Over the last few months a stream of articles have crossed my screen, all proclaiming the need of governments and banks to eliminate cash. I’m sure you’ve noticed them too.
It is terrorists and other assorted madmen, we are told, who use cash. And so, to protect us from being blown up and dismembered on our very own street corners, governments will have to ban it.
It would actually take some effort to imagine a more obvious, naked attempt at fearmongering. Cash – in daily use for centuries if not millennia – is now, suddenly, the agent of spring-loaded, instant death? And we’re supposed to just accept that line? But there are good reasons why the insiders are promoting these stories now. The first of them, perhaps, is simply that they can: After 9/11, a massive wave of compliance surged through the West. It may not last forever, but it’s still rolling, and if the entertainment corporations can pump enough fear into minds that want to believe, they may just get them to buy it. The second reason, however, is the real driver:
Negative Interest Rates
The urgency of their move to ban one of the longest-lasting pillars of daily life means that the backroom elites think it will be necessary soon. It would appear that the central banks, the IMF, the World Bank, the BIS, and all their backers, see the elimination of cash as a central survival strategy.
The reason is simple: cash would allow people to escape from the one thing that could save their larcenous currency system: negative interest rates. To make this clear, I like to paraphrase a famous (and good) quote from Alan Greenspan, back from 1966, during his Ayn Randian days: The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. That was a true statement, and with a slight modification, it succinctly explains the new war on cash:
The preservation of an insolvent currency system requires that the owners of currency have no way to protect it. Cash is currency that you hold in your own hands, that stands more or less alone. It is primarily external to bank control. Electronic money – bank balances, credit, etc. – remains inside the banking system and fully “subject to bank control”!
A combination of no cash and negative interest rates would be a quiet, permanent version of what was done in Cyprus, where the government simply shut down everything, allowed only the smallest deductions via ATMs, and then stole money from thousands of bank accounts at once.
The Cypriot spectacle was fairly large, however, and that tends to undermine the legitimacy of rulership. So, it is much better to have no ATMs and no cash at all. There would be no lines of angry people talking to each other, only isolated losers with no recourse, licking their wounds while the talking heads on television tell them to stay calm and watch the flashing images.
Negative interest rates would give the banks 100% control over your purchases. They could, even in the worst pinch, allow you to purchase food while freezing the rest of your money. The average person would have no recourse and would simply be robbed… but very smoothly and with no human face to blame it on.
Negative interest rates mean that your bank account shrinks day by day, automatically. Your $1000 in January becomes $950 by December. And where does that money go? To the banks, of course, and to the government. They siphon your money away, drip by drip, and there’s nothing you can do about it. This accomplishes several things for them at once: It finances government, limit-lessly and automatically. Forget tax filings; they can just take as they please.
It pays off the bad debt of the big banks. (And there are oceans of debt.)
It forces you to spend everything you’ve got, as soon as you get it. (Otherwise it will shrink.) It gives the system full control over your financial life. Everything is monitored, everything is tracked, and every single transaction must be approved by them (or not). If they decide they don’t like you, you’re instantly reduced to begging.
Olddog is going to have surgery this morning on his right index finger (Trigger Finger). And being a competitive Steel Challenge Pistol Shooter, this is a great concern for him. Wish Him Luck! He may not be on line for a while as His left hand is only usable for giving politicians the, you know what!
Comments Off on Olddog is going to have surgery this morning
According to the original intent of our Constitution, Ted Cruz & Marco Rubio are not eligible to be President because their fathers weren’t US citizens at the times they were born. So they are not “natural born citizens”. So! How is this handled? Who calls it? Who makes the ruling? Do we “file a lawsuit” and let federal judges decide? “Slap your hands!”, our Framers would say. They would say, “READ THE CONSTITUTION AND SEE WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN!” [Our lives would be so much simpler – and our Country so much better off – if we read & supported our Constitution.]
Read the 12th Amendment. That sets forth the procedures for election of President and VP. Note that ELECTORS are supposed to be the ones making the selection – NOT THE PEOPLE. [There is a reason for that.] For an illustration of how this works, go HERE and read the subheadings, “Electors” Appointed by States Were To Choose The President! and The 12th Amendment Establishes Procedures For Voting By Electors. So! Assume we followed the Constitution on this issue and we get to the part where Congress is counting the votes as provided by 12th Amendment. And Lo! Congress discovers that the person who got the most votes for President is NOT QUALIFIED by reason of age, or not being a natural born citizen, or not having been for at least 14 years a Resident within the United States.
Obviously, it’s Congress’ job to make the ruling – to make the call – on whether the President and VP – selected by the ELECTORS – are qualified under Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5.
So what happens if Congress finds that the person with the most votes for President is not qualified? We look to Sec. 3 of the 20th Amendment. It tells us what happens. If the President elect has failed to qualify, then the VP elect shall act as President… Now, read the rest of that Section. We would also need to see whether Congress has made any of the authorized laws providing for such contingencies.
So, under the Constitution as written, it is Congress’ job to make the call as to whether the President elect and the VP elect are qualified.
THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR THE FEDERAL COURTS TO DECIDE. That is because this is a “political question” – not a “legal question”. The power to make the ruling as to whether the president elect or the VP elect are qualified has been delegated to CONGRESS. Traditionally, federal courts have “abstained” from deciding “political questions”. We study this in our first year constitutional law class, when we study judicial “abstention” from certain kinds of cases including cases which involve “political questions” or the exercise of powers delegated to the Legislative or Executive branches. When a power is delegated to one of the “political branches” (Legislative or Executive), the federal courts (the “legal branch”) have traditionally declined to interfere and substitute their judgment for that of the “political branch” to which the Power was delegated. And what if Congress gives an ineligible person a pass – as they did with obama? WELL THEN, SHAME ON US –
BECAUSE WE ARE THE ONES WHO ELECTED THOSE IGNORANT COWARDS TO OFFICE!
I Sure would love to lock Publius Huldah and Judge Anna Maria Riezinger in the same room and find out what they believed when they were let out. Most certainly they are both highly intelligent scholars, but they obviously have some different opinions on American governance. My preference would be for them both to unite on Anna’s research. Maybe then the ignorant sheeple would understand they have been beguiled from the cradle and are not qualified to be American’s. AMERICA HAS BEEN UNDER THE RULE OF THE INTERNATIONAL BANKING CARTEL FROM THE GET GO, AND IT IS “NOT A DEMOCRACY”! IT’S A CORPORATION! THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION IS ONLY USED TO KEEP US CONFUSED WHEN IT SUITS THEM. THE CORPORATE BY-LAWS ARE THE CORPORATIONS CONSTITUTION.
WAKE THE HELL UP AMERICA!
Comments Off on Who Makes the Ruling that Someone is not Qualified for the Office of President of the United States?
December 17, 2015-TPATH- Regardless of which presidential candidate you support, it is highly unlikely that any one of them will be able to turn back the pages of time to when America was a shining city on a hill. Many believe that our plummet from nobility is multi-faceted and cannot be laid squarely at any one person’s feet or attributed to any one cause. That opinion may not be accurate.
Our Founding Fathers created a form of government that would guide us through a myriad of challenges. They did not do so lightly. They researched. They argued. They debated and they agonized over every aspect of our Constitution, fully understanding the final draft’s attributes and loopholes. For more than a century and a half, the system worked – even through the Civil War and the immoral challenges of slavery. The ability of the Constitution to be amended was significant and our humble Founders understood that significance. They also understood that this significant attribute could also lead to our national demise. Had they been prophets, they would have also foreseen the damage progressive thinking would have on our way of life and the liberties we hold so dear. Prophecy aside, they did understand that the survival of these United States was dependant on a moral and religious people.
In October of 1798 in an address to General Walker, John Adams is quoted as saying: “…Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Adams knew what he said and why he said it. It is unfortunate that only this segment of his speech is quoted. Its entirety speaks volumes to the primary cause responsible for our impending national doom.
Therefore, as we ponder how to “Make America Great Again,” perhaps we should be looking to the wisdom of one of our most passionate founders and not to any modern day political figure. Adams not only stated clearly that morality and religion were foundational principles of our Constitution, he also stated why. Below are segments of that speech that apply directly to us today.
…But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising (sic) iniquity and extravagance…in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the New World; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other… (Emphasis added)
Adams may not have known Obama, or One World Order people, or our feckless representatives personally, but he certainly knew about the character traits they imbue. He understood that a government that sought to protect personal liberty could not do that if its citizens were not capable of governing themselves on a personal basis. No, Adams was not a prophet. However, his understanding of human nature and its effects on government can be considered prophetic.
As intuitive as Adams may have been, even he did not foresee a movement that would initialize a stronghold on the very notion of Providence and its God – a movement that would be A-religious and consequently A-moral. Arguably, Charles Darwin was as influential as Christ Himself on succeeding cultures and governments. Darwinism clearly gives license to those wishing to become their own gods, since the real God and His precepts and principles are removed from their belief system. The American Progressive/Regressive Movement is the best example of a philosophy based on Darwinism that is changing our country.
And like its predecessor millennia ago in the Garden of Eden, these modern day Adams and Eves that embrace evolution believe they can create their own morality and consequently their own version of truth. It’s really the same old apple. In reality, their logic is not flawed. If God isn’t the creator, either He is a liar or He doesn’t exist. If the latter is true, then the progressive/regressives would be correct. Absolute truth would not exist, and therefore subjective truth reigns. They fail to realize that if truth is not absolute, it is not truth at all but merely opinion. In addition to just being plain wrong, the problem is that their subjective application has filled our prisons, destroyed our system of government, and perverted our children. It has perverted the very principle of freedom of religion into freedom from religion and in so doing has slowly been corrupting our moral foundation. As the Bible states: “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Psalm 11:3.
Barack Obama, our present day progressive/regressive icon, was not the first narcissist to embrace racism. Hitler, Stalin and Mao beat him to the punch – all evolutionists that believed they could set their own standards based on their subjective truths. We know these names and the horrors they committed unbridled by absolute truth or righteousness that respects life; however, there were still others before them. All were charismatic and passionate speakers. These tyrants capitalized on a misinformed and misguided populace that had no standard to judge their rhetoric by. And there is no absolute standard except for the Word of God, which is systematically being removed from the public conscience under the guise of freedom of religion. Under these conditions, it should be no surprise that we, as a nation, have fallen with such force and such speed. Adams’ statement that our government was made for a moral and religious people should be echoing throughout our collective national soul. Banishing God has not led to a Utopian way of life. It never has and it never will. So whether our national demise is multi-faceted or not, its cause is singular: we are fast becoming a Godless nation – unfortunately proving Adams correct.
