:

Slavery and Tariffs Are Plunder

What are these two issues? They are slavery and tariffs. These are the only two issues where, contrary to the general spirit of the republic of the United States, law has assumed the character of plunder.

Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.

Its is a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime - a sorrowful inheritance of the Old World - should be the only issue which can, and perhaps will, lead to the ruin of the Union. It is indeed impossible to imagine, at the very heart of a society, a more astounding fact than this: The law has come to be an instrument of injustice. And if this fact brings terrible consequences to the United States - where only in the instance of slavery and tariffs - what must be the consequences in Europe, where the perversion of law is a principle; a system?

Two Kinds of Plunder

Mr. de Montalembert [politician and writer] adopting the thought contained in a famous proclamation by Mr. Carlier, has said: "We must make war against socialism." According to the definition of socialism advanced by Mr. Charles Dupin, he meant: "We must make war against plunder."

But of what plunder was he speaking? For there are two kinds of plunder: legal and illegal.

I do not think that illegal plunder, such as theft or swindling -- which the penal code defines, anticipates, and punishes -- can be called socialism. It is not this kind of plunder that systematically threatens the foundations of society. Anyway, the war against this kind of plunder has not waited for the command of these gentlemen. The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. Long before the Revolution of February 1848 -- long before the appearance even of socialism itself -- France had provided police, judges, gendarmes, prisons, dungeons, and scaffolds for the purpose of fighting illegal plunder. The law itself conducts this war, and it is my wish and opinion that the law should always maintain this attitude toward plunder.

The Law Defends Plunder

But it does not always do this. Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. In short, there is a legal plunder, and it is of this, no doubt, that Mr. de Montalembert speaks.

This legal plunder may be only an isolated stain among the legislative measures of the people. If so, it is best to wipe it out with a minimum of speeches and denunciations -- and in spite of the uproar of the vested interests.

How to Identify Legal Plunder

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law -- which may be an isolated case -- is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.

Legal Plunder Has Many Names

Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole --with their common aim of legal plunder -- constitute socialism.

Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine, what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task.

Socialism Is Legal Plunder

Mr. de Montalembert has been accused of desiring to fight socialism by the use of brute force. He ought to be exonerated from this accusation, for he has plainly said: "The war that we must fight against socialism must be in harmony with law, honor, and justice."

But why does not Mr. de Montalembert see that he has placed himself in a vicious circle? You would use the law to oppose socialism? But it is upon the law that socialism itself relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.

To prevent this, you would exclude socialism from entering into the making of laws? You would prevent socialists from entering the Legislative Palace? You shall not succeed, I predict, so long as legal plunder continues to be the main business of the legislature. It is illogical -- in fact, absurd -- to assume otherwise.

I think I understand what you mean here, the film quotes Bastiat in the context of a banking cartel engaging in legal plunder but ignores him when it comes to the context of what brought us out of the Depression.

After reading Bastiat in a fuller context, I see that he is actually talking about Government using force to rob Peter and pay Paul. What the Federal Reserve does could more accurately be called illegal plunder (given that the Constitution is the Law of the Land) performed under color of law, but it does not appear to exactly fall within the purview of what Bastiat was talking about here (although it is certainly the very soul of plunder nonetheless) - however the recent massive government bail-outs (and frankly, just about all of what government does these days) most definitely do. The General Welfare clause was originally intended to mean "what the Government does for One, it must do for ALL, and to exactly the same degree" - and if it can't do it for ALL, then it shall do it for NONE.

MtnLife4u · **Joined:** Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:36 pm **Posts:** 117

Well-l-l-l...
It is Sunday and as appropriate a time as any to throw the following out to be devoured and digested by the Collective-virion-Common (anyone else run across this, before... has this subject already been considered in such detail)? I do believe I ran across the reference to the State of Kansas anticipations and, somewhere, else there was reference made to a "leaked" CDC document reference with regard to State of Florida "quarantine" writs. First off, a few irreverent comments of my own. 'Tis hard enough, not to get emotional about a lot of this (especially, when various relatives are beginning to come down with the FirstStages of the First-returned-Wave and nobody knows, for sure, just what the upcoming "Weeks 40 - 20" hold in store for denizens of, both, Country&Planet ... "selected or elected" as such individual cases might, in end effect, actually turn out to be?

When contemplating the more Hubbardian view of TheWorld...
It's easy enough to envision TheChristians NOT lining up for the shot, "just because"?
The PR-Marketing arm of ThePTB has, longer since, probably figured out the concept of angling for the "manifest destiny appeal" of the entire Mark-of-TheBeast readiness on behalf of huge swaths of the US population NOT to go along with TheOperation... as long as they could be convinced that the RFID concept might fit the appropriate description of prophecy, that is... wouldn't be surprised if the numbers 666 are pre-printed, somewhere, readily visible and goadable (everything else seems to match up)?

