Posts by olddog:
February 27th, 2017 by olddog
By Anna Von Reitz
The problem as I see it, is not lack of action— but lack of effective action— and also lack of understanding of how the fraud has been accomplished.
We now have it completely dissected, the entire mechanism scraped down to the bone for everyone to see.
What it amounts to is commercial fraud resulting in inland piracy and unlawful conversion of assets, all based on copyright and trademark infringement and identity theft.
The vexing question has always been, how to put an end to it? How to deliver an answer simple and inexpensive enough for the poorest and most ignorant people to benefit—- for if we leave anyone behind, we leave open the door for our own eventual re-enslavement.
Remedy has to be simple, cheap, easily understood, and easy to access. What is it?
For Americans I believe it is as simple as “surrendering the PERSON” provided by the UNITED STATES, INC., thereby releasing oneself from any presumption of voluntary participation in the scam.
But to whom? That is always the rub….. When one revokes an election to pay federal income taxes, one must notify the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service and the Commissioner of the IRS and now also the Commissioner of THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, past, present and future…..
Who do you notify when giving back the odious “gift” of a PERSON?
The absolute source of the PERSON(S) is the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, so it makes sense to notify the SECRETARY OF COMMERCE— but would you “surrender” a dangerous securitized PERSON to the SECRETARY OF COMMERCE? Isn’t that a bit like handing Charles Manson over to Porky Pig?
No, a notice to the SECRETARY OF COMMERCE who creates these noxious fictions and a notice to the SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE who holds the liens against them—- that makes practical sense as a “due notice” but they cannot logically be the official responsible for cashiering the PERSON.
The answer is in the 1934 Emergency Banking Act—- the Secretary of the Treasury, used to be Jacob Lew and now, Mr. Mnuchin.
So that is the official responsible for “depositing” the PERSONS and we are the Bounty Hunters responsible for collecting and surrendering them as in “surrendering” a criminal or prisoner or in some cases, a coupon, voucher, or certificate……ah, a certificate, an insurance indemnity receipt……
This all goes back to whether you want to operate in commerce or in trade.
You are “gifted” with the PERSON, for example, JOHN MICHAEL DOE, to enable you to operate in commerce and thereby become subjected to federal regulation and federal taxation. Oh, jolly! We all wanted that, right? We were just never told anything about it and forced into it when we were still babes in our cradles and didn’t have a clue what was going on. Our Mothers were never told, either, so they couldn’t tell us.
Our identities and our property were stolen literally “like candy from a baby” and the bastards got away with misrepresenting our political status, too.
That’s how little John Michael Doe became a ward of the UNITED STATES and became identified as a US CITIZEN operating the commercial “vessel” JOHN MICHAEL DOE.
That’s how we were press ganged and enslaved by the Queen of England and the Roman Pontiff, even though they are both supposed to be acting as our International Trustees.
The filthy vermin.
This is how we were forced to operate in commerce and fraudulently subjected to the foreign federal government under delegated powers. We granted them control of our commerce— not our trade— and this is how they contrived to beat us and rob us.
The absolute bottom-of-the-barrel criminals operating as ELIZABETH II and FRANCISCUS are still profiting from this, and we can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. They used their undeclared Foreign Agents, members of the Bar Associations, to implement this vile fraud against Americans and then also to collect the resulting unjust enrichment—- and we can prove that in spades, too.
They funneled their ill-gotten gains through the Bank of New York Mellon, laundered it through the Vatican Bank, and then after the Pope got his cut, sent it back via the Bank of Canada so the Queen got her bit of the heist, and left the remainder for the politicians in DC to cut up and parcel out bribes and kick-backs to the Territorial “states” and “counties” as “federal revenue sharing”.
Are you angry yet? Title to your home and land and businesses has all been stolen by these vipers, even your DNA and your name has been stolen and copyrighted by these vicious prigs for their own benefit.
But there IS a remedy. You get an authenticated STATE OF WHATEVER copy of “YOUR” BIRTH CERTIFICATE and shove it up their rear by writing a few things in red ink on it and sending Mr. Mnuchin a Notice of Fiduciary Relationship otherwise known as IRS Form 56.
And that is the end of JOHN MICHAEL DOE and all “HIS” bogus debts, which you have been forced to pay off all your life. You have returned him whence he came and there can no longer be any presumption that you are knowingly, willingly, “voluntarily” playing this game in which you give them everything and receive nothing but their debts in return.
When “JOHN MICHAEL DOE” goes down the tubes, so does the JOHN M. DOE (bankrupt) Public Transmitting Utility set up by Mr. Obummer. Be sure and tell Mr. Mnuchin that you want the entire “US CITIZENSHIP ORGANIZATION” liquidated and credited to The United States of America account without recourse.
And what is the Red Writing that you need to apply to the authenticated BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
Without disturbing the rivets connecting the BC with the fancy authentication certificate from the Territorial “State of” Secretary of State, you need to take a red ink pen and on the upper left hand corner of the BC print: Accepted by Drawee— by: Your Signature and the date.
Then on the back print: Pay to the Order of the United States of America, U.S. Treasury. Without Recourse. by: Your Signature and the date.
Send a cover letter along with the IRS Form 56 “Notice of Fiduciary Relationship” to Mr. Mnuchin and instruct him to open your credit account using the Registered Mail Number used to send him your packet containing the Form 56 and the Authenticated BC as the account number.
This credit is what is owed to you and your ancestors who were bilked. When you do this, the so-called “National Debt” is offset by the actual National Credit.
The Internal Revenue Service is the agency responsible for returning your credit and titles to your land and all your other property and is also responsible for prosecuting the rats who promulgated the unlawful seizure of your private assets to pay their public debts.
Tell Mr. Mnuchin that your claim is indemnified under subrogation by Private Registered Indemnity Bond AMRI00001 and Payment Bond AMRI00003 RA393427653US.
Send it all to Mr. Mnuchin via Registered Mail, keeping a copy and all receipts for your records.
An effort needs to be mounted to force the immediate issuance of credit cards related to these accounts to the people who have been defrauded and abused all these years so as to expedite their timely receipt of credit due and put a stop to any further false claims and inconvenience resulting from the continued billing of utility and other bills to JOHN MICHAEL DOE and JOHN M. DOE and whatever other fictions they can dream up and offer as voo-doo doll DEBTORS.
Mr. Trump and the members of the “Congress” need to be truly lit up with the news that this fraud is at an end.
As for all the rest, report it to the Internal Revenue Service.
In Foreclosure? Facing criminal “charges”?
These vermin have been double-dipping and robbing you and not reporting the “extra” income. They’ve been making false claims on abandonment and seizing hidden escrow bond accounts held in your NAME. They’ve been “securitizing” you as a slave, right down to your DNA and your name and selling “YOU” on the open market.
If you aren’t ready to spit, you surely ought to be.
The Roman Pontiff’s private Bill Collectors duded up and impersonating judges so as to provide “an appearance of justice” under “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”—har, har, har!—-have been eating out your substance like moths for decades and not paying their taxes.
Sounds like the Internal Revenue Service ought to be notified.
See this article and over 400 others on Anna’s website here:
February 25th, 2017 by olddog
By Rob Pue
February 25, 2017
Today’s message is not pleasant. In fact, it is utterly revolting. Yet, if we really intend to be true Salt and Light in a world ruled by the demonic, we MUST face the facts of the spiritual war that is raging all around us. We MUST be informed, lest we perish for lack of knowledge. I pray the Lord will open some eyes to the truth of the topic at hand today: The Homosexual Agenda.
I can hardly believe things have “progressed” this far down the path of deviancy, here in the United States and across the entire globe. As I read about what the world was like in the days of Noah and Lot, I have a hard time imagining that it could have been any worse or any more deviant than the days we’re living in RIGHT NOW. Those on the “left” will equate the depravity of sodomy and the right to commit acts of sexual abomination with such things as “civil rights,” “freedom,” and they will use phrases like “love wins” — when even the Supreme Court of this nation hands down a demonically-influenced decision and seeks to legislate this ugly immorality and impose it on us all.
And it does so by FORCE — as it must — for “where the Spirit of the Lord is,” Scripture reminds us, “there is liberty, (or freedom).” And CERTAINLY, the Spirit of the Lord is nowhere in this picture. One need only observe what Satan does every single time to all the laws of God and nature — he perverts them, twists them, whispers confusion into the minds of even God’s people, and he turns them 180 degrees to the opposite… So, in order for this Homosexual Agenda to go forward, there must NOT be, there CAN NOT be, ANY freedom…. it must be MANDATED, it must be FORCED upon the people. For this sin of sodomy is so wicked and so perverse, there are very few who would accept it willingly of their own freewill. (Statistics show, it’s less than 3%).
I have no doubt that there are SOME listening to me right now with smoke coming out of their ears, calling me a “hater,” a “homophobe” and worse things. While claiming to be fighting for love and tolerance, many of those who practice sodomy would readily kill me if they could. No “love” or “tolerance” for me. On the contrary, they — and their legions of advocates — are the LEAST tolerant and LEAST loving people on earth. “They are filled with lust and rage, with murder in their hearts, indwelled with the same demonic spirit that inhabited the men who marched through the streets of the city of Sodom in one of the world’s first “Gay Pride Parades,” then surrounded Lot’s house, demanding their perverted lusts be satisfied. Hear this people:” IT IS THE SAME SPIRIT! This is nothing new, it has simply resurfaced in our world today — and it is back with a FIERCE vengeance.
