Comment by Lolo

Entered on: 1/27/2009 4:06:50 PM

To bmcmolo:

I appreciate your admission that free speech is not without limit or responsibility. I presented the "theater fire" jurisprudence to you to support my contention – not for the DISINFORMATION but for spreading the RIGHT INFORMATION to the public, that the freedom of expression is not a license to injure anyone.

I invite you to do the same – support your contention that what Sumcad had written about the U.S. Federal Reserve [Sumcad had an advance study of this country's central bank] is a "DISINFORMATION". You claimed that it is. It you cannot back up your negative assertions that what Sumcad has written was a disinformation, then you are the one who is spreading a one-man disinformation campaign to mislead the public.

This is also what you said: "I am of the opinion that a coordinated disinformation campaign is being conducted at sites like FP - not at the behest of the editors/ writers - but by those who have a sincere and vested interest in misleading the public as to the real activities of the Fed, Trilateral Commission, et al."

Show to the public what you know about "the real activities of the Fed …" that induced you to form an opinion that "a coordinated disinformation campaign is being conducted … by … vested interest in misleading the public …"

Unless you can show to the reading public the support of your disinformation allegation, then you are making a false conclusion without a premise to stand on. Because your conclusion has no basis, no one knows what you are talking about. It is misinformation if you confuse the public because you cannot back up what you said.

Before you tackle what Sumcad has written, especially on the subject of central banking which is only a part of his expertise in development economics and monetary policies, you must come out with negative assertions only when they are backed up with a citation of researched authorities. The title of his editorial column in FP.com is THE STRAIGHT LIGHT. I am thankful that he is sharing with us the light of knowledge he had earned from the academe, as well as his extensive experience as a development economist in the U.N. Surf the Web and you will discover that there is no secret about his credentials that many websites are competing to publish.

Lolo

Comment by bmcmolo

Entered on: 1/27/2009 6:38:11 AM

Well, Lolo, you are entitled to your opinion. As am I. The problem comes when people actively spread/ transmit disinformation, as was done in the article to which I responded.

The right to free speech also comes with the responsibility not to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I would amend this to say, it is also comes with the responsibility not to spread disinformation about the Federal Reserve/ money creation in this country, and the responsibility of calling out those who do, particularly when they do so at sites like Freedom's Phoenix, without which we the People would have such diminished access to truthful reporting and discussion.

So, I do apologize if you were offended by me "and my types" or whatever, or believe I crossed over a line of decency. I was mistaken to think the author of the article to which I responded was a FP staff member, and such was my concern. I've noticed that a lot of my "alternative media" sites have had such disinformative articles lately - kudos to FP for not censoring and kudos for opening these forums to the public, most definitely. But it also behooves we the people to be aware of what is being said, who is saying it, and to what purpose it is being said. I am of the opinion that a coordinated disinformation campaign is being conducted at sites like FP - not at the behest of the editors/ writers - but by those who have a sincere and vested interest in misleading the public as to the real activities of the Fed, Trilateral Commission, et al.

Personally, it is far more important to me that people recognize propaganda when they see it and call it out in no uncertain terms, then if someone strays from "polite" guidelines. Also, really, what I wrote was hardly the wild, personal attack you make it out to be. Calling someone a "honeypot" means a specific thing, not an insult. But anyway.

I hope you are as vigilant about the Fed /mass media lies as you are in your stewardship for the website's attacks/ blog guidelines.

Comment by Jet Lacey

Entered on: 1/26/2009 7:29:35 PM

Well boys and girls, Christmas has come early to Jet's house this year, and the acrimonious present that's been dropped down my chimney is Lolo's vituperative response to yet another reader's disagreement with Edwin Sumcad and his unwavering belief in the Federal Reserve. Lolo's rambling, tedious diatribe, while ingratiating to the Editor, lays into Bryan McMillan like Aretha Franklin's appetite on the Sizzler salad bar.

However, all is not lost; Lolo has successfully and unequivocally captured the spirit of the maxim "the pot calling the kettle black." We can all thank (her I assume) for that.

I kid you not; I laughed so hard after reading Lolo's misguided and odious rant, my stomach and face hurt. God, I needed that.

There are so many quotes from the letter that I want to touch upon, please allow me to go one by one so as to really capture the bitter "flavor."

"Obviously, the guy is intolerant of the views of others. But thank you for making any despotic viewer he represents who intrudes into this Forum using profanities in attacking the person of writers not their work, realize that Freedom's Phoenix is a free press that post a guideline against personal attacks that his kind ignores."

In the first quote, the attack is multi-fronted; not only does Lolo personally attack Mr. McMillan, referring to him "despotic" and for "using profanities" (he didn't), she also brutally attacks the English language by wantonly ignoring proper syntax and word usage.

"Bigots that carry a lot of personal baggage with them into this Forum should learn how to confront issues rather than show their expertise in name-calling."
In this quote, she upbraids readers who post in the comment section, referring to them as "Bigots that carry a lot of personal baggage", and then informs those same bigots to "confront issues rather than show their expertise in name-calling." This is known as the ego defense mechanism called Projection. It's when a person projects upon another, undesirable traits about themselves.

