Categories » ‘Politics’
June 15th, 2013 by olddog
By Paul Craig Roberts
It has been public information for a decade that the US government secretly, illegally and unconstitutionally spies on its citizens. Congress and the federal courts have done nothing about this extreme violation of the US Constitution and statutory law, and the insouciant US public seems unperturbed.
In 2004 a whistleblower informed the New York Times that the National Security Agency (NSA) was violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by ignoring the FISA court and spying on Americans without obtaining the necessary warrants. The corrupt New York Times put the interests of the US government ahead of those of the American public and sat on the story for one year until George W. Bush was safely reelected.
By the time the New York Times published the story of the illegal spying one year later, the law-breaking government had had time to mitigate the offense with ex post facto law or executive orders and explain away its law-breaking as being in the country's interest.
Last year William Binney, who was in charge of NSA's global digital data gathering program revealed that NSA had everyone in the US under total surveillance. Every email, Internet site visited and phone call is captured and stored. In 2012 Binney received the Callaway Award for Civic Courage, an annual award given to those who champion constitutional rights at risk to their professional and personal lives.
There have been a number of whistleblowers. For example, in 2006 Mark Klein revealed that AT&T had a secret room in its San Francisco office that NSA used to collect Internet and phone-call data from US citizens who were under no suspicion. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/klein.html
The presstitute media handled these stories in ways that protected the government's lawlessness from scrutiny and public outrage. The usual spin was that the public needs to be safe from terrorists, and safety is what the government is providing.
The latest whistleblower, Edward Snowden, has sought refuge in Hong Kong, which has a better record of protecting free speech than the US government. Snowden did not trust any US news source and took the story to the British newspaper, the Guardian.
There is no longer any doubt whatsoever that the US government is lawless, that it regards the US Constitution as a scrap of paper, that it does not believe Americans have any rights other than those that the government tolerates at any point in time, and that the government has no fear of being held accountable by the weak and castrated US Congress, the sycophantic federal courts, a controlled media and an insouciant public.
Binney and Snowden have described in precisely accurate detail the extreme danger from the government's surveillance of the population. No one is exempt, not the Director of the CIA, US Army Generals, Senators and Representatives, not even the president himself.
Anyone with access to a computer and the Internet can find interviews with Binney and Snowden and become acquainted with why you do have very much indeed to fear whether or not you are doing anything wrong.
James Clapper, the lying Director of National Intelligence, who would have been perfectly at home in the Hitler or Stalin regimes, condemned Snowden as "reprehensible" for insisting that in a democracy the public should know what the government is doing. Clapper insisted that secretly spying on every ordinary American was essential in order to "protect our nation." http://news.antiwar.com/2013/06/07/us-spy-chief-slams-reprehensible-leak-of-nsa-surveillance-scheme/
Clapper is "offended" that Americans now know that the NSA is spying on the ordinary life of every American. Clapper wants Snowden to be severely punished for his "reckless disclosure" that the US government is totally violating the privacy that the US Constitution guarantees to every US citizen.
President Obama, allegedly educated in constitutional law, justified Clapper's program of spying on every communication of every American citizen as a necessary violation of Americans' civil liberties that "protects your civil liberties." Contrast the lack of veracity of the President of the United States with the truthfulness of Snowden, who correctly stated that the NSA spying is an "existential threat to democracy."
The presstitutes are busy at work defending Clapper and Obama. On June 9, CNN rolled out former CIA case officer Bob Baer to implant into the public's mind that Snowden, far from trying to preserve US civil liberties, might be a Chinese spy and that Snowden's revelations might be indicative of a Chinese espionage case.
Demonization is the US government's technique for discrediting Bradley Manning for complying with the US Military Code and reporting war crimes and for persecuting Julian Assage of Wikileaks for reporting leaked information about the US government's crimes. Demonization and false charges will be the government's weapon against Snowden.
If Washington and its presstitutes can convince Americans that courageous people, who are trying to inform Americans that their historic rights are disappearing into a police state, are espionage agents of foreign powers, America can continue to be subverted by its own government.
This brings us to the crux of the matter. What is the purpose of the spying program?
Even if an American believes the official stories of 9/11 and the Boston Marathon Bombing, these are the only two terrorist acts in the US that resulted in the loss of human life in 12 years. Far more people are killed in traffic accidents and from bad diets. Why should the Constitution and civil liberty be deep-sixed because of two alleged terrorist acts in 12 years?
What is astounding is the absence of terrorist attacks. Washington is in the second decade of invading and destroying Muslim governments and countries. Civilian casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are extremely high, and in those countries that Washington has not yet invaded, such as Pakistan, Yemen and Syria, civilians are being murdered by Washington's drones and proxies on the ground.
It is extraordinary that Washington's brutal 12-year assault on Muslim lives in six countries has not resulted in at least one dozen real, not fake FBI orchestrated, terrorist attacks in the US every day.
How can something as rare as terrorism justify the destruction of the US Constitution and US civil liberty? How safe is any American when their government regards every citizen as a potential suspect who has no rights?
Why is there no discussion of this in American public life? Watch the presstitutes turn Snowden's revelations into an account of his disaffection and motives and away from the existential threat to democracy and civil liberty.
What is the government's real agenda? Clearly, "the war on terror" is a front for an undeclared agenda. In "freedom and democracy" America, citizens have no idea what their government's motives are in fomenting endless wars and a gestapo police state. The only information Americans have comes from whistleblowers, who Obama ruthlessly prosecutes. The presstitutes quickly discredit the information and demonize the whistleblowers.
Germans in the Third Reich and Soviet citizens in the Stalin era had a better idea of their government's agendas than do "freedom and democracy" Americans today. The American people are the most uninformed people in modern history.
In America there is no democracy that holds government accountable. There is only a brainwashed people who are chaff in the wind.
This column was originally published at PaulCraigRoberts.org and is reprinted here with the author's position. Dr. Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury for Economic Policy in the Reagan Administration. He was associate editor and columnist with the Wall Street Journal, columnist for Business Week and the Scripps Howard News Service. He has had numerous university appointments. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is available here.
If it has not yet occurred to you, consider that the government is not concerned with catching terrorists with cyber-warfare, they hate whistleblowers because they are waging cyber-warfare on the American citizens and don’t want us to know it. Their one and only fear is an informed public, and they are doing everything possible to intimidate the people from learning.
April 22nd, 2013 by olddog
Michal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles.
The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obama's? Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture."
The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. His arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.
I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.
I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide." No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.
And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel . His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.
Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.
I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" – "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood… Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.
MASSIE FOR PRESIDENT!
DEPORT THE OBAMA'S!
April 12th, 2013 by olddog
Please make sure all your friends in every State see these names. The vote and the bill is a matter of public record.
Over the weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The Statement of Purpose from the bill read:
“To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”
The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S., and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo.
Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
From Senate records- a nay indicates unwillingness to stop the unconstitutional UN treaty:
Here’s the scumbags of the union list.
MAKE SURE YOU SAVE IT! THEY ARE TRAITORS AND SHOULD BE INDICTED AS SUCH.
Baldwin (D-WI), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bennet (D-CO), Nay
Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Coons (D-DE), Nay
Cowan (D-MA), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Franken (D-MN), Nay
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hirono (D-HI), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kaine (D-VA), Nay
King (I-ME), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murphy (D-CT), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schatz (D-HI), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Udall (D-CO), Nay
Udall (D-NM), Nay
Warner (D-VA), Nay
Warren (D-MA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Not Voting
HERE’S THE PATRIOTS LIST
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Ayotte (R-NH), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Boozman (R-AR), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Cruz (R-TX), Yea
Donnelly (D-IN), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Fischer (R-NE), Yea
Flake (R-AZ), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Heinrich (D-NM), Yea
Heitkamp (D-ND), Yea
Heller (R-NV), Yea
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Johnson (R-WI), Yea
Kirk (R-IL), Yea
Lee (R-UT), Yea
Manchin (D-WV), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Moran (R-KS), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Paul (R-KY), Yea
Portman (R-OH), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rubio (R-FL), Yea
Scott (R-SC), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
GOA: The Battle Will Take Longer than We’d Hoped
Posted by: The Publisher on: April 11 2013 • Categorized in: To Keep and Bear Arms
But there’s still a very good chance we can win!
“Gun Owners of America [has] been pressing lawmakers who may have wavered on this emotional issue of background checks.” – CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, April 10, 2013
We’ve been fighting these gun control battles for almost 40 years now. And we almost always win. But it’s almost always a nail-biter.
And so it is on Obama’s gun control agenda.
We’d hoped that we could stop the gun control bribe-o-thon early (and risk-free) by blocking the motion to proceed to the package. But thanks to sell-outs like Pennsylvania’s one-term senator, Pat Toomey, we’re going to have to take a different battle position and defeat the package at a later stage.
The Senate today overcame the Paul-Cruz-Lee filibuster and voted to move to proceed to Harry Reid’s gun control bill (S. 649). Where Reid needed 60 votes, the tally was 68-31. Click here to see if your Senator sold you out by voting to “move to proceed” to the bill.
Republican defectors who voted anti-gun were: Alexander (TN), Ayotte (NH), Burr (NC), Chambliss (GA), Collins (ME), Corker (TN), Coburn (OK), Flake (AZ), Isakson (GA), McCain (AZ), Heller (NV), Hoeven (ND), Kirk (IL), Graham (SC), Toomey (PA) and Wicker (MS).
So, here’s where we are. Right after the Senate proceeded to the gun control bill, Harry Reid used his privileged recognition to put a bunch of amendments in place. In Senate parlance, they are referred to as an “amendment tree;” and they contain the universal registry bill, the Feinstein gun ban, and the magazine ban. These will be voted on in upcoming days.
As for the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer universal registry bill, don’t believe the press’ efforts to sugar-coat it. If you have ever had an “Internet … posting” on (or related to) your gun, you can sell it only by going to a dealer and filling out a 4473 and getting the government’s approval. Only a cave man would be exempt.
And once you have a 4473? Well, the ATF is going from dealer to dealer, copying the information on these forms, and feeding it into a database. But, says Toomey, he’s against universal registries. This is where it would have helped if Toomey had consulted someone who knew something about guns.
Registration and violation of privacy.
First of all, Toomey’s anti-registry language prohibits photocopying the 4473′s, but it doesn’t prohibit going into the FFL with a laptop and copying all the information. Second, ATF takes the position that the data it’s accumulating in a database is not a “registry,” so Toomey’s ban does no good. Third, guess what the sanction is for violation of Toomey’s anti-registry language? Answer: Eric Holder has to choose to prosecute himself and his own department.
But this isn’t the only bad thing about Toomey-Manchin-Schumer.
Section 107 of the sell-out also waives any federal privacy prohibitions under HIPAA to sending the names of Americans with PTSD, ADHD, and post partem depression to the gun ban database. But that’s not all.
Believe in Jesus, hand in your guns?
Because private shrinks will be able to add patients names into a federal database of the mentally ill – without due process – you will be at their mercy.
As Red State editor, Erick Erickson says, “Activist mental health providers will probably be overly aggressive in adding people to the list. Give it five years in liberal areas and people who believe in the physical resurrection of Christ will probably get automatic entry onto the list.”
And as for veterans? Toomey-Manchin-Schumer reinforces the proposition that bureaucrats in the Department of Veterans Affairs can take away veterans’ rights without any due process. If a veteran has $30,000 to spend getting back the rights Toomey-Manchin-Schumer wrongly took from him, the sell-out creates yet another redundant money-trap for restoration of rights that shouldn’t have been taken away in the first place.
Repealing gun owner protections.
What if you want to travel across the country? McClure-Volkmer allowed you to do that with an unloaded gun in the trunk (18 U.S.C. 926A). But, under the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer sell-out, unless you can “demonstrate,” to the satisfaction of the New York police (1) where you came from, (2) where you’re going, (3) that you’re legally entitled to possess the gun in the place you can from, and (4) that you’re legally entitled to possess the gun in the place you’re going, they will arrest you in New York.
The Toomey-Manchin-Schumer (Charles Schumer, Carries Concealed) sell-out creates a Biden-like commission to insure that the cries for gun control continue. http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=10104
Like sprinkles on a pile of dung, Toomey and Schumer steal some of the proposals we drafted and try to use them to get us to buy onto gun control. But it won’t work.
The gun movement is united against this disgusting pile of gun control.
Here is the new battlefield. Because of the Senate rules, many of the upcoming gun control votes will need 60 (out of 100 votes) to move forward. That will almost certainly be the case with the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer proposal. And because the entire Second amendment movement – GOA, NRA, etc. – is against the Toomey language, it virtually ensures his amendment will fail.
And if Toomey-Manchin-Schumer doesn’t pass, then Reid probably won’t have enough votes to overcome a second filibuster on the bill – as it would contain the original anti-gun language sponsored by Reid and Schumer. This all but guarantees that the legislation would die, as Republicans and a half-a-dozen Democrat Senators would then team up to keep the bill from getting the required 60 votes.
One last question or thought: Did we waste our time supporting the Paul-Cruz-Lee filibuster and fighting the motion to proceed? No, because we forced Obama to fire most of his ammunition, as he dragged his human props around Washington in an effort to exploit them for political gain.
If Obama had been able to wait to play this card until Toomey-Manchin-Schumer came up for a vote, that vote would be a lot harder for us to win.
But Obama has already played this card for his “they deserve a vote” theme. Okay, they’re getting their vote. But by the time we reach the vote on cloture on Toomey-Manchin-Schumer, Obama’s exploitation of the victims of Newtown will begin to be realized for the cynical exploitative political ploy that it is. And he will be less able to shift gears and use the victims for the theme “They deserve a ‘yes’ vote.”
Second Amendment Hypocrites: Senators Schumer and Feinstein Pack Heat
By Jim Kouri, CPP
A recent poll conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police indicated that almost 64 percent of police commanders and sheriffs favor a law allowing private citizens to carry concealed firearms for protection. Almost 73 percent said that citizens should not be restricted from purchasing more than one weapon, and 96 percent say they believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources.
Unfortunately most states – especially those called Blue States due to their Liberal-leanings – continue to prohibit private citizens from carrying concealed handguns.
At the same time, there are outspoken opponents of gun ownership, such as Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who are carrying concealed weapons, according to WABC Radio's Mark Levin. Levin, a recognized constitutional expert, heads the Landmark Legal Foundation. The LLF's goal is to protect American's from unreasonable and illegal government intrusions and violations of the US Constitution, including the Second Amendment.
The mainstream news media have been aware that several antigun proponents are carrying concealed firearms but have failed to expose this hypocrisy. This writer's efforts to discover how many other anti-gunners are also packing heat – a right they wish to deny other citizens – met with limited results.
Not only does Schumer carry a handgun, the New York City Police Department also provides armed escorts for the good senator. In fact, the Government Accounting Office — the investigative arm of the US Congress — slammed Schumer's use of police resources for personal protection. It's clear that Schumer believes he's special. He wishes to ban private citizens' ownership of firearms, while he enjoys layers of protection.
"No wonder Chuckie Schumer shoots his mouth off so much – he's able to protect himself," says a 25-year police veteran.
Also, a check of Pistol License records shows that Senator Schumer possesses an "unrestricted" pistol permit, a rarity in New York City. Licenses are distributed in different categories in the Big Apple: Target Permits allow only use of a firearm at a licensed firing range; Premises Permits allow weapons to be kept in a home or apartment; Restricted Permits allow the gunowner to carry their firearms concealed but only within the purview of their job (security, jewelers, armored car guards, etc.). So it's evident that Senator Schumer has two sets of rules — one for Americans and one for himself.
And then we have Senator Diane Feinstein on the Left Coast who possesses something more rare than a conservative Republican in San Francisco – an unrestricted concealed weapons permit. Apparently without shame, she participated in a citywide gun turn-in program that was intended to create some kind of statue from the donated guns that were to be melted down. One of her police body guards let it slip that she contributed a cheap model for the meltdown, while retaining her .357 magnum revolver for her own personal self-defense.
Hypocrisy is not limited to politicians when it comes to the Second Amendment. For Example, well-known Washington-based columnist, Carl Rowan, often wrote about the ills of firearms ownership. Until, that is, he shot and wounded a teenager who trespassed on his property. The white teenaged boy claimed he wanted to try Rowan's swimming pool. Rowan, an African-American, retaliated with deadly force using a firearm. That's when the news came out that Carl Rowan, gun-control advocate, actually possessed a license to own firearms.
Another example is the loudmouth entertainer, Rosie O'Donnell, who once ran roughshod over conservative actor Tom Selleck because of his stance supporting the Second Amendment. Although Ms. O'Donnell doesn't carry a gun, she has three armed bodyguards who protect her, her wife and her children, something the vast majority of hardworking Americans could never afford. Isn't it comforting to know all these Liberals are looking out for us?
~ About the Author ~
Jim Kouri is a certified protection professional, writer, commentator and contributing editor for Chief of Police Magazine. A former chief at a housing project in New York City's Washington Heights district – dubbed Crack City – he serves as Fifth-Vice President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He possesses over 25 years of law enforcement and security experience and writes a regular column for KingNewsMedia.Com. He's the author of Crime Talk: Conversations with America's Top Crimefighters and Assume The Position: Police Science for Novelists, Screenwriters and Journalists, and his magazine articles appear in many publications. He's a frequent guest on many TV and radio stations including Fox News, CNN, CBS, ABC, CNBC, and others.
April 10th, 2013 by olddog
If I had the opportunity to address the parents of the Sandy Hook School shooting, and the supporters of more gun control laws, the first thing I would do is ask them
WHAT PART OF “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
Has your grief completely over-powered your mind? Do you not see how much authority the federal government has stolen from the people already? Do you really want the federal government to have the last word on the people being able to defend their country from a tyrannical federal government? Are you blind to the loss of liberty that has already occurred in America?
Are you willing to watch your country descend into another civil war because of your personal grief? Do you really believe the government’s firepower will defeat the majority of the people who will fight them to a stand still? Do you really want the politicians to be afraid to come out of hiding for the rest of their life? Don’t you understand that this tragedy was most likely a black opps. operation by your government to stimulate the dull and ignorant into believing gun control will prevent future loss of life? Don’t you understand that this is going to result in an attempt to disarm the people and leave them helpless to defend themselves and their families, as has been done so many times by other governments? Were your children’s lives worth more than the hundreds of thousands of lives’ that will be lost when the government tries to disarm America? Is a nation of managed servants what you really want? Have you no idea what life will be like when the government is no longer afraid of the people? In the first place, why were your children in a public school if it is not because of your manipulated word view? Do you not see what public education has done to this country? My dear grieving parents, why do you want the government to continue manipulating the minds of innocent children, when the cause of liberty is being destroyed there? Have you forgotten how your minds were manipulated in public education? Why were you so trusting of an organization that has failed it’s stated purpose for generations? Was it because it is the cheapest baby sitting service available? If public education is the safest place to have your children protected, why is it not working? Did a gun destroy the mind of some whacko, and convince him to murder little children? Dear parents, why did you not know you were sending your children into a dangerous environment? Why are you unaware that the social manipulation in public schools is directly responsible for creating uncontrollable rage in the minds of many children? Why didn’t you, like most observant parents, notice a change in your child’s attitude after the first year of public education? Did you think that change was a normal thing in children? Why are you so anxious to place the blame of your failure on a man made object, when that object is the most indispensible tool left to protect our nation?
Why have you abandoned the principle, that adherence to a set of immutable principle’s is the only way to control governments world over? Why do you put your confidence in humanity’s ability to adapt to new challenges, over time-tested methods of controlling excessive permissiveness, and excessive control? Why do you not see the limitations placed on humanity by excessive government control?
If public education made you so smart, why are you so intellectually limited, that you believe more government control will make life better, or safer?
Why are you so willing to give up the freedom that so many Americans died to preserve? Is it because you hate guns, or is it because you are afraid to defend freedom? In the first place, why would you hate guns when they have been the only thing that our past Americans had to gain their freedom? How can you be so ignorant to believe any nation would be safe without guns? Do you really believe a defenseless nation would be a safer nation? Why are you ignorant of the fact that freedom of choice is the only way to identify those who have lost self-control, or have evil natures and plan to do more evil? Have the lies you were taught in public education and the media industry convinced you that the world would be a safer place if the governments were unconstrained like ours presently is?
Why are you unaware of and not infuriated over, the governments claims that your children really belonged to the government, and you were held responsible for them? Why are you so willing to let an unconstrained government rule this nation, or why do you think it will not be unconstrained if you want it to control your every minute of life? How can you believe the government will feel responsible to us, if we let it rule our very existence?
Let me remind you that, better/smarter men than you, declared that, the right of the people to be armed SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, and your personal tragedy is not sufficient reason to change that. If you want the loss of your dead children lives to be remembered forever, let their loss be the reason the government forever honors our God given right to remain armed. Self-defense is a God given right, and having guns is how we preserve it. Unconstrained governance, and government-controlled education, are the greatest evils the world has ever known.
In closing, let it be known that you are now responsible to the whole world for making it cognizant of the real reason for the consistent loss of liberty, and the rise of submissiveness in the people. It is because the government is hiding and protecting the International Investment Bankers who are really controlling our governments and taking control of the world’s resources. Since you have been manipulated into believing it is permissible for the government to manipulate the minds of our children into preemptive wars being an acceptable excuse to kill innocent children and their parents, why don’t you support the complete elimination of these Bankers forever, and protecting the lives of billions of people in the future? That, my dear parents is what will immortalize the loss of your children! Make your terrible loss the reason for the return of sanity, and self-responsibility, in the whole world. Killing the banksters would be like removing a thorn from an infected wound. The whole world would heal.
If anyone thinks this article is obscenely insensitive towards people suffering inconsolable grief, let it be known that governments all over the world, including America, and throughout history have murdered millions of people in order to establish governance by force, and if that does not offend you, then go to hell. Mass murder is always relative to the numbers involved, and hundreds of thousands of Americans dying defending their freedom is by far much worse than twenty children dying for no other reason than pleasing a putrid media industry. If you simply cannot accept the government’s involvement in this tragedy, you have not been paying attention to their modus operandi. Direct your rage where it belongs, and demand the end of central banking by the international banking cartel. They are the rotten bastards, who profit from and proliferate human depravity.
April 8th, 2013 by olddog
Subject: In-state tuition for illegals & Founding Principles were from enlightened settlers, not "immigrants"
Me, Senator Linda Chesterfield & The Facts: April 7, 2013
Recently I have written missives faulting Arkansas Senator Joyce Elliott for offering up Senate Bills each session, in this case SB 915, which grants unconstitutional largesse to children of illegal Mexican alien parents, legal & illegal, and OTM’s in the form of in-state tuition. The unconstitutional largesse Senator Elliott proposes is more outright theft taken by force from the producers.
Senator Chesterfield, in response to my missives has labeled me “uncivil, making nasty accusations against her colleagues” and further stating my writings are “unwelcome & unwarranted”.
Like all progressives/Marxists she hurls incendiaries, e.g. racist, xenophobe, bigot, but in this case she uses the aforementioned denigrations without one shred of evidence or a defense of her statements. Never do they produce evidence. Many times the truth causes gastric discomfort.
She offers up her academic profile as being one of History & Political Science, injecting the statement that she was “confounded by reference to our Founding Principles” and that our Founders were “immigrants”. You would expect a history major and an Arkansas State Senator would indeed be more knowledgeable and understanding regarding the Founding of our Republic.
My emails contain no statements regarding the immigration status of the Founders, but the Senator for some reason ties her non-point of the Founders immigration status to the aforementioned Founding Principles.