So while we debate which political party is better or which presidential candidate can restore America to greatness, the wise among us will be standing on their knees and waiving the banner of truth and truth’s one and only God. If America repents, and if America turns from legalizing immorality and justifying infanticide among other things, then and only then does America have a chance of restoring its greatness. And to be sure, greatness cannot be restored to us by any man except the man Jesus Christ. While Christ may not be running for the presidency, let’s once again elect Him as our one and only king, as they did at the time of the Revolutionary War. If you are so inclined, I encourage you to join with me in coining a new, but old cry:
No King but Jesus; No Sovereign but God.
Simple words but they carry the greatest hope for a dying nation.
I am not a legal counsel for the General (Dunford). We are all working on reclaiming American assets for Americans. For right now, it’s improper to call what we are doing a “New Republic”— that will require a public education process, each one making their political status (citizenship, etc.) choices, the election of Fiduciary Deputies from each State to attend a Continental Congress to either amend or abolish the existing actual Constitution.
For now, we have saved The Constitution for the united States of America. The rats sought to “vacate” the contract by entering the UNITED STATES, INC. into bankruptcy without naming a successor to contract. That left the “federal” side of the contract vacant and flapping in the wind. We formed an agreement with the American Native Nations — the Athabasca and Lakota– to fulfill the federal side. We issued two sets of Sovereign Letters Patent, one to reaffirm the united States of America, and one to establish a new arrangement with the Native people to bring them out of their POW status and incarceration in the Jurisdiction of the Sea and put them back on the land as free, sovereign, and independent people. We then sealed this arrangement with a Declaration of Joint Sovereignty, spelling out the intent of our actions.
These actions were sent by Registered Mail to the Pope, the Queen, the UN Security Council, the United Nations Secretary General and others.
For the first time since the original Constitution was adopted, the federal side of the contract is now in the hands of Americans devoted to America— not British (Federal Reserve) or French (IMF) interlopers. For the first time, the Federal Agents have a vested interest in truly and honestly protecting America and Americans, because if they hurt or plunder us, they hurt and plunder themselves.
And now we are all going after the assets that are owed to Americans which have been purloined by international banks and the “governmental services corporations” they have run as storefronts —under conditions of gross fraud and deceit.
Please note there is no “statute of limitation” on the crime of fraud, much less malicious fraud tort claims.
I have heard it often said that there is no one right way to accomplish a goal. I agree. However, I would add that while there is no such thing as “one right way” to achieve an objective, this does not mean there aren’t numerous WRONG ways to achieve an objective.
Doing “something” is not always better than doing nothing if that “something” is based on terrible strategy. Unfortunately, there are people out there with otherwise good intentions, even in the liberty movement, that seem to think that taking action without planning is preferable to patience. They do not understand that there is such a thing as negative returns. The reality is that action is easy. Patience and planning are difficult. Emotional reaction is simple. Quiet professionalism is complicated.
This is the dynamic that is plaguing the liberty movement today; the battle between our emotional drive to jump headlong into conflict with our progressively corrupt establishment, and the absolute necessity for intelligent strategy and proper timing. The issue here is not “fighting.” Most of us know and accept the fact that a fight is coming whether we like it or not. I say by all means, let’s fight, but fighting is not enough. If we fight, we must fight TO WIN, and this requires fighting smart.
On the other side of the coin, the weak handed and weak hearted will argue that fighting in any respect is “useless” or “immoral” and will result in failure. This is the pacifist camp, which never produces much in the way of practical solutions. There are very useful and peaceful methods for non-participation and nullification, most of which I am happy to promote. That said, non-participation is only part of the battle. If you are dealing with a psychopathic adversary (which we are), ultimately that adversary will use overt violence to stop you from nullifying their authority. If you are not willing to use active self defense against true evil based on some deluded Gandhi complex, then you and the historical memory of you will be erased. It is perfectly possible for a person to fight in self defense while maintaining his core principles.
If you fight, then there is a chance. If you do not fight, then failure is guaranteed. The “odds” are irrelevant. How you fight (fighting smart) is the only matter of importance.
Recently I have seen a growing contingent of people within the movement that seek a fight but question the concept of planning or waiting. They’ll argue that planning is somehow impractical, or that there will never be a perfect time for action. This way of thinking has only been inflated by the latest events in Burns, Oregon.
The Oregon standoff is a stunning example of how emotional action leads to failure and tragedy. Many will argue over the circumstances surrounding the death of Lavoy Finicum — did he reach into his jacket, or was he reacting to being shot? Were the police officers involved in fear for their lives, or were they out for blood? The majority of liberty activists will undoubtedly assume malicious intent on the part of the government due to their track record of murder and lies. I don’t blame them. That said, I would point out that while Finicum may be dead because of ill intent on the part of trigger happy cops, he was put in that position in the first place due to inadequate planning and leadership.
The argument that the FBI should have never been in Burns in the first place overlooks the fact that Bundy and team, strategically speaking, should not have been there either. They could have been in a far better position if only they had thought their conundrum through.
Oregon and the death of Finicum are not failures on the part of the liberty movement. They are failures on the part of Bundy and team, who refused to listen to scores of people with far more experience and knowledge in such situations; the same people who tried to help the occupiers adjust their tactics and offer them safer ground and safer footing. The failure in Oregon is what happens when amateurs, not just in training but in tactical philosophy, undertake a rebellion.
