They made a desert and called it peace...

"From this date I date the ruin of all my fortunes."
--George Washington

"The truth is an offense, but not a sin"
--Bob Marley


The United States is a corporation, which is one in the same as "government." Our purpose is to expose this and other corrupted facts. We believe in the Common Law, in the people's judiciary, in the municipalities' sovereignty over the Federal Departments, and in the individual's sovereignty above all other powers over Earth and under God. No rule of law has meaning. Rule of Precedent IS Law.

fellow bloggers who follow Thus Always To Tyrants

Friday, February 29, 2008

Banks Lose to Deadbeat Homeowners as Loans Sold in Bonds Vanish

ok folks! here is the answer to the mortgage crisis! we need to get this information out. this is probably the best thing I've heard so far this year. simply take the mortgage owners to court! apparently most of them do not hold the original note on the original mortgage that you may have signed, being third, fourth, or even eighth generation mortgage owners... this is amazing!

Banks Lose to Deadbeat Homeowners as Loans Sold in Bonds Vanish
By Bob Ivry

Feb. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Joe Lents hasn't made a payment on his $1.5 million mortgage since 2002.

That's when Washington Mutual Inc. first tried to foreclose on his home in Boca Raton, Florida. The Seattle-based lender failed to prove that it owned Lents's mortgage note and dropped attempts to take his house. Subsequent efforts to foreclose have stalled because no one has produced the paperwork.

....If you're going to take my house away from me, you better own the note,'' said Lents, 63, the former chief executive officer of a now-defunct voice recognition software company.

Judges in at least five states have stopped foreclosure proceedings because the banks that pool mortgages into securities and the companies that collect monthly payments haven't been able to prove they own the mortgages. The confusion is another headache for U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson as he revises rules for packaging mortgages into securities.

....I think it's going to become pretty hairy,'' said Josh Rosner, managing director at the New York-based investment research firm Graham Fisher & Co. ....Regulators appear to have ignored this, given the size and scope of the problem.''

More than $2.1 trillion, or 19 percent, of outstanding mortgages have been bundled into securities by private banks, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, a Bethesda, Maryland-based industry newsletter. Those loans may be sold several times before they land in a security. Mortgage servicers, who collect monthly payments and distribute them to securities investors, can buy and sell the home loans many times.

Housing Boom

Each time the mortgages change hands, the sellers are required to sign over the mortgage notes to the buyers. In the rush to originate more loans during the U.S. mortgage boom, from 2003 to 2006, that assignment of ownership wasn't always properly completed, said Alan White, assistant professor at Valparaiso University School of Law in Valparaiso, Indiana.

....Loans were mass produced and short cuts were taken,'' White said. ....A lot of the paperwork is done in the name of the original lender and a lot of the original lenders aren't around anymore.''

More than 100 mortgage companies stopped making loans, closed or were sold last year, according to Bloomberg data.

The foreclosure rate, at 1.69 percent of all U.S. homeowners, is the highest since the Mortgage Bankers Association began tracking it in 1993. The foreclosure rate for subprime borrowers, who have bad or incomplete credit and whose mortgages typically are securitized by private banks rather than government-sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is at a four-year high, according to the mortgage bankers.

750,000 Homeowners

More than 1.5 million homeowners will enter the foreclosure process this year, said Rick Sharga, executive vice president for marketing at RealtyTrac Inc., the Irvine, California-based seller of foreclosure information. About half of them, 750,000, will have their homes repossessed, Sharga said.

Borrower advocates, including Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann, have seized upon the issue of missing mortgage notes as a way to stem foreclosures.

....The best thing to do is to keep people in their homes and for everybody to take steps necessary to make that happen,'' said Chris Geidner, an attorney in Dann's office. ....These trusts are purchasing these notes, and before they even get the paperwork, they foreclose on people. They become foreclosure machines.''

Lost-Note Affidavits

When the mortgage servicers and securitizing banks that act as trustees of the securities fail to present proof that they own a mortgage, they sometimes file what's called a lost-note affidavit, said April Charney, a lawyer at Jacksonville Area Legal Aid in Florida.

Nobody knows how widespread the use of lost-note affidavits are, Charney said. She's had foreclosure proceedings for 300 clients dismissed or postponed in the past year, with about 80 percent of them involving lost-note affidavits, she said.

....They raise the issue of whether the trusts own the loans at all,'' Charney said. ....Lost-note affidavits are pattern and practice in the industry. They are not exceptions. They are the rule.''

State laws generally make it difficult to foreclose because they favor the homeowner, said Stuart Saft, a real estate lawyer and partner at the New York firm Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP.

....All these loan documents are being sent to the inside of a mountain in the middle of America and not being checked very carefully,'' Saft said. ....The lenders can't find the paper. We're dealing with a lot of paper produced in a mortgage closing.''

..Waste of Time'

Requiring banks to produce the paperwork at a foreclosure hearing is a nuisance, said Jeffrey Naimon, a partner in the Washington office of Buckley Kolar LLP.

....It's a gigantic waste of time,'' Naimon said. ....The mortgage may have transferred five, six, eight times. It's possible that you don't have all the pieces of paper, but it was enough to convince the next guy in the chain. There's no true controversy over whether the owner owns the loan.''

Judges are becoming increasingly impatient with plaintiffs who produce no more proof of ownership than a lost-note affidavit or a copy of the note, said Michael Doan, an attorney at Doan Law Firm LLP in Carlsbad, California.

....Things are heating up,'' Doan said.

In Ohio, where RealtyTrac reported an 88 percent jump in foreclosures last year, Dann, the attorney general, is now arguing 40 foreclosure cases that challenge ownership of mortgage notes, according to his office.

..Cavalier Approach'

U.S. District Judge David D. Dowd Jr. in Ohio's northern district chastised Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. and Argent Mortgage Securities Inc. in October for what he called their ....cavalier approach'' and ....take my word for it'' attitude toward proving ownership of the mortgage note in a foreclosure case.

John Gallagher, a spokesman for Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank AG, said the bank had no comment.

Federal District Judge Christopher Boyko dismissed 14 foreclosure cases in Cleveland in November due to the inability of the trustee and the servicer to prove ownership of the mortgages.

Similar cases were dismissed during the past year by judges in California, Massachusetts, Kansas and New York.