At this juncture I will offer a definition of what an immigrant is, for Senator Chesterfield and any others in the House & Senate who may not know the correct definition of an immigrant. I will use Howard Sutherland’s definition. Without going into a lot a lot of peripheral information, it can simply be stated “Immigrants are people who leave one country, one society and move to another society. But there has to be a recipient society to which the immigrants move. In our case, the recipient society was created by settlers who came here in the 17th & 18th centuries. It was the settlers’ (of which the Founders were a part) Anglo-Protestant society and culture that attracted subsequent generations of immigrants to this country.”
The Founders were settlers, not immigrants. We are a nation with immigrants, not a nation of immigrants.
The Founding Principles were solidly based on concepts of the Enlightenment, e.g. individual rights & liberties, according to philosophers John Locke, et al. (Read the Declaration of Independence). What is “confounding” about that fact?
Certainly not what is occurring today at all levels of government: Observe the present unconstitutional practices being proposed in the Arkansas House & Senate, i.e. the bill SB915 previously described and the Marxist/Obamacare proposal to add ¼ million more add-ons to terminal welfare (citizens & illegals) and the moment this legislation, if passed, the ¼ million people will automatically become eligible for all entitlement programs as everyone should know, bringing the grand total of Arkansans on welfare to over 1 million, accompanied by inherent abuses.
Citizens—this legislative behavior proves once more that Collectivism (Socialism/Fascism/Communism) is winning the battle over the individual rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.
Joe McCutchen www.arkansasfreedom.com
Let’s take a look at Obama’s real game plan.
#1 Let’s give the immigrants a free ride to prosperity on the backs of the citizens so we will have a national majority of the voters.
#2 The immigrants are too stupid to understand that what is given can be taken away, and now they must do their masters bidding.
#3 Indoctrinate their children with free education so we can keep the next generation as stupid as their parents, and we’ll maintain the majority.
#4 Surreptitiously indoctrinate everyone through the education and media industry that the attainment of wealth is anti social, thereby keeping them dependent.
#5 Make them stay in debt by inflation and price controls.
#6 Disarm the masses so they cannot rebel.
#7 Burden them with regulations to suppress small business.
#8 Record their every word, action, and movement.
#9 Shorten their life span to fifty years.
#10 Make them feel responsible for their neighbors.
April 8th, 2013 by olddog
By Pastor Roger Anghis
April 7, 2013
We have been bombarded over the last few months with information as to the enemies that are a threat to the United States. Those that are paying attention don’t have to be told who the enemy is. Those that are not informed have to be told. Rush Limbaugh calls them uninformed voters. For the most part they look for the (D) after the name when voting and pay no attention to the character of the man/woman nor the platform behind that name.
The Department of Justice has declared that any person that believes that the government should operate according to the Constitution, as they have sworn to do, are probably terrorist. This may sound off the wall but they are training police, firefighters and employees of Department of Homeland Security that those that support what our Founding Fathers fought and died for are the biggest threat to America’s security. Here is a quote from a recent article concerning a DOJ training manual.
“A leaked training manual used in the State and Local Anti-Terrorism Training (SLATT) program for law enforcement and funded by the Department of Justice lists political bumper stickers expressing opposition to the United Nations and support for the bill of rights as indications of terrorist activity.
The presentation documents, leaked to the Public Intelligence website, are entitled Terrorism Training For Law Enforcement and are marked “law enforcement sensitive.” The program is funded by grants from the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Slides for the presentation depict the kind of behavior that law enforcement officials should be wary of in spotting potential terrorists during highway patrols.
One of the slides – entitled “Fourth Amendment Issues” – notes that “a suspicious map located on the passenger seat” could warrant further investigation as a potential indicator of terrorism.
Another slide entitled “General Right Wing Extremist” – depicts suspicious bumper stickers that should warrant further investigation by cops conducting traffic stops.
The bumper stickers read, “Know Your Rights Or Lose Them,” and “If You Love Your Country, the U.N. Is Not Your Friend!,” and “Get US Out Of the United Nations”.
Under the category of “Special-Interest/Single Issue Terrorism,” the slide characterizes people who hold political opinions that “represent a fairly popular point of view” as terrorists. Anti-abortion activists are also listed as terrorists under this category.
Another slide lists people who are “antigenetic engineering” as terrorists. Presumably, that includes people who are concerned about a new study which found that rats fed with genetically-engineered Monsanto corn suffered premature deaths.” [Source Link].
In 2001 a FEMA training program called Christians terrorists. Called the Founding Fathers terrorists. You can see a video here. The opposition for the Patriot Act is continuing to grow because it violates so many aspects of our Constitution. I am not the biggest fan of Senator Rand Paul as his stance on the NDAA which violates our 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 14th Amendments as well as parts of the Constitution itself and immigration, I believe, are in direct violation of so many of our Constitutional rights and the laws of America that they are almost too many to discuss, but he has opposed many provisions of the Patriot Act. In a letter to his colleagues on February 15, 2011 he stated: “My main objection to the PATRIOT Act is that searches that should require a judge’s warrant are performed with a letter from an FBI agent—a National Security Letter (“NSL”).
I object to these warrantless searches being performed on United States citizens.
I object to the 200,000 NSL searches that have been performed without a judge’s warrant.
I object to over 2 million searches of bank records, called Suspicious Activity Reports, performed on U.S. citizens without a judge’s warrant.
Congress instead hastily passed a long-standing wish list of power grabs like warrantless searches and roving wiretaps. The government greatly expanded its own power, ignoring obvious answers in favor of the permanent expansion of a police state.
Other provisions of the PATRIOT Act previously made permanent and not scheduled to expire present even greater concerns. These include the use and abuse by the FBI of so-called National Security Letters. These secret demand letters, which allow the government to obtain financial records and other sensitive information held by Internet Service Providers, banks, credit companies, and telephone carriers—all without appropriate judicial oversight—also impose a gag order on recipients.” [Source Link]
These are all legitimate concerns about the violations they pose to an American’s constitutional rights. If you are not a citizen, that is another story as I do not believe that a non-citizen should have the same rights as an American citizen.
When you look at how our government is reacting to an American’s concern about the deterioration of our rights granted by our Constitution, it is the government that is now the biggest threat to our national security. If you are a pro-gun supporter, you are considered a national security threat. If you are pro-life you are considered a national security threat.
If you don’t support the U.S.’s involvement with the UN you are considered a national security threat. If you support traditional marriage you are considered a national security threat. And now the latest from Big Sis, Janet Napalitano, if you are a veteran you are considered a national security threat and there have been pieces of legislation introduced to Congress to disarm our veterans.
The movement within the federal government to restrict our gun rights which has been supported by virtually ever Democrat in every State is growing ever stronger. Senator Harry Reid is proposing legislation to tax Americans that exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. Another Democrat has introduced legislation to fine a gun owner $10,000 for not carrying liability insurance to cover the cost of the damage done by someone who steals their gun and commits a crime. That is effectively making one of the victims of a crime pay for the crime. I would like to see how our Constitution supports that. Our 4th Amendment guarantees that we cannot be charged without ‘probable cause’. Owning a gun that was stolen is not ‘probable cause’.
The US has agreed to the UN Arms Treaty which calls for the disarming of anyone over the age of 55 because, as the report states: . “And as we do, our reflexes diminish, our senses become impaired and our cognitive skills weaken … Therefore, as we enter our twilight years – clinically speaking, age 50 and above [Global life expectancy is only 67 years] – science tells us that we are in no shape to be handling or using a deadly weapon.” [Source Link]
Here is another violation of our 4th Amendment that DHS now has the right to do: Department of Homeland Security Can Seize Gold, Silver, Guns in Safety Deposit Boxes According to in-house memos now circulating, the DHS has issued orders to banks across America which announce to them that “under the Patriot Act” the DHS has the absolute right to seize, without any warrant whatsoever, any and all customer bank accounts, to make “periodic and unannounced” visits to any bank to open and inspect the contents of “selected safe deposit boxes.”
Further, the DHS “shall, at the discretion of the agent supervising the search, remove, photograph or seize as evidence” any of the following items “bar gold, gold coins, firearms of any kind unless manufactured prior to 1878, documents such as passports or foreign bank account records, pornography or any material that, in the opinion of the agent, shall be deemed of to be of a contraband nature.” [Source Link] Along with this it is also illegal for the bank to inform anyone who’s safety deposit box has been viewed or the contents been onsti! Who is the enemy of America?
Looking very briefly at what is happening in our schools we see not education but outright indoctrination. Just recently at John Hopkins University a pro-life group wanted to organize, however the University refused to allow them that right. The Student Government Association at Johns Hopkins University compared pro-life students to white supremacists and denied them official club status at the school. White Supremacist? For being pro-life? This is indoctrination for the global agenda where population control is number one. [Source Link]
Here is another case where a 15 year old was harrased so bad by his teacher for being a Republican that he had to transfer to another school. Even after complaining to the school official, nothing was ever done to the teacher. This is not education but indoctrination into the left’s political ideology. [Source Link]
Information is out now about the ‘Underware Bomber’ that he was actually an operative for the CIA! Why has it taken over three years for this information to come out. [Source Link]
Our members of Congress have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws of this nation. Most have never read the Constitution and could care less about the restrictions that it imposes. When the fed’s and some States began imposing gun laws that are in direct violation of our onstitutionally protected 2nd Amendment rights many sheriffs declared that they would not enforce the laws that violate the 2nd Amendment. In Texas Democrats have introduct legislation that would have these sheriffs removed from office if they uphold the oath they swore. [Source Link]
In Colorado they have 30 elected sheriffs and all of them testified before the Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee and stated that the 8 laws they were debating were all violations of the Constitution and our 2nd Amendment rights and they could not and would not enforce any of them. Two Democrat State legislators proposed a bill that would hold up a pay raise they have been waiting for, for over seven years to be withheld until they do violate their oath to uphold the Constitution. Kudos to the people of Colorado as they have started recall petitions for 4 Democrats that voted for these guns restrictions. Two have been granted and are now collecting signatures and two are in the process of approval.
When you look at all of this, and this is just scratching the surface of what is going on, it is not the average American citizen that is a threat to our national security, the ones who demand that we operate by the Constitution, the ones who demand we be left free to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, the ones who demand that America support the institution of traditional marriage, the ones who demand that we support a pro-life position.
But maybe the biggest problem with our government is We the People. Congress has a 9% approval rating yet we returned 90% of Congress to Washington! Abraham Lincoln once said “Now more than ever before, the people of the United States are responsible, for the Character of Their Congress. If That Body be Ignorant Reckless and Corrupt, it is Because the People Tolerate Ignorance Recklessness and Corruption”. We the People have tolerated those that wish to destroy America. That is the only reason that we are in the shape that we are in.
I see it as the government’s complete abandonment of the ideals and principles given to us by our Founders that is a threat to our national security. They have become the threat to our freedoms and rights and we must recognize this and use our election process to correct the problems that we ourselves have created by not paying attention to whom we put into office. The choice is ours. Thomas Paine stated “It is the duty of the Patriot to protect his country from its government.”
This statement by Samuel Adams is just as meaningful for today’s generation as it is for his generation: “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.”
Daniel Webster also warned us about complacency: “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution!”
The battle is ours. Do you hear the call to war?
© 2013 Roger Anghis – All Rights Reserved
Pastor Roger Anghis is the Founder of RestoreFreeSpeech.org, an organization designed to draw attention to the need of returning free speech rights to churches that was restricted in 1954.President of The Damascus Project,TheDamascusProject.org, which has a stated purpose of teaching pastors and lay people the need of the churches involvement in the political arena and to teach the historical role of Christianity in the politics of the United States. Married-37 years, 3 children, three grandchildren.Web site: RestoreFreeSpeech.orgE-Mail: email@example.com
The battle is ours. Do you hear the call to war?
WELL, DO YOU?
Have you not yet realized that our government is a rogue government, hell bent on merging America into a U.N. dominated one world government? ARE YOU SO AFRAID TO FIGHT FOR YOUR FREEDOM THAT YOU WILL ACCEPT THE PRESENT TREASON IN OUR GOVERNMENT? If you are, when the SHTF you better be prepared to answer to your patriotic neighbors, because they won’t have much concern for your welfare.
“It is the duty of the Patriot to protect his country from its government.”
AND YOU CANNOT DO THAT WITHOUT KNOWING WHICH SIDE IS RIGHT AND WHICH SIDE IS WRONG.
YOUR FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT OBLIGATION IS TO BECOME, AND STAY INFORMED.
April 4th, 2013 by olddog
Whenever discussion over North Korea arises in Western circles, it always seems to be accompanied by a strange mixture of sensationalism and indifference. The mainstream media consistently presents the communist nation as an immediate threat to U.S. national security, conjuring an endless number of hypothetical scenarios as to how they could join forces with Al-Qaeda and attack with a terroristic strategy. At the same time, the chest puffing of the late Kim Jong-iL and the standard fare of hyper-militant rhetoric on the part of the North Korean government in general seem to have lulled the American public into a trance of non-concern.
In the midst of the latest tensions with the North Koreans, I have found that most people are barely tracking developments and that, when confronted by the idea of war, they shrug it off as if it is a laughable concept. “Surely” they claim, “The North is just posturing as they always have.”
The high-focus propaganda attacking North Korea on our side and the puffer fish methodology on their side have created a social and political atmosphere surrounding our relations with the Asian nation that I believe places both sides of the Pacific in great danger. North Korea has the potential to become a trigger point for multiple economic catastrophes, and there are people in this world who would be happy to use such crises to serve their own interests.
The mainstream view being espoused by globalist-minded politicians and corporate oligarchs with an agenda is that North Korea is a nuclear armed monstrosity ready to use any subversive means necessary to strike the United States. The idea that the North is working closely with Al-Qaeda has been suggested in everything from White House briefings to cable news to movies and television. The concept of pan-global terrorist collusion and the cartoon-land “axis of evil” has been prominent in our culture since the Administration of George W. Bush. It has even been making a resurgence lately in the MSM, which presented countries like Iran, Syria And North Korea as the primary culprits interfering with the success of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty.
Of course, what remains less talked about in the mainstream is the fact that these nations refuse to adhere to the treaty because carefully placed loopholes still allow major powers like the United States to feed arms into engineered insurgencies. Why would Syria or any other targeted nation sign a treaty that restricts its own sovereign ability to trade while giving teeth to internal enemies trained and funded by foreign intelligence agencies?
The establishment brushes aside such facts and consistently admonishes these countries as the last holdouts standing in the way of a new world order, a worldwide socioeconomic cooperative and pseudo-Utopia. The path to this wonderful global village is always presented as a battle against stubborn isolationists, non-progressives who lack vision and cling desperately to the archaic past. The values of personal and national sovereignty are painted as outdated, decrepit and even threatening to the newly born world structure. The image of North Korea is used by globalists as a kind of straw man argument against sovereignty. North Koreans’ vices and imbalances as a culture are many; but this is due in far larger part to their communist insanity, rather than any values of national independence. It is their domestic hive-mind collectivism we should disdain, not their wish to maintain a comfortable distance as a society from the global game.
As far as being an imminent physical threat to the United States, it really depends on the scenario. The North Koreans have almost no logistical capability to support an invasion of any kind. The nation has been suffering from epidemic famine forwell more than a decade.
To initiate a war outright has never been in the best interests of the North Koreans, simply because their domestic infrastructure would not be able to handle the strain. However, there is indeed a scenario in which North Korea could be influenced to use military force despite apprehension.
With the ever looming threat of famine comes the ever looming threat of citizen revolution. When any government is faced with the possibility of being supplanted, it will almost always lash out viciously in order to maintain power and control, no matter the cost. Sanctions like those being implemented by the West against North Korea today, at the very edge of national famine, could destabilize the country entirely. I believe the North would do anything to avoid an internal insurgency scenario, including attacking South Korea to acquire food stores and energy reserves, as well as other tangible modes of wealth.
North Korea’s standing army, obtained through mandatory two-year conscription, is estimated at about 1.1 million active personnel; very close to the numbers active in the U.S. armed forces. But North Korean reserves are estimated at more than 8 million, compared to only 800,000 in the United States. If made desperate by economic sanctions, the North Koreans could field a massive army that would wreak havoc in the South and be very difficult to root out on their home turf. Asian cultures have centuries of experience using asymmetric warfare (the kryptonite of the U.S. military), and I do not believe it is wise to take such a possible conflict lightly, as many Americans seem to do. It is easy to forget that the last Korean War did not work out so well for us. At best, we would be mired in on-ground operations for years (just like Iraq and Afghanistan) or perhaps even decades. Like North Korea, we also do not have the logistical economic means to enter into another such war.
The skeptics argue that we will never get to this point, though, because North Korea has brandished and blustered many times before, all resulting in nothing. I see recent events being far different and more urgent than in the past, and here’s why:
1) The West needs to realize that North Korea is under new leadership. The blowhard days of Kim Jung Il are over, and little is known about his son, Kim Jong-un. So far, the young dictator has followed through on everything he said he would do, including the multiple nuclear tests that the West is using as an excuse to exert sanctions. To assume that the son will be exactly like the father is folly.
2) Many people claimed that North Korean threats to abandon the Armistice in place since 1953 were empty, yet they dropped it exactly as they said they would at the beginning of March.
3) The North has begun cutting off direct communication channels to the South, including a cross-border hotline meant to help alleviate tensions through diplomatic means.
4) The North has officially declared a state of war against the South. This has been called mere “tough talk” by the U.S. government, but the speed at which these multiple developments have occurred should be taken into consideration.
5) North Korea has just announced the reopening of a shuttered nuclear reactor used to render weapons grade materials.
6) The DPRK has suddenly locked down the Kaesong Industrial Zone; a region which holds manufacturing centers for both North and South Korea. Southern manufacturers operating there employ nearly 50,000 Northern workers. Nearly 1000 Southerners also work there. The arrangement generates approximately $2 billion a year for the North. The joint industrial zone has existed since 2000, and the North has never locked down access until this past week. The fact that the DPRK is willing to restrict this area and possibly lose a sizable income signals that the situation is not as “mild” as some would like to believe.
7) At the beginning of this year, silver purchases by the North from China surged. For the entire year of 2012, the government purchased $77,000 worth of precious metals. In the first few months of 2013, North Korea has already purchased $600,000 in silver. The exact size of the North’s precious metals stockpile is unknown. Though seemingly small in comparison to many purported metal holdings by major powers, this sudden investment expansion would indicate a government move to protect internal finances from an exceedingly frail economic environment. Metals are also historically accumulated at a high rate by nations preparing for war or invasion in the near term.
Again, all that is needed to instigate an event on the Korean Peninsula are tightened sanctions. The establishment knows this, though another Gulf of Tonkin incident (an openly admitted false flag event) may be on the menu as well.
Given that the chances of a shooting war are high if sanctions continue, it might be wise to consider the consequences of conflagration in Korea.
Dealing with a large army steeped in asymmetric and mountain warfare will be difficult enough. In fact, an invasion of North Korea would be far more deadly than Afghanistan, if only because of the sheer number of maneuver elements (guerrilla-style units) on the ground. But let’s set aside North Korea for a moment and consider the greatest threat of all: dollar collapse.
As I have discussed in numerous articles, China, the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, has positioned itself to decouple from the American consumer and the dollar. This is no longer a theoretical process as it was in 2008, but a very real and nearly completed one. Mainstream analysts often claim China would never break from the dollar because it would damage their export markets and their investment holdings. The problem is, China is already dumping the dollar using bilateral trade agreements with numerous developing nations, Australia being the latest to abandon the greenback.
China isn’t just talking about it; China is doing it.
The development of a decoupled China is part of a larger push by international banks to remove the dollar as the world reserve currency and replace it with a new global currency. This currency already exists. The International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR) is a mechanism backed by a basket of currencies as well as gold. The introduction of the SDR on a wide scale is dependent on only two things:
First, China has been designated the replacement consumer engine in the wake of a U.S. collapse. They have already surpassed the United States as the No. 1 trading power in the world. However, they must spread their own currency, the Yuan, throughout global markets in order to aid the IMF in removing the dollar. China has recently announced a program to sell more than $6 trillion in Yuan denominated bonds to foreign investors, easily fulfilling this need.
Second, China and the IMF need a scapegoat event, a rationale for dumping the dollar that the masses would accept as logical. A U.S. invasion of North Korea could easily offer that rationale.
While China has been playing the good Samaritan in relations with the United States in dealing with North Korea and has supported (at least on paper) certain measures including sanctions, China will never be in support of Western combat actions in the Pacific so close to their territory. The kind of U.S. or NATO presence a war with North Korea would generate would be entirely unacceptable to the Chinese, who do not need to respond using arms. Rather, all they have to do to get rid of us would be to fully dump the dollar and threaten to cut off trade relations with any other country that won’t do the same. The domino effect would be devastating, causing U.S. costs to skyrocket and forcing us to pull troops out of the region. At the same time, the dollar would be labeled a “casualty of war” rather than a casualty of conspiratorial global banking designs, and the financial elites would be removed from blame.
Ultimately, we should take the North Korean situation seriously not because of the wild-eyed propaganda of the mainstream media and not because they are “doing business with terrorists” or because they are a “violent and barbaric relic of nationalism,” but because a war in North Korea serves the more malicious interests of globalization. No matter what happens in the near future, it is important for Americans to always question the true motives behind any event and ask ourselves who, in the end, truly benefited.
You can contact Brandon Smith at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Alt-Market is an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for mutual aid and defense. Join Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the system and build something better. To contribute to the growth of the Safe Haven Project, and to help us help others in relocating, or to support the creation of barter networks across the country, visit our donate page here: http://www.alt-market.com/donate
March 16th, 2013 by olddog
(Before It's News)
By Victoria Baer
Ok, all….time to be very aware and stand guard!!!
INTEL BRIEFING – 3/11/13
For dissemination throughout the Frontiersmen and to our friends
RE: Federal action against patriot groups in US
Today at 10AM there was a very large meeting at the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS) headquarters in Clarksburg, WV. The meeting was held in an auditorium and included everyone – from agents to the secretaries. The meeting was organized by the Director of the Biometric Identification Management Agency (BIMA), Colonel Bolo (ret.).
Bolo summarized the purchase of 24 new armored vehicles (each costing $400k) and the recent appearance of 20 mobile headquarters that are now present at the facility. The mobile units are semi-trailers with attached generators in the front; are of a shiny, mirrored-silver finish; and have no identifiable markings on them at all. There are 20 of them parked (visibly in front) at 1000 Cluster Hollow Rd, Clarksburg, WV as of today. Additionally, there are 24 armored cars (the same ones we have seen with DHS markings) parked in a different lot on this property, but they too may be visible.
The Colonel went into great detail on a list of patriot/constitutional groups. According to witnesses, this is a list that may be identical or very close to the one put out by the SPLC but had over 1000 groups on it. He explained that although groups may take advantage of the 2nd Amendment debate to garner followers now, at the heart of all these organizations is a racist core; one that poses a threat and will need to be dealt with soon. This is when he tied the armored cars and mobile command trailers to ‘the mission’.
The armored cars (those at the facility and nationwide) are to effect high-risk warrants on the ringleaders of the listed various groups with command centers being placed as necessary. The DHS and FBI are planning to move at one time against the listed groups; with SWAT teams being utilized against the more threatening ones.
The colonel explained that all these groups have been successfully infiltrated and the leaders identified. He also explained that this is part of the new Internal Security Force that the president has been alluding to. In answering a question from an attendee regarding the mass purchase of ammo, he also stated that the buildup of arms and ammo was specifically for this ‘mission’.
The witness has told me that after the meeting, everyone they seen were against this. People were complaining, shaking their head in disbelief, and asking what the heck going on. According to them, NOBODY (including federal agents present) planned on going along with this and many even talked about how this will ignite a war.
The report I received can be verified through any personal contacts you may have at this center or connected to the agencies mentioned. You may also visibly inspect the lot for these trailers by driving to the location in Clarksburg. The witness was extremely bothered by the meeting and has said ‘it is coming and a hell of a lot sooner than people think’.