Some will argue that experienced tacticians within the movement (and there are many) refused to show up for the fight, and thus sentenced the occupiers to defeat. I would argue that the Oregon standoff was FUBAR from the very beginning. From its inception it was doomed. Half the movement saw it plain as day. For me, the end result was obvious.
A team of well-meaning but unorganized and untrained activists thrust themselves into a situation beyond their capabilities and under the potential influence of agents provocateur. There was no vetting for random strangers seeking to join their ranks; no direct goals and no clearly defined strategy, only vague demands and notions. No thought of planning one or two steps ahead, let alone five steps ahead. A circus atmosphere inspiring public ridicule rather than public respect. A complete lack of understanding of the gravity of the situation leading to a false sense of safety and comfort, or in some cases even hubris.
This is why most liberty tacticians had no interest in showing up to the Oregon standoff; not because they were fearful, not because they are “sunshine patriots,” not because they are waiting for a “perfect” moment that will never come to kick off a revolution.
They did not show up because it was a scenario that could not be salvaged. It was a carnival. Period.
To compare events to the first American Revolution, I do not see the standoff and the shooting of Finicum as a Lexington Green moment (though it hasn’t fully ended yet). Rather, I see it as a Boston Massacre moment. The Boston Massacre was an absolute tragedy, but also not a cut-and-dried affair. John Adams, acting as legal defense for the British soldiers accused of initiating bloodshed, realized that the Sons Of Liberty were desperate to use the event politically to rally support for direct revolution, but also understood that the timing and the circumstances were utterly wrong. The Sons of Liberty wanted to hold up the Boston
Massacre as a symbol of ALL the oppression the colonials suffered under the crown. Adams, though an avid champion of the cause, correctly treated it as a singular tragedy and not an opportunity for exploitation.
The colonials would eventually enter into revolution at Lexington and Concord; clearly defined defensive scenarios in which the militia obstructed the path of British soldiers sent to arrest leaders of the Sons of Liberty (Samuel Adams and John Hancock), as well as to confiscate firearms and black powder caches. The militia had a direct goal (to impede the British from reaching Adams and Hancock) and the British used clear and overt force against them, resulting in an immediate and violent justified response by other militias. This is one right way to start a rebellion. So if Oregon represents an example of the wrong way to do things, what is a better way? I described alternative methods with a much greater chance of success in my article “Real Strategies For Removing Federal Presence From Western Lands,” but I would like to explore beyond specific tactics and discuss mindset — the overall philosophy behind a winning rebellion in our modern era.
Divided We Win, United We Fall
This might sound counter-intuitive; I’ll explain.
A movement should be united in its stance and its values in order to succeed and I believe the liberty movement is indeed united for the most part on these terms. However, when it comes to concrete action the more centralized our efforts the less we will achieve and the more likely we are to fail.
I find it interesting that whenever a call goes out to the movement to take action it usually involves concentrating large masses of us into a small area with no outlined plan or directives. With the exception of Bundy Ranch, which I believe was entirely organic in how it came about, most of these calls to arms are initiated by questionable personalities or people possibly under the influence of provocateurs who seek to march us all into a box, whether it be a bridge in Washington, D.C. or a scrub brush refuge in Oregon. In the face of a vastly superior opponent in terms of arms and technology, it seems to me that the establishment would prefer us all to be hyper-focused on only one battle space at one time, putting all our eggs in one basket and leaving us vulnerable.
Instead, a rebellion in this day and age must be asymmetric in nature; meaning smaller groups acting covertly on their own initiative everywhere rather than in only one place. Amassing in one small region might be useful under very specific conditions, but if you want to pose an actual threat to a large criminal system, you need hundreds of events, all of them far better planned than Oregon. Organization Through Localism
If you cannot even secure your own family or your own neighborhood from potential threats, then why would you expect to be successful in projecting out to a whole other state and community and securing it instead? Local organization is more important than national organization or grand posturing on the national stage. If you can strengthen your own community while others do the same across the country, then the effects will be felt nationally by default. Far more can be accomplished through localism than by rolling the dice on mass theatricality and Alamo-style tactics. Communications Networking
Unity does not come best through concentrated action but through solid communications. The fact that most of the liberty movement has no coms networks outside of the mainstream grid is a sad state of affairs that will lead to our downfall. As far as my information shows, the Oregon occupiers had no ham radio communications and relied primarily on cell phones. This is a disaster waiting to happen.
When there is a national network of ham operators providing communications to the liberty movement, then and only then can we claim to have the means to organize effectively outside of our own communities. Do not assume for a second that you will have access to mainstream grid communications when you need them.
Prepare To Aid People Outside The Movement
The establishment would like nothing more than for the liberty movement to completely isolate itself from the general public. The more we refuse to interact with our communities the easier it will be to paint us as dangerous outsiders. The more we offer valuable services and training to a community, such as classes on emergency medical response, personal defense against active shooters, food storage and preparedness, etc., the more likely we will be seen as valuable assets to that community in the wake of a crisis. I have been undertaking such efforts in my own community for the past couple of years and have met many excellent people who are of like mind but not necessarily “activists” in the traditional sense. If you discount efforts to improve your local situation and to build bridges, you do so at your own peril.