Line up the buses for TheRapture, please ???
After all, what would anyone, really, expect with the pre-sales of RFID to Kentucky's Green River District Health offices http://www.pcb007.com/pages/zone.cgi?a=52277. To be sure, they've got an "appropriate" reason... by inference, only to be used with corpses, of corpse... and, hey, they might even be re-cyclable? According to the press release, "VeriChip Corporation established VeriGreen Energy Corporation in March 2009" (verdant shades of soylent)?

Excerpt of the entire article follows... "recommended reading" in its entirety for all those contemplating travel, anytime, within the coming 1 -18 months timeframe...

America: Police and Military Train To Intern Swine Flu Vaccine "Refusniks"
by Paul Joseph Watson

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15272
.
Global Research, September 18, 2009
Prison Planet - 2009-09-17
In a You Tube video, a woman describing herself as a soldier explains how she was part of a drill in California centered around setting up roadblocks and checkpoints so authorities could check who has received the swine flu vaccine. Those who have had the shots will be fitted with an RFID bracelet so they can be tracked. Those who have not taken the shot will be offered it there and then and if they still refuse, will be carted off to an internment camp, according to the woman.

Watch the clip. (poor quality, many stops)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcrV696tmJ4

Law enforcement and military personnel are training to set up checkpoints in order to catch people who refuse to take the swine flu vaccination according to whistle blowers, while health authorities are laying the groundwork for a mass vaccination campaign by warning that serious and potentially deadly health problems will be blamed on the H1N1 vaccine.

This individual needs to go public with her full name and position because she will already be known to authorities. By remaining anonymous to the public only, her testimony can be dismissed as just someone ranting on You Tube. However, her statements about tracking people who have taken the vaccine via RFID bracelets is something that has already been beta tested by health authorities.

Former Kansas state trooper Greg Evensen underscored this claim back in July. “Have you been made aware of the massive roadblock plans to stop all travelers for a vaccine bracelet (stainless steel band with a micro-chip on board) that will force you to take the shot?” Evensen wrote on July 29. “Refuse it? You will be placed on a prison bus and taken to a quarantine camp. What will you do when your children are NOT allowed into school without the shot? What will you do when you are not allowed into the workplace without the vaccine paperwork? Buy groceries? Go to the bank? Shop anywhere?? Get on a plane, bus or train? Use the toilet in the mall? Nope. Police officers will become loathed, feared, despised and remembered for their ‘official’ duties.”

Mr. Evensen made the following comment at an event in Texas:

Authorities in Boston have already trialed such technology, with the purpose of creating a “vaccination map” charting which people have taken the vaccine and which have not, or “creating a citywide registry of everyone who has had a flu vaccination,” as a Boston Globe article describes. Participants were given a bracelet with a unique identifier code, exactly as described in the You Tube clip.

“Infectious disease specialists in Boston and elsewhere predicted that the registry approach could prove even more useful if something more sinister strikes: a bioterrorism attack or the long-feared arrival of a global flu epidemic. In such crises, the registry could be used to track who received a special vaccine or antidote to a deadly germ,” according to the article.

“Anything you can do to better pinpoint who’s vaccinated and who’s not, that’s absolutely vital,” said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy at the University of Minnesota. “I wish more cities were doing this kind of thing.” While governments have publicly backed away from talk of mandatory mass vaccination programs, their actions behind closed doors indicate that they are preparing for a state of medical martial law..."

GoGlobal-for-Gaia... Welcome to the Real-21st-Century ???

On the other hand, casting about for a venue with somewhat more decorum than joint sessions of Congress and spontaneous criticism from the Southern-piedmont-Right...

:banghead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xUy2ink ... re=related :rotfl:

Oops! 'Twas the wrong video... a somewhat more senior legislative body, discussing the relative merits of Lies&Truths... tsk-tsk-tsk :blackeye:

Only a PM, mind you... only a PM, not a Prez !!! Order, please... Order-in-the-House!
Now, let's get back to decorum and lies... keep-it-down-hands-off-the-dispatch-box-boyz !!!
Ahemm-m-m-m... about this "mild" Flu... how many doses of non-adjuvanted-dead-attenuated-mock-trial version do we really have... whend'ya say it was manufactured?

Suisse · **Joined:** Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:13 pm **Posts:** 143

Hello Tom

The present message has nothing to do with money questions.

===

Let's go back to basics.

I have some questions to ask about what is considered as to be conspiration:

- Can be a man alone be conspiring (in principle, "con-" means several)
- Can a man with double personality conspiring with himself (a guy who is sometimes dumb and maverick the rest of the time, for instance) :scratch:

- Even if the power is only in one hand, like in dictatures, can anything be done without a conspiration (The dictator cannot do everything by himself)
- I that case: Who does take part to the conspiration and who does not ?

Let's take examples:
If the leader of an empire (gives the order to destroy) destroys one of his major cities: Is he conspiring, and why ? Who takes part to the conspiration ?
For instance: Neron did it, Hitler did it, etc

If the leader of an empire decides to (let) destroy the books of a people: Is he conspiring, and why ? Who takes part to the conspiration ?
For instance: Hitler did it, the Romans did it, one Chinese Emperor did it, etc

If the leader of an empire decides to (let) destroy the cultural inheritage of a people: Is he conspiring, and why ? Who takes part to the conspiration ?
For instance: An army can protect museums, or let them be looted. The soldiers, the Police etc can they can rob or not rob.
For instance: Hitler ordered to destroy Paris, but the General in charge disobeyed. Mao Dze Dong destroyed cultural inheritage of his own people (fast all communist regimes did the same).
Clovis killed himself a soldier who robbed "Le vase de Soisson" (it's a little more complicated), etc
Nowaday, it is impossible to loot museums, because all armies have a list of Cultural goods of the territory, and thir first priority is to protect all museums against looting, all archives against the fire, all archeologic sites against looting and destruction. etc

Last question (for now): Any other example ? Any recent example ?

I'm going to sleep: Byebye everybody !
/ Dodo: A+

Hogweed · **Joined:** Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:08 am **Posts:** 431

I really can't believe this hasn't been posted in the thread yet

rob · **Joined:** Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:37 pm **Posts:** 1849

Suisse wrote:

Hello Tom

The present message has nothing to do with money questions.

===

Let's go back to basics.

I have some questions to ask about what is considered as to be conspiration:

- Can be a man alone be conspiring (in principle, "con-" means several)
- Can a man with double personality conspiring with himself (a guy who is sometimes dumb and maverick the rest of the time, for instance) :scratch:

- Even if the power is only in one hand, like in dictatures, can anything be done without a conspiration (The dictator cannot do everything by himself)
- I that case: Who does take part to the conspiration and who does not ?

Let's take examples:
If the leader of an empire (gives the order to destroy) destroys one of his major cities: Is he conspiring, and why ? Who takes part to the conspiration ?
For instance: Neron did it, Hitler did it, etc

If the leader of an empire decides to (let) destroy the books of a people: Is he conspiring, and why ? Who takes part to the conspiration ?
For instance: Hitler did it, the Romans did it, one Chinese Emperor did it, etc

If the leader of an empire decides to (let) destroy the cultural inheritage of a people: Is he conspiring, and why ? Who takes part to the conspiration ?
For instance: An army can protect museums, or let them be looted. The soldiers, the Police etc can they can rob or not rob.
For instance: Hitler ordered to destroy Paris, but the General in charge disobeyed. Mao Dze Dong destroyed cultural inheritage of his own people (fast all communist regimes did the same).
Clovis killed himself a soldier who robbed "Le vase de Soisson" (it's a little more complicated), etc
Nowaday, it is impossible to loot museums, because all armies have a list of Cultural goods of the territory, and thir first priority is to protect all museums against looting, all archives against the fire, all archeologic sites against looting and destruction. etc

Last question (for now): Any other example ? Any recent example ?

I'm going to sleep: Byebye everybody !
/ Dodo: A+

There can not be a conspiracy of one person. One person doing bad things is evil. Two people doing bad things is a conspiracy. Yes, a dedicated schizophrenic could constitute a conspiracy, if they both agreed on the goals. Which, due to the roots of the disease, is very unlikely.

Tom23 · **Posted:** Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:20 pm

Suisse wrote:

Can be a man alone be conspiring (in principle, "con-" means several)

No, not normally, but if he was communicating with one or more of his clones, that could constitute a conspiracy, even though legally he would probably be communicating with himself - as far as the biometric evidence was concerned.

Suisse wrote:

- Can a man with double personality conspiring with himself (a guy who is sometimes dumb and maverick the rest of the time, for instance) :scratch:

I would have to say that both parties would have to be capable of simultaneous independent action, so I don't think the double personality would qualify.

Suisse wrote:

- Even if the power is only in one hand, like in dictatures, can anything be done without a conspiration (The dictator cannot do everything by himself)
- I that case: Who does take part to the conspiration and who does not ?

Let's take examples:
If the leader of an empire (gives the order to destroy) destroys one of his major cities: Is he conspiring, and why ? Who takes part to the conspiration ?
For instance: Neron did it, Hitler did it, etc

As soon as the dictator gives an order to another individual regardless of rank and that order is carried out, then a conspiracy exists. As soon as two or more individuals are cooperatively involved, a conspiracy is born.

Suisse wrote:

b]If the leader[/b] of an empire decides to (let) destroy the books of a people: Is he conspiring, and why ? Who takes part to the conspiration ?
For instance: Hitler did it, the Romans did it, one Chinese Emperor did it, etc

b]If the leader[/b] of an empire decides to (let) destroy the cultural inheritage of a people: Is he conspiring, and why ? Who takes part to the conspiration ?
For instance: An army can protect museums, or let them be looted. The soldiers, the Police etc can they can rob or not rob.
For instance: Hitler ordered to destroy Paris, but the General in charge disobeyed. Mao Dze Dong destroyed cultural inheritage of his own people (fast all communist regimes did the same).

As long as this can happen without the dictator giving an explicit order to their subordinates to let the destruction happen, then there is no conspiracy. As soon as such an order is given, the conspiracy would exist once that order was obeyed. In the case of Hitler's General and the proposed destruction of Paris, no conspiracy existed because the two parties were not in cooperation. Had the General obeyed, then a conspiracy would have existed.

This is dealing with the very most basic essential requirement for a conspiracy - most would specify an additional restriction requiring such cooperative communication and action to be in secret as well. This would by definition include the daily operations of every intelligence agency on the planet. Frankly, without conspiracy, the History of Humanity would be a pretty slim little pamphlet, don't you think?

Of course, for it to be a conspiracy under the law, the act agreed to would have to be illegal under the laws of the applicable jurisdiction(s). This makes things interesting when a dictator is involved, since the dictator is their own jurisdiction and their word is law within that jurisdiction. Pretty interesting questions, Suisse.

This is how conspiracy is legally defined in the United States (Will likely differ from country to country):

Conspiracy Law & Legal Definition

USLegal Deninitions wrote:

Conspiracy is a separate offense, by which someone conspires or agrees with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. It is an agreement or a kind of partnership for criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member. It is not necessary to prove that the criminal plan actually was accomplished or that the conspirator was involved in all stages of the plannig or knew all of the details involved. The main elements that need to be proven ar a voluntary agreement to participate and some overt act by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the criminal plan. If a person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he had not participated before and even though he played only a minor part. A conspiracy may exist when the parties use legal means to accomplish an illegal result, or to use illegal means to achieve something that in itself is lawful.

Wheel and chain conspiracies are two types of conspiracies described in prosecuting offenders. A chain conspiracy involves parties linked together in a linear fashion. Typical drug or firearm smuggling organizations are chain conspiracies. It may consist of a series of drug deals, from manufacturer to the street dealer. In a wheel conspiracy, the ringleader is the "hub" and subsidiary parties are the "spokes". It is generally easier for prosecution to prove that a "chain" constituted a single conspiracy than it is to prove that a "wheel" was a single organization

Here is what the U.S. DOJ has to say about the actual U.S. statute (18 USC section 371) - looks to me like this law fits what the Federal Reserve is doing like a glove.

18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

U.S. Department of Justice wrote:

The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371).

The operative language is the so-called "defraud clause," that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the "offense clause" in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act.

Tom23 · **Posted:** Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:24 pm

Hogweed wrote:

I really can't believe this hasn't been posted in the thread yet

Well, ya just had to point right at the Elephant in the Room, Didn'cha. :shock:

MtnLife4u · **Joined:** Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:36 pm **Posts:** 117

W.H.O. knows who owns controlling interest in all of the biggest manufacturers of vaccines, as well, which corporations and individuals bought into pivotal leverage of the same, back in the days, immediately following WW2 and/or the run-up in stocks, beginning in the early 1990's? Somebody, somewhere has a few links and innuendos, I'm sure. Wouldn't it be "nice-to-know", exactly, W.H.O. stands behind this all... W.H.O stands to gain? My little birdie whispers it's "oil interests", to a large degree... what does your "little birdie" think about that ??? There's also a lot of purported "insider selling" going on at the moment... in this, the run-up to the G-20 in Pittsburgh... W.H.O.$E "little birdie" knows about that ??? :cool:

Hogweed · **Joined:** Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:08 am **Posts:** 431

Quote:

in this, the run-up to the G-20 in Pittsburgh..

There's a pawnshop on a corner in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
And I walk up and down 'neath the clock
By the pawnshop on a corner in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
But I ain't got a thing left to hock

Lot's of Chinese coverage (In English) at http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/g ... index.html

"Hu to elaborate on climate change stance of China
The world's attention will be on President Hu Jintao when he addresses the UN climate change summit to elaborate on China's policies and measures to fight global warming. It will be the first time a top Chinese leader talks about the country's stance on climate change at the United Nations."
...
"A responsible China
In the past few years while adhering to the Scientific Outlook on Development Hu promotes, China has been working towards rigorous targets - which it had set for itself - to promote clean energy, push for energy efficiency and cut greenhouse emissions."

Rhiza Labs FluTracker Forum

Breathing Together - Conspiracy Theories Discussion

Who is online