I used to think that mass roundups would never happen – but with this new information, I can clearly see that this is exactly what is going to happen (at least to a certain number of militia/patriot groups). And inevitably, any action this crazy will result in a reaction by others. The specter of Civil War in this country is a real and present danger folks – prepare.
NOTE: I did ask a whole bunch of additional questions which hopefully will be answered soon.
*Thanks given to the Indiana Sentinels and the Frontiersmen for the information*
I should not have to tell you what will happen if this materializes, or what will happen if the people do not respond like their expected to, but I’m going to anyway. Let’s assume none of the patriot groups respond. If that happens, you can expect the government to implement a false flag attack on the military or a government center; possibly the White House! They have planned this to the ninth degree, and martial law will be put in place regardless of the response or lack of it. They have no intention of letting this fissile once they start it. I advise everyone no matter which side of this you support, to be ready for blackouts, transportation interruptions, no food or gas anywhere for the people.
Part of their plan is to turn the people against the patriots, and there is no better way to do that than make them scared, and uncomfortable.
It should go without saying that a large portion of our country is either ignorant of what has been building between patriots and government, or just stupidly unwilling to believe any of it. Probably millions will be flabbergasted that Americans would do the things they are going to be accused of by the mainstream media, and many of them will defend their beloved country that they believe is perfect in every way. So, count on the dull and ignorant being useless in this engagement, due to their false patriotism. In my opinion, these people do not deserve to live among us, as there is no excuse for being ignorant enough to defend the government. Most of their opinions are directly attributed to their concern for their personal safety, and will refuse to acknowledge the atrocities of the federal government. This is not going to be just a physical war between two sides, it is going to be mostly propaganda to further divide the people, so those of you who have not kept up with the issues involved will have to become informed during a blackout of truthful information, all of which the feds are perfectly aware of and responsible for. Our heroic defenders of freedom are going to need your support, and that will cause you to fear for your own safety, because any refusal on your part is going to be hard for our men to understand. Remember, they have done their job of becoming informed at a high cost to them and their families, and won’t have much sympathy for your ignorance. Yes, there may be some ferocious killers among the patriots, and it is your responsibility to protect your family, so you better get informed before it’s too late. Those who cannot physical defend their freedom will be expected to protect the patriots, and they won’t take kindly to being treated like thieves, troublemakers, tyrants, and invaders. These are the men who have committed their lives to protect your country, so make sure you treat them like they deserve. They have done the work, sacrificed the time and money, left their families behind, and are risking everything for the future of freedom in America. A warm, loving, appreciative welcome, when they need your help is going to be your part of the war. Those who prefer safety over freedom deserve neither. What will you do when you have to decide between tyranny, and freedom? Get your shit together folks, this could happen tonight. As for me and my house, we will die defending our God given Constitutional freedom from oppressive governance. How about you?
And remember, I did not write the article above, I just delivered it! Check it out your self!
March 15th, 2013 by olddog
EMBEDDED VIDEO ON WEB PAGE
Explosive Exchange at Gun Hearing Between Ted Cruz and Dianne Feinstein
"I'm not a sixth grader … it's fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I've been here for a long time.
"The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is," said Cruz to Feinstein, "Would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment's protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?
"I'm not a sixth grader," said Feinstein. "Senator, I've been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I've looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I've seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons. I've been up — I'm not a lawyer, but after 20 years I've been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn't mean that weapons of war and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I — you know, it's fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I've been here for a long time. I've passed on a number of bills. I've studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture."
That stupid bitch doesn’t know the difference between a Constitution and constipation, because her brain is constipated. She has the same problem that most of this country has, meaning she does not believe that all modern problems were solved over two hundred years ago. ALL Government’s try to replace intelligence with force, and the Constitution tied them down to intelligence. The Constitution only lacks one thing, it does not provide for the death of lawmakers’ who subvert it. If it came down to saving the second amendment, or every child in America, I would save the second amendment. That is a worthy price to pay for the remaining people’s freedom from a tyrannical government. Mark these words, when the American citizen is disarmed, indescribable horrors will be put upon the people. Those who are unable to learn from history have shit for brains! The Constitution should have enabled any citizen to legally shoot any politician who tried to subvert it! The people who protect our Constitution are the only hero’s worth acknowledging. Everyone else fighting for this country is just doing their duty.
February 25th, 2013 by olddog
By Anthony Wile
"Fiscal trouble ahead for most future retirees." Or so the Washington Post tells us in a recent column explaining why future retirees (Baby Boomers) are headed for considerable trouble. Grim reading, actually.
For the first time since the New Deal, a majority of Americans are headed toward a retirement in which they will be financially worse off than their parents, jeopardizing a long era of improved living standards for the nation's elderly, according to a growing consensus of new research.
This is worth commenting on because it only illustrates a larger point we've made a number of times: The system is broken and if you listen to mainstream financial advice you're going to end up homeless on a soup line hoping for dinner.
What is pernicious about articles like this one, in my humble view, is that they purport to be telling the truth but don't provide either context or historical accuracy. Here's more from the Post article:
The Great Recession and the weak recovery darkened the retirement picture for significant numbers of Americans. And the full extent of the damage is only now being grasped by experts and policymakers. There was already mounting concern for the long-term security of the country's rapidly graying population. Then the downturn destroyed 40 percent of Americans' personal wealth, while creating a long period of high unemployment and an environment in which savings accounts pay almost no interest. Although the surging stock market is approaching record highs, most of these gains are flowing to well-off Americans who already are in relatively good shape for retirement.
Liberal and conservative economists worry that the decline in retirement prospects marks a historic shift in a country that previously has fostered generations of improvement in the lives of the elderly. It is likely to have far-reaching implications, as an increasing number of retirees may be forced to double up with younger relatives or turn to social-service programs for support. "This is the first time that Americans are going to be relatively worse off than their parents or grandparents in old age," said Teresa Ghilarducci, director of the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis at the New School for Social Research.
Advocates for older Americans are calling on the federal government to bolster Social Security benefits or to create a new layer of retirement help for future retirees. Others want employers and the government to do more to encourage retirement savings and to discourage workers from using the money for non-retirement purposes.
But those calls have been overwhelmed by concern about the nation's fast-growing long-term debt, which has left many policy-makers focused on ways to trim Social Security and other retirement benefits rather than increase them. The economic downturn exacerbated long-term factors that were already eroding the financial standing of aging Americans: an inexorable rise in health-care costs, growing debt among older Americans and a shift in responsibility from employers to workers to plan for retirement.
The article never explains the "Great Recession" but merely asserts it – like a fact of life. We are supposed to accept that these things occur without searching for the cause. But those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it.
There were, of course, those who understood quite clearly what was about to happen. They did their best to warn us but the powers-that-be (and general population) remained complacent. Late in 2007, things took a turn for the worse. The economy began to crash and by 2008 the devastation had spread to the rest of the world and the "sovereign" debt crisis had begun to afflict Europe.
In Greece, Spain, Portugal – most of Southern and Eastern Europe – retirements have been reduced or have evaporated entirely as a result of the "Great Recession." In the US, tens of millions lost 50 percent of their life savings or more in the ongoing crashes of 2007 and 2008. And today, tens of millions more don't have anything else to lose.
While once children could have supported their aged parents, the current crisis has reduced the employment prospects for young people in much of Europe to nearly nil. None of this was expected by those involved but a lot of it was predicted by those who understood monetary history and were aware of its goals.
One can argue, of course, that this was part of a larger Money Power strategy to create a fiat dollar – and shove the world toward a single currency. If so, then the rest of the West's (especially the US's) monetary history makes a lot of sense. Sovereign overspending was utilized to generate the justification for a deal with Japan. Japan would buy US treasuries and US consumers would purchase Japanese products.
This elevated some Japanese companies to world class status and also made Japan a more consumerist and Westernized society. The same sort of thing happened in China in the later 1990s and 2000s. Africa is apparently next on the list to be consolidated. In each instance, a case is made for the transformative effects of capitalism but unfortunately, it is not capitalism that is being created but a kind corporatist mercantilism.
The Washington Post article seems to yearn for the past, when government programs were seen as helpful and effective. Here's the important graf:
The precarious situation comes after a long period of change that improved life for the nation's seniors starting with the enactment of Social Security in 1935. By the 1960s, retirees also benefitted from universal health insurance through Medicare and Medicaid, sharp increases in Social Security benefits and new protections enacted by the federal government for workers who received traditional pensions, which for decades were a standard employee benefit. The changes rescued millions of retirees from poverty, while lifting millions of others to prosperous retirements symbolized by vacation cruises, recreational vehicles and second homes. But now problems for future retirees seem to be closing in from all sides.
You see? This is a sentiment that is beyond simplistic. It is dangerous. The more that people put their trust – and financial health – into the proverbial hands of the state, the more apt they are to end up without the security they've counted on. We can see this today. It is not a hypothesis but a reality.
Historically speaking, modern corporatist states are not run for citizens' benefit. The concern that is expressed, the dialogue that is being presented every day, are merely distractions. Think of how many billions of words have been written about Western retirements, how to save for the future and how to invest in a profitable way. Despite all that has been talked about, written and otherwise presented, the current system is wrecked and people's prospects are getting worse not better.
Lately, I've noticed an uptick in people's positive emotional response to the markets and the economy. But the same misinformation and economic manipulation that occurred before is occurring now. Central banks have dumped tens of trillions into the larger marketplace and when that money begins to circulate rates will have to be raised and recoveries, such as they are, will be cut short. The dollar reserve system itself must be seen as in a kind of terminal decline as well. Sorry, folks.
Let price inflation move up even a little, and the carrying costs of US debt will likely become insupportable. These trends simply aren't being explained on a regular basis. Instead, we get alarmed articles about how a US "savings deficit" has to yield to targeted, government oriented financial programs. Alternatively, we get widely publicized policy battles about deficit reduction and continued and expanded "austerity." But neither government programs nor austerity will help salvage the larger economy, in my opinion.
Here's the good news, though: You don't have to worry about it.
There are practical steps you can take to help yourself. Some of them you'll find right within the pages of this website, TheDailyBell.com. Don't wait for government. Don't keep hoping that bureaucratic "wonkery" will come to the rescue. Recognize you have to do it yourself.
There are, of course, certain kinds of equity opportunities that you can invest in – if you can find a trusted advisor. And there are – or should be – steps you can take to move some of your holdings offshore and into precious metals or even real estate. There are plenty of other positive steps you can take on your own and within your community to ensure your and your family's safety.
We are still being taught to look toward government for the solution to our private retirement dilemmas and general prosperity. The last century should have taught us that this is a chimera – what we like to call a dominant social theme – that government and public spending are a substitute for individual responsibility.
Unfortunately, no matter how many articles are written, or how much is broadcast, reality doesn't change. The person responsible for you is … you. And if you are to have a good and hopefully prosperous life, you will have to take action to make it so.
What can I say when I cannot convince my children, or my wife, that every dollar you can spare must go into silver. Either bars and coins or coins only depending on the amount of your funds. Gold is a good place for savvy investors but the average blue collar worker with three or four hundred thousand saved and invested, is at a disadvantage over how and when to buy and sell. Also, every middle class investor has been brain washed into looking for return on investment. In good times that is the way to go, but this is a time for preserving your assets, not increasing them. The powers that be, are manipulating both metals as much as they can, but silver has always been the commodity that carried through to the end. Gold, by its very nature is more attractive to the powers that be, and will continue to fluctuate violently before the bankers lose control of it. Silver by contrast is the poor investor’s salvation, as it has always been the most stable in the long run of any commodity. Don’t take my word for it, as there are hundreds of knowledgeable advisers on the net. Sort them out according to common sense and put your money in silver before you lose it all. Paper investments are going to be toilet paper investments before this is over.
Right now, anyone who has stocked up on ammunition is making a killing, but the days of buying it cheap and in quantity are long gone. Ditto for most other necessities of life. Those who have waited have lost the chance to survive and prosper. If you take any of this advise to heart, make this your highest concern, If you don’t have it, you don’t own it. Take possession of your silver and protect it with your life. Stay away from paper instruments. They are paper dollars in disguise.
February 22nd, 2013 by olddog
By Lee Duigon
February 21, 2013
Some scientists fear that human intelligence is declining. Gee whiz, they noticed. They chalk it up to a genetic mutation, or fluoride in our drinking water, pesticides, processed food, whatever.
But they’ve only scratched the surface. Here are some of the other key factors behind the rise of idiocy.
One. Higher education makes you stupid. There is no way you can sit in a college classroom for seven years to get a degree in “human rights” or “women’s studies” and not turn into an imbecile. If you think the university doesn’t maim the human mind, you haven’t really listened to the Occupy Wall Street crowd.
Two. Public schooling makes you stupid. How could there be a sillier idea than to make your age-group peers—other kids who are as dumb as you are—the most important, the most influential people in your life, and conformity your goal in life? Not to mention such added frills as the gender coach, the cuddle puddle, “social studies,” and “math” lessons about the joys of redistributing wealth. As Paul Simon once put it, “When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it’s a wonder I can think at all.” Only the process starts in kindergarten, not in high school.
Three. Being governed by Democrats makes you stupid. Some would disagree, saying that being governed by Democrats is an effect of stupidity, not a cause. Who but complete dunderheads would ever choose to be governed by Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Bob Menendez, Charlie Rangel, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Hank Johnson, and on and on to the last drop of distilled brainlessness? Case in point: Dems propose “universal pre-school.” Why wait until kindergarten to start the stupefying process? The fact that the country can’t afford such a colossal waste of money is just icing on the cake. Anyhow, scientific studies prove that just listening to the above-mentioned individuals causes necrosis of the brain cells.
Republicans are not much better—but who can remember the last time Republicans governed anything? As soon as they take the oath of office, they start acting like Democrats.
Four. Movies about superheroes make you stupid. That goes for comic books and video games, too. If you still have any interest in costumed superheroes after celebrating your 12th birthday, it means your mind stopped growing at eleven.
The human mind needs nourishment, or it will not grow. It needs challenge, or it will not expand. It will be smothered, stultified, by movies about superheroes, with bodies flying all over the screen and dialogue like “Yeeowww!” and “Waaaah!”
Five. Reality TV makes you stupid. Watching anything about any Kardashian is like injecting your brain with carpet cleaner. If nothing else, it offers a totally unreal vision of reality. Whose reality looks like that stuff? The horror, the horror.
Once upon a time, when it cost real money to produce them, TV shows offered coherent story-lines and professional actors to bring the characters to life. If you don’t believe me, go to youtube and watch a few episodes of “The Rockford Files” or “Wagon Train.”
In truth, our whole popular culture is a vast toxic ocean of stupidity in which we, poor fish, must swim. No one is entirely immune to its effects. And it gets worse by the day.
For instance, this from the U.K. Independent, Feb. 8, 2013: “Academic takes swipe at David Attenborough wildlife documentaries for ignoring gay animals.” Can you believe it? A professor at the University of East Anglia, home of “Climategate,” says the documentaries “are perpetuating the notion that animal relationships are predominantly heterosexual.”
This is stupid beyond anything we ever dreamed was possible. (“And here are the gay salmon struggling up the rapids, so they can mate with other males and produce jack-bloody-nothing…” “And over here we have some lesbian fruit flies…” Gimme a break.) It comes spewing out of an institution incredibly described as a facility of higher education, out of the mouth of a registered “intellectual.” Has anything more asinine ever been said by anyone?
We need to start wondering about whether stupid humans have the survival skills and instincts necessary to perpetuate the species. Meanwhile, the Bible succinctly explains how we wound up on the Pinhead Parkway.
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” —Proverbs 9:10
That’s where we missed the turn and just kept going, right down Stupid Street.
© 2013 Lee Duigon – All Rights Reserved
Lee Duigon, a contributing editor with the Chalcedon Foundation, is a former newspaper reporter and editor, small businessman, teacher, and horror novelist. He has been married to his wife, Patricia, for 34 years. See his new fantasy/adventure novels, Bell Mountain and The Cellar Beneath the Cellar, available on www.amazon.com
February 10th, 2013 by olddog
With Anthony Wile
The Daily Bell is pleased to present this exclusive interview with Edwin Vieira, Jr.
Introduction: Dr. Vieira holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences) and J.D. (Harvard Law School). For over 36 years he has been a practicing attorney, specializing in cases that raise issues of constitutional law. He has presented numerous cases of import before the Supreme Court and written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals. His latest scholarly work is The Sword and Sovereignty (2012). Previous works include Constitutional "Homeland Security" (2007), a proposal to begin the revitalization of the constitutional Militia of the several states; Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2d rev. ed. 2002), a comprehensive study of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective; and How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary (2004), an analysis of the problems of irresponsible "judicial supremacy" and how to deal with them. With well known libertarian trader Victor Sperandeo, he is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novelCRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered "crash" of the Federal Reserve System, and the political revolution it causes.
Daily Bell: Thanks for sitting down with us again. Let's jump right in with a discussion of your new book, The Sword and Sovereignty. Give us a synopsis, please. Where can people buy it?
Edwin Vieira: The Sword and Sovereignty is available at Amazon.com. It is a study of the actual constitutional "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" in the Second Amendment in its inextricable relation to "the Militia of the several States," as opposed to the historically inaccurate and legally indefensible so-called "individual right to keep and bear arms" on which almost all contemporary advocates of the Second Amendment fixate. I describe "the individual right to keep and bear arms" as legally indefensible because fundamentally it is a right in name only, inasmuch as it lacks an effective remedy if an highly organized and armed tyranny sets out to suppress it, whereas the true "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" exercised in the context of "well regulated Militia" is the Constitution's own preferred remedy against usurpation and tyranny in their every aspect. Even though the Second Amendment is very much the subject of contemporary political debate, I seem to be one of the very few commentators saying as much − which, in these days of rampant legal and political confusion, misinformation and disinformation, is probably very convincing evidence that I am correct.
In any event, The Sword and Sovereignty breaks down into four parts: First, an analysis of the correct manner of interpreting the Constitution. Second, an application of the rules of constitutional interpretation to the question of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" in relation to "the Militia of the several States," elucidating the basic principles of the Militia through a thoroughgoing analysis of the pre-constitutional Militia statutes of the Colonies and independent States. Third, an application of the principles of the Militia, and especially of the duty (as well as the right) of all eligible Americans to be armed, to present-day problems of what is called "homeland security." And fourth, a warning that, should these principles not be applied in the very near future − immediately, if not sooner, as I like to put it − America will slip under the control of a national para-militarized police-state apparatus (which anyone with even the least insight should recognize is taking place at an ever-accelerating pace even as he reads these words). The book is heavily freighted with footnotes and endnotes identifying primary sources, so no one has to take my poor word alone for its premises and conclusions.
Daily Bell: What's the response been?
Edwin Vieira: The Sword and Sovereignty was first made available in mid-December of 2012. It had to be put out on a CD in PDF format because there was insufficient interest shown among potential readers to justify producing a quality hardbound printed version (although that may become an option in the future). In light of the popularity of the subject matter of the book − the Second Amendment and related constitutional issues − that depth of disinterest really surprised me. But now, with all of the brouhaha over new, draconian "gun-control" legislation in the States as well as in Congress, the very slow sale of, and dearth of commentary about, the CD is more than surprising. It is shocking, even appalling. Especially so when more and more commentators, bloggers, and others on the Internet are recognizing, and correctly so, that the ultimate purpose of the Second Amendment is not to protect hunters or target shooters, or even to enable individuals to protect themselves against common criminals but instead to enable common Americans to resist the political crimes of usurpation and tyranny. Which, I believe, the historical record proves beyond peradventure cannot be accomplished through the exercise of an "individual right to keep and bear arms," but rather demands collective action through "the Militia of the several States."
Daily Bell: What was the most interesting thing you discovered while researching the book?
Edwin Vieira: The extent and depth of the evidence for the construction of the Second Amendment and the Militia Clauses of the original Constitution, whichThe Sword and Sovereignty lays out. Over the years, I have studied many aspects of pre-constitutional legal history; but as to no other matter is the historical record as complete, consistent and compelling as it is with respect to the Militia. The evidence supports the conclusions in the book beyond a reasonable doubt, which is far more than can be said about such matters taken as "legal gospel" today as the reach of the Supreme Court's power of "judicial review" or of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.
Daily Bell: What are some of the fundamental conclusions?
Edwin Vieira: There are far too many to compile here. The five most consequential for the average man's understanding of the present-day issue of "gun control" are that: (i) The maintenance of freedom depends inextricably upon the American people's collective participation in "well regulated Militia," not upon individual action; (ii) "A well regulated Militia" is composed of nearly all of the eligible adult residents in a State, who are required by law to serve; (iii) Every member of such a Militia (other than conscientious objectors) must be armed with one or more firearms, ammunition and accoutrements suitable for Militia service, all of which must always be maintained in his personal possession; (iv) Because two of the most important responsibilities of the Militia are to repel invasions by foreign countries and to put down domestic usurpation and tyranny by rogue public officials, every armed member of the Militia must be equipped with a firearm suitable for those specific purposes − which means a firearm equivalent to, if not better than, the firearms contemporary regular armed forces bear: that is, not just a semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifle in 5.56 x 45 (.223) or 7.62 x 39 caliber, but a fully automatic or burst-fire rifle, preferable in a caliber more effective than the latter calibers, such as 6.5 x 38 Grendel (which can be made to work reliably on an AR-15 or M-16 platform); and (v) because "the Militia of the several States" are State governmental institutions, no contemporary form of "gun control" can be applied to them or their members by either Congress or the States' legislatures. Rather, it is the duty of Congress and the States' legislatures to see that all members of the Militia are properly armed, not to any degree disarmed. That is, as to the Militia and their members (which includes essentially all adult Americans), all forms of contemporary "gun control," including those of the Feinstein and Cuomo patterns (to name two of the more infamous poster-children for "gun control"), are absolutely unconstitutional.
Daily Bell: From your perspective, a free people is an armed people?
Edwin Vieira: It has nothing whatsoever to do with my personal "perspective," or my "opinion," or my "view." The Constitution tells us, in no uncertain terms, that a "well regulated Militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State." This is a declaration of law and historical fact − as well as an admonition − set out in the supreme law of the land, and therefore from a strictly legal perspective to be accepted and acted upon. It is also a first principle or axiom of American political philosophy. Had I a different "perspective," "opinion," or "view," I should to that extent be an opponent of the Constitution. And if I were in a position to attempt to impose that different, anti-constitutional "perspective," "opinion," or "view" on the American people by enacting legislation and enforcing it against them through the threats and assaults of jack-booted, uniformed, para-militarized thugs, then I should be, as well, a traitor (in the strict sense in which the Constitution defines "Treason" in Article III, Section 3, Clause 1).
Daily Bell: How can people with guns hold off the tanks (or "non-lethal" weapons) of a repressive government?
Edwin Vieira: This is a complex question because it incorporates so many implicit, unexamined and likely false assumptions. It probably is true that, even though many in overall number, individuals acting only in isolation, without coordination or even a common plan, cannot hold off rogue armed forces or even police agencies that are armed only with small arms, let alone tanks and other heavy weaponry. But the desired goal is not necessarily to win an all-out, once-and-for-all nationwide firefight but instead to deter usurpation and tyranny at their onset and grind their perpetrators down even if they are initially successful.
If Militia exist which could effectively resist aspiring usurpers and tyrants to any degree for any length of time, the usurpers and tyrants will be compelled to think twice about attempting to repress the people. Indeed, under such circumstances, the regular armed forces and police may themselves fracture: some supporting the rogue regime, others supporting the people. And, in the long run, the armed forces and police that remain on the side of the usurpers and tyrants may prove unable to suppress the people, their supposedly superior weaponry notwithstanding.