Focus On The True Culprits
Eventually, someone is going to have to bring the international banking elites to justice for their direct influence over government corruption and destructive economic policy. Making stands against the Bureau of Land Management and other questionable federal agencies might be a necessary part of this fight, but the fight will never end until the original perpetrators are removed at the root. Beware of any group or “leader” who calls you to action but ignores the money-elite; they are probably more interested in exploiting you than helping you.
Perhaps most important of all is the need for liberty activists to adopt an attitude of quiet professionalism. This means analyzing situations objectively. This means having one’s heart in the right place without being driven emotionally. This means attaining personal excellence in any field of knowledge that might help you to gain victory.
Winning this fight will require the extraordinary dedication of extraordinary individuals; anything less will result in disaster. Giving our all does not mean simply being willing to sacrifice our lives. That may be what happens, but this cannot be our only trump card.
If you are not striving every day to master your own skills and initiative then you are not giving your all. If you are not organizing effectively at the local level because you assume no one will listen to you, then learn to communicate better and try again. If your only plan is to go out guns blazing, then you might as well stay home because you will do more harm for the movement than good.
Become a local pillar rather than a mere complainer. Seek to produce results rather than demanding others do it for you. When you act, act intelligently. Be steady in your resolve and do not let anger or panic rule your thinking. Be fair in your assessments, and above all, once again, if you fight, fight to win. Fighting merely in the name of fighting is a fool’s game. If the movement had 10,000 individuals of this caliber victory would be assured against any odds.
You can read more from Brandon Smith at his site Alt-Market.com
Spending just five minutes onhttp://www.annavonreitz.com/ should convince you that America can still be saved, IF you will get off your ass and get involved by spreading her work to everyone you can. Consider what we could do if one hundred million Americans were involved in promoting her work. Now, what’s your excuse?
(I don’t have time!) DUH! I’ve heard that so many times I could puke! Do you honestly believe that our lives’ are not as chaotic as yours? I would love to go down to my pistol range and spend the whole day there, every day! Besides shooting a thousand rounds; there are hundreds of target configurations I would love to try out, which means real hard labor moving steel plate stands around. BUT I DON’T! Because if I sit on my fanny or play all day I will not have fulfilled my obligation to destroy tyranny where-ever I find it.
Remember, our children are going to pay for our laziness.
(I would lose all my friends!) Hea, if they get mad tell them to go piss up a rope. They are not Americans. They are useless eaters. They sponge off the labor of Patriots who are involved in preserving freedom.
(I’m afraid of the federal cops throwing me in jail and stealing my children.) What the hell do you think we are doing this for? Taking your children is not half as bad as Big Uncle making socialist out of them.
Let me make a suggestion. Pick up a copy of this book; PUTIN’S KLEPTOCRACY by Karen Dawisha……..READ IT, and consider what it’s like to live in Russia, then consider how stupid it is to allow our government to be like theirs. If that doesn’t get your attention and make you resolve to help spread the word, then nothing can save you from it.
If you refuse to take any advice from me, below is a warning from a much more qualified man you might want to read.
Even before his coronation in 1626, King Charles I of England was heavily in debt.
His predecessors King James and Queen Elizabeth had run the royal treasury down to almost nothing.
Costly war and military folly had taken its toll. The crown had simply wasted far too much money, and taken in too little.
To make matters worse, King Charles was constantly at odds with parliament.
The English government was completely dysfunctional, with constant bickering, personal attacks, and very little sound decision-making.
Parliament refused to pass the taxes that Charles needed to make ends meet. But at the same time, the King was legally unable to levy his own taxes without parliamentary approval.
So, faced with financial desperation, he began to look for alternative ways to raise revenue.
One way was relying on practically ancient, obscure laws that still existed on the books.
The Distraint of Knighthood, for example, was based on an act from 1278, roughly three and a half centuries before Charles’ coronation.
The Act gave him the legal authority to fine all men with a minimum level of income who did not present themselves in person at his coronation.
Charles also commandeered vast amounts of land, restoring the boundaries of the royal forests to where they had been during the time of King Edward I in the 13th century.
He then fined anyone who encroached on the land, and resold much of it to industries that were supportive of his reign.
King Charles even resorted to begging; in July 1626, he requested that his subjects “lovingly, freely, and voluntarily” give him money.
When that didn’t work, the King levied a Forced Loan in September of that year, effectively confiscating people’s funds under the guise of ‘borrowing’ it.
He raised about £250,000, the equivalent of about $7.5 billion today. Emboldened by his success, Charles eventually began to seize assets directly, including all the gold on deposit being held at the Royal Mint– money that belonged to the merchants and goldsmiths of England.
At one point Charles even forced the East India Company to ‘loan’ him their pepper and spice inventory for £63,283. He subsequently sold everything in the market at a steep loss.
If any of this sounds familiar, it should. Today there is no shortage of nations that are facing fiscal desperation. Most of Europe. Japan, & The United States.
In the Land of the Free, the government has spent years… decades… engaged in the most wasteful folly, from multi-trillion dollar wars to a multi-billion dollar website that doesn’t work.
US debt just hit $19 trillion a few days ago. And it’s only going higher. We can already see the depths of the government’s financial desperation. Over the years, the government has effectively levied a ‘forced loan’ totaling more than $2.6 trillion on the Social Security Trust Fund, whose ultimate beneficiaries are the taxpayers of the United States.
