Very interesting analysis, but might we clarify the 'blame issue' and lay it at the feet of those who it belongs to: De-regulation was planned and carried out during the Reagan Administration, very REPUBLICAN, not Libertarian. Indeed, Pete Wilson (A Republican) says that the "buck stops here". He authorized the de-regulation and convinced California it would work.

Now, to be sure, the Libertarians DO believe in getting government OUT of our lives in every possible way. So it could be said that 'de-regulation' would be something they would support. But the Libertarians also KNOW that their ideas, like TRUE Democracy, itself, ONLY work when the majority of the populace have the following characteristics:
1) Integrity
3) Love of Freedom
3) KNOW how to KNOW (the kind of education no longer provided in this country.)
In that order.

The only difference between the Socialistic Democrats and the Capitalistic Republicans is that the Democratic Powermongers are going to destroy our ability to have INTEGRITY, FREEDOM AND EDUCATION by making us godless and ignorant.

The Republican Fathers, on the other hand, are going to define for us what INTEGRITY, FREEDOM AND EDUCATION are and then punish us like an errant child when we do not live up to their version of it. Like our own errant parents, it will be "Do as I SAY; not as I DO."

Both make sure we do NOT think for ourselves: The Democrats through Ignorance; the Republians through Paternalism.

In the 'see-saw' back and forth, between what has become two EXTREMES, Chaos is created.

Both, knowingly or not (personally, I think the Demos KNOW; the Repubs are too arrogant to believe it), work for the NWO (UN/Rothschilde/Jesuit Cabal) which is going to take us over out of the chaos that the other two create (as you point out so well by these articles).

But to blame the Energy mess in California on the Libertarians is like blaming Mme Curie for the atom bomb. Or Smith and Wesson for the Assassination of John F. Kennedy.

The mess in California is coming about DIRECTLY from Corporate greed. And that, dear friends, has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Libertarian Ideal. Indeed, that is very much part of Paternalism, the extreme side of the Republican convention of Corporate Ideal and control.

There is another difference between these two which we fondly refer to as Faction 1 and Faction 2. The Dems/Socialists/Faction 1 want to make us, you and me, and all the babies born after us, into MACHINES that know no more than what we need to know in order to produce, ala The Matix. This faction wants to rid the earth of E-motion at every level except their own.

On the other hand, the Repubs/Paternalists/Faction 2 want to make us into 'good boys and girls who behave ourselves' and give up our taxes, appreciative of what THEY do for us. They want us to provide grateful emotion so they can 'feel it'. They are addicted to us, in an odd sort of way.

The NWO has to 'put up' with Faction 2 because they have so much money. But since they already OWN Faction 1, they have played a waiting game. They think that when the world's stock markets fall that they will OWN FAction 2 as well.

On the Other side of all THREE of these is the Libertarian Ideal which stands for one thing alone: The autonomy of the Human Spirit. Each and every man has the right to develop himself as he chooses as long as he causes no pysical harm to another. In many ways, this was the intent of the government set up by our forefathers.

But the Libertarian Ideal ONLY works when Men of Integrity CHOOSE to Think for themselves!!!! And that is a choice each and every one of us can make in each and every moment.

The Libertarian Idea is, for me, epitomized in the old 60's saying: 'What if they called a war...and nobody came?'

Indeed, what if they call the World to Order under the NWO. And WE (because we create our reality by what we think) THOUGHT A POLE SHIFT INTO EXISTENCE TO destroy their stupid ideas?

Indeed, that is EXACTLY what we are doing. And that is EXACTLY what they are afraid of!

Just my two cents.
Esclarmonde

: Council on Foreign Relations Predicting Major Market Upheaval

: Energy Crisis Bares Libertarian Myth of Deregulation

: Expert Refutes Flawed Tax Arguments Being Sold to Honest
: Patriots, Anti-Tax
: Community

: Council on Foreign Relations Predicting Major Market Upheaval

: CFR and Bilderbergers are making preparations for a likely
: stock market crash.

: Exclusive to The SPOTLIGHT

: By George Nicholas

: If you hocked your house to bet on the stock exchange, you
: should be aware
: that in their soundproof conference rooms, the money magnates
: who style
: themselves “masters of the universe”—the elders of the Council
: on Foreign
: Relations (CFR) and Bilderberg—have started holding rehearsals
: for an
: anticipated breakdown of the U.S. financial markets.

