Categories » ‘Politics’
March 30th, 2016 by olddog
Written By: Newsfactor March 29, 2016
TN Note: Necessity is the mother of invention. As calls for a cashless banking system increase, entrepreneurs are rushing to fill the void. Bitcoin is energy intensive to create. The answer to that is this “Ec0-Friendly” blockchain crypto-currency. ERDC is not the end of the invention, as many others are throwing new products into the mix. In the end, it is almost certain that some major central bank (e.g, Bank of England) will enter the game by acquiring another currency company, or inventing a new crypto-currency of its own. If the central banking system controls such a currency, it will spell the end of commercial banks throughout the world.
First Decentralized Eco-friendly Crypto Currency EDRC to Change World of Money for the Better — Blockchain has launched the first decentralized eco-friendly crypto currency EDRCoin. It is based on USA-Dollar rate and can be used for transaction of goods and services all over the world
The fast evolving world of crypto currency is reportedly buzzing with the latest launch of first decentralized eco-friendly crypto currency EDRCoin. Developed by Blockchain, the futuristic currency is aimed to change the world of money for better.
With its costs based on the value of USA-Dollar rate (1EDRC =$1), EDRC can be deployed for internet shopping, virtual game payments and for the transaction of goods and services in any country.
“We are glad to announce the launch of our latest crypto currency EDRC which is going to add a new positive dimension to the world of money. The advanced decentralized crypto currency is themed on a green mining principle that banks on sustainable energy-efficient policies for generating money”, smiled one of the chief spokespersons from Blockchain.
Esteemed philanthropist and business tycoon Charles Chen partnered up with Marco A. Fernandez, a long-term IT entrepreneur, to develop and co-found EDRC.The main objective behind EDRC is the creation of a general-purpose payment system and steady exchange rate, themed on USA-Dollar rate- with due regard to the environment.
“While the regular cryptocurrencies unmindfully destroy the earth’s ecology with their mining operations, EDRC is careful about protection of natural resources. Our unique technology takes to utilization of alternate energy like solar panels and we make sure to leave no carbon footprint on Mother Nature.”
EDRC’s eco-friendly operations are carried in collaboration with independent private farms situated in different parts of the globe. 7 percent of the income generated from EDRC system would be utilized for the restoration of mangrove forests in Asia and the development of new solar panels.
Based of PoS (Proof-of-Stake) method, EDRC uses Skrypt function for hashing.
“Our developers have considered the issue of hacking attacks common with POW-based existent digital money and addressed all such flaws with the new advanced EDRC. Our cutting edge crypto currency assures complete credibility and solid protection from any external attack, theft or hacking invasions. To ensure complete security, user’s personal and financial data would be kept private.” explained the Blockchain manager.
EDRC mining is ongoing and would supposedly complete by 31st December, 2017, with the release of around 22 million coins.
“As our PoS system capitalizes on the users owning coins to validate the transactions, one transaction per day would be rewarded by an increment of 0.35 percent of the wallet-total. EDRCoins are immaterial & follows a purely mathematical approach that works with digital code.”
Speaking further, the manager emphasized on an edgy feature of EDRC that allows seamless number of accounts for creating and mining. Given its decentralized structure and antitrust philosophy, EDRC mining is guarded from artificial increment of cryptocurrency number. The banking system cannot exert any control on EDRC mining and hence can’t affect its value and quantity.
“EDRC is the best thing from the contemporary financial world. Join the EDRC community now for a welcome change in the perception of money”, the manager added in.
Blockchain was founded in 2015 by Hong-Kong businessman Charles Chen and Marco A. Fernandez, long-term IT entrepreneur, with the goal to improve our planet’s health through the development of an environment-friendly digital currency.
If this isn’t a crock of shit, I’ve never smelled one. These slimy bastards are only interested in doing one thing; centralizing the possession of wealth! Anyone stupid enough to believe that electronic currency is safe from hacking has shit for brains.
Give me the power to create a nations currency, and I care not what their laws are.
March 29th, 2016 by olddog
By Ron Ewart
Forgive us for entering into a subject that is best left in the bathroom, but without certain items of biological comfort we could be sent back to the dark days of outhouses and Sears catalogues. With the insanity that is radical environmentalism aside, our lifestyle and its comforts are a direct result of industrial ingenuity in turning trees (a renewable resource) into highly useful paper products from toilet and computer paper, to feminine napkins, Scot towels, packaging and grocery bags, etc., each product making our lives a little easier. Industry keeps coming up with new ideas to turn trees into paper, in all of its various forms. Of course, there are always the 22-year old brain-dead actresses telling us we can get along with one square per event. Obviously she never had a ………………………….., Never mind, we won’t go there.
But oh my God! When you make paper from trees it takes energy and in the process that evil CO2 is emitted. And of course we have to kill the trees to make the paper. That’s bad. But even worse is that we reduce the absorption of CO2 by removing the trees as well, except that we can re-plant trees. That’s why trees are a renewable resource.
Obviously, we must be killing the planet by our hedonistic lifestyle of greed and avarice, especially those rich Americans, and this practice must be brought to a halt immediately to save the planet. The environmentalists and the government tell us it is so and they have brainwashed millions of Americans (including our young school children) into believing it is true, except for a couple of little scientific “things” that the government and the radical environmentalists choose to ignore to promote their green agenda.
Two of these scientific “things” come to mind. CO2 (carbon dioxide) is heavier than air. CO2 sinks. It is a fact of physics. Yes, a small portion of CO2 that doesn’t sink to the ground to feed the trees, plants and plankton, ends up in the upper atmosphere due to churning, but a very tiny portion. Of all of the greenhouse gases, CO2 makes up 0.177%. But what is even more striking in these statistics is that the CO2, supposedly caused by man, is a small fraction of that 0.117%. In fact, the greatest greenhouse gas (95%), over which man has absolutely no control, is water vapor and obviously has the greatest effect on planet warming, or cooling as the case may be, if any, not withstanding the effects of that giant yellow orb in the sky.
So the government and the radical environmentalists would have us believe that a miniscule fraction of a gas, that is heavier than air, a gas that all living things on this planet could not survive without, is somehow heating our planet into a runaway global warming event and we are all going to die or drown, if we don’t repent to the God of Green! If you believe this poppy cock, we question your intellect.
The environmentalists and thus the government, don’t want us to drill for oil anywhere in the U. S., or won’t let us build any new pipelines, power plants, refineries, or dams. Meanwhile, other countries, like China and India are exploiting their sources of energy every day, in spite of their greenhouse gas emissions. But these same insane folks who run our asylum called a government, want to lock up as much of our land as possible from livestock (food), resource extraction (minerals, oil and trees) and people. They then implemented by law, the positively outrageous and questionable practice of turning our food into fuel, (ethanol from corn – Sorry Iowans) thereby driving up the price of almost every food group. Anyone with half a brain could see this coming 30 years ago. Some did and warned us, but the warnings went unheeded.
Let’s follow these events to their illogical and deleterious conclusion. Crude oil is the very foundation of the energy that powers our civilization in the western world. Just about everything is affected by the cost and availability of crude oil. A large fraction of crude goes into the production of fuel for cars, trucks, airplanes, ships and heating our homes and businesses. The rest goes into the production of plastics, paints and resins and many other products, you know, like nylons for women.
Transportation and the infrastructure that supports transportation, is absolutely vital to the distribution of every product we buy or sell, including food. If trucks and trains don’t roll and ships don’t ply the open seas, Albertson’s, Safeway, QFC, Costco, Fred Meyer and a host of other retailers and big box stores don’t get products to sell to you. Have you ever thought of where you will get your food, if your local grocery store’s shelves are empty? Perhaps from your neighbor at the point of a gun, if he has any food and if government hasn’t taken away your guns.
Food is kind of important to survival you know. Some think that if you can’t buy it, then you will have to take it by force. Now of course in such a scenario, your benevolent government would step in, declare martial law, nationalize all food production and distribution and ration it out as they see fit. Do you want to be at the end of the long line of how the government sees fit? How easy it is to control people when you own food and energy production. Could that be our future? Many think it is.
But this all fits a very evil pattern, driven by international environmentalists, one-world-order types, and the United Nations and Europe, in their eternal quest to bring the United States down to a third-world country by re-distribution of our wealth, our property rights and the destruction of our freedom. By driving up the price of everything, the thinking of governments and the radical environmentalists is that you will use less of things and move into cities where you won’t have to drive as far for your food or work and where you are much easier to control by government. And of course they are encouraging you to bicycle, walk, or take mass transit. It’s good for your health you know and the government and the radical environmentalists are very concerned about your health. Hardly!
If the environmentalists and the government succeed in taking away, or outlawing, crude oil and trees, we will be driven back into those days of outhouses, palm leaves and candles. We covered this possible outcome in our fiction story of Jeremy’s one day in the future. The article starts out:
“Jeremy huddled in a corner of the old log cabin, out of the wind, even though it blew through the cracks in the walls and whistled and moaned with a haunting, bone-chilling sound. The sky was dark, gray and menacing. The coming twilight filled him with dread. There would be no artificial light for the approaching darkness and he tried not to think of the long night ahead.”
“Our own oil, coal and natural gas resources had been shut off by the environmentalists and the Obama administration. The entire energy infrastructure had fallen into disrepair. Oil, gas and coal companies had shut their doors because of too many restrictions and exorbitant emission taxes. The wind and solar power that Obama promised would replace fossil fuels, was just one of his worthless, but very expensive pipe dreams, like so many other socialist and radical environmental policies he implemented. Power plants quit running for lack of transportation, energy resources and maintenance personnel. The power grid was ravaged by neglect, natural forces and frequent domestic and foreign terrorist attacks. But that was of no consequence. There was no power to distribute to the grid.”
Read the rest of the story HERE.
Throughout history dictators have herded the people out of the countryside and into large cities where they can be controlled to a much higher degree. Remember the Nazi’s Warsaw ghetto? A dictator’s, or a liberal president’s worst enemy is a freethinking rural landowner, who just might start a revolution.
So the next time you have the opportunity to send a donation to an environmental group, or vote for a politician that will do whatever the environmentalists or socialists want them to do, think twice, or maybe four times. You could be funding and voting for your own demise, not to mention the high possibility of losing your freedom and control over life-sustaining food and toilet paper. Right now government controls your money, your land, your water, your food, your energy and your health care. What’s left?
WE THE PEOPLE have a choice, either become the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED again, or be slaves to the GOVERNMENT, where they take your money, your land, your health care and control the distribution of your food and energy.
Imagine what the world would be like if there were no toilet paper, or worse, no food at your local grocery store. A hungry belly has nothing to lose by stealing, looting, killing, or going to war. It is happening in many parts of the world right now. And don’t be fooled. It can happen here!
People who fail or refuse to confront and stop tyranny, are destined to be enslaved by it.
But then, who is going to lift a finger to stop the socialists, the environmentalists and the one-world-order types? Americans could stop this freedom-robbing madness within a few years if there were enough people willing to act and enough money to fund their efforts. Sadly, out of 320,000,000 people and the richest nation on earth, there is neither ….. at least not now. Evidently, things just aren’t bad enough yet, even though half the people are living off the sweat, blood and tears of the other half and the former half get to vote to force the latter half to pay. One hundred years ago, that egregious injustice would have ignited a revolution. But not today where we live in a cesspool of political correctness, irrational compassion, radical environmentalism, multi-culturalism and the liberty-starving ideology of social justice.
[NOTE: The forgoing article is the opinion of the author and is not necessarily the opinion of NewsWithViews.com, it’s employees, representatives, or other contributing writers.]
© 2016 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.
I don’t care what any body say’s; for good old fashion satire, or down right sarcastic vitriol you simply cannot beat Ron Ewart. Ron, you have my admiration and make me jealous, but I love ya.
March 24th, 2016 by olddog
UN TROOPS TO KILL AMERICANS WHO WON’T GIVE UP THEIR GUNS
By Dave Hodges
There is a crisis coming. A false flag of epic proportions. Trump will provide the background and the pretext. Gun confiscation, by the UN, will be taking place on US soil. It was practiced in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. They will show up at 3AM, kick in your door, seize your gun and kill you if you offer any kind of resistance. Follow the progression.
The UN will be the enforcement agency. Why do you think that Quayle, Hagmann and Hodges have talking to you about foreign troops training on our soil?
Don’t let this man take your gun.
He wants a third term.
We have been down this road before.
TROOPS ORDERED TO KILL ALL AMERICANS
WHO DO NOT TURN IN THEIR GUNS
Troops Ordered To Kill All Americans Who Do Not Turn In Guns
Published on Jul 16, 2012
“Complete disarmament” of the American people
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.comMonday, July 16, 2012
The UN Arms Trade Treaty that has been identified by observers as a flagrant threat to the second amendment and which Barack Obama is determined to sign has its roots in a 1961 State Department memorandum which explains how the United Nations will oversee “complete disarmament” of the American people under the ruse of preventing war. The UN Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target “all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons,” according to Forbes’ Larry Bell. Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton also warns that the agreement “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
A letter sent last month by 130 Republican House members to President Obama argued that the treaty should be rejected because it infringes on the “fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms”. The letter adds that “…the U.N.’s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.” Using the rhetoric of the threat post by terrorists, insurgents and “international crime syndicates,” the UN is busy trying to imply that all weapons are somehow involved in illegal activity on a global scale and should therefore be controlled and regulated by a global authority.
This is precisely the same language used in a 1961 U.S. State Department briefing which outlined a long term agenda to carry out a “Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.” Invoking the threat of nuclear warfare, the document spells out a plan to create a “United Nations Peace Force” that would “enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.” While the document initially focuses on scrapping nuclear weapons, it later makes it clear that the only groups allowed to own weapons of any kind would be governing authorities, “for the purpose of maintaining internal order,” and the UN “peacekeeping” force itself, which would require “agreed manpower.”
“The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes,” states the document. While the memorandum outlines a broader mandate to destroy national sovereignty, eviscerate national armies and institute the UN as the planet’s supreme authority with a world army, the document serves as a stark reminder that the plan for the United Nations to oversee the abolition of the second amendment has been in the works for decades.
As Bell points out in his Forbes article, the threat of the Obama administration relying on a UN treaty to do what successive administrations have tried but failed to accomplish — taking a huge bite out of the second amendment — is by no means far fetched. After all, a plethora of UN treaties and international agreements have already stripped the United States of its sovereignty and its power to decide its own laws. The power to authorize U.S. involvement in wars and conflicts has now been almost completely stripped from Congress and handed to the United Nations.
US State Department Memo validates all claims in this article.
This is where millions of you could spend your last days.
I can just hear the screams of joy coming out of the mouths of many of our dumbed down idiots, educated in our terrorist education system, and still convinced that Uncle Sam is taking care of them.
March 23rd, 2016 by olddog
By Marilyn Barnewall
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
HERE’S THE LAW IN QUESTION:
Under title 28 U.S. Code § 3002 subsections 15 and 15(A), “United States” means — (A) a Federal corporation.” It is right in their laws!
HERE’S THE LINK TO TITLE 28 US CODE 3002 (SCROLL DOWN TO#15):
Most of us over the age of 10 remember our car trips cross-country; when you entered a city, it was clearly identified as being Incorporated by a sign at the city limits. Cities are incorporated, the federal government is incorporated, each State is incorporated, and each County is incorporated, too. Each Department within cities and counties is also incorporated… your courts, your libraries, your clerk and recorder, parks and recreation – all of them. If they were not incorporated, it would be impossible for money to be transferred to any of them by the federally-incorporated United States, Inc. This is not difficult to understand – I realize it is very difficult to believe.
Anyone who understands Business 101 knows that corporations function from By-Laws, not from a Constitution with a Bill of Rights. This is why we have unlawful Administrative Courts… Common Law cannot function and has no jurisdiction in the world of corporate law… and corporations are governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) which is a reflection of Maritime Law (which is why you see all of the flags in our courtrooms with gold trim on them… the American flag has no gold trim – even Dwight Eisenhower commented on this).
I hope you find this helpful. MB
I can forgive anyone for not taking my word on this subject, but you have to be completely brain dead not to take Marilyn’s word for it.
March 19th, 2016 by olddog
By Anna Von Reitz
One of the concepts that people are having a lot of trouble with is the difference between an unincorporated business and a corporation—- both are “corporate” in the sense of being fictitious, but one is engaged in private trade under full commercial liability and accrues only private property and the other seeks the benefit of limited liability and incurs the obligations to the State and accrues income by definition.
ABC Company does not equal ABC Corporation.
ABC Company is a “corporate entity” and can do business with ABC Corporation without breaking the “in kind” rule of contracts, but a living man named John Raymond Doe acting as a living man cannot. He can only contract with other living men.
This is what necessitated the adoption of “doing business as” names at the beginning of the 20th Century. More and more businesses were operating as corporations and those corporations wanted to be able to deal directly with living customers who were NOT organized as any kind of business entity. Likewise, many living people wanted the goods and services provided by corporations, but did not have a company or company name that would allow them to do business with a corporation.
So the “State of_________” stepped in and began the process of issuing “doing business as” Names conceived as foreign situs trust franchises doing business within the fictitious “State of Ohio” and subject to the statutory laws of the “State of Ohio”.
Foreign situs trusts are named using the same style conventions as those being used by living men at the time, so there was no way to know the difference between “Hans Luke Jorgenson” the man and “Hans Luke Jorgenson” the foreign situs trust. People could do business with other people and with corporations without ever actually realizing that they were “presumed” to be acting in separate capacities.
It never crossed their minds and they were never told that they were acting as corporate “persons” when they walked into a Ma Bell Office and signed a contract to receive telephone service, but for the purposes of that transaction, they were considered by the State and by Ma Bell as acting in a “corporate” capacity. They had to be, otherwise the in-kind provisions would have been violated and it would not have been possible for corporations to sell services to individual people on contract.
Then along came another layer to the puzzle— in addition to American corporations, international corporations began coming on shore and selling goods and services. This opened up another can of worms. Not only did Americans require a “doing business name” to be able to contract with and receive goods and services from American companies and corporations under “State” law, they needed another “doing business name” to be able to do business with international corporations under international law.
So, the Washington DC Municipality began registering Cestui Que Vie trusts under the doing business names of all the American foreign situs trusts and the additional all-capital letters name was born: HANS LUKE JORGENSON could now do business with international corporations and he was “presumed” to be a franchise of the UNITED STATES (Inc.) and obligated to obey federal statutory law and international law generally.
The problem of course is that poor old Hans back on the farm was never told any of this and never educated to be able to responsibly conduct his own business affairs. The “State” and the “federal government” decided to “indemnify” him as a “ward”—in exchange for him granting all control over his name and estate assets to them. And from that, all the abuses have sprung.
Not only was Hans not told about the meaning of names being “presumed” upon him by the self-interested corporations, but he wasn’t informed of their offer to copyright his name, convert the ownership of his estate to their control, and micro-manage his life according to their statutes, executive orders, and corporate policies.
He was never told about their offer of his labor and his private property including his interest in his land and his business enterprises as collateral backing the debts of the “State of_____” and later, the “STATE OF________” corporations, as well as the debts of the United States of America, Inc., and the debts of the UNITED STATES (INC.)……and soon poor old Hans was “presumed” to be bankrupt…..yada, yada, yada.
The corporations are by nature evil, irresponsible, and self-interested entities created for the sole purpose of making profit and avoiding liability. Unlike companies which bear the burden of full commercial liability, the corporations routinely get away with murder and discharge their debts through abuse of bankruptcy protection.
We have looked high and low and can find no justifiable reason for corporations to be provided with protection from liability in exchange for paying off a portion of their profits as “protection money” to yet another corporation in the business of providing governmental services. It has both the plain appearance and affect of racketeering and extortion under armed force—and all under conditions of semantic deceit and constructive fraud, personage, and impersonation of public officials.
All legal presumptions held against individual people obligating them to perform under commercial contracts that are and always manifestly were NOT in-kind and NOT fully disclosed should be dropped immediately and without recourse as unconscionable and the people should not suffer any loss or claim against their labor, their private property, or their public property interests as a result of the constructive fraud being practiced against them by these corporations—-including and especially the governmental services corporations which have passed themselves off as the lawful government owed this nation.
See this article and over 100 others on Anna’s website here:www.annavonreitz.com
March 9th, 2016 by olddog
By M. David
New federal guidelines have just been introduced across the country, and what they mandate is quite disturbing to civil libertarians. The FBI has now instructed high schools across the nation to report students who in any way criticize government policies and what the report phrases as “western corruption. ”The FBI is interested in determining – as part of some warped “pre-crime” program – who might become potential future terrorists. The FBI warns in the report that that “anarchist extremists” are no different that ISIS terrorists.
They further caution teachers against young people who are poor, as well as immigrants and others who travel to “suspicious” countries. These, they explain, are teens who are more likely to commit terrorism.
Sarah Lazare, writing for AlterNet, notes that “based on the widely unpopular British ‘anti-terror’ mass surveillance program, the FBI’s ‘Preventing Violent Extremism in Schools’ guidelines, released in January, are almost certainly designed to single out and target Muslim-American communities.”
Lazare notes that the FBI cautions teachers to “avoid the appearance of discrimination,” in carrying out the order to spy on students and report them to the Bureau.
“The agency identifies risk factors that are so broad and vague that virtually any young person could be deemed dangerous and worthy of surveillance, especially if she is socio-economically marginalized or politically outspoken,” she notes.
This overwhelming threat is then used to justify a massive surveillance apparatus, wherein educators and pupils function as extensions of the FBI by watching and informing on each other.
The FBI’s justification for such surveillance is based on McCarthy-era theories of radicalization, in which authorities monitor thoughts and behaviors that they claim to lead to acts of violent subversion, even if those people being watched have not committed any wrongdoing. This model has been widely discredited as a violence prevention method, including by the US government, but it is now being imported to schools nationwide as official federal policy.
The new guidelines suggest that “high school students are ideal targets for recruitment by violent extremists seeking support for their radical ideologies, foreign fighter networks, or conducting acts of violence within our borders.”
The paranoid of the document warns that the youth “possess inherent risk factors” that predispose them to being terrorists.
The FBI suggests that all teachers “incorporate a two-hour block of violent extremism awareness training” into their core curriculum for all high school students in the United States.
According to the FBI’s educational materials for teenagers, circulated as a visual aide to their new guidelines, the following offenses constitute signs that “could mean that someone plans to commit violence” and therefore should be reported: “Talking about traveling to places that sound suspicious”; “Using code words or unusual language”; “Using several different cell phones and private messaging apps”; and “Studying or taking pictures of potential targets (like a government building).”
Under the category of domestic terrorists, the educational materials warn of the threat posed by “anarchist extremists.” The FBI states, “Anarchist extremists believe that society should have no government, laws, or police, and they are loosely organized, with no central leadership… Violent anarchist extremists usually target symbols of capitalism they believe to be the cause of all problems in society – such as large corporations, government organizations, and police agencies.”
But the FBI didn’t stop at the ISIS boogymanning. They warn teachers of “Animal Rights Extremists and Environmental Extremists” who are – to the FBI – no different than “white supremacy extremists,” ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorists.
All of these are “out to recruit high school students,” in the FBI’s mind, according to Lazare.
The materials also instruct students to watch out for extremist propaganda messages that communicate criticisms of “corrupt western nations” and express “government mistrust.”
If you “see suspicious behavior that might lead to violent extremism,” the resource states, consider reporting it to “someone you trust,” including local law enforcement officials like police officers and FBI agents.
Lazare posits that “young Muslims are the real targets” of the FBI’s high school spy program.
At the surface level, the FBI’s new guidelines do not appear to single out Muslim students. The document and supplementary educational materials warn of a broad array of threats, including anti-abortion and white supremacist extremists. The Jewish Defense League is listed alongside Hizbollah and Al Qaeda as an imminent danger to young people in the United States.
But a closer read reveals that the FBI consistently invokes an Islamic threat without naming it. Cultural and religious differences, as well as criticisms of western imperialism, are repeatedly mentioned as risk factors for future extremism. “Some immigrant families may not be sufficiently present in a youth’s life due to work constraints to foster critical thinking,” the guidelines state.
“The document aims to encourage schools to monitor their students more carefully for signs of radicalization but its definition of radicalization is vague,” Arun Kundnani, the author of The Muslims are Coming! Islamophobia, extremism, and the domestic War on Terror notes. “Drawing on the junk science of radicalization models, the document dangerously blurs the distinction between legitimate ideological expression and violent criminal actions.”
“In practice, schools seeking to implement this document will end up monitoring Muslim students disproportionately,” Kundnani said. “Muslims who access religious or political material will be seen as suspicious, even though there is no reason to think such material indicates a likelihood of terrorism.”
Oddly, however, the FBI’s new guidelines say that they do “not advocate the application of any psychological or demographic ‘profiles’ or check lists of indicators to identify students on a pathway to radicalization.”
As Hugh Handeyside, staff attorney for the ACLU’s national security project, said that “broadening the definition of violent extremism to include a range of belief-driven violence underscores that the FBI is diving head-first into community spying. Framing this conduct as ‘concerning behavior’ doesn’t conceal the fact that the FBI is policing students’ thoughts and trying to predict the future based on those thoughts.”
Are you concerned about the FBI’s new “pre-crime” high school spying program?
Is there any level this government will not stoop to? How can we as a Nation survive if we have not the courage to attack this insult to our people and theft of our dignity.
March 5th, 2016 by olddog
By Winter Trabex.
For the first few years of America’s existence, the country did not have a Constitution. Rather, it had the Articles of Confederation. The Articles specified that most government power would be given to the individual states. In fact, the push for state’s rights under the Articles was so strong that the following was written in it:
“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated.”
This is a far cry from today’s federal government that presumes to reverse decisions made at a state level. Rather than treating state as an independent nation, it appears that today’s government treats each state as a satellite nation- each one having no right to secede from the union as a whole.
Though the colonies joined together for common cause in the American Revolution, the notion that they were allowed to leave the union they had voluntarily joined faded from memory until it was readily accepted that each state was a part of the country no matter what.
The Articles of Confederation lasted for seven years from the date of its ratification to the date when the Constitution replaced it. Now, adoption of the Constitution was a very tricky process. From the beginning of the Constitution’s introduction to the several states, two factions debated through public newspapers whether there should be a strong national government (they were called Federalists) or whether a strong national government presented a danger to the country (they were called the Anti-Federalists). Each side had their own respective viewpoints.
The primary reason to establish a federal government in the first place was to protect the country from foreign powers attempting to wage war upon it. Although George Washington (among others) would later declare that the United States would not be entangled with foreign alliances, the need for citizens to protect themselves against the cannons of King George (for example) was very real. In those days, European nations went to war with each other at the drop of a hat. Those who envisioned a national government also envisioned it as a bulwark against foreign invasion.
On the other hand, if the Anti-Federalists were concerned about foreign invasion, they did not use it as their central argument during 1788 and 1789 when articles in the newspaper appeared under the pseudonym “Brutus.”
Much of what happened in the Constitutional Convention had already given the citizens of the new nation cause for concern. The Convention met in secret in Philadelphia. The document they drafted was not offered to the American public until after its completion. The states could decide to ratify it or not; however, they had no say in what its content might be. They could only reject it.
Even worse, the Constitution only needed nine out of thirteen states to be ratified. If four states dissented, they would be forced to accept the Constitution whether they liked it or not.
Changing the Constitution was a difficult matter, as well. People could neither change it good or for bad easily. From the beginning, the mechanism of the Constitution’s amending introduced a slow, inefficient process that once more allowed most people in the country to only say yes or no to a proposed change.
Later, it would prove that, after the passage of tariff known as the Tariff of Abominations in 1828, no country would be allowed to leave the union. South Carolina hated the tariff. The state was on the point of seceding from the union only to discover that President Andrew Jackson was ready to invade South Carolina with the American army just to keep a group of dissenters in line. In this way, it may be observed that the nation of America (whatever form it has taken) has always leaned towards being an oligarchical nation. It was established as a nation where a select few people in power made the most important decisions of their day.
It was, and always has been, a nation where disagreement with nationally-accepted policy has been repressed- sometimes by violent force. Those who sought a benevolent government whose primary function would be to ensure the safety and happiness of its citizens failed to understand the basic nature of government power.
Shortly after the Constitution was ratified, a series of events called the Whiskey Rebellion began under President George Washington in 1791. Washington’s government instituted a whiskey tax as a means of attempting to pay the federal debt. The tax has been attributed to the Federalist, Alexander Hamilton. Despite all the flowery words that Hamilton himself used under the pseudonym “Publius” (he wrote 51 of the 85 Federalist Papers), he soon began doing the opposite of what he suggested the government might do.
Rather than protecting people and ensuring their happiness, he helped created a program whereby citizens would have part of their earnings stolen from them- for it must be admitted that taxation is theft, whether it occurs with or without the consent of the taxed. Thus it was that Lysander Spooner, many decades later, declared the Constitution unfit to exist.
The American government had first abrogated the original system upon which everyone could agree- and which people ignored whenever possible. Thus it was that, in spite of their noble intentions, the leaders of the French Revolution found something unexpected when they based their new Constitution off the American version: the Constitution itself did not secure the liberty of the citizens who were expected to live under its laws. Nor was there ever any reason for any President or Congress to restrain himself by following the Constitution.
As the Whiskey Rebellion demonstrated, the power of the government to enforce its edicts came from the power of its weaponry. Without imposing the threat of violence upon citizens, no government in the world can enforce its laws. Those laws will be ignored by a citizenry that has no reason to fear their leaders.
Today, America’s traditional oligarchical society has become ever more repressive and brutal. It has discovered, as many other governments have discovered, that it is only capable of using violent force to get what it wants. The more it has to struggle to get what it wants, the more violence it uses. Those who claim that the government should follow the Constitution has missed the point entirely: laws are unwritten and arbitrary as long as the enforcers of those laws rely on firearms and ammunition to see their will be done.
For all intents and purposes, the Constitution does not exist in America. Nor does it exist in any other nation. There is, and only ever has been, a select few intimidating entire populations. As long as this is the case- and history proves that it has never been otherwise- the existence of a government should not be permitted under any circumstances. As long as government power continues to be the power of violence, it will continue making things worse and worse until it collapses from its own ponderous weight.
I’ve said before and will say again that ALL GOVERNMENTS EXIST FOR 2 PURPOSES:
2)CONTROL OF THE PEOPLE AND THE MONEY
And it does both these things via FORCE
March 4th, 2016 by olddog
By Barbara H. Peterson
Originally published at Global Independent Analytics
If we lose our freedom by fighting for it, then we never really had it in the first place, just the illusion…
I am one person. One person in a multitude. Insignificant, really, just one tree in a seemingly endless forest. Yet I can still speak. My voice has not been silenced yet. I can choose to call out the tyrants for what they are, or not. I can also choose to cower in fear of losing my freedom for simply speaking against authority. But if I choose to remain silent because of that fear, is that really freedom?
And if we remain silent in fear of losing our perceived “freedom,” isn’t that the same as giving our consent to the ones who would imprison us? So, if we live in fear of losing our freedom, is it really freedom that we lose?
What is freedom but to be unfettered by chains that bind us to false hope and traditions that teach us to bend to the will of those who would enslave and subjugate in the name of power and profit? Who use people as chattel to be tossed on the garbage heap when they no longer serve their purpose?
The illusion of freedom that we are bound with makes us compliant. Makes us complacent and honor-bound to uphold meaningless rules designed to keep us in line and safely within the illusion. And if you think that you will remain safe by following these rules, think again.
The rules change. And when they do, they have the ability to make criminals of us all.
That is how the illusion is built. Innocent until the rules change and then ignorance of those rules is no excuse.
A trap. A maze with ever-changing paths with cheese placed in varying positions. No certainty, just chaos for the mice and a source of amusement for the controlling hand guiding the activities. And don’t dare bite the hand or a very, very dead mouse you will be. Labeled a danger to yourself and others. A terrorist, or whatever label necessary to invoke the proper media response, when in reality, you are merely a mouse in an unnatural environment, just trying to cope.
But the hand doesn’t care. The hand feeds and punishes at will. You exist in the maze solely for the amusement of the hand. Until you don’t. Until you displease the hand and you see your supposed freedom for what it is – a carefully constructed maze designed to keep you endlessly running in circles while spectators clap and cheer and toast to your success when you manage to grab a bite of cheese. And your every move is monitored and recorded for future reference. To make sure that you don’t get the urge to bite.
Are we really such slovenly beasts that our actions and thoughts need to be monitored continually to make sure that we are not going off-path and getting ready to conduct a mass slaughter of our fellow human beings as is promoted by the media? Or is that part of the illusion that is being portrayed as “freedom?” Do we really gain freedom by making sure that those around us cannot do us harm by placing a control grid around each person until every breath alerts authorities who determine through an algorithm whether or not we should be allowed to continue or be terminated on the spot?
That isn’t freedom. It’s the illusion.
The relief you feel by knowing that you are a law-abiding citizen of Freedom, Inc., is actually the fleeting feeling of comfort that you get when your imminent demise is put off for the moment. But not forever, because the threat is still there. It has just been deflected onto a strawman. A boogeyman. Whatever you want to call it. That temporary feeling of comfort is not real, it is smoke in the wind. An illusion.
The real threat does not come from the other mice in the maze, the strawmen. This is a false threat designed to keep the mice from realizing where the true danger comes from. The real threat comes from the hand. The hand holds life and death in its palm. And it really doesn’t matter to the hand if you live or die. Become a nuisance and you die.
After all, mice are replaceable and can easily be extinguished. Until they become a horde. An uncontrollable horde of mice thinking for themselves. Mice who have found the weakness and chewed through the trappings, escaping the web of deceit and lies of illusory freedom and the grid holding it in place. A terrifying thought to the hand. Something that must be quelled. But the mice cannot be silenced for long, because once a mouse finds the escape route, another will follow, and another and another. And the lies are simply not big enough nor strong enough to contain the horde any longer.
And the illusion of freedom lies in pieces, shredded by the teeth of those it would contain. And it starts with one mouse with revolution on its mind. With freedom as a driving force in the core of its being.
The hand is not anyone’s friend. It will herd those who live on the land into reservations, then hold the land “for the people” because the people are not capable of taking care of it themselves. Illusion. It happened to the Native Americans, and now it is happening to the ranchers. Anyone who sees the subterfuge and skullduggery is a threat to the hand. Anyone who sees through the illusion.
The most successful tactic the hand has at its disposal is pitting us against each other while we all take it in the shorts. Meanwhile more land is grabbed, more rights eroded, and those fighting amongst themselves never see it coming. But those who see through the hand’s tactics will never stop. They will never stop because it makes them sick to their stomachs to be part and parcel of the biggest con of all. The very, very real illusion of freedom crafted by the hand using deceit and trickery to enslave, wielded by Freedom, Inc. in order to take total control away from the people and place it squarely in the hand of the ones who would be King.
And that my friends, is why one voice matters. It always starts with just one. And the ending has yet to be determined. We are the mice. We must find the weakness holding the control grid of illusory freedom together and chew through to real freedom. Others will follow until we become a horde. Then who will stop us? Any power the hand wields will become an illusion just like the illusion of freedom that it constructed for us. Dust in the wind of change. No longer relevant nor useful for any good thing.
©2016 Barbara H. Peterson
Barbara Peterson is my webmaster-administrator, and a sharper mind or more beautiful person you will not find. I encourage all who want to have a web presence to contact her and find out how inexpensive it can really be. Every freedom loving person in America should be reading, learning and participating in the downfall of this putrid corporation that has subjected Americans to tyranny for so many, many years. If we should die or be incarcerated for demanding our original Constitutional Republic, so be it. Otherwise we will be eliminated when they no longer have a use for us. But this rogue government is not our only problem as many thousands of fools have ate the mind poison of diversity, collectivism, and socialism until they have become mere shadows of human beings. They will have to revert to freedom loving citizens or perish with the tyrants. When OBUMA, the Banking Cartel, and all tyrants like them are sitting before a common law court and listening to their death sentence, then we can reconstruct what we were promised. The new Continental States of America; under the dominion of the States Supreme Courts and have no powers other than what the Courts delegate to them. How-do-ya like them apples; tyrants? Not happy? If I were appointed as a judge you would be chained to the rear bumper of a truck and dragged over every gravel road in America.
Dangerous Speech: Would the Founders Be Considered Domestic Extremists Today?
CLICK LINK ABOVE FOR VIDEO
By John Whitehead
The Rutherford Institute
There is a long and growing list of the kinds of speech that the government considers dangerous: hate speech, bullying speech, intolerant speech, conspiratorial speech, incendiary speech, radical speech, anti-government speech, right-wing speech, extremist speech, politically incorrect speech, etc. But if we allow the government to whittle away our First Amendment freedoms, John W. Whitehead warns, we risk turning into a society that would simultaneously be abhorrent to the founders of this country and hostile to the very words they used to birth this nation.
March 3rd, 2016 by olddog
By Augustus Blackstone
The American BAR Association (and its State alter-egos) has, for all intents and purposes, taken over our entire federal, state, and local governments. The legislative branch follows the advice of their BAR member advisors in the constructing of statutes. The executive branch does the same in the enforcement of those statutes. The judicial branch is literally a closed union shop in that regard. You can’t be a judge unless you are BAR member and you can’t practice in their courts unless you are a BAR member.
The term “BAR” is an acronym for British Accredited Registry [see comments below]. These snakes are in fact working for the Crown of England. And that is why the gold fringed flags are in the courtrooms. It signifies admiralty jurisdiction* [maritime law], which is another way of saying British jurisdiction [England is a maritime nation]. When you cross the bar in a courtroom, you are entering a British colonial forum.
There are over 30 grievances listed against the King of England in the Declaration of Independence (1776). Nearly all of them are applicable today against the Crown of England via the BAR Association. If you don’t have a copy, get one and read it. Each grievance therein begins with “He” (in reference to the King). As you read through the grievances, mentally supplant “He” with “BAR Association, on behalf of the Crown of England” and you’ll see exactly what I mean.
The root for the term “attorney” originates in Sanskrit (the oldest known language) and its original meaning was “to turn or to twist”. That meaning carried forward largely unaltered into the English language. The letter “a”, when used as a word, is defined as “an indefinite article” and when used as a prefix it equates with the word “one” (indefinite article) which modifies the base word (torn) accordingly—as does the suffix “ey”.
The extra “t” is added to separate the two vowels for proper pronunciation in accordance with the rules of English grammar. Thus, “a-(t)torn-ey” quite literally means “one who turns” (something).
This takes on added meaning when you understand that the legal profession in England has a number of titles (job descriptions), such as Esquire, Barrister, Solicitor, Counselor, Attorney, etc. And each one has a very specific function within that monarchical system. An English attorney’s function is to see that all titles and estates properly turn over to the legitimate heirs. The closest equivalent to that function in this country would be an attorney who specializes in probate law.
It is no accident that the generic term used to describe a practitioner of law in this country is “attorney”. As agents for the Crown of England, their function is to turn the sovereignty and wealth of this country back over to the Crown of England. And they have just about succeeded.
The “Father of the Constitution”, James Madison, stated in the Federalist Papers: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
The American Bar Association (ABA) was first organized in 1878. Its purposes were “to promote the administration of justice, to advance jurisprudence, to uphold professional honor, and to encourage social intercourse among lawyers.” [Jerold S. Auerbach, Unequal Justice: Lawyers and Social Change in Modern America (1976)] The “Federal Bar Association” was officially incorporated by Congress in 1954, Public Law 662, Chapter 911.
I have not found any evidence that BAR is indeed an acronym for British Accredited Registry. According to Augustus Blackstone, the tie-in to the American Bar Association is the “Inns of Court”. “The [American] Revolution swept away a `bar’ in the English sense of an upper branch of the profession, possessing certain special privileges by virtue of its connection with the Inns of Court.” [PRESENT-DAY LAW SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1928, by Alfred Reed.] However, the British Inns of Court eventually planted its roots on American soil. The following quote was taken from the American Inns of Court web site: “…the American Inns of Court adopted the traditional English model of legal apprenticeship and modified it to fit the particular needs of the American legal system.”
So just what is the “English model” today? Here is how Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines “Inns of Court”. “These are certain private unincorporated associations, in the nature of collegiate houses, located in London, and invested with the exclusive privilege of calling people to the bar, that is, conferring the rank or degree of a barrister. They were founded probably about the beginning of the fourteenth century. The principal inns of court are the Inner Temple, Middle Temple, Lincoln’s Inn, and Gray’s Inn. The two former originally belonged to the Knights Templar.”
The key question that Mr. Blackstone asks regarding the Inns of Court is: Whose court is it? The answer he gives is, of course, the Crown of England.
Even today in England admission to an Inn is required before registration on the Bar Vocational Course. The Knights Templar is a secret society; they were the first international bankers. Today the Knights Templar is also part of another secret society, Freemasonry. Notice the use of the word “degree” in the Inns of Court definition above. The word “degree” is a secret society term which refers to the level to which the initiate has risen.
The initiate must take “blood oaths” in order to progress to higher levels of initiation. A friend of mine who was a 32 degree “Shriner” Freemason left the secret society because the blood oaths became unconscionable and repulsive to him. The blood oaths themselves imply or state that the initiate will suffer a most horrible death if he reveals the secrets of the lodge. Some men have reported being required to drink blood from a skull as part of a Masonic initiation.
Many judges and lawyers are Freemasons. In fact, a very large number of civil servants, from judges to presidents, are members of secret societies such as Skull & Bones, Knights of Malta and Freemasonry.
Can we trust judges and lawyers who are Freemasons? According to the HANDBOOK OF MASONRY by Ronayne, page 183: “You must conceal all the crimes of your brother Mason….and should you be summoned as a witness against a brother Mason be always sure to shield him. It may be perjury to do this, it is true, but you’re keeping your obligations.”
The following is the blood oath that Freemasonic “Shriners” take: “In willful violation whereof may I incur the fearful penalty of having my eyeballs pierced to thru center with a three edged blade, my feet flayed and forced to walk the hot sands upon the sterile shores of the red sea until the flaming Sun shall strike with a livid plague, and my Allah the god of Arab, Moslem and Mohammedan, the god of our fathers, support me to the entire fulfillment of the same.”
Augustus Blackstone suggests that the sovereignty and wealth of America is being turned back to the Crown of England through Admiralty Jurisdiction. This may very well be the case. In the early 50s Norman Dodd was the Director of Research for a Congressional investigation into the tax-exempt Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations. What he discovered was that these foundations were working together to control the educational system of America so that Americans would be indoctrinated into the principles of collectivism as opposed to the principles in the original united States’ Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
Furthermore, here is what Mr. Dodd stated about Mr. Carnegie: “His publicly declared and steadfast interest was to counteract the departure of the colonies from Great Britain. He was devoted just to putting the pieces back together again.” Mr. Dodd indicated that it was the bankers and lawyers who were making this possible.
Today the courts in America do in fact display a gold-fringed Admiralty flag. However, the judges and prosecutors of the Bar Association always refuse to reveal the jurisdiction when asked. The jurisdiction is a secret that they do not want people to know about. This means that the Bar Association is, in fact, a secret society.
On a few occasions judges have lied about their secret jurisdiction by stating that the court was under “statutory” jurisdiction. The imposition of Admiralty jurisdiction on land was one of the primary grievances that the colonists had against King George. The first paragraph of the DECLARATION AND RESOLVES OF THE FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS OF OCTOBER 14, 1774 sums it up:
“Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British parliament, claiming a power, of right, to bind the people of America by statutes in all cases whatsoever, hath, in some acts, expressly imposed taxes on them, and in others, under various pretences, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies, established a board of commissioners, with unconstitutional powers, and extended the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty, not only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a county.”
FOLLOW THE MONEY: The Rothschilds and the Bank of England along with the London Banking houses ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks in America through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York. As Alan Greenspan stated in London on September 25, 2002: “The tie between the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve was cemented during the 1920s.” Actually, that “tie” was formed even before the Federal Reserve Act was fraudulently passed in 1913.
It is also interesting to note that former President George Bush (Sr) was knighted by the Queen of England. The founding fathers prohibited such “titles of nobility”. The question remains: Who was George Bush actually serving when he was President—We the People or the British Empire? According to the prestigious “Burke’s Peerage”, a guide to English aristocracy, George Bush and John Kerry are both descendants of Queen Elizabeth II as well as other British royalty. About two-thirds of the US presidents are cousins with ties to British royalty. Al Gore is also one of the elite. He is a cousin to the Bush family as well as Richard Nixon.
It was George Bush (Sr) who used the phrase “New World ORDER” many times in public speeches. Both George Bush, Jr. and George Bush, Sr. are members of the infamous “Skull & bones” secret society, aka the ORDER of Death or simply “The ORDER”, which originally came from Germany. Adolph Hitler wrote “My New ORDER” after writing “Mein Kampf”. George Bush’s father, Prescott Bush, was also a Skull & Bones member along with Percy Rockefeller and Bush family business partners, the Harrimans. Their symbol is, in fact, a skull and crossbones—the symbol for drugs, poison, piracy, death and the Nazi’s “Death’s Head” battalion.
According to Dr. Leonard Horowitz, Prescott Bush joined John D. Rockefeller and the British Royal Family in sponsoring the eugenics initiatives that gave rise to Hitler’s racial hygiene programs. Prescott Bush was found guilty of trading with the enemy (the Nazis) during WWII. According to court records, the Rockefeller family and their Standard Oil Company supported Hitler more than they did the allies during WWII. In fact, one judge declared Mr. Rockefeller guilty of treason. Dr. Gary Glum has also documented the insidious eugenics programs to create a “superior race”, which were initially sponsored not by Adolph Hitler, but by the American elite (e.g., the Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harriman, Morgan, DuPont, Kellogg and Bush families).
The Rockefeller family, along with their lawyer friends John and Allen Dulles, created the United Nations for the purpose of establishing a world government. Allen Dulles became head of the CIA as did George Bush, both members of secret societies. George Bush (Sr) is an active participant in the CIA’s MKUltra mind control programs.
On February 1, 1992 George Bush (Sr) addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations and stated: “It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance.” Patriotic Americans often view George Bush’s statement as treasonous. George Bush also stood before the United States Congress and stated that the “New World Order” is the “rule of law”. Perhaps what he meant to say was “rule of lawyers” because it is the lawyers and judges in America who are in fact implementing the “New World Order” through fraud. However, not all lawyers are aware of the ultimate plan of the global elite and many lawyers are helping to restore our natural rights and freedoms.
[The information given above are just tidbits to inspire the reader to conduct his or her own research into global elitist families and their insidious plans for a totalitarian world government and creation of a “superior race”. These people are heavily invested in the pharmaceutical industry and they are stealing our health freedoms. One of the main organizations that the global elite are using to establish a world government is the Bilderberg Group.]
CLICK HERE to read about the connection the American Bar Association and the Number of the Beast.
*It is important to note that admiralty law is the law of the sea; the united States’ Constitution is the “supreme Law of the Land”.
For more information and documentation on the admiralty jurisdiction fraud visit http://www.barefootsworld.net/admiralty.html.
For more information on the Congressional investigation of the tax-exempt Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations, read the Norman Dodd interview by G. Edward Griffin at http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/dodd/interview.htm or get a copy of this must see video from Mr. Griffin’s website at http://realityzone.com/hiddenagenda.html.
This article may be reproduced and distributed only under the conditions 1) that it be free of charge; 2) that it be reproduced in its entirety without any alterations; and that a link to http://www.HealthFreedom.info must be included.
It was many years ago when I stumbled onto Barefoots World and I encourage every reader to spend as much time there as possible. Ole Bob was a giant among real Americans, and his son currently runs the site. I also encourage everyone to read the articles on this Authors directly. http://www.barefootsworld.net/admiralty.html. and http://www.healthfreedom.info/freedom_issues.htm
March 2nd, 2016 by olddog
By Bill Whittle
The American experiment was many things, but first and foremost it was an attempt, for the first time in human history, to create a society based upon the rule of law. The Declaration of Independence lists, in exhaustive and minute detail, nearly thirty enumerated cases of lawlessness on the part of King George III. This nation showed the world that common people could not only rule themselves; they could do so without an aristocracy and especially do so without an aristocracy that was, like King George, above the law.
Here’s a law: U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 101, Section 2071, Paragraph a: “Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
Paragraph b: Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.
Hillary Rodham Clinton decided to conduct, for four years, the office of Secretary of State using her own private email server. Because these emails were not transacted and recorded through the official State Department servers, Mrs. Clinton “willfully concealed and removed” these critical documents from the records and archives of the United States Government. You can further argue that by electing to not have these records placed onto government servers – which are secure, routinely backed up, and most importantly subject to Freedom Of Information Act requests, that she has, by any reasonable interpretation, “mutilated, obliterated and destroyed” these essential records, which belong not to Hillary Rodham Clinton but rather to the Secretary of State of the United States of America, and her employers, the people of that nation.
The penalty for this is a fine or up to three years imprisonment, or both. That’s paragraph (a) of the law.
By her own admission, transacting ALL of her State Department business through her private server means that by not turning the entire server over to the State Department – all of it, that’s for us to decide what is important or incriminating, not her – she has in fact “willfully and unlawfully concealed, removed, mutilated, obliterated, falsified, or destroyed the same.”
That too is punishable by fine, up to three years imprisonment, or both… and, parenthetically, forfeiture of office and disqualification from holding any office under the United States.
That’s the law. That’s what the law says.
The lawlessness is endemic in this administration. But beyond the lawlessness is, of course, the contempt. The contempt for the very idea that these Harvard and Yale Law School grads have to actually, you know, obey the law. The contempt for the American people’s right to know what their elected officials are doing. And beyond all of this, the towering, monumental, criminal arrogance of it: that the official business of the United States of America; the nation’s diplomacy, strategy, defense posture, privileged communications between our allies and in point of fact every particle of our nation’s foreign policy was being discussed and archived in a single box in either Texas or Manhattan or wherever the hell it is; that this server’s basic, routine, Microsoft security updates – the kind you and I get pestered with every day — were not complied with; that the vital security interests or in fact the very lives of 320 million people did not warrant the effort to even obtain a unique encryption certificate but rather used the same one issued to thousands if not millions of users; all of this gets to the heart not only of who
Hillary Clinton is and the contempt in which she holds the American people. It is deeper than that.
When the President of the United States gets an official notification from his Secretary of State from BestMattressDeals99@yahoo.com, or any email that does not end in dot gov, then he too is complicit in this lawlessness, and for the same reason.
Barack Obama’s Press Secretary, Josh Earnest, admits that the President did receive emails from his Secretary of State, and went on to say this:
Feel better now? The President of the United States, receiving emails from an illegal source, did not know or care or take any action whatsoever to ensure that she complied with the federal law she was in violation of. And neither did any of the people we pay to be responsible for the security of the communications of those at the uppermost level of the most powerful nation in the world.
This country was founded to be rid of the incompetence, reckless arrogance and casual stupidity of Kings and Queens who acted as though they were above the law. If we let these crimes go unpunished it will die of that same parasitical disease.
If you google this Title and section, (“Federal Law: Title 18. Section 2071”) you will find it says exactly as stated below.
Can it be any clearer?
Former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey tells MSNBC that not only is Hillary Clinton’s private email server illegal, it “disqualifies” her from holding any federal office.
Such as, say, President of the United States.
“If you do this or that bad thing, you’ve essentially disqualified yourself as being the leader of the free world,” said Mukasey, referring to the illegal server and the illegal handling of classified materials.
Mukasey specifically points to one federal law, Title 18. Section 2071.
For those of us who do not have United States Code committed to memory, here’s what it says:
Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his or her office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”
Yes, it explicitly states “shall forfeit his or her office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”
Shouldn’t voters know that? The media won’t tell them. So it’s up to us. Can you help hold Hillary accountable?
Aw come on Billie, do you really think the people of this country give a shit weather or not politicians are honest? If they did, they would create a shit-storm of protests. All they give a crap about is sitting on their ass and watching some form of TV entertainment that helps their little minds solidify. The blank look of their face is a testimony to the solid space behind their eyes. Where do you think the word “hardhead” came from? As old and uneducated as I am, I managed to find and record on this site enough information to ignite the biggest revolt in the history of humanity but the stupid jerks can’t read. And if they did find out the truth about America’s government, they would not believe it. They’re useless! Hillary Clinton could pull a three foot turd out of her mouth and beat them into submission, if they accused her of anything.
March 1st, 2016 by olddog
Illuminism and the master plan for world domination
By: David Allen Rivera, 1994, source: darivera.com
MHP hypertext version for non-profit educational use only
CFR Influence in Government, Media and Business
The pervasive influence of CFR members over all aspects of society
• CFR Influence in the U.S. Government
• CFR Influence in Education and the Media
• CFR Affiliated Organizations and Corporations
• The Brookings Institution
• The Committee for Economic Development
<< Prev : Table of Contents : Next >>
>> Follow links for timelines and related articles
CFR Influence in the U.S. Government
From 1928-72, nine out of twelve Republican Presidential nominees were CFR members. From 1952-72, CFR members were elected four out of six times. During three separate campaigns, both the Republican and Democratic nominee were, or had been a member. Since World War II, practically every Presidential candidate, with the exception of Johnson, Goldwater, and Reagan, have been members.
In Sen. Barry Goldwater’s 1979 memoir, With No Apologies, he wrote: “When a new President comes on board, there is a great turnover in personnel but no change in policy.” That’s because CFR members have held almost every key position in every Administration, from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Bill Clinton.
During that period, every Secretary of State (with the exception of Cordell Hull, James F. Byrnes, and William Rogers) has been a member. Every Secretary of Defense from the Truman Administration up to the Clinton Administration (with the exception of Melvin Laird) has been a member. Since 1920, most of the Treasury Secretaries have been members; and since the Eisenhower Administration, nearly all of the National Security Advisors have been members.
Curtis Dall wrote in his book, FDR: My Exploited Father-in-Law:
“For a long time I felt that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the USA. But, he didn’t. Most of his thoughts, his political ‘ammunition’ as it were, were carefully manufactured for him in advance by the CFR / One World money group.”
The position of Supreme Allied Commander of NATO has usually been held by CFR members, including:
• Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower
• Gen. Matthew B. Ridgeway
• Gen. Alfred M. Groenther
• Gen. Lauris Norstad
• Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer
• Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster
• Gen. Alexander M. Haig, Jr.
Most of the superintendents at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point have been CFR members.
Harry S. Truman Administration
• Dean Acheson (Secretary of State)
• Robert Lovett (Secretary of State and later Secretary of Defense)
• W. Averell Harriman (Marshall Plan Administrator)
• John J. McCloy (High Commissioner to Germany)
• George Kennan (State Department advisor)
• Charles Bohlen (State Department advisor).
Dwight Eisenhower Administration
When CFR member Dwight Eisenhower became President, he appointed six CFR members to his Cabinet, and twelve to positions of ‘Under Secretary’:
• John Foster Dulles (Secretary of State, an in-law to the Rockefellers who was a founding member of the CFR, past Chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)
• Allen Dulles (head of the OSS operation in Switzerland during World War II, who became Director of the CIA and President of the CFR)
• Robert B. Anderson (Secretary of the Treasury)
• Lewis Strauss (Secretary of Commerce)
John F. Kennedy Administration
When CFR member John F. Kennedy became President, 63 of the 82 names on his list of prospective State Department officials were CFR members. John Kenneth Galbraith said: “Those of us who had worked for the Kennedy election were tolerated in the government for that reason and had a say, but foreign policy was still with the Council on Foreign Relations people.” Among the more notable members in his Administration:
• Dean Rusk (Secretary of State)
• C. Douglas Dillon (Secretary of the Treasury)
• Adlai Stevenson (U.N. Ambassador)
• John McCone (CIA Director)
• W. Averell Harriman (Ambassador-at-Large)
• John J. McCloy (Disarmament Administrator)
• Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)
• John Kenneth Galbraith (Ambassador to India)
• Edward R. Murrow (head of the U.S. Information Agency)
• Arthur H. Dean (head of the U.S. Delegation to the Geneva Disarmament Conference)
• Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. (Special White House Assistant and noted historian)
• Thomas K. Finletter (Ambassador to NATO and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development)
• George Ball (Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs)
• McGeorge Bundy (Special Assistant for National Security who went on to head the Ford Foundation)
• Robert McNamara (Secretary of Defense)
• Robert F. Kennedy (Attorney General)
• Paul H. Nitze (Assistant Secretary of Defense)
• Charles E. Bohlen (Assistant Secretary of State)
• Walt W. Rostow (Deputy National Security Advisor)
• Roswell Gilpatrick (Deputy Secretary of Defense)
• Henry Fowler (Under Secretary of State)
• Jerome Wiesner (Special Assistant to the President)
• Angier Duke (Chief of Protocol).
Lyndon B. Johnson Administration
• Roswell Gilpatrick (Deputy Secretary of Defense)
• Walt W. Rostow (Special Assistant to the President)
• Hubert H. Humphrey (Vice-President)
• Dean Rusk (Secretary of State)
• Henry Fowler (Secretary of the Treasury)
• George Ball (Under Secretary of State)
• Robert McNamara(Secretary of Defense)
• Paul H. Nitze (Deputy Secretary of Defense)
• Alexander B. Trowbridge (Secretary of Commerce)
• William McChesney Martin (Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board)
• Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor (Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Board)
Richard M. Nixon Administration
Nixon appointed over 100 CFR members to serve in his Administration, including:
• George Ball (Foreign Policy Consultant to the State Department)
• Dr. Harold Brown (General Advisory Committee of the U.S. Committee of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the senior member of the U.S. delegation for SALT talks with Russia)
• Dr. Arthur Burns (Chairman of the Federal Reserve)
• C. Fred Bergsten (Operations Staff of the National Security Council)
• C. Douglas Dillon (General Advisory Committee of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency)
• Richard N. Cooper (Operations Staff of the National Security Council)
• Gen. Andrew I. Goodpaster (Supreme Allied Commander in Europe)
• John W. Gardner (Board of Directors, National Center for Volunteer Action)
• Elliot L. Richardson (Under Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General; and Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare)
• David Rockefeller (Task Force on International Development)
• Nelson A. Rockefeller (head of the Presidential Mission to Ascertain the Views of Leaders in the Latin America Countries)
• Rodman Rockefeller (Member of the Advisory Council for Minority Enterprise)
• Dean Rusk (General Advisory Committee of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency)
• Gerald Smith (Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency)
• Cyrus Vance (General Advisory Committee of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency)
• Richard Gardner (member of the Commission on International Trade and Investment Policy)
• Sen. Jacob K. Javits (Representative to the 24th Session of the General Assembly of the U.N.)
• Henry A. Kissinger (Secretary of State and Harvard professor who was Rockefeller’s personal adviser on foreign affairs openly advocating a “New World Order”)
• Henry Cabot Lodge (Chief Negotiator of the Paris Peace Talks [Vietnam war])
• Douglas MacArthur II (Ambassador to Iran)
• John J. McCloy (Chairman of the General Advisory Committee of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency)
• Paul H. Nitze (senior member of the U.S. delegation for the talks with Russia on SALT)
• John Hay Whitney (member of the Board of Directors for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting)
• George P. Shultz (Secretary of the Treasury)
• William Simon (Secretary of Treasury)
• Stanley R. Resor (Secretary of the Army)
• William E. Colby (Director of the CIA)
• Peter G. Peterson (Secretary of Commerce)
• James Lynn (Housing Secretary)
• Paul McCracken (chief economic aide)
• Charles Yost (U.N. Ambassador)
• Harlan Cleveland (NATO Ambassador)
• Jacob Beam (USSR Ambassador)
• David Kennedy (Secretary of Treasury).
Gerald R. Ford Administration
When CFR member Gerald Ford became President, among some of the other CFR members:
• William Simon (Secretary of Treasury)
• Nelson Rockefeller (Vice-President)
Jimmy Carter Administration
President Carter (who became a CFR member in 1983) appointed over 60 CFR members to serve in his Administration:
• Walter Mondale (Vice-President)
• Zbigniew Brzezinski (National Security Advisor)
• Cyrus R. Vance (Secretary of State)
• W. Michael Blumenthal (Secretary of Treasury)
• Harold Brown (Secretary of Defense)
• Stansfield Turner (Director of the CIA)
• Gen. David Jones (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)
Ronald Reagan Administration
There were 75 CFR and Trilateral Commission members under President Reagan:
• Alexander Haig (Secretary of State)
• George Shultz (Secretary of State)
• Donald Regan (Secretary of Treasury)
• William Casey (CIA Director)
• Malcolm Baldridge (Secretary of Commerce)
• Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick (U.N. Ambassador)
• Frank C. Carlucci (Deputy Secretary of Defense)
• William E. Brock (Special Trade Representative)
George H. W. Bush Administration
During his 1964 campaign for the U.S. Senate in Texas, George Bush said: “If Red China should be admitted to the U.N., then the U.N. is hopeless and we should withdraw.” In 1970, as Ambassador to the U.N., he pushed for Red China to be seated in the General Assembly. When Bush was elected, the CFR member became the first President to publicly mention the “New World Order” and had in his Administration nearly 350 CFR and Trilateral Commission members:
• Brent Scowcroft (National Security Advisor)
• Richard B. Cheney (Secretary of Defense)
• Colin L. Powell (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)
• William Webster (Director of the CIA)
• Richard Thornburgh (Attorney General)
• Nicholas F. Brady (Secretary of Treasury)
• Lawrence S. Eagleburger (Deputy Secretary of State)
• Horace G. Dawson, Jr. (U.S. Information Agency and Director of the Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights)
• Alan Greenspan (Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board)
Bill Clinton Administration
When CFR member Bill Clinton was elected, Newsweek magazine would later refer to him as the “New Age President.” In October, 1993, Richard Harwood, a Washington Post writer, in describing the Clinton Administration, said its CFR membership was “the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States”.
• Albert Gore, Jr. (Vice-President)
• Donna E. Shalala (Secretary of Health and Human Services)
• Laura D. Tyson (Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors)
• Alice M. Rivlin (Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget)
• Madeline K. Albright (U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.)
• Warren Christopher (Secretary of State)
• Clifton R. Wharton, Jr. (Deputy Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation)
• Les Aspin (Secretary of Defense)
• Colin Powell (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff)
• W. Anthony Lake (National Security Advisor)
• George Stephanopoulos (Senior Advisor)
• Samuel R. ‘Sandy’ Berger (Deputy National Security Advisor)
• R. James Woolsey (CIA Director)
• William J. Crowe, Jr. (Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board)
• Lloyd Bentsen (former member, Secretary of Treasury)
• Roger C. Altman (Deputy Secretary of Treasury)
• Henry G. Cisneros (Secretary of Housing and Urban Development)
• Bruce Babbit (Secretary of the Interior)
• Peter Tarnoff (Under Secretary of State for International Security of Affairs)
• Winston Lord (Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs)
• Strobe Talbott (Aid Coordinator to the Commonwealth of Independent States)
• Alan Greenspan (Chairman of the Federal Reserve System)
• Walter Mondale (U.S. Ambassador to Japan)
• Ronald H. Brown (Secretary of Commerce)
• Franklin D. Raines (Economics and International Trade).
George W. Bush Administration
• Richard Cheney (Vice President, former Secretary of Defense under President G.H.W. Bush)
• Colin Powell (Secretary of State, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents Bush and Clinton)
• Condoleeza Rice (National Security Advisor, former member of President Bush’s National Security Council)
• Robert B. Zoellick (U.S. Trade Representative, former Under Secretary of State in the Bush administration)
• Elaine Chao (Secretary of Labor)
• Brent Scowcroft (Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, former National Security Advisor to President Bush)
• Richard Haass (Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at Large)
• Henry Kissinger (Pentagon Defense Policy Board, former Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford)
• Robert Blackwill (U.S. Ambassador to India, former member of President Bush’s National Security Council)
• Stephen Friedman (Sr. White House Economic Advisor)
• Stephen Hadley (Deputy National Security Advisor, former Assistant Secretary of Defense under Cheney)
• Richard Perle (Chairman of Pentagon Defense Policy Board, former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration)
• Paul Wolfowitz (Assistant Secretary of Defense, former Assistant Secretary of State in the Reagan administration and former Under Secretary of Defense in the Bush administration)
• Dov S. Zakheim (Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, former Under Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration)
• I. Lewis Libby (Chief of Staff for the Vice President, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense).
The Christian Science Monitor said that “almost half of the Council members have been invited to assume official government positions or to act as consultants at one time or another.”
CFR Influence in Education and the Media
The Council accepts only American citizens, and has a membership of about 3,600, including influential bankers, corporate officers, and leading government officials who have been significantly affecting domestic and foreign policy for the past 30 years. Every [recent] member had been handpicked by David Rockefeller, who heads the inner circle of the CFR.
Some of the CFR directors have been:
• Walter Lippman (1932-37)
• Adlai Stevenson (1958-62)
• Cyrus Vance (1968-76, 1981-87)
• Zbigniew Brzezinski (1972-77)
• Robert O. Anderson (1974-80)
• Paul Volcker (1975-79)
• Theodore M. Hesburgh (1926-85)
• Lane Kirkland (1976-86)
• George H.W. Bush (1977-79)
• Henry Kissinger (1977-81)
• David Rockefeller (1949-85)
• George Shultz (1980-88)
• Alan Greenspan (1982-88)
• Brent Scowcroft (1983-89)
• Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick (1985- )
• Warren M. Christopher (1982-91)
• Richard Cheney (1987-89)
Some of the College Presidents that have been CFR members:
• Michael I. Sovern (Columbia University)
• Frank H. T. Rhodes (Cornell University)
• John Brademus (New York University)
• Alice S. Ilchman (Sarah Lawrence College)
• Theodore M. Hesburgh (Notre Dame University)
• Donald Kennedy (Stanford University)
• Benno J. Schmidt, Jr. (Yale University)
• Hanna Holborn Gray (University of Chicago)
• Stephen Muller (Johns Hopkins University)
• Howard R. Swearer (Brown University)
• Donna E. Shalala (University of Wisconsin)
• John P. Wilson (Washington and Lee University).
Among the members of the media who have been in the CFR:
• William Paley (CBS)
• Dan Rather (CBS)
• Harry Reasoner (CBS)
• Roone Arledge (ABC)
• Bill Moyers (NBC)
• Tom Brokaw (NBC)
• John Chancellor (NBC)
• Marvin Kalb (CBS)
• Irving Levine
• David Brinkley (ABC)
• John Scali
• Barbara Walters (ABC)
• William Buckley (PBS, National Review)
• George Stephanopoulos
• Daniel Schorr (CBS)
• Robert McNeil (PBS)
• Jim Lehrer (PBS)
• Diane Sawyer
• Hodding Carter III
Some of the major newspapers, news services and media groups that have been controlled or influenced by the CFR:
• New York Times (Sulzbergers, James Reston, Max Frankel, Harrison Salisbury)
• Washington Post (Frederick S. Beebe, Katherine Graham, Osborne Elliott)
• Wall Street Journal
• Boston Globe
• Baltimore Sun
• Chicago Sun-Times
• L.A. Times Syndicate
• Houston Post
• Minneapolis Star-Tribune
• Arkansas Gazette
• Des Moines Register and Tribune
• Louisville Courier
• Associated Press
• United Press International
• Reuters News Service
• Gannett Co. (publisher of USA Today and 90 other daily papers plus 40 weeklies; and also owns 15 radio stations, 8 TV stations, and 40,000 billboards).
In 1896, Aldolph Ochs bought the New York Times, with the financial backing of J.P. Morgan (CFR), August Belmont (Rothschild agent), and Jacob Schiff (of Kuhn, Loeb and Co.). It later passed to the control of Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, who was also a CFR member. Eugene Meyer, a CFR member, bought the Washington Post in 1933. [It was later] run by his daughter, Katherine Graham, also a member of the CFR.
Some of the magazines that have been controlled or influenced by the CFR:
• Time, Inc. founded by CFR member Henry Luce and Hedley Donovan, which publishes Time, Fortune, Life, Money, People, Entertainment Weekly, and Sports Illustrated
• Newsweek (owned by the Washington Post, W. Averell Harriman, Roland Harriman, and Lewis W. Douglas)
• Business Week
• U.S. News and World Report
• Saturday Review
• National Review
• Reader’s Digest
• Atlantic Monthly
• Harper’s Magazine
Some of the publishers that have been controlled or influenced by the CFR:
• Random House
• Simon & Schuster
• Harper Brothers
• Harper & Row
• Yale University Press
• Little Brown & Co.
• Viking Press
• Cowles Publishing.
CFR Affiliated Organizations and Corporations
G. Gordon Liddy, former Nixon staffer, who later became a talk show pundit, laughed off the idea of a “New World Order”, saying that there are so many different organizations working toward their own goals of a one-world government, that they cancel each other out. Not the case. You have seen that their tentacles are very far reaching, as far as the government and the media. However, as outlined below, you will see that the CFR has a heavy cross membership with many groups; as well as a cross membership among the directorship of many corporate boards, and this is a good indication that their efforts are concerted.
Some of the organizations and think-tanks that have been controlled or influenced by the CFR:
• Brookings Institute
• RAND Corporation
• American Assembly
• Foreign Policy Association (co-founded by CFR member Raymond Fosdick)
• World Affairs Council
• Business Advisory Council
• Committee for Economic Development
• National Foreign Trade Council
• National Bureau of Economic Research
• National Association of Manufacturers
• National Industrial Conference Board
• Americans for Democratic Action
• Hudson Institute
• Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
• Institute for Defense Analysis
• World Peace Foundation
• United Nations Association
• National Planning Association
• Center for Inter-American Relations
• Free Europe Committee
• Atlantic Council of the U.S. (founded in 1961 by CFR member Christian Herter)
• Council for Latin America
• National Committee on U.S.-China Relations
• African-American Institute
• Middle East Institute
Some of the many companies that have been controlled or influenced by the CFR:
• Morgan, Stanley
• Kuhn, Loeb
• Lehman Brothers
• Bank of America
• Chase Manhattan Bank
• J. P. Morgan and Co.
• First National City Bank
• Brown Brothers, Harriman and Co.
• Bank of New York
• Chemical Bank
• Bankers Trust of New York
• Manufacturers Hanover
• Morgan Guaranty
• Merrill Lynch
• Equitable Life
• New York Life
• Metropolitan Life
• Mutual of New York
• Prudential Insurance
• Phillips Petroleum
• Atlantic-Richfield (Arco)
• Xerox Corporation
• General Electric
• ITT Corporation
• Dow Chemical
• E. I. du Pont
• BMW of North America
• Toyota Motor Corporation
• General Motors
• Ford Motor Company
• U.S. Steel
• Proctor and Gamble
• Johnson and Johnson
• Estee Lauder
• Avon Products
• R. J. R. Nabisco
• R. H. Macy
• Federated Department Stores
• Gimbel Brothers
• J. C. Penney Company
• Sears, Roebuck and Company
• May Department Stores
• Allied Stores
• American Express
• Coca Cola
• Bristol-Myers Squibb
• Hilton Hotels
• American Airlines
In September, 1922, when the CFR began publishing its quarterly magazine, Foreign Affairs, the editorial stated that its purpose was “to guide American opinion.” By 1924, it had “established itself as the most authoritative American review dealing with international relations.” This highly influential magazine has been the leading publication of its kind, and has a circulation of over 75,000. Reading this publication can be highly informative as to the views of its members. For instance, the Spring, 1991 issue, called for a U.N. standing army, consisting of military personnel from all the member nations, directly under the control of the U.N. Security Council.
A major source of their funding (since 1953), stems from providing a “corporate service” to over 100 companies for a minimum fee of $1,000, that furnishes subscribers with inside information on what is going on politically and financially, both internationally and domestically; by providing free consultation, use of their extensive library, a subscription to Foreign Affairs, and by holding seminars on reports and research done for the Executive branch. They also publish books and pamphlets, and have regular dinner meetings to allow speakers and members to present positions, award study fellowships to scholars, promote regional meetings and stage round-table discussion meetings.
Since the Council on Foreign Relations has been able to infiltrate our government, it is no wonder that our country has been traveling on the course that it has. The moral, educational and financial decline of this nation has been no accident. It has been due to a carefully contrived plot on behalf of these conspirators, who will be satisfied with nothing less than a one-world government. And it is coming to that. As each year goes by, the momentum is picking up, and it is becoming increasingly clear, what road our government is taking. The proponents of one-world government are becoming less secretive, as evidenced by George Bush’s talk of a “New World Order.” The reason for that is that they feel it is too late for their plans to be stopped. They have become so entrenched in our government, our financial structure, and our commerce, that they probably do control this country, if not the world. In light of this, it seems that it will be only a matter of time before their plans are fully implemented.
The Brookings Institution
The Brookings Institution was established by St. Louis tycoon and philanthropist, Robert Somers Brookings (1850-1932). At the age of 21, Brookings had become a partner in Cupples and Marston (a manufacturer of woodenware and cordage), which, ten years later, under his leadership, expanded and flourished. In 1896, at the age of 46, he retired to devote his duties towards higher education, and became President of Washington University’s Board of Trustees, which, through the next twenty years, turned into a major university.
He was one of the original Trustees of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and a consultant to the Commission on Economy and Efficiency during the Taft Administration. In 1917, he was appointed to President Wilson’s War Industries Board which had the responsibility of receiving and distributing the supplies needed by the military, later becoming Chairman of its Price Fixing Committee responsible for negotiating prices for all goods purchased by the Allied governments, which gave him a key role in the Wilson Administration.
At the age of 70, he took over the leadership of the Institute for Government Research (IGR), founded by lawyer and economist Frederick A. Cleveland in 1916, and raised $750,000 from 92 corporations and a dozen private citizens to get it moving. Their first project was to push for legislation creating a federal budget, which was successful. The first U.S. Budget Director, under President Harding, was Charles G. Dawes, who relied heavily on the IGR’s staff. The Institute was also involved in civil service reform legislation in the 1920’s. Among their members: Supreme Court Chief Justice William Howard Taft (who was Chief Justice from 1921-30, after his Presidential term), Herbert Hoover (President, 1929-32), and Elihu Root.
Brookings decided that economics was the biggest issue, and not the administrative aspects that the Institute was covering, so in June, 1922, with a $1,650,000 grant from the Carnegie Corporation, he established the Institute of Economics to represent the interests of the labor unions and the general public. In 1924, he established the Robert S. Brookings School of Economics and Government (an outgrowth of Washington University in St. Louis), to allow doctoral students to spend time in Washington, D.C. to work on the staffs of the IGR and the Institute of Economics.
In 1927, he merged all three organizations to form the Brookings Institution, whose purpose was to train future government officials. He put $6 million, and 36 years of his life, into the nonpartisan, nonprofit center, which analyze government problems, and issue statistical reports. They produce an annual report, Setting National Priorities, which analyzes the President’s budget.
Their headquarters is an eight story building, eight blocks from the White House, at 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW. They have a staff of about 250, including about 45 senior fellows and 19 research associates. Salaries go as high a $40,000 a year.
After serving close to ten years in the State Department, Leo Pasvolsky returned to the Brookings Institution in 1946, along with six other members of the State Department. With the financial backing of the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Mellon Trust, Pasvolsky initiated an International Studies Group which developed the basis for the Marshall Plan to aid the European war recovery efforts.
In 1951, the Chicago Tribune said that the Brookings Institution had created an “elaborate program of training and indoctrination in global thinking,” and that most of its scholars wind up as policy makers in the State Department. Truman was the first President to turn to them for help. In 1941, he named Brookings Vice President Edwin Nouse as the first Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors. Kennedy and Johnson appointed many of their members to key posts. Carter’s foreign policy became a resting place for the many of the group’s recommendations.
President Johnson said that the purpose of his ‘Great Society’ legislation was to “try to take all of the money that we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the ‘haves’ and give it to the ‘have-nots’ that need it so much.” Ralph Epperson, author of The Unseen Hand, one of the best books about the Master Conspiracy, said that Johnson was a “closet Communist.”
Another well-known researcher, John Coleman, said that the Brookings Institution had developed and drafted the Great Society programs which were
“in every detail, simply lifted from Fabian Socialist papers drawn up in England. In some instances, Brookings did not even bother to change the titles of the Fabian Society papers. Once such instance was using ‘Great Society,’ which was taken directly from a Fabian Socialist paper from the same title.”
After Socialist leader Eugene Debs died in 1926, Socialist Norman Thomas, who graduated from and was ordained by the Union Theological Seminary, became the leader of the Socialist Party, running for President six times. Thomas was happy with Johnson’s vision and said: “I ought to rejoice and I do. I rub my eyes in amazement and surprise. His war on poverty is a Socialistic approach…”
Republicans regard the Brookings Institution as the “Democratic government-in-exile,” yet, Nixon appointed Herbert Stein, a Brookings scholar, to be Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. The Nixon Administration, who at one time had considered bombing the Brookings Institution in order to allow the FBI to seize their documents, had considered the idea of a “Brookings Institution for Republicans” to offset the liberalism of Brookings. They thought of calling it the Institute for an Informed America, or the Silent Majority Institute. E. Howard Hunt, of Watergate fame, was to be its first Director, but he wanted to turn it into a center for covert political activity.
The role of the “conservative Brookings” was taken by an existing research center called the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, which was founded in 1943 by Louis H. Brown (Chairman of the Board at Johns-Manville Corporation), to promote free enterprise ideas. During the early sixties, they shortened their name to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and later received a lot of financial support during the Nixon and Ford Administrations, when the organization became a pool from which they drew their advisors. When Carter was elected, the AEI became a haven for many Republican officials, including President Gerald Ford, and William E. Simon, the Secretary of Treasury.
The Committee for Economic Development
In 1941, Paul Gray Hoffman, President of the Studebaker Company and a Trustee of the University of Chicago, along with Robert Maynard Hutchins and William Benton, the University’s President and Vice President, organized the American Policy Commission to apply the work of the University’s scholars and economists to government policy. They later merged with an organization established in 1939 by Fortune magazine called the Fortune Round Table.
Starting out as a group of business, labor, agricultural, and religious leaders, they soon evolved into an Establishment organization, with such members as: Ralph McCabe (head of Scott Paper Co.), Henry Luce (Editor-in-Chief and co-founder of Time, Life, and Fortune magazines), Ralph Flanders (a Boston banker), Marshall Field (Chicago newspaper publisher), Clarence Francis (head of General Foods), Ray Rubicam (an advertising representative), and Beardsley Ruml (treasurer of Macy’s Department Store in New York City, former Dean of Social Sciences at the University of Chicago, and Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, whose idea it was to deduct taxes from your paycheck).
At the beginning of World War II, Hoffman and Benton approached Jesse Jones, the Secretary of Commerce, with an idea for an ‘American Policy Commission’ to “analyze, criticize, and challenge the thinking and policies of business, labor, agriculture, and government,” which Jones accepted and began to organize with their help. On September 3, 1942, the Committee for Economic Development (CED) was incorporated in Washington, D.C. (2000 L Street NW, Suite 700) to:
“…foster, promote, conduct, encourage, and finance scientific research, education, training, and publication in the broad field of economics in order that industry and commerce may be in a position, in the postwar period, to make their full contribution to high and secure standards of living for people in all walks of life through maximum employment and high productivity in our domestic economy; to promote and carry out these objects, purposes, and principles in a free society without regard to, and independently of the special interests of any group in the body politic, either political, social, or economic.”
Basically, their work centered around how to prepare the U.S. economy for a smooth transition from a wartime to a peacetime environment without the occurrence of a major depression or recession. A 1944 CED Report, International Trade and Domestic Employment, by Duke University Professor Calvin B. Hoover, helped push the United States into the International Monetary Fund, which was laid out at the Bretton Woods Conference in June, 1944, by chief negotiators Harry Dexter White (of the CFR) and John Maynard Keynes (of the Fabian Society); and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), which both became part of the United Nations. It also helped motivate Establishment backing for what later emerged as the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. About three years later, their report on An American Program of European Economic Cooperation was eventually developed into the strategy for European recovery that became part of the Marshall Plan. In fact, Hoffman, who became the first CED Chairman, later headed the Federal agency that administered the Marshall Plan.
After the War, while Hoover was on leave from Duke University, he worked with Hoffman to develop what eventually became known as the Marshall Plan. The group’s later work laid the groundwork for regional government in the United States.
This old man does not deserve to speak above the intellect of the men quoted below.
“Before a standing army can rule; the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
of their own conscience.”
— C. S. Lewis
(1898-1963), British novelist
Source: “God in the Dock” (1948)
CRUDEN v. NEALE 2N.C. (1796) 2 SE 70 “Every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent”
“The duty of a Patriot is to protect his country from its government.” Thomas Paine
“No earthly government has jurisdiction over your God Given Rights.”
HENCE, – NO GOD – NO RIGHTS!
February 26th, 2016 by olddog
Submitted by Tyler Durden
Norwegian PM Erna Solberg doesn’t want to have to skirt her country’s responsibilities under the Geneva Convention and she doesn’t want to trample over human rights either, but she will if she has to.
“It is a force majeure proposals which we will have in the event that it all breaks down,” Solberg said, in an interview with Berlingske, describing new measures she believes Norway may have to take if Sweden buckles under the weight of the refugee influx which saw some 163,000 asylum seekers inundate the country last year.
Solberg is effectively prepared to turn everyone away and go into lockdown mode should everything fall apart completely, causing Europe to descend into some kind of lawless, Hobbesian, free-for-all.
If that sounds far-fetched or hyperbolic consider that on Thursday, EU migration commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos warned that the bloc has just 10 days to implement a plan that will bring about “tangible and clear results on the ground” or else “the whole system will completely break down.”
Avramopoulos also cautioned that a humanitarian crisis in Greece and in the Balkans is “very near.” Moves by countries to adopt ad hoc, state-specific measures to stem the flow are exacerbating the problem, the commissioner contends.
“We cannot continue to deal through unilateral, bilateral or trilateral actions; the first negative effects and impacts are already visible,” he said. “We have a shared responsibility –- all of us -– towards our neighbouring states, both EU and non-EU, but also towards those desperate people.”
By “the negative effects,” of unilateral actions, Avramopoulos is likely referring to the bottlenecks that are leaving thousands stranded in the Balkans. The chokepoints are being pressured by a series of border fences that have been erected over the past six months and the problem is exacerbated by stepped up border checks. In short: we’re witnessing the death of the bloc’s beloved Schengen.
“Seven European states have already reinstated border controls within the cherished but creaking Schengen free-travel zone, putting huge strain on Greece, which can no longer wave the tide of arrivals from Turkey onward through the Balkans,” Reuters writes. Earlier today, Athens recalled its Austrian ambassador. “Greece will not accept unilateral actions. Greece can also carry out unilateral actions,” migration minister, Yannis Mouzalas told reporters on Thursday. “Greece will not accept becoming Europe’s Lebanon, a warehouse of souls, even if this were to be done with major [EU] funding.”
On March 7, officials will attend a summit with Turkey where buy in from Ankara is critical if there’s to be meaningful reduction in the flow of asylum seekers to Western Europe. Leaked documents recently showed President Erdogan is essentially attempting to blackmail Europe. “We can open the doors to Greece and Bulgaria at any time. We can put them on busses,” he was quoted as saying, during a conversation with European Commissioner Jean Claude Juncker and President of the European Council Donald Tusk on 16th November 2015 during the G20 Summit in Antalya.
In addition to the seven states that have already reinstated border checks, more countries have promised to follow suit unless Erdogan and Tsipras can figure out a way to make progress in defending the bloc’s external border.
Officials fear the onset of spring will embolden still more migrants to make the journey as warmer weather will thaw the Balkan route. On Wednesday, Hungarian PM Viktor Orban called for a referendum on the propsed quota system that Brusells hoped would help distribute and place refugees. It’s only a matter of time before other countries conduct similar plebiscites.
Perhaps Jean Asselborn, Luxembourg’s foreign minister put it best: “The outlook is gloomy … We have no policy any more. We are heading into anarchy.”
Looks like Erna Solberg was right after all.
Jim Rogers Warns Governments Plan Is To Destroy The People Who Save”
Submitted by Tyler Durden
“Everybody should be worried.. and be prepared,” warns legendary investor Jim Rogers, as he sees the market “facing a bigger collapse than in 2008,” and the central banks will be unable to kick the can much longer. “This is the first time in recorded history where you have Central Banks & governments setting out to destroy the people who save & invest,” Rogers exclaims and “the markets are telling us that something is wrong – we’re getting close.”
“The central bankers haven’t given up yet… they think they are smarter than you and me and the market… they’re not!”
Full interview with FutureMoneyTrends below…
• 1:20 Is this Market Crash Different?
• 5:00 Cashless Society – it gives ‘them’ more control, it is bad for you and me. There is now way to exit from this.
• 7:20 Crash will be Bigger – eventually the market is going to say “enough is enough”
• 8:40 Gold – going much higher, may be opportunity to buy more lower first
• 10:10 2016 Election, Donald Trump
• 11:20 Where Jim is Investing – Short US equities, Short Junk bonds, Shorting Europe into rally
• 12:30 China’s Economy
• 17:30 One investment over five years, sugar or rice or Russian Ruble
Somebody Propped the Markets Up Again Yesterday
By Phoenix Capital Research
At this point the manipulations are getting ridiculous.
“Someone” decided to step in a prop up stocks yesterday. How do we know it was a market prop and not real investors?
There were several “tells.”
1) The jump in stocks was based on a sudden move in one of the key asset classes the PPT are using to prop up the markets (they are: Oil, the VIX and Yen).
2) The price action was sudden and vertical: neither are the hallmarks of actual buyers.
3) The trading session differed dramatically from recent other sessions.
Regarding #1, as everyone knows, the majority of market action today is controlled by trading algorithms.
These trading algorithms operate based on correlations between asset classes. Currently two of the biggest correlations are Oil (a direct correlation, meaning when Oil rallies, algorithms buy stocks) and the VIX (an inverse correlation meaning when the VIX falls, algorithms buy stocks).
Yesterday, Oil staged a MASSIVE 5% intraday price move on the fact inventories rose less than expected. Yes, a 5% price move based on a single secondary data point (inventories are near record highs).
Will someone please tell me why, after all the innocent people we have slaughtered in unnecessary wars, can we not demand our military; TO ROUND UP ALL OF THESE MONSTER BANKERS AND HANG THEIR ASSES OVER A BONFIRE AND ROAST THEM TO ASHES? The agony they have cost humanity is incalculable!
February 25th, 2016 by olddog
Is he for real? Will he survive his challenge to the autonomy and power of the globalists?
By Dave Hodges
Trump hysteria is sweeping the country. Trump is going to make America great again. In a recent Youtube video, Trump actually accused Obama and Clinton of giving birth to ISIS. That, alone is reason to vote for Trump….
I am sorry, but I have to step off of the Fool’s Gold Express. Trump cannot save this country, only God can. But please tell me, what has America done to deserve redemption in the eyes of God?
Assuming we have an election in November, I am checking the box next to Trumps name. However, I hold no illusion that my vote and our collective vote is going to change a thing. I am merely casting a symbolic vote.
The Trump Platform
There is no question that Donald Trump is saying some of the magic words that have been missing from the American lexicon for quite some time, like, “Let’s Make America Great Again”. In reality, if you think any candidate is going to accomplish this magic feat, you may as well save your campaign contributions and vote for Santa Claus.
Here is a look at Trump’s key issues.
The Second Amendment
“The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.
The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple. ” Very impressive and true. Trump’s message is anti-genocidal.
Meaningful Tax Reform
“The Trump tax cuts are fully paid for by:
1. Reducing or eliminating most deductions and loopholes available to the very rich.
2. A one-time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at a significantly discounted 10% tax rate, followed by an end to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad.
3. Reducing or eliminating corporate loopholes that cater to special interests, as well as deductions made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rate on corporations and business income. We will also phase in a reasonable cap on the deductibility of business interest expenses.”
“Simplifying the tax code and cutting every American’s taxes will boost consumer spending, encourage savings and investment, and maximize economic growth.” In my opinion, this is Trump’s most realistic and noteworthy reform.
“When politicians talk about “immigration reform” they mean: amnesty, cheap labor and open borders. The Schumer-Rubio immigration bill was nothing more than a giveaway to the corporate patrons who run both parties.
Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globetrotting donors. We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own. That must change. Here are the three core principles of real immigration reform:
1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.
2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.
3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.
Make Mexico Pay For The Wall
Mandatory return of all criminal aliens
Defund sanctuary cities.
Enhanced penalties for overstaying a visa.
Cooperate with local gang task forces. ICE officers should accompany local police departments conducting raids of violent street gangs like MS-13 and the 18th street gang, which have terrorized the country. All illegal aliens in gangs should be apprehended and deported.
End birthright citizenship
Put American Workers First”
There are all interesting ideas, but they came along 20 years past due. America has been deculturalized.
Before I go on to the next point, let’s take a few moments out for a Trump pep rally.
Trump also has impressive positions on veterans affairs and the VA. Yet, other than simple generalities, Trump has nothing on foreign policy. However, one could successfully argue that a trained circus monkey could do better that Obama, in which he is clear intent, is to destroy this country.
The best reason to vote for Trump is because he is not this person:
And he is not this person:
My hesitation in trusting Donald Trump the man, comes from the the fact that I fear he is the next Ross Perot, who only ran in 1992 to upset the balance of power. That same potential exists in 2016.
There is only one thing worse than the Obama Presidency and that would be for it to be followed with a Hillary Clinton Presidency. Corruption, scandal and untimely deaths follow her wherever she goes.
Trump has a long association with the Clinton family that extends beyond the professional to even the personal.
Hillary Clinton attended Donald Trump’s 2005 wedding to current wife in Florida. Hillary Clinton had front-pew seating at the event. Even Bill Clinton, not a person known for respecting the sanctity of marriage, showed up for the reception.
Trump has been generous in towards the Clinton’s in the past as he has donated over $100,000 to the Clinton’s foundation. And as a former Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton has responded in kind as she left many of the Trump real estate deals alone when she could have a negative impact.
And even if Trump has had an epiphany and truly does care about America and has forsaken his past associations with Clinton, he will not be allowed to win. He will suffer the fate of all reformers. If you don’t think this is true, then ask yourself a question. If the elite will kill these two men, then why wouldn’t they kill Donald Trump?
AND THESE MEN!
I have no illusions, the Republic is dead. The American empire is quickly going the way of Great Britain, Greece and Rome, only our shelf life was considerably less. Our country was born out of revolution and it will be put to death in revolution in which all resistance will squashed like a bug on a windshield.
At the end of the day, I am not voting for Donald Trump. I am symbolically voting for an ideal. Even if Trump ends up like Ross Perot and the American people have been duped, I have still symbolically voted for the same ideals. And if Donald Trump is assassinated, I have still voted for the same ideals. Make no mistake about it, my vote and your vote, in November, does not matter. We are simply making a statement. Our fate, both individually and collectively as Americans has been decided because we have fallen out of favor with God. We should have thought about this before we gave the government permission to murder 60 million babies. We are clearly under His judgment. And let me clear on this point, Donald Trump, nor any other candidate is capable of leading a revival, big enough, to change the spiritual outcome for America. We have only one thing left to fight for, namely, spiritual redemption.
There is only one vote that matters and it is the vote you can cast for Jesus.
I hesitated publishing this article because I know very few people would agree I am a Christian. But in my mind I believe Jesus Christ is God and that will never change. Let’s just say I am a very sinful Christian and end the discussion. Besides, who do you know that really is a good one? From what I have learned through the works of Anna Maria Riezinger I have no doubt that America is dead in principal as the overwhelming amount of historically ignorant Americans have no clue about the importance of humans adhering to the founding doctrines, and instead have embraced the principals of democracy which has destroyed every nation that embraced it. The popular belief that the people really decide who our leaders are is the living proof of American ignorance. The Banking Cartel is laughing their self sick.
February 20th, 2016 by olddog
READ OLDDOGS COMMENTS BELOW ARTICLE
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
January 20, 2016
Not so long ago, Donald Trump drew unto himself a great deal of ire from certain circles for suggesting that, in light of the international dangers posed by Islamic terrorists, this country should consider prohibiting further immigration by Muslims. Much of this abuse seemed to assume that some sort of “right” to migrate to the United States exists for foreigners in general, or Muslims in particular—or at least for those foreigners or Muslims against whom some specific criminal or other serious charges cannot be levied as the bases for their disqualifications for entry.
At this moment, I am merely an observer, rather than an avowed supporter, of Mr. Trump. For what sort of a card in the deck of Presidential candidates he may be has yet to become clear. Some astute, if cynical, political commentators suggest that he may be being put up as the Establishment’s Manchurian Candidate—that is, a one-eyed Jack which shows only the deceptive side of its face to the general public’s view.
Other commentators warn that he may be being set up by subterranean forces as a sure loser in the general election to Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or some equally deplorable donkey from the Establishment’s political stable—that is, as a Joker. Still others hope that a benevolent Providence has raised up Mr. Trump as America’s Ace in the Hole for the decisive hand which History has dealt at this critical juncture in the course of human events. My personal concern is whether, even if Mr. Trump himself is “for real” and goes on to win nomination and the general election, he is likely as President to prove to be America’s trump card—or merely a card which will be trumped by some other card the Establishment plans to deal from the bottom of the political deck. That is, specifically, whether Mr. Trump is perhaps being put up, or more likely being put up with, by the crafty Forces of Darkness in order to be set up in the White House as the new Herbert Hoover when the national economy crashes in 2017 or 2018.
Whatever sort of card Mr. Trump may turn out to be, one thing is certain: He was quite correct as to the power, the right, and in some circumstances the duty of the United States to exclude aliens—any and all aliens—from entering this country. That point is so clearly and firmly established that one must wonder whether the only commodity the supply of which never runs out amongst all too many Americans today is double-rectified, industrial-strength ignorance where basic questions of constitutional law are concerned.
Consider the internet report by Paul Bedard, in the Washington Examiner, “THE MAP: ‘Sanctuary Cities’ cross the 300 mark with Dallas, Philly” (2 February 2016), which informs its readers that these “sanctuary cities” are refusing to assist in, or perhaps even to allow, enforcement of America’s immigration and naturalization laws against illegal aliens welcomed within their territories. Now, it should be obvious that the very concept of any such “sanctuary” is unconstitutional, root and branch. The Tenth Amendment does provide that “[t]he 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.”
But powers over immigration are explicitly and exclusively “delegated to the United States by the Constitution”. Specifically, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 extends to Congress the power “[t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”—which plainly excludes variegated rules on that subject generated by the States or their political subdivisions on some ad hoc bases. See Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941). Furthermore, Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 states that “[t]he Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand sight hundred and eight”—which plainly permits Congress to “prohibi[t]” such “Migration or Importation” after 1808 in “the States now existing” (that is, as of ratification of the Constitution in 1788) and at all times in all other States, and that absolutely and unconditionally (because the Constitution sets out no limitation with respect to this matter). “Migration” plainly refers back to Congress’s power with respect to “Naturalization”, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4; whereas “Importation” refers back to Congress’s power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations”, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. Taken together, all of these provisions authorize Congress to exclude from entry into this country any and all aliens, at any time, for any reason.
As the Supreme Court emphasized in Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581, 603-604, 606, 609 (1889):
That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think is open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is part of its independence. If it could not exclude aliens, it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power. * * *
While under our Constitution and form of government the great mass of local matters is controlled by local authorities, the United States, in their relation to foreign countries and their subjects or citizens are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence and security throughout its entire territory.
To preserve its independence, and give security against foreign aggression and encroachment, is the highest duty of every nation, and to attain these ends nearly all other considerations are to be subordinated. It matters not in what form such aggression and encroachment come, whether from the foreign nation acting through its national character or from vast hordes of its people crowding in upon us. The government, possessing the powers which are to be exercised for protection and security, is clothed with authority to determine the occasion on which the powers shall be called forth; and its determination, so far as the subjects affected are concerned, are necessarily conclusion upon all its departments and officers. If, therefore, the government of the United States, through its legislative department, considers the presence of foreigners * * * who will not assimilate with us, to be dangerous to its peace and security, their exclusion is not to be stayed because at the time there are no actual hostilities with the nation of which the foreigners are subjects.
The existence of war would render the necessity of the proceeding only more obvious and pressing. The same necessity, in a less pressing degree, may arise when war does not exist, and the same authority which adjudges the necessity in one case must also determine it in another. In both cases its determination is conclusive * * * .
The power of exclusion of foreigners being an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States, as part of those sovereign powers delegated by the Constitution, the right to its exercise at any time when, in the judgment of the government, the interests of the country require it, cannot be granted away or restrained on behalf of any one. The powers of government are delegated in trust to the United States, and are incapable of transfer to any other parties. They cannot be abandoned or surrendered. Nor can their exercise be hampered, when need for the public good, by any consideration of private interest.
Accord, Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86, 97 (1903); United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 289-290 (1904); Bagajewitz v. Adams, 228 U.S. 585, 591 (1913).
Simply put, “the formulation of these policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress[.]” Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 530-531 (1954). Period. See also Chirac v. Chirac, 15 U.S. (2 Wheaton) 259, 269 (1817); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 701 (1898). No room exists for the States or their Localities to adopt rules as to aliens either more, or less, stringent than those which Congress has enacted. See Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941). Exclamation point.
As of today, Congress has enacted numerous laws on this subject—none of them as severe as they could be, but which nonetheless render certain aliens subject to exclusion, illegal if they enter this country in defiance of those laws, and liable to deportation and other punishments when apprehended. Furthermore, Congress has specifically authorized the President to deal in a draconian fashion with illegal (or any other form of) entry by aliens into this country:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. * * * 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).
And, in fulfillment of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”, the President could, and should, rigorously enforce this statute now that it has become crystal-clear that “the interests of the United States” require the statute’s enforcement—indeed, that the very salvation of this country so demands. See also my NewsWithViews commentary “How The President Can Secure The Borders” (18 August 2015).
Thus, the factions which are trying to deny to Americans the ability, originally secured by the Declaration of Independence, to maintain “among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them” as a sovereign nation capable of preserving its own identity and integrity by controlling its own borders—and which are trying to effect the same result against the nations of Europe, too—have not a legal leg, foot, or even toe upon which to stand when they purport to provide “sanctuary” or other aid to illegal aliens. Neither have they any credible basis for criticizing Mr. Trump when he says that he, as President, would deal with immigration, legal as well as illegal, in a particularly uncompromising manner.
Moreover, because the States are at the present time being invaded in fact by “vast hordes of [illegal aliens] crowding in upon us”, they could exercise their own explicitly reserved constitutional power and duty under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 to protect their independence and integrity by, if necessary, “engag[ing] in War, [when] actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay”—at the very least by militantly prohibiting their own political subdivisions from aiding and abetting such an invasion through the provision of “sanctuaries” for or other assistance to the invaders. But what sort of legally and politically inane, if not insane, behavior does America witness today? On the one side, half-witted State and Local officials are purporting to exercise powers absolutely denied to them, in the interest of facilitating alien invasions of their own territories (and, by extension, of the United States as a whole), such as by establishing “sanctuary cities”. While, on the other side, the very same nitwits refuse to exercise their undoubtedly reserved constitutional authority: (i) to “make * * * gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts” perforce of Article I, Section Clause, Clause 1, so as to begin the process of restoring to this country an economically sound and constitutional monetary system; and (ii) to revitalize “the Militia of the several States”, which the Second Amendment declares to be “necessary to the security of a free State” in every respect!
Will sheltering illegal aliens prevent or mitigate the coming collapse of this country’s monetary and banking systems—or will the financial drain those aliens will impose on overburdened social services and underfunded “safety nets” accelerate and exacerbate it? Will the illegal aliens being sheltered today contribute to the stabilization and then to the reconstruction of society in the wake of that collapse tomorrow, as only revitalized Militia will be capable of doing—or will they increase and intensify the widespread lawlessness which will surely accompany a major economic crisis? These questions answer themselves.
The present rage for “sanctuary cities” may have as one source the giddy altruism and agonizing self-flagellation, coupled with the constitutional illiteracy, of naive “liberals” eager to eradicate so-called “white privilege” (or to pay court to some other half-baked but “politically correct” notion fashionable at the moment). That, however, is only a very small—and the least consequential—part of the explanation for what is going on.
The Establishment—the ultimate purposes of which are far from being either “liberal” or even benign—employs excessive immigration of all sorts as a battering ram against traditional America. By importing or infiltrating huge numbers of aliens who are either incapable of assimilating in principle or unwilling to assimilate in practice, and thus salting mutually incompatible and even overtly antagonistic enclaves of such people throughout this country, the Establishment divides the total population into hostile competing factions and selfish special interests each of which it hopes it can separately manipulate—politically, economically, ideologically, and socially—so as in the end to rule them all. (This, of course will ultimately disadvantage most “liberals” as well as everyone else, which is why those “liberals” who parrot the Establishment’s line and follow its lead as to immigration are rightly derided as “useful idiots”—“useful” with respect to the Establishment, but “idiots” with respect to their own interests.)
One needs vision far less acute than 20-20 to see that, as the result of the Establishment’s actions, political, economic, ideological, and social divisions, confusions, misunderstandings, and conflicts persist just about everywhere in this country, and even prevail to the exclusion of social cohesion in many places. The most pernicious manifestation of this orchestrated disunity even has a name: “multiculturalism”. Whether this is the product of calculation—engineered and propagated by the exponents of “cultural Marxism” or other subversive schools of thought—or is the unintended consequence of monumental hubris and stupidity on the part of Establishment and its hangers-on, the destructive result is the same.
No nation has ever been created or long held together through the imposition of anarchic “diversity” from the top down through a calculated policy hatched by its ruling class (or for that matter from the bottom up, as the result of a series of adventitious “barbarian invasions”). Just as the very concept of a “nation” presupposes defined and enforceable geographical borders, so too does it presume the existence of unity with respect to certain fundamental legal principles, economic practices, political procedures, and social conventions which define that nation and its constituent people. In America, “multiculturalism” might be acceptable with respect to social relations which more or less were matters of indifference—but only if citizenship were strictly conditioned upon “uniculturalism” in vital particulars, by requiring each legal immigrant (and native citizen, for that matter) to demonstrate his understanding of and loyalty to the traditional, theoretically sound, and time-tested tenets of Americanism: namely, national independence (the Declaration of Independence); limited government (the Constitution); nonintervention in foreign conflicts (“the common defence”); free markets beneficial to all (“the general Welfare”); personal freedom (“the Blessings of Liberty” in general and the Bill of Rights in particular); the centripetal force of a single national language (English, in which those fundamental laws, as well as all of America’s statutes and judicial decisions, are written); and, perhaps most important of all, each individual’s duty to the community to be ever-ready to retain and protect good government, and to throw off bad government in the persons of rogue public officials, if necessary through being called forth to serve in the Militia.
But no—the Establishment has promoted the subversion, even the open denigration, of Americanism at every turn, particularly these days with respect to “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, the unfettered exercise of which is essential to the maintenance of what the Second Amendment calls “well regulated Militia”. The one and only culture the vaunted “inclusiveness” of contemporary “multiculturalism” scrupulously excludes is Americanism. The Establishment treats only Americanism as an unacceptable component of the “diversity” on which it dotes.
No doubt some people will dismiss the foregoing as a xenophobic analysis. Having never perused Frosty Wooldridge’s columns at NewsWithViews, they will wax eloquent about how, according to one theory or another, an ever-swelling influx of aliens, even those unquestionably illegal, will actually benefit the national economy, and even enrich ordinary Americans’ lives with all sorts of exotic and wonderful foreign colors, sounds, smells, and flavors, as it were.
One assaulted by such rosy descriptions and predictions would do well, though, to recall the warning voiced by the Trojan priest Laocoon, urging his imprudent countrymen not to haul the Wooden Horse within the walls of Troy: “Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes”—“whatever it is, I fear the Greeks, even bearing gifts”. I, for one, sense that Mr. Trump understands this, even if perhaps he has never read Virgil’s Aeneid.
© 2016 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserved
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.
He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us
He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com
His latest book is: “How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary” … and Constitutional “Homeland Security,” Volume One, The Nation in Arms…
He can be reached at his new address:
52 Stonegate Court
Front Royal, VA 22630.
E-Mail: Not available
Do to my lack of acceptable educational credentials I cannot complain about so few American’s following my advice, but when America has men such as Dr. Vieira, not being capable of reading and understanding Dr. Vieira’s article above is enough to completely destroy any confidence in humanity. He so plainly lays out the failure of modern multi-culture humanism, yet it persists like an intellectual plague as though American’s have been infected with a death wish. How A Nation could produce and support such ignorance is beyond understanding. My fellow countrymen if you continue sitting on your ass while your family is being burned alive in the flames that devour your home and country, you have my total contempt. If you insist on supporting diversity when there is so much evidence that it is an insane philosophy, you deserve what is coming.
THE TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF A FREE SOCIETY!
February 15th, 2016 by olddog
Senior officials with the U.S. Department of Justice recently announced possible legal changes which could allow the government greater room to combat so-called “anti-government extremists”.
On Thursday February 4, Reuters reported that John Carlin, the Justice Department’s chief of national security, and federal prosecutors are looking for new tools to deal with the rise of “domestic extremists.”
“Based on recent reports and the cases we are seeing, it seems like we’re in a heightened environment,” Carlin told Reuters. Reuters notes that the U.S. government is facing an increase in opposition from militia groups, “sovereign citizens,” and other “anti-government extremists.”
However, federal officials like Carlin claim they are impeded in their pursuit of violent domestic terrorists because, although there is currently a U.S. law that prohibits “material” support of internationally recognized terror groups, there is not such a law for domestic groups. Reuters reports:
Carlin and other Justice Department officials declined to say if they would ask Congress for a comparable domestic extremist statute, or comment on what other changes they might pursue to toughen the fight against anti-government extremists.
The U.S. State Department designates international terrorist organizations to which it is illegal to provide “material support.” No domestic groups have that designation, helping to create a disparity in charges faced by international extremist suspects compared to domestic ones.
Carlin told Reuters that his counter-terrorism team is taking a “thoughtful look at the nature and scope of the domestic terrorism threat” and looking for “potential legal improvements and enhancements to better combat those threats.” The Justice Department will identify cases being prosecuted at the state level that “could arguably meet the federal definition of domestic terrorism.”
Carlin and his team are not only remaining quiet about whether or not they are pursuing the legal changes but the entire team has not been revealed to the public. This means we have an unelected, secret team of people working on identifying which Americans should be deemed “domestic extremists.”
Will Freedom Activists be Targeted?
Carlin’s silence should alarm all activists who consider themselves opposed to the policies of the U.S. government. Not only are those who espouse anti-government or pro-freedom rhetoric likely to be targeted but the penalty for being a part of such a group, or supporting such a group could eventually mean years in prison. Current laws allow for a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison for Americans who support groups on the State Department list of designated terrorist organizations.
Under a 1994 law federal prosecutors could attempt to bring “material support” terrorism charges against people who are linked to groups not on the State Department’s list but this has only happened twice since the law was enacted. If the Justice Department creates a list of groups that are deemed extremist or terrorist this could lead to stifling of free speech and expression.
Part of the problem is the broad definition of “extremism” itself. As far as the pursuit and defense against “extremism” is concerned, the United States government has failed to adequately define the term, and by doing so, is allowing for perfectly legal behavior to become taboo or even criminalized. In June 2014, TruthInMedia’s Jay Syrmopouloswrote about this trend:
First there was the MIAC report, which claimed that potential terrorists include people who own gold, Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, and even people who fly the U.S. flag.
Then in 2012, there was a leaked Homeland Security study that claimed Americans who are ‘reverent of individual liberty,’ and ‘suspicious of centralized federal authority’ are possible ‘extreme right-wing’ terrorists.
More recently, there is a Department of Defense training manual, obtained by Judicial Watch via a FOIA request, that lists people who embrace “individual liberties” and honor “states’ rights,” among other characteristics, as potential “extremists” who are likely to be members of “hate groups.”
This document goes on to call the Founding Fathers extremists, stating, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements,“ including “[t]he colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule.”
If the United States government cannot clearly define who it is targeting in its war on extremism how are the people supposed to trust that these programs will not simply be used to target outspoken activists and critics of the government?
A Domestic War on “Extremism”?
These possible legal changes are only the latest effort to combat “extremism” by the Justice Department. In October 2015 Anti Media reported that the United Nations and the Department of Justice announced the creation of a new program designed to help local communities combat “violent extremism.” Called the Strong Cities Network (SCN), the plan calls for “systematic efforts” to “share experiences, pool resources and build a community of cities to inspire local action on a global scale.”
U.S. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said, “The Strong Cities Network will serve as a vital tool to strengthen capacity-building and improve collaboration, ”and will “enable cities to learn from one another, to develop best practices and to build social cohesion and community resilience here at home and around the world.”
“To counter violent extremism we need determined action at all levels of governance,” said Governing Mayor Stian Berger Røsland of Oslo. “To succeed, we must coordinate our efforts and cooperate across borders.”
The creation of the Smart Cities Network comes after the Justice Department announced it would revive a task force on domestic terrorism in an attempt to stop violence within the United States. In June 2014, former Attorney General Eric Holder stated the Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee would work to eliminate dangers from violent individuals who may be motivated by anti-government or racist views. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Division of the Justice Department, and the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee are in charge of the efforts. The committee was originally launched to focus on right-wing extremism in the aftermath of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
As Americans slowly awaken to the truth of the American Empire, the powers that wish they were are scrambling to tighten their control grid. If the American public will not be subdued and distracted by elections or dead-stream media bread and circuses, the Ruling Class will have to resort to more direct methods of stifling freedom. This presents the perfect opportunity for those living amongst the zombies to organize and strategize for solutions that do not rely on government or their corporate partners.
Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is a news editor forActivistPost.com and the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com. Follow him on Twitter.
“Americans who are ‘reverent of individual liberty,’ and ‘suspicious of centralized federal authority’ are possible ‘extreme right-wing’ terrorists.
More recently, there is a Department of Defense training manual, obtained by Judicial Watch via a FOIA request, that lists people who embrace “individual liberties” and honor “states’ rights,” among other characteristics, as potential “extremists” who are likely to be members of “hate groups.”
This document goes on to call the Founding Fathers extremists, stating, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements,“ including “[t]he colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule.”
If the United States government cannot clearly define who it is targeting in its war on extremism how are the people supposed to trust that these programs will not simply be used to target outspoken activists and critics of the government?”??????
Well! According to that, I am some kind of security threat, and believe me if I was forty years younger I would prove them right! However, I support my right to have any fucking kind of opinion that I want, about an Illegal government especially. And even if it was a legal government I would still oppose these ass-holes on general principal. How many of these son-of-bitches do you think are not making a damn fortune selling out to big business? How many of them are supporting our Original Constitution? How many of them are screwing little children, or poking little boy’s in the butt? How many of them are manipulating less powerful business by threats of tyrannical laws? I could go on and on till hell freezes over and never come close to the debauchery of these bastards. TERRIOST, HELL YES I’M A TERRIOST! Because if I could I would send every one of them to hell, begging to stay there!
February 9th, 2016 by olddog
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURAGE! WE WILL NOT FORGET YOU
To the COWARDS who did not support him, listen up!
You will not be forgiven when the shit really hits the fan!
America will be taken back by the three percent just as it
was in the beginning, because the majority is willing to be
subjects and we are not! OBUMA will be remembered as
the most despicable wanabee tyrant in history, and
Real American‘s will line up to piss on his grave!
February 9th, 2016 by olddog
Olddog is going to have surgery this morning on his right index finger (Trigger Finger). And being a competitive Steel Challenge Pistol Shooter, this is a great concern for him. Wish Him Luck! He may not be on line for a while as His left hand is only usable for giving politicians the, you know what!
February 6th, 2016 by olddog
By Ms. RoseAnn Salanitri
December 17, 2015-TPATH- Regardless of which presidential candidate you support, it is highly unlikely that any one of them will be able to turn back the pages of time to when America was a shining city on a hill. Many believe that our plummet from nobility is multi-faceted and cannot be laid squarely at any one person’s feet or attributed to any one cause. That opinion may not be accurate.
Our Founding Fathers created a form of government that would guide us through a myriad of challenges. They did not do so lightly. They researched. They argued. They debated and they agonized over every aspect of our Constitution, fully understanding the final draft’s attributes and loopholes. For more than a century and a half, the system worked – even through the Civil War and the immoral challenges of slavery. The ability of the Constitution to be amended was significant and our humble Founders understood that significance. They also understood that this significant attribute could also lead to our national demise. Had they been prophets, they would have also foreseen the damage progressive thinking would have on our way of life and the liberties we hold so dear. Prophecy aside, they did understand that the survival of these United States was dependant on a moral and religious people.
In October of 1798 in an address to General Walker, John Adams is quoted as saying: “…Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Adams knew what he said and why he said it. It is unfortunate that only this segment of his speech is quoted. Its entirety speaks volumes to the primary cause responsible for our impending national doom.
Therefore, as we ponder how to “Make America Great Again,” perhaps we should be looking to the wisdom of one of our most passionate founders and not to any modern day political figure. Adams not only stated clearly that morality and religion were foundational principles of our Constitution, he also stated why. Below are segments of that speech that apply directly to us today.
…But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising (sic) iniquity and extravagance…in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the New World; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other… (Emphasis added)
Adams may not have known Obama, or One World Order people, or our feckless representatives personally, but he certainly knew about the character traits they imbue. He understood that a government that sought to protect personal liberty could not do that if its citizens were not capable of governing themselves on a personal basis. No, Adams was not a prophet. However, his understanding of human nature and its effects on government can be considered prophetic.
As intuitive as Adams may have been, even he did not foresee a movement that would initialize a stronghold on the very notion of Providence and its God – a movement that would be A-religious and consequently A-moral. Arguably, Charles Darwin was as influential as Christ Himself on succeeding cultures and governments. Darwinism clearly gives license to those wishing to become their own gods, since the real God and His precepts and principles are removed from their belief system. The American Progressive/Regressive Movement is the best example of a philosophy based on Darwinism that is changing our country.
And like its predecessor millennia ago in the Garden of Eden, these modern day Adams and Eves that embrace evolution believe they can create their own morality and consequently their own version of truth. It’s really the same old apple. In reality, their logic is not flawed. If God isn’t the creator, either He is a liar or He doesn’t exist. If the latter is true, then the progressive/regressives would be correct. Absolute truth would not exist, and therefore subjective truth reigns. They fail to realize that if truth is not absolute, it is not truth at all but merely opinion. In addition to just being plain wrong, the problem is that their subjective application has filled our prisons, destroyed our system of government, and perverted our children. It has perverted the very principle of freedom of religion into freedom from religion and in so doing has slowly been corrupting our moral foundation. As the Bible states: “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Psalm 11:3.
Barack Obama, our present day progressive/regressive icon, was not the first narcissist to embrace racism. Hitler, Stalin and Mao beat him to the punch – all evolutionists that believed they could set their own standards based on their subjective truths. We know these names and the horrors they committed unbridled by absolute truth or righteousness that respects life; however, there were still others before them. All were charismatic and passionate speakers. These tyrants capitalized on a misinformed and misguided populace that had no standard to judge their rhetoric by. And there is no absolute standard except for the Word of God, which is systematically being removed from the public conscience under the guise of freedom of religion. Under these conditions, it should be no surprise that we, as a nation, have fallen with such force and such speed. Adams’ statement that our government was made for a moral and religious people should be echoing throughout our collective national soul. Banishing God has not led to a Utopian way of life. It never has and it never will. So whether our national demise is multi-faceted or not, its cause is singular: we are fast becoming a Godless nation – unfortunately proving Adams correct.
So while we debate which political party is better or which presidential candidate can restore America to greatness, the wise among us will be standing on their knees and waiving the banner of truth and truth’s one and only God. If America repents, and if America turns from legalizing immorality and justifying infanticide among other things, then and only then does America have a chance of restoring its greatness. And to be sure, greatness cannot be restored to us by any man except the man Jesus Christ. While Christ may not be running for the presidency, let’s once again elect Him as our one and only king, as they did at the time of the Revolutionary War. If you are so inclined, I encourage you to join with me in coining a new, but old cry:
No King but Jesus; No Sovereign but God.
Simple words but they carry the greatest hope for a dying nation.
February 2nd, 2016 by olddog
By John W. Whitehead
Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours. There is no need for wardens or gates or Ministries of Truth. When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; a culture-death is a clear possibility. — Professor Neil Postman
If there are two spectacles that are almost guaranteed to render Americans passive viewers, incapable of doing little more than cheering on their respective teams, it’s football and politics—specifically, the Super Bowl and the quadrennial presidential election.
Both football and politics encourage zealous devotion among their followers, both create manufactured divisions that alienate one group of devotees from another, and both result in a strange sort of tunnel vision that leaves the viewer oblivious to anything else going on around them apart from the “big game.”
Both football and politics are televised, big-money, advertising-driven exercises in how to cultivate a nation of armchair enthusiasts who are content to sit, watch and be entertained, all the while convincing themselves that they are active contributors to the outcome. Even the season schedules are similar in football and politics: the weekly playoffs, the blow-by-blow recaps, the betting pools and speculation, the conferences, and then the final big championship game.
In the same way, both championship events are costly entertainment extravaganzas that feed the nation’s appetite for competition, consumerism and carnivalesque stunts. In both scenarios, cities bid for the privilege of hosting key athletic and political events. For example, San Francisco had to raise close to $50 million just to host the 50th Super Bowl, with its deluxe stadium, Super Bowl City, free fan village, interactive theme park, and free Alicia Keys concert, not including the additional $5 million cost to taxpayers for additional security. Likewise, it costs cities more than $60 million to host the national presidential nominating conventions for the Republicans and Democrats.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that there is anything wrong with enjoying the entertainment that is football or politics.
However, where we go wrong as a society is when we become armchair quarterbacks, so completely immersed in the Big Game or the Big Campaign that we are easily controlled by the powers-that-be—the megacorporations who run both shows—and oblivious to what is really going on around us.
For instance, while mainstream America has been fixated on the contenders for the Vince Lombardi Trophy and the White House, the militarized, warring surveillance state has been moving steadily forward. Armed drones, increased government surveillance and spying, SWAT team raids, police shootings of unarmed citizens, and the like continue to plague the country. None of these dangers have dissipated. They have merely disappeared from our televised news streams.
In this way, television is a “dream come true” for an authoritarian society.
Television isolates people so they are not joining together to govern themselves. As clinical psychologist Bruce Levine notes, viewing television puts one in a brain state that makes it difficult to think critically, and it quiets and subdues a population. And spending one’s free time isolated and watching TV interferes with our ability to translate our outrage over governmental injustice into activism, and thus makes it easier to accept an authority’s version of society and life.
Supposedly the reason why television—and increasingly movies—are so effective in subduing and pacifying us is that viewers are mesmerized by what TV-insiders call “technical events.” These, according to Levine, are “quick cuts, zoom-ins, zoom-outs, rolls, pans, animation, music, graphics, and voice-overs, all of which lure viewers to continue watching even though they have no interest in the content.” Such technical events, which many action films now incorporate, spellbind people to continue watching.
Televised entertainment, no matter what is being broadcast, has become the nation’s new drug high. Researchers found that “almost immediately after turning on the TV, subjects reported feeling more relaxed, and because this occurs so quickly and the tension returns so rapidly after the TV is turned off, people are conditioned to associate TV viewing with a lack of tension.”
Not surprisingly, the United States is one of the highest TV-viewing nations in the world.
Indeed, a Nielsen study reports that American screen viewing is at an all-time high. For example, the average American watches approximately 151 hours of television per month. That does not include the larger demographic of screen-watchers who watch their entertainment via their laptops, personal computers, cell phones, tablets and so on.
Historically, television has been used by those in authority to quiet citizen unrest and pacify disruptive people. In fact, television-viewing has also been a proven tactic for ensuring compliance in prisons. “Faced with severe overcrowding and limited budgets for rehabilitation and counseling, more and more prison officials are using TV to keep inmates quiet,” according to Newsweek. Joe Corpier, a convicted murderer, when interviewed said, “If there’s a good movie, it’s usually pretty quiet through the whole institution.”
In other words, television and other screen viewing not only helps to subdue people but, as Levine concludes, it also zombifies and pacifies us and subverts democracy.
Television viewing, no matter what we’re collectively watching—whether it’s American Idol, the presidential debates or the Super Bowl—is a group activity that immobilizes us and mesmerizes us with collective programming. In fact, research also shows that regardless of the programming, viewers’ brain waves slow down, thus transforming them into a more passive, nonresistant state.
As such, television watching today results in passive group compliance in much the same way that marching was used by past regimes to create group indoctrination. Political advisor Bertram Gross documents how Adolf Hitler employed marching as a technique to mobilize people in groups by immobilizing them. Hitler and his regime leaders discovered that when people gather in groups and do the same thing—such as marching or cheering at an entertainment or sporting event—they became passive, non-thinking non-individuals.
By replacing “marching” with electronic screen devices, we have the equivalent of Hitler’s method of population control. Gross writes:
As a technique of immobilizing people, marching requires organization and, apart from the outlay costs involved, organized groups are a potential danger. They might march to a different drum or in the wrong direction….TV is more effective. It captures many more people than would ever fill the streets by marching—and without interfering with automobile traffic.
Equally disturbing is a university study which indicates that we become less aware of our individual selves and moral identity in a group. The study’s findings strongly suggest that when we act in groups, we tend to consider our moral behavior less while moving in lockstep with the group. Thus, what the group believes or does, be it violence or inhumanity, does not seem to lessen the need to be a part of a group, whether it be a mob or political gathering.
So what does this have to do with the Super Bowl and the upcoming presidential election?
If fear-based TV programming—or programming that encourages rivalries and factions—makes people more afraid and distrustful of one another, then our current television lineup is exactly what is needed by an authoritarian society that depends on a “divide and conquer” strategy.
Moreover, according to Levine, authoritarian-based programming is more technically interesting to viewers than democracy-based programming. War and violence, for example, may be rather unpleasant in real life. However, peace and cooperation make for “boring television.”
What this means is that Super Bowl matches and presidential contests are merely more palatable, less bloody, manifestations of war suitable for television viewing audiences.
This also explains why television has become the medium of choice for charismatic politicians with a strong screen presence. They are essentially television performers—actors, if you will. Indeed, any successful candidate for political office—especially the President—must come off well on TV. Television has the lure of involvement. A politically adept president can actually make you believe you are involved in the office of the presidency.
The effective president, then, is essentially a television performer. As the renowned media analyst Marshall McLuhan recognized concerning television: “Potentially, it can transform the presidency into a monarchist dynasty.”
If what we see and what we are told through the entertainment industrial complex—which includes so-called “news” shows—is what those in power deem to be in their best interests, then endless screen viewing is not a great thing for a citizenry who believe they possess choice and freedom. Mind you, the majority of what Americans watch on television is provided through channels controlled by a corporate elite of six mega corporations with the ability to foster a particular viewpoint or pacify its viewers on a large scale.
Unfortunately for us, the direction of the future, then, may be towards a Brave New World scenario where the populace is constantly distracted by entertainment, hooked on prescription drugs and controlled by a technological elite.
Freedom, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, is an action word. It means turning off your screen devices—or at least greatly reducing your viewing time—and getting active to take to stave off the emerging authoritarian government.
Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, and the countless science fiction writers and commentators have warned that we are in a race between getting actively involved in the world around us or facing disaster.
If we’re watching, we’re not doing.
As television journalist Edward R. Murrow warned in a 1958 speech:
We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.
February 1st, 2016 by olddog
We lost Dottie Seese on Dec.11th – She saw far ahead of the time she wrote this piece. How many times does history have to be repeated before the People wake up and push the ENEMY WITHIN back into its’ hole?
© By Dorothy Anne Seese
The cultural revolution is over. Without a shot being fired other than by government agents, America was changed, transformed, from a land of liberty to a nation of multicultural tolerance dolts with liberal educations and preemptive mindsets. There is still a bit of mop up work to do to clear out some radical free-thinkers (mostly pesky Christians and diehards of the Confederacy and its battle flag) but they will be eradicated within a decade. One way or another.
American heritage has been demeaned, despised and desecrated. It has also been revised by revisionists who have graduated from universities that inculcate principles of the cultural revolutionaries. The South was uniquely regional in its character, belief system, social behavior and pride. A new “reconstruction” is mopping up where new, lesser and quieter “Shermans” have come and taken over its cities, media, schools and political arenas. The South will one day find its biscuits and gravy have been banned by the World Health Organization as nothing but flour and grease, and replaced by baked broccoli omelettes with sliced tomatoes. No Southerner will be permitted to refer to the Stars and Stripes as the “Union flag” and all displays of the Confederate battle flag will be banned under penalty of law. Free speech emanates from free thinking, and to control freedom of speech is eventually to change the direction and tenor of free thought.
The South has always been unique in character, something that the cultural revolution cannot permit in any area of the country. Arizonans were once rugged individualists. That situation has been corrected by cultural revolutionaries quietly moving over from California and occupying the major cities and some of the pricier small towns. In each case the newcomers took command by vocal minorities (or majorities) and initiating activism for liberal agendas. The only way the Arizona state seal escaped being altered for having the motto “Ditat Deus” (God provides) is that no one speaks Latin. There is no need to make an issue out of things the general public doesn’t comprehend, the objective is to make issues out of what the public understands all too well, and to do it for great causes like “the children” or “the environment” or, that greatest of all masques, “the future of our country.”
The Revolution is over, and Americans are desensitized to the point where nothing short of an attack on New York, Washington, or San Francisco will get their attention, a larger attack than Nine-Eleven. Cases of outrage are few. The government ran some tests as to the outrage threshold of Americans and found it was peculiarly dense, satisfactory to the cultural commandants, when free Americans shrugged their shoulders at:
The killing of Vicky Weaver at Ruby Ridge by an FBI sniper;
The incinerating of women and children at the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas;
The institution of martial law in Georgia twice, once in 1996 for the Olympics and again in June 2004 for the G8 Summit meeting on Sea Island.
The outsourcing of American border security to Accenture, a Bermuda-based corporation (formerly Arthur Andersen and Co. of the Enron scandal infamy), to pay offshore crooks up to $10 billion to “defend” the American borders, but no one has said which way the guns will be facing. We do know that the U.S. Marines, when questioned as to whether they would fire on fellow Americans, said “no.” Outsourcing to mercenaries is the only answer to a military that is loyal to its countrymen until they can be replaced by those whose mindset is not to protect the people but only the state and the powers that run it.
Whoever controls the firepower controls the state, which is why the insistence of the various UN and liberal American globalists that average citizens surrender their guns. Los Angeles is out of control with gangs and a police force that is not controlling them. Murder rates in both Los Angeles, California and Phoenix, Arizona are staggering.
It will become necessary, of course, to have some sort of martial law to provide for the safety of our citizens, and the citizens will cry for protection at any price. After that, the success of The Second Revolution can be announced, but then it will be so obvious it will need no announcement, like daybreak. Or nightfall.
The Constitution is worth no more than the integrity of the judiciary that interprets it, so it can stand as the “living” framework for our nation as long as no one uses it to limit governmental authority over subjugated citizens.
Education has degenerated to little more than federal indoctrination, carried out through university level, for the purpose of instilling in young minds the worthlessness of the American heritage and the future of the new order to come. Heritage, ancestry, tradition, morality, religion, family lines and any other allegiances are worthless to statists and will be educated out of the newer generations just as they are being despised publicly and anyone who dares to speak to the contrary is expelled or otherwise disciplined for egregious behavior. Students are the tools of the order to come, to carry on where the mortal leaders of this generation leave off.
The shot that signaled the onset of the Second Revolution was the shot that killed the late president John F. Kennedy. The year 1963 saw prayers banned in schools, and the Christians didn’t oppose it, although something over 80% of this nation declares that they are “Christian.” That probably means they do not belong to any other religion, grandma was a Christian, or they go to church twice a year. JFK was about to do away with the Federal Reserve, which is neither part of the federal government nor a true reserve, it is a cartel of US and foreign bankers. They control the money supply of the United States, and they took the hard currency upon which our monetary system was based. When Kennedy announced his intentions, he did not live long.
The Second Revolution continued with the Vietnam war protests. Regardless of the benefit or uselessness of the war, the hippie movement, the flower children and flag burners were tolerated by Americans who shrugged as long as nothing was happening on their block. It was just something on the news. But it brought immorality into vogue, made way for the feminist bra-burning protests, and eventually the gay rights movement. Then came the drug dealers and cartels from around the world. Those were followed by an open border policy to the south, so that millions of illegal invaders could dilute the remnant of American culture by their sheer numbers and their general lawlessness. The sex trade became part of America’s corporate structure and philosophy, as was exposed during the war in Kosovo, then disappeared from journalistic sight.
Every bit of the above and more is available through the internet and breaking news wires. Such sources often yield interesting stories that are “timed out” and never picked up by major media. People have asked how I get my information. Via the internet, from village chat out in diners and markets, wherever I can pick up American thought and global information. The only work left to do for a writer is to connect the stories and conversations and make a coherent picture out of it, then type. The times, trends and events are out there for all to see, but most folks are too busy to look.
Many well-meaning Americans are waiting for the right time to fight the takeover of America by the New World Order. They are expecting a revolution. But … the revolution came, in fact it began over forty years ago. They were waiting for gunfire and got professors. They were waiting for tanks in the streets before it was time, so they got gay rights parades instead. They turned to homeschooling after the government had anticipated a small rebellion and instead merely got rules and requirements for homeschool curricula. The list could go on, but everything the honest American patriots were waiting for had been anticipated and circumvented by a different type of revolution.
The globalists are evil, but they are not stupid. Their planning has been better than anyone gave them credit for being able to accomplish.
It was time to “shoot the bastards” four decades ago but no one saw the handwriting on the wall. Now the wall is encircling us and everything we should like to see done to restore America. That will take a third revolution, because the second succeeded in taking our liberties and twisting our values, our mindsets and abolishing our cultural heritage. It was right out in plain sight, and no one saw. Now the internet writers are corresponding with each other while major media, a mind-control system straight from Stalin’s old Pravda, keeps spewing the doctrine of the new order in politically correct language and with slanted stories that the majority of Americans believe.
Written in June, 2004, from Occupied America.
Dottie, you are sorely missed, but your words will live forever in the minds of free people who accept no authority but Jesus Christ. Man made laws will never last the test of time. They will fade away like the after affects of a hurricane are forgotten.
Au revoir Granny