Last year the government stole more from Americans through ‘Civil Asset Forfeiture’ than all the thieves in the United States combined.
On December 31, 2015, the US government confiscated $19.3 billion in capital from the Federal Reserve, which, by the way, was already very thinly capitalized.
The government published over 80,000 pages of laws, bills, rules, regulations, and executive orders last year. Just this morning they published another 308 pages.
It’s impossible for anyone to keep up with all of these rules. And yet each of these can carry civil, criminal, and monetary penalties, including a fine now for not having health insurance.
As Mark Twain used to say, history may not repeat, but it certainly rhymes.
Financially insolvent governments of major superpowers do not simply go gentle into that good night.
They don’t suddenly turn over a new leaf and start embracing economic freedom.
No. They get worse. More desperate. More destructive.
Should we honestly believe that the government can continue to indebt itself indefinitely without consequence, as if the largest accumulation of debt that has ever existed in the history of the world is somehow consequence-free?
At some point, fiscal reality always catches up. Maybe not at $19 trillion. Maybe not even at $20 trillion.
Maybe it takes 3 months. Or 3 years. But somewhere out there is a straw that can break the camel’s back.
Never forget that if something is predictable, then it’s also preventable.
And facing such obvious trends, it makes all the sense in the world to take some simple, rational steps to put together your own Plan B.
Simon Black Founder, SovereignMan.com
PS: In the upcoming weeks I will be holding a free webcast discussing the most important tools and tactics that are necessary in creating a Plan B. You can sign up to attend for free by clicking here.
Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours. There is no need for wardens or gates or Ministries of Truth. When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; a culture-death is a clear possibility. — Professor Neil Postman
If there are two spectacles that are almost guaranteed to render Americans passive viewers, incapable of doing little more than cheering on their respective teams, it’s football and politics—specifically, the Super Bowl and the quadrennial presidential election. Both football and politics encourage zealous devotion among their followers, both create manufactured divisions that alienate one group of devotees from another, and both result in a strange sort of tunnel vision that leaves the viewer oblivious to anything else going on around them apart from the “big game.”
Both football and politics are televised, big-money, advertising-driven exercises in how to cultivate a nation of armchair enthusiasts who are content to sit, watch and be entertained, all the while convincing themselves that they are active contributors to the outcome. Even the season schedules are similar in football and politics: the weekly playoffs, the blow-by-blow recaps, the betting pools and speculation, the conferences, and then the final big championship game.
In the same way, both championship events are costly entertainment extravaganzas that feed the nation’s appetite for competition, consumerism and carnivalesque stunts. In both scenarios, cities bid for the privilege of hosting key athletic and political events. For example, San Francisco had to raise close to $50 million just to host the 50th Super Bowl, with its deluxe stadium, Super Bowl City, free fan village, interactive theme park, and free Alicia Keys concert, not including the additional $5 million cost to taxpayers for additional security. Likewise, it costs cities more than $60 million to host the national presidential nominating conventions for the Republicans and Democrats.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that there is anything wrong with enjoying the entertainment that is football or politics. However, where we go wrong as a society is when we become armchair quarterbacks, so completely immersed in the Big Game or the Big Campaign that we are easily controlled by the powers-that-be—the megacorporations who run both shows—and oblivious to what is really going on around us.
For instance, while mainstream America has been fixated on the contenders for the Vince Lombardi Trophy and the White House, the militarized, warring surveillance state has been moving steadily forward. Armed drones, increased government surveillance and spying, SWAT team raids, police shootings of unarmed citizens, and the like continue to plague the country. None of these dangers have dissipated. They have merely disappeared from our televised news streams. In this way, television is a “dream come true” for an authoritarian society.
Television isolates people so they are not joining together to govern themselves. As clinical psychologist Bruce Levine notes, viewing television puts one in a brain state that makes it difficult to think critically, and it quiets and subdues a population. And spending one’s free time isolated and watching TV interferes with our ability to translate our outrage over governmental injustice into activism, and thus makes it easier to accept an authority’s version of society and life.
Supposedly the reason why television—and increasingly movies—are so effective in subduing and pacifying us is that viewers are mesmerized by what TV-insiders call “technical events.” These, according to Levine, are “quick cuts, zoom-ins, zoom-outs, rolls, pans, animation, music, graphics, and voice-overs, all of which lure viewers to continue watching even though they have no interest in the content.” Such technical events, which many action films now incorporate, spellbind people to continue watching. Televised entertainment, no matter what is being broadcast, has become the nation’s new drug high. Researchers found that “almost immediately after turning on the TV, subjects reported feeling more relaxed, and because this occurs so quickly and the tension returns so rapidly after the TV is turned off, people are conditioned to associate TV viewing with a lack of tension.”
Not surprisingly, the United States is one of the highest TV-viewing nations in the world. Indeed, a Nielsen study reports that American screen viewing is at an all-time high. For example, the average American watches approximately 151 hours of television per month. That does not include the larger demographic of screen-watchers who watch their entertainment via their laptops, personal computers, cell phones, tablets and so on.
Historically, television has been used by those in authority to quiet citizen unrest and pacify disruptive people. In fact, television-viewing has also been a proven tactic for ensuring compliance in prisons. “Faced with severe overcrowding and limited budgets for rehabilitation and counseling, more and more prison officials are using TV to keep inmates quiet,” according to Newsweek. Joe Corpier, a convicted murderer, when interviewed said, “If there’s a good movie, it’s usually pretty quiet through the whole institution.”
