Categories » ‘Politics’
July 30th, 2015 by olddog
By Alex Newman
In a radical attack on the due-process rights of Americans that received virtually no media attention, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to give the Obama administration the unilateral power to strip you of your passport and right to travel without a trial or even criminal charges. The scheme does not even include a way to challenge your status as a non-person involuntarily trapped inside U.S. borders on orders from the secretary of state. Lawmakers, some of whom could themselves be caught in the dragnet along with myriad administration officials, praised the effort as a way to stop alleged terrorists from travelling. But critics said it was yet another attack on the fundamental rights of Americans, such as due-process protections, and that it must be resisted.
As if to illustrate how out of touch with the U.S. Constitution most members of Congress have become, the legislation, HR 237, also known as “FTO (foreign terrorist organization) Passport Revocation Act,” did not even receive a recorded vote — supposedly because it was so “uncontroversial.” It passed after 15 minutes of alleged “debate.” Bill sponsor Ted Poe (R-Texas) claimed the measure, adopted under a “suspension of the rules” typically used for trivialities such as renaming post offices, was passed unanimously. Of course, in an age in which the White House openly claims the unilateral authority to murder or indefinitely detain American citizens without even charging them with a crime, passport revocations likely seem trivial by comparison. But opponents of the measure said it was a big deal nonetheless.
Under the bill, “the Secretary of State may refuse to issue a passport to any individual whom the Secretary has determined has aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise helped an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization,” the text states. “The Secretary of State may revoke a passport previously issued to any individual” whom Secretary of State John Kerry, or future administrations that could be even more radical, unilaterally decides may have done any of those things. The terms are left undefined, opening up widespread potential for abuse, and there is no appeals process outlined in the legislation.
In essence, if approved by the Senate and signed into law by Obama, one man — far-left radical Kerry, for now — would have the power to strip you of your unalienable, God-given rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Under the measure, individuals targeted by Kerry or his successors would have no right to due-process of law — no trial by jury, no chance to contest the findings in open court (or anywhere else), no right to be presumed innocent before proven guilty, not even a right to see the accusations. Indeed, even actual criminal charges are unnecessary under the scheme for somebody to be permanently trapped in or out of the United States based on secret evidence, with no mechanism to appeal.
Lawmakers who supported the measure, though, put a different spin on it. “Daily, deadly attacks around the world remind us that radical Islamic terrorists are spreading their murderous rampage worldwide,” said Rep. Poe, who sponsored the legislation and has a 70 percent cumulative score on the Freedom Index. “The threat to America from these groups has never been greater. But some of our own citizens have travelled to the terrorist hotbeds in Syria and beyond to fight for the other side. These Benedict Arnold traitors who have turned against America and joined the ranks of foreign radical terrorist armies should lose all rights afforded to our citizens.”
Of course, after being proven guilty of terrorism or treason in a court of law, actual terrorists and traitors would — and regularly do — lose the rights guaranteed to Americans in the U.S. Constitution. However, Rep. Poe fails to mention that, and instead of a trial by jury to determine guilt, individuals would lose their rights merely on the word of one administration official. “This will help law enforcement locate these individuals by making it easier to flag the individuals who are trying to travel internationally,” Poe continued. “Most importantly, this legislation will help prevent turned Americans from coming back to the United States undetected.”
“The House has now acted to locate and contain these traitors,” Rep. Poe added, without explaining the implications of giving the Obama administration the unilateral authority to declare somebody a “traitor” without any semblance of due process. “It’s time for the Senate to quickly do the same. These people are not returning to America to open coffee shops; they are coming back to kill. Let’s stop them from coming back at all.” Other Republican lawmakers issued similar statements in support of the measure. Existing U.S. statutes already allowed Americans’ passports to be revoked for “national security,” but apparently the administrative appeals process available under that program was too much for Congress.
The handful of critics who were aware of the scheming ahead of the vote slammed a wide range of provisions in the measure. “The bill provides no ability for someone wrongly denied a passport to challenge the Secretary of State’s findings that they helped a terrorist,” explained Norm Singleton, vice president for policy at the Campaign for Liberty and a founding member of the Republican Liberty Caucus. “So much for due process and reining in executive power.” Before the vote, he urged supporters of due process to call their representatives and tell them to oppose the scheme, but it was approved in the House the next day anyway.
In a wide-ranging and widely re-published criticism of the legislation, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity chief Daniel McAdams blasted the process used to adopt it, the anti-liberty ideology underpinning it, and the bill itself. “This means the Secretary of State can, unilaterally, with no due process and no oversight, deprive an American citizen the privileges of citizenship, thus relegating him to internal exile inside the United States — a practice most recently perfected in the Soviet Union,” he wrote. “What does the word ‘aided’ mean? No one knows. Is there any wiggle room for inadvertency? No one knows. And what about the very political nature of the US ‘terror’ list in the first place?”
“The U.S. Secretary of State can revoke my passport without meeting any burden of proof that I am actually a terrorist or even that I have ever supported terrorism. He can keep his evidence against me totally secret and will never be required to justify his actions against me,” McAdams continued. “And this is considered ‘uncontroversial’ in the United States? Even in revolutionary France you had the Vendée which resisted the madness of the totalitarian state. Here we have the ‘suspension calendar,’ a modern guillotine of our rights.”
Ironically, as liberty-minded critics such as McAdams subtly pointed out, if the measure had been in effect just a few years ago, a broad range of top current and former officials in both major political parties would have been subject to losing their passports for openly supporting (after being paid big bucks) the Iranian Mujahedin-e Khalq, a designated terror group until 2012 often described as an Islamo-Marxist “cult.” Until 2008, supporters of Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress, which included top U.S. officials, would have also been targeted. Meanwhile, the Obama administration was exposed years ago openly supporting proud al-Qaeda leaders, first in their war against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, and more recently in Syria.
Americans with alleged tax debts are also in Congress’ crosshairs for being stripped of their right to travel and due process, and have been for years. In fact, just this week, the Senate included a provision in the “transportation” bill it introduced that would strip the passports of anyone the IRS claims owes over $50,000. And analysts said this is all just the beginning, with efforts to use passports and citizenship as leverage against Americans — and as a means of bypassing due process — steadily gaining steam.
Under the administration’s outlandish “interpretations” of unconstitutional U.S. statutes, Obama already claims to have the dictatorial power to assassinate or indefinitely detain anyone without even charging them with a crime — much less proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in front of a jury. Already, the former chief of the CIA and NSA can boast openly that “we kill people based on metadata.” By comparison, then, revoking passports does indeed seem trivial. However, the expanding attack on due-process rights under the guise of the “terror war” has far-reaching implications.
Consider, for example, the Obama administration’s extreme definitions of “extremist” — pro-life activists, opponents of illegal immigration, returning veterans, and more — as outlined in myriad official government reports. Then consider the extremism of revoking individual rights based on the secret word of one government official.
Americans can be sure that without a serious effort to rein in the attacks on the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it protects, the lawless extremism pouring out of Washington D.C. will continue to accelerate.
Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached firstname.lastname@example.org. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.
UN & Obama Supporting Islamo-Marxist Terror Group in Iraq
IRS Would Revoke Passports for Alleged Tax Debt Under Bill
“We Kill People Based on Metadata,” Admits Former CIA/NSA Boss
DOJ Seeks Dismissal of Case Challenging NDAA Indefinite Detention
Obama Decision on Islamo-Marxist Terror Cult Will Lead to U.S. Funding, Experts Say
Der Spiegel Reveals Loose Standards Needed for Drone Assassination
U.S. Intel: Obama Coalition Supported Islamic State in Syria
ISIS: The Best Terror Threat U.S. Tax Money Can Buy
Obama’s “Anti-ISIS” Coalition Built ISIS, Biden Admits
Obama and UN Created Terror State in Libya
July 23rd, 2015 by olddog
The great lesson from history that each consecutive generations seems to forget is that the tools of tyranny used outward will inevitably be turned inward. That is to say, the laws and weapons governments devise for supposed enemies abroad will ALWAYS and eventually be used against the people they are mandated to protect. There is no centralized system so trustworthy, no political establishment so free of corruption that the blind faith of the citizenry is warranted. If free people do not remain vigilant they will be made slaves by their own leadership. This is the rule, not the exception, and it applies to America as much as any other society.
The beauty of the con game that is the “war on terror” is that such a war is ultimately undefinable. An undefinable war has no set enemy; the establishment can change the definition of the “enemy” at will to any culture, country, or group it wishes. Thus, the war on terror can and will last forever. Or, at least, it will last as long as corrupt elitists remain in positions of power.
As I have outlined in past articles, most terror groups are creations of our nation’s own covert intelligence apparatus, or the covert agencies of allied governments.
ISIS is perhaps the most openly engineered terror organization of all time (surpassing Operation Gladio), with U.S. elites and purported anti-Muslim terror champions like Sen. John McCain and Gen. Paul Vallely making deals with “moderate” Free Syrian Army rebels who immediately turn out to be full fledged ISIS fighters (I’m sure they were not “surprised” by this outcome) and the Obama Administration blatantly funding and arming more “moderates” which again in turn seem to be crossing over into the hands of ISIS. Frankly, the whole idea that there is a moderate front in places like Syria where alphabet agencies reign supreme is utterly absurd.
The bottom line – our political leadership, Republican and Democrat alike, created ISIS out of thin air, and now the American people are being expected to relinquish more individual liberties in the name of stopping this fabricated threat. Apparently, the Orwellian police state structures built under the auspices of the Patriot Act, the AUMF, the NDAA, FISA, etc. have not been enough to stop events like the Chattanooga shooting from occurring. So, what is the answer? Well, certainly not a reexamination of our insane foreign policy or an investigation into government funded false flag terrorism; that would make too much sense.
Instead, the establishment claims we need MORE mass surveillance without warrants, tighter restrictions on individual freedoms, and even, according to retired General Wesley Clark, internment camps designed to separate and confine “disloyal” Americans from the rest of the population.
Remember, all of this is being suggested in the name of stopping ISIS, but the language being used by political elites does not restrict such actions to ISIS related “extremists”. Once again, the war on terror is an ambiguous war, so ambiguous that internment camps supposedly meant for those the government labels POTENTIAL Islamic extremists could also be used for potential extremists of any group. Once the fuse is lit on the process of rendition, black bagging, internment, and assassination of citizens, any citizens, without trial, there will be no stopping the powder keg explosion to follow.
I believe that the power brokers that dictate legal and political developments within our country are preparing to turn the full force of the police state machine against the American people, all in the name of protecting us, of course. I do not need their brand of “protection”, and neither does anyone else.
It comes down to this – in the face of an increasingly advanced technological control grid, either liberty movement activists and freedom fighters must develop our own countermeasures, or, we will lose everything, and every generation after us will blame us for our inaction, if they remember us at all.
Keep in mind a countermeasure must be decentralized. Bitcoin, for instance, is NOT a practical countermeasure being that it relies on a centralized and monitored global internet in order to function. It also does not encourage any tangible production capabilities or skill sets. Therefore, it does not provide for the function of a true alternative economy. It is a false solution and a useless countermeasure to a fiat currency based economy.
A real countermeasure to a controlled economy, for instance, would be a localized barter economy in which people must develop ways to produce, rather than play make believe with digital cryptocurrencies.
Countermeasures do not always have to be high tech. In fact, I am a staunch believer in the advantages of low tech solutions to high tech tyranny. As many are already aware, with the aid of Oath Keepers I recently developed a long term wearable cloak system which defeats FLIR thermal imaging, including military grade thermal imaging. Something which has never been offered on the civilian market before.
But this is only one countermeasure to one major threat. I will continue to work on defenses in other areas in which I feel I am best qualified, however, the movement needs more R&D, and we need it NOW before it is too late. I would like to suggest some possible dangers, and how people with far more knowledge than myself could create tools for defeating tyranny. I would also like to examine some simple organizational countermeasures which EVERYONE should be undertaking right now.
This is an amazing countermeasure for the liberty movement because it removes the monopoly of state control over individual security. Nothing pisses off the establishment more than people taking individual and community defense into their own hands. Fear is the greatest weapon of a corrupt government, and if they can’t keep you afraid because you are your own security, then they have lost considerable leverage over you.
This dynamic is represented perfectly in the Oath Keepers Community Preparedness Team model, which has been utilized successfully in places like Ferguson, MO. Today, in the wake of the Chatanooga shootings, Oath Keeper teams are volunteering across the nation to stand guard (discreetly) at military recruiting offices. The recruiters themselves, who are forced to remain disarmed by the DoD, appear to be thankful for the Oath Keeper presence. This kind of effort shows those in the military that the liberty movement is not the great homegrown monster that the government and the SPLC have made us out to be. It also throws a monkey wrench into the use of false flag terrorism or terrorism funded by covert agencies (as ISIS is) as a means to herd the masses into totalitarianism in the name of safety.
You might not be an engineer, or a tactician, but anyone can and should be organizing security teams for the places they live. Nothing could be more important.
Community Food Reserve
Am I talking about feeding your entire neighborhood or your entire town during a crisis? No, not necessarily. But, if you found an innovative way to make that possible, the rest of the movement would surely be grateful. Preppers do what they can for themselves and their families, but the bottom line is, if you are isolated and unorganized, all your prepping will be for naught. You are nothing more than an easy target and no amount of “OPSEC” is going to hide the fact that you will look well fed and healthy while everyone else doesn’t. The solution to this is to organize community defense, as stated above, but to also organize a community food reserve.
I highly suggest approaching already existing groups, like your local churches if they are willing to listen, and discussing the idea of food stores, water filtration, and shelter scenarios. If you can convince at least one community group to make preparations, you have just potentially saved numerous lives and stopped the exploitation of food scarcity as a means to dominate your local population during disaster.
Active WiFi based radar systems have been developed over the past several years which can see through walls (to a point) and potentially detect persons hiding in an urban environment. The number of radio frequency based radar projects coming out of the dark recesses of DARPA have been numerous, and each project appears to revolve around the goal of complete surveillance ability, or total information awareness. Such measures are not as effective against a technologically advanced opponent, but they could be very effective in dominating a lower tech civilian population.
WiFi radar in particular is a rather disturbing concept, and not a field that I am personally well versed. I have seen some examples of radio-wave based personnel tracking and have not been all that impressed with the visual results, but this is only what has been made available to the public. Sometimes, the DoD will present a technology that does not work as well as they claim in order to strike fear in the minds of their enemies. That said, sometimes they also use tech tools that work far better than they let on.
Luckily, radar countermeasure information is widely available to the public, and WiFi blocking and absorbing materials exist also. Liberty champions would do well, though, to look into active countermeasures along with passive, and devise methods for jamming WiFi radar altogether.
RFID chips are a passive technology but rather dangerous under certain conditions. With a grid of RFID readers in place in an environment such as a city, or a highway, a person could be tracked in real time every second of every day. He might not even know he is carrying a chip or multiple chips, the trackers being so small they could be sewn behind the button of a shirt.
This is one threat which would probably have to be solved with higher technology. I have seen RFID jamming and “spoofing” done by civilian computer engineers, mostly from foreign countries. But, this should not just be a hobby for computer experts in technical institutes. The Liberty Movement needs portable RFID jamming and spoofing capability to ensure that these chips, which are set to be ingrained in almost every existing product in the near future from clothing to cars to credit cards, can be rendered useless.
Drones Vs. Drones
The predator drone is not the biggest threat on the block anymore in terms of surveillance ability. DARPA has been working on other drone designs similar to the A160 Hummingbird and the MQ-8 Fire Scout; lightweight helicopter-style UAVs that can stay in the air for up to 24 hours and provide overwatch in a 30 mile area. And lets not forget about JLENS surveillance blimps (also ironically referred to as “ISIS” Integrated Sensor Is The Structure project) which can and are outfitted with high grade cameras and radar that can be used to track people from 10,000 feet up in the sky.
This is the future of combat operations and the lockdown of populations. Standard military units will be reduced as much as possible while UAVs will be deployed en masse. Air power has always been the biggest weakness of civilians seeking to counter corrupt governments, but this is actually changing.
While they may be lower tech in certain respects, civilian based drones are actually keeping pace with military projects, if only because military projects are restricted by bureaucracy and red tape while civilians are encouraged and emboldened by profit motive. Range and elevation limitations in the civilian market are purely legal right now, and such limitations will be of no concern once the SHTF. For the first time in history, common people now have the ability to field an aerial defense.
The DoD is well aware of this, and is already working on measures to counter enemy drones through their Black Dart and Switchblade program. The Liberty Movement needs its own Black Dart program.
Long Distance Radio And Codes
Regardless of the region they live, liberty activists should be developing their own radio code methods for secure communications. There are a few existing frequency hopping and coded radio systems out there on the civilian market, but these are short range units usually with around 1 watt of power. This makes them ideal for quick operational comms and difficult to listen in on simply because their range is so limited. That said, longer range radio communication will likely be essential for the spread of information from one region to the next, and no one should assume that regular phone and internet will be available in the future. News must travel somehow.
This means HAM radio, using mobile repeaters to avoid triangulation, and old school coded messages. The R&D portion of this issue I believe needs to be in the use of an Automatic Packet Reporting System (APRS) for the liberty movement regionally and nationwide. This is a kind of “texting” through HAM radio, and combining this with traditional low tech cipher coding may be our best bet for long range secure comms. It could also help defeat drones that intercept standard messages and use voice recognition software to identify targets.
Information sharing makes or breaks a society. Without the web, the liberty movement would not have found the success it has today, and the alternative media would not exist, let alone be outmatching the readership ratings of mainstream media sources that have otherwise dominated news flow for decades. Unfortunately, the web is NOT a “creative commons” as many people believe. It is, as Edward Snowden’s revelations on the NSA proved, a highly controlled and monitored network in which there is essentially no privacy, even with the existence of cryptography.
The great threat to the establishment is the possibility that people will begin building an internet separate from the internet; a decentralized network. Recently, an inventor named Benjamin Caudill was slated to release a device called “Proxyham”, designed to reroute wifi signals and remove the possibility of government monitoring of digital communications. Strangely, just before the release of Proxyham, Caudill pulled all devices with the intent to destroy them, and will not be releasing the source code and blueprints to the public as planned.
Clearly, something or someone scared the hell out of Caudill, and he is rushing to appease them. We don’t know who for certain, but my vote is the NSA. And if this is the case, it means his project and others like it are a threat to the surveillance state, and must be released to the public ASAP. If Caudill doesn’t have the guts to do it, then the liberty movement must.
An alternative internet would be a holy grail in the fight against tyranny, if only to show the world that people can indeed decouple from the system and create advanced networks themselves, and do it better than the establishment.
These are just a few of the areas that require immediate attention from those with ingenuity in the liberty movement. The time for talk is over. The time for tangible action has begun. Beyond the need for immediate local organization by those preparing for social and economic breakdown, there is a desperate need for out-of-the-box thinkers to develop countermeasures to technological fascism. It’s time for the movement to go beyond mere intellectual analysis and provide concrete solutions. There is nothing left but this.
Clearly, the people are now the enemy of their government! What more heart breaking statement could be made after a life-time of obedience? What was expected from a society who was lied to from the get go? We have lost everything we held dear, and now our government wants us dead, or lobotomized. Our apathy has bit us in the ass! Raw courage and physical strength is no longer an asset, and the future of freedom is solely in the hands and minds of the younger generation who instinctively rejected the propaganda in the education system. Such is the reward for being ignorant of the history of governments. Dear readers you better pray there is a lot more young men in America like Brandon Smith than we are aware of, because when the SHTF the majority will turn into pure animals within a few days and you will be totally defenseless.
July 13th, 2015 by olddog
By Dr. Kelley
The 21st Century Cures Act is going through the U.S. Congress right now, and it will likely pass into law unless some opposition materializes (it passed through the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee with a vote of 51 to 0). The Act is a give-away to the pharmaceutical industry, removing many of the safety mechanisms in place that are supposed to keep the public protected from unsafe drugs and medical devices.
The 21st Century Cures Act allows drugs to be rushed to the market, removes phase 3 testing as a requirement for drug approval, bases drug approval on biomarkers rather than actual health outcomes, and encourages the production of new antibiotics at a time when microbiome destruction is increasingly being linked to chronic diseases.
Rushing Drugs to Market
With the passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, drugs will be rushed to market with little testing required. A New York Times piece, “Don’t Weaken the F.D.A.’s Drug Approval Process” notes that the 21st Century Cures Act “could substantially lower the standards for approval of many medical products, potentially placing patients at unnecessary risk of injury or death.” The Act weakens an already weak regulatory process that is currently doing a poor job of protecting the public from adverse reactions to drugs and medical devices. (In the currently weak system, preventable medical errors in hospitals are the third leading cause of death in the United States, and, “between 210,000 and 440,000 patients each year who go to the hospital for care suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death.” source)
The End of Evidence Based Medicine
Modern medicine is supposed to be “evidence based medicine” backed up by replicable, placebo controlled scientific experiments that show that a drug or medical device effectively treats the disease or symptom that it is purported to treat. This standard of evidence will no longer exist if the 21st Century Cures Act passes into law. The Act will allow drug approval to be based on biomarkers and surrogate measures rather than health outcomes. This has been disastrous in the past and it will be even more disastrous in the future. For example, we’re now seeing that statins do well at reducing cholesterol, but despite improving that biomarker, they don’t improve health outcomes for large portions of the population (notably, the female portion of the population).
A New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) article, “The 21st Century Cures Act — Will It Take Us Back in Time?” notes that:
But though a drug’s effect on a biomarker can make approval quicker and less costly, especially if the comparator is placebo, it may not always predict the drug’s capacity to improve patient outcomes. Bevacizumab (Avastin) delayed tumor progression in advanced breast cancer but was shown not to benefit patients. Similarly, rosiglitazone (Avandia) lowered glycated hemoglobin levels in patients with diabetes even as it increased their risk of myocardial infarction. In 2013, patients began to receive a new drug for tuberculosis approved on the basis of a randomized trial relying on a surrogate measure of bacterial counts in the sputum — even though patients given the drug in that trial had a death rate four times that in the comparison group, mostly from tuberculosis.
Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO), one of the co-sponsors of the 21st Century Cures Act, bragged on Twitter that, “In 120yrs we have gone from #snakeoil to mapping the #humangenome. W/your help #Cures2015 is ready to take us further.” But if pharmaceuticals are no longer required to have evidence that they improve health outcomes, how are they any better than snake oils? One only needs to look as far as the recent history of psychiatry to see that the line between snake oils and “evidence based medicine” is already woefully thin. Removing regulatory and procedural requirements from the drug approval process, via the 21st Century Cures Act, will just encourage the production of more dangerous pharmaceuticals that are no better or safer than snake oil.
Diminishing requirements for evidence of efficacy is bad for the medical system too. Basing medicine on scientific inquiry and actual evidence of efficacy is a bedrock of medicine, and without it the medical system will lose credibility.
The Loss of Informed Consent
The 21st Century Cures Act will diminish another bedrock of modern medicine – informed consent. The NEJM article notes that:
“Informed consent by patients in drug trials has traditionally been sacrosanct, with exceptions made only when consent is impossible to obtain or contrary to a patient’s best interests. But another clause in the proposed law adds a new kind of exception: studies in which ‘the proposed clinical testing poses no more than minimal risk’ — a major departure from current human subject protections. It is not clear who gets to determine whether a given trial of a new drug poses ‘minimal risk.’”
Informed consent is crucial not only for the credibility of modern medicine, it is crucial for liberty.
Dangerous New Antibiotics
One of the least controversial, but in reality most dangerous, parts of the 21st Century Cures Act is its encouragement of new antibiotics. Before I go into why this part of the Act is dangerous, let me acknowledge that bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a huge problem, and antibiotic resistant infections are causing many deaths. Without being able to keep pathogenic bacteria in check, many medical procedures will be impossible, and many lives will be lost. But we got into the predicament of bacteria being resistant to antibiotics by over-using antibiotics in both agriculture and medicine, and to encourage increased use of antibiotics will only perpetuate the problem. The solution to antibiotic resistance is prudent use of available antibiotics and finding sustainable ways to reduce harm caused by pathogenic bacteria (perhaps by using healthy bacteria to keep the unhealthy bacteria in check), not doubling down on the “kill all bacteria” tactic that led us to the problem of antibiotic resistant bacterial infections in the first place. Bacteria will continue to adapt in us and around us, and increasing the intensity of the war between us and bacteria is beyond foolish. We will lose any war that we wage against bacteria because we need bacteria – they are not separate from us – and they play a larger role in human health than we can currently imagine.
A healthy and balanced microbiome (“the ecological community of commensal, symbiotic and pathogenic microorganisms that literally share our body space”) is crucial for all areas of health, and a disturbed microbiome has been linked to all of the diseases of modernity, including mental health disorders, neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, autoimmune diseases, inflammatory bowel disease and Crohn’s disease, mysterious diseases like fibromyalgia, autism, etc. And while there is acknowledgement of the role that a healthy microbiome plays in these diseases, researchers and journalists alike have been loath to acknowledge the role antibiotics have played in contributing to these diseases of modernity. No one wants to be anti-antibiotic. Everyone knows that antibiotics have saved millions of lives, but that doesn’t mean they are without consequences. And the good that penicillin has done doesn’t mean that all antibiotics are equally safe or effective. I can make a pretty thorough argument that fluoroquinolone antibiotics, like Cipro/ciprofloxacin and Levaquin/levofloxacin, drugs that work by “inhibition of the enzymes topoisomerase II (DNA gyrase) and topoisomerase IV (both Type II topoisomerases), which are required for bacterial DNA replication, transcription, repair, and recombination,” are at least partially responsible for many of the diseases of modernity (more information can be found HERE, HERE and HERE). Fluoroquinolone antibiotics do not have the same safety profile as amoxicillin, and to assume that they do because both are categorized as antibiotics, is foolish on multiple levels.
The 21st Century Cures Act will encourage the production of new antibiotics, regardless of their safety profile or mechanism of action. Doctors Avorn and Kesselhem note in the NEJM that:
The proposed legislation would make immediate changes with respect to new antibiotics and antifungals by enabling their approval without conventional clinical trials, if needed to treat a “serious or life-threatening infection” in patients with an “unmet medical need.” In place of proof that the antimicrobial actually decreases morbidity or mortality, the FDA would be empowered to accept nontraditional efficacy measures drawn from small studies as well as “preclinical, pharmacologic, or pathophysiologic evidence; nonclinical susceptibility and pharmacokinetic data, data from phase 2 clinical trials; and such other confirmatory evidence as the secretary [of health and human services] determines appropriate to approve the drug.” Antimicrobials approved in this manner would carry disclaimers on their labeling, but there is no evidence that such a precaution would restrict prescribing to only the most appropriate patients. If passed in its current form, the bill would also provide hospitals with a financial bonus for administering costly new but unproven antibiotics, which could encourage their more widespread use. The bill gives the secretary of health and human services the authority to expand this nontraditional approval pathway to other drug categories as well, if “the public health would benefit from expansion.”
Fluoroquinolone antibiotics like Cipro and Levaquin, some of the most popular antibiotics on the market, cause a chronic illness known as fluoroquinolone toxicity syndrome or, colloquially, “floxing,” that includes damage to connective tissue (tendons, ligaments, cartilage, fascia, etc.) throughout the body, damage to the nervous systems (central, peripheral, and autonomic), and more. Rather than putting mechanisms in place that help victims of iatrogenic antibiotic poisoning, or to prevent their pain and suffering in the first place, the 21st Century Cures Act opens the door for more damaging antibiotics to flood the market.
The Ever-Increasing Power of the Pharmaceutical Industry
The current medical system lacks the mechanisms required to protect consumers from the dangers of pharmaceuticals. The FDA is failing to protect people from dangerous drugs, the justice system is failing to compensate people for harm done by dangerous drugs, doctors, pharmacists and even research scientists are so indoctrinated in the “there’s a pill for that” culture that they fail to question it, and the drug-consuming public ends up poisoned and sick because no one is keeping the pharmaceutical companies in check. All powerful entities need checks and balances, the pharmaceutical industry is no exception. The 21st Century Cures Act gives the too-powerful pharmaceutical industry even more power, power that will undoubtedly be abused.
Pros and Cons
There are a couple good elements to the 21st Century Cures Act. It increases the NIH budget, which some can argue is an improvement. It also focuses on finding pharmaceutical solutions to rare diseases, which many people with rare diseases will find to be cause for hope.
I fear though, that people with rare diseases will be turned into guinea pigs because the pharmaceutical companies seeking cures for their rare diseases will have no limits put on what they can do to the people suffering from them. I also find it objectionable that there is no mention in the Act of investigating the causes of “rare” diseases or “rare” adverse drug reactions.
The potential harm that can be brought on by the 21st Century Cures Act far outweighs its potential benefits, and I encourage all Americans reading this to contact your Congressional Representatives to voice your concerns about this bill.
Human Health is Too Important to Leave to Congress
The human body is amazingly, beautifully, mind-bogglingly complex and intricate. New discoveries about our biology are being made every day. For example, it was recently discovered that the brain has a lymphatic system, a discovery that may have huge implications for human health. Additionally, the burgeoning fields of epigenetics and microbiome research have far more questions than answers within them, and exciting discoveries are being made within those fields every day. Though there are undoubtedly brilliant scientists working in the biological sciences, even they are far from knowing “enough” about unforeseen consequences of messing with a biological system (through use of a drug) that connects to all other biological systems. Any doctor or scientist who is worth his/her title realizes how little anyone knows about the complex workings of the human body, is aware that medicine is constantly changing as new discoveries are made, and has humility about the consequences of what he/she doesn’t yet know.
If scientists can’t possibly know “enough” about human biology to produce pharmaceuticals that are exact and without side-effects (aka collateral damage), the shills and corporate-whores in Congress certainly don’t know “enough” about human health to legislate major changes that affect how medicine is implemented. They have that power though, and the 21st Century Cures Act is a consequential piece of legislation that is going to have major effects on the entire medical system if it is signed into law. Most of those effects are negative.
The 21st Century Cures Act diminishes the rocks on which modern medicine are based – informed consent, individual body autonomy, the Hippocratic Oath, and basing medicine on scientific evidence. The people of America, and the world, need to fight to keep those bedrocks in place. If all medical decisions, and all medical legislation, were made with informed consent, individual body autonomy, the Hippocratic Oath, and scientific evidence in mind, the world would be a much better place. Don’t assume for a second that current medical and legislative decisions are being made with those basic principles in mind. They are constantly being eroded. Diligently protect them to the best of your ability – and call your Representatives.
Written by Lisa Bloomquist and published by Collective Evolution, July 1, 2015.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www. law. cornell. edu/uscode/17/107. shtml“
July 11th, 2015 by olddog
By Joshua Krause
Seattle sure is turning into a real progressive utopia isn’t it? Between enacting a $15 minimum wage and letting little girls receive birth control without their parent’s consent, they seem to be selling themselves to the progressive agenda, lock, stock and barrel. Of course, it won’t end with those measures. It never does. Recently, Seattle City Council President Tim Burgess proposed a piece of legislation that would tax gun and ammunition sales, and force gun owners to report any firearm that is lost or stolen.
As egregious as this measure sounds, ordinarily it wouldn’t be out of place. After all, governments routinely tax all manner of products and services, and force their onerous regulations on just about everyone. What sets this measure apart from most bills though, is the reason why they’re doing it. “Gun violence is very expensive,” Burgess said, noting that the direct medical costs of treating 253 gunshot victims at Seattle’s Harborview Medical Center last year surpassed $17 million, with taxpayers covering more than $12 million of that. “It’s time for the gun industry to help defray those costs and this is a very reasonable way to do it.” The tax, imposed on gun sellers, would be $25 on each firearm sold in the city and five cents on each round of ammunition. Sales of antique firearms and some other sales could see relief from the tax while individuals selling no more than one gun per quarter would be exempted.
Not reporting a lost or stolen gun to police would be enforced as a civil infraction carrying a fine of up to $500. Zach Silk, campaign manager with the Washington Alliance for Gun Safety, hailed the proposals. “We often attach taxes to things that cause harm to our communities and we know that guns are causing harm,” he said. So let me get this straight. Burgess wants to tax violence, am I right? Does that make any sense? Even it weren’t an utterly nonsensical thing to do, does it make sense to tax honest gun owners for the activities of criminals? (I know he says that this is a tax on gun dealers, but obviously the costs will be passed on to their customers). Think about it. There were over 16 million gun applications in 2012. That means at least several million Americans buy a firearm every year. However, there were only 16,121 homicide deaths in 2013, of which 11,208 involved a firearm. Seattle is apparently responsible for a couple hundred of those, but its safe to say that just like everywhere else in this country, the vast majority of firearms that are bought and sold are never used to inflict any kind of physical harm.
So, basically, they’re forcing honest, law-abiding gun owners to pay the damages inflicted by criminals, and they’re going to fine people who’ve had their property stolen. Typical progressives. Make everyone collectively pay for the mistakes and malice of the few. Whatever happened to just punishing criminals? Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple, where this article first appeared. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshua’s reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger.
This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.
It is, and always has been the policy of governments, to charge the people for everything they want and need to do. So why be surprised at this idiotic law? Our real problem in America is the lack of backbone in the people who consistently bend over and take it up the ole wazoo, and smile in the process, thinking this is going to make it unaffordable to have and use a gun. Along with the whackos who want other things up their wazoo, and a marriage license to support it, I don’t believe America has a snowballs chance in hell of ever enjoying the freedom we were promised a little over two hundred years ago. All it takes for governments to become tyrannical is for the people to bend over and take it, instead of standing up and demanding their GOD GIVEN rights. In short, Seattle should refuse to pay the tax. When the bones heads in the tax department see the drop in sales tax revenue, they just might understand the loss of income is not worth the trouble. Remember this always! They can’t do squat without money to waste. Think of ways to get what you need or want without making a recorded sale!
July 10th, 2015 by olddog
By Chuck Baldwin
Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that what we see happening in the United States today is an apt illustration of why the Confederate flag was raised in the first place. What we see materializing before our very eyes is tyranny: tyranny over the freedom of expression, tyranny over the freedom of association, tyranny over the freedom of speech, and tyranny over the freedom of conscience.
In 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne warned his fellow southerners of the historical consequences should the South lose their war for independence. He was truly a prophet. He said if the South lost, “It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all of the influences of History and Education to regard our gallant debt as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.” No truer words were ever spoken.
History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing them as racists, extremists, radicals, hate-mongers, traitors, etc. You know, the same way that people in our federal government and news media attempt to characterize Christians, patriots, war veterans, constitutionalists, et al. today.
Folks, please understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. How can we celebrate our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861? Talk about hypocrisy!
In fact, southern states were not the only states that talked about secession. After the southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. There is your great “emancipator,” folks.
And before the South seceded, several northern states had also threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century–long before the southern states even considered such a thing.
People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far superior to a union of states. If God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully (under Natural and divine right) separate is the most preposterous proposition imaginable.
People say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did NOT free a single slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had NO AUTHORITY in the southern states, as they had separated into another country. Imagine a President today signing a proclamation to free folks in, say, China or Saudi Arabia. He would be laughed out of Washington. Lincoln had no authority over the Confederate States of America, and he knew it.
Do you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army? Check it out.
One of those northern slaveholders was General (and later U.S. President) Ulysses S. Grant. In fact, he maintained possession of his slaves even after the War Between the States concluded. Recall that his counterpart, Confederate General Robert E. Lee, freed his slaves BEFORE hostilities between North and South ever broke out. When asked why he refused to free his slaves, Grant said, “Good help is hard to find these days.”
The institution of slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865.
Speaking of the 13th Amendment, did you know that Lincoln authored his own 13th Amendment? It is the only amendment to the Constitution ever proposed by a sitting U.S. President. Here is Lincoln’s proposed amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person’s held to labor or service by laws of said State.”
You read it right. Lincoln proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution PRESERVING the institution of slavery. This proposed amendment was written in March of 1861, a month BEFORE the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.
The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called, “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States.”
Think, folks: why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln, and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the southern (and northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery? What nonsense!
The problem was Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, D.C., kept raising the taxes and tariffs on them. You know, the way Washington, D.C., keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today.
This is much the same story of the way the colonies refused to pay the demanded tariffs of the British Crown–albeit the tariffs of the Crown were MUCH lower than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution. AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!
In addition, the Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the notion that the North fought the War Between the States over slavery. Read it for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on July 23, 1861, “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”
What could be clearer? The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was NOT an attempt to overthrow or interfere with the “institutions” of the states, but to keep the Union intact (by force). The “institutions” implied most certainly included the institution of slavery.
Hear it loudly and clearly: Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with ending slavery–so said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861.
Abraham Lincoln, himself, said it was NEVER his intention to end the institution of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this, “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.”
Again, what could be clearer? Lincoln, himself, said the southern states had nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery.
Hear Lincoln again: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” He also said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.”
The idea that the Confederate flag (actually there were five of them) stood for racism, bigotry, hatred, and slavery is just so much hogwash. In fact, if one truly wants to discover who the racist was in 1861, just read the words of Mr. Lincoln.
On August 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a group of black people to the White House. In his address to them, he told them of his plans to colonize them all back to Africa. Listen to what he told these folks: “Why should the people of your race be colonized and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I suppose? Perhaps you have been long free, or all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of our race.”
Did you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with white people–even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery. If that isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one.
Lincoln’s statement above is not isolated. In Charleston, Illinois, in 1858, Lincoln said in a speech, “I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on social or political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white.”
Ladies and gentlemen, in his own words, Abraham Lincoln declared himself to be a white supremacist. Why don’t our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about the War Between the States?
It’s simple: if people would study the meanings and history of the flag, symbols, and statues of the Confederacy and Confederate leaders, they might begin to awaken to the tyrannical policies of Washington, D.C., that precluded southern independence–policies that have only escalated since the defeat of the Confederacy–and they might have a notion to again resist.
By the time Lincoln penned his Emancipation Proclamation, the war had been going on for two years without resolution. In fact, the North was losing the war. Even though the South was outmanned and out-equipped, the genius of the southern generals and fighting acumen of the southern men had put the northern armies on their heels. Many people in the North never saw the legitimacy of Lincoln’s war in the first place, and many of them actively campaigned against it. These people were affectionately called “Copperheads” by people in the South.
I urge you to watch Ron Maxwell’s accurate depiction of those people in the North who favored the southern cause as depicted in his motion picture, “Copperhead.” For that matter, I consider his movie, “Gods And Generals” to be the greatest “Civil War” movie ever made. It is the most accurate and fairest depiction of Confederate General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson ever produced. In my opinion, actor Stephen Lang should have received an Oscar for his performance as General Jackson. But, can you imagine?
That’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “civil war.” Civil war suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and country. The South didn’t want to take over Washington, D.C., no more than their forebears wanted to take over London. They wanted to separate from Washington, D.C., just as America’s Founding Fathers wanted to separate from Great Britain. The proper names for that war are either, “The War Between the States” or, “The War of Southern Independence,” or, more fittingly, “The War of Northern Aggression.”
Had the South wanted to take over Washington, D.C., they could have done so with the very first battle of the “Civil War.” When Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia in the First Battle of Manassas (called the “First Battle of Bull Run” by the North), Confederate troops sent the Yankees running for their lives all the way back to Washington. Had the Confederates pursued them, they could have easily taken the city of Washington, D.C., seized Abraham Lincoln, and perhaps ended the war before it really began. But General Beauregard and the others had no intention of fighting an aggressive war against the North. They merely wanted to defend the South against the aggression of the North.
In order to rally people in the North, Lincoln needed a moral crusade. That’s what his Emancipation Proclamation was all about. This explains why his proclamation was not penned until 1863, after two years of fruitless fighting. He was counting on people in the North to stop resisting his war against the South if they thought it was some kind of “holy” war. Plus, Lincoln was hoping that his proclamation would incite blacks in the South to insurrect against southern whites. If thousands of blacks would begin to wage war against their white neighbors, the fighting men of the southern armies would have to leave the battlefields and go home to defend their families. THIS NEVER HAPPENED.
Not only did blacks not riot against the whites of the south, many black men volunteered to fight alongside their white friends and neighbors in the Confederate army. Unlike the blacks in the North, who were conscripted by Lincoln and forced to fight in segregated units, thousands of blacks in the South fought of their own free will in a fully-integrated southern army. I bet your history book never told you about that.
If one wants to ban a racist flag, one would have to ban the British flag. Ships bearing the Union Jack shipped over 5 million African slaves to countries all over the world, including the British colonies in North America. Other slave ships flew the Dutch flag and the Portuguese flag and the Spanish flag, and, yes, the U.S. flag. But not one single slave ship flew the Confederate flag. NOT ONE!
By the time Lincoln launched his war against the southern states, slavery was already a dying institution. The entire country, including the South, recognized the moral evil of slavery and wanted it to end. Only a small fraction of southerners even owned slaves. The slave trade had ended in 1808, per the U.S. Constitution, and the practice of slavery was quickly dying, too. In another few years, with the advent of agricultural machinery, slavery would have ended peacefully–just like it had in England. It didn’t take a national war and the deaths of over a half million men to end slavery in Great Britain. America’s so-called “Civil War” was absolutely unnecessary. The greed of Lincoln’s radical Republicans in the North, combined with the cold, calloused heart of Lincoln himself is responsible for the tragedy of the “Civil War.”
And look at what is happening now: in one instant–after one deranged young man killed nine black people and who ostensibly photo-shopped a picture of himself with a Confederate flag–the entire political and media establishments in the country go on an all-out crusade to remove all semblances of the Confederacy. The speed in which all of this has happened suggests that this was a planned, orchestrated event by the Powers That Be (PTB). And is it a mere coincidence that this took place at the exact same time that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to legalize same-sex marriage? I think not.
The Confederate Battle Flag flies the Saint Andrews cross. Of course, Andrew was the first disciple of Jesus Christ, brother of Simon Peter, and Christian martyr who was crucified on an X-shaped cross at around the age of 90. Andrew is the patron saint of both Russia and Scotland.
In the 1800s, up to 75% of people in the South were either Scotch or Scotch-Irish. The Confederate Battle Flag is predicated on the national flag of Scotland. It is a symbol of the Christian faith and heritage of the Celtic race.
Pastor John Weaver rightly observed, “Even the Confederate States motto, ‘Deovendickia,’ (The Lord is our Vindicator), illustrates the sovereignty and the righteousness of God. The Saint Andrews cross is also known as the Greek letter CHIA (KEE) and has historically been used to represent Jesus Christ. Why do you think people write Merry X-mas, just to give you an illustration? The ‘X’ is the Greek letter CHIA and it has been historically used for Christ. Moreover, its importance was understood by educated and uneducated people alike. When an uneducated man, one that could not write, needed to sign his name please tell me what letter he made? An ‘X,’ why? Because he was saying I am taking an oath under God. I am recognizing the sovereignty of God, the providence of God and I am pledging my faith. May I tell you the Confederate Flag is indeed a Christian flag because it has the cross of Saint Andrew, who was a Christian martyr, and the letter ‘X’ has always been used to represent Christ, and to attack the flag is to deny the sovereignty, the majesty, and the might of the Lord Jesus Christ and his divine role in our history, culture, and life.”
Many of the facts that I reference in this column were included in a message delivered several years ago by Pastor John Weaver. I want to thank John for preaching such a powerful and needed message. Read or watch Pastor Weaver’s sermon “The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag” here:
The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag
Combine the current attacks against Biblical and traditional marriage, the attacks against all things Confederate, the attacks against all things Christian, and the attacks against all things constitutional and what we are witnessing is a heightened example of why the Confederate Battle Flag was created to begin with. Virtually every act of federal usurpation of liberty that we are witnessing today, and have been witnessing for much of the twentieth century, is the result of Lincoln’s war against the South. Truly, we are living in Lincoln’s America, not Washington and Jefferson’s America. Washington and Jefferson’s America died at Appomattox Court House in 1865.
Instead of lowering the Confederate flag, we should be raising it.
© Chuck Baldwin
The biggest enemy of the United States is, and always has been the lust for power by the International Banking Cartel; until revisionist history warped the minds of the majority, and now the most powerful enemy is the majority of its people. Opinions, formed by skillful liars, is nothing less than an intellectual plague that eats away our humanity and submission to God. As a poor example of a Christian, I am none the less well versed on the content of scripture, and within it is the glue that makes mankind controllable and responsible enough to preserve those doctrines that gives us a conscience. I am not, nor ever have been a hater of Black people, yet I have always believed that every human species has the right to live in a community of like minded individuals. Most people were more comfortable around their own kind until revisionist history made them feel guilty, which means an artificial philosophy was formed in America that has produced the inability to co-mingle. Now, there is real hatred among the people and the revisionist media industry has made God an outcast to be shunned. I wish to make something very clear to the dull and ignorant in America; as a simple study of the history’s of governments will show that they have always degenerated into a group of despotic maniacs with a total loss of morals, and the conviction and fear of God is the one and only thing that has prevented humanity from self extinction. We are all born depraved and require an act of God Almighty to preserve His creation, and we who believe in Jesus Christ are in no way uncertain He and He alone has the authority and power to do it. We do not hate people who do not believe in Him, we hate our own unworthiness of His mercy. Please consider the following statement as a dire warning to those who would deny us the right to worship Him. When you allow a despotic government to prohibit the people from acknowledging God as their only giver of rights, you have nothing left to protect you from the tyranny governments have proven they will eventually enforce. A simple; NO GOD, NO RIGHTS, is what you have! So why, when there is so much evidence to the contrary, do you put your faith in governments and the politicians who have always lied to you? As America grew, it automatically accumulated divided ideologies which made it a simple feat to turn us against each other, and the government has done a marvelous job of it, by revisionist history, tyrannical laws, and a media industry from hell. As the policy of stack and pack cities continue, diversity will destroy any and all possibilities of a re-united citizenry, because small communities are dependent on co-operation and thereby create societies less dependent on governments. All I have left to say is, Americans either band together and form a new government based on old principles or die a horrible death following the scumbags presently in charge. It’s up to you! As for me and my house, when they come for us, have them bring extra body bags!
Political Correctness is a doctrine, recently fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and promoted by a sick mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end.- – – –
PRESIDENT: H. S. Truman
July 9th, 2015 by olddog
By Dave Kranzler
When a thoroughly corrupt government wants to try and hide something from the public, they exert an all-out effort to misdirect and cover-up. The financial markets are no different. It’s been obvious to anyone with one good eye and one brain cell that the puppet-masters behind the Wall Street/DC “curtain” have been propping up the Dow/S&P 500 and exerting forceful downward pressure on the price of gold and silver. Why gold and silver? Because gold and silver, for 5,000 years, have been the world’s “alarm system” alerting everyone when something is terribly wrong.
I remember vividly 2008. Many of you were not involved in the precious metals markets. Inexplicably, the manipulators smashed gold and silver down from their bull market highs in March 2008 very quickly. Silver was smashed down to $8 after hitting $21 in March. I remember staring at the futures screen wondering what would stop JPM from taking silver down to zero?
Shortly thereafter AIG and Goldman de facto collapsed and the rest is history, including the fact that former Goldman CEO, Hank Paulson, was “coincidentally” sitting in as Secretary of the Treasury and “coincidentally” came up with a plan for the taxpayers to bail out Goldman Sachs. Paulson, after all, was still sitting on about a quarter of a billion dollars worth of warrants on Goldman stock. This, after he was allowed to sell his GS stock worth $100s of millions on a tax-free basis. Just a little “benefit” the elitists bestow upon themselves when their brethren appoint them to a Government post.
Here’s a graph that shows the similarities between what happened to gold in a short period of time in 2008 and what has happened since peaking at $1900 in 2011:
It’s pretty easy to see the similar trading pattern with gold in 2008 compared to the period the summer of 2011 through the fall of 2012. The only difference is that there was a massive rise in the use of OTC precious metals derivatives that began a couple years ago which has enabled the Fed/Treasury/banks to keep a tight lid on the price of gold and silver and has enabled the criminals running this country to promote a “narrative” of economic recovery. It’s been nothing but one big lie.
Here’s what happened today with gold and silver:
How is it that day after day gold and silver get smashed when the NY Comex floor trading opens? Does it seem odd that, nearly everyday for the last 4+ years, that at 8:20 a.m. EST all of a sudden the world decides to unload paper gold and silver positions?
How is it at all possible that the price of gold and silver are collapsing like this when China has imported a record amount of gold in the first half of 2015? China and India combined are importing more gold than is being produced on a daily basis. India is importing by far a record amount of physical silver. These countries require the physical delivery of the metal they buy. It’s not good enough for the bullion banks to offer free vault storage in London or NYC. The misrepresentation of the true, intrinsic price of gold and silver by the NY and London paper markets is perhaps the greatest fraud in history.
The criminality operating in the U.S. financial markets has become all-pervasive. The markets just ooze with unfettered theft and wealth confiscation. The Government doesn’t just “look the other way.” The Government is the criminal cartel. Just look at where all the key appointees in a position to enforce the Rule of Law come from. The Treasury, Justice Department, the SEC – they all come from Wall Street firms or the law firms that make $100’s of millions defending Wall Street firms. It’s the American version of the Sicilian Mafia running our system!
It’s obvious what is happening to anyone who cares to look at the truth. This is the end of the end-game. Perhaps Greece has triggered it but it’s irrelevant. The entire world is over-bloated with catastrophically unpayable amounts of debt. The IMF has told us that Greece can’t possibly repay its debts. Huh? Does the IMF really think the United States can repay its debt load? Greece has $350 billion of sovereign-issued debt. The United States has over $18 trillion in “on-balance-sheet” sovereign-issued debt. It has at least $200 trillion of contingent sovereign-issued liabilities.
The only difference between Greece and the United States is that the United States can unilaterally print its own money. Literally in unlimited amounts. Ben Bernanke stated that fact in 2002: “But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.” LINK
The system is collapsing. It has been collapsing. I believe it’s quite possible that we are seeing the final stages of the end game. China’s stock market is down 30% since early June. The prices of oil and copper are crashing. As I wrote yesterday, oil and copper are the quintessential beacons of relative economic activity. If their prices are crashing, so is economic activity.
After trading in positive territory overnight, the S&P 500 suddenly plunged shortly before the NYSE opened:
China suspended trading in its stock market last night. But how is this any different from key HFT ECN’s “breaking” when the market is about to go off a cliff? As Zerohedge always tauntingly reports, the market “breaks:
” Broken Market Ignites Momentum
Coincidentally, the market never seems to “break” when it‘s spiking inexorably higher on some fictitiously prepared “good” economic report. Let’s see if the market “breaks” today in order to stop that waterfall plunge at the open.
Of course, if it doesn’t, are you prepared for the devastating consequences of a collapse?
You can read more from Dave Kranzler at his site
where this articlefirst appeared.
This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.
Are Big Banks Using Derivatives To Suppress Bullion Prices?
Paul Craig Roberts and Dave Kranzler
We have explained on a number of occasions how the Federal Reserves’ agents, the bullion banks (principally JPMorganChase, HSBC, and Scotia) sell uncovered shorts (“naked shorts”) on the Comex (gold futures market) in order to drive down an otherwise rising price of gold. By dumping so many uncovered short contracts into the futures market, an artificial increase in “paper gold” is created, and this increase in supply drives down the price.
This manipulation works because the hedge funds, the main purchasers of the short contracts, do not intend to take delivery of the gold represented by the contracts, settling instead in cash. This means that the banks who sold the uncovered contracts are never at risk from their inability to cover contracts in gold. At any given time, the amount of gold represented by the paper gold contracts (“open interest’) can exceed the actual amount of physical gold available for delivery, a situation that does not occur in other futures markets.
In other words, the gold and silver futures markets are not a place where people buy and sell gold and silver. These markets are places where people speculate on price direction and where hedge funds use gold futures to hedge other bets according to the various mathematical formulas that they use. The fact that bullion prices are determined in this paper, speculative market, and not in real physical markets where people sell and acquire physical bullion, is the reason the bullion banks can drive down the price of gold and silver even though the demand for the physical metal is rising.
For example last Tuesday the US Mint announced that it was sold out of the American Eagle one ounce silver coin. It is a contradiction of the law of supply and demand that demand is high, supply is low, and the price is falling. Such an economic anomaly can only be explained by manipulation of prices in a market where supply can be created by printing paper contracts.
Obviously fraud and price manipulation is at work, but no heads roll. The Federal Reserve and US Treasury support this fraud and manipulation, because the suppression of precious metal prices protects the value and status of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency and prevents gold and silver from fulfilling their role as the transmission mechanism that warns of developing financial and economic troubles. The suppression of the rising gold price suppresses the warning signal and permits the continuation of financial market bubbles and Washington’s ability to impose sanctions on other world powers that are disadvantaged by not being a reserve currency.
It has come to our attention that over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives also play a role in price suppression and simultaneously serve to provide long positions for the bullion banks that disguise their manipulation of prices in the futures market.
OTC derivatives are privately structured contracts created by the secretive large banks. They are a paper, or derivative, form of an underlying financial instrument or commodity. Little is known about them. Brooksley Born, the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation (CFTC) during the Clinton regime said, correctly, that the derivatives needed to be regulated. However, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary and Deputy Secretary Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chairman Arthur Levitt, all de facto agents of the big banks, convinced Congress to prevent the CFTC from regulating OTC derivatives.
The absence of regulation means that information is not available that would indicate the purposes for which the banks use these derivatives. When JPMorgan was investigated for its short silver position on Comex, the bank convinced the CFTC that its short position on Comex was a hedge against a long position via OTC derivatives. In other words, JPMorgan used its OTC derivatives to shield its attack on the silver price in the futures market.
During 2015 the attack on bullion prices has intensified, driving the prices lower than they have been for years. During the first quarter of this year there was a huge upward spike in the quantity of precious metal derivatives.
If these were long positions hedging the banks’ Comex shorts, why did the price of gold and silver decline?
More evidence of manipulation comes from the continuing fall in the prices of gold and silver as set in paper future markets, although demand for the physical metals continues to rise even to the point that the US Mint has run out of silver coins to sell. Uncertainties arising from the Greek No vote increase systemic uncertainty. The normal response would be rising, not falling, bullion prices.
The circumstantial evidence is that the unregulated OTC derivatives in gold and silver are not really hedges to short positions in Comex but are themselves structured as an additional attack on precious metal prices.
If this supposition is correct, it indicates that seven years of bailing out the big banks that control the Federal Reserve and US Treasury at the expense of the US economy has threatened the US dollar to the extent that the dollar must be protected at all cost, including US regulatory tolerance of illegal activity to suppress gold and silver prices.
Financial Intelligence Report: No Way!
Contributing Editor: Bob RinearI
I know it is “All Greece, all the time” but I need to go off on something else right now, because along with all the other things that bothers me, this rates at the top of some of my lists. I want to present an article by The Intercept that sums up the bulk of the issue.
After failing to criminally prosecute any of the financial firms responsible for the market collapse in 2008, former Attorney General Eric Holder is returning to Covington & Burling, a corporate law firm known for serving Wall Street clients.
The move completes one of the more troubling trips through the revolving door for a cabinet secretary. Holder worked at Covington from 2001 right up to being sworn in as attorney general in February 2009. And Covington literally kept an office empty for him, awaiting his return.
The Covington & Burling client list has included four of the largest banks, including Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo. Lobbying records show that Wells Fargo is still a client of Covington. Covington recently represented Citigroup over a civil lawsuit relating to the bank’s role in Libor manipulation.
Covington was also deeply involved with a company known as MERS, which was later responsible for falsifying mortgage documents on an industrial scale. “Court records show that Covington, in the late 1990s, provided legal opinion letters needed to create MERS on behalf of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and several other large banks,” according to an investigation by Reuters.
The Department of Justice under Holder not only failed to pursue criminal prosecutions of the banks responsible for the mortgage meltdown, but in fact de-prioritized investigations of mortgage fraud, making it the “lowest-ranked criminal threat,” according to an inspector general report.
For insiders, the Holder decision to return to Covington was never a mystery. Timothy Hester, the chairman of Covington, told the National Law Journal that Holder’s return to the firm had been “a project” of his ever since Holder left to the join the administration in 2009. When the firm moved to a new building last year, it kept an 11th-story corner office reserved for Holder.
Holder’s critics charge that he made a career out of institutionalizing “Too Big to Prosecute” rules within the department. In 1999, as a deputy attorney general, Holder authored a memo arguing that officials should consider the “collateral consequences” when prosecuting corporate crimes. In 2012, Holder’s enforcement chief, Lanny Breuer, admitted during a speech to the New York City Bar Association that the department may go easy on certain corporate criminals if they believe prosecutions may disrupt financial markets or cause layoffs. “In some cases, the health of an industry or the markets is a real factor,” Breuer said.
Rather than face accountability for their failures, the incentive structure of modern Washington is designed to reward both men. Breuer left the department in 2013 to rejoin Covington. Holder is set to become among the highest-earning partners at the firm, with compensation in the seven or eight figures.
Okay, now the fact of the matter is that virtually every high ranking official ends up in a plush office job in some big corporation. That’s not news at all. But what truly drives me out of my head is this guy Holder, who didn’t make ONE, not ONE banker walk the plank for blowing up the financial system, heads right back to the Very bankers he protected and what does the Media have to say about it? NOT A WORD.
Now wait, because it gets better. (or worse, depending on your particular mood). Take a look at this line– The Covington & Burling client list has included four of the largest banks, including Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo. Well, isn’t that interesting? JP Morgan and Citi have both been blatant manipulators of the precious metals markets; called out about it many times and not a word gets spoken.
Well I’ll “spoke” it. Holder is a criminal. He aided and abetted criminal activity while in office, and he’s going back to a law firm that has had criminal bankers as clients. Let’s talk JPM for a minute. Ted Butler has repeatedly sent proof to JPM and regulators about their holding illegal amounts of paper sales of silver. He’s never heard a peep in response. If Ted was wrong, wouldn’t they at least slap a slander suit on him? You bet they would.
Zero-hedge has put out some good work about Citi and JPM recently. In fact, based on the OCC’s derivative update, JPM had literally cornered the commodity derivatives complex, when from “just” $226 billion in total Commodity exposure, JPM’s notional soared by 1,690% in one quarter to $4 trillion, or about 96% of total. How on earth can that be legal?
But this is even more interesting to me…Citi’s “precious metals” derivative book, saw a 1260% increase in Precious Metals derivative holdings in the past quarter, from just $3.9 billion to $53 billion!
Now add that up, with the savaging that gold and silver have been going through recently and what do you come away with? It is obvious that these two outfits are responsible for the utter insanity that is indeed the silver market especially. Right now it costs about 21 dollars an ounce to mine and refine silver. Yet on Tuesday morning they beat silver down by over 5% in one session, down to 14 bucks an ounce. In a free market, with no manipulation, could that even be possible??
ABSOLUTELY not. There is NO doubt what so ever that both of these situations are in direct response to the mess that is indeed Greece and the fears of a contagion spreading through the euro-zone. They simply do NOT want people trading paper dollars for gold and silver, or any true tangible commodity and they took over the market to make sure no one does.
Read that again so you truly understand the scope of the fraud and illegality of what we’re witness to. Citi and JPM together hold 90% of all commodity and precious metals derivatives, in the very quarter that Greece was about to stir up major fears of the Euro-zone imploding. So to keep anyone from trading out of Euro’s, or doing electronic swaps of Euro’s into gold or silver or copper holdings, they beat the snot out of all of it. You will indeed KEEP your worthless paper money, and they are making sure of it.
And Holder is going right back to the very outfit that worked with these criminals. How utterly fitting! A criminal, going back to serve criminals. It makes me sick.
Disclaimer!!!!! Must Read!!!
We at InvestYourself are not brokers. NO advice is given or implied. This newsletter is for educational purposes ONLY. Nothing should be considered a recommendation to buy or sell any stock or security. We strongly recommend that you consult with a professional broker or financial planner before you buy or sell any stock or security. We believe the information in this publication to be true but assume no responsibility for any incorrect information. This is not a solicitation to buy or sell any security. Writers of InvestYourself may at times hold positions in any of the stocks mentioned in this newsletter. Investing in securities carries a high degree of risk and you can lose all of your investment money. Past performances do not guarantee future results. Please consult with your own independent tax, business and financial advisors with respect to any investment, including any contemplated investment in any company mentioned. All information contained in this publication must be independently investigated for accuracy. We will NOT be responsible for the consequences of anyone acting on this purely educational material.
July 6th, 2015 by olddog
By Michael Patrick Leahy
A new Rasmussen Poll indicates that a growing number of Americans want state governments to tell the Supreme Court to get out of the business of rewriting laws and telling American citizens how to live their lives.
In a new poll, Rasmussen reported the percentage of Americans who want states to tell the Supreme Court it does not have the power to rewrite the Affordable Care Act or force sovereign states to authorize gay marriages has increased from 24 percent to 33 percent after last week’s Constitution-defying decisions by the court.
A closer look at the poll results indicates that popular sentiment for state defiance of the federal government extends beyond just the Supreme Court’s latest decisions.
“Only 20% [of likely voters] now consider the federal government a protector of individual liberty,” the Rasmussen Poll finds. “Sixty percent (60 %) see the government as a threat to individual liberty instead,” it adds.
“Take this regulation and shove it,” and “take this grant and shove it,” are two additional battle cries which appear to resonate with a growing popular sentiment, especially in “flyover country,” those 38 states outside the dozen in which President Obama won more than 56.2 percent of the vote in 2012.
(In descending order of support for Obama, those twelve states are: Hawaii, Vermont, New York, Rhode Island, Maryland, Massachusetts, California, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, and Maine. Arguably, three additional states where President Obama won between 54 percent and 56.2 percent of the vote in 2012 could be added to this list: Washington, Oregon, and Michigan.)
One hundred and fifty years after the end of the Civil War, it is becoming increasingly clear that there are two Americas—one where the principles of constitutionally limited government and individual liberty are still revered, the other where STATISM and the trampling of individual rights are on the rise.
The Tea Party movement arose in 2009 to restore those principles of constitutionally-limited government. But despite electoral victories that placed Republicans in control of the House of Representatives in 2010, and the Senate in 2014, it is undeniable that the Republican establishment those elections empowered is instead aligned with the forces of statism.
The majority of the members of the Supreme Court itself are also clearly part of the “elitist” camp of anti-constitutionalists. As Breitbart’s Thomas Williams noted, and Justice Scalia himself pointed out in his scathing dissent in the gay marriage decision, not a single member of the nine member court is of the Protestant faith. Not a single member has graduated from a law school other than Harvard, Yale, or Columbia. Nor has a single member done anything other than practice some version of corporate law with “big law” firms, sit on a federal court, work for the federal government, or work in left-wing academia.
With the entire apparatus of the federal government now aligned against constitutionally limited government, some traditionalists have given themselves over to despair and defeatism. That negative view, however, fails to understand the solution provided to usurpations of power by the central government found within the Constitution itself, with origins in the Declaration of Independence, whose signing on July 4, 1776 we celebrate today.
As Rasmussen Reports noted, “The Declaration of Independence, the foundational document that Americans honor on the Fourth of July, says that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, but just 25% believe that to be true of the federal government today.”
Even more significantly, however, the recent Supreme Court decisions are a complete rejection of the concepts of state sovereignty articulated in the 10th amendment, the last element of the Bill of Rights, the promise of whose passage by the First Congress was key to the ratification of the Constitution.
The 10th amendment, ratified along with the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791, reads as follows:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The concept of popular resistance to the unconstitutional encroachment of the federal government on the rights of individuals and states has been gaining momentum over the past several years.
Conservative radio host Mark Levin, for instance, has advocated on behalf of an Article V Convention of the States to propose new amendments to the Constitution for ratification by the states that would limit federal powers.
Conservative author and intellectual leader Charles Murray has also advocated for a type of civil disobedience to resist unlawful federal regulations through the use of well funded legal challenges to the most egregious of those regulations.
Both concepts have merit, but ultimately lack the power and effective counter-attack available through the simple mechanism offered by the 10th amendment—widespread resistance to federal overreaches by the state governments themselves.
Bolder, constitutionally based resistance at the state level, is a practical and viable remedy, one that already has broad popular support among conservatives.
As Rasmussen Reports noted:
[T]he voters who feel strongest about overriding the federal courts – Republicans and conservatives – are those who traditionally have been the most supportive of the Constitution and separation of powers. During the Obama years, however, these voters have become increasingly suspicious and even hostile toward the federal government.
Fifty percent (50%) of GOP voters now believe states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings, compared to just 22% of Democrats and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Interestingly, this represents a noticeable rise in support among all three groups.
Fifty percent (50%) of conservative voters share this view, but just 27% of moderates and 15% of liberals agree.
Widespread resistance at the state level, however, will require two elements: strong governors and strong state legislatures willing to vigorously assert their 10th amendment rights.
At the local level, we’ve already seen the first indications that a movement may be afoot. In Tennessee, for example, the entire Decatur County Clerk’s Office resigned rather than enforce the recent gay marriage decision announced by the Supreme Court.
Isolated pockets of resistance are springing up around the country.
And yet, even among “The Great 38 States”—flyover country where President Obama either lost or won less than 56.2 percent of the vote in the 2012 election—leadership at the executive level is lacking.
The next electoral battle for the preservation of the constitutional republic will be fought not only for the highest office of the executive branch in 2016—it will also be fought in the gubernatorial races of those “Great 38 States” where the vast majority of voters still believe in America, and still believe in constitutionally limited government.
Freedom of the individual states from the usurpations of the federal government does not mean secession from the constitutional republic. It is, instead, the surest realistic mechanism that remains to preserve the constitutional republic.
By limiting the role of the federal government to the exercise of that very narrow set of specifically “enumerated powers” ascribed to it in the Constitution, state governments can guarantee that our constitutional republic will continue to flourish for generations to come.
The alternative is a constitutional republic in name only, a dystopian oligarchy where words have no meaning, right is wrong, good is bad, truth is deception, and the rule of law is invented anew each day by the ruling class of federal royalty.
As for that dirty dozen of liberal blue states, like California, New York, and Massachusetts? Let them continue on their path of reckless spending and experience the fate of modern Greece.
Meanwhile, the rest of us can continue to choose liberty.
Read More Stories About:
Big Government, Supreme Court, Constitution, affordable care act,
Declaration of Independence, bill of rights, Justice Scalia, Tenth Amendment,
“Take this Supreme Court decision and shove it.”
July 5th, 2015 by olddog
By Bernie Suarez
Today I want to openly declare to the current control system what Independence Day means to me and why it is the most important holiday of the year.
Dear controlling (federal) government,
Do you know what today is? That’s right. It’s the one day of the year where we the little people celebrate Independence from you the larger control system. That is after all at the heart of Independence Day. This is the day when individuals with a conscience, not groups like government and corporations but individual human beings get to reminisce on the idea of freedom. And how can we blame humans for doing that? Freedom, after all is the most prized right to yearn for. It’s a right, it’s a moral code, it’s an expectation and desire that all humans quietly yearn for, hope for and dream of. Freedom from you, the government. Freedom from external control and manipulation. Freedom from coercion, intimidation and forced slavery based on fear of harm, fear of being robbed and fear of being locked up. All three of these threats are the essence of what government does, but you already know that.
Governments exist to force others to behave in a certain way in order for that government to maintain its power over you. Whether it’s the issuing of taxes, fines, imprisonment or even execution, the job gets done every time.
Today we celebrate the concept of freedom from that very perpetual enslavement. This is after all the only true freedom that exists. Freedom from coercive and intimidating government to forcefully make you do something you don’t want to do.
There is so much irony in having a nation celebrate “Independence” day just a few weeks prior to the start of Jade Helm 15 and in the center of a massive (Northwoods II style) push for the new world order of enslavement here in the U.S., but nonetheless I want to celebrate this day and remind you (government) that we all still cherish freedom from you.
And no one should be surprised that during this day no one in government or mainstream media will spell it out and honor this day word for word for what it really stands for — Freedom and Independenceof the individual. That was, after all, at the heart of America’s independence as reflected in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Read it, review it and see the magic we little people see in it. Hopefully, it will inspire you and remind you what this is all about.
They say there are two kinds of people in this world: those who want to be free, and those who want to control you. Which are you? Do you really want to be free yourself? Do you think you are already free because you work for government? Think again.
If you had a choice to make a decision that encourages human freedom versus more government control which would you choose? Do you really understand the meaning of this holiday? Do you understand what is happening today, where we’ve been and where we are going? Do you truly understand the meaning of Independence Day?
If you are part of government please take a minute today and meditate on this meaning. I say this only because humanity is in a state of emergency. Freedom really is threatened and the dangers of tyranny are looming greater than ever. The horrors of tyranny are about to repeat and, in fact, are already happening. Humanity, and America in particular, is on the verge of repeating costly mistakes of the past. The clock is almost at midnight and the time to stop this horrific road we are on is running out.
Know that the essence of Independence is freedom; specifically humanity’s freedom from the current control system that you work for. Find that quiet place, then ask yourself: What is life all about? Do you really think you are on earth to work for government then die? Do you think that the meaning of life is to work for government and help the control system? Don’t you think there might be more to this journey that humanity is fighting for, and that might be why government’s job is never easy? Have you thought about the history of humanity’s resistance to tyrannical governments? Have you thought about where your place in history might be? Do you want to be someone who stood for humanity or government?
Independence Day in America is indeed a special day. I’m thankful that we still celebrate this day even if government and its mouthpiece media gloss over it because it represents everything opposite of what they are trying to do to humanity now. I’m also thankful that I can still write this open letter and express my gratitude freely.
I know that if government has their way all forms of free speech will soon be silenced. I know that freedom is not free and governments never stop reaching for more and more power and control. I absolutely realize the fragile nature of freedom and government control. The pendulum can swing in any direction from one day to another.
So on this Independence Day please stop what you are doing and think. With the uncertainties we all face it’s good to remember why we do what we do. I still live in America because I believe in freedom. I understand the principles America was founded on and I believe these are principles that help humanity thrive. I still believe we have every reason to fight for and stand for these principles.
Think about those before you who have given their lives or their freedom for the sake of freedom. Many within government itself have died or been imprisoned fighting for what they believed was the right thing to do and we should remember these people and be inspired by them.
If, however, you feel that your only purpose on earth is to obey government and help government carry out tyranny and control, then realize you are on the wrong side of history. You have today to think about the topic. Think about freedom and what it can do for you. Do you think you can do that for one day?
Realize that there are many of us who can’t even imagine living a life of slavery and we won’t have anything but freedom. Realize that the idea we celebrate today is the greatest threat to a controlling government. Please don’t underestimate freedom and how much some of us really value it. Stare at this Independence Day today face to face and remember what it means. Let the meaning sink in and don’t forget how important this holiday is to many of us.
So today I wave my American flag and the symbolic freedom right in your face and hope you smile with me or are afraid of me. This is consistent with a quote from one of your own kind in government. It was your Thomas Jefferson who said:
When the government fears the people there is liberty, when the people fear the government there is tyranny.
Peace and love,
Human being and lover of freedom
Bernie is a revolutionary writer with a background in medicine, psychology, and information technology. He has written numerous articles over the years about freedom, government corruption and conspiracies, and solutions. A former host of the 9/11 Freefall radio show, Bernie is also the creator of the Truth and Art TV project where he shares articles and videos about issues that raise our consciousness and offer solutions to our current problems. His efforts are designed to encourage others to joyfully stand for truth, to expose government tactics of propaganda, fear and deception, and to address the psychology of dealing with the rising new world order. He is also a former U.S. Marine who believes it is our duty to stand for and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. A peace activist, he believes information and awareness is the first step toward being free from enslavement from the globalist control system which now threatens humanity. He believes love conquers all fear and it is up to each and every one of us to manifest the solutions and the change that you want to see in this world, because doing this is the very thing that will ensure victory and restoration of the human race from the rising global enslavement system, and will offer hope to future generations.
This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.
What a dirty rotten shame that Bernie seems to still believe America was born a ligament sovereign government, instead of a filthy lying Corporation. It’s also a dirty rotten shame so many millions of American’s refuse to believe the truth. This proves how simple minded humans can be when emotions are stronger than truth. I understand that because I was one of them for most of my life, but finally I realized all one has to do is compare what is right in front of you to the fairy tale we all believed and supported. Ladies and gentlemen America is the same as all the other countries out there in this crazy world. Just a bunch of naïve, too lazy to read, and to afraid to revolt, slaves! Please understand that freedom from tyrannical governance is only obtained when the people stand up and die to obtain it. Then, keep fighting to keep it. The butchers will never stop trying to control society, so how can we be free if we are too afraid to die fighting? Sometimes, I think the Lord God who is omniscient by the way, created this mess to show us His Power, and our dependency on Him. Does our stupid cowardice not prove that true?
July 3rd, 2015 by olddog
By Philippe Gastonne
Officers at police academies have always been trained in de-escalation, but there has been less emphasis on such methods over the past 20 years. A recent Police Executive Research Forum survey of 281 police agencies found that the average young officer received 58 hours of firearms training and 49 hours of defensive tactical training, but only eight hours of de-escalation training.
The training regimens at nearly all of the nation’s police academies continue to emphasize military-style exercises, including significant hours spent practicing drill, formation and saluting, said Maria R. Haberfeld, a professor of police science at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.
Many police officials now say that even while these approaches might have helped reduce crime, they have also impeded officers’ ability to win the public’s cooperation and trust.
“If we ask people instead of telling them, and if we give them a reason for why we’re doing something, we get much less resistance,” said Gary T. Klugiewicz, a retired Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office captain and former chairman of the now defunct American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers, who trains police in de-escalation techniques. “If we just started to treat people with dignity and respect, things would go much better.” – New York Times, June 27, 2015
The curriculum in most police academies is heavy on firearms and self-defense techniques. This is necessary but not sufficient. Police need public cooperation for one simple reason: They are usually outnumbered. Top marksmanship will not help one officer control a hostile crowd of 10, 50, or 100 people. His best weapon is the ability to get them on his side.
An arms-race mentality is just one sign police in many places have forgotten this principle. Armored vehicles take the place of common courtesy. This strategy may have reached its limit. The new solution is, as the trainer quoted above says, to “treat people with dignity and respect.”
That this idea faces deep resistance from police is a sign of how much needs to change. Fortunately, their resistance is increasingly futile. Elected officials are growing tired of the legal settlements generated by overenthusiastic “broken windows” policing. Moreover, police chiefs are realizing the soft touch is more effective at keeping the peace.
What would help even more, of course, is an end to the unwinnable War on Drugs. Petty drug possession, or the suspicion thereof, is the catalyst for many unpleasant – and too often, deadly – police-citizen encounters. Imprisonment for those offenses simply creates larger numbers of better-trained criminals who then branch out into non-drug offenses.
The trend toward “open carry” gun laws in many states may be the final straw. How do you police an armed society? You start with dignity and respect. Police would do well to start practicing it.
About twenty years ago I was going through a period of insomnia and would go to a local restaurant at three in the morning so I would not wake my wife who was still working and arising around 5 am. This was also a coffee stop location for the local and county police and I would try to instigate a conversation with them, but was met with silence or outright hostility time after time until I just gave up. It really was a friendly attempt on my part to socialize with them, but they were obviously trained to refrain from citizen relationships. I considered this an affront to me personally and to the community as a whole. It was many years later before I understood the affects of a change in their training. Now, I would not piss on them because of their hostility, and if they needed help that would be tough shit. I have zero respect for all of them, because it only takes one of them to change this situation by calling out the training program. Why do they think they are going to get respect by being hard asses? An unfriendly cop is a thorn in any society’s backside! If they want respect, they should learn how to give it.
July 1st, 2015 by olddog
By Mac Slavo
According to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the shadowy “central bank of central banks,” the world as it stands is incapable of combating another global financial crash – a crash that there is every reason to think is coming.
That’s because the economy remains in the hands of the Federal Reserve and other central banks.
The financial wizards in THIS VIDEO went so far to say that “we are all slaves to the central banks.” It wasn’t exactly hyperbole.
According to the BIS, central banks have already “used up their ammunition” by driving interests to below zero, freezing investment for the important stuff like production and infrastructure, and instead fueling huge bubbles for wonder kids on Wall Street to play in.
Now, everything is basically teetering on the edge until the music stops. According to the BIS, it will soon be time to pay the piper – as “persistent ultra-low rates” are poised to unleash destruction upon the economy like King Kong set loose on Manhattan:
The BIS report described the threat of a new bust in advanced economies as a “main risk”, with many reaching the top of the economic cycle.
The economies worst hit by the last crisis are now suffering the costs of persistent ultra-low rates, the organisation said, which could “inflict serious damage on the financial system”, sapping banks and weakening their balance sheets and their ability to lend.
And worse, the advanced countries will be unable to fight back against the serious consequences, according to their 2015 annual report:
In past years, the BIS has painted a clear picture of the bleak financial landscape brought on by central bank policy since the 2008 crisis.
It warned in 2013 that:
Fresh action from central banks to kick-start growth may do more harm than good, by distorting financial markets and jeopardising stability.
“Unfortunately, central banks cannot do more without compounding the risks they have already created.”(source)
In 2014, it found that central banks have failed to achieve a recovery, and are incapable of doing so:
Robust, self-sustaining growth still eludes the global economy… Central banks cannot solve the structural problems that are preventing a return to strong and sustainable growth.
“Most of all, central banks cannot enact the structural economic and financial reforms needed to return economies to the real growth paths authorities and their publics both want and expect.”
“What central bank accommodation has done during the recovery is to borrow time … But the time needs to be used wisely, as the balance between benefits and costs is deteriorating.” (source)
Given the unique insider position of the Bank for International Settlements in the global financial power structure, these are foreboding words to be met with mature concern. This is a tacit admission that the powers that be know the next big crisis is around the corner, and they are ready to watch us drown in it – this time, without reaching down to offer us up.
You can read more from Mac Slavo at his site SHTFplan.com, where this article first appeared.
This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.
June 28th, 2015 by olddog
By Coach Dave Daubenmire
June 28, 2015
WARNING: Harsh Truth
I thought about a different title for this commentary because many websites will not post it because it has the “S” word in the title, but sodomy is a Biblical word. I am not ashamed to call it what the Bible calls it.
The skin is off of the onion. We now know what it is that the homosexuals were after: they wanted “dignity.” Anthony Kennedy used the term “dignity” throughout his entire written decision on sodomy-based marriage. I went to the dictionary because until recently, words had meaning.
DIGNITY—“ a way of appearing or behaving that suggests seriousness and self-control; the quality of being worthy of honor or respect.”
There is no dignity in sodomy! No matter what five degenerates in black robes might say, there is NO dignity in sodomy. Dignity cannot be bestowed by a court. No judge can make male-on-male sodomy “worthy of honor and respect.” Honor and respect come from within. No man can ever feel dignified as another man violates his anus. It is the ultimate desecration of manhood.
There are several men in my life that I genuinely love and admire. My buddy Norm is my best friend. I love Norm, but I have no desire to have sex with him. I express my love for Norm in many ways, but none of them involve “sex.” Sex is not love and love is not sex. I love my dog…you get the picture?
There is no dignity in male-on-male oral sex. There is no dignity in male-on-male anal sex. There is no dignity in “rimming” or “fisting” another male.
No judge can EVER dignify that. You can call it “marriage” if it makes you feel better, but two men doing despicable things to each other’s bodies can never be dignified. Calling it “gay” does not make it so. Sodomy is dirty; in fact God calls it abominable. Calling it “gay” is nothing more than trying to dignify what they KNOW to be deviant. They are looking for society to tell them it is OK. It is not. It is abominable. The Supreme Judge said so.
Often homosexuals try to nullify the Biblical prohibition against male-on-male sodomy by comparing it to eating shellfish or wearing mixed thread robes (see the book of Leviticus). I personally don’t like lobster, but I wouldn’t hesitate to put one in my mouth in public. Some things were meant to go into the mouth…some things weren’t.
Writing about this makes me sick, and I know reading it makes you sick as well, but can you image actually DOING THAT? How undignified would you feel while and after having done THAT?
Going to a church that approves of sodomy does not dignify the sin. “Her priests have violated My law and have profaned Mine holy things. They have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shown difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from My Sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.” Ez. 22-26
PROFANE—“to treat (something sacred) with abuse, irreverence, or contempt.” Marriage is sacred.
Marriage is sacred, but many of America’s pastors have profaned it. They have lied to you. Homosexual behavior is vile, abominable, debaucherous, perverse and deviant.
So now those who practice sodomy have looked to the perverted judges for dignity. What they fail to understand (or choose to ignore) is the fact that the courts have neither the power nor the authority to dignify such perverse behavior. No court decision can possibly give dignity to men who service other men.
Picture Elton John and his partner “making love.” Would that look dignified to you?
Homosexuals hate themselves. It is so sad. They wish they weren’t trapped in that sin, but validating the behavior simply will not dignify it. I hate what homosexuality does to the soul of a man. I absolutely hate it. There is no way to dignify it. Only Jesus can help. He will give you your dignity back.
Clarence Thomas, in his dissent, wrote, “Slaves did not lose their dignity because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied government benefits did not lose their dignity because government denied them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.”
Dignity comes from within. Dignity can never come from doing what one knows to be wrong.
I fully understand that I’ll be criticized for writing so graphically and many will be offended by my words. That’s OK—we should all be offended by what homosexuals DO. It is not THEM I Hate…it is the behavior (Sin)!!
Someday speaking frankly and candidly as I just did will get me thrown in jail, and someone in jail may try to sodomize me. That wouldn’t be love or marriage; that would be an attempt to steal my dignity. But that won’t work. My dignity cannot be stolen.
When that day comes, I will put that orange jumpsuit on with my dignity still intact.
© 2015 Dave Daubenmire – All Rights Reserved
Dave Daubenmire is a veteran 35 year high school football coach who was spurred to action when attacked and sued by the ACLU in the late 1990â€™s for praying with his high school football team. After a two year battle for his 1st amendment rights, the ACLU relented and offered coach an out of court settlement.
Challenging the “church of the Status Quo”, Pass The Salt Ministries is calling Christians to wake up and engage the culture. By taking the fight to the enemy, Coach Daubenmire has become a recognizable voice in the media as he is an unashamed, articulate, apologist for the Christian worldview. A popular, high-energy speaker, Coach Daubenmire’s motivational lectures, laced with powerful and relevant Scripture, is challenging Americans all across the country.
It is a sad state of affairs when a man is afraid to speak his mind for fear his government and friends will attack him. This is something I will not tolerate, and you should learn from Dave how to gird up your loins and join the race. If you have been brow-beaten to the point of publically accepting this foul practice, may I suggest you look in the mirror of your soul more often! Perhaps you are secretly longing for a new pair of panties.
June 19th, 2015 by olddog
By Amanda Warren
Raw footage uploaded by “Untouchable” describes an active shooter situation in Asbury Park, New Jersey, which took place Tuesday, June 16.
Turns out, the killer was Neptune Township Police Sgt. Phillip Seidle who was off-duty and instigating a car chase after his ex-wife, while their 7-year-old daughter sat helplessly in his Honda Pilot passenger seat.
Tamara Seidle, who had completed a divorce with him on May 27 after 24 years of marriage and 9 children, was trying to escape him and ended up crashing her car into a parked car on an Asbury neighborhood street, leaving her stuck.
Police who arrived at the scene taking place while residents gathered, were likely colleagues or knew of him, and allowed him to brandish his service weapon – a .40-caliber Glock handgun – and instigate threats to her through her car door for some time. They may also have been aware of the serious allegations that led to the divorce – domestic violence which required police intervention, infidelity, financial neglect, addictions, and more acts of physical, emotional and verbal abuse. In one instance, while Tamara was pregnant, he “held a loaded gun to her head, cocked the weapon in a threatening and intimidating fashion, with no regard to the torment he was causing the Plaintiff.” (source)
Then, everyone simply watches in horror as he unloaded approximately four gun shots into her, point blank, brutally and remorselessly killing her right there.
The worst part is – his attorney is entering a “not guilty” plea!
Seidle is charged with first-degree murder, second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose and second-degree endangering the welfare of a child.
If convicted, Seidle faces a minimum of 30 years in a state prison without parole and a maximum sentence of life.
“Your honor,” [Edward] Bertucio said, “I realize this is an initial appearance and you did not ask for the entry of a plea, but if you had, we would plead absolutely, positively not guilty.”
According to Cop Block, Seidle, instead of being swarmed, beaten, or taken down with a hail of bullets – received sympathy, hugs and reassuring pats as though a job well done had taken place in saving Seidle from the suicide portion of murder-suicide perhaps. Filming Cops noted that viewers are seriously pointing out the discrepancy of police allowing this event to unfold as it did – cops run up to the shooter, but allow him to keep shooting. They are all armed and hiding behind a vehicle, guns ready while a shirtless Seidle is out in the open in the middle of the street.
Allegedly, he had pointed the gun at his own head before using it to fire more shots, this time into the windshield. How many suicidal people get the opportunity to kill and then get rescued? Suicidal people are often killed when the police are called – which means they would have had a greater chance of survival if left to their own devices, versus a break-in with an instant spattering of bullets. (One officer was even fired for talking a college student out of suicide and getting him some water instead of tasing the daylights out of him.) Seidle got a brief stand-off and even survived surrendering. Everyone deserves a trial and on-site shootings should always be last resort – it’s just, how often has that happened in the last 15 years?
It is with great sadness and hesitation that we place the footage here, but it clearly shows that police did not act as they would in other situations. It shows a different side of the story already spun by the sickening media using the words “accused of” and “allegedly” all for police benefit. Whereas cops are taught to eliminate all threats despite consequences (“myself before all others”) – or even casualties – they not only allowed a maniacal and aggressive Seidle in the street with a weapon but did not even act after one and then two shots were leveled at her. He was allowed to finish blasting her at will.
Seidle is alive and gets all the benefits of a fair trial, albeit with a $2 million bail, but this is a disgrace to all the victims and victims’ families of the thousands of Americans who have been executed immediately on site by police without any kind of trial. And especially the victims of the code of silence – the victims who have no one to turn to for help when they are pursued by a law enforcement connection. There iseven a quote that Seidle wouldn’t have been considered a cop in this situation, but a criminal and murderer – is that how he was treated here? Couldn’t Tamara have been saved?
[Warning – Fatal Brutality]
This writer would like to echo the warnings from the other cop watchdog sites that rates of domestic violence among romantic partners of police are incredibly higher than in the general population. A resource for people in such desperate situations where the abuser is the authority, can use all resources to find the victim, and receives protection from fellow officers is Diane Wetendorf‘s book Police Domestic Violence: Handbook for Victims available at the link to her Web site.
It is also notable that Dr. George K. Simon in his bestseller In Sheep’s Clothing discusses the best way to extract oneself from less extreme circumstances when dealing with covert aggressives so that it doesn’t escalate to a homicide or murder-suicide. From his research, he found that covert aggressives (whatever you want to call them) lack conscience and want to win. They want power. If the object of their power play appears to be on top (even by escaping) then it could be an “all bets are off” situation ending in violence – an “if I can’t win, everyone loses” scenario.
Not only did the mother lose her life – especially since fellow law enforcement failed to act as they would normally – but a little girl has lost both parents and witnessed her father brutally murder her mother with repeated gun shots. One can only hope and pray she and the rest of the family find peace and healing from the unthinkable.
What do you want to bet this article does not get National attention like the South Carolina shooting does?
Recently from Amanda Warren:
June 11th, 2015 by olddog
By Martin Armstrong
Well it has been a long time coming, but all along there have been discussions behind closed doors (never in public) that the Administrative Law Courts established with the New Deal were totally unfounded and unconstitutional. With the anniversary of Magna Carta and the right to a jury trial coming up on June 15 after 800 years, the era of Roosevelt’s big government is quietly unraveling.
A federal judge’s ruling against the Securities and Exchange Commission for using its own Administrative Law judges in an insider trading case is perhaps the beginning of the end of an alternative system of justice that took root in the New Deal. Constitutionally, the socialists tore everything about the idea of a Democracy apart. It was more than taxing one party to the cheers of another in denial of equal protection. It was about creating administrative agencies (1) delegating them to create rules with the force of law as if passed by Congress sanctioned by the people; (2) the creation of administrative courts that defeated the Tripartite government structure usurping all power into the hand of the executive branch, as if this were a dictatorship run by the great hoard of unelected officials.
Not discussed in the coverage of this story is that the Administrative Law Courts are a fiefdom, to put it mildly. They have long been corrupt and traditionally rule in favor of their agencies, making it very costly for anyone to even try to defend themselves. If someone were to attempt this feat, first they have to wear the costs of an Administration proceeding and appeal to an Article III court judge, then they must appeal to the Court of Appeals, and finally plea to the Supreme Court. The cost of such adventures is well into the millions, and good luck on actually getting justice.
Furthermore, Administrative Law Courts cannot sentence you to prison, but they can fine you into bankruptcy. So the lack of a criminal prosecution meant the judges did not have to be lawyers. They could be anyone’s brother-in-law looking for a job where he just rules in favor of the agency not to be bothered with law. Unless the victim has a pile of money, there is no real chance that he or she can afford to defend themselves. This is why the agencies cut deals with the big houses and prosecute the small upstarts who lack the funds to defend themselves.
In a 45-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May in Atlanta issued an injunction halting Administrative Law proceedings against Charles Hill, a businessman who the SEC accused of reaping an illegal $744,000 profit trading in Radian Systems stock. This is typical. The legal fees involved will exceed the amount of money he is alleged to have made, the typical result is to just pay the fine and they go away, it is cheaper.
The judge ruled that the SEC agency violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution by subjecting Hill to proceedings before an Administrative Law judge, who isn’t directly accountable to the president, officials in charge of the SEC, or the courts under Article III. The ruling is 81 years overdue. The entire structure of administrative agencies blackmailing people has been outrageous. Then you take the banks who just entered a plea of CRIMINALLY guilty to manipulating markets. They are now formally FELONS who engaged in violating SEC rules and thus under the SEC rules, they are no longer eligible for a banking license. The banks are “too big to jail” and the SEC has waived their own rules, of course, to exempt the banks. So they can engage in fraud and manipulation, get caught, pay billions in fines, and the SEC exempts them from losing their licenses. This is how corrupt the administrative agencies really are.
This new decision calling the Administrative Law Courts what they really are is reminiscent of the notorious extrajudicial proceedings of the Star Chamber operated by King James I. The court of Chancery set up outside of the King’s Bench, so there were no trials by jury. It had the same purpose, to circumvent the law. This is where our Fifth Amendment privilege came into being. That came about following the trial of John Lilburne (1615-1657) for handing out a pamphlet the government did not like.
This new decision calling the Administrative Law Courts what they really are is reminiscent of the notorious extrajudicial proceedings of the Star Chamber operated by King James I. The court of Chancery set up outside of the King’s Bench, so there were no trials by jury. It had the same purpose, to circumvent the law. This is where our Fifth Amendment privilege came into being. That came about following the trial of John Lilburne (1615-1657) for handing out a pamphlet the government did not The Miranda v Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) decision of the Supreme Court came only after decades of abuse by American police against citizens, not unlike what we are watching today. The Miranda decision is hated by police, prosecutors, right-wing judges, politicians, and citizens. The decision is based upon the history of the right not to be coerced that began with the famous trial of John Lilburn before the English court of the Star Chamber in 1637 where he stood tall and objected to the King’s torture. Lilburn’s crime was handing out pamphlets against the king. John Lilburne (1615–1657) was a leader in the Leveller Movement of the 1640s and was a prolific pamphleteer who defended religious and individual liberty of the people. He was imprisoned many times for his views and was active in the army of the New Parliament rising to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. In October 1649, he was arrested and tried for High Treason for printing and circulating books and pamphlets critical of the government but was acquitted of all charges by a jury of his peers.
This entry was posted in America’s Current Economy, America’s Economic History, Current Events and tagged Administrative Law Courts, John Lilburne, King James I, Mary Jo White, Miranda Law, SEC, U.S. Constitution by Martin Armstrong. Bookmark the permalink.
Proudly powered by WordPress
May 20th, 2015 by olddog
By Dave Hodges
This is a two part series which deals with critical issues associated with planned round-ups of potential resistance leaders and how to recognize when the extractions will happen. This is very valuable information as it will be important to not be where one is expected to be when the extractions commence.
The Historical Precedent of the Night of the Broken Glass
In pre-holocaust Germany, Jewish businesses were singled out for physical destruction in an event called Kristallnacht (i.e. night of the broken glass). Hundreds of Jewish businesses were attacked on the same night.
When the Holocaust began, in earnest, the Gestapo would target selected neighborhoods, for extraction, and then make their move, in the same general area, on the same night. If the area was large and exceeded the capacity to extract everyone in a given area, the neighborhoods would be sealed off, with nobody allowed in or out as systematic arrests were carried out. The times may change and the technology may be better, but the same Nazi blueprint would be applied.
Nazi Germany Revisited
Jade Helm appears to be following the same pattern as their Nazi predecessors. From the Liberty Brothers to my deep insider sources, the same message and the same Nazi scenario is emerging.
When the extractions of political dissidents commences, the event will conform to the following pattern. Cell phone service will be blocked so the intended victims cannot warn each other when the event commences. In the ARSOF document, this is referred to as “surgical strikes”. The ARSOF dissident extractions will take place on the same night and with modern technology, it will be carried out with extreme efficiency.
There has been a lot written about the local police and participation in Jade Helm drills. However, it is not likely that the police will be going door to door beside ARSOF personnel, please consider the following.
I am a retired Deputy Sheriff but I still have regular contact with many from our department. They are not training with military forces as of yet, but they will soon be doing so. Some have been told that they will be assisting in the apprehension of key fugitives (aka terrorists). From memos and actual conversations, the job of the department will primarily be to provide a defensive perimeter that will prevent escape in a “nobody in and nobody out” approach. We know for a fact that other departments have been told similar things in briefings/memos held/conducted by the Department of Homeland Security.
I have been reading your articles for sometime now and I am convinced that LEO’s will be used as support personnel as “federal or military authorities arrest enemies of the state”. I do not remember seeing that you have written about local law enforcement and their role in what appears to be coming. Please take a look at this as there is an important story on this point. My family, some friends and I greatly appreciate your work.
This is what happened, for the most part, in South Carolina and this is precisely what the Gestapo did as they conducted mass arrests.
The Nazis almost always carried out their extractions at 3AM. Jade Helm announced that all of their drills would be carried out at from 11pm to 4AM. Jade Helm leadership has also announced that they will be practicing “infiltration techniques”. And most know that the job of ARSOF is to extract or assassinate high value targets prior to invasion or occupation.
Precursor Events Prior to the Commencement of the Extractions
The overwhelming belief among nearly all of is that an economic crash will be the precipitating event. When it is announced that the banks are “temporarily closed” and the bank bail-ins have commenced, many resistance leaders are living on borrowed time. From this point on, mass extractions, in this modern day version of the Night of the Broken Glass, could commence at any time. It is under this cloud of chaos that we will see this situation exacerbated by Fifth column attacks of shopping malls, schools and sporting events across all of the United States. The attacks will come from ISIS and MS-13 cells that have been embedded all over the United States. This will be the modern day version of shock and awe all designed to paralyze any potential response from the citizenry.
Like Nazi Germany, the planned dissident extractions will take place on a single night in order to prevent foreknowledge and a potential push back.
Phase One Targeting: Who Are the High Valued Extraction Targets?
The number one targets will not be very many in the Independent Media as commonly believed. In order to neutralize this group, the administration would only have to pull the plug on the Internet. However, there are a few in the Independent Media who have contacts who are high priority targets and as such, these media figures would be sought after individuals as well.
I have had the “round-up” discussion several times over the past couple of years. The pattern is always the same and can be universally applied from country to country.
The number one group that will be targeted by the Special Forces intruders will be individuals with significant military experience who have the ability to turn a militia into a formidable fighting force.
Who would comprise such a group? Let’s start with the 260+ command officers fired by Obama. Some of these leaders are only pencil pushing administrators and would be of little use in an armed conflict. However, some of these men have significant combat experience and administrative organizational abilities which would make them high valued targets for all the obvious reasons.
The second most targeted group would be veterans with counter insurgency combat experience from their Iraq and Afghanistan days. These individuals would be very well versed in the use of effective guerrilla warfare tactics and would have both the knowledge and needed experience to successfully employ asymmetrical warfare strategies against the encroaching UN forces, such as the 15,000 UN troops spotted in Texas yesterday. The occupation forces undoubtedly will be headed by the United Nations.
The third most targeted group would be individuals who have either military or agency (e.g. FEMA, Ft. Dietrich) experience with counter-insurgent use of biological and chemical weapons. This kind of experience would be worth its weight in gold because of the ability of certain individuals to inflict mass casualties on occupying UN forces. For those that know what they are doing, these weapons are not terribly difficult to manufacture and distribute. Counterinsurgency and counterintelligence officials from DHS and FEMA would have the knowledge to carry out such an asymmetrical attack. Long-time readers of The Common Sense Show may recall that I personally knew of a FEMA official who had experience in counterintelligence regarding biological and chemical weapons. Now, I understand why he and some of his former colleagues prepared a covert, isolated and well-prepared community to retreat to in December of 2012.
I am told that the Ron Paul types will be taken into protective custody “for their own good”. These people are the not at the top of the list. However, the globalists do not want people roaming society who could be symbols of resistance. It is not likely that any harm will come to them because the powers that be do not want to create martyrs.
I am told that interagency personnel will be targeted as well. What did Hitler do with the Brown Shirts? He killed them. The Bolsheviks did the same with retired military personnel in Moscow. Today’s interagency operational commanders will suffer the same fate because dead men tell no tales and there is plenty to tell if this intended coup against the United States is carried out. So, for some of you who swore an oath to the Constitution, you might consider looking at historical precedent.
With a few exceptions, the run of the mill political dissidents will factor into phase two which will involve relocation, incarceration and worse.
When the economy hits the skids, if you have reason to believe you are on the Red List, you best not be where the authorities can find you. Closing banks and economic chaos are signals that you should go into hiding immediately.
If one is targeted, can one avoid detection and evade arrest? The answer is a qualified yes. However, one has to possess detailed knowledge of the technology which could be used to locate you and what counter-surveillance strategies that you would have at your disposal. The good news is that one would not have to remain in hiding for a lengthy time. What we are speaking of here will result in civil war and Red List targets fade in importance with regard to this scenario when the shooting actually begins. Evading arrest will be the topic of Part Two of this series.
Finally, I have never seen a time when so many sources and so many people, in general, possess the same information about what is coming and when. In the Patriot community, by the end of the week, these facts will soon become common knowledge for those who possess the discernment to know when to listen. For most Americans, they will never know what hit them.
Fortunately, most massacres have warning signs for those who have the foresight to critically examine the times that we are living in. Albert Einstein was a man who understood history and he knew what was coming. Einstein possessed the ability to accurately assess the threat and he was able to move to safety. Will you?
May 19th, 2015 by olddog
BY GLENN GREENWALD
We learned recently from Paris that the Western world is deeply and passionately committed to free expression and ready to march and fight against attempts to suppress it. That’s a really good thing, since there are all sorts of severe suppression efforts underway in the West — perpetrated not by The Terrorists but by the Western politicians claiming to fight them.
One of the most alarming examples comes, not at all surprisingly, from the U.K. government, which is currently agitating for new counterterrorism powers, “including plans for extremism disruption orders designed to restrict those trying to radicalize young people.” Here are the powers which the British Freedom Fighters and Democracy Protectors are seeking:
They would include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web and social media or in print. The bill will also contain plans for banning orders for extremist organisations which seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places, but it will fall short of banning on the grounds of provoking hatred.
It will also contain new powers to close premises including mosques where extremists seek to influence others. The powers of the Charity Commission to root out charities that misappropriate funds towards extremism and terrorism will also be strengthened.
In essence, advocating any ideas or working for any political outcomes regarded by British politicians as “extremist” will not only be a crime, but can be physically banned in advance. Basking in his election victory, Prime Minister David Cameron unleashed this Orwellian decree to explain why new Thought Police powers are needed: “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens ‘as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.’” It’s not enough for British subjects merely to “obey the law”; they must refrain from believing in or expressing ideas which Her Majesty’s Government dislikes.
If all that sounds menacing, tyrannical and even fascist to you — and really, how could it not? “extremism disruption orders” — you should really watch this video of Tory Home Secretary Theresa May trying to justify the bill in an interview on BBC this morning. When pressed on what “extremism” means — specifically, when something crosses the line from legitimate disagreement into criminal “extremism” — she evades the question completely, repeatedly invoking creepy slogans about the need to stop those who seek to “undermine Our British Values” and, instead, ensure “we are together as one society, One Nation” (I personally believe this was all more lyrical in its original German). Click here to watch the video and see the face of Western authoritarianism, advocating powers in the name of Freedom that are its very antithesis.
Threats to free speech can come from lots of places. But right now, the greatest threat by far in the West to ideals of free expression is coming not from radical Muslims, but from the very Western governments claiming to fight them. The increasingly unhinged, Cheney-sounding governments of the U.K., Australia, France, New Zealand and Canada — joining the U.S. — have a seemingly insatiable desire to curb freedoms in the name of protecting them: prosecuting people for Facebook postings critical of Western militarism or selling “radical” cable channels, imprisoning peoplefor “radical” tweets, banning websites containing ideas they dislike,seeking (and obtaining) new powers of surveillance and detention for those people (usually though not exclusively Muslim citizens) who hold and espouse views deemed by these governments to be “radical.”
Anticipating Prime Minister Cameron’s new “anti-extremist” bill (to be unveiled in the “Queen’s Speech”), University of Bath Professor Bill Durodiésaid that “the window for free speech has now been firmly shut just a few months after so many political leaders walked in supposed solidarity for murdered cartoonists in France.” Actually, there has long been a broad, sustained assault in the West on core political liberties — specifically due process, free speech and free assembly — perpetrated not by “radical Muslims,” but by those who endlessly claim to fight them. Sadly, and tellingly, none of that has triggered parades or marches or widespread condemnation by Western journalists and pundits. But for those who truly believe in principles of free expression — as opposed to pretending to when it allows one to bash the Other Tribe — these are the assaults that need marches and protests.
Photo: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
Email the author: email@example.com
May 18th, 2015 by olddog
By Cassius Methyl
Joseph Rivers was a 22-year-old aspiring music video producer from outside of Detroit who managed to painstakingly save $16,000 for a music venture.
He was on an Amtrak train moving to Los Angeles to pursue his dream when his life’s savings were stolen from him.
According to the Albuquerque Journal,
A DEA agent boarded the train at the Albuquerque Amtrak station and began asking various passengers, including Rivers, where they were going and why. When Rivers replied that he was headed to LA to make a music video, the agent asked to search his bags. Rivers complied.
His $16,000 was in a bank envelope found by DEA agents. He tried to explain that he had problems withdrawing money from out-of-state banks in the past and that he was moving to Los Angeles. The feds did not believe him.
Joseph called his mother to corroborate his story. The feds didn’t believe her either.
He was charged with no crime, nothing on him was ‘suspicious’, but the DEA took his money and never gave it back.
All of the sudden Joseph Rivers’ progress in life was crushed by the state.
“We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty,” an Albuquerque DEA agent said. “It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty.”
So far this year, DEA agents have stolen over 38 million dollars in cash and goods from people assumed to be guilty.
In 2014, they collected $3.9 billion in civil asset seizures. Only $679 million of the money and assets were deemed “criminal”.
Be careful where you take your cash. You could get robbed by some people on the street, or federal agents in an unmarked vehicle. The only difference is you can’t defend yourself from a federal agent without being killed or incarcerated.
Cassius Methyl writes for TheAntiMedia.org, where this article first appeared. Tune in! The Anti-Media radio show airs Monday through Friday @ 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Help us fix our typos:firstname.lastname@example.org.
This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.
I am quite sure that there are plenty of opinionated people that would say, “it serves him right for being stupid enough to travel with that much cash”. They are the kind of people who do not have a clue what the difference is between what kind of government we have now, and what we started with. If the reader approves of the theft of this young mans money, just wait until these tyrant thugs have an excuse to ruin your life. LIVE FREE OR DIE!
May 15th, 2015 by olddog
Occasions of the most recent a few days make it clear that President Obama is going down- -and quick. His own Democratic Party crushed his unhindered commerce bill in the Senate by a phenomenal close consistent “no” vote on Tuesday.
Albeit there is consequent talk of a bargain on four executioner changes that were requested by Senate Democrats, there is no sureness that the reestablished exertion will succeed; and the votes are not there in the House.
Obama’s awful boycotting of the Moscow remembrance of the annihilation of Hitler exploded in his face, the same number of world pioneers, especially from Asia, joined with President Putin in praising humanity’s triumph over despotism 70 years prior.
The most recent evidence that Obama’s White House days are numbered, came yesterday, when rational U.S. institutional powers interceded, and Secretary of State John Kerry made a trip to Sochi, Russia, for eight hours of converses with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and President Putin. The goal of the discussions was to de-heighten the British-Obama incitements against Russia before they came to the point of nuclear war. Kerry conveyed a reasonable message that normal circles in Washington mean to resume joint effort with Russia on war shirking. The clearest open articulation of this expectation came amid the joint press accessibility by Kerry and Lavrov, taking after the four-hour meeting with President Putin, when Kerry conveyed an unmistakable cautioning to Ukrainian President Poroshenko to back off from arrangements to resume military activities to retake the Donetsk Airport.
There are different evidences that discussions with Iran are advancing towards a P5+1 understanding before the June 30 due date. This makes it all the more earnest that the Anglo-Saudi war arrangements be left dead speechless -by the proceeded with preparation to constrain the arrival of the 28 pages from the first Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11.
This week, Seymour Hersh passed the cover over the Saudi-Obama Big Lie deception around the murdering of Osama Bin Laden. In a 10,000- word piece, Hersh uncovered that Bin Laden was executed in a planned death, designed with the Saudis. There was no flame battle with Al Qaeda monitors. There was no torment inferred proof that prompted the area of Bin Laden’s Pakistani safehouse. Not one single subtle element of the “official” Administration record was genuine -and throughout putting out one lie after the other, Obama double-crossed the very Pakistani military authorities who turned over the key data and introduced US professional killers into Bin Laden’s unguarded compound, where he was, in actuality, under house capture by the Pakistani ISI.
Lyndon LaRouche remarked on Wednesday that the advancement on the P5+1, joined with the Kerry talks in Sochi and the proceeding with Democratic rebellion against Obama, additionally implies that the drive to dump Obama is on a quickened direction, and could imply that the approaching monetary victory can be turned away. This, he focused on, must be the aim.
With Obama down, it is conceivable to rapidly wipe out the money related misrepresentation, and, through crisis enactment, dispatch another budgetary and fiscal structure to resuscitate the profitable economy. This starts with the quick restoration of Glass- Steagall. There must be a restoration of the beneficial economy, implying that the betting obligation and the other waste must be wiped out and punished. Glass-Steagall is more vital than any other time in recent memory, given the present setting. Credit must be produced for valuable generation, particularly for preparing of another era of talented laborers. We must develop the broke groups around the nation that have been crushed by the monetary strategies of the previous 40 years, and veritable financial development must be restored on a logically quickening scale.
To put it plainly, the present framework must be turned around, and the parasites need to go.
The movement that has occurred in the late days is the result of a few individuals confronting the truth that the world was made a beeline for nuclear eradication, and that the survival of humanity was specifically hanging in the balance. The choice is clear: It would be past frenzy to run the danger of such a destiny, thus, moves must be made to upset the British-Wall Street urgent hurry to war.
Kerry: Use of Force by Poroshenko Would Be Destructive of Minsk Agreement
The consistent subject of the Obama Administration and its NATO partners has been to place the total of the fault for proceeded with fighting in southeast Ukraine on Moscow. Hence, as indicated by this line of thinking, if the Minsk assention fizzles, it is on account of Russia has not held up its end of the deal. It ought to be huge, along these lines, when Secretary of State John Kerry counsels the Kiev administration for considering the continuation of brutality to accomplish its objectives in the Donbass.
Kerry’s remarks came amid a joint press preparation in Sochi with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on May 12. An individual from the Russian media requested that Kerry remark on the general population promise, made by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko a couple of days prior, to retake the Donetsk airplane terminal by power, if important. Kerry said, by State Department transcript, that he hadn’t heard the discourse,
“however, in the event that surely President Poroshenko is pushing an engagement in an intense exertion as of now, we would emphatically ask him to reconsider not to take part in that sort of movement, that that would place Minsk in genuine danger.”
Kerry went ahead to assume the best about Poroshenko, that possibly he was discussing the long haul, however he cautioned that
“resort to constrain by any gathering right now would be amazingly ruinous at a minute when everybody has united the working gatherings, the working gatherings have met, and the working gatherings have a capacity to attempt to give a way ahead on those issues that a hefty portion of us have been worried about throughout the span of the most recent months.”
Lavrov, remaining by Kerry, said that he “totally” concurred with him and that “any endeavors to draw in again in a compelling situation could be truly undermining the endeavors that we have been taking.
By and large, Kerry went through four hours meeting with Lavrov and an additional four hours meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Notwithstanding talking about the Ukraine emergency and the earnest need to completely execute the Minsk Accords, they examined the P5+1 arrangements with Iran, and appear to have especially examined the current Syria circumstance, on the eve of the Obama meeting at Camp David, Thursday, with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) agents (occasions start Wednesday night with a White House feast), which will occur throughout the day.
Indeed, the Kerry visit to Sochi was, in itself, a political upset against Obama and the British, who have been on a jihad against Putin and Russia since the starting of Nuland’s Nazi overthrow in Kiev in November 2013. Washington sources made clear that the Kerry trek was made conceivable by an in number intercession by rational strengths in Washington, including inside of the Pentagon and JCS, who saw theworld headed towards atomic termination and needed to act. These sources reported that the open, eye to eye dialog between Kerry, Lavrov, and Putin was a noteworthy, though initial move towards de-heightening the threat of general war.
May 8th, 2015 by olddog
By Ron Ewart
May 6, 2015
“The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to ‘create’ rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting.” -William J. Brennan, Jr.
Because of our own difficulties with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), we have been exchanging e-mails with a gentleman whose battle with the IRS makes our problem seem like a pleasant walk in the forest on a sunny day. The IRS is after him for taxes on income he never received. They are after him for millions of dollars in taxes and they won’t let up. They just stole $45,000 from him with the court’s permission and they denied his constant requests for a trial by jury as required by the 7th Amendment to the Constitution.
Oh, but it seems that there are limits to the 7th Amendment when it comes to the federal government. The government is protected by what is called “Sovereign Immunity”. In colloquial terms what this means is, “The King Can Do No Wrong.” If a citizen wants to sue the federal government, the government has to agree to the lawsuit, or, there has to be specific legislative intent in the statutes allowing the government to be sued. (Lehman v Nakshian, 453 US 156)
The prevailing legal doctrine is that “the government cannot be compelled by the courts because it is the power of the government that created the courts in the first place.” This seriously flawed doctrine fails to take into account that it was the people who created the government ….. IN THE FIRST PLACE! If the people created the government, they have created a monster and the monster is “an insatiable, devouring, run away, gigantic black hole that can only be controlled, reduced, or replaced by a massive uprising of the people, either peacefully, or violently.” (from a previous article)
But the 7th Amendment is not the only Amendment under a silent, vicious attack by government. Let’s take the 8th Amendment for example, which states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
Nevertheless, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can fine a property owner as much as $75,000 PER DAY per violation of alleged (unproven) violations of the Clean Water Act. Anyone who says this isn’t an excessive fine, that violates the 8th Amendment, is 10 cards short of a full deck. It is definitely “cruel and unusual.” The EPA, as well as the Army Corps of Engineers, unilaterally asserts that they have dictatorial control over every drop of water in America, pursuant to the Clean Water Act. Except that, there is no such legal authority. Their legal authority only extends to“navigable” waters. It was only just recently that the U. S. Supreme Court allowed property owners judicial review of EPA allegations. Before, the only redress a person had against the EPA was through an EPA hearing examiner. Can anyone say, the fox is guarding the hen house?
In addition, the IRS can penalize a taxpayer $5,000 for not signing the perjury statement at the bottom of Form 1040, even though the taxpayer perjures him or herself every time he signs the perjury statement. In one of our many Affidavits we sent to the IRS, in our continuing battle with them, we listed the following as one of the conditions before we would comply with the terms of an IRS Notice:
Condition 13 – Provide proof on how the AFFIANT can file an income tax return and by some stroke of blind luck not commit perjury when the AFFIANT does not understand all the tens of thousands of tax laws and has no way to know if the AFFIANT’s tax return is true or correct, even if a tax professional prepared it for the AFFIANT, therefore, the AFFIANT would be committing perjury to sign the tax return perjury statement when the AFFIANT does not understand all of the constantly changing tax laws contained in the IRS Tax Code, nor could the AFFIANT ever understand them in the AFFIANT’s lifetime.
(NOTE: Twice, the response to our Affidavits was to come back with NO TAXES DUE. Except in one case they came back with a $10,000 fine. We’re still fighting that one.)
Last week, in our article entitled, “America, The Land of Censored Conservative Speech” we wrote of the attack on our First Amendment right of free speech by outright censorship of conservative messages by government, activists and even industry. (By the way, Comcast has suddenly become very attentive to our wants and needs, even giving us our own private tech person with a direct phone line and extension.)
The five elements of the First Amendment, including free speech, have been under attack by the federal government, the left and special interests for decades. The free expression of religion and the sanctity of religious belief (especially Christians) have been berated as a bunch of religious fanatics“clinging to their bibles and their guns.” (Obama’s words) The right of “peaceable assembly” has been, in many cases, relegated to government-designated “free speech zones”. Petitioning government for the “redress of grievances” has essentially evaporated when the government tells the people,“Ha! Ha! You can’t sue us.” And the so-called “free press” is a joke. The “free press” is owned, lock, stock and barrel, by special interests, mostly on the left, and is now subject to FCC mandated “Net Neutrality.” But it is the intent of the liberals in the FCC ruling that “Net Neutrality” only applies to the conservative free press.
Which brings us to the 2nd Amendment, the right of the people to own guns for personal defense and as a substantial deterrent against government tyranny. If it were not for the powerful lobbying of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and those millions of gun-owning individuals that support the NRA with their money, the 2nd Amendment would be a pile of ashes left over from an arson fire, started by the self-righteous, sanctimonious liberal left who never saw a gun law that didn’t like. Here is a very powerful opinion piece on an attack on the 2nd Amendment by a courageous author:
You can pretty well kiss off the 4th Amendment that protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. The federal government can do warrant-less wiretaps and property searches and seizures anytime they want. They can listen in on your telephone conversations, read your e-mails and track you on social media. And lets not forget the case of civil seizure laws where government can “take” your property for just about any reason they can invent and keep it. It can take years of legal wrangling in the courts to get your property back, that is, if you can afford it.
In Wisconsin a highly politicized liberal District Attorney got a judge to sign a multitude of search warrants with trumped up probable cause allegations on “conservative” citizens for alleged violations of campaign finance laws, as vengeance against Governor Scott Walker.
Nighttime SWAT team raids on private citizens, including the Wisconsin conservatives, have become commonplace, with or without warrants. In one case we know of in Louisiana, a local jurisdiction passed an ordinance that a property owner couldn’t have in-operable vehicles on their property. One property owner was, under the ordinance, subjected to the warrant-less removal of two cars he was restoring, right out of a carport on his property.
If you think you cannot be deprived of your life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (the 5th Amendment), by government, local, state, or federal, think again. Environmental and social justice laws have all but abolished life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you believe that government can’t take your property under eminent domain for other than a clear government purpose, you are living under an illusion. They do it every day. If you believe you cannot be a witness against your self, then you had better not sign the perjury statement on IRS Form 1040.
Under the 6th Amendment an American citizen is entitled to a speedy and public trial by a jury of his or her peers and the defendant gets to confront the “witness or witnesses against him.” Au contraire! In many cases, such as an IRS case, the only real witnesses are the attorneys for the IRS. An attorney is not a witness. Your neighbor may call in an ordinance violation on you to the local authorities, anonymous of course, for something you did or didn’t do on your property. The government will protect that anonymous witness and you will never get to confront your accuser.
Then there are the 9th and 10th Amendments that “grant all other rights to the states and the people”. The federal government has been very clever in taking the money from federal income taxes and using it as a bribe to get the state governments to comply with federal policy. The states, hungry for federal money because they burned up all the state’s money in free stuff to the undeserving, illegal aliens, union demands and insane environmental mandates, will comply with the FEDS while abdicating the state’s and the people’s rights under the 9th and 10th Amendments. The power of the federal government increases by these cowardly abdications and continually erodes the rights of the states and the people.
The pattern of the continual expansion of federal government civil control over the states and the people is blatant, overt, arrogant and outright unconstitutional. The militarization of America by the U. S. Military, at the direction of the Executive Branch, as we discussed in a previous article, is even more evidence of that growing power by the FEDS, literally putting the people under the threat of death by the gun if they don’t knuckle under. Every day, the states and the people capitulate to this growing federal power. The final result of this capitulation, civil or military, is abject slavery.
Let’s face it ladies and gentlemen. The Bill of Rights, the foundation of the U. S. Constitution, codifying into law the natural and unalienable rights of the free and sovereign citizens of America, has been steadily and silently eaten away by an acrid “acid” disguised in millions of unconstitutional laws, to the point that the individual rights contained in the first ten Amendments to the Constitution are all but meaningless.
One of the easiest targets for government to conquer is the rural landowner. The rural landowner is disenfranchised from the political process and has no voice or representation. We have chronicled the plight of the rural landowner in our video entitled “Rural America in the Crosshairs”.
Sadly, the people have only themselves to blame. Only an in-your-face “Declaration of Open Defiance and Resistance by millions of Americans, can stop and then reverse the Slow, Torturous, Silent Repeal of the Bill of Rights.
But then if you like your rights being taken away and it is OK with you that your sweat, blood and tears are taken at the point of a gun and wasted on freeloaders, illegal aliens, environmental insanity, social justice, indoctrination posing as education, political correctness, endless bureaucratic inefficiency, fraud, abuse, corruption and the move towards a one world order, then there is no need to make such aDeclaration, especially if you fear the government. The Ukrainian’s feared their government and Stalin, using his military, starved to death an estimated 7,000,000 of them.
[NOTE: The forgoing article represents the opinion of the author and is not necessarily shared by the owners, employees, representatives, or agents of the publisher.]
© 2015 Ron Ewart — All Rights Reserved
Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property issues and author of his weekly column, “In Defense of Rural America”, is the President of the National Association of Rural Landowners, (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org) a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State, an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners. He can be reached for comment at email@example.com.
May 7th, 2015 by olddog
By Ron Ewart — Bio and Archives July 4, 2008
We are celebrating “what” Day? Independence you say! Independence from what? Certainly not independence from government tyranny. We have “tyranny” in spades from our own government, at all levels.
When our Founding Fathers wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence, it was a declaration of war against the tyranny of Great Britain. It was a declaration of independence from excessive taxation, from harsh regulations, from no representation and from military rule. The colonials had enough and declared war, with all of the tragic consequences that come from such a declaration. They were willing to die for their freedom and their independence.
Today, are we willing to die for our freedom and independence? We wonder!
HERE IS WHAT IT MEANS TO BE INDEPENDENT, (from the dictionary)
1. Not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an independent thinker.
2. Not subject to another’s authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free.
3. Not influenced by the thought or action of others.
4. Not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence; operation, etc.
5. Not relying on another or others for aid or support.
6. Declining others aid or support; refusing to be under obligation to others.
7. Possessing a competency.
9. Expressive of a spirit of independence; self-confident; unconstrained.
If July 4th is Independence Day, it is not the Independence that is defined in our American dictionary. It is not the freedom and independence that was crafted so carefully in our Declaration of Independence by men of vision in a time of conflict, confusion and turmoil, some 230 plus years ago.
Freedom and independence means freedom of choice, freedom of movement, freedom of what to buy, freedom of what to wear, freedom of where to live, freedom of where to work, freedom to live on and use our land without undue government interference and our freedom to roam freely throughout America without having to go through check points and body searches. We are constantly subjected to the authority and jurisdiction of government. We are continuously being influenced by the dictates of government. We can’t move sideways without butting heads with an out-of-control, arrogant bureaucrat to get some permit or license. Way too many of us are DEPENDENT on government for our very existence. We are forever relying on government for aid and support. We, as a culture, are no longer competent, self-sufficient, self-reliant and responsible. Some of us are, but way too few. We have been bought, sold, conquered and enslaved with out a shot being fired.
The truth is, America’s government has gone way beyond what King George the III imposed upon the colonies. The people of America have allowed themselves to be enslaved by this government and have given up their right to freedom, liberty and independence, because they were and are unwilling to defend their freedom and liberty with whatever it takes. The desire for freedom has been replaced with the desire of comfort and entertainment.
What we celebrate on the 4th of July is a myth and an illusion called freedom. We are not free. As a nation, we are no longer independent and self-reliant. In fact, most of us are so controlled by government and so dependent on government, they have slapped invisible handcuffs on each of us and confiscated our right of free choice and our right to live on our land, unfettered by government interference. Government no longer is restrained by the limits of the constitution, nor does it uphold the God-given, unalienable rights of the individual, as it was mandated to do by that constitution.
But we are a great and a “good” people and to our detriment our greatness and our goodness have been buried deep in our memories and obscured by our very prosperity. I am but a humble writer who believes deeply in freedom and liberty. A freedom and liberty for the individual. An individual freedom and liberty that is natural, as comes from nature, not from governments. A freedom and liberty that was envisioned by our Founding Fathers and codified into the law of man through our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. I believe that when governments, or groups of people attempt to stifle freedom and liberty, or remove man from them, man’s progress through time is depressed and he retreats further backwards into depravity, immorality and serfdom. I believe that freedom and liberty are our strengths not our weakness and if we inhibit freedom by any means, we as a people become weaker. If we as a people become weaker, we lose our creative ability, we lose our ingenuity, we lose our industriousness, we lose our productivity, we lose our can-do spirit, we lose our pride in our accomplishments, we lose our strength and courage to right a wrong when we see it, we lose our generosity and finally, we lose our great goodness. I believe that if the people look to government to solve their problems and acquiesce to its unauthorized power, they abdicate their duty and responsibility to control their own lives and hand it over to a collective. Having done so, they are no longer free men. And further, their actions, or in-actions as the case may be, only encourage the government to usurp even greater power.
What America does will determine the fate of the world. If we forsake freedom, if we sell our sovereignty for expediency or a few pieces of silver, if we break the bonds of our Constitution, if we abdicate our right and duty to defend freedom for ourselves and future generations, we shall descend into the mediocrity, apathy and self loathing under which the rest of the world operates and will be pulled down to their level, never to rise again.
Only one country on Earth has shown the best in man and what can be accomplished under the combination of inalienable freedom and our God-given goodness. If we lose that freedom and the goodness that flourishes under it, we shall surely descend into the abyss of the evil within us, where greed and avarice are the rule, rather than the exception. We are dangerously close.
Freedom, liberty, independence and self-reliance are our heritage. It is those characteristics that made us one of the greatest and good nations on Earth. If we refuse to defend and maintain it, we condemn all future generations, including our own children and grandchildren, to a life of dependence and the chains that come with being dependent. But even worse, we dishonor the memories and the sacrifices of all those who gave their lives, their limbs and their minds, in defense of our freedom.
If you desire to be free, independent and self-reliant, check out our website at narlo.org and learn how we can defend and maintain that freedom and liberty and regain our Independence where the 4th of July will, once again mean, “Independence Day”.
May 5th, 2015 by olddog
by Dara Lind .
Sometimes local police keep seized cars–but give them new paint jobs.
As the public gets more critical of police aggression and abuse in the US, some programs that have flown under the radar for decades are now garnering more scrutiny. One of those is a program that allows police to keep most of the property they seize from people they suspect used it in a crime — even if the people are never charged with anything. This is called civil asset forfeiture, and it’s encouraged by most state governments — and, until 2015, by the federal government as well.
Civil asset forfeiture has been legal for a long time — during Prohibition, it was often used to seize bootleggers’ cars. But, like many other aggressive police tactics, it expanded radically during the 1980s with the rise of the war on drugs. And a 1984 federal law guaranteed that a lot of the money police seized would end up going right back to their agency. Now, this practice has turned into a massive “slush fund” for local cops — one that gets used for everything from buying armored cars and military weapons to $600 coffeemakers and party clowns.
Here’s what you need to know about how property gets seized from citizens, how it ends up as pocket money for local police agencies, and what the federal government’s role in all of this is.
How are police allowed to seize people’s property without charging them with a crime?
(Cloyd Teter/The Denver Post via Getty)
After someone is convicted of a crime, the government’s allowed to seize property related to that crime (such as a car that was used to commit a robbery, or money earned selling drugs). That’s called criminal forfeiture, and that’s not something most people have a problem with.
But there’s also a principle in the law, going all the way back to English common law, that says that when property is involved in a crime, the government can start legal proceedings against the property itself for “participating” in criminal activity. The property doesn’t get charged with a crime — instead, it’s sued by the government, in a civil lawsuit. (Hence the name “civil asset forfeiture.”)
Federal and state laws give certain protections to people who are charged with crimes in criminal court. But those protections don’t apply to people who are sued, or people whose property is sued. So in civil forfeiture cases, the government usually doesn’t have to work as hard to prove that property was involved in a crime as it would in a criminal case. And that’s assuming that the case goes to court at all.
What kinds of property are police allowed to seize?
Guns, definitely. But the list is much longer than that. (Larry W. Smith/Getty)
Different states (and the federal government) have different laws that lay out what police are allowed to claim for particular crimes. Generally, it’s harder for police to seize things like houses than it is for them to seize cars or cash.
The New Yorker’s Sarah Stillman wrote a comprehensive feature on civil asset forfeiture in 2013, in which she told the stories of several people who’d had their property taken — most of them working-class people of color. Stillman’s article included a couple who’d had cash taken from them while driving to buy a new car in rural Texas, under the premise that they were engaging in “money laundering” and endangering their child; Philadelphia parents whose home had been seized after undercover cops bought $40 in marijuana from their son; and a Washington woman whose car was taken when cops pulled over her son for a traffic violation and found out he was carrying an illegal handgun.
If the owner wasn’t doing anything illegal, how can she get her property back?
Your car can be kept here while you fight the seizure — as long as you’ve paid a fee to keep police from auctioning it off. (Karl Gehring) The Denver Post/Getty)
Until the mid-1990s, it didn’t matter if the person who owned the property was involved in illegal activity or even knew about it. As long as the property was actually being used to do something illegal, it could be taken. Since then, states and the federal government have allowed owners to defend themselves in court by claiming they were innocent, even when the property was used in a crime.
But it’s difficult just to get a court hearing to get property back. Many local police use the threat of criminal charges to coerce people into signing a waiver that says they won’t fight to get their property back. (In one of the cases that Stillman covered in the New Yorker article, a couple was told that if they didn’t sign the waiver, their child could be taken from them and put in foster care.)
YOU MIGHT HAVE TO PAY TO KEEP THE GOVERNMENT FROM IMMEDIATELY AUCTIONING OFF YOUR PROPERTY
People who refuse to sign the waiver don’t necessarily have it much better. It can take over a year for an asset forfeiture case to get resolved. In the meantime, they often have to pay a fee to keep the government from simply auctioning off the property — not to mention the legal fees to get a lawyer to fight the case.
Once they get to court, the deck is still stacked against property owners. Instead of being innocent until proven guilty, like they would be in a criminal case, defendants in an asset-forfeiture case are essentially guilty until proven innocent in many states. Forty-one states, as well as the federal government, say that the government gets to keep the seized property for good if there’s more evidence saying that the property was used in a crime than that it wasn’t. (Fourteen of those states actually have an even lower legal standard.)
Who gets the money after it’s been seized?
States and the federal government have different processes for what happens to property that’s been seized.
Many states guarantee that any money seized by police, or any profits from auctioning off forfeited goods, goes right back to the law enforcement agency. A few states say that police don’t get to use any of the property they take — instead, that money goes toward something like state schools. The rest split the difference:
But before 2015, police in states that don’t send the money directly back to their departments had another option — taking it to the federal government, which encouraged state and local police to share the wealth under a policy called equitable sharing. When local or state cops seized someone’s property for being used in a crime that violated both state and federal law, police could turn the property over to the federal government, which then gave 80 percent of the money right back to the local police. (20 percent stayed with the feds.)
In 2010, the Institute for Justice, a libertarian think tank, analyzed which states were most likely to turn forfeited assets over to the federal government. They found that in states that didn’t turn all the money from asset forfeiture over to cops, cops were more likely to use the federal government loophole instead — guaranteeing they could keep 80 percent of the profits. Similarly, when state law forced the government to meet a higher legal standard in court for keeping property permanently, police were more likely to turn property over to the federal government instead — to take advantage of looser rules.
That’s the arrangement that Attorney General Eric Holder ended in January 2015. But police can still use the feds to get asset-forfeiture money. If local and federal cops have worked together on an investigation — as part of a drug task force, for example — the proceeds get split among the agencies who helped in proportion to their role in the bust. And that supersedes state laws about when police can keep seized assets.
What do local cops do with the money?
For example. (Sidewis via Wikimedia Commons)
The now-defunct equitable-sharing program put some limitations on how police could spend the money they got back from the feds. But there aren’t too many other restrictions on using forfeited-asset money.
44 PERCENT OF MONEY POLICE GOT BACK FROM THE FEDS WENT TO “OTHER”
In an investigation of civil asset forfeiture, the Washington Post analyzed several years of reports from state and local law enforcement to determine what they’d done with the money the federal government had returned to them. They found that the most common use of asset funds was for “communications and computers,” with “building and improvements” coming in second. But even “communications and computers” was dwarfed by the amount of money that police marked as “other” — 44 percent of the money that police got back from the federal government went to “other.”
The Post investigation noticed some particularly frivolous spending, like a $600 coffeemaker or $225 for the face-painting services of Sparkles the Clown. But at least the money spent on Sparkles went to community outreach, which is generally cops’ lowest priority when it comes to asset money. Less than 1 percent of all federally returned money went to community outreach — five times less money than any other category.
How much money are we talking about here?
Nope, more than this. Way more. (New York Daily News Archive via Getty)
States and the federal government are seizing well over a billion dollars a year. Unfortunately, states aren’t transparent about their own funds — so we know much more about the property being shared with the federal government, under the now-defunct equitable sharing program.
The amount of property being turned over to the federal government rose substantially since 9/11 and the end of the sharing arrangement in 2015. In 2000, states got $200 million back from the federal government under sharing agreements; in 2008, that had doubled to $400 million. And the Department of Justice’s total asset fund — including property that had been turned over from local police and property seized by federal agents — totaled $1 billion in 2008.
The Washington Post found that since 2008, about $2.5 billion flowed through the Department of Justice back to state and local police. Of that $2.5 billion, 81 percent came from cases where no charges were ever filed.
How does this affect the way police work?
Some types of crimes count, but they don’t pay. (Todd Maisel/New York Daily News/Getty)
Asset forfeiture policies mean there are two kinds of crimes: crimes that a police department can make money off of busting, and crimes that it can’t. The first category involves drugs, prostitution, fraud, and organized crime — crimes where there’s likely to be cash or lots of property that was bought with ill-gotten gains. The second category — the kinds of crimes that (for cops) don’t pay — include murder and other violent crime.
THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF CRIMES: THOSE POLICE CAN MAKE MONEY OFF BUSTING, AND THOSE THEY CAN’T
Of course, there are lots of factors determining what sorts of crimes a police agency prioritizes — and there are plenty of reasons for the agency to make sure its murder rate goes down, for example. But when it comes to drug crime, in particular, the public’s desire to aggressively go after drug dealers meshes neatly with the profits police stand to make.
Asset forfeiture doesn’t just shape what crimes police go after, though. It shapes how they go after those crimes. As the Post’s investigation has found, one of the areas where asset forfeiture has grown the most since 9/11 is from people getting pulled over on highways. But the police officers making those busts are deliberately timing them to make the biggest profit off what’s in the car. Police know that a smuggling car headed into a major metropolitan area is likely to be smuggling drugs; a car headed on the way out of the metropolitan area, on the other hand, is likely to be carrying the cash. So even though it’s much easier to prove that someone’s involved in drug dealing if he has drugs in the car than if he has money, police have a financial incentive to let the car get into the city to deal the drugs, then catch it with the money on the way out.
Those of you who believe we still have a Constitution that prevents this kind of theft better wise up and read more articles I post. We are at the mercy of a “for profit corporation” and that includes the courts, your school system, cities, counties, states, and just about everything else in America. The politicians work for a corporation and when they don’t produce profits by laws and regulations they are history. When you vote, you are participating in a fraud that guarantee’s your future enslavement. You do not own anything of real value, and that includes your children. Do a search on “UNITED STATES INC. if you still think you are a free citizen. George Carland told you, and he was right, they own you!