....Judges are human beings,'' said Kenneth M. Lapine, a partner at the Cleveland law firm Roetzel & Andress LPA. ....They no doubt feel the little guy needs all the help he can get against the impersonal, out of town, mega-investment banking company.''

Warning Plaintiffs

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Samuel L. Bufford in Los Angeles issued a notice last month warning plaintiffs in foreclosure cases to bring the mortgage notes to court and not submit copies.

....This requirement will apply because developments in the secondary market for mortgages and other security interests cause the court to lack confidence that presenting a copy of a promissory note is sufficient to show that movant has a right to enforce the note or that it qualifies as a real party in interest,'' the notice said.

Quick foreclosures benefit communities because properties in default lose value and homeowners in financial distress don't maintain their houses or pay real estate taxes, said Saft of Dewey & Leboeuf.

Painted as the Enemy

....When banks originally made the loans they used people's money from pension funds and savings accounts and they should be allowed to foreclose the loan as quickly as possible before the property depreciates in value any more,'' Saft said. ....The mortgage industry has been painted as the enemy when all they did was make loans to enable people to buy homes. Now there's less money available for new borrowers to buy homes and that's what's causing the value of homes to go down.''

Lents is former CEO of Investco Inc., a Boca Raton, Florida-based developer of voice recognition software. In 2002, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sanctioned Lents and others for stock manipulation, according to the SEC Web site. He lost his job, was fined and his assets were frozen. That's the reason he couldn't pay his mortgage, he said.

....If the homeowner doesn't object to the lost-note affidavit, the judge rubber-stamps it,'' Lents said. ....Is it oversight, or are they trying to get around the law?''

Washington Mutual spokeswoman Geri Ann Baptista said the bank had no comment.

Looking for Loopholes

....I can't believe the handling of notes is worse than it was five years ago,'' said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance. ....What we didn't have back then were armies of attorneys out there looking for loopholes. People are challenging foreclosures and courts are paying a lot more attention to foreclosures than they ever did before.''

American Home Mortgage Investment Corp., the Melville, New York-based lender that filed for bankruptcy last August, said it was paying $45,000 a month to store loan paperwork and petitioned U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Sontchi in Wilmington, Delaware, for the right to toss it all. Sontchi ruled last week that American Home Mortgage could charge banks from $3 to $13 a file to retrieve documents.

The home-loan industry has had a central electronic database since 1997 to track mortgages as they are bought and sold. It's run by Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS, a subsidiary of Vienna, Virginia-based MERSCORP Inc., which is owned by mortgage companies.

No Tracking Mechanism

MERS has 3,246 member companies and about half of outstanding mortgages are registered with the company, including loans purchased by government-sponsored entities Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae, said R.K. Arnold, the company's CEO.

For about half of U.S. mortgages, there is no tracking mechanism.

MERS rules don't allow members to submit lost-note affidavits in place of mortgage notes, Arnold said.

....A lot of companies say the note is lost when it's highly unlikely the note is lost,'' Arnold said. ....Saying a note is lost when it's not really lost is wrong.''

Lents's attorney, Jane Raskin of Raskin & Raskin in Miami, said she has no idea who owns Lents's mortgage note.

....Something is wrong if you start from what I think is the reasonable assumption that these banks are not losing all of these notes,'' Raskin said. ....As an officer of the court, I find it troubling that they've been going in and saying we lost the note, and because nobody is challenging it, the foreclosures are pushed through the system.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Bob Ivry in New York at .
Last Updated: February 22, 2008 00:03 EST


Monday, February 25, 2008

Won't Be Coming Around For To Kill Your Snakes No More...

Won't Be Coming Around For To Kill Your Snakes No More...

Brandon Dean
Thus Always to Tyrants
February 25, 2008

Donovan Leitch was a 1960's singer/songwriter from Scotland. He wrote one of the more insightful and prophetic songs of the entire decade, called "Riki Tiki Tavi." The bold/italic words in this article are the lyrics of this song.

Many people seem to believe that all those involved in the rock n' roll scene of the 1960's were pacifist hippies/flower children who thought shouting "peace" and "love" would change the world alone. Many other people believe that all of the youthful, vocal leaders of the time worked for the New World Order. True, the Beatles were groomed at the Tavistock Institute, Timothy Leary handed out acid for the CIA, and the head of security for the Black Panther Party, when they were brought down, was actually an FBI agent. But the New World Order does not invent anything--they only distort and manipulate. The 60's cultural revolution itself was in no way created by the New World Order. They merely infiltrated and destroyed it.
The reason they needed to infiltrate and destroy the burgeoning cultural scene of the 1960's was that they were wandering into dangerous waters from the perspective of the status quo. In other words, they threatened the status quo. Take this verse, for instance:

Better get into what you gotta get into
Better get into it now, no slacking please
United Nations ain't really "united"
And the organization ain't really organized...

This is an anti-globalist song. Donovan is clearly anti-United Nations, and clearly somewhat anarchist, given the last line. If you haven't noticed, most of the ex-hippies did not turn into anarchists, yet they do tend to make up the extreme left in this country. The extreme left in this country are responsible for allowing the New World Order to implement its communist policies of social programs and anti-gun legislation of the last forty years. The typical ex-hippie leftist supports the United Nations. Even conservatives in this country now support the United Nations. Yet here we have a supposed "hippie leftist" from the sixties who is anti-globalism, and obviously not a leftist or a rightist.

Riki Tiki Tavi mongoose is gone
Won't be coming around for to kill your snakes no more, my love
Riki Tiki Tavi mongoose is gone

Everybody who read the Jungle Book knows that Riki Tiki Tavi's a
mongoose who kills snakes
When I was a young man I was led to believe there were organizations to kill my snakes for me...
ie: the church, ie: the government, ie: the school
But when I got a little older I learned I had to kill them myself

Donovan is explaining here that social programs do not work. He names the Church, the Government, and the School as distractions meant to placate you. As children, we are taught to depend on government, schools, and the church to protect us. We are not influenced in public life to rely on ourselves and trust in ourselves. We are persuaded rather to depend on police to protect us, and on religions to explain things to us. To depend on schools to teach us the truth.