: The CFR’s trial-run “simulation” scenario for such a financial
: apocalypse,
: developed by Dr. Roger Kubarych, an econo mist and senior
: fellow of the CFR,
: is based on the assumption that a concatenation of bad news—a
: sudden spurt
: in inflation figures, plunging computer and software sales,
: reports of sharp
: increases in loan defaults, and a simultaneous sell-off of
: mutual
: funds—might well trigger an avalanche of stock-market losses,
: leading to a
: generalized panic.

: Kubarych has presented his financial “doomsday” game theory
: both to leading
: CFR and Bilderberg business barons. Their consensus: In such a
: crisis, the
: Federal Reserve must ride to the rescue, by providing
: “whatever liquidity
: [cash] may be needed to save the U.S. payments system,” Wall
: Street sources say.

: But under the law, the Fed is authorized to manage the money
: supply only by
: buying or selling bonds.

: The Kubarych scenario, and the unanimity with which some of
: the world’s top
: financiers reacted to it, gives new life to a question that
: has been
: haunting Wall Street for years: Is Fed Chairman Alan
: Greenspan, whose
: indifference to legal niceties is well known, keeping the
: money supply
: brimming over with secretly—and illegally—generated billions
: in U.S. currency?

: The question is timely, because a number of the “crisis
: signals” postulated
: by the Kubarych scenario are already looming on the horizon.
: So-called “core
: inflation” figures are up, and the high-tech markets are in a
: slump, leading
: to sharp losses in stockholder assets.

: CRISIS SIGNALS

: Most importantly, a number of major banks are reporting a
: rising tide of
: loan defaults.

: First Union Corp., the sixth largest U.S. money-center,
: revealed in
: regulatory filings that it had over $700 million of “impaired”
: (i.e.
: non-performing) loans on its books at the end of the third
: quarter, a
: whopping 11 percent increase over the previous year.

: First Union, long regarded as one of nation’s fastest-growing
: and most
: prosperous banks, reacted to the crisis by closing 90
: branches, firing 2,350
: employees, shutting its Money Store subsidiary, and watching
: helplessly as
: its stock fell by 50 percent.

: Other banks report similar problems.

: Not since the recession of 1990 has Wall Street seen such a
: rapid
: deterioration in credit quality, veteran brokers say.

: The credit ratings of a record 470 corporations were sharply
: downgraded in
: the year 2000, as the number of “noncurrent” (i.e. unpaid)
: commercial and
: industrial loans rose by a whopping 38.7 percent over the
: preceding year,
: according to data released by the Federal Deposit Insurance
: Corporation.

: “If you still think stocks will make you rich, go buy some,”
: said Demeter
: “Dim my” LaRoque, a retired New York Stock Exchange floor
: trader. “But take
: my advice, don’t bet the farm on them.”

: Energy Crisis Bares Libertarian Myth of Deregulation

: The Libertarian belief in the benefits of deregulation that
: borders on the
: religious has been exposed as a myth in California’s first
: free market
: experiment in the energy industry.

: Exclusive to The SPOTLIGHT

: By Christopher Bollyn

: The California utility disaster offers an object lesson in the
: consequences
: of “libertarian deregulation,” which opposes any government
: regulation of
: business. If the trend to deregulate utilities is not reversed
: the
: consequences will be catastrophic for America.

: While the traditional Christian beliefs of President George W.
: Bush’s
: nominee for attorney general, John Ashcroft, have drawn a
: great deal of
: media attention, a more threatening dogma to which the new
: administration is
: wholeheartedly devoted is accepted without question by the
: mainstream media: the libertarian doctrine of deregulation.

: The baneful effects of the libertarians’ bad religion have
: devastated
: California utilities and looted the state’s economy of
: billions of dollars.
: Many of the energy suppliers behind the on-going utility
: crisis in the
: Golden State are senior sponsors and advisors of the new
: administration.

: The new president is an acolyte in the church of laissez faire
: economic
: theology, but he is well supported and coached by the high
: priests of free
: market orthodoxy.

: Top executives of several of the energy-generating companies,
: including
: Enron, Dynegy and Duke Power, participated in closed-door
: negotiations to
: resolve the California utility crisis in which they were
: expected to
: strongly defend their pricing practices and reject charges of
: price gouging.

: One participant in the intense negotiations is natural gas
: executive Kenneth
: Lay, a long-time friend, donor and adviser to Bush.

: Lay, a possible Bush nominee for energy secretary, is chairman
: of the
: Houston-based natural gas pipeline company Enron Corp., the
: energy company
: that has been Bush’s biggest financial backer throughout his
: political
: career. Lay was part of a large group of outside advisers
: involved in
: shaping Bush’s energy policy and is serving on an energy
: policy advisory
: committee that Bush assembled for the transition.