What we know today as the “LGBTQ” agenda has been accepted and normalized by MOST — hear this now, I said MOST — of the people of the world, including MANY pro- fessing Christians and many professing Christian churches. THAT is where we are at. Our culture has embraced it under the guise of “equality,” “civil rights” and “tolerance.” The Homosexual Agenda has MASSIVE funding by just about EVERY major corporation in the world. Recently many of us were aghast over the flap about Target opening their restrooms to so-called “transgender” individuals, so that men can now use the womens’ facilities. Yes, Target is one of the most pro-sodomite corporations out there. But they are only one of THOUSANDS. The better question might be, which corporations DO NOT support the Homosexual Agenda… because you’d likely be able to count those on one hand. Let’s face it; you cannot get away from this depravity. It’s everywhere, infiltrated into our churches, our government, our schools and colleges, our businesses, our factories, the news media, the entertainment world, the internet… You name it, it’s everywhere.
Let me give you one quick example. Go online and look up the definition of “Homosexual Agenda” on Wikipedia, which is the free “encyclopedia” on the internet. Here’s what it says, and I quote: “Homosexual agenda is a term introduced by sectors of the Christian right (primarily in the United States) as a disparaging way to describe the advocacy of cultural acceptance and normalization of non-heterosexual orientations and relationships. The term refers to efforts to change government policies and laws on LGBT rights-related issues. Additionally, it has been used by social conservatives and others to describe al- leged goals of LGBT rights activists, such as recruiting heterosexuals into what they term a “homosexual lifestyle.”
This is a direct quote from Wikipedia… and it only took them 11 words before they vilified CHRISTIANS in their supposed “unbiased” explanation of what “The Homosexual Agenda” actually is. Even I was amazed that Wikipedia would be SO pro-sodomite on their website, which I thought was alleged to be socially and culturally neutral. Yet in their first sentence, they basically stated “it’s those HATEFUL CHRISTIANS, those horrible “homophobes’ who want to squelch the rights of the wonderful freedom fighters who’ve been locked in a closet of shame for so long.” Wow.
But let’s delve a little deeper, and go back to the year 1987, when a man named Michael Swift penned a commentary for the “Gay Community News,” entitled “Gay Revolutionary.”
The “LGBT” community will be quick to ridicule me for sharing this, saying it was meant to be “satire.” But one need only look at what has happened to our world to see that the sodomite Utopia Swift dreamed of in 1987 is here today.
It took me three tries to read the entire essay, because I was so repulsed by it. Let’s see if I can just give you the gist of the message here… time and space does not permit me to include all of it, nor will I bring myself to repeat some of the language used in this… but you’ll get the idea. Here we go…. “The Gay Revolutionary,” by Michael Swift, written in 1987:
“We shall sodomize your sons… We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormi- tories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminar- ies, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.
“Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them…Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known…
“All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men. All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.
“If you dare to… (I am substituting the word ‘object’ here)… we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies… We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the…heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens.
“Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable… and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.
“We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents…your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the …heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.
“There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled.
“We shall raise vast private armies…to defeat you. We shall conquer the world… The family unit…will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated…
“All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men….We are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.
“…Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice…
“We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions….We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed …We, too, are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution. Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.”
There you have it, folks. This was written in 1987. The sodomites will argue this was meant to be satire, and perhaps at one time, by some, it was. But just look around you today, and see how much “progress” this Homosexual Agenda has made, especially in just in the past eight years under the sodomite tyranny of Barack Hussein Obama.
The devil has a team, and his demons are ORGANIZED and highly effective and de- ceptive. Meanwhile, those who claim to be God’s people scurry about… confused, dis- jointed, not knowing which way to to turn or what to believe. Why? Because they do not know their Bibles, and the Shepherds who are charged with the task of leading the flock, teaching them to obey all Christ has commanded are too ashamed of their Savior, too timid and too weak, too afraid of being called a “homophobe” or “un-Christ like” or “unloving” to tell the people the truth. They’d rather be well liked and popular. They prefer the praises of the people to the commands of Jesus. Let’s face it: MOST PASTORS WILL NEVER, EVER speak a single word about this. But it’s time we get informed. It’s time we SPEAK the truth, even though, in our world today, the TRUTH sounds like hate, because SO MANY HATE THE TRUTH!
On March 10th and 11th, we are hosting our annual Wisconsin Christian News Ministry Expo and Conference titled “REVIVING THE REMNANT BY REVEALING THE TRUTH.” Peter Labarbera, founder and president of Americans for Truth About Homo- sexuality will speak on the topic of “Revealing the Truth About the Homosexual Agenda.”
During the Conference, we will also be addressing all the other most vital and urgent things that we, as Christians, need to learn about and act upon in these troubled times. Usama Dakdok will Reveal the Truth about Islam. Matt Trewhella will speak on the atroc- ity of the Church’s apathy toward abortion, Coach Dave Daubenmire will teach us how to assemble ourselves together as God’s TEAM — giving us the COURAGE to truly BE salt and light amid this dark, demonic world. Julaine Appling with explain “The Foundation of the Family”, and Pastor Terry Fischer will speak on the Revelation of Jesus Christ. This is the most powerful lineup of speakers we have ever assembled, and we will be addressing the most vital and important things that we, as God’s remnant Church MUST deal with in such a time as this…. Please plan now to join us. WE NEED GOD’S TRUE PEOPLE, WE NEED CHRISTIANS to show up for this! It will be the most powerful event you’ve been to in a VERY long time. And… WHERE ELSE will you get all this information, and also be emboldened and encouraged to STAND COURAGEOUSLY for truth, and for your Lord? Call me for me details…. or follow this link.
Audio CDs and transcripts of this message are available when you call me at Wisconsin Christian News, (715) 486-8066. Or email Rob@WisconsinChristianNews.com and ask for message number 190.
© 2017 Rob Pue – All Rights Reserved
Rob is the founder and publisher of Wisconsin Christian News, a regional Christian newspaper. While the main distribution of the paper is Wisconsin-based, WCN also has subscribers in nearly all fifty states. He writes a monthly commentary for WCN, and can also be heard twice weekly, (Tuesdays and Saturdays) nationwide on the VCY America Radio Network, with his “From the Editor’s Desk” commentaries. Rob’s messages offer unique teaching and insights from God’s word, dealing with the most important issues of our day.
Words fail me to express my admiration for Mr. Pue. Just when I was convinced that the American Male had been subdued’ a real man stands up and without the Publishers denial sends forth the truth concerning the fagots invading our land. Kudos to you all! By the way folks, I hope you know by now that this acceptance of homos is all part of the globalist plan to destroy America as we know it, and I firmly believe it is not up to Christians to annihilate any group of humans regardless of how despicable they are, which makes separation the only acceptable plan. If you have your eyes open you know there are many tools being used to destroy our society, and what else is there besides reforming the people geographically? The states could reform their boundaries to accommodate different social and political difference’s. And even then we must be careful that people relocate according to a strict set of principals. The Christian Churches are already divided into unholy philosophy and theology is seldom even considered. We need some very smart people to help solve this conundrum.
February 24th, 2017 by olddog
by Ryan McMaken
In the wake of the Senate’s confirmation of the appointment of Betsy DeVos, the protests from the left prompted Republican Congressman Thomas Massie to offer them a way to get rid of DeVos: eliminate the Department of Education.
According to Massie, he’d been planning to introduce the bill for more than a year, and the controversy over DeVos appeared to be as good a time as any.
There’s no harm in Massie introducing the bill, of course, although as I’ve noted here, the odds of Republicans offering much help to Massie in passing the bill are pretty low.
But as long as we’re identifying cabinet-level agencies for the chopping block, why stop with the Department of Education?
There are plenty of other Departments which oversee activities that could easily be done by state and local agencies, or which should just be reduced to their former less-exalted positions in the federal ecosystem.
For starters, we’ll just address some of the low-hanging fruit. Here are agencies that can be eliminated with relative ease, either because they are recently-created, redundant, or utterly unnecessary.
One: The Department of Homeland Security, $51 Billion
Somehow, the United States managed to get along for more than 225 years before this Department was created by Congress and the Bush Administration in 2002.
The Department Quickly became a way for the federal government to spread federal taxpayer dollars to state and local law enforcement agencies, thus gaining greater control at the local level. The DHS administers a number of grant programs that have helped to purchase a variety of new toys for law enforcement groups including new weapons, and new technologies. Also included in this is the infamous military surplus program which is supplies tanks and other military equipment to police forces everywhere from big cities to small rural towns. The crime-free town of Keene, New Hampshire made sure its police received a tank through this program as have many larger cities.
When the Orlando gunman opened fire in the Pulse nightclub in 2016, the police eventually rolled up in a tank — which did nothing to stem the bloodshed inside the club.
Police claim they need these half-million-dollar vehicles from the DHS to deal with civil unrest. Never mind, of course, that every state already has a National Guard force specifically for that purpose.
While the Department was created in response to the 9/11 attacks, the Department does nothing to address anything like a 9/11-style attack, and all the agencies that were supposed to provide intelligence on such attacks — the FBI for instance — already exist in other departments and continue to enjoy huge budgets.
DHS also includes agencies that already existed in other departments before, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the agencies that handle immigration and customs. Those agencies should either be returned to the departments they came from or be abolished.
And, few would miss the Transportation Security Administration — an agency that has never caught a single terrorist, but has smuggled at least $100 million worth of cocaine.
Two: The EPA, $8.3 billion.
It seems at least one member of Congress already beat me to this one, and a bill to “terminate the Environmental Protection Agency” was introduced on February 3.
Created under Nixon in 1970, this agency largely exists today to push around small-time business owners, entrepreneurs, and mom-and-pop organizations that run afoul or some obscure federal regulation. More recently, The EPA dumped three million gallons of toxic sludge into a Colorado river, poisoning the Navajo Nation’s watershed. Meanwhile, the agency is suing a city in Colorado because the city’s storm drains aren’t exactly right.