Riki Tiki Tavi mongoose is gone
Won't be coming around for to kill your snakes no more, my love
Riki Tiki Tavi mongoose is gone

Growing up can be jarring to most people - you are forced to accept responsibility for your actions, which can seem impossible for some. When Mommy and Daddy force them out of the nest, they look for another Mommy and Daddy, and they find it in the nanny state. The New World Order would ask nothing more of you than to rely on them.

People walking around-they don't know what they're doing
They've been lost so long, they don't know what they're looking for
Well, I know what I'm looking for, but I just can't find it
I guess I gotta look inside of myself some more...

The answer is within us. We all must look inside ourselves for our answers. The government will not protect you; religions will advise you to follow their rote and ritual; schools will teach you what they want you to know. People wander in a haze of terror and forgetfulness, and have no true vision of where they should be, or why they should be there. Those of us who are seeking the truth of the lies cannot look externally for philosophical answers. We must review ourselves internally, to see how and why our actions have contributed to where we're at now. You must look externally for what happened, and internally for why it happened. We allow ourselves to be torn apart by conflicting emotions, or worse yet, we allow emotions to control us. We somehow find relief in others choosing for us, when it should be us choosing freely. To relinquish responsibility for your own destiny is to die a living death...
Like I've already stated, the New World Order does not create anything; it merely warps existing things to its own purpose. It warps anything and everything malignant to its goals. The CIA and FBI were very busy during the 1950's-60's infiltrating movements of all kinds.
They've seemingly killed the rebellious spirit of popular music, and the artists have traded it in for diamonds and pearls, cast about the necks of swine, from the pilfered treasuries of other, more vicious swine... A "look" or an "attitude" now replaces talent and rebellion.
I abhor the attitude in the alternative world of the whole thing being a NWO hoax. Anyone who believes this never listened to the words, or felt the underlying rhythm, of true music.

oh oh oh inside of myself some more
oh oh oh inside of myself some more

Riki tiki tavi mongoose is gone

copyright Brandon Dean 2008

Lady Liberty and Lady Justice Meet For Coffee At Starbucks , by Dictator Hater

Lady Liberty and Lady Justice Meet For Coffee At Starbucks - Part One: the Beginning

Dictator Hater
February 25, 2008

Lady Liberty leapt from her pedestal and slogged through the harbor. Once on dry land, she shook the water from her robes and hurried to the coffee shop to meet Lady Justice. They had plenty to talk about.

As she rounded the corner, the familiar Starbucks symbol came into view. She sighed. Everything had changed so much since she first arrived in New York. She used to stand for something... Now she just... stands.

Lady Justice had removed her blindfold and she raised a hand in recognition when Lady Liberty entered the coffeeshop. She winced as if in pain.

Lady Liberty adjusted her damp robes and sat down across from Lady Justice and frowned. Speaking with a slight French accent, she asked, "What's wrong, Dear? Is your arm hurting?"

Lady Justice smiled wanely and said, "Yes, holding up those scales all day long is really giving my arthritis fits these days. There was a time, though, when I wouldn't have complained, no matter how much it hurt. It was worth it. But now..." Her voice trailed off and she twisted the blindfold she had laid in her lap with nervous fingers.

Lady Liberty shook her head, then rubbed her shoulder. "I know what you mean, there was a time when I would have kept holding that torch without complaint. Back when it use to mean something."

Lady Justice rose gracefully and swished across the room to order their lattes. A strikingly beautiful sight to behold, she turned every head in the place, male and female.

When she returned to the table, Lady Liberty said, "I see you've not lost your touch. Everyone loves you, you know. You're so lucky not to have had a sculptor like mine who couldn't decide whether I was male or female and turned me into an androgynous looking... thing. All I've had going for me was what I represented and even now that is gone. This war on terror and this Bush Administration... Congress going along with whatever he wants! What a shame the people have forgotten what it really means to be free, much less fight for what they have lost."

Lady Justice blushed at the compliment and took a sip of her latte. She sat the styrofoam cup on the table in front of her and ran her finger around the rim, seemingly lost in thought. She looked up and her eyes were wet with tears that threatened to spill over. "It's so hard for me, too. Day after day, I stand in the courtroom, hearing all the injustices that are compounded by unfair decisions. The courts are stacked, you know. Some of these judges are just an extension of the Bush Administration, their puppets. And that attorney general, Gonzales! Thank goodness he's gone, but the new one isn't much better. The court is the last bastion of the common man's justice... or was and now that is gone. You should have been there when the Supreme Court handed over the presidency! I almost dropped my scales!"

"I know what you mean. I see all kinds of things from my perch and you wouldn't believe it! The whole city of New York has been militarized, you couldn't tell the policemen from the military. The uniforms they wear are frightening! All that body armour. And don't get me started on how they have checkpoints everywhere. It's basically a free-for-all out there." Lady Liberty paused to take a sip of her latte, then continued. "Sometimes, I just want to scream at them when I see how this country is being destroyed. I always knew it would be from the inside out, not the outside in."

Lady Liberty looked around the room. People were engaged in lively conversation and laughter filled the air. The people seemed Stepfordlike, all dressed the same, drinking the same coffee and laptops galore. If only they understood what was going on around them, they would be out in the streets protesting, she thought. Or not.

Lady Justice followed her gaze and said, "I know what you're thinking. You're thinking they'd fight for their rights if they knew what was happening to them."

"Don't tell me, I know it's wishful thinking." Lady Liberty watched as a man pulled out a cigarette and then returned it to his pocket. He must have forgotten that cigarettes were forbidden in Starbucks.

"Nine Eleven got them everything they wanted, didn't it? And now, I have been relieved of very important duties with these Military Tribunals! What a disgrace! They won't even let me in, I guess Lady Justice is not to be trusted in this Brave New World we have."

"Brave. That's a laugh. But there is some hope." Lady Liberty's eyes twinkled with mischief.

"What do you mean?" For a moment, hope flashed in Lady Justice's face. Then it died like a flame extinguished.

Lady Liberty put a hand on hers and said, "Haven't you heard of the Truth Movement? And there's We Are Change."

Lady Justice shook her head no. "Tell me about them! What are they? Who are they?"

"They're a bunch of people who have woken up to what is happening and their numbers are growing daily." Lady Liberty smiled radiantly. "They might just succeed, if they are not squashed by laws that threaten their freedom of speech. There are plenty of efforts to shut them up, label them as terrorists instead of the True Patriots that they are. Anything that threatens the status quo is viewed as negative by the Powers That Be. But these people... they have a fire in their gut that won't be put out easily."