Look at Afghanistan. In more than ten years, the armed forces of the United States and their puppet "coalition partners" have been unable to defeat a rag-tag people's army of cave-dwellers and primitive tribesmen armed with weaponry less effective than was used in World War I (no tanks, no planes, no heavy artillery, no poison gas and so on), in a land-locked country which receives no significant outside assistance.
Now, there are some 300 million people in the United States. Assume that 150 million are adults and that of these some 50 million, spread throughout a landmass than spans North America, would actively sympathize with and even personally participate in a resistance-movement. And remember that of these 50 million, most are already fairly well armed. The difficulty of suppressing this level of opposition, particularly when the resistance-fighters could directly attack the logistical support of the usurpers' and tyrants' puppet forces, would make Afghanistan look like a cakewalk.
Daily Bell: Do people need to form their own militias?
Edwin Vieira: If you mean do individuals need to form private militia, on their own, then the constitutional answer is an unequivocal NO. The constitutional Militia, "the Militia of the several States" incorporated in the original Constitution and the "well regulated Militia" to which the Second Amendment refers, are State governmental institutions or establishments. This is what imbues them with legal − indeed, constitutional − authority, which no private militia can possibly claim. Think about it: If the people on the south side of Main Street in Smalltown USA form their own private militia, and the people on the north side of Main Street form theirs, which one of them, perforce of its mere existence, can claim even a semblance of legal authority over the other, or over anyone else for that matter? Or are both of them − and any other armed groups that happen to coalesce in that area − of equal legal authority, so that no generally applicable system of law can be applied in that territory? In which case, one might conclude, there can be no legal authority there at all, just a multiplicity of Freikorps settling their inevitable differences by main force. Not a very pretty picture.
Daily Bell: What's your take on the current gun control controversy?
Edwin Vieira: The present controversy − at least as it is being mis-argued in the media, both mainstream and alternative − can basically be characterized as two huge gas-bags colliding head-on, but with no real harm possibly done by or to either because neither articulates the issue actually at stake.
If the problem is viewed from the constitutionally true perspective of the Militia, then "gun control" of the familiar contemporary variety must be seen as legally impossible and politically perverse. Any form of "gun control" is illegitimate, on its face, if its intent or effect is to any degree to disarm the Militia because the Second Amendment declares that "[a] well regulated Militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State," any attack upon which is precluded (and therefore unreasonable) as a matter of law. And the original Constitution incorporates the Militia as integral components of its federal structure, with which neither the General Government nor the States may dispense. That is the end of the matter. Any other supposed merits or demerits of a particular "gun-control" proposal are simply irrelevant. If it undermines the Militia − as all contemporary "gun-control" schemes do, and are objectively intended to do − then such a scheme is out of bounds, absolutely and irretrievably. Period.
On the other hand, if the problem is viewed from the constitutionally false perspective of "the individual right to keep and bear arms," then "gun control" becomes a matter of what can be deemed "reasonable" in relation to something other than the maintenance of the Militia and "the security of a free State." Something, perhaps, with highly emotional appeal, such as guaranteeing the supposed "safety" of children from irresponsible, criminal, or insane individuals who somehow get their hands on guns. If "gun control" is aimed only at curtailing some vague "individual right" entirely separate from the Militia and the maintenance of "a free State" (which is inextricably tied to the Militia, not to any "individual right"), then why is it not perfectly "reasonable" to prohibit the possession of some sorts − indeed, many or even most sorts − of firearms, by some or even many sorts of putatively "dangerous" people, as long as individuals not within the prohibited classes are left with a few firearms with which arguably they can defend themselves as individuals against adventitious attacks by common criminals?
Why, the Feinsteins and Cuomos of this benighted country may ask with some semblance of cogency, does anyone "need" a supposedly dangerous semi-automatic rifle if he is not a member of an official institution with the responsibility to repel invasions (such as the Army) − which, according to the dogma of "the individual right to keep and bear arms," most individuals are not? Conversely, if one is a member of such an institution − as most adult Americans are (or should be) with respect to the Militia − then the question the Feinsteins and the Cuomos pose lacks not simply cogency but even logic and legitimacy. It becomes a question which might be asked appropriately in North Korea but never here in America.
Daily Bell: What's the most critical problem facing America right now? Previously you claimed it was authoritarianism and a growing police state.
Edwin Vieira: Claimed?! I have "claimed" nothing. As a political and legal scientist, I have observed and reported on my observations, which is an entirely different matter. Moreover, anyone who cannot and does not make the selfsame observations needs to have his political eyes examined.
America's national para-military police state is not simply "growing"; it hasgrown to fantastic proportions. Why else do you imagine that I am devoting the last years of my life to promoting the revitalization of the Militia? Nostalgia for the by-gone Colonial era? When the Executive Department of the General Government declares, as it has today, that nameless, faceless bureaucrats can order the assassinations of Americans, anywhere in the world, on the basis of the mere suspicion that the targets are somehow allied with "terrorists" or other "enemies," and no other department of the General Government or the States at any level of the federal system challenges that declaration, then America has degenerated into a politically putrescent state beyond mere "authoritarianism." This condition constitutes a species of legal nihilism with which, heretofore, only monsters such as Caligula and Hitler were associated. For if one's life can be stripped from him under such circumstances, what other rights does he retain? None, as all rights inevitably depend upon the right to life itself. And if such an individual − indeed, everyAmerican − retains no rights, because the theory of "official assassinations" embraces essentially anyone and everyone who might be denounced from within the bowels of the bureaucracy as an "enemy combatant," then what limits exist to rogue public officials' powers? None. This is totalitarianism with a vengeance.
Daily Bell: We mentioned directed history the last time we spoke, and you indicated that in your view a "paper-money oligarchy" was at least one group organizing this kind of history. These are basically banking families and their enablers based in Britain and Europe with military and intelligence arms (along with other such families) in Israel and the US. Why are they busy in Africa creating wars? Is it because their credit scheme is in the final stages of Ponzi self-destruction, as you indicated? Has that advanced in the past two years?
Edwin Vieira: What I might describe as "intermediate Ponzi banking pyramids," based upon national or regional central banks − namely, the Federal Reserve System and the European Central Bank − are shaking themselves to pieces, as all such Ponzi schemes eventually must. As a result, "the paper-money oligarchy" will now try to salvage the basic system by elevating it to a global level with some sort of world central bank, perhaps based upon the IMF. This may prove difficult if not impossible to accomplish if the Chinese, for example, cannot be cajoled or coerced into joining or at least acquiescing in such an operation. At present, that does not seem likely. The Chinese appear to be staking out a position based upon competition with, rather than complicity in, any new global paper-money-and-credit scam run by the "Western" elites. So those elites are taking defensive measures to shore up their position, based upon their realization that the purpose of all paper-money-and-credit schemes is not simply to manipulate paper "obligations," "claims," and misnamed "assets," but instead to redistribute real wealth from the unsuspecting members of society at large to the manipulators and their cronies and clients.
Ultimately, real wealth consists of human labor and natural resources. Africa is awash in critical natural resources; and the potential for enserfing its native populations as docile workers under puppet "governments" controlled by the "Western" elites makes those resources even more valuable. So the military conflicts in Africa now being billed as parts of "the war on terrorism" are actually parts of a "war of terrorism" intended to destabilize the region, introduce "Western" neo-colonialism and thus preempt the Chinese from obtaining an economic or political foothold in the area.
Daily Bell: We spoke about dominant social themes and how they are used by this power elite. What have you noticed about their fear-based promotions? Are they more powerful than ever or are they losing their power to convince?
Edwin Vieira: A little of both. We observe with the present orchestrated hysteria over "gun control" − all of which is based upon promoting irrational fear of and loathing for firearms amongst the general populace − that, although many Americans are being swayed by the elitists' propaganda and agitation, perhaps even more Americans are not: The more the elitists scream for radical "gun control," the more common Americans listen to the real subliminal message in these rants, and the more firearms and ammunition they amass.
On the other side, though, the elitists have successfully imparted a subtle twist to their propaganda and agitation: At first, "the party line" was simply that Americans must fear "terrorists" from abroad, and therefore must surrender some of their freedoms to a nascent national para-military police-state apparatus. To this was soon added the supposed necessity for Americans to fear "domestic terrorists" (such as their fellow countrymen who support the Constitution, advocate the restoration of sound money and possess firearms), coupled with the necessity for Americans to surrender even more of their freedoms to a burgeoning police state. Most recently, the theme has shifted to the utterly discordant note that Americans must fear their own "government" most of all but can do nothing about its ever-more-abusive inroads into their remaining freedoms because, with all of the political, economic, and military power at its disposal, "the government" cannot be effectively opposed, no matter what excesses it may commit.
This at least has the advantage of bringing the discussion into concordance with the true meaning of words, inasmuch as the very first definition of "terrorism" in Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (the standard reference for American English) as well as in The Oxford English Dictionary(the standard reference for English generally) is none other than "governmentby intimidation." But it also points up the psychotic nature of the "national debate" being foisted upon us: namely, that (at least according to the elitists and their touts) Americans' only defense against "terrorism" is to acquiesce in the worst sort of "terrorism." If this is not the best argument for revitalizing "the Militia of the several States," immediately if not sooner, then what is?
Daily Bell: What is a nation? Are they necessary?
Edwin Vieira: These are typical of open-ended questions the complete answers to which would require volumes. Suffice it to say here that nations must have been sufficient, if not absolutely necessary, for some historical purposes of general significance, or they would never have arisen let alone assumed such importance throughout the world. Today, if they did not already exist, they should be created for the specific purpose of opposing globalism.
True, throughout history many nations have been guilty of all sorts of crimes and other wrongdoing. But because of the multiplicity of nations, various "alliances" and "balances of power" among them have tended to deter, defend against, or mitigate many of the worst potentials and consequences of nationalistic hubris, aggression, imperialism and kindred disorders. Under a globalist regime, conversely, such "alliances" and "balances of power" will, by hypothesis, be impossible. For that reason, a globalist regime will usher in the possibility − and, I should suspect from the plans and pronouncements of contemporary globalists themselves, the likelihood − of the most horrific tyranny from which mankind has ever suffered.
There being no other effective defensive measures that can be interposed against globalism in time to interfere with its proponents' schedule, nations and national sovereignty are necessary. That is especially true with respect to Americans, in particular. For our Declaration of Independence announced that Americans have "assume[d] among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them." The last time I looked, the Declaration of Independence had not been rescinded.
Daily Bell: Is it possible the Colonial period was merely a prelude to globalism? In other words, that nations had to be created before globalism could occur? Too paranoid?
Edwin Vieira: I should think such a conclusion would go far beyond paranoia. Do you mean to suggest that globalism is a consciously elaborated project, going back literally centuries, in which one intermediate stage has been the creation of independent nations for the very purpose of destroying those nations at some indeterminate time in the future? If so, who are this project's original architects? And how have they recruited followers true to the cause over the centuries? What is the evidence for such speculations? Are we to give credence and credit to (say) the musings of such as Francis Bacon, who proposed the establishment of "an universal republic" several hundred years ago?
To be sure, the contemporary globalist movement can attempt to take advantage of the existence of nations, which provides possibly ready-made building-blocks for the construction of some globalist edifice − as, for instance, by incorporation of individual nations into a multi-national organization such as the United Nations which can serve as a predecessor to the final globalist structure. This, however, is as likely to be historical happenstance − nations are available for such use, so why not use them − as it is to be the result of some long-range plan the origins of which are obscured in the mists of time.
Nations, moreover, are obviously two-edged swords in this duel for political power between themselves and the globalists. True enough, nations could conceivably be finagled into becoming stepping-stones to globalism, by coopting them in international organizations, then transmogrifying those organizations into supra-national organizations, then simply eliminating the nations as independent sovereignties, then wiping out international borders and their political, economic, and legal significance entirely − especially if traitorous political leaders could be coopted, bribed, blackmailed, or otherwise convinced or coerced to connive or cooperate with the globalist steering-committee. But the various nations' peoples, and even some of their political leaders, also might balk at being dragooned into a globalist regime that reduces them to pawns on the elitists' political chessboard; and they might then assert national sovereignty − and the legal, political, economic and especially military power that goes with it − in forcible opposition to globalism.
Daily Bell: The power elite uses false flags to promote global control. Is one of their goals gun control?
Edwin Vieira: Always. As Mao Tse-tung correctly observed. "[p]olitical power grows out of the barrel of a gun." The Second Amendment makes the same point but with a special political and ethical gloss: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In America, the guns are supposed to reside in We the People's hands, in order that "a free State" − not "a police state" − may be maintained. So, for Americans in particular to be brought under the globalists' control − a boot stamping on a human face forever, as Orwell described the situation in his novel 1984 − they must first be disarmed, as other peoples subjected to oppression throughout history have been disarmed.
"False flags" − in the sense of shocking events, sometimes manufactured, sometime perhaps spontaneous − have become the preferred vehicles today for stampeding the populace into "gun control" of one variety or another. It is almost as if the political actors were working off the same dog-eared B-movie script in scene after scene. Which, thankfully, is why these "false flags" are becoming increasingly less credible, and the American people increasingly less credulous.
Daily Bell: Was Barack Obama re-elected legitimately or was there a lot of voter fraud?
Edwin Vieira: Doubtlessly voter fraud was pervasive in the last election, as it has been in many others, to the disgrace of this country. More to the point, however, is whether Barack Obama was even constitutionally eligible to stand for election or re-election in the first place. Did his putative father's British citizenship (as a resident of Kenya) disqualify Obama as a matter of law, even if in fact he was born within the United States? Did he become an Indonesian citizen when he was relocated there as a child; and, if so, did he as an adult ever reassert his supposed American birth-citizenship when he returned to the United States? As an adult in the United States did he seek educational benefits on the basis that he was a foreign student?
Why are these and related questions not being asked, let alone answered, either in Congress or in the courts? How is it that you and I must submit to a comprehensive background check before we can purchase a single firearm, but this fellow, whose origins, peregrinations and other personal details are purposefully being sequestered from public scrutiny at very great expense in attorneys' fees, can have his finger on the proverbial "nuclear trigger" and thereby threaten the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and no one in public office seems to be concerned?
Daily Bell: What was your feeling regarding Ron Paul's campaign? Were you surprised at the way it ended?
Edwin Vieira: I was hardly surprised at the manner in which the Republican Party big-shots systematically stabbed Ron Paul in the back. I was disappointed, though, that after such shoddy treatment Dr. Paul did not bolt from the Republican Party and run for the Presidency on a "fusion ticket" composed of the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party and other splinter-parties that might have created the foundation for a true second party in this country, as well as consigned the Republican Party to the dustbin of history once and for all. Such a "fusion ticket" might not have won the 2012 election, just as the original Republican Party did not win the first Presidential election it contested in 1856. But, once formed, "the fusion ticket" could have become a formidable force in 2016 and thereafter. Now, the necessary work has to be begun all over again.
Daily Bell: Will there be a successful states' rights movement − or even secession?
Edwin Vieira: I believe that "secession" − the assertion by a State of a right to remove herself from the Constitution's federal system on her own recognizance − is unconstitutional. I have a long series of articles on this subject posted in my archive at Newswithviews.com. And even if such a form of "secession" were not unconstitutional, or some other arguably legal form of "secession" were tried, the exercise would be futile at the present time because no State is prepared to deal with the primary consequences of "secession." How, for example, could a State successfully "secede" economically if she remained tied to the Federal Reserve System's phony regime of paper currency and unlimited bank credit? Obviously, as a precondition to "secession" a State would have to adopt an alternative currency entirely independent of the Federal Reserve and the United States Treasury Department. Has that been done anywhere? No.
Moreover, how could a State expect to "secede" politically if rogue agents of the General Government could enter her territory at will and attempt to enforce that government's statutes, regulations and executive orders on her citizens? Obviously, as a precondition to "secession" a State would have to revitalize her Militia, in order to be able to interpose against such assaults on her own sovereignty and on her people's lives, liberties, and property. But has that been done anywhere? Again, no. So in the absence of these necessary preliminary steps (and many others, too), talk of "secession" is plainly little more than the expulsion of hot air.
The assertion of the States' special constitutional status within the federal system − what is often described as "States' rights" − is another matter, though. Many opportunities for asserting the States' special status now exist. The problem, of course, is that the General Government's courts are ready, willing and able to attempt to nullify these assertions of federalism by invoking an overly expansive misconstruction of the Constitution's "supremacy clause" (Article VI, Clause 2). So if the States are serious about protecting and promoting their rights and the rights of their people, at some point in the near future they will have to reject the notion that the General Government's courts, or any department of that government, or all of them acting in unison, are the final arbiters of what the Constitution means. Indeed, this should be obvious. The General Government is merely the agent of the people, not the people's master. The people are the principal. On what theory of agency is the principal required to accept the agent's unilateral, self-serving and possibly corrupt determination of what the agent's powers are, thereby effectively subordinating the principal to the agent? To be sure, this is the twisted formula usurpers and tyrants invariably employ in drawing all powers to themselves, at the expense of the people. But to contend that it is a principle, precept, or permissible interpretation of the Constitution is at best a nice piece of effrontery to which no American should give credence, if not a rotten piece of political treachery, which every American should condemn and oppose.
Daily Bell: You were a bit doubtful of the Internet's effect last time we spoke, saying it was full of misinformation. What's your take on that now?
Edwin Vieira: As far as I can tell, that particular problem has become worse. Today, the Internet is inundated not only with misinformation posted by the ignorant and the insouciant but also with carefully crafted disinformation posted by professional trolls and agents provocateurs. That does not mean that useful information is not to be found but only that one must use a very great deal of discernment in uncovering it, particularly if the subject is politically "controversial" (that is, runs against the grain of the elitists' party line). The great value of the Internet remains, however, that unlike books, which are costly and time-consuming to print and then may not be immediately accessible to the people who need to read them, the Internet allows for the almost instant posting and retrieval of information. So I remain cautiouslyoptimistic.
Daily Bell: What's going on with Afghanistan? It doesn't appear that the war is going well for the elites.
Edwin Vieira: Except, of course, with respect to the reintroduction of the cultivation of and trade in opiates, which seems to be a smashing success. As I pointed out earlier in this interview, however, the quagmire in Afghanistan does give the lie to the elitists' claim that rebellious peoples will always be helpless in the face of the modern technology, which contemporary armed forces can deploy against them.
Daily Bell: Any news on the martial law front as regards the US? Does Obama have it in mind? Would law enforcement cooperate?
Edwin Vieira: I doubt that Obama, personally, has anything in mind with respect to "martial law" (or any other subject you might mention). His handlers, however, doubtlessly are considering the invocation of some variety of "martial law" if the banking and financial systems collapse, with subsequent economic stringencies, social dislocations and civil unrest and disobedience spreading throughout America. And they are not reluctant to have their mouthpieces suggest in various fora the possibility or even likelihood of "martial law," doubtlessly in order to condition common Americans into acquiescing in its inevitability. A chapter in The Sword and Sovereignty deals in great detail with the question of "martial law" in all of its ramifications. The bottom line is that the type of "martial law" commonly presented as a political possibility in America is actually a constitutional impossibility, and would be a practical impossibility were "the Militia of the several States" revitalized.
Would "law enforcement" cooperate in the imposition of such unconstitutional "martial law"? Surely some would, simply to continue to receive their paychecks. And the extent of "police brutality" throughout this country, documented in often terrifying videos on the Internet, evidences the existence of all too many "law enforcement officers" who are ready, willing and able to oppress their countrymen with almost lunatic outbursts of violence that result in unpunished official homicides (or, as the vernacular has it, "death by cop"). "Martial law" would provide these psychopaths with the opportunity to vent their animalistic rage on a very wide scale. Here, too, as The Sword and Sovereignty explains, the solution to the problem would be revitalization of the Militia.
Daily Bell: What do you think of Chief Justice Roberts's decision regardingObamacare?
Edwin Vieira: Very little that is fit to print. It is an abomination, if I may be allowed a juxtaposition of letters in order to make a play on words. Roberts held that the so-called "individual mandate" in "Obamacare" − the supposed requirement for Americans to purchase health insurance which they do not want, or be penalized for their refusals − could not be sustained under the Constitution's Commerce Clause or its Necessary and Proper Clause. Fine. That means that no substantive constitutional power exists that can rationalize that provision in "Obamacare." But then he opined that, notwithstanding the absence of any such substantive power, "the individual mandate" can be enforced as a "tax." What is the result of this aberrant reasoning? Namely, that Congress may, through the imposition of a "tax," coerce Americans into behaving in any manner whatsoever, even though it admittedly enjoys no particular power to require such behavior. Furthermore, as we know, taxes are often enforced not only by the confiscation of money or other property but also by imprisonment. So the bottom line is that Congress can provide for the imprisonment of any and every American who refuses to obey any Congressional command to behave in a certain manner, even though Congress has no independent power whatsoever to require such behavior!
Obviously, this is far worse than the constitutionally crackpot notion that Congress can "regulate commerce" by coercing Americans to engage in "commerce" against their wills; for at least some forms of personal behavior do not constitute "commerce" (or even, to use the judiciary's gibberish, "affect commerce") by anyone's definition, and therefore could never be subject to such a ludicrous misconstruction of Congressional power. Roberts's "tax" theory, in contrast, embraces every conceivable form of behavior known to man, all of which can be compelled by the imposition of some "tax," and in the final analysis by imprisonment. Thus, appealing to just one clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1), Roberts has concocted a rationalization for a complete totalitarian state! Even Alexander Hamilton, the most consistent and candid centralizer among the Founding Fathers, would have repudiated this theory in no uncertain terms. Even Stalin, I suspect, would have been surprised (albeit pleasantly) to discover that the power to tax, by itself alone, could be so employed. If this is not a perfect illustration of the utter imbecility of "judicial supremacy" − the notion that decisions of the Supreme Court control the meaning of the Constitution − nothing could be.
Daily Bell: Is the central banking system beginning to fail? Will it self-destruct? Is a global currency going to be established in the near future? Will it feature a commodity like gold?
Edwin Vieira: Yes, the present central banking system is in the process of catastrophic failure. And this is a matter of self-destruction because the problem derives from the inherent unworkability of fiat currency and fractional reserves, not simply from the incompetence of the particular individuals appointed to manage the system from time to time. Which is why the Money Power intends to introduce a new currency in the near future, just as in America the Money Power supplanted State bank notes with National Bank Notes in the 1860s, folded the National Banking System into the Federal Reserve System in 1913, then reneged on redemption of Federal Reserve Notes in gold in 1933 (domestically) and 1971 (internationally).
The formula has always been the same: As the paper-money and bank-credit scam implodes at a lower level, give the scheme a new lease on life by translating it to a higher level. But, in each case, the translation has required the promise − albeit one made to be broken − that the new currency will somehow be more stable than the one it replaces. So in a world increasingly disenchanted with and suspicious of irredeemable paper currencies, expect the new global currency to have some sort of gold veneer applied to it, so as to inspire unwarranted confidence amongst those uneducated in the long-term twists and turns of monetary and banking fraud.
I doubt, however, that the new scheme will allow for actual redemption of the new paper currency in gold for individuals (as did the Federal Reserve System prior to 1933) or even for central banks (as did the Federal Reserve System between 1933 and 1971), for the very last thing the Money Power wants is for individuals to recognize that gold itself is money, that paper currency is not really money at all but only an oft-repudiated promise by the bankers to pay gold and that the only true monetary security for any individual demands that he should always enjoy the legal right and should always exercise the physical ability to hold his own gold in his own hands whenever he so desires. Nonetheless, the integration of gold into the new system will gull many proponents of sound money into supporting the scheme. "See," they will crow, "the bankers have been forced to return to a 'gold standard'. We have won!" And that approbation will enable the bankers to impose upon the entire world another century or so of monetary manipulations, redistributions of wealth, Ponzi pyramids and associated financial frauds and other chicanery. Every time I hear some purported champion of sound money call for returning the Federal Reserve System to a "gold standard," or for adopting a supra-national paper currency linked to a "gold standard," I wonder how it is that one hundred years of sorry experience with the Federal Reserve System has taught these people absolutely nothing.