Local property owners and local governments already have a large incentive to avoid the destruction of rivers and air used by local communities. In the modern era of nature-based recreation, destroying a mountain river — as the EPA has done — is an easy way to destroy the local economy.
Moreover, most of the environmental cleanup we attribute to federal regulation today was simply the result of growing wealth in the US. As Americans became wealthier, they began to value clean air and water more than the jobs associated with the “dirty” industries. Does anyone seriously believe that the Cuyahoga River would start catching on fire again without an EPA? It’s not going to happen.
Three: Department of the Interior, $14 billion
The most notorious agency within the Department of the Interior is the Bureau of Indian affairs. The BIA controls 55 million acres of land which is — to use the darkly euphemistic term employed by the Feds — “held in trust” by the US government. That means the Indian tribes can’t control their own land unless a bureaucrat at the Department of the Interior says so.
Given that the tribes should be totally independent of federal regulation, the BIA should be abolished immediately. Any relations between the tribes and US government should be handled by the State Department, which is the appropriate place to deal with organizations that are supposed to be governed primarily by treaties with the United States.
The other main purpose of the Interior is the control of immense amounts of “public lands” including national parks. The Department is unnecessary here as well, given that public land should be administered by the communities that are economically dependent on those lands. Moreover, whether we like the idea of public lands or not, the chances of public lands being privatized — if made into state lands — is approximately zero. State parks, national forests, and national parks are very popular with voters and moving them from federal control to state control won’t change this.
Four: The Department of Agriculture, $153 billion
This is the most expensive of the Departments funded here — primarily because the USDA oversees the Food Stamp program — now known as SNAP — which costs more than $70 billion. The reason the SNAP program is in the USDA is that SNAP has always largely been a subsidy program for farmers. One of its original selling points was that it would get people to buy more food. SNAP could be rolled into the Department of Health and Human Services this afternoon, and virtually no one would notice or care. the USDA bureaucracy simply adds more cost.
That wouldn’t do anything to eliminate that $70 billion food stamp spending, of course. But it would make it much easier, politically speaking, to get rid of the remaining 80 billion of the USDA’s budget.
The rest of the USDA is composed of pork projects for farmers, researchers, and other corporate interests that continually receive the taxpayer’s largesse.
The USDA also administers its own affordable housing programs, even though several major programs for affordable housing already exist in the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The Problem with Cabinet Level Agencies
A lot of what we’ve discussed here falls short of totally abolishing the government spending associated with these Departments. These are all extremely mild reforms and mere baby steps toward a more human-sized federal government.
But ending cabinet level status for many of these agencies is a crucial first step in cutting these agencies down to size. It is likely not a coincidence that no cabinet-level agency, with the exception of the Postal Service, has ever lost its cabinet-level status, and certainly none have ever been abolished.
When a government agency is lifted to the cabinet level, it gains political prestige, permanence, and direct access to the President. In other words, it makes that agency more easily able to lobby Congress, the White house, and to fight budget cuts. The fact that abolishing the Department of Education — without even abolishing all its programs — is now seen as some sort of wildly radical position — illustrates the power of the cabinet-level agency.
HOORAY, HORRAY The un-educators are on their way
That would be the best thing that ever happened to America!
Next is, out with corporate governments!
February 23rd, 2017 by olddog
This article was written by Chase Rachels and originally published at The Free Thought Project
Over the past 18 months, there has been a significant increase in the frequency and severity of riots conducted by the extreme left. Their ranks are comprised of self-described anti-fascists, anarcho-communists, radical 3rd wave feminists, Black Lives Matter (BLM), and other social justice warriors (SJWs). They have attained great notoriety through their willingness to employ violence/intimidation, vandalize/loot private property, and engage in the very same behavior they accuse their ideological opponents of perpetrating. Tragically, innocent and non-interested bystanders often get caught in the cross hairs whilst they throw their violent temper tantrums. To add further cause for concern, these otherwise marginal groups are coalescing under the banner of “intersectionality” thereby effecting a swelling of their ranks, temerity, and menace.
However, as Professor Matthew Feinberg of the University of Toronto recently published a study confirming “extreme protest tactics reduce popular support for social movements.” Violent and destructive protests render peaceful protestors inept and guilty by association. The following summarizes the results of the study in greater detail:
“Social movements are critical agents of change that vary greatly in both tactics and popular support. Prior work shows that extreme protest tactics – actions that are highly counter-normative, disruptive, or harmful to others, including inflammatory rhetoric, blocking traffic, and damaging property – are effective for gaining publicity. However, we find across three experiments that extreme protest tactics decreased popular support for a given cause because they reduced feelings of identification with the movement. Though this effect obtained in tests of popular responses to extreme tactics used by animal rights, Black Lives Matter, and anti-Trump protests (Studies 1-3), we found that self-identified political activists were willing to use extreme tactics because they believed them to be effective for recruiting popular support (Studies 4a & 4b). The activist’s dilemma – wherein tactics that raise awareness also tend to reduce popular support – highlights a key challenge faced by social movements struggling to affect progressive change.”
To further illustrate the nature of such protests/riots a brief outline and analysis of the more notable examples will be provided in the following sections.
Berkeley Students Racist Barricade
In late October of 2016, a number of angry Berkeley SJWs barricaded a key bridge on campus to physically bar any white people from crossing. The objective of the protest was to secure more segregated spaces for people of color a.k.a. “spaces of color”. Any white person who attempted to breach the barricade was violently denied. The group also saw fit to post faux eviction notices on a private bookstore with the threat that “community action will continue to escalate” lest they cede the location to the student protesters for the purpose of transforming it into a “space of color.” Though obvious, it is worth explicitly recognizing the utter hypocrisy of this allegedly “anti-racist” group employing violence and threats against others based merely on the color of their skin for the sake of securing racially segregated spaces.
Berkeley Anti-Milo Riot
Riots erupted on February 1st, 2017 at the University of California at Berkeley over the arrival of the conservative celebrity and self-described “dangerous faggot” Milo Yiannopoulos. So-called anti-fascists and other SJWs were inciting mass violence, vandalism, and hysteria in order to prevent the gay interracial loving Jewish foreigner from peacefully expressing a political opinion that differs from their own. They firebombed the location where Milo’s event was to take place, pepper sprayed a female while being interviewed (and who was ironically offering words of respect to the non-violent protestors who showed up), burned Milo effigies, beat Milo supporters unconscious, and even violated neutral yet curious bystanders. It has repeatedly been made clear that as soon as a person of color, queer, woman, or Muslim expresses non-leftist/non-egalitarian views, the left will treat him/her with the same or even greater level of disdain and prejudice they accuse “right leaning” bogeymen of.
Yes, Yiannopoulos is a troll and says things to rile up the masses, but meeting free speech with violence only serves to empower your opposition.
Free speech was stomped on by the radical left at the birthplace of the free speech movement. The poorly named “anti-fascists” (a.k.a antifas) were the ones leading the violent charge to silence and censor the gay Jew. If the irony weren’t thick enough, the topic of Milo’s discussion was a critical examination of “cultural appropriation,” yet it seems the antifas took no issue with culturally appropriating the tactics of fascists and Nazis.
Presidential Inauguration Riots
On January 20, 2017, in Washington D.C. several hundred antifas, anarcho-communists, and other radical leftists came together to protest the presidential inauguration of Donald Trump. To the dismay of peaceful protestors and Trump supporters alike, the radical leftist rioters quickly resorted to tactics of violence and vandalism. Many were caught throwing bricks and blocks of concrete, breaking the windows of private businesses, violently clashing with and intimidating Trump supporters, setting cars on fire, and harassing defenseless trash cans. Before the day was done, over 200 rioters would be arrested. One may rest assured that engaging in such public, juvenile, and violent behavior is the surest way to secure a second term for the controversial commander in chief.
Black Lives Matter (BLM) Riots
While most Black Lives Matter protests across the country remain entirely peaceful the majority of the time, some of them, often with the help of outside instigators devolve into utter chaos. Examples of this chaos happened in August and September of 2016, when violent BLM protests devolved and riots broke out in Milwaukee, WI and Charlotte, NC respectively. In Milwaukee, BLM rioters set fires to gas stations, auto parts stores, banks, and several other businesses. There were also reports of rioters firing off guns, hurling bricks, and looting local grocery stores.
In Charlotte, BLM chaos erupted after a black police officer shot a black man. Rioters responded by shutting down an interstate and setting it ablaze, looting several private businesses, throwing rocks at random motorists, and even targeting white people for beat downs simply for being white. It’s fairly safe to say that if your cause is to diminish the ill effects that racism has on society and your community, then it’s probably best not to burn down local productive enterprises, hinder your community’s ability to travel safely, and beat down any white person you can find with extreme prejudice.
On January 21st, 2017 more than 2.5 million protestors participated in the worldwide “Women’s March” whose aim was to promote human, civil, and reproductive rights. Unlike the other examples, this protest was largely absent the more injurious elements of violence and intimidation. However, many of the same themes were promoted and other off-putting tactics used thus a brief examination is warranted.
Perhaps the most paradoxical feature of the protest was the ubiquitous presence of both vagina attire (ranging from subtle vagina shaped/colored headwear to ostentatious full bodied vagina costumes) and anti-“islamophobia” themes.
It’s amusing to consider how the average Muslim, in his capacity as a Muslim, would be absolutely mortified upon encountering a woman dressed as a giant pubic hair infested vagina. Such a costume must be the antithesis of the hijab.