"Really? And just how do they expect to stop the Powers That Be?" Lady Justice looked skeptical.

"By informing others of what is going on and forming peaceful groups that are demanding justice. You should see those We Are Change guys in action. They are not afraid of anyone! They'll go right up to them and stick a microphone in their faces and ask them the questions that the mainstream media whores will not ask!" Lady Liberty's hand flew to her mouth. "Oops! I'm sorry, I didn't mean to swear. There are other groups, too. If they ever combine their efforts and all come together, all these groups who are fighting for the same thing... woe be to those who would tear this country apart."

Lady Justice grinned. "That's all right. It's about time everyone swore. ...Swore to uphold their Constitution and their Bill of Rights."

The Beginning

copyright DictatorHater, 2008

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

US Attempts to Occupy the Whole World--What Happens If We Invade Iran? by Brandon Dean

US Attempts To Occupy the Whole World-What Happens if we Invade Iran?
by Brandon Dean
Thus Always To Tyrants
February 19, 2008

Being that Bush and Co. (not to mention Clinton, Obama, and McCain) all vocally plan on open war with Iran, I believe it is time to analyze exactly what may happen if we do invade Iran.
I think it's been succinctly proven we are under no imminent threat from Iran. Our sovereignty nor our freedom are threatened by Iran. So why all the talk of invading?
They keep bringing up that elements in Iran are "funding" and "aiding" their fellow "jihadists" (utterly ridiculous phrase which means nothing) in Iraq, thus justifying US incursions over the border into Iran. Al Qaida was originally funded by none other than the US GOVERNMENT in the 80's to help the Afghani "freedom fighters" fight off the Russian Invasion. The problem with that whole thing was: we were funding the Russians through "aid" and "grants" to do the very thing we were there to stop!! When will people wake up? Did any American believe that all our "aid moneys" were going to feed starving little Russian kids or something? Give me a god damn break...
So "we" (as in the rogue Central Intelligence Agency) started Al Qaida, and now we must invade every country in the Middle East to kill them all, or at least to kidnap them and take them to foreign countries where they can be tortured to death. We also (surprise of surprises) funded the Taliban originally in the 90's, and then all of a sudden they were "harboring a known fugitive" and we had to invade and "bring them down" under a "carpet of bombs." The arrogance of US statesmen never ceases to amaze me.

One of the side effects of the secularization of society (or rather, the declining control of dogmatic religious belief in favor of either abject apathy or a non-apathetic, personally discovered spirituality) in the west has been to make life seem much more precious to the secular person, whether it's because he's thought the matter through, or because his apathy dictates he not care about greater issues beyond himself. The religious person sees afterlife and heavenly glory as justification for fighting back, and even dying in the name of freedom or idealism. The thinking man, the rich man, or the politically apathetic man, finds life much more precious because it is much easier for him to make excuses for the oppression he feels. For these men, there is no heaven waiting to embrace martyrdom. Double-edged swords are fashioned out of more than just metal nowadays...
Have you ever noticed the more money someone has, the more they tend to think themselves worth, beyond just the financial aspect? All of a sudden their life has extra value, and their opinion somehow means something, because of their wealth. How long will people keep following the orders and advice of these people? In politics, the more popular a politician becomes, the harder it seems to be to remember what it was like to have no one listen to you. It actually works both ways for a celebrity actor/musician etc. They have money and popularity. But power breeds corruption, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as was once so eloquently said...
Now, have you noticed that ALL of the people calling for war with Iran have nothing to lose (at least as far as their limited vision can show them) by sending US troops there? What about the people who want to keep us in Iraq? THEY ALL HAVE MORE MONEY THAN YOU OR I.
So are rich people evil? Hell, no. I am no communist, and I don't want their money. Like I've explained in so many words: it's their expectations of what money or power brings that is evil. Money is not evil, and neither are politics. A charlatan will exploit anything to further his cause. Objects or concepts can neither be inherently good nor inherently evil. A person cannot be inherently evil. But a person can act evil using inanimate objects or concepts in an evil way. What is evil? Anything you know is wrong in your heart. It doesn't take a supreme being to realize what is right and wrong. All it takes is not lying to yourself. If you do not lie to yourself, you are doing great! Keep it up...
And scam artists exploiting many causes is exactly what we are seeing happening with Iraq/Iran. A bunch of charlatans are trying to convince us that we for some reason need to stay in Iraq and keep killing people and keep getting killed. Why? Their main argument is that if we leave, chaos will ensue. Well, what about all over the rest of the Earth? There is chaos all over the place, but we need to keep killing people in Iraq because a little more chaos may ensue in Iraq? What about all over Africa, where (man-made) plague and ruthless dictators are killing off the populations of third world countries? What about in China, where there are millions of people estimated to be slaves in work camps, creating cheap crap for Wal-Mart and others to sell in America? What about North Korea, where tens of thousands of homeless children starve to death on the streets a year?
Hey! What about down the street from my house in Los Angeles, California, here in the united States, where homeless vets hang out on the street corners and ask for change because the Veterans' Administration hospitals can't afford to house them or even help them? We can spend 500 billion dollars a year on a useless war to create more disabled homeless veterans, yet it would cost only a couple hundred million dollars to feed and house them for an entire year. Why can't we carve just a little bit out of the war chest to take care of these poor, deceived souls?