Daily Bell: What can one do on an individual level to combat the elite matrix that has been built around is?
Edwin Vieira: For starters, never passively accept that people in "authority" actually have the "authority" they claim. Never take at face value anything people in "authority" may say. Always investigate the nature of their "authority," verify or falsify the purported bases for their "authority" and try to predict the likely untoward consequences of their exercises of "authority." Hold all of their assertions and applications of "authority" up against the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and carefully gauge whatever disparities become apparent − and there will be many of them, you can be sure.
Daily Bell: Finally, are you more or less worried because of Obama's re-election?
Edwin Vieira: I can supply no really satisfying answer to that question. On the one hand, that Obama received a majority of the votes could evidence a profound and dangerous split in the electorate between (i) the remnants of the population that still embrace semi-traditional American political values and (ii) an emergent, aggressive "social-democratic" bloc (that is, Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism with a temporary human face). On the other hand, that Obama was running against Romney tends to dilute that concern because an approximately fifty-fifty split between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee can be interpreted to signify no more than that the electorate was basically indifferent to the candidates, insufficiently aware of the issues, inclined to vote more in line with evanescent media "spin" than with permanent ideological convictions and above all, inured to the political status quo.
Yet one's hopes cannot be overly sanguine when one considers the likelihood (indeed, arguably the certainty) of a major national economic catastrophe breaking out within the next two or three years, and the already demonstrated propensity of Obama's handlers to cause him to employ extra-legal devices, from sweeping executive orders to "official assassinations," as a matter of course in "crisis" situations. Moreover, that Obama cannot seek re-election and therefore personally has nothing more to gain or lose politically, can only exacerbate the situation.
As the Chinese are wont to say, the next few years will be "interesting times," indeed.
Daily Bell: Congratulations on your new book. Thanks!
DAILY BELL AFTERTHOUGHTS
We've been doing this for 20 years or more and never have we run into this level of constitutional literacy – an understanding of REAL history married to growing anger as this remarkable litany of responses progresses.
Fortunately, we believe we have the kind of audience that shall appreciate what we'd characterize as a kind of tour de force.
Like someone launching a huge ship, we can do no more than hang back open-mouthed as Dr. Vierra takes to the sea with waves breaking timidly around him. This is a surprising spectacle. He makes the ramblings of supposed "constitutional scholars" such as Barack Obama look like the disconnected babble of infants.
Journalism is like yesterday's newspapers, useful only unto the day. It is forgotten by tomorrow, as we all shall be. But perhaps Dr. Vierra shall not be forgotten. He is REALLY bearing witness to America's decent into fascism and horror.
What is going on in the US will not end well – or not for many – for the perpetrators are motivated by humankind's worst characteristics: both greed and fear. They are greedy for the spoils of power but scared their actions shall be revealed.
And, of course, what we call the Internet Reformation is recording every aspect of their behavior.
Dr. Vierra and a few others like him are its scribes.
This bloody globalist episode will pass one day and a New Time will arrive. People will turn to Dr. Vierra among others to understand what went wrong and how and why.
We have listened to Dr. Vierra and thus have the melancholy privilege of knowing in advance.
Finally, a reputable web site has picked up on the one man in America who is worth listening to, and I for one have his new book and find it compelling beyond expression. I have not finished it, and have been waiting on someone with more credibility, and volume of readers to get the ball rolling. News With Views has done a remarkable job of supplying Vieira’s work, and now, no doubt, many more will follow suit. If the reader is sick of my bellyaching, and confused from having so many subjects thrown at them, this one PDF book will put you straight on all that is required to restore America to a land worth investing your future in. Dr. Vieira’s book is to America what the Bible is to Christian’s, and all people everywhere who love liberty.
Long live the
Militia of the several States
READ THE BOOK!
The Sword and Sovereignty is available at Amazon.com.
February 9th, 2013 by olddog
By Lee Duigon
Crazy people shouldn’t have guns. Everybody agrees with that. But what if someone isn’t crazy when he buys the gun? Or maybe he is crazy, but you can’t tell because he hasn’t done anything crazy yet.
No problem—just make a law that says everyone who wants to buy a gun has to pass a sanity test first. Congress seems receptive to that idea. Why not? They could set up an enormous bureaucracy to administer the tests, keep records, do follow-up, etc. So many new government employees! So many public employee pensions! So many Democrat votes.
But why should you have to be demonstrably sane to buy a hand gun, when any slobbering psycho or cement-headed oaf can be elected president and have a whole nuclear arsenal to play with? Not to mention soldiers, fighter jets, warships, and tanks.
Why do we allow lunatics, dolts, whoremongers and other perverts to serve in Congress, where they can do almost as much harm as a batty president? You don’t think sane people saddled America with a $16 trillion debt, do you? Sane people don’t hire left-wing think tanks to write 2,500-page laws and then enact them without even reading them. Surely you don’t think normal people have uncontrollable urges to dictate to millions of other people what kind of light bulbs they can use. And who but a loon would ever say the primary mission of the United States armed forces is to fight Global Warming? I’ve never attended a session of Congress, but if I did, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to see the members overturning bowls of spaghetti on their heads while making barnyard noises. I’d leave my wallet home, too.
How about requiring a psychiatrist’s OK for anyone who wants to teach or be an administrator at a college? Our universities are chock-full of nutty professors and dizzy deans. They’re also full of daffy degree programs—women’s studies, queer studies, black studies, chicano studies, hole-in-the-head studies: all guaranteed 100 percent useless. Young people who earn degrees in these subjects are also useless.
Of course, the whole idea of virtually everyone going to college was pretty loopy in the first place. Not that many people have a bent for scholarship. But how else are you going to provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of prats disguised as intellectuals? And how many of these would actually pass a psychiatric examination?
Before you argue that a passel of pinheads spouting pseudo-intellectual hogwash does no real harm to anyone, consider this. The students whose heads have been stuffed full of that hogwash are the voters who elect other kooks to high public office. You haven’t already forgotten “Occupy Wall Street,” have you? How much of that do you think America can stand?
As long as we’re on the subject of doing real harm without actually shooting a gun or enacting bird-brained laws that wind up costing the country untold billions of dollars, we might also do well to insist on psychological fitness tests for persons who practice what we still call “journalism.” Is there any doubt that the ranks of this profession are densely packed with fruitcakes? What sane individual, after turning himself inside-out all day to conceal the sheer ineptitude and malice of our leaders, can grin at his reflection in the mirror and say, “There stands an honest man”? Walter Durante of The New York Times—some things never change—won a Pulitzer Prize for covering up the crimes of Josef Stalin. Could he have passed a rigorous sanity test? Are we sane for basing our votes on information provided by such persons? And what about “Newsweek,” recently, proclaiming the current dunderhead in the White House as “the Second Coming”—presumably of Jesus Christ: I can’t think of anyone else who has a Second Coming. Is that cozy enough for you?
According to the National Institute of Mental Health, about one in four Americans, 57.7 million people, suffers from some form of mental illness during any given year. That’s a lot of mental illness. Happily, we have more than 550,000 mental health professionals on hand to treat it. We can’t help wondering how effective they are, or what good it would do to hire another half a million of them to make sure prospective mental patients don’t buy guns.
With or without treatment, one way or another, most people recover from their mental illness. The rest go into teaching, journalism, or politics—and write gun laws.
© 2013 Lee Duigon – All Rights Reserved
Lee Duigon, a contributing editor with the Chalcedon Foundation, is a former newspaper reporter and editor, small businessman, teacher, and horror novelist. He has been married to his wife, Patricia, for 34 years. See his new fantasy/adventure novels, Bell Mountain and The Cellar Beneath the Cellar, available on www.amazon.com
February 8th, 2013 by olddog
Paul Craig Roberts
Institute for Political Economy
The Bush regime’s response to 9/11 and the Obama regime’s validation of this response have destroyed accountable democratic government in the United States. So much unaccountable power has been concentrated in the executive branch that the US Constitution is no longer an operable document.
Whether a person believes the official story of 9/11 which rests on unproven government assertions or believes the documented evidence provided by a large number of scientists, first responders, and structural engineers and architects, the result is the same. 9/11 was used to create an open-ended “war on terror” and a police state. It is extraordinary that so many Americans believe that “it can’t happen here” when it already has.
We have had a decade of highly visible evidence of the construction of a police state: the PATRIOT Act, illegal spying on Americans in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the initiation of wars of aggression–war crimes under the Nuremberg Standard–based on intentional lies, the Justice Department’s concocted legal memos justifying the executive branch’s violation of domestic and international laws against torture, the indefinite detention of US citizens in violation of the constitutionally protected rights of habeas corpus and due process, the use of secret evidence and secret “expert witnesses” who cannot be cross-examined against defendants in trials, the creation of military tribunals in order to evade federal courts, secret legal memos giving the president authority to launch preemptive cyber attacks on any country without providing evidence that the country constitutes a threat, and the Obama regime’s murder of US citizens without evidence or due process.
As if this were not enough, the Obama regime now creates new presidential powers by crafting secret laws, refusing to disclose the legal reasoning on which the asserted power rests. In other words, laws now originate in secret executive branch memos and not in acts of Congress. Congress? We don’t need no stinking Congress.
Despite laws protecting whistleblowers and the media and the US Military Code which requires soldiers to report war crimes, whistleblowers such as CIA agent John Kiriakou, media such as Julian Assange, and soldiers such as Bradley Manning are persecuted and prosecuted for revealing US government crimes.
The criminals go free, and those who report the crimes are punished.
The justification for the American police state is the “war on terror,” a hoax kept alive by the FBI’s “sting operations.” Normally speaking, a sting operation is when a policewoman poses as a prostitute in order to ensnare a “John,” or a police officer poses as a drug dealer or user in order to ensnare drug users or dealers. The FBI’s “sting operation” goes beyond these victimless crimes that fill up US prisons.
The FBI’s sting operations are different. They are just as victimless as no plot ever happens, but the FBI doesn’t pose as bomb makers for terrorists who have a plot but lack the weapon. Instead, the FBI has the plot and looks for a hapless or demented person or group, or for a Muslim enraged over the latest Washington insult to him and/or his religion. When the FBI locates its victim, its agents approach the selected perpetrator pretending to be Al-Qaeda or some such and ply the selected perpetrator with money, the promise of fame, or threats until the victim signs on to the FBI’s plot and is arrested.
Trevor Aaronson in his book, The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s War on Terrorism, documents that the FBI has so far concocted 150 “terrorist plots” and that almost all of the other “terrorist cases” are cases unrelated to terrorism, such as immigration, with a terror charge tacked on.
The presstitute American media doesn’t ask why, if there is so much real terrorism requiring an American war against it, the FBI has to invent and solicit terrorist plots.
Neither does the media inquire how the Taliban, which resists the US invasion and attempted occupation of Afghanistan, fighting the US superpower to a standstill after 11 years, came to be designated as terrorists. Nor does the US presstitute media want to know how tribesmen in remote regions of Pakistan came to be designated as “terrorists” deserving of US drone attacks on the citizens, schools and medical clinics of a country with which the US is not at war.
Instead the media protects and perpetrates the hoax that has given America the police state. The American media has become Leni Riefenstahl, as has Hollywood with the anti-Muslim propaganda film, Zero Dark Thirty. This propaganda film is a hate crime that spreads Islamophobia. Nevertheless, the film is likely to win awards and to sink Americans into both tyranny and a hundred-year war in the name of fighting the Muslim threat.
What I learned many years ago as a professor is that movies are important molders of Americans‘ attitudes. Once, after giving a thorough explanation of the Russian Revolution that led to communist rule, a student raised his hand and said: “That’s not the way it happened in the movie.”
At first I thought he was making a witty joke, but then I realized that he thought that the truth resided in the movie, not in the professor who was well versed in the subject. Ever since I have been puzzled how the US has survived for so long, considering the ignorance of its population. Americans have lived in the power of the US economy. Now that this power is waning, sooner or later Americans will have to come to terms with reality.
It is a reality that will be unfamiliar to them.
Some Americans claim that we have had police states during other wartimes and that once the war on terror is won, the police state will be dismantled. Others claim that government will be judicious in its use of the power and that if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear.
These are reassurances from the deluded. The Bush/Obama police state is far more comprehensive than Lincoln’s, Wilson’s, or Roosevelt’s, and the war on terror is open-ended and is already three times longer than World War II. The Police State is acquiring “squatter’s rights.”
Moreover, the government needs the police state in order to protect itself from accountability for its crimes, lies, and squandering of taxpayers‘ money. New precedents for executive power have been created in conjunction with the Federalist Society which, independent of the war on terror, advocates the “unitary executive” theory, which claims the president has powers not subject to check by Congress and the Judiciary. In other words, the president is a dictator if he prefers to be.
The Obama regime is taking advantage of this Republican theory. The regime has used the Republican desire for a strong executive outside the traditional checks and balances together with the fear factor to complete the creation of the Bush/Cheney police state.
As Lawrence M. Stratton and I documented in our book, The Tyranny Of Good Intentions, prior to 9/11 law as a shield of the people was already losing ground to law as a weapon in the hands of the government. If the government wanted to get you, there were few if any barriers to a defendant being framed and convicted, least of all a brainwashed jury fearful of crime.
I cannot say whether the US justice system has ever served justice better than it has served the ambition of prosecutors. Already in the 1930s and 1940s US Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland and US Attorney General Robert Jackson were warning against prosecutors who sacrifice “fair dealing to build up statistics of success.” Certainly it is difficult to find in the ranks of federal prosecutors today Jackson’s “prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.”
Just consider the wrongful conviction of Alabama’s Democratic governor, Don Siegelman by what apparently was a Karl Rove plot to rid the South of Democratic governors. The “Democratic” Obama regime has not investigated this false prosecution or given clemency to its innocent own. Remember how quickly Bush removed the prison sentence of Cheney’s operative who revealed the name of a CIA undercover agent? The Democrats are a cowed and cowardly political party, fearful of justice, and as much a part of the corrupt police state as the Republicans.
Today the purpose of a prosecution is to serve the prosecutor’s career and that of the party that appoints him or her. A prosecutor’s career is served by high conviction rates, which require plea bargains in which the evidence against a defendant is never tested in court or before a jury, and by high profile cases, which can launch a prosecutor into a political career, as Rudy Giuliana achieved with his frame-up of Michael Milken.
Glenn Greenwald explained how Internet freedom advocate Aaron Swartz was driven to his death by the ambition of two federal prosecutors, US Attorney Carmen Ortiz and Assistant US Attorney Stephen Heymann, who had no aversion to destroying an innocent person with ridiculous and trumped-up charges in order to advance their careers.
It is rare for a prosecutor to suffer any consequence for bringing false charges, for consciously using and even paying for false evidence, and for lying to judge and jury. As prosecutors are rarely held accountable, they employ illegal and unethical methods and routinely abuse their power. As judges are mainly concerned with clearing their court dockets, justice is rarely served in America, which explains why the US has not only a larger percentage of its citizens in prison than any other country on earth, but also the largest absolute number of prisoners. The US actually has more of its citizens in prison than “authoritarian” China which has a population four times larger than the US. The US, possibly the greatest human rights abuser in history, is constantly bringing human rights charges against China. Where are the human rights charges against Washington?
In America the collapse of law has gone beyond corrupt prosecutors and their concocted false prosecutions. Unless it needs or desires a show trial, a police state does not need prosecutors and courts. By producing legal memos that the president can both throw people into prison without a trial and execute them without a trial simply by stating that some official in the executive branch thinks the person has a possible or potential connection to terrorism, tyranny’s friends in the Justice (sic) Department have dispensed with the need for courts, prosecutors and trials.The Bush/Obama regime has made the executive branch judge, juror, and executioner. All that is needed is an unproven assertion by some executive branch official. Here we have the epitome of evil.
Evidence is no longer required for the president of the US to imprison people for life or to deprive them of their life. A secret Justice Department memo has been leaked to NBC News that reveals the tyrannical reasoning that authorizes the executive branch to execute American citizens on the basis of belief alone without the requirement of evidence that they are terrorists or associated with terrorists.
In “freedom and democracy” America, innocent until proven guilty is no longer the operative legal principle. If the government says you are guilty, you are. Period. No evidence required for your termination. Even Stalin pretended to have evidence.
The United States government is working its way step by step toward the determination that any and every critic of the government is guilty of providing “aid and comfort” to Washington’s “terrorist enemies,” which includes the elected Hamas government in Gaza. The only critics exempted from this rule-in-the-making are the neoconservatives who criticize the US government for being too slow to throttle both its critics and “anti-semites,” such as former US President Jimmy Carter, who criticize the Israeli government’s illegal appropriation of Palestinian lands. Most of Palestine has been stolen by Israel with Washington acquiesce and aid. Therefore, nothing is left for a “two-state solution.”
There is no doubt whatsoever that the Israeli government’s theft of Palestine is illegal; yet, Washington, on which Israel is totally dependent, does nothing about law.
Law, we don’t need no stinking law.” Washington has might. Might is right. Get used to it.
Not only for Palestinians has law ceased to exist, but also for Americans, and for Washington’s NATO puppets in the UK and Europe, pitiful remnants of once great nations now complicit in Washington’s crimes against humanity. The Open Society Justice Initiative, a NGO based in New York, has issued a report that documents that 54 governments are involved in Washington’s rendition and torture program. Twenty-five of the governments that help Washington to kidnap, disappear, and torture people are European.
The opening decade of the 21st century has seen the destruction of all the law that was devised to protect the innocent and the vulnerable since the rise of the now defunct moral conscience of the West. The West’s moral conscience never applied outside of itself. What happened to people in Europe’s colonies and to native inhabitants of the US and Australia is a very different story.
Nevertheless, despite its lack of coverage to the powerless, the principle of the rule of law was a promising principle. Now America under Bush and Obama, two peas of the same pod, has abandoned the principle itself.
The Obama police state will be worse than the Bush/Cheney police state.
Unlike conservatives who in times past were suspicious of government power, Obamabots believe that government power is a force for good if it is in the right hands. As Obama’s supporters see him as a member of an oppressed minority, they are confident that Obama will not misuse his power. This belief is akin to the belief that, as Jews suffered so much at the hands of Hitler, Israel would be fair to the Palestinians.
Glenn Greenwald writes that “the most extremist power any political leader can assert is the power to target his own citizens for execution without any charges or due process, far from any battlefield. The Obama administration has not only asserted exactly that power in theory, but has exercised it in practice.”
This is the power of a dictator. That Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were said to have this power was part of their demonization as “brutal dictators,” a justification for overthrowing their governments and murdering the dictators and their supporters.
Ironic, isn’t it, that the president of the United States now murders his political opponents just as Saddam Hussein murdered his. How long before critics move from the no-fly list to the extermination list?
Additional reading: The legal analysis in the article below written by seasoned attorneys shows that Obama is a tyrant. The point made by the attorneys is too clear to be debatable.
Assassin in Chief?
Exercising a power that no prior president ever thought he possessed — a power that no prior president is known to have exercised — President Obama admitted that he ordered the execution of American citizens, not on a battlefield, based on his belief that they were involved in terrorist activities. It is known that at least three U.S. citizens, including a 16-year old boy, were killed on the president's order in drone strikes in Yemen in 2011.
As the worldwide drone program ramps up, there have been increasing calls for the president to reveal the basis for his claimed authority. Only a few weeks ago, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon denied both the ACLU's and New York Times' requests under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain any and all legal documents prepared in support of the president's claim of unilateral powers. While Judge McMahon was concerned that the documents "implicate serious issues about the limits on the power of the Executive Branch under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and about whether we are indeed a nation of laws not of men," she felt constrained by precedent to withhold them. Now, a bipartisan group of 11 senators has written aletter to president Obama asking for "any and all legal opinions" that describe the basis for his claimed authority to "deliberately kill American citizens."
However, not until the Senate began gathering information for hearings on John Brennan's confirmation as CIA director, to begin February 7, has public attention finally been focused on this remarkable presidential usurpation of power.
On the night of February 4, the walls of secrecy were breached when NBC News released a leaked U.S. Justice Department White Paper entitled "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa'ida or An Associated Force." Now we can see why the Department of Justice has been so reluctant to share the basis for its legal analysis. It is deeply flawed — based on a perverse view of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Additionally, the white paper completely ignores the procedural protections expressly provided in the Constitution's Third Article — those specifically designed to prohibit the president from serving as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.
The white paper does not seek to delimit the federal power to kill citizens, but simply sets out a category of "targeted killing" of American citizens off the battlefield on foreign soil which it deems to be clearly authorized. Moreover, this power is not vested exclusively in the president, or even the secretary of defense, or even officials within the Department of Defense — rather, it can be relied on by other senior officials of unspecified rank elsewhere in government.
According to the white paper, there are only three requirements to order a killing. First, "an informed high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States." Second, capture is "infeasible." And third, the " operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with the applicable law of war principles." Indeed, from the white paper, it is not clear why killings of U.S. citizens on American soil would be judged by a different standard.
Mimicking a judicial opinion, the White Paper employs pragmatic tests developed by the courts to supplant the plain meaning of the Fifth Amendment Due Process and Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure texts. Balancing away the constitutionally protected interests of the citizen in life, liberty, and property against the more important "'realities' of the conflict and the weight of the government's interest in protecting its citizens from an imminent attack," the Justice Department lawyers have produced a document worthy of the King Council's Court of Star Chamber — concluding that the U.S. Constitution would not require the government to provide notice of charges, or a right to be heard, "before using lethal force" on a U.S. citizen suspected of terrorist activity against his country. How very convenient. The Obama administration lawyers appear to have forgotten that the Star Chamber was abolished by the English Parliament in 1641 in order to restore the rule of law adjudicated by an independent judiciary, terminating the rule of men administered by the king's courtiers.
Also, conspicuously missing from the Justice Department's constitutional analysis is any recognition that the Founders already balanced the life, liberty, and property interests of an American citizen suspected of "levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," and provided them the specific procedural protections in Article III of the Constitution. When a U.S. citizen is suspected of treason, the constitutional remedy is not to invent new crimes subject to the summary execution at the pleasure of the president and his attorneys. In Federalist No. 43, James Madison proclaimed that the Treason Clause would protect citizens "from new-fangled and artificial treasons … by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it[.]“ To that end, the Constitution does not permit the Obama lawyers to invent an elastically defined offense of “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States,” in substitution for the constitutionally concrete definition of “levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Moreover, Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution requires trial in "open court" — not in some secret "war room" in an undisclosed location. That same section of Article III requires proof by "the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession" — not by a unilateral "determin[ation] that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of an attack against the United States.” Finally, as is true of “all crimes,” Article III, Section 2 requires “trial … by jury” on a charge of treason, not trial by some unidentified “high-level official of the U.S. government[,]" no matter how well-"informed" he may be. In short, the Constitution provides that an American citizen must be tried and punished according to the judicial process provided for the crime of treason, not according to some newfangled and artificial executive "process" fashioned by nameless collection of lawyers.
These nameless lawyers have also ignored the Justice Department's own venerable precedents. The White Paper relies on the "laws of war" — but laws of war do not control here. On August 21, 1798, U.S. Attorney General Charles Lee — serving under President John Adams — directed to the U.S. secretary of state an official opinion in which he determined that in the undeclared state of war between France and the United States, "France is our enemy; and to aid, assist, and abet that nation in her maritime warfare, will be treason in a citizen[, who] may be tried and punished according to our laws[, not like a French subject, who must be] treated according to the laws of war."