Beyond this, of course, the majority of the march’s themes were anti-libertarian as they included support for anti-discrimination laws, tax-funded healthcare, and the subsidization of both contraceptives and abortion. It should go without saying that all such measures entail both theft and private property violations. Thus, to say this was a march for liberty would be a gross misnomer. It was instead a march for entitlements funded at liberty’s expense.
If one is sincerely opposed to racism, sexism, and fascism then it may be best for him to refrain from engaging in racist, sexist, and fascist means to support his cause. The fact these radical leftist factions utilize such means indicates a more sinister and subtle objective than the purported one of “social justice.” And unfortunately, any legitimate peaceful protests to stop injustice will be deemed illegitimate and the cause ignored as it will be immediately associated with violence. Aside from the societal damage created by such violence and intolerance, this divisive and obstinate environment plays right into the hands of those who want to keep you under control.
When objectively assessed, these violent protests are revealed as being among the most bigoted, hateful, and dangerous threats to the cause of liberty.
written by Zap , February 22, 2017
Leftist, progressives, feminist’s, LGBT, anarchist’s, Marxist’s etc all protesting in support of Islam with funding for the protest’s coming from Wall Street CFR Blue Team bag men and their NGO’s.
Endless layers of irony in this.
Absurdity beyond any parody.
Stupid self centered fools looking for attention
written by Olddog , February 22, 2017
At 76 years of age I conclude that it is way past time for the breakup of the nation that was never supposed to exist. Americans have been hoodwinked from the get go as the global powers that be have from before the beginning colluded to gain total control of natural resources and our money. They have empowered themselves to claim ownership of all Americans just like the days of slavery. All that has changed is Americans do not know that they were supposed to be sovereign State Nations. The good life that good jobs created was thought to be eternal and no preparations were made to guarantee a life of plenty. All this resulted in a massive intellectual decline as the good life led us into complacency. Now the Banking Cartels have us by the short hairs through promoting divisive civil theology and will soon create another civil war to further bankrupt everyone. It takes big money to give birth to a new form of governance and a universal comprehension of the only way to remain freemen. Let the scumbags riot all they want because the bankers will not reward them. They are just stupid self centered fools looking for attention. While digging they’re own graves.
February 22nd, 2017 by olddog
By Ron Ewart
February 22, 2017
The crack of FBI sharpshooter Lon Horiuchi’s sniper rifle echoed across the forest as it tore through Kevin Harris and then passed through Vicki Weaver’s head, as Kevin dove through the door of the Idaho cabin in August of 1992. The FBI sniper had already wounded Randy Weaver. Vicki was cradling her infant daughter in one hand and holding the door in the other. Her older daughter was standing next to Vicki and as the bullet ripped through Vicki’s brain, pieces of her hair, scalp, skull, skin and blood splattered the older daughter standing next to her.
Because of an earlier event where a U. S. Marshal was killed by Randy Weaver’s 14-year old son, and the son was killed by the other U. S. Marshals, an FBI “kill order” went out to all FBI agents that had descended on the scene. The Weavers were to be killed on sight. The wholly preventable tragic episode lasted 11 days. Retired Lieutenant Colonel Bo Gritz was successful in negotiating an end to the standoff. The event stemmed from Randy Weaver trying to sell two sawed off shotguns to an ATF informant and then not showing up for his court hearing, leading to U. S. Marshals showing up at the cabin.
Rumors that the FBI had engaged in a cover-up regarding the Ruby Ridge operation were verified when E. Michael Kahoe, former chief of the FBI’s violent crimes section, pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in 1996. Kahoe, who had destroyed an official bureau critique of the standoff, was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Weaver and Harris won a $3.1 Million dollar settlement from the government.
The well-known government siege that occurred at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas between February 28th and April 19th in 1993 was a similar event of out-of-control government power. It resulted in the death of 76 people, including young children living in the compound, burned to death by the ensuing fire. The memory of that event is burned into the minds of conservatives all over America.
Also burned into the memory of millions of Americans, especially Japanese Americans, was FDR’s February 19, 1942 Executive Order 9066, which interned (jailed) upwards of 120,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry in military camps on the West Coast. The government used the military to round up these Americans and don’t think for one minute the government wouldn’t do it again. Now do you still trust government?
Never forget that government is force and it is power. Thomas Jefferson warned us that: “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” Has the U. S. Government become tyrannical? You decide.
But this government over-reach and abuse of power doesn’t stop there. In a much more recent case, FBI agents and Oregon County Sheriffs and State Patrol Troopers staged an ambush on a desolate, snowy stretch of Oregon highway to apprehend Ammon Bundy and the others that occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to protest the incarceration of ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond. The ambush led to the assassination by the officers of Lavoy Finicum, one of the occupiers of the wildlife refuge. A jury would later acquit the surviving occupiers, to the dismay and disappointment of the government prosecutors.
We wrote about the event in a recent article: “Over the last several decades, small, local skirmishes, sometimes violent, started erupting in different parts of the West, in response to the government and environmental land grab, which led to the Sagebrush Rebellion in the 1970’s. The skirmishes started to grow in size, which culminated in the Bundy Ranch standoff in 2014 at Bunkerville, NV between 200 heavily armed BLM agents and several hundred private citizens carrying guns. A shooting war where private citizens would start dying in the desert for all to see at the hands of federal agents, wouldn’t play well with public opinion. The event was widely covered by the news media and the government wisely stood down.”
As Americans push back against rising government abuse, harassment, interference and growing regulations, government responds with overwhelming force, totally out of proportion to the event, in an overt act of tyranny, as they did in Ruby Ridge, Idaho; Waco, Texas; Bunkerville, Nevada and Burns, Oregon.
But it’s not just government that Americans can’t trust. The lack of trust also extends to the news media and even academia. Both lie extensively, distort events to fit their agenda and infuse events and even science with a rabid Progressive mindset, man-caused global warming being a glaring example.
A few days ago the Associated Press reported a bogus story that the President was going to use the National Guard to round up illegal aliens and deport them, whether criminals or not. The story was an outright fabrication, in other words, fake news.
In a recent article by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times, he wrote: “Ladies and gentlemen, we were attacked on Dec. 7, 1941, we were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, and we were attacked on Nov. 8, 2016. That most recent attack didn’t involve a horrible loss of lives, but it was devastating in its own way.”
Devastating Mr. Friedman? How? Devastating to Progressives maybe. Friedman purposely fails to recognize and attacks the 63,000,000 Americans in the 30 states that voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. They voted for a candidate that was going to shake up the status quo and rattle the timbers of the establishment elite. They voted for Trump because they had grown tired and angry over decades of failed Progressive policies. Trump, as flawed as he may be, was and is the flag bearer of that shake up and Friedman, the New York Times, academia and the rest of the national Progressive crowd are crying like a hungry baby with a dirty diaper because they didn’t get their way.
How can you trust columnists, reporters and news outlets that purposely distort the news, make up the news ….. or lie?
But let’s not forget those liberal colleges that pretend to teach your college-age children. These liberal professors are so brainwashed into thinking that liberalism and Progressivism are sacrosanct, they do everything in their power to silence any other avenue of thought. No, not every college professor is a rabid liberal carrier of the Progressive disease, but unfortunately, most of them are. We’ve selected a few quotes from college professors that illustrate the institutionalized liberal and often radical bias that exists in almost every college in America.
“Simply put: Thanksgiving is the day when the dominant white culture (and, sadly, most of the rest of the non-white but non-indigenous population) celebrates the beginning of a genocide that was, in fact, blessed by the men we hold up as our heroic founding fathers. …How does a country deal with the fact that some of its most revered historical figures had certain moral values and political views virtually identical to Nazis?” — Robert Jensen, University of Texas at Austin
“On September 11, 2001, nineteen Arab hijackers too demonstrated their willingness to die — and to kill — for their dream. They died so that their people might live, free and in dignity.” — Shahid Alam, Northeastern University
“I live to harass white folks.” — Derrick Bell, Harvard
“The blood is on the hands of the NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God d*mn you.” — David Guth, University of Kansas
“Real freedom will come when [U.S.] soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors.” — John Daly, Warren County Community College
“The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military…I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus.” — Nicholas De Genova, Columbia University
“Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents.” — Bill Ayers, University of Illinois at Chicago
“As to those in the World Trade Center…Let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. …If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it.” — Ward Churchill, University of Colorado at Boulder
The foregoing is just a sample of what liberal professors actually think. We found many more comments just as egregious.
But our educational institutions don’t begin and end with liberal indoctrination in America’s colleges. It goes all the way back to Kindergarten and through 12th grade public education that has now been infected with Common Core State Standards (CCSS). We described CCSS in our August 7, 2013 article entitled: “Common Core Standards – Suspicions Confirmed.” Common Core State Standards are riddled with United Nations internationally defined social justice and radical environmentalism. One of the standards includes this all-illuminating phrase: “CCSS must respond to equity as a meaningful process to address the social justice issues of race, language, gender and class bias.” This statement was in a math class directive. A math class!?
The other words and phrases that caught our eye in CCSS were “social interactionist theories”, “social and cultural theories”, “social contexts” and “equity.” The words “social” and “equity” are recurrent themes in everything we read about Common Core State Standards. These words come right out of United Nations socialist policies, parroted by liberals and you won’t find them in the U. S. Constitution.
Social justice and social equity have now become more important and have greater priority in the public school curriculum than Reading, ‘Riting and ‘Rithmetic.
The point of all this discussion is, how can you trust the utterances of academia, or even teachers in K-12, when a huge majority of the professors and teachers are steeped in only one ideological, philosophical and political point of view that vehemently rejects any other point of view?
How can you trust government when it abuses its power so readily, so often and with deadly force against its own citizens? How can you trust the news media when it creates false news and outright lies to their viewing, reading and listening audiences?