So..... What will happen if we invade Iran?
First of all, Iran is not Iraq. Iraq is an already-defeated country who had a dictator "we" propped up in the first place---Saddam Hussein---and he was the guy we helped fight the Iranians in the 80's by selling him weapons technology, including the ingredients to make chemical weapons, which he used not against helpless villagers (as reported by the mass media to inject baseless anti Iraq sentiment before the first "Gulf War)," but against Kurds who were fighting for the Iranians, whom Iraq was at war with! Yet we condemn HIM for genocide... Has not the seller responsibility? Methinks he does...
Iraq was created after World War I by the British, when the British divided up the Middle East, creating Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Palestine, among others. It wasn't until WWII that Israel came into existence. My point is Iraq and these other newly formed, WESTERNIZED countries have no deep sense of nationality. Guess what? Iran does! They are one of the oldest surviving cultures and countries on the face of the Earth, and they are rather proud of it. The Iranians have been Iranian for hundreds of years, and before that they were Persians, but they were essentially the same people.
They have a strong sense of who they are, and they have not forgotten what "our" CIA did to them in the 1950's. The CIA overthrew the government of Muhammed Mosadeq, who was not only pro-USA, but also DULY ELECTED by his own people. He decided he wanted to control just a SMALL part of the oil profits flowing out of HIS country, and he was summarily deposed for it.
All the British and American "secret agents" (license to kill?) had to do was fool the Iranian people into believing Mosadeq was anti-Muslim--an atheist and a communist--which is not a popular sentiment in the Muslim world, to say the least... They spread leaflets supposedly made by Mosadeq saying "Down with Allah!! Up with Communism!!" When this didn't produce the desired effect, British and American agents actually went around dressed as Iranians SHOOTING and BOMBING civilians, claiming to represent Mosadeq.
Mosadeq spent the rest of his life in prison. Most of his cabinet were hung or beheaded, and the Shah of Iran was re-installed to continue his royal tendency of oppressing his own population. He was so ruthless against his own people that roughly twenty years later there was a religious coup, which overthrew the Shah's government. There is now an extreme theocracy which dictates rule in Iran instead of an elected leader, and it is related most assuredly to our meddling there (let's not of course forget British meddling).

So......... The Iranians are slightly pissed off about these FACTS, and they haven't forgotten. It was the MAIN cause cited for the Iranian hostage crisis of the late 70's, where Americans were kidnapped by Iranian students, and held until George Bush (former DIRECTOR of the CIA) worked a deal to get them released (the day Reagan was inaugurated).
So we as the "USA" have a long history of meddling in the affairs of Iran, and they are quite frankly sick of it. So there's that...

The other thing not discussed in the mainstream media is that WE DON'T HAVE THE STRENGTH OF TROOPS OR THE MONEY TO LEAD A GROUND INVASION OF IRAN. There will be an initial air strike aimed at taking out their infrastructure, but like always, an air campaign will need ground support to work. They will proclaim it is just an air war until they are ready to send in ground troops, who will become mired without funds or equipment long before they reach Tehran. Our troops are all over the world, fighting many stupid battles, or using up billions to do nothing other than sit and guard our corporate interests. We, as a country, have troops PERMANENTLY stationed in over 120 countries on the face of this Earth! Think about that!
Even if it weren't morally wrong to station our troops on foreign soil permanently, we simply do not have the funds to continue this occupation of the world. Our funds will be cut off by no choice of our own mid-invasion, should we invade Iran. What are we to do once this happens?
Oh, don't you worry. This will have been planned from the beginning. They will "have to" perform a tactical nuclear strike to "save our troops" once they become mired. Official US policy at this point provides that if the president feels a large enough amount of US troops face a large enough threat, he can authorize the use of nuclear weapons in a non-nuclear environment. Comforting, eh?
Do you think I'm crazy? Yes? Really? Well, if you would like a little corroboration from someone who should know, why not listen to Scott Ritter, who was our UN weapons inspector, and who told us Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction (which he didn't) before we invaded? Scott Ritter resigned when his news was ignored. Watch this short video clip to see exactly what I'm talking about. This man may not be an Albert Einstein, but he certainly has a more informed perspective on this matter than any of us can pretend to have:

Scott Ritter (from the video):

"So, for any Americans out there tonight who say 'you know what, taking on Iran is a good thing'-- I just told you, if we take on Iran, we're going to use nuclear weapons, and if we use nuclear weapons, the genie ain't goin' back in the bottle until an American city is taken out by an Islamic weapon in retaliation. So tell me you want to go to war with Iran----pick your city... Tell me which one you want gone! Seattle, LA, Boston, New York, Miami? Pick one, because at least one's going..."

Wow, I think I'll just leave it at that.

copyright Brandon Dean 2008

Terrorist Tactics Used By Government Against "We The People", by Dictator Hater

Terrorist Tactics Used By Government Against "We The People"
by Dictator Hater
February 18, 2008

Don't think that the Democrats in the House of Representatives have necessarily done a good thing by allowing the Protect America Act to expire without a vote because this is not what happened at all. There was a vote and most of the Democrats voted to allow a 21 day extension of the bill in its current form.
This report from Media Matters clears up a lot of the confusion:
"NBC falsely suggested House Democrats refused to extend expiring FISA amendments

Summary: NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams stated that the Republicans "left the House chamber to protest the Democrats' refusal to renew the foreign intelligence surveillance law, which expires this week." In fact, the House voted on a measure to extend the law in question, the Protect America Act, for another 21 days, but all 195 Republicans who voted on the matter voted against it. Moreover, the "foreign intelligence surveillance law" doesn't expire this week; the Protect America Act, giving the president broad authority to intercept communications involving people in the U.S. without a warrant, expires. Even without its renewal, the government has the authority to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance. "