It is a measure of how far we have fallen as a nation — not only that President Obama asserts and exercises such a terrible power, but that only 11 U.S. senators would be willing to affix their names to a letter to ask the Obama administration to provide its legal reasoning. If John Brennan is confirmed as CIA director, and the killings of U.S. citizens continue based on this whitewash of a white paper, then the U.S. Senate will have yielded up to the president without even a fight the power to kill citizens without judicial due process — a power that has been unknown in the English-speaking world for at least 370 years.
Herb Titus taught constitutional law for 26 years, concluding his academic career as founding dean of Regent Law School. Bill Olson served in three positions in the Reagan administration. They now practice constitutional law together, defending against government excess, at William J. Olson, P.C. They filed an amicus curiae brief supporting a preliminary injunction in the Chris Hedges challenge to the detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 ("NDAA"), addressing the Treason Clause, and also filed an amicus curiae brief in that case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. They can be reached at
email@example.com or twitter.com/OlsonLaw.
Extrajudicial Killing: Official US Policy
Stephen Lendman, Contributor
Since taking office, Obama headed America toward full-blown tyranny. He enforces Bush administration police state laws. He added more of his own. He governs like a tinpot despot.
He targets free expression, dissent, whistleblowing, and other constitutional freedoms. He usurped diktat authority.
He spurns civil protections, judicial fairness, and other fundamental rights. Abuse of power is institutionalized.
By executive order, he authorized anyone indefinitely detained with or without charge on his say. He promised to close Guantanamo but keeps it open. He operates a secret global torture prison network.
In January, Law Professor Jonathan Turley called America "no longer the land of the free," saying:
An authoritarian nation is defined not just by the use of authoritarian powers, but by the ability to use them
If a president can take away your freedom or your life on his own authority, all rights become little more than a discretionary grant subject to executive will.
Post-9/11, constitutional rights no longer apply. Diktat power replaced them. Bush took full advantage. So does Obama.
He governs extrajudicially. He claims the right to order anyone incarcerated indefinitely or killed on his say. US citizens are included. No reasonable proof is needed. No one anywhere is safe.
He ordered outspoken Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed. He was a US citizen. He threatened no one. He lived in Yemen. He opposed US imperial lawlessness. He committed no crime. He's dead for supporting right over wrong.
Others like him are vulnerable. No one's safe anywhere. There's no place to hide. Rule of law protections don't apply. Murder, Inc. was elevate to a higher level. It's official policy. Summary judgment targets state enemies.
Obama decides who lives or dies. He appointed himself judge, jury and executioner. He's got final kill list authority. Police states operate that way. America by far is the worst. It menaces humanity
Democracy is a figure of speech. American never was beautiful and isn't now. Diktat power is policy.
On February 5, The New York Times headlined "Memo Cites Legal Basis for Killing US Citizens in Al Qaeda," saying:
Administration lawyers turned jurisprudence on its head. They call it lawful to kill US citizens if "an informed high-level (government) official" says they belong to Al Qaeda and pose "an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States."
A Justice Department "white paper" inverted inviolable legal principles. It's titled "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a US Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa'ida or An Associated Force."
It's unsigned and undated. It's "the most detailed analysis yet to come into public view." It calls lawless killing without trial or evidence legal.
Thresholds of evidence and just cause aren't discussed. Vague language substitutes. "Imminent" threats are highlighted. So is ill-defined "terrorism."
Extrajudicial executive authority is usurped. Courts have no say. Nor does Congress.
Twisted logic claims judicially enforcing "orders would require the court to supervise inherently predictive judgments by the president and his national security advisers as to when and how to use force against a member of an enemy force against which Congress has authorized the use of force."
Last March, Attorney General Eric Holder made the case. He claimed America's lawful right to operate extrajudicially. He said Washington can kill US citizens affiliated with Al Qaeda if capture isn't possible.
'Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack,' he said.
In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force.
Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces.
This is simply not accurate. 'Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.
In other words, the UN Charter, Geneva Conventions, other inviolable international laws, constitutional rights, and US statute laws don't apply.
With no evidence or justification whatever, Holder said "a small number of US citizens" plot attacks on America. Citizenship grants no immunity, he claims. They're fair game. They can be targeted and killed extrajudicially.
Pentagon general counsel, Jeh Johnson, made the same case. He claims "(b)elligerents who also happen to be US citizens do not enjoy immunity where non-citizen belligerents are valid military objectives."
The legal point is important because, in fact, over the last 10 years Al Qaeda has not only become more decentralized, it has also, for the most part, migrated away from Afghanistan to other places where it can find safe haven.
Within the executive branch the views and opinions of the lawyers on the president’s national security team are debated and heavily scrutinized, and a legal review of the application of lethal force is the weightiest judgment a lawyer can make.
And, when these judgments start to become easy, it is time for me to return to private law practice.
ACLU National Security Project Director Hina Shamsi addressed the white paper. She calls it a "profoundly disturbing document.
It’s hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances.
It summarizes in cold legal terms a stunning overreach of executive authority – the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them far from a recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement.
ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer called the document "chilling." It manipulates legal standards. It turns them on their head. Doing so justifies the unjustifiable.
ACLU said extrajudicial killings occur "with virtually no oversight outside the executive branch, and essential details about the program remain secret, including what criteria are used to put people on CIA and military kill lists or how much evidence is required."
America kills illegally. Rule of law principles are spurned. Transparency and openness are gone. Accountability no longer applies. Diktat authority usurped it. Doing so is unconstitutional.
On February 5, the Center for Constitutional Rights responded to Washington's white paper.
CCR's senior attorney, Pardiss Kebriaei said:
This white paper’s claim of executive power is disturbing enough on its own, but it doesn’t describe the vast majority of targeted killings being carried out by the U.S. government, which now number in the thousands.
The government claims the authority to target a US citizen who is a 'senior operational leader of Al Qa’ida or an associated force,' but it doesn’t provide an analysis that would explain, for example, the killing of our client’s grandson, 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al Aulaqi, nor does it describe the so-called signature strike killings of people whose identities are unknown but who fit some undisclosed profile.
One of the most dangerous aspects of the white paper is the claim that 'there exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional considerations' either before or after a killing.
CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren added:
The parallels to the Bush administration torture memos are chilling. Those were unchecked legal justifications drawn up to justify torture; these are unchecked justifications drawn up to justify extrajudicial killing.
President Obama released the Bush torture memos to be transparent; he must release his own legal memos and not just a Cliffs Notes version for public consumption, particularly when scores of civilian lives are at stake.
Despite this attempt to appear transparent, the program remains opaque. This will rightly raise many questions for John Brennan.
He was deeply involved in Bush administration rogue policies. He a key architect of Obama's targeted killing program.
CCR filed suit (Al Aulaqi v. Panetta). It demands accountability "in a court of law."
On February 5, a New York Timeseditorial headlined "To Kill an American," saying:
Obama "utterly rejects the idea that Congress or the courts have any right to review (extrajudicial killings) in advance, or even after the fact."
Twisted logic defines administration policy. It exceeds the worst of George Bush. It includes a menu of lawless practices.
Congress hasn't officially seen the white paper. White House officials won't acknowledge administration authority to kill Awlaki. They provided no evidence justifying it.
"According to the white paper," said The Times, "Constitution and the Congressional authorization for the use of force after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, gave" Obama unchecked powers.
Definitions aren't forthcoming. Vagueness substitutes for specifics. Due process and judicial fairness don't apply. Geopolitical priorities alone matter.
The Times quoted Center for National Security Studies director Kate Martin calling the white paper "a confusing blend of self-defense and law of war concepts and doesn't clearly explain whether there is a different standard for killing a senior Al Qaeda leader depending on whether he is a citizen."
"Its due process is especially weak."
Congress needs to act. At stake are fundamental issues. They include balance of power and rule of law principles. They no longer apply. They need to be reasserted.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org. His new book is titled How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War. Also visit his blog site atsjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.
If the reader is still not convinced that we have a TYRANT in the White House, or simply does not care, then maybe someday you will be on a kill list by patriots. Best advice is wake the hell up!!! Real American’s are reaching the boiling point, and the scalding pot is hot!
February 6th, 2013 by olddog
02 06 13 ATF vs THE CONSTITUTION
By Michael LeMieux
February 6, 2013
In the United States, under a republican form of government, power is divided between the states and the central government. Within the central government, as is within the states, that power is further sub-divided between branches of the government. All of these government organizations have charters or documents that govern what power they have and the boundaries each organization must adhere to. The fundamental document outlining these powers and duties are the constitutions for their respective governments. Any action by these organizations that does not have a basis within their founding constitutions is unconstitutional and therefore constitutionally illegal.
In this article we will be dealing primarily with gun laws and the primary organization of the central government that enforces national gun laws the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The main areas I wish to present are the historical evolution of the ATF, their constitutional footing, and whether national gun laws are truly constitutional.
Evolution of the ATF:
The enactment of “firearms laws” is a relatively recent occurrence for the federal government. The Federal Firearms Act in 1938 was the first act by congress to regulate firearms. This act was based upon the perceived need to regulate the firearms industry and license the dealers, manufacturers, and gunsmiths within the firearms trade. It was based upon the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Appropriately, it was codified under Title 15 of the US Code – “Commerce and Trade.” The new “laws” under the Act included the creation of a Federal Firearms License (FFL), for anyone doing business in the firearm trade. One of the primary goals was to prohibit FFL holders from selling firearms to convicted felons. Requiring FFL holders to keep records of all firearms sales, and for the first time it made any alteration of firearm serial numbers a crime. Many people felt this was an infringement on state jurisdiction by enacting a law that reached past the state boundary, in violation of the Constitution.
From 1938 to 1968 everything went along fairly well until the government decided to play a little shell game, and they switched the Firearms Act from Title 15 to Title 18. Title 18 is entitled “Crimes and Criminal Procedures.” Why would the government switch the code section from Title 15 to Title 18 after having been codified under Title 15 for thirty years? The only rational reason is jurisdictional obfuscation, or hiding what would otherwise be apparent as to the limits the government could act upon us, the citizens. You see, under Title 15, the government was within its rightful jurisdiction of “Commerce and Trade”. However, if you are bound by “Commerce and Trade”, you cannot enact laws on normal citizens who are not acting in the “trade.” Therefore, the government changed, with the stroke of a pen, their Constitutional powers from commerce to crime. Pretty sneaky huh?
In 1968 the “Gun Control Act” was passed. It was an attempt by the government to justify broad-sweeping firearms control. The finesse with which the government’s lawyers crafted and pushed this bill through can be seen right from the opening lines. The bill is entitled: “An Act to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for better control of the interstate traffic in firearms.” Doesn’t that title sound allot like Chapter 15 Commerce and Trade? In fact even today the firearms laws deal, for the most part, in taxing control. Machine guns falling under the firearms control act are still legal to own if you do the background check and pay a $200.00 “tax stamp” fee.
However, the stated purpose of the act is as written states:
“Title I – State Firearms Control Assistance
“Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.”
To support State, and local law enforcement! Where does the Constitution say anything about the federal government assisting law enforcement? Remember, the federal government cannot legally do anything that is not specifically enumerated by the Constitution. So where is its justification? It has none; any federal law that falls outside the enumerated powers of the Constitution is repugnant and void. And as a good friend of mine, Dave Champion, said “Congress is free to make any asinine statement it wants about its "intentions" or its "goals", but the text of the laws it enacts must still adhere to the limits of federal power imposed by US Constitution.”
So, in 1934 we have a “revenue” tax scheme that charges $200.00 for the sale or transfer of a machinegun, a short barreled rifle/shotgun, or a silencer. What was the net effect of this “revenue” tax scheme? It all but completely eviscerated these businesses, put people out of work, and resulted in a drop in tax revenue on the legitimate sales of these items. In 1934 a silencer could be purchased for 5-20 dollars at your local hardware store. But who would pay a $200.00 tax on a 5 dollar item. Many towns had shooting ranges in the city limits and required silencers to keep noise down for local residents. Most shooters could not afford the $200 tax stamp, so these businesses closed as well. So as a “revenue” scheme the Firearms Act was a complete bust unless you look at the evolutionary progress of the ATF in its expansion to control not only the firearms industry but also to become national crime fighters as well.
The ATF evolved from an arm of the IRS under title 15 “Commerce” to now being a part of the Department of Justice under title 18 “Crimes and Punishment.” I ask once again – under what constitutional authority? At least under title 15 the central government had a nexus to commerce as they originally only involved those individuals and businesses that were in the firearms trade. Today, however, someone who only possesses an item can be put in jail for not asking permission and paying tribute, even when they are not “in the business” of manufacturing or selling firearms.
There is no constitutional authority for the ATF as they are currently organized and only very limited constitutional authority as originally organized. As congress can only legally legislate those areas to which the states have seceded, as outlined in Article 1, section 8, all other laws are, by their very definition, unconstitutional. But because the government has the power of creating law they can enforce even unconstitutional laws – it does not make them right it only makes them wrong with a gun.
The concept of natural inherent rights within the body of the people is unique to the United States. All other countries today endow their citizens with varying degrees of “rights” and privilege. Our founding precepts are espoused in our Declaration of Independence stating that we, the people, are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights and that governments were instituted among men to secure these rights. So even if the Second Amendment was not listed in the “Bill of Rights” it would still exist.
Let me say very clearly – your rights do not come from government. You have these rights solely on the basis of your existence. The Constitution grants no rights to the citizens of this country and are listed as Amendments to the Constitution to PROHIBIT the central government from acting against these specific, enumerated, rights that were endowed in the citizenry before the government was created.
“…The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” We already know that the Bill of Rights was written to place limitations on the federal government in its dealings with the people. What does it mean to be infringed? From the Merriam-Webster New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977 edition it reads: “1. obsolete: defeat, frustrate. 2. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. Synonymous with trespass.” Based on this definition any action which attempts to make guns obsolete, or to defeat the ability of ownership, or frustrates the keeping and bearing of arms is infringing on the rights of the citizens and is an affront to the Constitution.
United States Representative Ron Paul, from the 14th District in Texas, stated in a November 6th, 2006 article entitled “Gun Control on the Back Burner”:
“The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.” (Bold added) You can read this entire article and more on his official web site.
I may be cast a heretic; but the fact of the matter is, laws are not meant to stop crime. In many cases laws create crime where none existed. An example would be what I call the stupidity laws, such as mandatory helmet wearing on motorcycles or seat belts in cars etc. These “laws” tell us that the government knows what is best for you, and they will enforce their will upon you by writing laws to protect you from yourself. This is EXACTLY the mentality of a communist society and brute force is EXACTLY the methodology a communist government would use to make you do what they determine is best for you.
What crime is committed by possessing an object? Who or what is damaged? If I own an ice pick to break up blocks of ice and fill my ice chest – is that a crime? Yet I can use that ice pick to rob, damage, or kill another person. Would that person be any deader if I used a gun? There are more people killed each year in cars than with guns – should we limit the speed a car can travel to reduce its killing capability? In fact, more people are killed with hands and feet than with guns – should we have to register our limbs as well? I have known people who have never been in a car collision their entire lives. They are safe and effective drivers. I have likewise known many people who have owned guns and have never shot anyone.
Now the central government is attempting to unconstitutionally expand their power even more by trying to infringe further upon our God given rights by banning common weapons, invading the Fourth Amendment by forcing us into “trade” by mandating how we dispose of our private property at an added cost burden. And the very weapons they are trying to ban are very much a protected type of weapon as stated by the Supreme Court in US V Miller.
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.”
The court reasoned that based on the information they had at the time a saw-off shotgun did not have “some reasonable relationship… of a well regulated militia” and that it was not “any part of the ordinary military equipment.” Well we have testimony from the Commander in Chief, Diane Feinstein, and a host of liberals in Congress that they are trying to ban the very same “military style weapon” that the Supreme Court said was explicitly protected by the Second Amendment. But they want it both ways and the only conclusion we can make is that they do not care about the Constitution or for what it stands, and especially ANY limitation on their agenda.
Article 1 of the Constitution tells us how we can solve our crime problem within a year. Article 1, Section 8, states that Congress has the power to call forth “the Militia to execute the laws of the Union.” Every mass murder, every gun attack, drive by shooting, home invasion, car jacking, or any other such crime is already crime and the tool the criminal uses really does not change the crime. But if every second or third law abiding citizen was armed crime would very quickly dry up.
You, the “We the People” of our great nation are responsible for your own safety. The Sheriff the Policeman, even the entire judicial system, is only there to deal with the bad guy. Yes they drive around with a motto painted across the car saying “to Protect and Defend” but did you know that, by law, they have not responsibility to protect anyone? In the case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services the court ruled, and many others as well, that the only individuals that the police have a responsibility to protect are those that are incarcerated or restrained against their will such as prisoners or mental patients stating: "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf."
The gradual expansion of government to control the firearms industry to keep criminals out of the trade then expanded to tax ordinary citizens from owning certain pieces of equipment then expanded to everyone buying from a dealer and now expanding once again to encompass every law abiding citizen who has a gun even if they are not in firearm commerce.
But will this solve the problem? Well, as I have said before, if laws stopped crime then the jails would be empty. So laws will not stop the type of crimes that have happened in the past nor will they stop them from happening in the future. Some may say that by banning these weapons (law) then they will not have them to use. If that were true prohibition would have been a success, the drug war would be over by now and our streets would be drug free. All the central government is managing to do is to increase the victim pool by disarming the law abiding citizen because as we all know the criminal will not obey the law and if he does not have one now the black market will provide it to him just as it always has.
© 2013 Michael LeMieux – All Rights Reserved
As I have said many times before, all governments are nothing but force. They write their laws, and hire stupid people to enforce them, but that does not make them legal. To be legal one must be in conformity with God’s law, as all law presupposes a higher authority to enforce it, and there is no higher authority than God. We allow these tyrants to use brute force, instead of demanding their compliance with God’s law, so God disciplines us for our complicity. This is what happens when God’s people do not back Him up!
In his eyes, we are just as guilty as the government, because we allow it. We throw His name around like its some magic power, but don’t have the courage to believe He will support us if we defend Him. We are getting just what we deserve.
Michael LeMieux was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma in 1956 and graduated from Weber State University in Utah with a degree in Computer Science. He served in both the US Navy and US Army (Active duty and National Guard) and trained in multiple intelligence disciplines and was a qualified paratrooper. He served with the 19th Special Forces Group, while in the National Guard, as a Special Forces tactical intelligence team member. He served tours to Kuwait and Afghanistan where he received the Purple Heart for injuries received in combat.
Mr. LeMieux left military duty at the end of 2005 after being medically discharged with over 19 years of combined military experience. He currently works as an intelligence contractor to the US government.
Michael is a strict constitutionalist who believes in interpreting the constitution by the original intent of the founding fathers. His research has led him to the conclusion that the republic founded by the Constitution is no longer honored by our government. That those who rule America today are doing so with the interest of the federal government in mind and not the Citizens. Michael believes that all three branches of government have strayed far from the checks and balances built into the Constitution and they have failed the American people. A clear example is the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court and the founders have all said was an individual right and could not be "infringed" upon, now has more than 20,000 state and federal laws regulating every aspect of the individuals right, a definite infringement. He has traveled around the world living in 14 States of the Union including Hawaii, and visited (for various lengths of time) in Spain, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Korea, Scotland, Pakistan, Mauritius, Somalia, Diego Garcia, Australia, Philippines, England, Italy, Germany, and Puerto Rico.
Michael now lives in Nebraska with his wife, two of his three children, Mother-in-Law and grandchild. His hobbies include shooting, wood-working, writing, amateur inventor and scuba diving when he can find the time.
February 6th, 2013 by olddog
By Andrew C. Wallace
February 6, 2013
OBAMA IS A MULTIPLE PROVEN FRAUD AND CRIMINAL, as are all of the cowardly Judges and Elected Officials who refused to stop him with the Constitution. Every Order given, or Law signed by the Marxist Imposter will be null and void when he is removed from office.
Compromise between Marxism (Social Justice) and our Constitution (Equal Justice) is impossible. Compromise is defined as: “A middle way between two extremes.” There is no middle way because it is Treason, and any attempt to find one must fail by definition. Read “Compromise Is A Dirty Word” by Jim Schwiesow.
“In a Constitutional Republic, there is no right nor left, no far right, no far left; there are only those who believe in our form of government, as established, and those who do not” Lynn M. Stuter. Those who do not are simply Traitors, or ignorant followers of Traitors, known as low information voters.
Get Mad and Fight to End Income Taxes of any kind for a return to Full Employment, Unlimited Prosperity and Freedom without Marxism. All of which, is guaranteed by the ouster and prosecution for Treason of corrupt and cowardly Marxist and Muslim Traitors in government. This paper is a partial survey of our concerns as citizens, every word has meaning, and is a challenge.
An Unlimited supply of high paying jobs without a federal Income Tax, or any tax at all is guaranteed. This is the result of ending the Income Tax, private Federal Reserve Bank, and Tax Free Foundations as it was prior to 1913, while reinstituting Tariffs to support government and higher wages. Manufacturers must then produce here to sell here, and a reduced federal government must live on tariffs alone as in the past, no more taxes, none, as there will be no need. Most of our government debt was incurred to pay for unlawful expenditures, and should be paid by those who benefitted. We now have the largest supply of energy resources in the world to further guarantee our return to super prosperity. But, this prosperity is impossible under the Marxism of both political parties governing at the direction of the Criminal Establishment’s Elite Families and Fellow Travelers.
Seventy percent of Government actions that are impoverishing and enslaving you are Unconstitutional Marxist Programs and must be terminated. Know this, most Government Officials, Judges and Employees, except for Whistleblowers, are corrupt or cowardly Traitors to our Constitutional Republic. These Traitors from both political parties, along with the Media, Public Employee Unions, Educational Institutions, and many Teachers take their orders and blood money from the very same “Establishment Elite Families and Fellow Travelers” who direct the Treason and theft by both political parties, all the major banks, tax free foundations, corporations, private federal reserve bank and the government
Most of this control and theft started in 1913 with the advent of the Private Federal Reserve Bank, the Income Tax and Tax Free Foundations. The first major result of these changes was the Great Depression which impoverished everyone but the elites who profited greatly by stealing and owning even more of the country. The Federal Reserve Chairman admitted that they caused the Great Depression. You should know they are enriching the Elites again at the people’s expense, but on a much larger scale of massive unconstitutional theft, along with destruction of our currency which will force most Americans into a much higher level of poverty and hunger than in the Great Depression.
The current, and ongoing failure of the housing and financial markets was caused by government in collusion with Financial Giants owned or controlled by the Establishment’s Elite Families. Government funds were unconstitutionally used to bail out these “too big to fail corporations” and to fund numerous companies as payback for campaign donations, then the companies promptly went bankrupt. The solution is to prosecute everyone who had anything to do with this Treason starting with the traitors in Congress who voted for it, and every other unconstitutional action.
To clarify, your Enemies, the Criminal Marxist Traitors to the Republic are: the “Establishment’s Elite Families and Fellow Travelers”, who own or control the private Federal Reserve Bank, Tax Free Foundations, major Corporations and Banks, Media, Educational Institutions, many Teachers, Public Employee Unions, both Political Parties, and the Officials, Judges and Employees of a mostly Bogus and Unconstitutional government. Most of these people are corrupt cowardly Traitors to the Republic and must be prosecuted and relieved of their plunder…
We have no choice but to reduce the Federal Government by about seventy percent to its constitutionally authorized size, while prosecuting all the Criminal Marxist Traitors. We must use the Constitutionally Mandated “Militia of the Several States” for prosecution because the Federal Justice System and Judges are corrupt or cowardly. In an earlier time these Marxist Traitors would be summarily hung. During my lifetime, Marxist thugs have killed hundreds of millions of their own people and hundreds of thousands of Americans. There is absolutely, no indication that Marxists have repudiated their desired “Final Solution” for Patriots, so we must be prepared to respond to attacks by these traitors in kind, without quarter being asked or given.