If the people cannot trust their government, or the news media, or academia, or public education, then these entities have become the enemy of the people and must be resisted by any and all means.
Finally, there is a president who will bring that resistance to the front doors of these entities in open and notorious defiance. If he succeeds, that could be the turning point that conservatives have been waiting and praying for, ever since the days of President Woodrow Wilson and the 16th Amendment.
Sadly, ladies and gentlemen, after over 100 years, Progressivism is so embedded in our institutions and the mindset of the people, it may be that only a revolution will break the strangle hold it has on our culture, our economics and our freedom. At this time, there simply is no organized and well-financed resistance to unravel Progressivism and like all Republics before us, the people will wait until it is too late to mount an effective challenge. All the words and utterances in all the conservative venues won’t change anything. In contrast, “The Other Side“ is well organized and well funded. Hopefully, some day, the people will come to realize that Progressivism is as much a danger to freedom as the atomic bomb is a danger to the entire human race.
Let us know if you LIKED this article.
© 2017 Ron Ewart — All Rights Reserved
Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues and author of this weekly column, “In Defense of Rural America“. Ron is the president of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) (www.narlo.org), a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State, acting as an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners. Affiliated NARLO websites are “SAVE THE USA” and “Getting Even With Government” . Ron can be reached for comment HERE.
February 21st, 2017 by olddog
by Russell D. Longcore
Owner and Editor, DumpDC.com
I don’t think I’ve ever seen an expansive article about unalienable rights. We all seem to just refer to the Declaration of Independence and what Jefferson wrote, and then defer to it. But natural law and unalienable rights are where it all starts.
Thomas Jefferson wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights… Self-Evident. Obvious. Perhaps it was self-evident to the 18th Century common man, but I submit to you that the common 21st Century mind is not equally equipped. Much of the wisdom of the ages has been withheld from the modern man by the government schools. And why not? If you were a government, both tasked by The People to educate them and controlled by the same People, why teach generation after generation how to control you? Why not teach those generations how to be controlled? Self-evident truths bow to governmental self-preservation when The People aren’t watching vigilantly.
Building a tower requires building a firm foundation FIRST…or your tower goes over when the winds blow hard. Gentle readers, we’re in a CAT 5 hurricane right now that’s going to take down our American tower. If you do not have a working understanding of unalienable rights, you’ll likely fall for the next iteration of oppressive, tyrannical government foisted upon an uneducated populace who move their lips when they read. And if you don’t truly understand this philosophy, you cannot possibly teach it to your young.
Unalienable rights are also known as Natural Law or Absolute Rights. In this article these terms will be interchangeable. Also, the use of a male pronoun or the word “man” means all humans.
We begin with a definition of “Unalienable:”
“Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523. One cannot sell, transfer or surrender unalienable rights. The Creator bestowed them on every individual. All human beings possess unalienable rights. Unalienable rights cannot be taken nor surrendered but they can be simply ignored. This is a little like the story Jesus told about the prodigal son. A recalcitrant son learns through tough lessons that he cannot escape his father’s love nor his rights as his father’s son.
But can we find natural human rights without a recognition of a Creator? Yes, without a doubt. What you’ll learn here about Natural Law dwells in the heart of every human being simply because he exists. The concept of Unalienable Rights is life-affirming whether or not you believe in a Higher Power, since the concept showcases the uniqueness of the human being in this world. Unalienable Rights are the highest form of humanness while at the same time the most elementary of man’s characteristics.
Unalienable or Inalienable?
There is a very serious error made throughout America as related to Unalienable Rights. That is, that many people use the term “Inalienable Rights” and think that the terms are interchangeable. But they are as different as night and day.
Inalienable Rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.
Inalienable rights can be transferred, sold or surrendered if you give your consent. Inalienable rights are not bestowed by the Creator or inherent in humans. ”Persons” have inalienable rights, and the word “Person” is a legal term¹. Inalienable rights can be bestowed to persons by government, and can be likewise removed from persons by government. At times, government itself can be considered a “Person” in a legal sense. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.
Therefore, because we possess Unalienable Rights, endowed by our Creator, to secure these rights(not grant or create them), “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”² And the rights we bestow upon government are the Inalienable Rights that we all possess that can be transferred to other persons.
We’re going to build this like a pyramid, much like the Hierarchy of Needs developed by Professor Abraham Maslow, Ph.D. He placed the bedrock human needs as the base of the pyramid, these being the most fundamental needs upon which all others are built. Physiological needs are first, simple survival of the human body. Next up comes Safety, then Love, Esteem, then Self-actualization as the headstone.
Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs
I don’t have a cool graphic for Unalienable Rights, so you’ll just have to look at Maslow’s pyramid and use your imagination. It won’t be all that hard.
The Right of Life
When Thomas Jefferson wrote of “certain Unalienable Rights,” he placed them in the proper order, with Life being the first and most basic of all. This is the right to simply exist as a sentient being…one able to perceive sensations, a consciousness. Unalienable rights come into being at the moment that a human becomes a human. I do not mean when the individual becomes a viable human, capable of life outside the womb. Both sides of the abortion issue agree that a zygote…a human female egg fertilized by a male sperm…is human, and that every day after it becomes an embryo for about 270 days it is human. Our right to life means our right to express our humanness and to simply be alive. The opposite is the death of a human being. The right to life gets very complicated, since none of us were able to leave the womb and live without assistance, sustenance and support. An argument about embryonic viability here entirely misses the point, since even post-birth humans need daily care until at least age 5 (or 10) or they will likely die. So along with our own innate right to life, we acknowledge our responsibility to assist other human life to exist and express itself. Maslow pointed to the need of breathing, food, water, sleep, sex, homeostasis and excretion…all part of maintaining life, and without any one of those needs, life would eventually stop. Note here that the right of life is seldom exercised individually, but is inextricably tied to the lives of others.
Right of Personal Security
The next step up the Unalienable Rights pyramid is the right to protect one’s very life and bodily existence. And by acknowledging the duties we have to others to whom we give life…our progeny…we extend the right to protect their lives also. Personal security first means that our bodies are safe from harm. That security encompasses both protection by others while we are unable to secure our own safety and protecting ourselves and our loved ones after we become capable of assuring our own safety. Note here that the right of personal security is seldom exercised individually, but is inextricably tied to the safety of others. The Second Amendment has its foundation in this unalienable human right, relying upon it to secure a free state through the use of a militia. The Second Amendment is not the “right” to keep and bear arms. It is the restriction on Congress to violate the Unalienable Right of Personal Security. Both the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments were supposed to secure this Right.
The Right of Labor
The first manifestation of the greater Right of Property is found in the Right of Labor. Every human being owns the work of his own mind and hands, and any hindrance to his employing his mental and physical ability in whatever method he thinks proper, without causing injury to another individual, would be a violation of the Right of Labor. This right will be found in Maslow’s Safety block.
Right to Acquire and Enjoy Property
“Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product is a slave.” Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness
This Right touches all of the other Unalienable Rights. First, a human fully possesses his own body, and may do with it what he pleases, as long as his choices do not violate the property rights of another human. Next, man owns his labor and may use his labor for his own subsistence. He may use his labor as an expression of value or a medium of exchange, and may freely exchange that value to acquire property. Then he may have quiet enjoyment of his property according to any manner that best reflects his happiness. Property may take the form of physical assets, but may also be less tangible assets like intellectual property. Property rights mean ownership and control, which includes the right to use an asset as well as the right to prohibit others from using the asset. Property rights also allow the owner to determine the value of an asset, and to even destroy an asset if he so chooses. The only restriction on the Unalienable Right of Property is that it does not infringe upon the Unalienable Rights of others.
As John Locke stated in The Second Treatise on Government (1690) “The great and chief end therefore of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of property.” What man would willingly join a society that did not protect his enjoyment of the fruits of his own labor?
In The Wealth of Nations (1776), Adam Smith states that “private property created a role for government in defending property (rights), and the existence of government created the security to stimulate the creation of new property.” Many today wonder why the economies of the nations are in such dreadful shape. But most governments around the world are undermining property rights, the very reason for their existence. When there is no predictability in the marketplace, and individuals are preyed upon by governments, the incentive for creating new property is diminished or altogether extinguished. Those still seeking to create new property will migrate to the governments that best protect property rights. That’s why capital is leaving America for foreign locations and will continue to do so.
Right to Contract
This Unalienable Right gives all individuals the liberty to voluntarily enter into contract with any other individual or group of individuals, so long as there is agreement as to the terms of the contract by all parties involved, and so long as the contractual agreement does not violate another individual’s Unalienable Rights. Therefore, in light of property rights, individuals may sell their labor to an employer at mutually agreeable terms. Individuals may profit from the disposition of other property by mutual agreement.
All Unalienable Rights preceded the establishment of governments. However, governments chafe mightily under this Right. In America, the years 1897 to 1937 were a 40-year period in which the US Supreme Court vigorously protected the Right to Contract. This period of time is called the “Lochner years,” referring to Lochner v. New York (1905). In Lochner, the High Court struck down a New York statute that set maximum working hours. Justice Rufus Peckham, writing for the majority, stated that the Due Process Clauses found in the 5th and 14th Amendments were stout enough to protect the Unalienable Right to Contract, and that the State of New York had no business restricting the hours that an employee and employer may agree to. After 1937, the Court has relentlessly attacked the Right to Contract, supporting laws like the minimum wage and child labor statutes. Most of the burdensome Federal regulations are attacks on the Right to Contract, since they require parties to contracts to perform acts that they would likely not agree to if given a choice.
Right of Free Speech
This is the freedom to speak freely, provided that your speech does not violate the free speech of other individuals. The Right of Free Speech is an absolute right, subject to no other restrictions than another individual’s Unalienable Rights. Naturally, your liberty to speak does not allow for libel, slander, fraud or falsehood. This is another Unalienable Right which governments despise, and most governments do not allow untrammeled free speech. And free speech may take many forms, such as spoken, written, printed and performed.
Right of Beliefs or Conscience
Individuals have an Unalienable Right to believe what they wish, to worship as their conscience dictates, or as a negative right, to not believe or not worship as their conscience dictates.
Right of Personal Liberty
The classical liberal (the good kind) concept of personal liberty is as a moral principle in which an individual is free to govern himself, his life and his property without outside compulsion, force or fraud, provided that his personal governance does not intrude upon or violate the liberty of another individual.
Right to the Pursuit of Happiness
“Striving to find meaning in one’s life is the primary motivational force in man.” ~ Dr. Viktor Frankl, 1992
The Pursuit of Happiness provides the vehicle through which man can find life’s meaning.
The Pursuit of Happiness would be found on Maslow’s pyramid at the very top as a Self-Actualization need. But this Right encapsulates all the other Rights and cannot be accomplished until the other Unalienable Rights are in place and utilized. Your pursuit of happiness would be short-circuited if you do not enjoy the Rights to Life, Labor, Property, Contract, Belief and Liberty.
To understand how this phrase “the pursuit of happiness” found its way into the Declaration of Independence, you must know some background about Thomas Jefferson. He was strongly influenced by the Greek philosopher Epicurus, even referring to himself as an Epicurean. The teacher’s philosophy was simple: if you cultivated close personal relationships, limited your desires to the necessities of life, and found joy in the moment, you would find happiness. Everything in moderation.
Think about a Being that creates humans, then endows them with Unalienable Rights simply because they are human, and the pinnacle of their Rights being the Right to the Pursuit of Happiness! Not its attainment, but the pursuit. The Creator is no cosmic Joker, playing a cynical game by creating a desire in the breast of each human being for happiness, but having no available tools to meet the desire. We are endowed with the desire, the ability and the Unalienable Rights necessary to live a life of purpose and meaning, and to pass on those purposes and those meanings to subsequent generations, all seeking the same outcomes.
Share this article with those you love. Then discuss it. Teach your children these lessons so they understand how the Creator meant for them to live. Understanding your Unalienable Rights will give you a reason to live, a gratefulness to your Creator, and true self-esteem based in reality.
* * * * * * * * * *
¹The Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson, 1776.
²PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Woodes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
3. But when the word “Persons” is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.
4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.
5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.
6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q.v.) and aliens, (q.v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.
7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.
8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into parents and children; husbands and wives; guardians and wards; and masters and servants son, as it is understood in law, see 1 Toull. n. 168; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1890, note.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.
© Copyright 2011, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
If our God given RIGHTS to life, liberty, freedom and Pursuit of happiness, which were the foundation upon which this nation was created do not exist, and liberty and freedom is only an illusion under which the American’s, suffer then let the government of this nation come forward and tell the people. But…..if we are judged free, then we should not have to plead or beg before our elected public servants to be treated as such. If, in truth we are not free, then perhaps it is our duty to address this issue forthright and forthwith with the power of the pen and pray the people will waken from their fear and slumber induced by greed. “From the Redemption Manual”
Which is exactly what I am doing!
February 20th, 2017 by olddog
By Michael Gaddy
When James Madison left New York for Philadelphia on May 2nd, 1787 he carried with him not the proposed amendments to the Articles of Confederation which was the mandate of the convention but an entirely new idea for a constitution that would make the “National” government supreme with the states nothing but subdivisions of the central government structure. His proposal would grant the national government veto power over all state laws. Madison’s plan was totally contrary to the results of the recent war with England which gave primary power to the states with the central government only allowed the powers the states saw fit to provide. Madison’s plan called for a consolidated union that would virtually annihilate the states. The states would only be maintained as long as they could be “subordinately useful.”
In opposition to this proposed form of government, New York delegate John Lansing would most astutely observe that the states would never have consented to select delegates to attend a convention that would lead to their destruction.
So, why is this of any importance? Simply because the Nationalist form of government which would allow a strong central government to act directly on the people, ironically what our government of today has become, was completely rejected by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
Unfortunately for Liberty, the form of government rejected at the convention is now seen as supreme by the overwhelming majority of people in office; people running for office; all judges regardless of position in government; all of the bureaucrats and a huge majority of people in this country.
So-called “conservative” elected officials have been heard to state “no law is unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is.” A “conservative” candidate for US Senate was recently heard to remark that whatever the US Supreme Court rules must be considered as gospel. This is a complete repudiation of the rights of states to determine what is best for their own citizens and therefore a repudiation of the principles of Jefferson and an advocacy of the principles found in Hitler’s Mein Kampf which revolved around destruction of the individual states.
On the subject of the Supreme Court being the final arbiter of what is and what is not constitutional, Jefferson stated the following:
“…(T)he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
Giving the Supreme Court the power to judge what is and what is not constitutional, not only the federal level but also on the state level, destroys the very intent of the 9th and 10th Amendments. In other words, the Supreme Court Justices and other lesser federal judges have set about to amend our Constitution by judicial fiat.
On this subject George Mason would state the following at the Virginia State Ratifying Convention:
“If the laws and constitution of the general government, as expressly said, be paramount to those of any state, are not those rights with which we were afraid to trust our own citizens annulled and given up to the general government? . . . If they are not given up, where are they secured?
I do not believe the subject can be any clearer that when the “national” government supersedes those of the states, Liberty soon becomes first endangered and finally extinct.
So, how is this connected to Adolf Hitler you ask? The answer can be found on page 572 of Hitler’s magnum opus, Mein Kampf. While lamenting that Bismarck had not gone far enough in destroying state’s rights in Germany, Hitler said:
“And so today this state, for the sake of its own existence, is obliged to curtail the sovereign rights of the individual provinces more and more, not only out of general material considerations but from ideal considerations as well…basic for us National Socialists is derived: A powerful national Reich . . .”
Are you beginning to see a pattern here? James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and the other nationalists among our founders believed that to have an omnipotent central government, the power of the individual states must be eliminated. Accomplishing this would lead to the destruction of the Declaration of Independence concept of “consent of the governed,” a concept vital to the existence of Liberty and Natural Rights.
Abraham Lincoln initiated a war to destroy the concepts of State’s Rights and consent of the governed, killing over 800,000 Americans and replacing the government based on consent with a strong central government ruled by a cabal unrestrained with the limits of a constitution.
Lincoln was praised by Karl Marx for his accomplishments and Adolf Hitler used Lincoln’s premise for an omnipotent central government to establish his National Socialist empire that led to the deaths of millions; some in furnaces and by firing squad to millions more on the battlefields of WWII.
The candidates, politicians and all members of the species Ignoramus Americanus who claim that decrees of the Supreme Court are infallible and constitute immutable law adhere to the beliefs of some of the most evil, murderous tyrants in history and should be treated as the enemies to Liberty that they are.
Contrast please the diametrically opposed concepts of Adolf Hitler and Thomas Jefferson.
“National Socialism as a matter of principle, must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries, and to educate in its ideas and conceptions. Just as the churches do not feel bound and limited by political boundaries, no more does the National Socialist idea feel limited by the individual state territories of our fatherland. The National Socialist doctrine is not the servant of individual federated states, but shall some day become the master of the German nation. It must determine and reorder the life of a people, and must, therefore, imperiously claim the right to pass over [state] boundaries drawn by a development we have rejected.” ~Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 578
“That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes—delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.” ~Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolution, 10 November 1798
As you read the two above quotes you must ask yourself: “Which of the two most closely resembles the government we h
Who do you choose; Jefferson or Hitler?
IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY
I would like to add my two cents to this great article, and that is how utterly stupid, traitorous lovers of democracy are! How can anyone be so stupid to not see the damage caused by practicing democracy in a country where every idiot believes their opinions are sacred rights? When has anyone witnessed an army win a war where every John Dick and Harry in uniform had an equal right to enforce his action plan? History is nothing more than absolute proof that strong absolute leadership must be enforced to win wars, but it is just the opposite in the administration of Nations, where men of high intellect band together in solidarity to manage the economy, and hundreds of other important decisions, ALL UNDER THE GUIDE LINES IN THE CONSTITUTION. Give me a Republic, or give me death! Those of you reading this that firmly believe your OPINION must be law need to tie a rope around a tree and the other end around you worthless neck and jump off the cliff. Your type of scumbags is the reason Christianity has no solidarity. Every Preacher now believes he is the only one preaching truth. Every Church you go to preaches a different philosophy, because the preachers are theologically ignorant. Such is the power of divisive multiculturalism.
If our God given RIGHTS to life, liberty, freedom and Pursuit of happiness, which were the foundation upon which this nation was created do not exist, and liberty and freedom is only an illusion under which the American’s, suffer then let the government of this nation come forward and tell the people. But…..if we are judged free, then we should not have to plead or beg before our elected public servants to be treated as such. If, in truth we are not free, then perhaps it is our duty to address this issue forthright and forthwith with the power of the pen and pray the people will waken from their fear and slumber induced by greed. “From the Redemption Manual”
February 18th, 2017 by olddog
By Michael Snyder
Their agenda may be on the rocks in the United States at the moment, but that doesn’t mean that the globalists are giving up. In fact, a major push toward a cashless society is being made in the European Union right now. Last May we learned that the 500 euro note is being completely eliminated, and just a few weeks ago the European Commission released a new “Action Plan” which instructs member states to explore “potential upper limits to cash payments”. In the name of “fighting terrorism”, this “Action Plan” discusses the benefits of “prohibitions for cash payments above a specific threshold” and it says that those prohibitions should include “virtual currencies (such as BitCoin) and prepaid instruments (such as pre-paid credit cards) when they are used anonymously.”
This new document does not mention what an appropriate threshold would be for member states, but we do know that Spain already bans certain cash transactions above 2,500 euros, and Italy and France already ban cash transactions above 1,000 euros.
This is a perfect way to transition to a cashless society without creating too much of an uproar. By setting a maximum legal level for cash transactions and slowly lowering it, in effect you can slowly but surely phase cash out without people understanding what is happening.
And there are many places in Europe where it is very difficult to even use cash at this point. In Sweden, many banks no longer take or give out cash, and approximately 95 percent of all retail transactions are entirely cashless. So even though Sweden has not officially banned cash, using cash is no longer practical in most situations. In fact, many tourists are shocked to find out that they cannot even pay bus fare with cash.
So most of Europe is already moving in this direction, and now this new Action Plan is intended to accelerate the transition toward a cashless society. The public is being told that these measures are being taken to fight money laundering and terrorism, but of course that is only a small part of the truth. The following comes from the Anti-Media…
The European Action Plan doesn’t mention a specific dollar amount for restrictions, but as expected, their reasoning for the move is to thwart money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Border checks between countries have already been bolstered to help implement these new standards on hard assets. Although these end goals are plausible, there are other clear motivations for governments to target paper money that aren’t as noble.
In a truly cashless society, governments would be able to track where everybody is and what everybody is doing all the time. And in order to have access to the cashless system, people would have to comply with whatever requirements governments wanted to impose on their helpless populations. The potential for tyranny that this would create would be off the charts, but very few people seem greatly alarmed by the move toward a cashless system all over the globe.
Even in the United States there are calls for a cashless system. For example, the former chief economist for the IMF wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal not too long ago in which he recommended the elimination of the $100 bill…
“There is little debate among law-enforcement agencies that paper currency, especially large notes such as the U.S. $100 bill, facilitates crime: racketeering, extortion, money laundering, drug and human trafficking, the corruption of public officials, not to mention terrorism. There are substitutes for cash—cryptocurrencies, uncut diamonds, gold coins, prepaid cards—but for many kinds of criminal transactions, cash is still king. It delivers absolute anonymity, portability, liquidity and near-universal acceptance.”
Over in Asia restrictions are being put on cash as well. Legendary investor Jim Rogers commented on what is currently happening in India during one recent podcast…
The time will come when you won’t be able to buy a cup of coffee without being traced, warns investment guru Jim Rogers. To control people, governments will increasingly seek to hunt down cash spending, he adds.
“Governments are always looking out for themselves first, and it’s the same old thing that has been going on for hundreds of years. The Indians recently did the same thing. They withdrew 86 percent of the currency in circulation, and they have now made it illegal to spend more than, I think it’s about $4,000 in any cash transaction. In France you cannot use more than, I think it’s a €1,000,” said Rogers in an interview with MacroVoices Podcast.
The reason why this is taking place all over the planet is because this is a global agenda.
The globalists ultimately plan to completely eliminate cash, and this will give them an unprecedented level of control over humanity.
One thing that many fear may someday be implemented is some form of microchip identification system. In order to access the cashless grid, you would need your “ID chip” so that the system could positively identify you, but of course there are millions of people around the world that do not intend to get chipped under any circumstances.
In the old days, you would be labeled a “conspiracy theorist” just for suggesting that they may try to chip all of us one day, but in 2017 things have completely changed.
Just look at what is happening in Nevada. A bill has been introduced in the state senate that would outlaw the “forced microchipping of people”…
State Sen. Becky Harris said a bill to prohibit forced microchipping of people is not as far-fetched as it might seem, because it happens in some places around the world.
Senate Bill 109 would make it a Class C felony to require someone to be implanted with a radio frequency identifier, such as microchips placed in pets.
The idea for the bill came from a constituent, the Las Vegas Republican said.
If that sounds very strange to you, then you may not know that companies all around the globe are already starting to explore this type of technology. For instance, a company in Belgium called NewFusion has actually begun to microchip their employees…
In a move that could be lifted straight from science fiction, workers at a Belgian marketing firm are being offered the chance to have microchips implanted in their bodies.
The chips contain personal information and provide access to the company’s IT systems and headquarters, replacing existing ID cards.
The controversial devices raise questions about personal security and safety, including whether they may allow the movements of people with implants to be tracked.
Technology like this often starts off being “voluntary”, but then after enough people willingly accept it the transition to “mandatory” is not too difficult.
We live at one of the most critical moments in all of human history, and the globalists are certainly not going to lay down and die just because Donald Trump won the election.
The U.S. represents less than five percent of the population of the planet, and in most of the world the agenda of the globalists is on track and is rapidly advancing.
The globalists want a unified one world economy, a unified one world religion and a unified one world government. The election of Donald Trump was a blow to the globalists, but it has also made them more dangerous, more ruthless and more determined than ever before.
And in case you think that using the term “globalists” is a bit strange, the truth is that even the New York Times is using it to describe the global elite and their global agenda.
We are in a life or death battle for the future of our society, and the globalists are never going to give up until they get what they want. So now is not a time for complacency, because the very future of our country is at stake.
There is no doubt in my mind that humanity has already been surreptitiously adjusted to accept annihilation. How else can one explain the nearly total lack of outrage? The apparent lack of interest in what the globalist intend to do to the whole planet is mind numbing. By any sense of concern for their future, humanity as a whole should be clamoring for their heads. Trump should be assembling a military strike on every globalist wherever they are. It’s not like there is no proof what they have done and their goals, so why is the whole damn world sitting on their ass?
February 17th, 2017 by olddog
JUSTINIAN DECEPTION HIDDEN FOREIGN TEXT KNOWN AS DOG LATIN)
Introduction by Anna Von Reitz:
Many years ago I started wondering about the all capital letters names employed by the military. I noticed that all names in the military were written in all capitals: LIEUTENANT RODNEY KNOX, for example, as were all the stenciled words plastered on packing crates and vehicles belonging to the US ARMY. I even tasked my poor Father about it, and he mumbled, “When you are in the military, you are a slave, and all that you have as property does not belong to you.”
This cryptic reply made no particular sense to me, nor did the idea that those putting their lives at risk to defend us would suffer the status of slaves? He was busy and the sun was hot and the road before us was dusty from the wheels of the endless military convoy passing by on the old US HIGHWAY 12. I noted the answer and let it slip into the category of “things you will understand when you are older”—where it remained until my twenties, when I began seeing my name written in all capital letters on Federal Student Loan paperwork.
I eventually tracked this odd style of name back to Ancient Rome and Roman Civil Law. I even wrote a studious Memorandum of Law about the use of peculiar naming conventions in the Roman Civil Law going back to 200 B.C.
I discovered that noble Romans used names written in all small case letters: flavius gallus aurelius, while indentured servants used names in Upper and Lower Case: Flavius Gallus Aurelius—-and just as my Father said, slaves used names in all capitals: FLAVIUS GALLUS AURELIUS.
This did not bode well for whatever poor creature might be named ANNA MARIA RIEZINGER nor did it adequately explain how or why or by whom my given name would be so abused on government paperwork. I never volunteered to join the Army.
I knew that names written in all capital letters were “slave names” and that it was not proper Latin, but as to what it was? Well, I combed dutifully through dictionaries and style guides and the Government Printing Office publications but the entire net of this effort was to define what the NAME was not—– not proper English, not used officially, not proper Latin, not, not, not…. but precious little came forward to enlighten me any further on the topic of what it was being used for, or who or what was mandating its use?
The answer— that it was being used by private mostly foreign-owned governmental services corporations for the purpose of defrauding and mischaracterizing me for their own profit — is not the kind of thing that these organizations nor their employees would trumpet from the rooftops, is it?
The Secret of Glossa–the use of Dog Latin embedded in English documents– has finally come to full and glorious light thanks to the efforts of a team of Australian researchers who have delved into this vicious fraud and breach of trust that has been perpetuated against humanity for many generations.
Please read the information carefully and grasp the immensity and longevity of the enslavement and abuse that has been exercised against innocent people, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, by the Roman Pontiffs and their bill collectors, the members of the Bar Associations worldwide.
A name written in Dog Latin, for example, JOHN MARK DOE, is the equivalent of a siphon used by vampires to quietly, sneakily, with little risk to themselves—-suck away your life’s blood and energy for their own benefit.
In itself, the mischaracterized name is a tool, lifeless and inert— like a siphon, a door handle, a rope, or a poppet— harmless until and unless it is used for the purpose of committing personage against you and providing access to your assets, including the value of your labor, your land, your businesses, and your very bodies.
The use of these false foreign names, embedded in any document written in English, is prima facie evidence of a crime.
This fundamental crime of personage must finally come to a halt, must be recognized for what it is and brought to an ignominious end. The fruit of many years of research has now come into your hands, for you to use in your own defense and the defense of others— all thanks to men who live half a world away, but whose dream and need for freedom is the same as that that lives in every human breast.
I understand that there will be a complete set of DVD’s available in the near future detailing the full extent of the research and the experience and thoughts of the researchers. Both to support their work and to undergird your own knowledge, I heartily recommend that everyone secure a copy for their own families and communities and share the information as widely as possible.
JUSTINIAN-DECEPTION: (HIDDEN-FOREIGN-TEXT-KNOWN-AS-DOG-LATIN) The Mother of all Deceptions: The Concept of Modern Day Slavery:
By: Romley Stewart.
I don’t believe I have ever read anything as powerful as this, and pledge my future to understanding it as much as my intellect will allow. I grieve thinking of how few will read this entire article, and continue stumbling in the darkness of tyranny. Please wake up folks and give our creator a chance to heal your soul.
And do not forget to pray for this gifted author and his family.
Mr. Romley Stewart.
February 16th, 2017 by olddog
by Thorsten Polleit
The US is by far the biggest economy in the world. Its financial markets — be it equity, bonds or derivatives markets — are the largest and most liquid. The Greenback is the most important transaction currency. Many currencies in the world — be it the euro, the Chinese renminbi, the British pound or the Swiss franc — have actually been built upon the US dollar.
The world is effectively on a US-dollar-standard, and the US Federal Reserve (Fed) has risen to the unofficial status of the world’s central bank. The rise of the Greenback has to a large extent been propelled by international banking, which has basically “dollarized” in terms of its lending and issuing activities.
The Fed Sets Global Policy
The Fed’s policy not only determines credit and liquidity conditions in the US, but does so in many financial markets around the world as well. For instance, movements of long-term US interest rates regularly have effects on credit and equity markets in, say, Europe and Asia. The Fed’s actions are the blueprint for monetary policymaking in many countries around the world.
The graph shows the Fed’s supply of newly created US dollar liquidity sent to other central banks around the world. It also shows the so-called “euro cross currency basis swap,” which can be interpreted as a “stress indicator”: If it drops into negative territory, it means that euro banks find it increasingly difficult to obtain US dollar credit in the free market place. The Fed’s injection of new US dollar balances into the financial system has helped to reduce the euro currency basis swap. Since late 2016, however, it has started to venture again into negative territory — potentially signaling that euro banks are again heading for trouble.
The financial and economic crisis 2008/2009 has increased further the dependency of the world’s financial system on the US dollar. As early as December 2008, the Fed provided so called “liquidity swap agreements.” Under the latter the Fed is prepared to lend newly created US dollars to other central banks around the globe.
For instance, the European Central Bank (ECB) can obtain US dollars from the Fed and lend the funds on to shaky domestic banks in need for US dollar funding. In other words: Liquidity swap agreements can easily replace foreign currency funding in the market place by foreign currency credit provided by central banks.
Meanwhile, all major central banks around the world — the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the Chinese central bank, the Bank of England, and the Swiss National Bank — have joined the liquidity swap agreement club. They also have agreed to provide their own currencies to all other central banks — in actually unlimited amounts if needed.
It is no wonder, therefore, that credit default concerns in financial markets have declined substantially. Investors feel assured that big banks won’t default on their foreign currency liabilities — as such a credit event is considered politically undesirable, and central banks can simply avoid it by printing up new money.
Moving Toward a Worldwide Central Bank
The close cooperation and coordination among central banks under the Fed’s tutelage amounts to an international cartelization of central banking — paving the way toward a single world monetary policy run by a yet to be determined single world central bank. Such a development is, or course, in the very interest of those in favor of establishing a single world government.
How will President Donald J. Trump and his administration deal with the cartelization in central banking? Mr. Trump doesn’t seem to be an “internationalist,” seeking to build a new world order by political and military means. If that is so, he will sooner or later have to come to grips with the Fed’s policies — most notably with its liquidity swap agreements.
The Fed’s policy has made the world’s financial system addicted to ever greater amounts of US dollars, easily accessible and provided at fairly low interest rates. From this the US banks benefit greatly, while average Americans bear the brunt: they pay the price in terms of, for instance, boom and bust and an erosion of the purchasing power of the US dollar.
What Trump Should Do
If the Trump administration really wishes to live up to its campaign promise “Make America great again,” there is no way of getting around addressing Fed policy. A first step in that direction is the idea to subject the US central bank to public scrutiny (“Audit the Fed”), bringing to public attention the scope of the Fed’s interventions into the world’s banking system.
Of course, the liquidity swap agreements in particular can be expected to be heavily defended by central bankers, bank representatives, big business lobbyists, and mainstream economists as being indispensable for financial system stability. And for sure, a sudden withdrawal from this practice would almost certainly deal a heavy blow to financial markets.
If push comes to shove, it could even make the worldwide credit pyramid, built on fiat money, come crashing down. However, the really important argument in this context is that the continuation of the practice of central bank cartelization will eventually result in a despotic regime: and that is a single world fiat currency regime.
Of course, change for the better doesn’t come from politics. It comes from better ideas. For it is ideas that determine human action. Whatever these ideas are and wherever they come from: They make humans act. For this reason the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (1881 – 1973) advocates the idea of the “sound money principle”:
The sound-money principle has two aspects. It is affirmative in approving the market’s choice of a commonly used medium of exchange. It is negative in obstructing the government’s propensity to meddle with the currency system.
Mises also explains convincingly the importance of the sound money principle for each and every one of us:
It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the idea of sound money if one does not realize that it was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments. Ideologically it belongs in the same class with political constitutions and bills of right.
Mises’s sound money principle calls for ending central banking once and for all and opening up a free market in money. Having brought to a halt political globalism for now, the new US administration has now also a once in a lifetime chance to make the world great again — simply by ending the state’s monopoly of money production.
If the US would move in that direction — ending legal tender laws and giving the freedom to the American people to use, say, gold, silver, or bitcoin as their preferred media of exchange — the rest of the world would most likely have to follow the example. That said, Mr. Trump could really make a real change, simply by embracing Mises’s sound money principle.
Dr. Thorsten Polleit, Chief Economist of Degussa, Honorary Professor at the University of Bayreuth, and Partner of Polleit & Riechert Investment Management.
And banks feel that they currently have TOO MUCH capital…
By Simon Black
In a scathing editorial published in the Wall Street Journal today, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Neel Kashkari, blasted US banks, saying that they still lacked sufficient capital to withstand a major crisis.
Kashkari makes a great analogy.
When you’re applying for a mortgage or business loan, sensible banks are supposed to demand a 20% down payment from their borrowers.
If you want to buy a $500,000 home, a conservative bank will loan creditworthy borrowers $400,000. The borrower must be able to scratch together a $100,000 down payment.
But when banks make investments and buy assets, they aren’t required to do the same thing.
Remember that when you deposit money at a bank, you’re essentially loaning them your savings.
As a bank depositor, you’re the lender. The bank is the borrower.
Banks pool together their deposits and make various loans and investments.
They buy government bonds, financial commercial trade, and fund real estate purchases.
Some of their investment decisions make sense. Others are completely idiotic, as we saw in the 2008 financial meltdown.
But the larger point is that banks don’t use their own money to make these investments. They use other people’s money. Your money.
A bank’s investment portfolio is almost entirely funded with its customers’ savings. Very little of the bank’s own money is at risk.
You can see the stark contrast here.
If you as an individual want to borrow money to invest in something, you’re obliged to put down 20%, perhaps even much more depending on the asset.
Your down payment provides a substantial cushion for the bank; if you stop paying the loan, the value of the property could decline 20% before the bank loses any money.
But if a bank wants to make an investment, they typically don’t have to put down a single penny.
The bank’s lenders, i.e. its depositors, put up all the money for the investment.
If the investment does well, the bank keeps all the profits.
But if the investment does poorly, the bank hasn’t risked any of its own money.
The bank’s lenders (i.e. the depositors) are taking on all the risk.
This seems pretty one-sided, especially considering that in exchange for assuming all the risk of a bank’s investment decisions, you are rewarded with a miniscule interest rate that fails to keep up with inflation.
(After which the government taxes you on the interest that you receive.)
It hardly seems worth it.
Back in 2008-2009, the entire financial system was on the brink of collapse because banks had been making wild bets without having sufficient capital.
In other words, the banks hadn’t made a sufficient “down payment” on the toxic investments they had purchased.
All those assets and idiotic loans were made almost exclusively with their customers’ savings.
Lehman Brothers, a now-defunct investment bank, infamously had about 3% capital at the time of its collapse, meaning that Lehman used just 3% of its own money to buy toxic assets.
Eventually the values of those toxic assets collapsed.
And not only was the bank wiped out, but investors who had loaned the bank money took a giant loss.
This happened across the entire financial system because banks had made idiotic investment decisions and failed to maintain sufficient capital to absorb the losses.
Nearly a decade later, Kashkari says that banks still aren’t sufficiently capitalized.
(He also points out that banks today are obsessed with pointless documentation and seem “unable to exercise judgment or use common sense.”)
The banks themselves obviously don’t agree.
As Kashkari states, banks feel that they currently have TOO MUCH capital.
Bizarre. They’re basically saying that they want to be LESS safe, like a stunt pilot complaining that his helmet is too sturdy.
I’ve written about this many times– the decision for where to hold your savings matters. It’s important.
In addition to solvency and liquidity concerns, there are a multitude of other issues, like routine violations of the public trust, collusion to fix interest and exchange rates, manipulation of asset prices, and all-out fraud.
(I personally got so fed up with our deceitful financial system that I started my own bank in 2015 to handle my companies’ financial transactions. More on that another time…)
Yet despite these obvious risks, most people simply assume away the safety of their bank.
They’ll spend more time thinking about what to watch on Netflix than which bank is the most responsible custodian of their life’s savings.
There are countless ways to figure this out, but here’s a short-cut: much much “capital” or “equity” does the bank have as a percentage of its total assets?
These are easy numbers to find. Just Google “XYZ bank balance sheet”.
Look at the bottom where it says “capital” or “equity”. That’s your numerator.
Then look above that number to find total assets. That’s your denominator.
Divide the two. The higher the percentage, the safer the bank.
Kashkari thinks the answer should be at least 20%, especially among mega-banks in the US.
Blacksmith Global Ltd.
Publisher of Sovereign Man
30 Cecil Street #19-08
Singapore, Singapore – No State 049712