Log in



Categories » ‘Treason’

The Big One 20 years of work filed in your behalf

September 24th, 2016 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2016/09/the-big-one-20-years-of-work-filed-in.html

12-21-2015 3-19-06 PMby Anna Von Reitz

Yesterday I filed the Big One, the Summation of over twenty (20) years work in behalf of the actual American states owed the land jurisdiction of this country and the living people of the 50 States United. Of course, with something this long in the making, there is a lot of remembering involved and a lot of focus required, so forgive me if I am brief with this announcement. I am very tired.

We, the living American People who claim our birthright political standing as American State Nationals—- Texans, Virginians, Ohioans, Wisconsinites, and so on— and who have moved back to the land jurisdiction of our native land, are the beneficiaries of our estates.  Those who additionally act as Fiduciaries in behalf of our states on the land are American State Citizens, obligated by oath and honor to act in the best interests of all and to meet The Prudent Man Standard in all those actions we undertake.

For many who have grown up listening to a constant litany of “National Debt” news, it may come as a great surprise to learn that you are, as American State Nationals, not in debt.  You are by far the richest people on Earth.

In fact, you and your States are the Priority Creditors of the entire world. 

The debt that the rest of the world has owed us has been so insurmountable that it has served to quash business and growth, spawned a huge black market in counterfeit currencies and “derivatives”, and caused unnecessary suffering that needs to end.  So, in our own right and in your names, we’ve have moved to end it. 

As your servants and as “Prudent Men” we have requested a worldwide accounting and set off of debts, meaning that our debts to other nations are to be set off against their debts to us.  What remains as “insurmountable debt” owing will be forgiven—written off, so that everyone can have a clean start. 

This is being done to regenerate hope and economic freedom and to prevent any necessity of war or undue suffering.  It is well-within our ability and in our best interests to do this.

Our fortunes are so vast that it doesn’t even matter.

We are the beneficiaries of approximately 185,000 of the richest corporations on Earth, approximately 10,000 state of, county of, and municipal corporations in this country, and corporations like CANADA and AUSTRALIA that “own” entire countries, together with all their corporations under them. 

Quite literally, we little pea-pickers and Indians have inherited the Earth. 

Now what to do with it?  For starters, everyone needs a living stipend to make life possible for many in the Third World and make it bearable for others, even here in America.  So our proposal is that every man, woman, and child receive an individual payment equivalent in local currency to $2000 per month as an independent living stipend on top of whatever other income they may have.

This will end abject poverty throughout the world and make life bearable for many who are now suffering needlessly.

We have also proposed that each one receive the equivalent in local currency of $1000 per month in a savings/investment account that they can use to invest for their own future. 

These funds are directed to be paid individually with no strings, no middlemen, no governments involved.  Just a straight one-to-one transaction from the World Heritage Fund and the World Investment Fund to each one of you.

For many this will all just be pleasant “extra”, but for others it is the difference between life and death, starvation and a good future.

There will also be plenty of money for infrastructure investments, for re-booting the government we are owed, and for all the tasks which face this planet and our nation among all the nations of the world.

Britain, France, and other nations have tried to obscure the truth of the American States and mischaracterize and misrepresent and fool the American People, so as to set up a false claim that we all “voluntarily” chose to serve as “United States Citizens” or “citizens of the United States” and that our States of the Union were “civilly dead”—– but as we and everyone else now knows, that is nothing but a self-interested lie promoted by foreign interests seeking to avoid their own debts and hoping to come in as Secondary Creditors and bring false claims of “abandonment” in commerce.

Those actions have been forestalled by the fifty (50) State Liens recorded as Non-UCC liens and by two subsequent actions which collect the National Debt and re-convey the assets of the actual States to the land jurisdiction. 

It’s done.  It’s over.  It’s on the record. 

Much too everyone’s surprise, the Sleeping Giant woke up at its own funeral and yawned and said, “Fie, fei, foe, fum!” 

Get your motors running.  Inform the Vatican.  Inform the Kremlin.  Inform Beijing. The Republic States are alive and well and so are the American People. 

Contrary to what you’ve been told, we are not the “United States”.  We don’t have a $19 trillion-plus National Debt. 

We have a $19 trillion-plus National Credit.  And that’s not all. 

We are the majority shareholders in virtually everything big enough to spit at from here to Damascus. We are owed 150 years worth of back rent, the entirety of the 1930’s bankruptcy fraud, and so much more…….that at the end of the day, the only real question is—- can we all imagine a better world? 

A much, much better world?  

See this article and over 300 others on Anna’s website here:www.annavonreitz.com

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

The REAL Cost of the War of Terror

September 23rd, 2016 by

https://www.corbettreport.com/the-real-cost-of-the-war-of-terror/

CLICK HERE for the YouTube version of this video

by James Corbett
TheInternationalForecaster.com
We all know by now that the real terrorists (the politicians in the suits and ties and the banksters that pull their strings) are waging their war of terror on multiple fronts for multiple reasons.

Domestically, it rallies the population around the flag, keeping the flock in check. At the same time it justifies the build up of the police state control grid to catch the thought criminals who resist.

It also writes a blank check for the illegal wars of aggression abroad. Simply place your terrorist boogeyman in the square of the chessboard you’re looking to occupy and — hey presto! — you’ve got yourself an excuse to invade. (Even if you “accidentally” end up supporting them, right Uncle Sam?)

But of course the politicians, their string pullers and their fellow travelers benefit from the war of terror in a more straightforward sense. They get to use the terror scares that they themselves create to drum up billions upon billions in the name of fighting the boogeymen.

We’ve all heard of the $640 toilet seat and other ridiculous examples of Pentagon “overspending,” but these stories tend to trivialize the abuses by the military-defense contractors whose entire industry is built on providing overpriced solutions to made up problems. After all, the Pentagon itself just admitted it could cut $2 billion from its budget by shutting down some of the needless bases and defense facilities that have been built around the globe in the name of the American empire.

But $2 billion is chump change.

In the 15 years since 9/11, $1 trillion has been spent building up the police state in the American “homeland” itself.

Meanwhile, the Defense Department has been spending over $600 billion per year maintaining the American military in the post-9/11 era. $4 to $6 trillion of that was spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars alone, the most expensive wars in US history.

Combined defense spending, including Homeland Security, DoD, State Department, defense related debt interest and other defense costs, has reached the highest levels in modern history over the past decade. From a Cold War era high in the 1980s of $3500 for every man, woman and child in the United States to a 1990s low of $2500, that figure has since breached $4000. Just look at the chart; it isn’t hard to see exactly when the trend reversed and the good times began to flow for the military-industrial contractors: It was 9/11, the birthday of the war of terror and the new era of homeland security.

There are other numbers we could throw in here:

The billions upon billions in military aid sent to the co-perpetrators of the war of terror, including the $38 billion that has been promised Israel over the next 10 years.

The $1.5 trillion joke known as the F-35 fighter jet.

The $6.5 trillion of “year-end adjustments” in the ongoing, never-ending saga of the Pentagon’s missing trillions.

But we have to be careful not to fall into the psychopaths’ trap. The real costs of the war of terror cannot be measured in dollars and cents. They are not tallied in a ledger. They are not about money at all.

The real cost is paid in blood. The blood of a million dead Iraqis. The blood of the hundreds of thousands murdered men, women and children in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The blood that is being shed right now in Syria, in Libya, in Yemen, and in all of the countries that have crossed through the crosshairs of the NATO, American and Israeli terrorists.

It’s measured in the devastation of towns and cities that once bustled with life. In the families torn apart by drone bombings. In the havoc of the hundreds of thousands forced to flee their homes, leave their families and their homeland and their former life behind as everything they knew is torn to shreds.