In other words, television and other screen viewing not only helps to subdue people but, as Levine concludes, it also zombifies and pacifies us and subverts democracy.
Television viewing, no matter what we’re collectively watching—whether it’s American Idol, the presidential debates or the Super Bowl—is a group activity that immobilizes us and mesmerizes us with collective programming. In fact, research also shows that regardless of the programming, viewers’ brain waves slow down, thus transforming them into a more passive, nonresistant state.
As such, television watching today results in passive group compliance in much the same way that marching was used by past regimes to create group indoctrination. Political advisor Bertram Gross documents how Adolf Hitler employed marching as a technique to mobilize people in groups by immobilizing them. Hitler and his regime leaders discovered that when people gather in groups and do the same thing—such as marching or cheering at an entertainment or sporting event—they became passive, non-thinking non-individuals.
By replacing “marching” with electronic screen devices, we have the equivalent of Hitler’s method of population control. Gross writes: As a technique of immobilizing people, marching requires organization and, apart from the outlay costs involved, organized groups are a potential danger. They might march to a different drum or in the wrong direction….TV is more effective. It captures many more people than would ever fill the streets by marching—and without interfering with automobile traffic.
Equally disturbing is a university study which indicates that we become less aware of our individual selves and moral identity in a group. The study’s findings strongly suggest that when we act in groups, we tend to consider our moral behavior less while moving in lockstep with the group. Thus, what the group believes or does, be it violence or inhumanity, does not seem to lessen the need to be a part of a group, whether it be a mob or political gathering.
So what does this have to do with the Super Bowl and the upcoming presidential election? If fear-based TV programming—or programming that encourages rivalries and factions—makes people more afraid and distrustful of one another, then our current television lineup is exactly what is needed by an authoritarian society that depends on a “divide and conquer” strategy.
Moreover, according to Levine, authoritarian-based programming is more technically interesting to viewers than democracy-based programming. War and violence, for example, may be rather unpleasant in real life. However, peace and cooperation make for “boring television.”
What this means is that Super Bowl matches and presidential contests are merely more palatable, less bloody, manifestations of war suitable for television viewing audiences.
This also explains why television has become the medium of choice for charismatic politicians with a strong screen presence. They are essentially television performers—actors, if you will. Indeed, any successful candidate for political office—especially the President—must come off well on TV. Television has the lure of involvement. A politically adept president can actually make you believe you are involved in the office of the presidency.
The effective president, then, is essentially a television performer. As the renowned media analyst Marshall McLuhan recognized concerning television: “Potentially, it can transform the presidency into a monarchist dynasty.” If what we see and what we are told through the entertainment industrial complex—which includes so-called “news” shows—is what those in power deem to be in their best interests, then endless screen viewing is not a great thing for a citizenry who believe they possess choice and freedom. Mind you, the majority of what Americans watch on television is provided through channels controlled by a corporate elite of six mega corporations with the ability to foster a particular viewpoint or pacify its viewers on a large scale.
Unfortunately for us, the direction of the future, then, may be towards a Brave New World scenario where the populace is constantly distracted by entertainment, hooked on prescription drugs and controlled by a technological elite.
Freedom, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, is an action word. It means turning off your screen devices—or at least greatly reducing your viewing time—and getting active to take to stave off the emerging authoritarian government.
Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, and the countless science fiction writers and commentators have warned that we are in a race between getting actively involved in the world around us or facing disaster. If we’re watching, we’re not doing.
As television journalist Edward R. Murrow warned in a 1958 speech: We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.
Comments Off on Television, Football and Politics: Gaming Spectacles Designed to Keep the Police State in Power
We lost Dottie Seese on Dec.11th – She saw far ahead of the time she wrote this piece. How many times does history have to be repeated before the People wake up and push the ENEMY WITHIN back into its’ hole?
American heritage has been demeaned, despised and desecrated. It has also been revised by revisionists who have graduated from universities that inculcate principles of the cultural revolutionaries. The South was uniquely regional in its character, belief system, social behavior and pride. A new “reconstruction” is mopping up where new, lesser and quieter “Shermans” have come and taken over its cities, media, schools and political arenas. The South will one day find its biscuits and gravy have been banned by the World Health Organization as nothing but flour and grease, and replaced by baked broccoli omelettes with sliced tomatoes. No Southerner will be permitted to refer to the Stars and Stripes as the “Union flag” and all displays of the Confederate battle flag will be banned under penalty of law. Free speech emanates from free thinking, and to control freedom of speech is eventually to change the direction and tenor of free thought.
The South has always been unique in character, something that the cultural revolution cannot permit in any area of the country. Arizonans were once rugged individualists. That situation has been corrected by cultural revolutionaries quietly moving over from California and occupying the major cities and some of the pricier small towns. In each case the newcomers took command by vocal minorities (or majorities) and initiating activism for liberal agendas. The only way the Arizona state seal escaped being altered for having the motto “Ditat Deus” (God provides) is that no one speaks Latin. There is no need to make an issue out of things the general public doesn’t comprehend, the objective is to make issues out of what the public understands all too well, and to do it for great causes like “the children” or “the environment” or, that greatest of all masques, “the future of our country.”