: California Gov. Gray Davis (D) called the energy suppliers
: “pirates,
: marauders, gougers and greedy profiteers,” according to The
: Los Angeles Times.

: The governor’s harsh criticism raises a valid question: Have
: the electricity
: suppliers who own California’s power plants colluded to
: increase profits in
: the state’s deregulated market?

: The generators, almost all of which are headquartered in the
: South and South
: west, say they have adhered strictly to the law and have not
: manipulated the
: market, either individually or in concert.

: “Those charges have clouded the issue for the better part of
: the year 2000;
: they continue to cloud the issue,” said Richard N. Wheatley,
: director of
: communications for Houston-based Reliant Energy. “It’s the
: buyers who drive
: up the price. . . . It’s like a buying frenzy.”

: Government and private researchers, however, have concluded
: that
: California’s deregulated energy market has been manipulated to
: keep energy
: prices substantially higher than the cost of production to
: increase
: corporate profits.

: Researchers with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
: found that “the
: market was artificially distorted” by the power suppliers who
: decreased the
: power supply in order to maximize profits when demand
: increased.

: Wholesale power sold on California’s spot market briefly
: soared above $1,000
: per megawatt hour but has come down to around $320 per
: megawatt hour—still
: expensive compared to $34 per megawatt hour one year ago.

: One of the reasons for soaring prices is the critical shortage
: of power
: plants in California while the state’s energy needs are
: growing.

: Under the 1996 state law that deregulated the sale of
: electricity in
: California, the utilities were encouraged to sell off their
: power plants and
: begin buying electricity on the “free market”— including from
: the companies
: that now own their old plants.

: However, when California desperately needed power last summer,
: federal
: investigators found generators exporting power by selling
: electricity to
: marketers elsewhere in the country. Those buyers could then
: sell it back to
: California when the prices climbed due to dwindling supply.

: In fact, more power was exported to other states from
: generation plants in
: California last year than in 1999.

: Power plant operators usually shut down many of the generators
: for
: maintenance between January and April so they can run full
: throttle during
: the hot summer months. This upkeep is especially important in
: California,
: where 82 percent of the generators are more than 30 years old.
: But last
: year, for reasons federal officials have yet to determine,
: preventive
: maintenance plunged nearly 40 percent.

: SUDDEN SHUTDOWNS

: Many researchers cite a sharp increase in unscheduled plant
: shutdowns and
: unusual production cutbacks that dried up California’s energy
: supply and
: helped push prices skyward—as much as fivefold, draining cash
: from the
: state’s big utility companies.

: As the demand for power increased due to the need for air
: conditioning
: during the heat of summer, plants unexpectedly began shutting
: down. Lost
: wattage virtually quintupled in August compared to the year
: before.

: Researchers for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said
: in a Novem ber
: report that the cuts could have been caused by equipment
: breakdowns in aging
: facilities, but they hinted that the shutdowns were calculated
: to reduce the
: supply of power available in order to drive the prices higher.
: The federal
: re searchers noted that when prices climbed to more lucrative
: levels, the
: outages suddenly ended and the plants sprang back to life.

: Last week, the major California utility companies announced
: job cuts.

: Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) officials said they would
: have to immediately
: cut 325 jobs, and possibly 675 employees over the next few
: months, to save
: money.

: Southern California Edison (SCE) announced even bigger
: cutbacks. On Jan. 5,
: SCE said it planned to lay off 1,850 employees—or 13 percent
: of its workforce.

: FREE TRADER ON A MISSION

: Bush, a devout free-trader who campaigned on the promise of
: expanding NAFTA
: from Alaska to Argentina, made good on his promise by
: nominating Robert B.
: Zoellick to be U.S. trade representative.

: Zoellick “is a free-trader on a mission,” according to The
: Washington Post,
: who had “a direct hand in negotiating free-trade agreements
: with Canada and
: Mexico and clearing the final negotiating hurtle to the
: creation of the
: World Trade Organization. Now he wants to negotiate free trade
: with Europe
: and the rest of Latin and South America.”

: Zoellick might have a hard time convincing Californians that
: “free trade” in
: the energy markets has made them stronger or is any
: improvement over regulation.

: Expert Refutes Flawed Tax Arguments Being Sold to Honest
: Patriots, Anti-Tax
: Community

: In the interest of minimizing harm to patriots who sincerely
: want to fight
: unjust taxes, The SPOTLIGHT lists the most common mistakes
: made by tax
: fighters as researched meticulously by a successful
: nontaxpayer.