Furthermore, any ongoing investigations under the auspices of the Protect America Act can be carried out for twelve months, so Bush's claim that Americans are in danger if this bill is not made permanent immediately is total bunk and the House knows it.
Media Matters makes further clarification of what really happened during the Republican walk out on February 14 as stated here:
" Additionally, Nightly News did not report the full reason for the Republican decision to walk off the House floor. As The Washington Post reported, House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) led a Republican walkout just before the House was set to vote on "contempt citations against White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers over their refusal to cooperate with an investigation into the mass firings of U.S. attorneys." In calling for the walkout, Boehner stated: "We have space on the calendar today for a politically charged fishing expedition, but no space for a bill that would protect the American people from terrorists who want to kill us. ... Let's just get up and leave." The House then approved the citations by a vote of 223-32. Neither ABC nor NBC reported on the contempt citations, consistent with a pattern on the part of both networks to ignore developments relating to the U.S. attorney scandal in their nightly news broadcasts."
And GovTrack gives a glaring picture of how the members of the House of Representatives voted on February 13 here:
Aside from that, if it were so important to protect America with this Protect America Act, why is Bush threatening a veto against any bill that doesn't contain immunity for telecommunications companies and why are House Republicans voting against the 21 day extension of this oh-so-important piece of legislation? Does this not make Bush and certain members of Congress the ones who are not protecting America now, according to their own standards?
Are we going to end up with more unconstitutional spying on Americans once Congress returns from their vacationing as well as immunity for the telecommunication companies? Just like Bush wants. We shall all see.
It must be mentioned here too, that what the Senate did, in handing the Bush Administration a victory with their vote to make the Protect America Act with immunity included for the telecommunication spies permanent is nothing short of straight-up fascism. Every Senator who voted yea should be immediately thrown out of office and banned permanently from ever holding office again. If the House returns from vacation and does the same thing, as far as I am concerned, what's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander, kick them all out on their collective rear ends.
In giving immunity to the telecommunication companies, members of the Senate who voted yea are effectively negating the lawsuits currently pending against these companies for spying on Americans illegally. But another more insidious reason for the push to immunize telecoms against lawsuits has not graced the pages of any mainstream media article I have read so far.
Think of it this way, the telecommunication companies surely didn't just wake up one day and say to themselves, "I think we should spy on Americans without warrants and give the Bush Administration this information because we love our country so much. It doesn't matter if we're breaking the law. We're Patriots and we love America."
Let's get real here. No, these corporate bloodsuckers do nothing for God or Country as the White House Spokeswoman Dana Perino would try and have us believe in her statement here:
"MS. PERINO: The telephone companies that were alleged to have helped their country after 9/11 did so because they are patriotic and they certainly helped us and they helped us save lives."
They really do think we are stupid little children and they are our Mommies and Daddys don't they? Does this insult of your intelligence if not outrage you? Well, it certainly should.
It doesn't take a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist to deduce that the telecommunications companies involved in this must have either received some secret lucrative contracts from the NSA or did so in exchange for political favors. And this amounts to collusion between the telecoms and the U.S. Government to illegally wiretap and spy on Americans, if it can be proven. I want to know exactly who they are, don't you?
What the Bush Administration, the Senate and the telecoms have done is Corporatism in the raw. What you are looking at is the merger of Corporations and the State against the best interests of the American people and against the Rule of Law, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We shall see if the House of Representatives follows suit and makes this law a permanent part of our lives when they return from their vacation. I'll certainly be watching to see how this mess turns out.
This nonsense has got to stop right now or we might as well just give up and allow a Dictatorship to replace this Republic. How low do we have to go before the people march on Washington D.C. and demand the rule of law be restored to this country?
The worst part of it is that the Bush Administration and Congress use terrorist tactics on We The People in order to force their will upon us. If you had not realized yet that this is the same tactic that has been used for every other unconstitutional piece of legislation passed prior to this since September 11, 2001, then this debacle should practically blind you with the brilliance of truth of what government has been doing all along shining in your eyes. They might as well be screaming, "If you don't let us steal your civil liberties and invade your privacy we're all going to die!" Actually, that is what they are doing and darn near daily. Someone change the record, please, this one is really starting to sound scratchy.
Call your Representatives and demand that this law be left to languish in the musty halls of Congress and tell them that you want not only the telecoms held up to the rule of law, but there needs to be a full investigation into the Bush Administration, NSA and any other government entitiy (including members of Congress) involved in the illegal spying on Americans without a warrant.
Have the meaning of the word accountability, a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ready to read out loud to them when you make that call because it appears none of our dear leaders seem to know or care about the meaning of the word freedom these days.

Friday, February 8, 2008

Ron Paul Vote "for the shredder" -Illinois Election Worker

Ron Paul Vote "for the shredder" -Illinois Election Worker
Brandon Dean
Thus Always To Tyrants
February 8, 2008

The preceding video was made by an acquaintance of mine on Tuesday in Illinois. She wore her Ron Paul sweatshirt to the polling place, and was made to cover it up while inside, as advertising a candidate is illegal inside a polling place.
So after she was done voting, on her way out, one of the election officials quipped "There's another one for the shredder."
What I'm gathering here is it's illegal for a voter to walk in advertising a specific candidate (for fear of voter intimidation), yet it's perfectly fine for an election worker to condescend a voter by either warning her that her vote is going to be shredded, or betraying her biased opinion by making a joke which was not funny at all. Either way it can easily be construed as voter intimidation, just like the voter's sweatshirt can be construed in the same manner.
Now you tell me, which was more intimidating: an election official threatening to shred someone's vote, or a voter walking into a polling place with a specific candidate displayed prominently?
At this point, we've heard tales of old ladies stuffing ballot boxes in Colorado, New Hampshire's recount boxes were slit open when received by the people who were to count them, the Ron Paul campaign is demanding a recount in Louisiana, and in my home state of California, everyone who has re-registered Republican in the last six months apparently did not make it to the list, me being one of them. We all had to fill out provisional ballots. The election worker in my polling place showed me the list of the provisional votes cast in my district, and there were almost fifty names on the list by eleven o'clock in the morning...
In any case, this friend of mine, who goes by the online moniker Rattlesnake, was dissatisfied with the fact that she did not record the incident on video. She was also not sure which election worker made the quip, and wanted to know. So she goes back with a video camera, and the above video is the resulting confrontation.
The lady who made the "joke" obviously becomes very cordial in front of a camera. She admits to being the one who made the remark, and tries to explain that it was just a joke, and what she meant by "the shredder" was the "ballot box."

Ummm... ok.. So, now are we to understand the ballot box is equivalent to a shredder? Surely she couldn't have meant that? So what did she mean?

{flashback-old ladies stuffing ballot boxes in Colorado}

Am I implying this innocent looking old lady is capable of carrying through with her threat? Yes, yes I am.
In Arizona, a valiant cowboy stopped five or six McCain agents who were trying to actually take the ballot box out of the polling place by placing himself between them and the door, and daring them to go through it. They chose to run away.
In all likelihood, the old lady in this video was making a stupid condescending joke, but when I'm hearing reports of chicanery from all over the country, I take this seriously. Here on video, we have an election official admitting she made an intimidating remark to a voter in her district during polling hours, in an official polling place. It may seem minor to some, but maybe a compendium of all evidence of election fraud is in order...

copyright Brandon Dean, 2008

Thursday, February 7, 2008

we will be on NIWECS radio show tonight at 4:30-6pm PST

Please feel free to listen in as I and fellow researcher/Thus Always To Tyrants author FranG discuss the roots of fractional reserve banking and how it is at the root of the mess we find ourselves in today.