"Instead, they are showing some kind of sadistic personal attacks they enjoy, on the author! One of them did not even understand the issues Sumcad brought up in his two editorials and instead introduced his Mother into the forum and discussed how he loves her."

Now, posters are referred to as sadistic if they dare disagree with Mr. Sumcad. Lolo paints this picture as though Mr Sumcad has been chained to a wall, wearing nothing but assless chaps and a ball gag, and the poor guy is screaming the "safe word", but to no avail; we keep on whipping him with our verbal cat-of-nine-tails.
In the next sentence, Lolo switches gears and attacks me as "one of them", makes wild assumptions about my relationship with my Mother, and asserts that I don't "understand the issues." What I actually wrote was this:

"Let it be known; my Mother taught me right. I know how to be civil, polite even, and I am for the most part."

"I want to quote what you said to this prejudiced mind: Don't count on me to censor the material here on FreedomsPhoenix for you. Cool!"

This sounds like a line from a blaxploitation film like Black Caesar, or I'm Gonna Git You Sucka. Solid, Man! Don't let them Honkys get you down. Right On!

"[And thanks for not going further and just stop from saying, that if they have no skills, what could only be exposed is their ignorance!] Ernest, their skill is only on how to insult. I am not saying this out of spite but out of facts."

I don't even know what to say, Lolo. It is unfathomable just how condescending, prejudiced, and ridiculously idiotic that statement is. It is everything you have been decrying and attributing to others. Welcome to the bottom of the barrel, Lolo. Population: You.

"I am frustrated with nothing to debate with those guys. For example, they said that the Fed is unconstitutional. Sumcad wrote that it is not, by citing the 1913 act of Congress creating the Fed, and argued that if it is indeed unconstitutional, the Fed should have been gone long time ago. What they should do is show any authority in response to Sumcad which declares that the Fed is unconstitutional. They can't. And because they can't, they just take the easiest way – attack the author's person if they cannot beat him in his argument."

I wasn't even going to argue with you because frankly, I refuse to have a war of wits with an unarmed person, but I'm already in neck deep so here goes:

According to Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr PhD, JD, and a Constitutional scholar, the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional. He cites the National Industrial Recovery Act, which created cartels out of various industries and authorized the President to regulate banks to stimulate the United States economy to recover from the Great Depression. It was overturned by the Supreme Court in May of 1935. Any entity or bill that delegates power away from its intended branch of government to another branch is unconstitutional.

Article One Section 8 of the Constitution states that:

The Congress shall have power:

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

How is it then that the Federal Reserve, a private company, can keep Congress in the dark about where TRILLIONS of dollars are going? How is that Constitutional? As Thomas Jefferson is often quoted "Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." Well, we have one that is in direct control of the other. The Federal Reserve is the absolute scourge of this nation and is bound and determined to bring us to our knees.

" Calling the author "honeypot/disinformant", "establishment hack" serves no useful purpose other than teach how to write down one's bitterness to the point of throwing up."

Again, who's bitter Lolo? No one has called anyone more patronizing names than you have.

"This is just an angry conclusion without a premise. Any angry guy can make such conclusion without even knowing on what premise it is standing on".

Well, that pretty much sums up your whole "argument.

"There is nothing here that our reading public could learn from. On the other hand, our reading public if not our angry commentators can definitely learn from Mr. Sumcad's vast knowledge and advance studies on monetary policies and development economics."
Our reading public? Those statements only serve to minimize and trivialize the efforts and opinions of everyone else that posts on this website, save for you and Mr. Hancock. And for the record, just because someone studies a subject for a long period of time, it doesn't automatically mean that their theories are even correct let alone more relevant or valid than someone else's. There are literally millions of educated dumb-asses out there.

"It there is anything to expose, it is the lack of knowledge of the Fed and the shortcoming of those who have no legitimate views to present and argue about, and if they really have, didn't even know how, without violating the posted guideline on how to do it in this Forum."

In closing Lolo, you again minimize and trivialize the opinions of everyone else. Not to mention, for someone that chides and belittles others for your belief that they lack ideas of their own, you've only quoted Mr. Sumcad and his supposed god-like understanding of economics and finance. Have you any idea how your unfettered rage and loathing literally erupts through every word you write? Me, I own my words. They are mine and I accept full responsibility for them. Words are weapons, and like other weapons, a judicious use of "the hurting kind" of words is usually the best decision. Obviously, you haven't learned that lesson yet

It is obvious to me that you live in some Politically Correct world that dictates if someone doesn't agree with you or your Messiah Mr. Sumcad, you not only feel entitled but obligated to chastise that person. Almost all people who repeatedly assert that others have no legitimate views, are intolerant, or are bigots usually harbor those feelings about themselves. And, they often use passive-aggressive "consequence-free" attacks via the internet, on talk radio, or possibly leaving a flaming bag of dog shit on someone's doorstep as a way of falsely elevating their own self-esteem. Either way, you create the mess but you never have to clean it up.