: Exclusive to The SPOTLIGHT

: By Tony Blizzard

: In his many years of tax research, Otto Skinner has done all
: American
: patriots a tremendous service. For instance, an entire chapter
: of his third
: book, The Biggest Tax Loophole of All, is dedicated to
: exposing 18 flawed
: tax arguments that result in fines and/or prison time for
: good, but misled,
: patriots.

: Following is a listing of those arguments with very
: abbreviated, incomplete
: refutations.

: For easier understanding, it must first be mentioned that
: taxation law
: begins with an obligation on the government to prove that a
: person is a
: taxpayer lawfully subject to (liable for) a tax. It is
: generally a mistake
: for the citizen to take it upon himself to attempt to prove to
: the
: government that he is not liable. A nontaxpayer has no
: standing in court to
: argue tax law.

: Argument: Submitting the W-4 exempt form.

: Refutation: This is a form for taxpayers, not nontaxpayers.

: Argument: Stating that the tax is an unconstitutional, direct
: tax.

: Refutation: The protester presents himself as being liable for
: the tax by
: arguing from the standing of a taxpayer. Moreover, the tax is
: neither
: unconstitutional nor direct.

: Argument: Stating that the 16th Amendment was not properly
: ratified.

: Refutation: The amendment created no new tax anyway. The
: protester again
: presents himself as being liable for the tax as a taxpayer.

: Argument: Filing a 5th Amendment claim.

: Refutation: Implies that the individual has committed a crime
: and is a taxpayer.

: Argument: Stating that wages are not income.

: Refutation: Wrongly assumes that pro perty (wages) is the
: subject of the tax.

: Argument: Stating that “shall” means “may” in case law relied
: upon.

: Refutation: That particular case, and the statement used from
: it, have no
: bearing on the tax.

: Argument: Stating that the tax is voluntary.

: Refutation: No tax is voluntary al though self-assessment may
: be.

: Argument: Stating that the individual is not an employee.

: Refutation: This argument is based on an erroneous definition
: of the term
: “includes” in the tax code.

: Argument: Stating that the secretary must complete a tax
: return.

: Refutation: Falsely mixes criminal and civil cases.

: Argument: Stating that the individual is a nonresident alien,
: not a citizen,
: etc.

: Refutation: Also stems from a flawed definition of the term
: “includes.”

: Argument: Stating that the tax is only on government
: employees.

: Refutation: Argument is based on an act of Congress which
: established no tax.

: Argument: Files zero tax returns (and often states that only
: corporations
: have income).

: Refutation: Relies on three cases which do not back up the
: theory. Two of
: the cases resulted in convictions of those who used them. The
: other is
: misused in support of the definition of income.

: Argument: Stating that lack of an OMB number on the 1040
: instruction book
: nullifies the tax.

: Refutation: OMB numbers apply to regulations but the taxpayer
: is obligated
: by statute.

: Argument: Stating that zip codes are a federal geographic
: gimmick.

: Refutation: Has nothing to do with who is subject to the tax
: as the tax is
: not territorial.

: Argument: Stating that Title 26 is not positive law.

: Refutation: Whether the code is “positive” or not, it is prima
: facie
: evidence of some act of Congress passed into law—it is
: immaterial to the
: legitimacy of the tax.

: Argument: Stating that tax levies can only be placed on the
: property of
: public servants.

: Refutation: Argument ignores part of the code as well as who
: is subject to
: the tax.

: Argument: Stating that the tax is the direct Victory Tax of
: 1942 and
: therefore can only be imposed for two years.

: Refutation: The “Victory Tax” did not differ from the ordinary
: “income tax”
: thus nullifying the theory.

: Argument: Stating that we have no lawful money, so what we use
: as money
: can’t be taxed.

: Refutation: Money (property) is not the subject of the tax,
: income amount is
: only the measure of the tax.

: Skinner sums up the chapter with a few handy hints to help
: discern flawed
: arguments: If the argument considered applies the tax to
: someone else instead of
: yourself, don’t use it. You want the government to acknowledge
: that you are
: a nontaxpayer, not that someone else is a taxpayer.

: If the argument has you filling out a form, it’s false. Only
: taxpayers are
: obligated to fill out forms.

: Finally, see what the argument gives as the subject of the tax
: and try to
: verify that subject in the tax code.
: SPOTLIGHT January 29, 2001
: Always study the case law that has been used in tax cases
: appropriate to
: yours. Never take for granted that it actually supports your
: argument just
: because some “expert” says so.

: Skinner’s ability to cut through and understand legalese and
: his common
: sense approach to law are a godsend to the patriot anti-tax
: movement.

: His books and bulletins are valuable tools which take the
: mystery out of tax
: law.