I have sympathy and understanding for the poor slobs living in the Marxist inner city Killing Fields where Marxist policy deprives them of Family, God, Education, and Firearms, all of which are required for prosperity and freedom. They are falsely taught by the jailers they elect, and their poverty pimps to hate non blacks as the cause of their pain. But, they must instead look to their own ignorant juvenile mothers, absent fathers, elected officials, Media and Affirmative Action teachers for the causes. The thinking that, “If they are old enough to bleed, they are old enough to breed”, Anonymous, and leave the results for others to support, guarantees continuation of a criminal mindset and third world lifestyle in accordance with Agenda 21. Non blacks will do them no harm unless attacked, and will continue to help those who will work, unless they join forces with the traitors in government to force non blacks to live and die as they do, and then they will truly have non blacks as enemies, which is the objective of the government’s Divide and Conquer Policy.
Businesses, and high Income Producers are moving from High Tax Marxist/Progressive States such as Illinois, California, and New York to avoid paying the taxes required to support armies of non working residents and unionized government employees. At some point the prosperous States will reduce their populations of non workers by reducing benefits and giving them non refundable bus tickets to the Marxist States where the voters will not allow Legislatures to reduce benefits.
Even though the “Rule of Law” is denied “We the People” by the Bogus Government, we will none the less use it as the primary guide for our actions to save our Republic, our freedom, and our return to prosperity. We will do this without firing a shot, provided the Marxist Traitors in the Bogus government don’t attempt to disarm, restrain, or attack even the least among us, then it would be war. If just one or two federal judges would allow one of the numerous Obama Eligibility, Selective Service Number, or Social Security Number Cases to be heard, much of this would all be over. If just one member in both houses of congress had questioned Obama’s eligibility, it would be over. As it stands, no Patriot can support a single government Official or Judge as they have ALL cowardly repudiated their Oaths of Office in acts of Treason.
Obama himself is neither the leader, nor only cause of this Marxist Treason, but he is certainly the current Criminal Face of the Establishment’s Elite Families and Fellow Travelers who have directed the treason of both parties during the last 100 years. At some point, Obama will surely be tried for High Treason and numerous major crimes of a magnitude second only to that of Judas Iscariot.
Many compare Obama to Adolf Hitler, but that is an unfair comparison because Hitler was no one’s stooge, and did not need a Teleprompter to speak. Obama is really a Quisling, a collaborator with Establishment Elites, Marxists and Muslim enemies throughout the world to destroy our Constitutional Republic.
Now you can see why corruption and cowardice are indeed Treason. Most of what the “so called” Federal Government does is criminal and treasonous because “most of the government is Bogus and Unconstitutional”. Our Republic, as clearly, and closely defined by our Constitution is the only legitimate form of Government in this country. When officials, prosecutors and judges are corrupt or cowardly traitors you must call upon the “Militia of the Several States” to perform their constitutional duty to arrest and prosecute the traitors. If the Militia is not effective, pressure your State Government to make it so. We already know that election fraud has serious consequences that may lead to civil war. Based upon current opinion of the people a war against the Media and fraudulent operatives of the bogus government can be expected as the only option. Respected Thinkers throughout history have stated in various ways that if you deny people their perceived rights under the law, that the people will take their rights by force.
It is imperative for their own survival, that the Establishment’s Elite Families and their Fellow Travelers order their Marxist subordinates who run the Bogus part of Government, without regard for our Constitution, to comply with the Constitution and Rule of Law in all interactions with the People. Otherwise, there will be serous blowback If these traitors continue to follow the teachings in Hitler’s Mein Kampf to use the illegal power of the state to subdue our people. Due to actions by the Bogus government in the last four years, at least half of the people learned much of the truth about our Constitution and Unconstitutional Marxism, thus requiring massive voter fraud for the Marxists to win the last election, which has further enraged the people. Based upon what I know and learn every day, there is a growing hatred for this Bogus Marxist Government that would result in significant bloodshed if the people are attacked.
Patriots know that the Marxist officials, employees, and judges are criminals acting outside of the Constitution and have little or no legitimate authority. Many people detest the imposter and his cronies to such an extent that they can’t tolerate to even see or hear them on TV. People know that the election and most everything else of value was stolen.
The Bogus Marxist government has stolen and transferred approximately an additional 40%, or more of the people’s net worth in the last five years to the Criminal Elite Establishment while they are totally debasing our currency by printing unlimited quantities for their benefit. Unlimited printing of our currency is resulting in Hyperinflation and devaluation of the dollar increasing the price of everything you buy to the point where the dollar will be worthless. Of course all government checks for Social Security, Medicare, Pensions, Food Stamps, Welfare, etc, will become worthless with the Establishment’s Elite Families owning most everything.
Not to worry, you won’t need the money because there will be no food in the stores to buy. If you live in the Marxist Inner Cities like New York City, Washington, DC, Chicago, Detroit, and LA, you will suffer Theft, Rape, Pillage, Murder, Pain, Starvation and Cannibalism while waiting for help from Marxist authorities who never come. Well, they might come as they have in the past for conservation purposes, to shoot you as a possible threat or for being worthless to their cause. People who live in the Marxist inner cities should leave now while they can.
People who support the Democrats must learn they are really supporting Marxism (Communism or Fascism), which has killed hundreds of millions of people while being an economic failure. Marxism is unconstitutional and based upon Social Justice, also known as Redistribution, stealing from some to give to others, where the state owns everything and controls all the details of your life without freedom. Marxism is Unconstitutional Treason in our Republic. Our Constitution is the law of the land and dictates Equal Justice or Equal opportunity for all with minimum interference in people’s lives, freedom, or property, the opposite of Marxism.
“The only way to equalize rewards is to take from those who have earned and give to those who have not.” Patrick J. Buchanan column 1-27-13. This is Unconstitutional Theft in Obama’s Marxist Fashion.
The Republican Party and the Democrat party are controlled by the SAME Establishment Elite Families. Neither political party can continue to exist if they do not divest themselves from the Establishment’s Elite Families.
Mass Unemployment and Economic Decline was caused by: 1.) Manufacturers moving to exploit low wage workers in other countries. 2.) Importing skilled workers who work for less. 3.) Allowing unskilled workers to invade our country and remain at taxpayer expense along with associated crime. 4) And lastly a severe shortage of low skilled English speaking workers because government benefits for not working exceed unskilled and entry level wages.
Foreign invaders must be stopped at the border with deadly force, those in the country must be deported and birthright citizenship ended. Our people must not be allowed to suffer from the loss of jobs, crime or cost of illegal’s remaining in this country. This is but another example of government treason for financial benefit of the Elites and their Fellow Travelers.
Any attempt to Confiscate or Control Firearms in the hands of “We the People” is an “Act of War” against the people, and will be resisted in accordance with the Rule of Law. The absolute, God given Constitutional right, and duty for citizens to protect themselves with firearms from criminals and government tyranny even predates the constitution. Our Police have neither the capability nor legal responsibility to protect us; they can only catalog the dead when we fail to protect ourselves. Gun Free Zones in schools and public places are nothing but unconstitutional Killing Fields for the demented to use. Crime is always reduced when citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons. It has been proven repeatedly that any reduction in citizen ownership of firearms results in increased crime and tyranny. Therefore, the only reason for gun control by government is as a prelude to forced dictatorship, tyranny and death.
There are Sissy Men, Empty Headed Females and Trust Fund Babies in our country, with no grasp on reality, who refuse to handle a weapon to protect themselves, or to support the rights of others to do so. They are from the “Would Be Ruling Class”, indoctrinated by Marxist schools and parents to think they are superior and meant to control us common people. I mean these Useless Eaters no harm, but neither will I go out of my way to protect them.
Public funding of education thru the twelfth grade should be replaced with vouchers allowing students to go where they can get an education. Too many public schools are just not worth a damn. All public funding of universities and colleges should be terminated because 90% of the students will not benefit on the basis of Economic Opportunity Cost. With a proper high school education most students do not need a college education, a few really bright students could, but then a comparable faculty mostly does not exist. Donors to universities should lose any preferential treatment for taxes.
No one should be required to have a certificate, degree, diploma, test or anything else for employment unless everything required is directly related to performing the job in question. Most requirements for jobs exist to protect the positions of those already employed.
Following are some of the criminal problems with Judges:
• Judges kept Obama in office by using “Standing” to deny the opposition their legitimate day in court to question his lack of Constitutional qualifications. The legal concept of “Standing,” which is often abused by corrupt judges, can perform a vital function of determining who is entitled to be a party to legal proceedings.
• Jury Nullification is the jury’s Constitutional right to judge the law in criminal cases, and judges refuse to allow them to be so informed.
• Exculpatory Evidence is too often excluded by Judges resulting in conviction of innocent people. Remember Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Campion, et al?
• The law is more than what a Judge says.
• Denial of Discovery. Most famous was LTC Laken’s case where Pentagon Judge refused Discovery because it might embarrass Obama, so Laken was convicted.
• The Grand Jury was to be the most important protector of the common man against government abuse, where is it now?
• The Rule of Law must be everything in our Republic rather than next to nothing, for the alternative is war.
For those who think my words are too brutal, read “Classified Woman” by Sibel Edmonds and “Extreme Prejudice” by Susan Lindauer and you will no longer be naïve or think I am too harsh. For additional information, read any writers forNewsWithViews.com.
© 2013 Andrew Wallace – All Rights Reserved
Andrew C. Wallace is a former Kentucky State Trooper, Kentucky Native, Korean War Veteran, Commercial Pilot in Alaska, University of Kentucky Undergraduate in Business, Four years of Graduate School in Economics and Marketing at University of Kentucky and University of Iowa., Assistant Professor, Thirty years as Director of Marketing Firm developing and implementing national Marketing programs for manufacturers and now retired doing research and writing.
January 29th, 2013 by olddog
By Lynn Stuter
January 29, 2013
Last week I sent out an e-mail concerning the fact that the Social Security Death Index (SSDI) shows that Adam Lanza, the alleged Sandy Hook shooter, actually died on December 13, 2012, the day before Sandy Hook occurred. I outlined, step by step, how I obtained this information, so doubters could check the facts for themselves. The SSDI record shows Adam Lanza's birth date of April 22, 1992 which has been confirmed; his birth place of Exeter, New Hampshire, has also been confirmed. The same record shows Adam Lanza's date of death as December 13, 2012.
I even sent what I had found to a local news station, along with a note stating,
Maybe you can unravel the mystery of how it is possible that Adam Lanza was the Sandy Hook shooter when SSDI records show his death date as December 13, 2012, the day before Sandy Hook occurred.
As a mainstream media source, one would think they would be curious about how Adam Lanza could possibly be the shooter when he died the day before Sandy Hook occurred. However, the local news station, a CBS affiliate, wasn't interested. One has to question, as an alleged investigative agency, why they weren't. After all, isn't truth and accuracy in journalism important? Or is the agenda more important?
And one would think, if the date of Adam Lanza's death was in question, someone would have contacted the Social Security Administration (see GenealogyBank disclaimer on both pictures) long before now. And one would think, if the death date was in error, this record would have either been pulled or corrected.
Now, like so many other Americans, I have to wonder—Who was the real shooter or shooters at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut?
We know, from the SSDI records, that Nancy Lanza died on December 14, 2012.
And, of course, the fact that Adam Lanza died on December 13, not December 14, brings everything we have been told—by the mainstream media, law enforcement, and the medical examiner—regarding the shooting at Sandy Hook and the deaths of Adam and Nancy Lanza, into question.
How did Adam Lanza really die? Was he murdered? If so, by whom?
How did Nancy Lanza really die? Was she murdered? If so, by whom?
First, we were told that the shooter carried out his mission with two pistols; that the Bushmaster .223 was later found in the car supposedly belonging to Nancy Lanza; then the medical examiner claimed all the deaths were caused by the "long rifle", the Bushmaster .223. That was when law enforcement changed their story to the Bushmaster .223 being used in the killings and a shotgun being the gun found in the trunk of the car.
How could have experienced law enforcement personnel possibly mistaken a shotgun for a Bushmaster .223?
How could law enforcement have possibly mistaken a "long rifle" for a pistol?
Who was the man, wearing camouflage, chased in the woods behind the school, arrested, and taken away?
Who did the guns really belong to? Were they stolen from the Lanza house? Were they really registered to Nancy Lanza?
Who did the car, found parked close to the school, really belong to? Was it stolen from the Lanza residence by the individual who killed Nancy Lanza or was the car not even registered to Nancy Lanza but to someone else?
Is there any connection between the deaths of Adam and Nancy Lanza and the deaths at Sandy Hook? Or were these two incidents actually not connected at all?
Who did Principal Dawn Hochsprung really come face to face with at Sandy Hook Elementary? Who really killed her, five other adults, and 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary on December 14, 2012? How many shooters were actually involved? How many guns were really used? Remember that the children described the shooter as dressed completely in black including a black head covering. Would children, given the panic going on, be able to identify more than one shooter if they did not see them together and all shooters were dressed the same?
And, of course, looking at this very crucial piece of evidence, concerning when Adam Lanza died, I have to ask, Why are we being lied to?
Looking at all of this, I would even go so far as to entertain the probability that Sandy Hook was a U.S. Government false flag operation. How could I conclude that?
Beginning in late 2011, the scandal concerning Operation Fast and Furious was heating up. Operation Fast and Furious led right into the U.S. Department of Justice and implicated Barack Hussein Obama. Operation Fast and Furious was exposed as a government-led operation walking guns across the border into Mexico. At the same time, Obama and company (including "What difference does it make" Clinton) were alleging those same guns were being supplied, illegally, by Americans. It has been alleged that Obama intended to use Operation Fast and Furious as justification for passing a law banning assault-type weapons. His and Clinton's claims that guns were being supplied, illegally, by Americans certainly makes the case that such was Obama's intent.
Did Sandy Hook happen because Operation Fast and Furiouswas exposed as a government-led operation, thereby terminating its usefulness to Obama and company in pushing for an assault-type weapons ban?
When Obama made the allegation that the guns ultimately connected to Operation Fast and Furious were being supplied, illegally, by Americans, his allegations did not gain sufficient traction and were being vigorously denied by Second Amendment activists, who, it turned out, were right. Any despot, worth his salt, knows that common sense and fact cannot be overcome unless emotion can be engaged to overcome both.
And, golly, geez whiz, just look at what has occurred in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook incident — mass hysteria has been whipped up, augmented, at every turn, by the mainstream media. Pictures of the Sandy Hook children who died posted everywhere, blow-by-blow coverage of the funerals, impassioned news conferences by Robbie Parker who had to get into the role before beginning to speak, Obama and his fake tears, pictures of Obama and the families of victims, relentless coverage of every little detail all carefully wrapped in sadness and horror with the requisite outrage aimed at guns. It has been a three-ring circus intended, specifically to appeal to people's emotions, right down to the children surrounding Obama as he signed hispresidential actions in response to Sandy Hook, and Vice President Biden's dog and pony show on guns. It was not three hours after the blow-by-blow news coverage of the Sandy Hook incident commenced that Bob Schieffer of CBS news was calling for gun control. Coincidence, or is it closer to the truth that Bob Schieffer was just playing his role? That Bob Schieffer has since been inducted into the TV Hall of Fame certainly should leave people wondering – after all, doesn't one good turn deserve another?
And in the six weeks since Sandy Hook, there have been innumerable instances in which law-abiding citizens have successfully defended themselves, their wives, their children, their homes—with legally-owned guns—against the illegal acts of criminals. We have heard nothing of these incidents in the national media, only hearing about them from people who ferreted them out on the internet or heard of them locally and broadcast the news via e-mail or the internet.
At the same time, every incident in which guns have been used illegally to kill multiple people has made the news nation-wide right down to the local affiliates. This is what the mainstream media calls unbiased or balanced reporting.
On January 24, 2013, Dianne Feinstein, the Democrat (and Marxist to the core) Senator from California, introduced her bill, Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. As of this writing, the bill has been given a number – S.150 – but has not yet been entered at the Government Printing Office (GPO); at this time, the only copy of it exists on the website.
In her press release, regarding the same, Feinstein stated:
“The bill introduced today is the product of more than a year of work, with input from across the country,” Feinstein said. “Getting this bill signed into law will be an uphill battle, and I recognize that—but it’s a battle worth waging. We must balance the desire of a few to own military-style assaults weapons with the growing threat to lives across America. If 20 dead children in Newtown wasn’t a wakeup call that these weapons of war don’t belong on our streets, I don’t know what is.” (Underlining added for emphasis)
You did catch that, didn't you – "The bill introduced today is the product of more than a year of work, with input from across the country … If 20 dead children in Newtown wasn't a wakeup call that these weapons of war don't belong on our streets, I don't know what is."
What an interesting coincidence that this bill has been a whole year in the works, and Sandy Hook just happened to occur eleven days before Christmas; and one month after Christmas, Feinstein drops her bill. The old adage that nothing in politics is a coincidence definitely comes into play, supported by the fact that Adam Lanza died one day before Sandy Hook occurred.
And in light of all this, one has to ask – Why the Biden dog and pony show, being as how Feinstein had already spent a year working on S.150, a fact that Democrat colleague Biden undoubtedly knew? By all appearances, that dog and pony show was not for the purpose stated.
In her press release, Feinstein went on to say,
The legislation also protects the rights of law-abiding citizens who use guns for hunting, household defense or legitimate recreational purposes.
There is only one problem; and it's a very big problem—The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, contained in the Bill of Rights, is not limited to hunting, household defense or recreation; the Second Amendment states:
"Right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (Underlining added for emphasis)
In even proposing this legislation, Senator Dianne Feinstein has violated her oath of office to protect and defend the United States Constitution, as has every Senator who has signed on as a co-sponsor.
War has been declared on the law-abiding citizens of the United States of America. That war has been declared by the Marxist occupying the White House, socialist/communist Senators and Representatives in the House and Senate, and the mainstream media who is pushing the cause of these anti-American, anti-freedom loving traitors to the max, all the while ignoring two indisputable facts:
1) laws are for the law-abiding; criminals aren't law-abiding;
2) this law, if passed, will not stop one criminal from obtaining a gun and killing people; this law will have no effect beyond curbing the rights of the law-abiding.
These two facts alone make the agenda of these gun-grabbing traitors apparent.
What can you do?
On January 25, 2013, I wrote and sent a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein, at her Washington, DC office. In that letter I outlined her violation of her oath of office and demanded her immediate resignation. A copy of that letter was sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, my State Senators (Murray and Cantwell), my State Representative (Cathy McMorris Rodgers) and Speaker of the House John Boehner, accompanied by a letter requesting Feinstein's benefits and privileges as a Senator be terminated.
I would encourage every American, concerned about this war that has been declared on their Second Amendment rights, do the same. Additionally, if your Senator is a co-sponsor of S.150, demand their immediate resignation and termination of their rights and privileges as a Senator, as well.
If you believe, as some law-abiding gun owners do, that theAssault Weapons Ban of 2013 is not about your ability to protect and defend your freedom, you need to go watch this film: Obama to Top Brass: Will you fire on American Citizens?
The House and Senate have refused to deal with the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen; that he is not eligible, under Article I, Section II, Clause 5, United States Constitution, to the office he holds; that the United States of America has not had a lawful president or commander-in-chief for the past four years, and will not have a lawful president or commander-in-chief for at least another four years unless Congress acts, which does not seem likely. Our rights have been violated and denied.
The House and Senate have refused to deal with the fact that HB 3590, P.L 111-148, otherwise known as Obamacare, is unconstitutional and was signed into law by an individual not lawfully holding the office of president. Our rights have been violated and denied.
The House and Senate have refused to deal with the corruption emanating from the Oval Office as occupied by Obama, including the walking of guns across the border into Mexico under Operation Fast and Furious. Our rights have been violated and denied.
All of this happened while our duly elected, who took an oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution, have stood by and done nothing to stop it. The stench of the corruption emanating from Washington DC is worse than that of a pig sty on a hot day!
The one right that protects all others is the Second Amendment. We should not be surprised that it is now under attack. If we stand back and do nothing to stop the agenda of these gun-grabbing traitors, tyranny will soon follow.
© 2013 Lynn M. Stuter – All Rights Reserved
Activist and researcher, Stuter has spent the last fifteen years researching systems theory and systems philosophy with a particular emphasis on education as it pertains to achieving the sustainable global environment. She home schooled two daughters. She has worked with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance, the sustainable global environment and education reform. She networks nationwide with other researchers and a growing body of citizens concerned about the transformation of our nation from a Constitutional Republic to a participatory democracy. She has traveled the United States and lived overseas.
Web site: www.learn-usa.com
Beginning with the George Bush Senior administration and through each following administration, America has been subjected to atrocities of unimaginable proportions, with all of the perpetrators landing in a pile of money, and no recriminations from the law. In spite of all the available information on their involvement in these atrocities, each election produces more despotic dictator wannabees hell bent on the total destruction of freedom in all three branches of the federal government. As if this is not bad enough, Obama is now weeding out all military personnel who will not fire on American Citizens. Sandy Hook is destined to be the king pin of revolution, and the fires of hell our going to consume us all, if Americans don’t stand up and fight back NOW! Obama seems hell bent on becoming the most despicable dictator in all of history, and when he falls people will be lining up for miles to piss on his grave. Unfortunately, it may take millions of Americans losing everything before he falls. All of his predecessors are in hell waiting on him! All of the souls of Innocent Americans who have died due to these planned events are waiting for judgment day. Americans the unimaginable has become reality.
What are you doing about it!?????
January 28th, 2013 by olddog
Not everyone will have to abide by Senator Dianne Feinstein's gun control bill. If the proposed legislation becomes law, government officials and others will be exempt.
"Mrs. Feinstein's measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel," the Washington Times reports.
The Huffington Post confirms these exemptions, and adds that guns owned prior to the legislation becoming law will be permissible, too. "[T]he bill includes a number of exemptions: It exempts more than 2,200 hunting and sporting weapons; any gun manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action; any weapons used by government officials and law enforcement; and any weapons legally owned as of the date of the bill's enactment."
The bill's measures include stopping "the sale, manufacture and importation of 158 specifically named military-style firearms and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. It would also ban an additional group of assault weapons that accept detachable ammunition magazines and have at least one military characteristic," according to the Huffington Post.
The left-leaning website adds: "Other new provisions include requiring background checks on all future transfers of assault weapons covered under the bill and eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original ban to expire."
I’M FROM THE GOVERNMENT, SO YOU CAN TRUST ME TO HAVE A GUN, AND YOU DON’T! YEA SURE, JUST AS SOON AS ROCKS DON’T SINK IN WATER. If this bitch has the right to protect herself with a gun, so do we! And if you don’t think that’s fair, someone has stuck your head up your ass so long ago you like it.
January 25th, 2013 by olddog
By Chuck Baldwin
January 24, 2013
The local FOX affiliate in Salt Lake City, Utah, has reported that the Utah Sheriff's Association has written a strongly worded letter to President Barack Obama regarding any potential federal laws that would restrict the citizens of the State of Utah from practicing their Second Amendment rights. The letter was signed by every sheriff in the State of Utah except one. The letter reads in part:
"With the number of mass shootings America has endured, it is easy to demonize firearms; it is also foolish and prejudiced. Firearms are nothing more than instruments, valuable and potentially dangerous, but instruments nonetheless. Malevolent souls, like the criminals who commit mass murders, will always exploit valuable instruments in the pursuit of evil. As professional peace officers, if we understand nothing else, we understand this: lawful violence must sometimes be employed to deter and stop criminal violence. Consequently, the citizenry must continue its ability to keep and bear arms, including arms that adequately protect them from all types of illegality."