The Revolution is over, and Americans are desensitized to the point where nothing short of an attack on New York, Washington, or San Francisco will get their attention, a larger attack than Nine-Eleven. Cases of outrage are few. The government ran some tests as to the outrage threshold of Americans and found it was peculiarly dense, satisfactory to the cultural commandants, when free Americans shrugged their shoulders at:
The killing of Vicky Weaver at Ruby Ridge by an FBI sniper;
The incinerating of women and children at the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas;
The institution of martial law in Georgia twice, once in 1996 for the Olympics and again in June 2004 for the G8 Summit meeting on Sea Island.
The outsourcing of American border security to Accenture, a Bermuda-based corporation (formerly Arthur Andersen and Co. of the Enron scandal infamy), to pay offshore crooks up to $10 billion to “defend” the American borders, but no one has said which way the guns will be facing. We do know that the U.S. Marines, when questioned as to whether they would fire on fellow Americans, said “no.” Outsourcing to mercenaries is the only answer to a military that is loyal to its countrymen until they can be replaced by those whose mindset is not to protect the people but only the state and the powers that run it.
Whoever controls the firepower controls the state, which is why the insistence of the various UN and liberal American globalists that average citizens surrender their guns. Los Angeles is out of control with gangs and a police force that is not controlling them. Murder rates in both Los Angeles, California and Phoenix, Arizona are staggering.
It will become necessary, of course, to have some sort of martial law to provide for the safety of our citizens, and the citizens will cry for protection at any price. After that, the success of The Second Revolution can be announced, but then it will be so obvious it will need no announcement, like daybreak. Or nightfall.
The Constitution is worth no more than the integrity of the judiciary that interprets it, so it can stand as the “living” framework for our nation as long as no one uses it to limit governmental authority over subjugated citizens.
Education has degenerated to little more than federal indoctrination, carried out through university level, for the purpose of instilling in young minds the worthlessness of the American heritage and the future of the new order to come. Heritage, ancestry, tradition, morality, religion, family lines and any other allegiances are worthless to statists and will be educated out of the newer generations just as they are being despised publicly and anyone who dares to speak to the contrary is expelled or otherwise disciplined for egregious behavior. Students are the tools of the order to come, to carry on where the mortal leaders of this generation leave off.
The shot that signaled the onset of the Second Revolution was the shot that killed the late president John F. Kennedy. The year 1963 saw prayers banned in schools, and the Christians didn’t oppose it, although something over 80% of this nation declares that they are “Christian.” That probably means they do not belong to any other religion, grandma was a Christian, or they go to church twice a year. JFK was about to do away with the Federal Reserve, which is neither part of the federal government nor a true reserve, it is a cartel of US and foreign bankers. They control the money supply of the United States, and they took the hard currency upon which our monetary system was based. When Kennedy announced his intentions, he did not live long.
The Second Revolution continued with the Vietnam war protests. Regardless of the benefit or uselessness of the war, the hippie movement, the flower children and flag burners were tolerated by Americans who shrugged as long as nothing was happening on their block. It was just something on the news. But it brought immorality into vogue, made way for the feminist bra-burning protests, and eventually the gay rights movement. Then came the drug dealers and cartels from around the world. Those were followed by an open border policy to the south, so that millions of illegal invaders could dilute the remnant of American culture by their sheer numbers and their general lawlessness. The sex trade became part of America’s corporate structure and philosophy, as was exposed during the war in Kosovo, then disappeared from journalistic sight.
Every bit of the above and more is available through the internet and breaking news wires. Such sources often yield interesting stories that are “timed out” and never picked up by major media. People have asked how I get my information. Via the internet, from village chat out in diners and markets, wherever I can pick up American thought and global information. The only work left to do for a writer is to connect the stories and conversations and make a coherent picture out of it, then type. The times, trends and events are out there for all to see, but most folks are too busy to look.
Many well-meaning Americans are waiting for the right time to fight the takeover of America by the New World Order. They are expecting a revolution. But … the revolution came, in fact it began over forty years ago. They were waiting for gunfire and got professors. They were waiting for tanks in the streets before it was time, so they got gay rights parades instead. They turned to homeschooling after the government had anticipated a small rebellion and instead merely got rules and requirements for homeschool curricula. The list could go on, but everything the honest American patriots were waiting for had been anticipated and circumvented by a different type of revolution.
The globalists are evil, but they are not stupid. Their planning has been better than anyone gave them credit for being able to accomplish.
It was time to “shoot the bastards” four decades ago but no one saw the handwriting on the wall. Now the wall is encircling us and everything we should like to see done to restore America. That will take a third revolution, because the second succeeded in taking our liberties and twisting our values, our mindsets and abolishing our cultural heritage. It was right out in plain sight, and no one saw. Now the internet writers are corresponding with each other while major media, a mind-control system straight from Stalin’s old Pravda, keeps spewing the doctrine of the new order in politically correct language and with slanted stories that the majority of Americans believe.
Written in June, 2004, from Occupied America.
Dottie, you are sorely missed, but your words will live forever in the minds of free people who accept no authority but Jesus Christ. Man made laws will never last the test of time. They will fade away like the after affects of a hurricane are forgotten.
Au revoir Granny
Comments Off on The Revolution? It’s Over! The Rest is Just Enforcement
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from his government." -Thomas Paine
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out...without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable.” FL. Hamer