If you miss the broadcast, you can listen to the archive show whenever you want. the link to listen is here.

The call in number is 646=378-1445

Please listen if you have a chance...

Tonight is part one of a two part series FranG and I are doing on the history of economy and fractional reserve banking, which will be continued tomorrow night from 6-7:30pm PST at the same link...

NIWECS radio broadcasts once a week, every Thursday from 6pm-7:30pm. Today's 4:30 start time is due to technical difficulties...

thanks from Brandon Dean and FranG

Sunday, February 3, 2008

Global Warming Apparently Responsible for California Cold Snap

Global Warming Apparently Responsible for California Cold Snap
Brandon Dean
February 3, 2008

So the other night on the NIWECS radio broadcast, I mentioned that California has been experiencing an unusual cold snap for the last month. I just mentioned it, and I wanted to elaborate on it.
I live in Los Angeles, which is a very temperate zone. All "temperate climate" means is that the temperature does not vary much. Daytime highs in LA year-round range in the summer between 77-100 degrees with little humidity, to between 60-90 in the winters with alot of humidity, but not necessarily a lot of rain... It may seem like those are highly varying temperatures, but the reason it's temperate is because the changes between these conditions come so slow. The seasons here gradually show their faces, as opposed to most places where there are very defined seasons. There is green everywhere here in the winters. In fact, when it rains here, no matter what time of year, all of a sudden the hills are bright green with new growth within a day or two of the rain. When the first heavy rain comes, even if it's in December, that's when the new green of spring appears...
The reason is that after a cold period of a week and a half at the most, usually, it gets warm again, and you usually see temperatures in December and January up in the 80's for a couple days, then it cools off again.
First of all, it hasn't been above 80 degrees in LA since around the beginning of October, which is highly unusual, as it is now February, and we usually would have had at least two or three small heat waves since October by now. I'm 33 years old, and I've lived in LA for 28 of those years. I don't remember the last time we've had this cold of a winter.
So global warming's really doing a number on California this winter, all of which is experiencing a sever winter compared to the average winter.
What some may not realize is that California has some of the most extreme climates of any state in the union. A lot of folks tend to look at California as the sunny state, but in northern California they know what real winters are all about. Trust me, I spent a winter outside of Redbluff, California a few years ago, and there were several weeks of sub-zero temperatures. And we also have Death Valley, which, in the summers, gets up to the 140's...

{side note-when I was up there I also learned the truth about how the logging companies are supposedly killing off all our pine forests. I was a forest fire-fighter at the time, and let me tell you, to stand on top of a huge mountain with hundreds and hundreds of miles of forest all around you on every side gives you a new perspective. Because there, in the middle of the giant forest, was what appeared to be a tiny little patch of logged forest. It was miles away, and was probably a few thousand acres. We happened to fight a fire right there in the middle of the logging land (they have dirt roads out there for the logging companies already and the fire department uses them, so it's not too much of a coincidence...), and as we drove through it, I noticed the new forest gradually taking back over the previously logged forest as the logging company went along. It all seemed to make sense to me... Sorry, I've "digressed" as AJ would say...}

So now, in the last couple months it's been much colder on average than usual. I don't remember the temperature in the daytime getting above 68 degrees since the beginning of December, which is definitely unusual.
I thought I would just do my part to battle this false idea of global warming caused by humans by writing this. What the hell are they talking about? It just rained here for three weeks straight almost! That hasn't happened since I was a little kid here!

copyright Brandon Dean 2008

Saturday, February 2, 2008

Communist Grunt Organization Endorses Obama

Communist Grunt Organization Endorses Obama
Brandon Dean
February 2, 2008

What I am about to say probably resonates with alot of people who are against fascist government wars, especially those who are active, or have been active, in fighting whichever cause they believe in. I've become severely cynical about protesting, for instance, for a couple reasons. First, the police show up and film you and take your picture and it's generally intrusive on your privacy. They already know who I am, and they're not learning anything new by filming me several different times. That's one thing, but I learned to get past that. Certain privacies apparently must be discarded to show public support for peace and freedom...
The second reason I cannot go to anti war protests any more is because they are always infested with communists, at least in Los Angeles where I live. I mean, it's out of control. You go to this march with your anti war sign, and all these propagandists come up to you (many of them, not just one) and try to "convert" you to communism.
It personally makes me sick. Of course I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe communism as a whole, in practice and in theory, to be the most atrocious idea for freedom I've ever heard. It makes sense if you already know the Illuminati were the ones responsible for communism in the first place. Karl Marx was a high level Freemason long after Freemasonry had been infiltrated by the Illuminati. He worked for the Illuminati bankers in New York City, where they taught him what he needed to do in Russia, then sent him on his merry way.

Anyhoo, links to the US Communist Party on their website, which is, well, telling to say the least. They are funded partially by the Rockefeller Foundation. So now they're backing Obama, eh? Very decent and proper, I say... Anyone Rockefeller backs is true blue in my book...

So, joking aside, Obama's wife is the HEAD of the Chicago office for the Council on Foreign Relations. Anyone starting to see a pattern here? Supposedly Obama's chief advisor is none other than Zbigniew "genocide" Bresinski, who represents one of the powerful factions within the New World Order power structure. For the love of god, do we need any further proof Obama is a company man?

Anyway, the reason I brought up the protests and why I don't go to them any more is because any organized and funded protest is Rockefeller's protest---he paid for it... MoveOn is one of the organizers of protests all over the country. Where do they get the money for all these permits and promotions and employees, do you think? Do they have a constant money stream from sympathetic hippies all over the country which affords them all of this?

MoveOn is a doppleganger of the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, another Rcckefeller front group which funds protests all over the country.

The fact that socialists cannot seem to blame themselves for anything, but would rather blame others for everything (very similar to the equivalent fundamentalists on the right), is the chink in their idealistic armor. Passion does not sell arguments on either "side" of the spectrum. Facts and common sense sell arguments. It seems fundamentalists of any stripe cannot grasp this simple concept.

Oh well... Obama is a globalist middle-finger-puppet sent from the maw of the New World Order, and Hillary is an alien anomaly incapable of hissing the truth even for a sentence. McCain is an ex-POW who made propaganda tapes for the Viet Cong and blocked funding to find other POW's he served time with, while receiving special treatment from his captors. Romney is a slick dick with a phony smile, whose corporation just bought Clear Channel a couple weeks ago.

Ron Paul, anyone?

Obama endorsed by anti-war group

copyright Brandon Dean 2008

Voice Vote - The Coward's Secret Weapon, by Bossgator

Voice Vote – The Coward's Secret Weapon
by Bossgator
February 1st, 2008

With the advent of C-Span, I suspect most Americans have at least had a glimpse at the voting process in the House and Senate, but it may also be safe to say few have really taken the time to learn exactly how voting is done by our elected representatives. Until recently, I was counted among the many that have little understanding of the process. Now I know just how much I don’t know!

While researching various bills via the website GovTrack,, I noticed something peculiar. When you look up a given bill, such as HR2640, The NICS Improvements Amendment Act of 2007, take a look at the section “Votes on Passage”, and you’ll see how each representative voted on this unconstitutional bill more infamously known as “The Veterans Disarmament Act”. See it?

That’s right! There was no record kept of the vote. Not only did the vote of each representative not get recorded in the Journal, but the total number of votes cast was not recorded either. How is that, you say? Are not our elected officials accountable for how they speak for their constituents? Well, it seems the cowards have found a secret weapon they can use to avoid documenting how they voted on all those controversial bills that they feel the public might not like. It’s called “voice voting.”

At first, I thought there was some kind of reasonable explanation for voting in such a manner, such as National Security, but once I started looking into this type of voting, the picture became rather murky at best. It seems this type of voting has been going on for as long as we’ve had the Constitution, and the history of voice voting dates back to long before our founding fathers set foot in the New World. You might say the concept has been around as long as humans have had an opinion.

Since this is not a lesson in history, I’ll stick to current affairs, and that is, my question “How in the world can our politicians legally vote in such a manner?” To attempt to find that answer, we need to take a look at the Constitution.

Constitutional Deception?

It seems to me that our focus should be on what Constitutional grounds do vice votes take place. In Article 1, Section 5, clause 3, we find the following…

“Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.”

Interesting how so many decisions pertaining to the actions of Congress are left up to its own members. This is nothing more than having the fox stand guard over the hen house. In theory, we would expect these elected representatives to honor their oath of office, and in most cases, they do. There are times though these same politicians feel an overwhelming need to cover their own ass, and find themselves interpreting the law to suit their own means. And if that isn’t enough, they write a law that fits.

The above quote from Section 5 at first glance sounds like a reasonable resolution to situations that may present themselves from time to time. The operative word is “may.” Until challenged in court, interpretation is a personal thing, widely open to speculation. No where else do we find within the Constitution any mention of authorization for secrecy. So, that being the case, one must assume that Congress decided that voice voting is authorized by Section 5. Let’s take a closer look at the exact wording.

It starts off with…”Each House shall keep a journal…” Okay, the wording here seems really straightforward. The Congress and Senate are mandated to keep a journal of their proceedings. They also are required to publish said journal, as in make public, periodically. The next question is, are there any exceptions to this rule?

Yes, the very next part clearly addresses one possible exception; when the representatives determine they “require secrecy.” But it does not say how they determine when secrecy is required. That’s the problem I feel we are facing today. Who or what determines what should be kept secret?

Before we determine who has the authority to withhold information from the public, we need to step back, because the initial question is still not answered. It’s subtle, and I overlooked it many times, till it finally hit me. The point is not whether the House and Senate should be voting by voice, it’s about the keeping of the journal. Clause 3 clearly states that the journal is to be kept, and then it says when ( why it should be secret is not addressed) information can be withheld as secret. The issue is of publishing the content of the journal, not if it should be entered into the journal.

This clause is tricky, and clearly can be interpreted in more than one way. I contend that all information is to be entered into the journal. Once that takes place, then a decision may be made not to publish certain journal content. But the information still must be entered. This is where the House and Senate have been fudging the law! They have decided for themselves that the Constitution gives them the authority to not enter information in the journal, when in fact it says everything is to be in the journal. At the same time, the House and Senate have the authority to withhold disclosure of what is in the journal that they deem secret. That does not relieve them of their duty to record ALL actions of the House and Senate.

Not all info really needs to be known by everyone in a fully open environment. However, while the public may not need to know, at the very least, there must be record for judicial oversight. Cops don’t tell the public everything, till after the case is over, but they have records none the less. It’s a matter of “need to know”. But somebody still needs to know, and if they don’t enter vote details in the journal via the voice vote, how can the judicial branch fully investigate misdeeds? Exactly...

This is blatant misuse and twisting of the Constitution yet again, especially when you understand how a voice vote takes place. For the exact legal process, you have to look at the House Rules Manual. [109th Congress House Rules -]

And for details on who is responsible for making up rules for the House, go here:

Once more, when looking at the House Rules, and I have read most of it, you see another example of legislative excess. Throughout government, there is all kinds of documentation and very specific procedural steps, and that is where cowards hide; in the vastness of legalese.

Part of the all-encompassing web of rules and laws, our representatives have apparently decided to use the law they wrote themselves to hide how they vote, or not vote, on a given bill. They do this under the guise of being allowed to keep secrets. When you take a look at bills that were passed by voice vote, many of them makes one wonder what could possibly be so important in that bill that they decided they must keep secret how the bill was voted on.

The bill is fully disclosed to the public, and is entered into the Congressional Record, yet who voted, and how they voted, and the number of votes cast, is not recorded. Now, granted there is a procedure in the House Rules Manual for contesting a call for a voice vote, but it appears that process is not easily accomplished, especially when you factor in time constraints due to the raw number of bills being churned out each day.

Voice Vote has been around a long time, and there are plenty of situations where this type of voting is purely innocent and expedient. Then there are those times when it appears that no record of how an official voted is nothing more than politically convenient.

copyright Bossgator 2008

thus always to tyrants authors

Brandon Dean (splitbabyniblet)


Joshua Berry (tattoogeek)

you see what happens?

"I, like the arch-fiend, bore a hell within me, and finding myself unsympathized with, wished to tear up the trees, spread havoc and destruction around me, and then to have sat down and enjoyed the ruin." --Mary Shelley, from Frankenstein