The letter also states: "We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights–in particular Amendment II–has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation."
In addition, Utah Representative Brian Greene, R-Pleasant Grove, has introduced legislation that asserts State power over federal power regarding gun control. Rep. Greene's bill "would go so far as to allow local police the authority to arrest federal agents should they try to seize any firearms."
The report added: "'Acting upon those will be a third-degree felony in this state, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $5,000 fine,' Greene said."
See the report.
Tim Mueller, the sheriff of Linn County, Oregon, has also written the White House a similar letter. Mueller's letter said in part, "Any federal regulation enacted by Congress or by executive order of the president offending the constitutional rights of my citizens shall not be enforced by me or by my deputies," adding, "Nor will I permit the enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers within the borders of Linn County, OR."
Read the report and Sheriff Mueller's letter.
Several sheriffs in the State of Oregon have followed Sheriff Mueller's example and issued similar statements: Sheriff Jim Hensley of Crook County, Sheriff Larry Blanton of Deschutes County, Sheriff Glenn Palmer of Grant County, Sheriff Craig Zanni of Coos County, Sheriff John Hanlin of Douglas County, and Sheriff Gil Gilbertson of Josephine County.
Read Sheriff Gil Gilbertson letter.
In fact, sheriffs from all over America have begun taking similar stands. One of the first was Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky. Also add Pine County, Minnesota, Sheriff Robin Cole. Sheriff Cole said, "I do not believe the federal government or any individual in the federal government has the right to dictate to the states, counties or municipalities any mandate, regulation or administrative rule that violates the United States Constitution or its various amendments." The sheriff said that the right to bear arms is "fundamental to our individual freedoms and that firearms are part of life in our country."
A news report on the story noted, "The Sheriff said he would refuse to enforce any federal mandate that violates constitutional rights, and that he would consider any new federal regulation on guns to be illegal."
Also include Madison County, Alabama, Sheriff Blake Dorning; Smith County, Texas, Sheriff Larry Smith; and Martin County, Florida, Sheriff Bill Snyder to the list of sheriffs who are vowing to protect their citizens from the unconstitutional overreach of the federal government.
See the report here.
This is exactly the kind of response that is needed! No law enforcement action of any kind (county, State, or federal) can take place without the approbation of the county sheriff. Constitutionally, he is the highest law enforcement officer of the county. This is why I have repeatedly said that ultimately our freedom will be won or lost at the State and local levels.
Big Government toadies love to quote the so-called "supremacy clause" in Article. VI. Paragraph. 2. of the US Constitution. It reads, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme law of the land." This clause, they say, gives carte blanche to federal lawmakers to usurp, negate, or expunge any local or State law–or even the Constitution itself. Such an interpretation is absolutely ludicrous!
Notice that those federal laws that are considered to be "the supreme law of the land" must be made "in Pursuance" of the existing Constitution. Nowhere is it written that federal laws that contradict the existing US Constitution are to be considered lawful. In fact, just the opposite is true. Laws, even federal laws, which contradict the Constitution, are deemed to be null and void.
In the Marbury v Madison Supreme Court decision (1803), the Constitution was firmly established as the "supreme law of the land"–not legislative acts which contradict the Constitution. In the landmark ruling, Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the majority, said, "So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
"If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
"Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.
"This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure."
The decision concludes, "Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him.
"If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.
"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
See the Marbury decision here.
How could this decision be any more clear? The US Congress has no authority to pass laws, and the President has no authority to execute laws which contradict the US Constitution, and any such laws that are passed should be considered null and void.
In addition to the Court, the founders also expected that the states would serve as a check and balance on potential encroachments upon the people's liberties by the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.
At this point, allow me to quote my constitutional attorney son, Timothy Baldwin:
"One of the constitutional tools by which socialist and nationalist ideologues have incorporated political principles of centralization and state annihilation is through the 'Supremacy clause' of the U.S. Constitution, which states, 'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' (USC, Article 6) To many people, this phrase has been construed to mean whatever laws and treaties those in the federal government pass, execute and uphold are binding on the people of the states and their respective governments. Admittedly, this concept has taken a stronghold in America and has been treated as the accepted principle of constitutional law for generations. Undoubtedly, every law student attending an ABA accredited law school is taught this as fact, just as I was when I attended Cumberland School of Law at Samford University. Not everyone agrees with this construction, however.
"Big-government and monarchist himself, Alexander Hamilton sheds light on the error of this position in 1787 when he addressed the concerns of those Americans who rejected the U.S. Constitution because of the fear that the expected effect of the 'Supremacy clause' would be to subvert the sovereignty of the States to govern themselves according to their constitutions. Hamilton attempts to calm their fears, saying, 'It will not follow from this doctrine [of supremacy] that acts of the large society [i.e., the union] which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land.’ (Federalist Paper 33) Perhaps everyone in America would concede this, but what is not agreed upon is what the States can and should do about those laws that are NOT PURSUANT to the constitutional powers of the federal government. Many place the burden of correcting that grievance on the U.S. Supreme Court, as if a body of nine judges appointed by the executive of the federal government are an adequate remedy for the machinations of that distorted philosophy broadly accepted by those in federal office. Contrarily, those who believe in the principles of a federalist system should recognize that each unit of the union (i.e., States) have the duty to do what Hamilton suggested in response to those laws contrary to the constitution: ‘These [laws] will be merely acts of usurpation, and WILL DESERVE TO BE TREATED AS SUCH.' (FP 33, emphasis added) These laws should be treated as no law at all, and moreover, as attacks on liberty, and should be resisted on every level of the union, from federal to state to local governments, as well as individuals."
See Tim's website.
Sheriffs Mueller, Peyman, Cole, et al. are dutifully fulfilling their oaths of office and are exemplary examples of what it means to be a constitutional sheriff.
I strongly urge readers to take a copy of Sheriff Mueller's letter to the White House to your own county sheriff and ask him where he stands on protecting your Second Amendment liberties. And if your sheriff balks at his duty of standing firm for your liberties, vote him out of office as quickly as possible and replace him with a true constitutionalist sheriff. Remember, without the approbation and cooperation of your county sheriff, no federal police agency has any ability to implement Senator Dianne Feinstein's semi-automatic rifle ban or high capacity magazine ban, should Congress pass such a ban.
Sheriffs are not elected to be paper pushers or attend Rotary Club meetings or a hundred other mundane tasks; primarily, sheriffs are elected to protect the liberties of the citizens in his or her county–even if that means defying unconstitutional laws handed down from Washington, D.C.
Kudos to the sheriffs of the State of Utah; kudos to Sheriff Mueller, Peyman, Cole et al. Come on folks! Find out NOW whether you have a real sheriff in your county or just a political opportunist who wears a badge. Your liberties hang in the balance.
And please visit my web site for past columns and much more.
© 2013 Chuck Baldwin – All Rights Reserved
Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. Chuck and his family reside in the Flathead Valley of Montana.
See Chuck's complete bio here.
January 17th, 2013 by olddog
By J.B. Williams
January 17, 2013
Without your Second Amendment Rights, you have NO other Rights, which is exactly why Obama and his band of Democratic Socialists want your guns. Obama and Biden are prepared to disarm American citizens by Executive Order with 23 orders ready to go, and congress should make sure that they make this move all alone by refusing to pass any new gun control legislation through congress. (Obama signed these 23 EO’s as this column was in editing.)
Make no mistake, almost every Democratic Socialist (aka progressive) member of congress will support Obama’s rush to disarm law abiding citizens. Just like Hitler, Obama will exploit children to push his anti-American agenda, using innocent babies as human shields to protect Democrat Marxists as they attempt to strip Americans of their God given and constitutionally protected Right to keep and bear arms.
It’s not guns in the hands of the “lawless” that Obama & Co. are after. The lawless don’t care what laws we pass, and most of them voted for Obama & Co. It’s the guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens who oppose Obama’s march to Marxists that they worry about.
“…to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
“… whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (Life, Liberty and Freedom), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
The NRA (National Rifle Association) will put on a dog and pony show for members, presenting a public opposition to the massive assault of Constitutional Rights, and in the end, they will cave (compromise away rights) as they have done many times before, allowing Marxists to shove the nation towards a second Civil War.
Gun Owners of America has no plan on the table to stop the gun grab either, “We don’t think there is much likelihood Congress is going to move to change gun laws,” Larry Pratt, executive director for Gun Owners of America, told “Fox News Sunday.” – WRONG! Obama just signed 23 EO’s today!
The American news rooms are 100% on-board Obama’s Marxist march off the cliff and they know they have to disarm Americans before they finish off American sovereignty and security in their planned economic collapse.
Even faux conservative entertainers like Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck will push for “reasonable” gun control measures, and tell citizens “not to resist” – “do what Jesus would do,” – allowing themselves to be disarmed, enslaved and crucified before fighting against Marxist corruption and tyranny.
US lawmakers will do whatever it takes to disarm American citizens leaving all American power in the hands of criminals and corrupt politicians. They will exploit children - offer tax deductions if you voluntarily disarm yourself - use your churches to disarm law abiding citizens – and shove citizens into a financial corner where they will sell their guns to keep food on the table.
In a radio interview yesterday, I explained how they will disarm American citizens and why.
In short, Obama & Co. have no intention to “save America.” They intend to destroy America and all they have to do is spend the nation deeper and deeper in to unsustainable debt, regulate business out of business (including gun manufacturers and distributors), drive society further into an immoral abyss and federal dependency, and disarm the people just ahead of the final fiscal collapse.
We have seen all of these things before, in pre-World War Germany and countless other nations around the world.Governments have killed more “defenseless”
people throughout history than all the wars and criminals combined, more than 170 million through genocide and always following the disarming of their citizens.
Simply stated, there is nothing these people won’t do to destroy America, but they have to disarm American citizens in order to be successful. Their idea of a “sustainable society” is a society of like-minded communists, free of any resisters. The truth about Gun Control is well covered in this
one hour video.
If members of congress go along with any new effort to restrict or regulate the Second Amendment Rights of law abiding citizens, they will deserve to hang beside the
Marxist criminals pushing this anti-American agenda.
Let’s be very clear here… “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
• “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” - Thomas Jefferson, 1776.
• “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” - George Mason
• “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” - Zachariah Johnson
• “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”- Samuel Adams
• “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence …” - George Washington
• “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee
It is not within the power of the government, federal, state or local, to disarm the American people. It is not even within government powers to regulate or restrict the American people’s God-given and constitutionally protected Rights. Democratic Socialists in New York and
Connecticut are also leading the gun grab.
Read those words again – “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” – From the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, without which, the people have NO rights.
The bottom line is that the American people must draw a final line in the sand at the Second Amendment. If the people forfeit their Second Amendment rights, they will forfeit all of their rights. They cannot count on anyone but themselves here. They MUST take affirmative actions that are carefully crafted within the boundaries of Constitutional Rights and they must do it immediately.
1. Light up the Congressional switchboard (202)224-3121 and tell ALL members of congress to STAND DOWN on gun control, forcing Barack Hussein Obama to come after your guns all alone through Executive Order. Use this congressional directory to look up your members of congress and demand that they pass nothing concerning gun control.
2. JOIN OTHERS with a track record of doing the right things and support the only
Law Center in America formed for the sole purpose of representing the will of the true American people. Unite with constitutionally grounded and angry military and law enforcement veterans HERE! Divided, we will fall, but UNITED, there is nothing we can’t accomplish.
3. Forget pet issue initiatives at this stage. There aren’t enough hours in the day to react to every assault on freedom and liberty item by item. Work with ALL Americans in your state to pass
The Balance of Powers Act IMMEDIATELY! Big problems demand big solutions and immediate action! This model legislation has been circulated via more than 99,000 web pages and people are working to pass this in EVERY state. GET ENGAGED! Without this broad-based solution in your state, you have no viable state solutions.
If the American people allow Marxists to disarm them without a battle, they deserve to live under the boot of this Marxist scum. Obama just stood on international television moments ago and signed 23 Executive Orders, usurping the US Constitution and circumventing congress as he announced the most massive assault on God-given inalienable rights in US history, all in the name of “saving kids.” [2012 assault weapon related deaths, approximately 300– number of US children murdered by their mother, protected by Democrats, 1.2 million]
Take these matters into your own hands. Unite with others already doing it. No excuse is good enough. America does not exist as it was formed 236 years ago. If the American people want it to exist again, they must act now under the principles of E Pluribus Unum – out of many, ONE!
Every American citizen who is not an active part of the solution IS a part of the problem. The future of freedom and liberty is not in the hands of Obama or his Marxist minions…. It is in YOUR hands!
Last on this matter, NO American citizen is morally or legally obligated to abide by any law or executive order which is issued in direct violation of the US Constitution or Bill of Rights.
Before this criminal cabal of Marxists initiates even one universal background check on a single American citizen, I demand to see a full Top Secret Security Level universal background check on the people trying to issue unconstitutional laws and dictatorial orders, to include Barack Hussein Obama, all of his Czars and each of his department heads.
Until we fully vet these criminals in public, they have no right to investigate anyone or order the American people to do anything.
May the God, who endowed us with all of our inalienable rights, protect the defenders of those rights at the dark hour in American history.
© 2013 JB Williams – All Rights Reserved
JB Williams is a writer on matters of history and American politics with more than 3000 pieces published over a twenty-year span. He has a decidedly conservative reverence for the Charters of Freedom, the men and women who have paid the price of freedom and liberty for all, and action oriented real-time solutions for modern challenges. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, a researcher, writer and a business owner. He is co-founder of action organizations
The United States Patriots Union, a civilian parent organization for
The Veteran Defenders of America. He is also co-founder of
The North American Law Center, a citizen run investigative legal research and activism organization preparing to take on American's greatest legal battles. Williams receives mail at:
Web site 1: www.PatriotsUnion.org
Web site 2: www.VeteranDefenders.org
The best thing to come of this present rage over gun control is to be found in the article below, because the one thing that has not ignited the fuse of revolt is the confusion that has resulted in the minds of the uninformed masses, from being lied to all of their life, by people they trusted. If you long for an intelligent explanation of how it was possible for the government to get away with ignoring their oath of office, I implore you to read CAREFULLY, the oath of office. It is the key to believing what you are about to learn. Hint! Just who are they swearing their oath to?
Acts of the Forty first Congress Section 34 Session III chapters 61 and 62
the Act of 1871
1871, February 21: Congress Passes an Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia, also known as the Act of 1871.
With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress creates a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten mile square parcel of land (see,
Acts of the Forty-first Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62).
The act – passed when the country was weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War — was a strategic move by foreign interests (international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the coffers and neck of America. Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers. Because the bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without serious stipulations, they devised a way to get their foot in the door of the United States.
The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES. The corporation, OWNED by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original Constitution into a dustbin. With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution was defaced – in effect vandalized and sabotage – when the title was capitalized and the word “for” was changed to “of” in the title.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the constitution of the incorporated UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the Republic. It does not! Capitalization is NOT insignificant when one is referring to a legal document. This seemingly “minor” alteration has had a major impact on every subsequent generation of Americans. What Congress did by passing the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government. This Act of 1871 newly altered Constitution was not intended to benefit the Republic. It benefits only the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operates entirely outside the original (organic) Constitution.
Instead of having absolute and unalienable rights guaranteed under the organic Constitution, we the people now have “relative” rights or privileges. One example is the Sovereign’s right to travel, which has now been transformed (under corporate government policy) into a “privilege” that requires citizens to be licensed. (Passports) By passing the Act of 1871, Congress committed TREASON against the People who were Sovereign under the grants and decrees of the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution.
The Act of 1871 became the FOUNDATION of
all the treason since committed by government officials.]
The UNITED STATES isn’t a Country; it’s a Corporation! In preparation for stealing America, the puppets of Britain’s banking cabal had already created a second government, a Shadow Government designed to manage what the common herd believed was a democracy, but what really was an incorporated UNITED STATES. Together this chimera, this two-headed monster, disallowed the common herd all rights of sui juris. [you, in your sovereignty]
Congress, with no authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten-mile square parcel of land. WHY and HOW did they do so? First, Lisa Guliani of Babel Magazine, reminds us that the Civil War was, in fact, “little more than a calculated front with fancy footwork by backroom players.” Then she adds: “It was also a strategic maneuver by British and European interests (international bankers) intent on gaining a stranglehold on the coffers of America. And, because Congress knew our country was in dire financial straits, certain members of Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone’s pie)… There you have the WHY, why members of Congress permitted the international bankers to gain further control of America. [To avoid total financial collapse!]
“Then, by passing the Act of 1871, Congress formed a corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, shoved the organic version of the Constitution aside by changing the word [‘for’ to ‘of’] in the title. Let me explain: the original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers read: ‘The Constitution for the united states of America.’ [note that neither the words 'united' nor 'states' began with capital letters] But the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’ is a corporate constitution, which is absolutely NOT the same document you think it is. First of all, it ended all our rights of sovereignty [Sui Juris]. So you now have the HOW, how the international bankers got their hands on THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.”
To fully understand how our rights of sovereignty were ended, you must know the full meaning of sovereign: “Chief or highest, supreme power, superior in position to all others; independent of and unlimited by others; possessing or entitled to; original and independent authority or jurisdiction.” (Webster).
In short, our government, which was created by and for us as sovereigns – free citizens deemed to have the highest authority in the land – was stolen from us, along with our rights. Keep in mind that, according to the original Constitution, only We the People are sovereign. Government is not sovereign. The Declaration of Independence say, “…government is subject to the consent of the governed.”
That’s us – the sovereigns. When did you last feel like a sovereign? “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a constitutional historian to figure out that the U.S. Government has NOT been subject to the consent of the governed since long before you or I were born. Rather, the governed are subject to the whim and greed of the corporation, which has stretched its tentacles beyond the ten-mile-square parcel of land known as the District of Columbia. In fact, it has invaded every state of the Republic. Mind you, the corporation has NO jurisdiction beyond the District of Columbia. You just think it does. “You see, you are ‘presumed’ to know the law, which is very weird since We the People are taught NOTHING about the law in school. We memorize obscure facts and phrases here and there, like the Preamble, which says, ‘We the People, establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’ But our teachers only gloss over the Bill of Rights. Our schools (controlled by the corporate government) don’t delve into the Constitution at depth. After all, the corporation was established to indoctrinate and ‘dumb-down’ the masses, not to teach anything of value or importance. Certainly, no one mentioned that America was sold-out to foreign interests, that we were beneficiaries of the debt incurred by Congress, or that we were in debt to the international bankers. Yet, for generations, Americans have had the bulk of their earnings confiscated to pay a massive debt that they did not incur. There’s an endless stream of things the People aren’t told. And, now that you are being told, how do you feel about being made the recipient of a debt without your knowledge or consent? “After passage of the Act of 1871 Congress set a series of subtle and overt deceptions into motion, deceptions in the form of decisions that were meant to sell us down the river. Over time, the Republic took it on the chin until it was knocked down and counted out by a technical KO [knock out]. With the surrender of the people’s gold in 1933, the ‘common herd’ was handed over to illegitimate law.
(I’ll bet you weren’t taught THAT in school.)
“Our corporate form of governance is based on Roman Civil Law and Admiralty, or Maritime, Law, which is also known as the ‘Divine Right of Kings’ and the’Law of the Seas’ – another fact of American history not taught in our schools.
Actually, Roman Civil Law was fully established in the colonies before our nation began, and then became managed by private international law. In other words, the government – the government created for the District of Columbia via the Act of 1871 – operates solely under Private International Law, not Common Law, which was the foundation of our Constitutional Republic. “This fact has impacted all Americans in concrete ways. For instance, although Private International Law is technically only applicable within the District of Columbia, and NOT in the other states of the Union, the arms of the Corporation of the UNITED STATES are called ‘departments’ – i.e., the Justice Department, the Treasury Department. And those departments affect everyone, no matter where (in what state) they live. Guess what? Each department belongs to the corporation – to the UNITED STATES.
“Refer to any UNITED STATES CODE (USC). Note the capitalization; this is evidence of a corporation, not a Republic. For example, In Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C), it is unequivocally stated that the UNITED STATES is a corporation.
Translation: the corporation is NOT a separate and distinct entity; it is not disconnected from the government; it IS the government — your government. This is extremely important! I refer to it as the ‘corporate EMPIRE of the UNITED STATES,’ which operates under Roman Civil Law outside the original Constitution. How do you like being ruled by a corporation? You say you’ll ask your Congressperson about this? HA!! “Congress is fully aware of this deception.
So it’s time that you, too, become aware of the deception. What this great deception means is that the members of Congress do NOT work for us, for you and me. They work for the Corporation, for the UNITED STATES. No wonder we can’t get them to do anything on our behalf, or meet or demands, or answer our questions.
“Technically, legally, or any other way you want to look at the matter, the corporate government of the UNITED STATES has no jurisdiction or authority in ANY State of the Union (the Republic) beyond the District of Columbia. Let that tidbit sink in, then ask yourself, could this deception have occurred without full knowledge and complicity of the Congress? Do you think it happened by accident? If you do, you’re deceiving yourself.
“There are no accidents, no coincidences. Face the facts and confront the truth. Remember, you are presumed to know the law. THEY know you don’t know the law or, for that matter, your history. Why? Because no concerted effort was ever made to teach or otherwise inform you. As a Sovereign, you are entitled to full disclosure of all facts. As a slave, you are entitled to nothing other than what the corporation decides to ‘give’ you.
“Remember also that ‘Ignorance of the law is no excuse.’ It’s your responsibility. The corporation counted on the fact that most people are too indifferent, unconcerned, distracted, or lazy to learn what they need to know to survive within the system. We have been conditioned to let the government do our thinking for us. Now’s the time to turn that around if we intend to help save our Republic and ourselves — before it’s too late.” As an instrument of the international bankers, the UNITED STATES owns you from birth to death. It also holds ownership of all your assets, of your property, even of your children. Think long and hard about all the bills taxes, fines, and licenses you have paid for or purchased. Yes, they had you by the pockets. If you don’t believe it, read the 14th Amendment. See how ‘free’ you really are.
Ignorance of the facts led to your silence. Silence is construed as consent; consent to be beneficiaries of a debt you did not incur. As a Sovereign People we have been deceived for hundreds of years; we think we are free, but in truth we are servants of the corporation.
“Congress committed treason against the People in 1871. Honest men could have corrected the fraud and treason. But apparently there weren’t enough honest men to counteract the lust for money and power. We lost more freedom than we will ever know, thanks to corporate infiltration of our so-called ‘government.’ “Do you think that any soldier who died in any of our many wars would have fought if he or she had known the truth? Do you think one person would have laid down his/her life for a corporation? How long will we remain silent? How long will we perpetuate the MYTH that we are free? When will we stand together as One Sovereign People? When will we take back what has been as stolen from the us?
"If the People of America had known to what extent their trust was betrayed, how long would it have taken for a real revolution to occur? What we now need is a Revolution in THOUGHT. We need to change our thinking, then we can change our world. Our children deserve their rightful legacy — the liberty our ancestors fought to preserve, the legacy of a Sovereign and Fully Free People." [Posted 8/27/02, www.babalmagazine.com/]
From a speech in Congress in The Bankruptcy of The United States. United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303. Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:
"Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913)"Hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve – in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.
In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend THE FEDERAL United States CORPORATION [emphasis added] all the credit "money substitute" it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn't have any assets, they assigned the private property of their "economic slaves", the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.
Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another.
For questions regarding American Memory or the Library's other digital resources:
http://www.loc.gov/library/libarch-digital.html, please use the following Web form:
For questions regarding materials from other Library divisions, please select the appropriate
Web form from the Ask a Librarian Service home page: