Say hello!!!!!!!

Write us at:

Friday, March 13, 2015

Write us at:

Moe Lauzier’s

Issues of the Day

How long before Obama rides off into the sunset? Click below…


Helen and I are planning a cross country trip to Arizona and Southern California. There will be no Issues of the Day for a few days.

Ciao…..Moe and Helen Lauzier

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Write us at:

Moe Lauzier’s

Issues of the Day

How long before Obama rides off into the sunset? Click below…

Democrat ticket 2016/

Ding and Ling


Helen and I are planning a cross country trip to Arizona and Southern California. There will be no Issues of the Day for a few days.

Ciao…..Moe and Helen Lauzier

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Moe Lauzier’s

Issues of the Day

How long before Obama rides off into the sunset? Click below…

Uncle Sam has your tax and bailout moneyThe IRS and the propaganda that perpetuates it

It is tax season, and everybody feels the compulsion to conform to ensure they have paid their “fair share” to Uncle Scam.
Of course that is a ruse, and that’s why I call him Uncle Scam. The income tax is not collected to fund the operation of the government. It is not needed to fund the operation of a government that can print money to infinity. The income tax is nothing more than a regulatory system and an information collection system.
I am not the first or only one to ever say this, but few understand it. As far as I can tell, information that the income tax is not necessary to fund government was first uttered publicly by a government functionary during the last year of World War II. Beardsley Ruml, chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1941-1946, said in a speech before the American Bar Association, “The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government.”
You may ask how this is so. Well ask yourself this question: If you had a printing press and could print money as much and as often as you like, would you ever have to work again? The government has such a printing press.
So why is there an income tax? It is to regulate consumption, control behavior, control and redistribute wealth, and compile dossiers on all citizens. The Form 1040 is the “taxpayer’s” dossier.
In a system as the whole world lives under today — where central banks create “money” (bank credit) at will — consumption of the people must be strictly regulated. Government consumption competes with the consumption of the people. If consumption is not regulated, “money” becomes worthless and the fraud of the financial system is then revealed. Money must be regulated out of circulation in order to prop up its value and maintain the system.
The concept of regulation is the key to understanding government finance. This is not taught in the public or private school systems. It is not taught at any university or college teaching mainstream economics. It is only taught in the few places that teach Austrian economics.
The reason is that you are not supposed to know that government creates its own money and uses it to steal the wealth of the American people and the people of the world. And although they benefit greatly from this spoils system, not one accountant, CPA or tax lawyer in 10,000 even comes close to suspecting what I am stating.
The monetary system of the United States and its income tax system have to do with the transfer of real resources from the people to the government, banksters and corporate state without payment.
People tell me that the subject of money and finance is a dull and monotonous study. Is it? When you look upon the millions of graves of American soldiers, as well as those around the world both Jewish and Christian, you are looking at the real Holocaust of American democracy created with bank credit and propaganda. Not one Christian preacher or Jewish rabbi has said one word to reveal this racial genocide to their people. The guilt of the “Holocaust” is upon their heads. Their purpose has been to confuse cause and effect in the minds of the people. They have succeeded.
Simply put, the power of propaganda to distort and control the mass mind is more powerful than all the armies and military technology of history combined.
The “income tax” as it is called is both immoral and illegal. The IRS was formed in 1913 following the adoption (it was never properly ratified) of the 16th Amendment. It is one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated upon the American people. Now no one questions it. They just grouse about it every spring.
The income tax was enacted even though the U.S. Supreme Court had only recently ruled in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. that certain taxes on direct income were unconstitutionally unapportioned direct taxes and violated Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. Not covered in Pollockis the fact that the income tax also violates the 5th Amendment: No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty or property… nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax is the second plank of the Communist Manifesto. The central bank (aka the Federal Reserve) is the fifth plank. The United States has essentially adopted all 10 planks of Marxism. For its part, the Federal Reserve was formed during a wave of bipartisan progressive legislation passed during the early 1900s that transformed the American economy and society from one of roughly laissez-faire to one of centralized statism, as Murray Rothbard writes in “A History of Money and Banking in the United States.” The Fed was also fraudulently promoted, as those who were working behind the scenes to pass the legislation were acting in public as if they opposed it.
The U.S. government had functioned without an income tax for more than 100 years, except during the time of the War of Northern Aggression, when Abraham Lincoln passed an unconstitutional tax on income to fund his war machine.
During the run-up to the 16th Amendment, President Woodrow Wilson promised Americans that only those earning more than $10,000 (about $100,000 in today’s dollars) per year would even pay taxes and the tax rate would never exceed 3 percent (now 36.9 percent). In the beginning, that was so; but within four years families were taxed on all income above $1,000 and the top rate had risen to 76 percent, demonstrating how the elected class lies without compunction.
The government began tax withholding in 1943. By withholding a portion of a worker’s paycheck, government is able steal the wealth of its citizens slowly over the course of a year, silently and with little outrage. This is vile treachery, even if the worker receives his money back when he files his “income taxes.” It means that for a year the government has had an interest-free loan on the backs of the citizenry. When the government returns that money, it is viewed as a benevolent master by ignorant citizens who assume the government is giving them some kind of gift, never realizing how poorly they have been used.
The income tax involves a confession of judgment with the threat of incarceration and penalties if one does not confess, i.e., sign the 1040 form. This act of incrimination is presented in supreme hypocrisy as a “voluntary” act. Can you imagine how many millions of Americans self-incriminate in a blanket confession on an IRS 1040 form? Even in a criminal proceeding a defendant is not required to testify against himself. In fact, he is not even compelled to speak at all, nor confess in any form.
After you have confessed judgment under duress, the IRS then takes the information that you supply and uses it to incriminate you. This, my friends, is exactly the system used by Nazi Germany that Americans have been taught to hate. What chicanery! What deception.
Do you now believe in the power of propaganda? Would you believe it if you knew for sure that the income tax system has nothing at all to do with collecting money to support government operations? I remind you again that the power and propaganda of Nazi Germany came out of bank credit. This is not in the history books. It was not mentioned in the world showcased Nuremberg Trials. The issue was never raised because it would have revealed that the United States was a de facto wartime ally of Nazi Germany in that they used military and psychological warfare against each other and equally against their own respective people.
What did the war and the Nuremberg Trials accomplish except to conceal genocide against the Anglo-Saxon Germanic race?
The Bundesbank today is an identical bank credit machine as was the Reichebank of Hitler Germany. The Reichebank did not change its name to Bundesbank until 1948, two years after the Nuremberg Trials. After millions of dead Jews and Christians, nothing has changed but the names. God help us!
At the Nuremberg Trials, not one German Reichebank official was tried, yet the military colossus of Nazi Germany could not have been possible without bank credit (money) created by the Reichebank. Is the world deceived into fixation on the “Holocaust” to cover the bank credit crime as the origin of all modern wars?
The military men tried at Nuremberg were pawns and decoys of this master deception. Quite possibly, not one of them had any awareness that they were pawns of international bank credit. This is equally true of allied military people, as well as the judges themselves at the trial.
The currency you use to acquire things you need is not money. Federal Reserve Notes are not notes. They are not dollars, and they do not satisfy the definition of money. So what are they? They are commercial paper.
The dollar is a myth. Oh, I know that we have green strips of paper in our pockets that we believe are dollars. The numbers on the green strips of paper are our “dollars.” So what we “spend” every day are the numbers or the symbols on our green strips of paper or in our checking accounts.
Now to set this illusion in concrete, the IRS does reduce the numbers (money) in our checking accounts when we authorize it to do so via our Form 1040 tax return. But no one ever asks where the numbers (money) go when deleted from our checking accounts. These numbers (money) do not go to Washington as taxes to pay anything. They go into the cyberspace of the IRS computers.
The tax system is a masterpiece of deception and trickery.

Obama Claims He Learned About Hillary’s Emails “Through News Reports”

This White House actually seems to believe that incompetence and cluelessness is a valid excuse for misbehavior. Asked when he first learned of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email system as Secretary of State, the President responded with his tired line of having learned about the latest scandal “through news reports”. I’m beginning to think the guy wasn’t even aware he was elected President until he saw himself taking the oath of office on the nightly news.
It kinda makes you wonder if the Community-Organizer-in-Chief actually does any sort of organizing within his own executive community. Of course, the feigned ignorance is a little hard to accept at face value. I mean sure, the President spends a lot of time on the golf course, and reading from the teleprompter… But surely somewhere along the lines Hillary sent an email to someone in the White House from her account. Is the Administration actually expecting me to believe they just never noticed the fact that Hillary’s domain wasn’t the typical “”? (I’m assuming this is because Hillary was nicknamed as “Hildebeest” in everyone’s address book.)
Even the official Press Jester, Josh Earnest, insisted that four years of private emails from Hillary was somehow a stunning development to the White House:
Of course, that’s not exactly accurate. After all, Josh was informed in 2013 that Hildebeest had a private email for official business. (As a side note: It’s worth noting that Gawker magazine managed to ignore this accidental moment of potential journalism. Apparently a friendly “heads up” to the Obama Administration was a better business choice than actually reporting a piece of relevant and consequential news.)
Valarie Jarrett also decided to throw Clinton under the bus, claiming that she had no idea the former Secretary of State declined to set up a email account:
Of course, none of this is terribly surprising. Obama didn’t know about Fast and Furious until the newspapers reported it. He didn’t know about the IRS targeting scandal until he saw it flash across the screen of his favorite evening news program. He didn’t even know much about the events surrounding Benghazi until he checked his Black Berry’s news app while on the golf course. (I’m assuming.) And now we’re being told that he was unaware of his Secretary of State subverting consequential and basic transparency regulations.
It’s a fairly sad narrative when the only feasible way of saving face is to claim gross ignorance and incompetence. Even if we suspend all skepticism for just a moment, and actually entertain the possibility of White House ignorance regarding Hillary's emails, it paints a rather embarrassing portrait of executive competency. I guess America’s top diplomat never communicated with anyone of consequence in the White House. And if she did, I guess “the most transparent administration in history” (words are obviously pretty cheap) never felt like bringing this little policy violation to anyone’s attention.
With this Administration, the buck never seems to stop with Obama. Apparently he’s far too interested in redistribution to keep any blame for himself.

Green Slander

By Alan Caruba

It is a sure sign that the advocates of the “global warming” and “climate change” hoaxes know that the public no longer believes that the former is occurring or that the latter represents an immediate, global threat.

Even though the “climate skeptics”, scientists who have produced research proving false methodology and the conclusions based on it are quite few in number, an effort to silence them by smearing their reputations and denying funding for their work has been launched and it is based entirely on a lie.

Scientists are supposed to be skeptical, not only of other scientist’s findings, but their own. Good science must be able to reproduce the results of published research. In the case of the many computer models cited as proof that global warming was occurring or would, the passing years have demonstrated that none were accurate.

As Joseph L. Bast, president of The Heartland Institute and Joseph A. Morris, an attorney who has fought in several countries to defend free speech, wrote in a February 24 commentary, “The Crucifixion of Dr. Wei-Hock Soon”, of an article co-authored with Christopher Monckton, Matt Briggs, and David Legates, and published in the Science Bulletin, a publication of the Chinese Academy of Sciences “The article reveals what appears to be an error in the computer models used to predict global warming that leads models to over-estimate future warming by a factor of three.” (Emphasis added) Their commentary has been downloaded more than 10,000 times!

“If the work of Soon et al is confirmed by other scientists, the ‘global warming crisis’ may need to be cancelled and we can all enjoy lower taxes, fewer regulations, and more personal freedom.” However, “having failed to refute the article, environmentalists turned to smearing the authors.”
Little wonder the “Warmists” are worried; the Earth has been in a cooling cycle since 1996. People are noticing just how cold this record-breaking and record-setting winter is.

The attack on Dr. Soon began with a Greenpeace news release that was republished on the front page of The New York Times on February 22nd. Despite its august reputation, The Times' coverage of climate issues has been an utter disgrace for decades. As public interest waned, it eliminated its staff of reporters exclusively devoted to writing about the “environment.”

Myron Ebell, a climate change skeptic and director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, noted on February 27th that the Greenpeace attack on Dr. Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics claimed they had secured $1.2 million in funding for his research over the past decade and that it came from energy corporations, electric utilities, and charitable foundations related to those companies.  The truth, however, is “that the grants were made not to Dr. Soon but to the Smithsonian, which never complained while taking its sizable cut off the top.”

Columnist Larry Bell who is also an endowed professor at the University of Houston, disputed the Greenpeace claim, saying, “First, let’s recognize that the supporting FOIA documents referred to an agreement between the Smithsonian (not Dr. Soon) and Southern Company Services, Inc., whereby 40 percent of that more than $1.2 million went directly to the Smithsonian” leaving “an average funding of $71,000 a year for the past eleven years to support the actual research activities.”

Focusing on Greenpeace and its Climate Investigations Center which describes itself as “a group funded by foundations seeking to limit the risks of climate change”, Bell asked “Do these activist organizations make their estimated $360,000,000 annual funding publicly available?” Bell said “Ad hominem assaults disparaging the integrity of this leading authority on relationships between solar phenomena and global climate are unconscionable.”

In his article, “Vilifying realist science—and scientists”, Paul Driessen, a policy advisor to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), noted that in 2012 Greenpeace USA was the recipient of $32,791,149 and that this is true of other environmental pressure groups that in 2012 secured $111,915.138 for the Environmental Defense Fund, $98,701,707 for the Natural Resources Defense Council, $97,757,678 for the Sierra Club, and, for Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, $19,150,215.

“All told,” noted Driessen, “more than 16,000 American environmental groups collect(ed) total annual revenues of over $13.4 billion (2009 figures). Only a small part of that comes from membership dues and individual contributions.”  With that kind of money you can do a lot of damage to scientist’s reputation.

They fear that the public may actually learn the truth about “global warming” and the fear-mongering claims about “climate change” does not stop with just the environmental organizations. At the same time The New York Times was printing the Greenpeace lies, U.S. Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) joined together on February 25th to send letters to 107 companies, trade associations, and non-profit groups demanding comprehensive information about all funding of research on climate or related issues.

Among the groups receiving the letter were two for whom I am a policy advisor, The Heartland Institute and CFACT, but others include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and the American Energy Alliance.

Following The New York Times article, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, sent letters to the presidents of seven universities asking them to provide details about seven professors who are either prominent global warming skeptics.

As Rich Lowrey, editor of the National Review, pointed out on February 27th, that "Science as an enterprise usually doesn't need political enforcers. But proponents of a climate alarmism that demands immediate action to avert worldwide catastrophe won't and can't simply let the science speak for itself."

This is not fact-finding. It is an act of intimidation.
And it looks like a carefully organized effort to quash any research that might dispute “global warming” or “climate change” as defined by the Greens and by both the President and the Secretary of State as the greatest threat we and the rest of the world faces.

The greatest threat is the scores of environmental organizations that have been exaggerating and distorting their alleged “science” in order to thwart development here and around the world that would enhance everyone’s life. Now they are attacking real scientists, those who are skeptical of their claims, to silence them.

This is what fascists do.

Jeb Bush is not a winner for Republicans

By Adriana Cohen, Boston Herald

If the GOP wants to take the White House in 2016, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is not their man.

Two red flags that can't be overlooked: The Bush brand has been tarnished. And Jeb is yet another moderate, establishment Republican, like Mitt Romney and John McCain, who voters rejected the past two elections. Why endorse yet another moderate/establishment type only to lose yet again?
It's time for the GOP to be bold. Republicans can elect a real conservative and/or Tea Party candidate who wants to repeal Obamacare, grow the economy, shrink intrusive big government and wipe ISIS off the face of the earth.
After six-plus calamitous years under an ultraleft-wing administration, it's time to swing the pendulum the other way.
With the compounding foreign policy threats we're facing, the country simply can't afford to have an incompetent Hillary "What Difference Does it Make?" Clinton in the Oval Office.
If the former secretary of state couldn't handle dispatching military support while our consulate was under fire in Benghazi, how is she going to handle Iran going nuclear, Russia annexing its neighbors or ISIS committing mass genocide?
What the GOP must do is produce a strong conservative who can provide Americans with a clear choice to a scandal-plagued Clinton or the radical liberal Elizabeth Warren.
A "Democrat-light" candidate like Jeb Bush simply won't cut it. Republicans repeatedly make the mistake of thinking that if they're liberal enough on the social issues or amnesty for illegals, they'll pick up some Democrats or independents. Perhaps. But if they lose support from their conservative base, then those gains are lost.
Republicans need to fire up their CPAC base and get out their vote on Election Day. If their nominee is too "squishy" or left-leaning, conservative voters will simply stay home. And another Democrat will move into the White House.
Adriana Cohen is co-host of "Boston Herald Drive" on Herald Radio and WMEX 1510 AM weekdays from 7-9 a.m. Follow Adriana on Twitter @AdrianaCohen16.

ATF apologizes for ‘error’ on ammo-ban regulations

By Dave Boyer - The Washington Times
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is apologizing for a “publishing error” in its regulations that suggested the agency had already banned AR-15 “green tip” ammo well before officials publicly announced a proposal to outlaw the armor-piercing bullets last month.

“ATF has not rescinded any armor piercing ammunition exemption, and the fact they are not listed in the 2014 online edition of the regulations was an error which has no legal impact,” the agency said in a statement. “ATF apologizes for any confusion caused by this publishing error.”

In January, the ATF published an online regulations guide that doesn’t contain a listing of the ammo exempted from a ban on armor piercing ammunition. By omitting the .222-caliber M855 ammo from the list, the agency led some to believe the government had already effectively banned it before the ATF’s announcement on Feb. 13 that it was seeking public comment on a proposal to do just that.

The regulations come out about every 10 years and must be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget. The discrepancy was first reported by

“They claim it wasn’t done on purpose. It’s a pretty egregious mistake to put the document out after a review by OMB and internal ATF staff, when they knew this issue about armor-piercing ammunition was of such importance to industry,” said Larry Keane, senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the firearms industry based in Newtown, Connecticut. “They’ve ‘corrected’ it, and we’re glad they did.”

The ATF’s statement specified that the exemptions for 5.56 mm (.223) SS 109 and M855 ammo, and for the U.S .30-06 M2AP bullet, “remain in effect.”

But the agency is accepting public comment until March 16 on its proposal regulation to ban the ammunition. A majority of House lawmakers sent a letter to the ATF last week in opposition to the move.

The Obama administration says that the proposed ban will save the lives of law-enforcement officers, because the armor-piercing ammo can be chambered in newer AR-style “handguns” that have been on the market for a few years. Typically, the ammunition is used in AR-15 rifles for target practice or hunting.

Some Second Amendment supporters believe the proposed regulation is a backdoor attempt by the administration to phase out the use of AR-15 rifles. President Obama supported legislation in 2013 to ban the rifles.

At a town-hall meeting in South Carolina on Friday, Mr. Obama reflected on his failed efforts to enact gun legislation such as mandatory background checks on gun purchases.

“The courts and state legislatures … have greatly restricted the ability to put in place common-sense gun safety laws like background checks,” Mr. Obama said. “So what we’ve done is we have tried as much as we can administratively to implement background checks and to make sure that we’re working with those states and cities and jurisdictions that are interested and willing to partner with us to crack down on the legal use of firearms, particularly handguns.”

The president said there’s too much gun violence in America because legislators won’t stand up to the pro-gun lobby.

“In the absence of more, what I would consider, heroic and courageous stances from our legislators both at the state level and the federal level, it is hard to reduce the easy availability of guns,” Mr. Obama said. “And as long as you can go into some neighborhoods and it is easier for you to buy a firearm than it is for you to buy a book…  we’re going to continue to see unnecessary violence.”

President Obama Says He Found Out About Hillary Clinton's Private Email Use...Through News Reports

As the email scandal surrounding former Secretary of State and potential 2016 Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton continues to grow, with a congressional committee headed by Rep. Trey Gowdy issuing subpoenas last week, the White House is doing everything it can to distance itself from the situation.
In light of revelations Clinton used a private email address (and possibly more than one) to conduct all of her government business during her time at the State Department, President Obama is saying he learned about her practice through news reports "like everybody else." Further, Obama argued the standard policy of his administration is transparency.
"The same time everybody else learned it through news reports," Obama said in an interview with CBS News over the weekend after being asked directly about when he first knew Clinton was using a private address for State Department business. "The policy of my administration is to encourage transparency, which is why my emails, the Blackberry I carry around, all those records are available and archived, and I'm glad that Hillary’s instructed that those emails about official business need to be disclosed."
Last week TIME's Zeke Miller asked White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest about whether President Obama had ever emailed directly with Clinton during her time in the administration. Earnest said he wasn't going to publicly discuss private discussions between the President of the United States and a cabinet member.
This is far from the first time the administration has used the "learned it on the news" talking point to get away from a scandal.
The use of private email by government officials working in the Obama administration in order to avoid federal records laws and the Freedom of Information Act is nothing new and has been a widespread problem in the Obama administration for years. Top officials at the Environmental Protection Agency, IRS and Department of Justice have all engaged in this practice.
Exit question: Who else in the administration has been using private emails to conduct most, if not all, of their government business? Time will tell.

G’ day…
Ciao…….Moe Lauzier

Blog Archive