It’s measured in the blood of the servicemen and women themselves. Lied to, propagandized and indoctrinated their entire lives, given a ticket out of grinding poverty by the military, shot up with experimental vaccines and shoved into the meat grinder for tour of duty after tour of duty. And then, upon returning home, left to rot in rundown hospitals and ignored by the glad-handing politicians and their military-industrial cronies as a suicide epidemic gradually thins their ranks.

This is the true cost of the war of terror, and it is incalculable. And none of it, absolutely none of it, will come to an end until the public stops believing the false narrative of the war of terror and the lies that have brought it about.

Much like Santa Claus and the Easter bunny, the real terrorists can only survive if you believe in them.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Just remember everyone of those scumbags you voted for are laughing all the way to the bank!

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

Barack Obama domestic enemy of and traitor to the United States of America its Constitution and Bill of Rights.

September 22nd, 2016 by

https://johnhenryhill.wordpress.com/2016/05/23/barack-obama-domestic-enemy-of-and-traitor-to-the-united-states-of-america-its-constitution-and-bill-of-rights/

May 23, 2016 · by JohnHenryHill · in Original Articles

My Post:

Barack Obama: “domestic enemy” of and traitor to the United States of America, its Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

by John-Henry Hill, M.D., Ph.D.

LAW Blog: https://johnhenryhill.wordpress.com

Original Posting: May 23, 2016

Updated: May 25, 2016 (in response to a comment by Ken Johnson)

Barack Obama is most certainly a “domestic enemy” of and traitor to the United States of America and its Constitution and Bill of Rights. He has violated the legitimate powers of the Presidency in instances too numerous to count or list here.

What the Founders knew is that the Constitution was a type of legal TRUST (a CONTRACT) created by the various sovereign states, for the people as “individual sovereigns” over the states and the U.S.- which did NOT even yet exist. (And one can NOT make a contract with an entity that does NOT yet exist, in this case, the U.S. government.)

The Preamble to the Constitution makes this fact of the Constitution being a TRUST very clear: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” But it was the STATES that ratified (signed) this contract as a contractual TRUST among these states.

As any good attorney knows, in ANY legal TRUST (contract), there are 3 parties: the Grantor (the states), the Trustee (the new U.S. government) who administers the Trust strictly according to the specifications within the Trust contract), and the Beneficiaries (the people; “ourselves and our posterity”). Thus the Grantor(s) (states) are the “boss” of the Trustee; and can take legal action against the Trustee on behalf of the Beneficiaries (people) should the Trustee (U.S. government) violate ANY terms of the Trust contract. This is true of any TRUST contract.

1.) The Constitution of the United States

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html and https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview

Article II, Section 1

“Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following OATH or AFFIRMATION:—’I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”’

Look up the terms “SWEAR”, “OATH”, and “AFFIRMATION” in any good law dictionary (Black’s or Bouvier’s) and you will see that they all mean a CONTRACT. Applicable Maxims of Law (which are considered as absolute TRUTH in Law; thus need NOT be proved in any court) : In law none is credited unless he is sworn.”; “All the facts must, when established by witnesses, be under oath or affirmation.”; “There is no stronger bond between men than an oath.”; “They are perjured, who, preserving the words of an oath, deceive the ears of those who receive it.”; An oath is a contract in law.”

Article I, Section 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article I, Section 8: Contains a listing of ALL the powers granted to Congress (“enumerated power”); it can exercise ONLY those powers listed. The President can ONLY execute the constitutional statutes passed by Congress – he is given NO powers to issue “Executive Orders”, etc; and therefore NO federal agency (he has authority over all) can issue “regulations” which do NOT conform to the statute and intent of the statute (when passed). Most importantly, any legislated act or statute is NOT true”Law” per se. As the Founders, states and people of that time well understood, all legislated acts or statutes are merely “OFFERS TO CONTRACT” – which the states and people may choose to accept or reject. If accepted by the states and the people, such statutes assume the “FORCE OF LAW” with JURISDICTION over only over the states and people within the states that accepted that statute. (Legislated acts or statutes NEVER become “true Law” – the only “True Law” was – and remains today – the Common Law, which supersedes all legislated statutes — so the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled numerous times, even as recently as 1973.)

“The judgment of a court of record [a court operating under the Common Law only; NO statutes allowed] whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] would be. It is as conclusive on this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it.” U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]

The ONLY exceptions where federal statutes are required to be followed are: in Washington, D.C. (which technically IS the “United States”), its Territories and Possessions (then the so-called Northwest Territory), and by employees (agents) of the U.S. government working within the several states. Over Washington, DC and Territories and Possessions, Congress has absolute authority under the Constitution.

2.) The Bill of Rights

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. One of the many points of contention between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was the Constitution’s lack of a bill of rights that would place specific limits on government power. Federalists argued that the Constitution did NOT need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers NOT given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a “bill of rights” that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens.

Relevant to this discussion are: [see Article 1, Section 8]

Amendment IX: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall NOT be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE.”

Amendment X: “The powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the STATES respectively, or to the PEOPLE.”

3.) “Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (The “Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation” (popularly known as the “Constitution Annotated”) contains legal analysis and interpretation of the United States Constitution, based primarily on Supreme Court case law. https://www.congress.gov/constitution-annotated  

The latest edition of this book is given for free to EVERY member of Congress; and to the President. Before Congress or the President takes any action or assumes any powers, this book is supposed to act as a “reference” to determine if such actions or powers to be assumed are constitutional.

The authors of the article below miss the point entirely: just about EVERYTHING Barack Obama has done (and many Presidents and Congresses before him) were and are UNCONSTITUTIONAL in that they greatly exceeded the powers (“enumerated powers”) granted in the Constitution AND as the Trustee of the legal TRUST (contract) ratified states for the Beneficiaries (the people).

Obviously, over the last 150 plus years very few members of Congress and Presidents have consulted the Constitution, Bill of Rights or this book, Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation!

John-Henry Hill, M.D., Ph.D.

LAW Blog: https://johnhenryhill.wordpress.com

May 23, 2016

Added 5/25/2016 in Response to a Most Welcome Comment by Ken Johnson

In reply to Ken Johnson.

Ken,                                      May 25, 2016

Thank you for reading this brief essay on my web site AND for YOUR COMMENT!!!

If you look in any good LAW dictionary (Black’s 4th Edition or earlier OR Bouvier’s from about 1852 or so), you will find that the words “SHALL” and “MUST” in law actually mean “MAY”. – as in you “may” or “may not” choose to obey a legislated act (statute) or any of its offspring (regulations, by-laws, etc.) And the word “REQUIRE” in law actually means “REQUEST”. A CODE is simply a collection of statutes. (These definitions are left out of more “modern” law dictionaries, for obvious political reasons – but those terms were well understood by the Founders and the people in America and Britain from the early 1600’s until about the 1860’s, changing ever so slowly over time. BUT even the U.S. Supreme Court has recently issued rulings affirming the definitions I presented here!!!! (They are just not covered by the mainstream media.) And they most certainly are NOT taught in American law schools!!!!

In short, you are CORRECT.

As I stated in my brief article, legislated acts (statutes) and their offspring are merely “OFFERS TO CONTRACT”, which (as is true for ALL contracts) one may agree to or not agree to. The “catch” is that the states and U.S. government (especially the courts) make the PRESUMPTION that you have AGREED to their contract (statute), thereby giving them JURISDICTION over you. And the ancient Maxims of Law still applies today: “A presumption NOT rebutted stands as the Truth.” and “Silence is consent.” After I learned all this stuff for my Ph.D. in the political history of British and American law, I NEVER went to go court without submitting to the court a written, notarized AFFIDAVIT (submitted in-person to the Clerk of the Court, who stamps 2 copies – 1 for the judge and my own copy; the Clerk of the Court MUST accept it if you write on it “Submitted on Demand”) rebutting all such presumptions by the court, along with a list of MY definitions to be used in the case. In the affidavit, I give the court seven (7) days to respond – and if it does NOT respond within those 7 days, then BY DEFAULT the court has agreed with me and accepted everything in my affidavit as the truth in the law of the case. Maxims of Law: “An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Law.” and “He, who does not object, consents.”

(It is easy to do: only the first page of the affidavit gets changed in a few places. The rest, such as Maxims of Law, my definitions, etc., stay the same.) The court will almost NEVER respond with a rebuttal of my affidavit within those 7 days, it has AGREED to everything in my affidavit – so it (the state and the judge) have LOST by default. IF I decide to appear in court (which is almost NEVER), I have a notarized, stamped-by-the-Court-Clerk, copy of this affidavit. The judge can NOT ignore it, for he will be subject to criminal and civil actions if he does so. Further, I can turn this affidavit into an “International Commercial Lien” (explained in another article on my web site) thereby “freezing” ALL his current and future assets for 99 years (or forever if I place it in a trust). And if I register this Lien with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), it becomes a “negotiable instrument” which I can sell to any investor, investment bank, etc. Since my Liens are typically for $50 Million and a buyer will usually offer between 1-2% of this nominal value, that means I just made $500,000 to $1 Million tax-free dollars. And NO COURT in the world can over-turn this Lien, since it is created by a non-judicial process in which there was NO controversy (recall that, by not responding with his own “notarized affidavit of rebuttal”, the judge has ALREADY AGREED with everything in my original affidavit) – and where there is NO controversy, NO court may assume jurisdiction!!! And if one does appear in court, let your DOCUMENTS do all the “talking” – NEVER say anything more! If pressed by the judge to “explain” something, just say, “It is ALL explained in the documents submitted, so I have absolutely nothing to add.” And do NOT swear any OATH in court, since that negates your documents and gives the judge jurisdiction over you. Remember the Maxim of Law, “An oath is a contract in law.” And at this point, you do NOT want to create a new contract with the court by swearing an oath!

Do NOT expect lawyers (except for International Commercial Lien specialists) or lower-court judges to know this stuff, since it is never taught in U.S. law schools. But a judge on the Appeals Court level will often know about it; and most definitely a judge on a state or federal supreme court. Lastly, if ANYONE tries to interfere with this Lien, that person may be easily added to the Lien by simply writing his name, title, address and brief description of what he did onto the back of the Lien – so ALL his assets get “frozen” also and he then also owes me $50 Million!!!

One can “beat the system” IF one knows the system – and then use the system against “the powers that be”. I have used “International Commercial Liens” on 6 people (all U.S. officials); and won EVERY time! (This is in another article on this web site about “DONUTS, etc”.) And I NEVER paid for any out-of-state traffic ticket, parking ticket, etc – only those in Massachusetts because my drivers license was a CONTRACT with the state.

By the way, I now live most of the year in Ukraine or Crimea – so I no longer have to deal with courts in the U.S.

Best wishes!

JHH

Extra Stuff:

After the ratification of the original (“organic”) “The Constitution for the united States of America”, written in plain English for all to understand, the courts, Congress and people accepted as FACTS OF LAW that the people as individuals were the sovereigns of the Union states, the various states were viewed as separate “foreign countries with respect to each other and with respect the United States”; and most almost all legislated acts (statutes; from which regulations were written) applied ONLY to employees and agents of the U.S. government. The Congress had jurisdiction only over Washington City, as the seat of the federal government, federal Territories, federal forts and naval stations within a state; and federal buildings within a state, usually federal Post offices. Federal statutes applied to people living in one of the sovereign states ONLY if that individual man CONSENTED to that particular statute. The federal courts existed solely to settle disputes between states; and disputes between people from two different states.

..at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves….. [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.]

“There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States …. In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld.” — Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421..

The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.]

“It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.“ ~ Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997 (1854)

“Our government is founded upon compact [contract]. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people“ — Glass v. Sloop Betsey, U.S. Supreme Court, 1794.

Even Alexander Hamilton (1st Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington) and one of the most ardent advocates for a strong central government wrote, “Necessity and expediency are NOT legitimate excuses for violating the Constitution you swore to uphold and protect – even during a ‘crisis’“.

“The Constitution for the united States of America”, written in plain English for all to understand, the courts, Congress and people accepted as FACTS OF LAW that the people as individuals were the sovereigns of the Union states, “the various states are separate foreign countries with respect to each other and with respect the United States” (from various U.S. Supreme Court rulings)

COMPLETE ARTICLE

Mission not quite accomplished: Obama’s antiterrorism legacy

by Daniel Klaidman and Olivier Knox

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mission-not-quite-accomplished-obama-000000102.html

Three years ago today, Barack Obama gave a major counterterrorism address at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C. It was what his aides call a “framing” speech, an effort to knit together an overarching approach to the fight against radical terrorists. Predictably, Obama touted his administration’s key successes. Osama bin Laden was dead, the core al-Qaida organization in Pakistan was “on a path to defeat,” and there had been no “large-scale” terror attacks on U.S. soil since he had taken office.

And he stoutly defended some his own most controversial actions, such as the incineration-by-drone of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born preacher and chief of external operations for the Yemeni offshoot of al-Qaida. “His citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected by a SWAT team,” Obama averred.

But the speech, many months in the works, was also an unusual public expression of Obama’s private angst about the American killing machine he had built and was now presiding over. He hadn’t run for office so that he could “go around blowing things up,” he’d told his national security team, according to an account in the New Yorker.

He gave his audience an extraordinary glimpse into how he weighs the tradeoffs between security, morality and law, confessing his own personal anguish upon learning that strikes he had ordered killed civilians. (“For me, and those in my chain of command, those deaths will haunt us for as long as we live,” he said.)

He rededicated himself to closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, an effort that had collapsed amid congressional obstruction, political realities and Obama’s own laconic approach toward Congress.

Most strikingly, Obama mused openly for the first time in his presidency about how to move the country off a perpetual wartime footing. “This war, like all wars, must end,” Obama said. “That’s what history advises. It’s what our democracy demands.”

To that purpose, he announced a series of new polices (a Presidential Policy Guidance in the bureaucratic vernacular) that would narrow the scope of the American struggle against terrorism, create more stringent rules for the use of lethal force and generally impose more accountability and transparency on a killing process that had operated almost entirely in the shadows.

Obama issued directives reining in the use of drones outside conventional battlefields and tightening the criteria for targeted killings. To circumscribe what many critics saw as a war that had become boundless in time and geography, Obama vowed to work with Congress to “refine and ultimately repeal” the Authorization for Use of Military force, the Congressional writ that gave the American president sweeping powers in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

And he urged a more nuanced approach to identifying those terrorist groups that required a military response from the United States. Not every band of extremists involved in local insurgencies poses a threat to our national existence or way of life, he suggested.

Obama located the country at a crossroads and declared that it was time to “define the nature and scope of the struggle, or it will define us.” Implicitly, he was saying that we had to regain our perspective and not overreact to a threat that was actually receding. For 12 years politicians and security officials had warned against a pre-9/11 mentality of complacency. Obama was pointing out the complementary danger of being stuck in a post-9/11 mindset of overreaction to a threat that seemed to be receding.

But now the battlefield assessments are more dire and the threat is metastasizing. A raging civil war in Syria paved the way for the emergence of ISIS, which captured huge swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria and declared a caliphate. The group shocked the world by beheading American and other Western hostages. It demonstrated an ability to pull off large-scale attacks in the heart of Europe and to inspire plots like the one in San Bernardino, Calif., that left 14 dead. Fear of Islamist terrorism was spiking in American cities and pulsating through the 2016 presidential campaign.

Talk of winding down the terror wars has been dropped from the Obama administration’s message. Instead, the administration has been pouring thousands of new troops back into the Middle East, and his aides were looking for a new vocabulary to describe a strategy that more closely resembled the approach of the previous decade than the forward-looking agenda Obama had laid out at Fort McNair.

Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser and close adviser to Obama, described a hybrid strategy comprising many elements, which together do not add up to a traditional war. “We have a variety of different tools that we use that range from a drone strike to an airstrike to a training exercise to law enforcement cooperation to try to deal with that terrorist threat,” Rhodes said in an interview. Likening the strategy to “Plan Colombia,” the 1990s-era U.S. initiative to combat Colombian drug cartels and leftist insurgents, Rhodes said that the U.S. has assumed “a counterterrorism posture that resembles less a war than a mix of counterterrorism efforts and military support to countries that are dealing with fractured states and civil conflicts.”

But the reality is that a president whose ambition had been to wind down and ultimately end the wars of 9/11 has found it hard to resist the inexorable momentum toward more military engagement.

Obama has been accused in the past of failing to follow up his lofty rhetoric with resolute action, of attempting to bend the arc of history with mere eloquence. The truth is more complicated. Circumstances have changed, making some promises harder to fulfill. In some areas progress has been made, but it is often slow and plodding. We are not reverting back to a post-9/11 formula, occupying countries with large standing armies and twisting our foreign policy to fit that paradigm.

In the twilight of his presidency, it’s reasonable to start asking what Obama’s record on terrorism will look like when he departs — and what he will leave behind to his successor, both in terms of the nature of the terror threat and the tools available to deal with it. What follows is an assessment of Obama’s accomplishments and where he’s fallen short, measured by the yardstick of his own words.

Even before he became president, Obama had identified drones as his go-to weapon. During the transition, he and John Brennan, soon to be his counterterrorism adviser and later director of the CIA, agreed that the surgical capabilities of drones served Obama’s larger strategic goals in the fight against terrorism: taking the bad guys off the battlefield and thwarting attacks, while shrinking America’s footprint in the region. Likening terrorism to a cancer, Brennan said “you need to target the metastasizing disease without destroying the surrounding tissue.” The weapon of choice: armed pilotless aircraft, or drones

But Obama’s very first experience with a drone strike rattled him. Four days into his presidency, the CIA was targeting al-Qaida and Taliban commanders in South Waziristan along the Afghan-Pakistan border. But the strike went badly awry, killing an innocent tribal elder and several members of his family.

It was the start of a pattern that has run through his entire presidency. Intellectually, Obama was able to make an ironclad case for the utility of drones, from both a moral and tactical standpoint. As commander in chief he could not stand by idly when the intelligence indicated terrorists were plotting to kill Americans. The precision of drones, he was convinced, would minimize civilian casualties compared to conventional airstrikes or ground combat, without risking American lives. And yet deadly mistakes continued, innocents were killed, and Obama always seemed to have a nagging feeling that he couldn’t fully control this controversial program that was so closely identified with him personally.

The deadly efficiency of the program made it hard to resist. During the first couple of years of the administration, the Obama White House sometimes seemed almost giddy about the CIA’s successes. Rahm Emanuel, the president’s first chief of staff, was the program’s biggest cheerleader, regularly calling then-CIA Director Leon Panetta to congratulate him for major strikes. He even urged the agency to tout its successes in the media by leaking colorful details of the covert hits to friendly reporters.

But ironically, one of the strikes that Emanuel celebrated was also a turning point for the program. Baitullah Mehsud was a senior leader of the Pakistani Taliban and one of the most bloodthirsty terrorists on the CIA’s kill list. In the summer of 2009, agency spotters had Mehsud in their sights. But they couldn’t guarantee a clean shot. He would likely be surrounded by civilians. With the White House’s blessing, the strike was made. Mehsud was killed, but so was his wife, who was massaging his legs at the time.

The strike was viewed by its “operators” as a major victory in the war on terror. But the unintended casualties gave pause to some in the White House, including Obama. In the aftermath of the Baitullah strike and others that had gone badly, the program was put through a “hot washing,” according to a knowledgeable source, using a military term for a rigorous performance review.

Other factors heightened concerns over the targeted killing program. The Pakistani government, a critical ally in the war against al-Qaida, was threatening to withdraw cooperation because the strikes were so unpopular there. The American ambassador in Pakistan, backed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, called for scaling back the program and requested more input in authorizing the strikes.

In response, the White House began developing standards for drone strikes outside conventional battlefields. Obama wanted to institutionalize rules for using these deadly weapons, both for his administration and for future presidents. The new standards could also serve as a blueprint for international norms for drone warfare as the technology became available to other armies.

The project, informally called the “playbook” and run by Brennan, resulted in a Presidential Planning Guidance, which Obama announced at the Fort McNair speech. It was an effort to make sure “we had a rigorous process for figuring out who was worth taking a shot at,” said a one senior Obama adviser.

The PPG, a classified document, limits drone strikes to human targets who cannot be captured and who pose a “continuing imminent threat” to Americans. Moreover, under the policy guidance, such drone strikes can only be authorized when there is “near certainty” that no civilians will be killed. (The imminence standard has been criticized by human rights lawyers because of the administration’s elastic definition of imminence. Obama officials have argued that that it would be too late to take action once terrorists were executing an operation.)

Obama also proposed in the PPG new mechanisms for increasing oversight of drone operations outside of war zones. He pledged to work with Congress to develop a special court that would evaluate “lethal action,” although he warned that bringing the judiciary into the process might pose constitutional problems. He also raised the possibility of establishing an “independent oversight board” within the executive branch to oversee drone strikes.

One key reform he did not announce at the National Defense University speech, but rather set in motion secretly, was shifting drone operations away from the CIA to the Pentagon, which is subject to more accountability and transparency.

Three years later, how well has Obama lived up to these goals? It’s a mixed picture, although some progress has clearly been made.

Since 2013, the number of drone strikes outside of conventional war zones has fallen dramatically. At the peak in 2010, there were more than 122 fired in Pakistan, according to the New America foundation. In 2013 there were 26; in 2014 there were 22; and so far this year there have only been 2. Less drastic, but still substantial, decreases have also occurred in Yemen and in Somalia.

This is partly due to changing circumstances; in Pakistan, after a decade of pounding al-Qaida and the Taliban, there are very few targets left to hit. “They are either dead, have left the region, or are so burrowed in they can’t be targeted,” said one former intelligence official with deep knowledge of the drone program. But just on Saturday, the leader of the Afghan Taliban, Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour, was targeted by a drone strike along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, according to the Afghan government, killed along with an associate.

What impact the more rigorous standards imposed on the drone program by the PPG have had on the pace and efficacy of targeted killings is less clear. For one thing those standards do not apply in Pakistan at this point.

Obama’s pledge to consider a secret court or an independent board to oversee the drone program has gone nowhere. Both of those options, according to a senior administration official, have been shelved.

Moving the program from the CIA to the Defense Department has proven to be slow and difficult. The agency, unsurprisingly, resisted giving up a program that was a boon to its reputation. But a bigger obstacle was the intense turf war waged out of public view between the congressional oversight committees for intelligence and defense. “The intel committees fought viciously to keep the program,” said one top administration official.

Moreover, real questions emerged about whether the Pentagon had the technical know-how to take over exclusive control over the drone program. In 2014 a Defense Department drone strike in Southern Yemen accidentally killed a number of civilians attending a wedding party, provoking a debate within the government about the wisdom of turning the program over to the military. The CIA seized on the accident to argue for keeping a major role in choosing targets.

There is some evidence that the military has assumed command of the program in at least one theater of war.  Lately, the Defense Department has been willing to publicly take credit for drone strikes in Yemen. When both the CIA and Yemen were operating parallel programs there, the military could not reveal its operations, because on those occasions when it did not take the shot, keeping silent would have implicitly exposed the CIA’s role. A senior administration official predicted to Yahoo News in a recent interview that by the time Obama leaves office, the program will have fully shifted over to the military, with the exception of operations in Pakistan. That’s because the Pakistani government will only allow the U.S. to operate there covertly, which only the CIA can do. Elsewhere, the CIA, with its unique expertise, will continue to gather and analyze the intelligence needed to target terrorists. The military will track the bad guys and then pull the trigger.

Administration officials cite the drone killing of Junaid Hussain, a top ISIS propagandist and computer hacker, as a model for the kind of “dual command” structure that could be used going forward. Barack Obama shed no tears over that operation.

The world was different enough in May 2013 that Obama could plausibly promise that he would try “to refine, and ultimately repeal” the 2001 legislation that set the stage for the invasion of Afghanistan and the global war against al-Qaida. He could tell Americans that, with some work at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, “we can continue to fight terrorism without keeping America on a perpetual wartime footing.” His administration later called for repealing the October 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force that gave George W. Bush the green light to invade Iraq — a step loaded with significance for Obama, who built his history-making 2008 campaign on a vow to disentangle a weary America from the Middle East.

Top Obama aides and their allies in Congress now acknowledge that the job of rewriting the legislation that underpins the war on terrorism will almost certainly fall to the next administration. “I do think any future president is going to need to figure this out,” Rhodes told Yahoo News.

Obama has now spent more time at war than any other U.S. president. His unwillingness to use force is frequently exaggerated both by aides eager to portray him as the solution to Bush-era problems and by critics eager to cast him as a weak defender of U.S. national interests. In 2008, he promised to kill bin Laden if he got the chance — even if the terrorist mastermind were on sovereign Pakistani soil. In May 2011, he kept that promise. In his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, Obama talked of constraining war but bluntly vowed: “I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation.” He became the first American president known to have targeted an individual American citizen, al-Awlaki, for assassination. His decision not to strike Syria in 2013 has drawn sharp criticism, but many of his fiercest critics (and the U.S. public) also opposed using force at the time. He hurled U.S. forces into combat in Libya without congressional authorization (and without a plan for filling the vacuum left by Moammar Gadhafi). And in his 2015 campaign to sell his nuclear agreement with Iran, Obama freely boasted of ordering the use of deadly force in at least seven countries — overtly, covertly, deploying troops, ordering drone strikes, acting with or without congressional authority, with allies or unilaterally, and sometimes in ways that test the bounds of international law.

But the 2013 speech came at a time when the president hoped to escape being pulled into Syria’s civil war, two months before the so-called Islamic State terrorist army launched its campaign to seize vast swathes of Iraqi territory. He was speaking nearly one year before U.S. officials warned that terrorist groups inside Syria were plotting attacks on the West, fundamentally altering Obama’s view of that conflict. ISIS, as the Islamic State is also known, essentially rewrote the president’s strategy.

At the time of the National Defense University speech, White House aides thought they saw a window for curtailing executive war-making authority under the 2001 AUMF. Congress, in this scenario, would take a more assertive role in defining the proper means and the ends before young Americans charge into battle. Obama’s team also contended that the 2001 measure, designed to target al-Qaida, was increasingly out of date — an argument they still make.

“You could foresee a scenario in several years where al-Qaida, the organization that launched the 9-11 attacks and which we created an AUMF for, really doesn’t exist anymore; it’s fully out of business,” Rhodes said.

“So are you still using an authority crafted for an organization based in Afghanistan in 2001 to fight an organization that’s based in Somalia and Mali and Yemen in 2019? To us that, at a certain point, becomes unsustainable,” Rhodes said.

In February 2015, Obama sent Congress a new AUMF, explicitly authorizing his undeclared but escalating military campaign against ISIS (or, to the administration, ISIL) and pressed Congress to start the work of refining, and repealing, the 2001 law.

But the new measure has stalled, perhaps for good. While the administration could still send Congress proposed changes to the 2001 AUMF, the White House insists a new measure, aimed at ISIS, has to be in place before it can risk losing the authority it claims to have under the older resolution.

“We do believe that we still need to have the authority to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL, and, where necessary, continue to apply pressure to al-Qaida affiliates around the globe,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in April.

But “I can’t really conceive of rolling back [the 2001 AUMF] unless we have a replacement, whatever it looks like, on the books,” a former career national security official who used to advise Obama told Yahoo News on condition of anonymity.

For Rhodes, this president or a successor will have to embrace a new legal framework.

“I think it will become increasingly unsustainable to be relying on an authority crafted for a place and time, an organization that really doesn’t exist anymore,” he said.

Either way, the United States seems set to remain on the “perpetual wartime footing” that Obama declared he wanted to end.

When Obama ordered the closure of the Guantanamo detention center on his third day in office, there were 241 detainees at the facility, down from a total of about 800 when George W. Bush opened the prison after 9/11. By early 2013, the start of his second term, that number had dropped by only about a third, to 166.

As of this February, it was down to 91, and today there are 80 detainees remaining at the prison. That number will decrease even more over the next few months. But when Obama leaves office on Jan. 20, 2017, Gitmo, as it is known, will almost certainly still be open for business, leaving one of the president’s signature campaign promises unfulfilled.

There is plenty of blame to go around for this. Early in Obama’s first term, efforts to shutter Guantanamo were overwhelmed by the politics of terrorism.

In May 2009, Democratic House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey stripped $80 million that Obama had requested to close the prison from an emergency funding bill. “While I don’t mind defending a concrete program, I’m not much interested in wasting my energy defending a theoretical program,” Obey said at the time. “So when they have a plan, they’re welcome to come back and talk to us about it.“

Republican hardliners (with not a few Democrats going along) seized on the issue to try to make Obama look weak on national security. The Obama administration provided all the ammo Republicans needed with its clumsy and ill-fated plan to transfer a handful of forlorn Chinese Uighur prisoners to a Northern Virginia suburb, touching off a full-blown NIMBY (not in my backyard) rebellion in Congress.

The Obama team members seriously underestimated how difficult a task they had assigned to themselves. “There was kind of this naiveté that somehow, if the president said we’re going to close Guantanamo, and we have a plan to close Guantanamo, that ultimately that would happen,” recalled former CIA Director Panetta.

Matthew Olsen, the Justice Department official tasked with determining which prisoners could be transferred from Gitmo and which were too dangerous to release or send to trial, learned this at his first White House meeting on the matter. When he remarked in a Situation Room meeting that this would be an arduous process, a senior White House official impatiently responded: “What’s so hard? Just do one and then multiply by 240.”

Panetta also lays some of the blame directly at the president’s feet for not personally (and relentlessly) engaging Congress on the Gitmo issue. It’s important to remember that early in his presidency, Obama had to hoard his political capital for dealing with the economic crisis while moving ahead with health care reform. Nevertheless, according to Panetta, Obama was unwilling to do the hard, often frustrating, work of engaging Congress to bring it along. “Sometimes he is offended when the political process doesn’t keep up with what he’s trying to do,” Panetta observed in a recent interview, adding that he often urged Obama to invite key members of Congress to the White House for briefings or cocktails, but the president resisted. “In the end you have to be able to engage in that process to be able to build . . . their support for the things you’re trying to do in protecting the country.”

Toward the end of Obama’s first term, the GOP-led Congress had passed legislation barring the use of congressionally appropriated funds to transfer detainees to the U.S. homeland. That meant the 48 detainees that the Obama administration had determined could not be prosecuted for legal reasons and were too dangerous to transfer to other countries or release were stuck at Gitmo. And so was Obama’s policy. He seemed to have given up. He didn’t even have a single official at the White House or any of the relevant agencies assigned to lead the flagging project.

In the spring of 2013, around the time of Obama’s Fort McNair speech, the majority of detainees, more than 100, went on a hunger strike, and as many as 45 had to be force-fed. Gitmo seemed to tug once again at Obama’s conscience. He reinvigorated the effort to get it closed, appointing special representatives at both the State and Defense departments and personally dug into the bureaucracy to prod the time-servers and foot-draggers. The administration accelerated the pace of transfers in a meaningful way, including the use of Periodic Review Boards (PRBs), which allowed the 48 prisoners being held indefinitely to challenge their detention.

This February the administration announced a new plan to close the facility. The problem is, it depends on the Republican-led Congress lifting its ban on transfers to the homeland, something few expect will happen.

Administration officials talk about a “Plan B” should their public plan fail. Some have hinted at the possibility of Obama taking executive action to overcome the congressional ban on transfers to the U.S. While administration allies have argued that choosing where to house detainees captured in a war setting is a “tactical” military decision within the constitutional powers of the commander in chief, many in Congress would view such a move as a naked power grab. It would likely invite comparisons to the controversial legal opinions developed during the Bush administration to justify the use of torture and illegal surveillance. “Obama’s arguments for disregarding the Gitmo restrictions is the same argument the Bush administration used to avoid the torture ban; namely, that Congress cannot restrict the president’s “tactical” decisions as commander in chief,” says Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor and the Justice Department official who withdrew the Bush administration’s opinions on torture and surveillance.

There are creative solutions to solving the Gitmo riddle, including one being circulated by Ken Gude, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, who is close to the Obama administration. Under the plan, the administration would continue moving out those who could be transferred, designate a handful of detainees who have violated the laws of other nations for third-party prosecutions and accelerate the Periodic Review Board process. That would still leave about 32 detainees in the camp, including 22 low-level members of al-Qaida and the Taliban. But Gude has a plan for them. He argues that they are no different from the al-Qaida and Taliban foot soldiers whom the U.S. military imprisoned on its base in Bagram, Afghanistan. Once we relinquished Bagram to the Afghans, we turned over those detainees to the sovereign Afghan government. There is no substantive difference between the Bagram prisoners and those being held at Gitmo, Gude argues, so we should turn over those being held at Gitmo to the Afghans. Gude says this would leave only the handful of detainees who are awaiting prosecution in the military justice system, effectively turning Guantanamo into a trial venue rather than a prison camp.

But even Gude sees the scenario as a long shot. Perhaps the administration’s best bet for seeing the camp shuttered is the election of Hillary Clinton as president. As Obama’s secretary of state, Clinton pushed repeatedly for aggressive action to close the military prison. As she was leaving office, she even sent a sharply worded memo the White House chiding Obama’s advisers for failing to do so

For his part, Donald Trump has said he would keep Guantanamo open and “load it up with some bad dudes.” Oh, and he also says he would get Cuba to pay for it.

“After nearly nine years, our war in Iraq ends this month.” That was Obama’s confident message on Dec. 12, 2011, as he proclaimed the fulfillment of his defining 2008 campaign promise to bring American forces home.

Roughly 4 1/2 years later, the president is on track to hand his successor an undeclared but open-ended and escalating war against the Islamic State, with some 5,000 Americans in harm’s way in Iraq and about 500 U.S. special operators in the slaughterhouse that is Syria.

It will be up to the next commander-in-chief to fulfill Obama’s promise to “degrade and destroy” ISIS. Someone will inherit a whole new “our war in Iraq,” as well as the catastrophic Syrian civil war.

Obama’s policy toward Syria and Iraq — and ISIS — has changed along with his evolving sense of threats to U.S. interests. He initially resisted getting involved, started to recalibrate in early 2014 when senior intelligence officials warned that extremists were taking advantage of the chaos to plot attacks on the United States and its allies, sent a first contingent of ground troops to Iraq in June 2014, unleashed airstrikes on ISIS in Iraq in August 2014, and expanded them to Syria in the following month.

Through it all, he has been dogged by criticisms that he was caught flat-footed by the rise of the terrorist group.

“It struck me that I did not see anything that indicated that there was concern about ISIS developing,” Panetta, who served Obama as defense secretary until February 2013, told Yahoo News. “At least from my perspective, it sounds like that somehow the ball was dropped.”

Obama aides dispute that they ever lost track of the threat posed by ISIS, which grew out of al-Qaida in Iraq, formally renamed itself the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria in April 2013, and proclaimed its caliphate in June 2014.

“I did not believe that there was an intelligence failure as it relates to the fact that al-Qaida in Iraq was moving over the border to Syria and they were morphing into something quite dangerous,” Rhodes told Yahoo News. On the other hand, he added, “We did not anticipate, and really I don’t think anybody did, the extent to which the Iraqi security forces would collapse in the face of that. There was no warning of that.”

However, some of Obama’s sharpest critics have directly tied the deadly chaos that fed the rise of ISIS to the president’s decision to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq in late 2011.

“President Obama cannot avoid his share of responsibility for the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria,” Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham wrote in Sept. 2014.

Obama launched his war against ISIS one month before McCain and Graham’s column. As of April 15, this year, the total cost of military operations was about $7.2 billion, with a daily bill of $11.7 million, according to the Defense Department. As of April 12, the United States and its coalition partners had conducted a total 11,539 strikes — 7,794 in Iraq and 3,745 in Syria. The United States accounted for 8,825 of those in Iraq and 3,518 in Syria. There have been three U.S. combat casualties.

The White House insists that American forces don’t have a combat mission and has ruled out “enduring offensive ground combat operations,” a description that chief Obama spokesman Josh Earnest once described as “intentionally” fuzzy. Asked recently at what point in time American special operators sent to Syria late last year would meet the definition, Earnest suggested that they never would because their numbers are far short of the tens of thousands who invaded Iraq in March 2003.

The war on ISIS has largely proceeded on three fronts: Retaking territory the group captured in Iraq and Syria, preventing terrorist attacks either inspired or directed by the Islamic State against the United States and U.S. allies and taking aim at the group’s adherents and allies in other countries, like Libya.

As for the “destroy” part of “degrade and destroy,” top Obama aides can sketch out the contours of the victory they hope their successor will achieve.

“What it looks like is, do they [ISIS] have a safe haven from which they can plot, free of pressure, or free of enough pressure, so that they can plot, plan, and execute” attacks against the United States, Obama’s homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, told Yahoo News in a recent interview.

Asked how he would define victory against ISIS, Rhodes told Yahoo News: “I would define it as ISIL no longer being able to control territory from which it can project terrorist attacks against the United States, our allies and partners.”

Victory won’t be “eradicating every ISIL sympathizer and member off the face of the earth,” Rhodes said.

The night of the 9/11 attacks, with the rubble of the World Trade Center and a shattered side of the Pentagon still smoldering, then-President George W. Bush declared a “war against terrorism.” Two weeks later, he promised that “our cause is just and our ultimate victory is assured.

Bush’s rhetoric is mostly remembered now for decisive statements like those. He came to regret some of them — like saying he wanted Osama bin Laden “dead or alive,” declaring victory in Iraq in front of a giant “Mission Accomplished” banner, or using the religiously loaded word “crusade” to describe the global conflict against terrorists.

But arguably more important was a moment when his trademark certainty wavered. Asked in an August 2004 interview with NBC’s Today Show whether the United States could ever win the global war on terrorism that he had declared after the 9/11 attacks, Bush replied: “I don’t think you can win it.

Instead, he said, “I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.”

Republicans winced, Democrats pounced, and within a day Bush was back to promising victory.

He wasn’t the only presidential candidate that year to take heat for adding a shade of gray to a typically black-and-white national debate. Democratic nominee (and future Obama secretary of state) John Kerry told the New York Times two months later that “we have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance.”

Citing his experience as a former prosecutor, Kerry told the Times: “I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn’t on the rise. It isn’t threatening people’s lives every day, and fundamentally, it’s something that you continue to fight, but it’s not threatening the fabric of your life.”

Democrats winced, Republicans pounced, and soon Kerry was sounding more like Bush.

Ten years after Bush and Kerry’s experiences, Obama had one of his own brushes with politically risky nuance. At a Sept. 3, 2014, press conference with Estonia’s president, Obama laid out his vision for how to defeat the Islamic State.

“If we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISIL’s sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its financing, its military capabilities to the point where it is a manageable problem,” he said.

Republicans accused him of sending a mixed message: Can the United States set a goal to “degrade and destroy” ISIS but be content with making it “a manageable problem.”

When it comes to terrorism, can Americans do nuance?

“I actually think Americans can,” Rhodes said. But “it’s easier politically sometimes to use more maximalist rhetoric because it’s more satisfying to people — that we’re going to wipe them off the face of the earth, eradicate them for all time,” he added.

Bush’s “rhetoric was so ambitious that it was almost like just knocking over the Taliban wasn’t sufficient, that [it led to] the types of policies that we would have not [otherwise] engaged in, be it the war in Iraq or the opening of Gitmo or the employment of enhanced interrogation techniques,” Rhodes said. “It was almost a logical end of the type of rhetoric that was being used, in that if you are using a certain type of maximalist rhetoric with the public, you in some ways are raising the bar on yourself to do more things.”

Obama’s Republican critics, like Sen. Ted Cruz, have criticized the president’s refusal to describe America’s enemy as “radical Islamic terrorism,” charging that he is out of touch. Cruz has also demanded that Obama take “decisive action for victory over evil” and that ISIS to be “utterly destroyed.”

Obama aides express frustration at the notion that the United States can wipe out every last ISIS adherent. They are also mindful that yesterday’s boast can come back to haunt them, the way Obama’s confident reelection campaign message that “al-Qaida is on the run” did after extremists assaulted U.S. facilities in Benghazi in September 2012, killing four Americans.

With Obama’s reelection safely in the rear-view mirror, the White House now is echoing the more nuanced language that once got Bush in trouble on the Today show, and Kerry in his interview with the Times.

“I don’t think you’re ever going to eliminate the use of terrorism,” Rhodes said. “There will be people who murder other people who are innocent for political purposes for the rest of human history.”

To the extent that there can be an end to what Bush dubbed “the global war on terrorism,” Rhodes explained, it will require things in America’s hands and also some well outside of U.S. control — and it may take decades.

“There has to be, number one, a sufficient defensive and deterrent effect so that it is understood that if you self-identify as a terrorist organization at war with the United States that you’re likely to be killed,” he said.

But the second thing that must happen is for Middle Eastern governments to find ways to address “grievance and dissent” so that anger does not turn into a “nihilistic war against the world.”

Rhodes pointed to Northern Ireland and said “cultural shifts” led the Irish Republican Army to abandon terrorist tactics.

“There has to be a similar evolution in … the Middle East.”

………. END OF ARTICLE ……….

 2 comments

Ken Johnson · May 24, 2016 – 12:32 AM · Reply

All this worry, worry, worry, for nothing. The Government does not interfere with the people or man or woman, don’t believe me, look at any code or ordinance, such as the vehicle code or penal code, notice, they never say Law. You will find only persons “shall” (future tense term) do this or that. The codes do not apply to the people or man.
A code will never “stand” in court, it has no vocal cords.
Go out an play and stop worrying. Just remind your public servants you are man and they are a man and all men are free and independent…

JohnHenryHill · May 25, 2016 – 9:59 AM · Reply

Ken, May 25, 2016

Thank you for reading this brief essay on my web site AND for YOUR COMMENT!!!

If you look in any good LAW dictionary (Black’s 4th Edition or earlier OR Bouvier’s from about 1852 or so), you will find that the words “SHALL” and “MUST” in law actually mean “MAY”. – as in you “may” or “may not” choose to obey a legislated act (statute) or any of its offspring (regulations, by-laws, etc.) And the word “REQUIRE” in law actually means “REQUEST”. A CODE is simply a collection of statutes. (These definitions are left out of more “modern” law dictionaries, for obvious political reasons – but those terms were well understood by the Founders and the people in America and Britain from the early 1600’s until about the 1860’s, changing ever so slowly over time. BUT even the U.S. Supreme Court has recently issued rulings affirming the definitions I presented here!!!! (They are just not covered by the mainstream media.) And they most certainly are NOT taught in American law schools!!!!

In short, you are CORRECT.

As I stated in my brief article, legislated acts (statutes) and their offspring are merely “OFFERS TO CONTRACT”, which (as is true for ALL contracts) one may agree to or not agree to. The “catch” is that the states and U.S. government (especially the courts) make the PRESUMPTION that you have AGREED to their contract (statute), thereby giving them JURISDICTION over you. And the ancient Maxims of Law still applies today: “A presumption NOT rebutted stands as the Truth.” and “Silence is consent.” After I learned all this stuff for my Ph.D. in the political history of British and American law, I NEVER went to go court without submitting to the court a written, notarized AFFIDAVIT (submitted in-person to the Clerk of the Court, who stamps 2 copies – 1 for the judge and my own copy; the Clerk of the Court MUST accept it if you write on it “Submitted on Demand”) rebutting all such presumptions by the court, along with a list of MY definitions to be used in the case. In the affidavit, I give the court seven (7) days to respond – and if it does NOT respond within those 7 days, then BY DEFAULT the court has agreed with me and accepted everything in my affidavit as the truth in the law of the case. Maxims of Law: “An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Law.” and “He, who does not object, consents.”

(It is easy to do: only the first page of the affidavit gets changed in a few places. The rest, such as Maxims of Law, my definitions, etc., stay the same.) The court will almost NEVER respond with a rebuttal of my affidavit within those 7 days, it has AGREED to everything in my affidavit – so it (the state and the judge) have LOST by default. IF I decide to appear in court (which is almost NEVER), I have a notarized, stamped-by-the-Court-Clerk, copy of this affidavit. The judge can NOT ignore it, for he will be subject to criminal and civil actions if he does so. Further, I can turn this affidavit into an “International Commercial Lien” (explained in another article on my web site) thereby “freezing” ALL his current and future assets for 99 years (or forever if I place it in a trust). And if I register this Lien with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), it becomes a “negotiable instrument” which I can sell to any investor, investment bank, etc. Since my Liens are typically for $50 Million and a buyer will usually offer between 1-2% of this nominal value, that means I just made $500,000 to $1 Million tax-free dollars. And NO COURT in the world can over-turn this Lien, since it is created by a non-judicial process in which there was NO controversy (recall that, by not responding with his own “notarized affidavit of rebuttal”, the judge has ALREADY AGREED with everything in my original affidavit) – and where there is NO controversy, NO court may assume jurisdiction!!! And if one does appear in court, let your DOCUMENTS do all the “talking” – NEVER say anything more! If pressed by the judge to “explain” something, just say, “It is ALL explained in the documents submitted, so I have absolutely nothing to add.” And do NOT swear any OATH in court, since that negates your documents and gives the judge jurisdiction over you. Remember the Maxim of Law, “An oath is a contract in law.” And at this point, you do NOT want to create a new contract with the court by swearing an oath!

Do NOT expect lawyers (except for International Commercial Lien specialists) or lower-court judges to know this stuff, since it is never taught in U.S. law schools. But a judge on the Appeals Court level will often know about it; and most definitely a judge on a state or federal supreme court. Lastly, if ANYONE tries to interfere with this Lien, that person may be easily added to the Lien by simply writing his name, title, address and brief description of what he did onto the back of the Lien – so ALL his assets get “frozen” also and he then also owes me $50 Million!!!

One can “beat the system” IF one knows the system – and then use the system against “the powers that be”. I have used “International Commercial Liens” on 6 people (all U.S. officials); and won EVERY time! (This is in another article on this web site about “DONUTS, etc”.) And I NEVER paid for any out-of-state traffic ticket, parking ticket, etc – only those in Massachusetts because my drivers license was a CONTRACT with the state.

By the way, I now live most of the year in Ukraine or Crimea – so I no longer have to deal with courts in the U.S.

Best wishes! JHH

Extra Stuff:

After the ratification of the original (“organic”) “The Constitution for the united States of America”, written in plain English for all to understand, the courts, Congress and people accepted as FACTS OF LAW that the people as individuals were the sovereigns of the Union states, the various states were viewed as separate “foreign countries with respect to each other and with respect the United States”; and most almost all legislated acts (statutes; from which regulations were written) applied ONLY to employees and agents of the U.S. government. The Congress had jurisdiction only over Washington City, as the seat of the federal government, federal Territories, federal forts and naval stations within a state; and federal buildings within a state, usually federal Post offices. Federal statutes applied to people living in one of the sovereign states ONLY if that individual man CONSENTED to that particular statute. The federal courts existed solely to settle disputes between states; and disputes between people from two different states.

..at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves….. [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.]

“There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States …. In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld.” — Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421..

The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.]

“It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.“ ~ Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997 (1854)

“Our government is founded upon compact [contract]. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people“ — Glass v. Sloop Betsey, U.S. Supreme Court, 1794.

Even Alexander Hamilton (1st Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington) and one of the most ardent advocates for a strong central government wrote, “Necessity and expediency are NOT legitimate excuses for violating the Constitution you swore to uphold and protect – even during a ‘crisis’“.

“The Constitution for the united States of America”, written in plain English for all to understand, the courts, Congress and people accepted as FACTS OF LAW that the people as individuals were the sovereigns of the Union states, “the various states are separate foreign countries with respect to each other and with respect to the United States” (from various U.S. Supreme Court rulings)

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

 

Me and Walter Cronkite

September 20th, 2016 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2016/09/me-and-walter-cronkite.html

12-21-2015 3-19-06 PM

By Anna Von Reitz,

We got a real television (not the hopelessly grainy eyeball model) when I was four years old.  This black and white picture was also grainy, but you could see the faces clearly.  One of the first faces I became familiar with as a toddler and young child was Walter Cronkite

While other four year-olds were watching Huckleberry Hound and Mighty Mouse with religious devotion, I watched Walter. Every night.  Without fail.  I’d put on my Dale Evans cowgirl hat and red leather cowboy boots and mount my hobby horse sitting in front of the television and watch with morbid fascination.

I remember the Nixon v. Kennedy Debates and there aren’t too many people my age who have a clear recollection of that.

Like many Americans, I loved Walter. He had such a comforting voice and his dark, serious, but often gently amused eyes seemed to be looking straight into mine on many important occasions.

Of course, I trusted Walter.  Who didn’t?  So it came as a terrible shock to learn that he was lying to me!  Yes, Walter Cronkite was lying about all sorts of things and when I first discovered that, well, it was worse than learning the truth about Santa Claus.  Much worse.

It was worse because Santa was just a fictional character. Walter Cronkite was real. 

And he was lying about what happened to President Kennedy. 

Any fool, even a seven year-old, knew what happened in Dallas that day in November,1963.  Anyone who saw the television footage of the assassination knew what direction the bullet was coming from and nobody needed the Warren Commission to tell us any more lies about it.

We didn’t need the scapegoat, Lee Harvey Oswald.  We didn’t need Jack Ruby doing his final mafia hit. 

LBJ and his cronies killed JFK to make way for the war profiteering of Vietnam, the seduction of the States with “federal block grants”, to spool up the reign of the oil industry, and keep the central banks happy.

And there was Walter Cronkite, speaking in his calm, deliberate, serious, caring way, lying through his teeth about what was perfectly obvious to the naked eye. I was confused.  Heart-broken.  Severely disillusioned.  I was seven and one of my heroes was revealed to be a fraud.

So when 911 happened, the first words out of my mouth were, “Where is this Techni-Color Hollywood – quality newsfeed coming from?”

If 911 wasn’t a set-up, we’d be seeing jiggling shots taken by astonished tourists from three blocks away, grainy security camera footage from banks and hotels up and down the street—–but no, we saw 911 happen from every possible angle, in high definition color.  It was a set-up.  It was obviously a set-up.  Just like the Kennedy murder.

And just like the Kennedy murder, Bush assigned a “Blue Ribbon Committee” to white wash it and come up with fanciful excuses for it, and because the American People have trusted what they thought of as “their government” instead of their foreign vendors, they choked it down.  They were confused. They were patriotic.  They didn’t know what to think.

Well, I am telling you what the evidence shows.

The private, mostly foreign-owned governmental services corporation run by G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney murdered 3,000 innocent people from around the world with malice aforethought.  Their pals collected billions of dollars of insurance money instead of having to pay for the demolition of asbestos polluted office buildings.  Tons of gold bullion were stolen to pay for quasi-military black ops, mostly in support of the oil industry in the Mideast and the whole crappola war and take over in Iraq.  And hundreds of millions of records proving that the “government” corporation defrauded Americans were destroyed.

So you see, I knew 911 was a fraud and a false-flag and a set up from the first moments of news coverage I saw, and I didn’t need any scientific evidence, no thermite residue, no architectural and engineering analysis.  All I needed was the memory of Walter Cronkite shining me on about the Kennedy murder, and the fact that the 911 event was covered from all angles by professional movie crews.

I already told you all about why I stopped watching television news altogether (except for the weather report) in 1989 but let’s repeat.  I did a little experiment and kept track of how many stories had to do with sex and how many had to do with death and how many had to do with sex and death, both.  And I concluded that the actual useful news accounted for only about 5% of what was presented as “news” every night —- mostly the weather report. 

So my advice to everyone is — don’t believe a word the talking heads say and don’t be surprised or disappointed when Tom Brokaw admits that he doesn’t know a thing about the news stories he is parroting.  Journalism in this country died with the gag-orders imposed by the federal government corporation during World War II and ever since, with very, very rare exceptions that always result in lost careers—we have lived with a government controlled news media that is essentially just a giant propaganda machine designed to scare us and sell stuff to us by turns.

Turn the knob, push the button—- “Off!” — and start looking with your own eyes and listening with your own ears. It’s the only way you are ever going to know what is going on.

See this article and over 300 others on Anna’s website here:www.annavonreitz.com

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

American’s where is your natural instinct? You should not have to be told that your early education was a surreptitious preparation for loving your enemies in Government, and hating all others. You should not have to be told that wars are insane, and no one ever wins a war, They are just the result of your indoctrination when you volunteer to be killed protecting something that never existed. You are like the man who killed his best friend for telling him his wife had been a whore for as long as he could remember, and had proof. He simply could not stop loving her because of all the years he had been with her had made him feel good about his self. Patriotism is a fool’s excuse for his ignorance. History will tell you there has never been a good government anywhere; ever! Turn off that stupid box and read!!!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

ONCE YOU GET ON THIS TRAIN YOU CANT GET OFF

September 19th, 2016 by

www.rebelmadman.com/?p=511

By Michael Gaddy

Author’s note: Election season is in full blossom. Both sides have morphed from “let’s solidify our base” before the convention to “make whatever promises necessary” in order to win the election. Hillary is a full-blown criminal and serial liar and has been for the majority of her life. Trump needs someone to send him a fifty-five-gallon barrel of Aunt Jemima syrup to go with all of his waffles. (First Obama was not born in America—now he was; I will build a wall—-maybe, I will (might) export all illegal’s; I don’t trust those folks at Goldman Sachs who gave Hillary all of that money for speeches but I will hire one of their former employers to advise my campaign.) Unfortunately, those who get all caught up in election season even begin to make promises and lie for their favorite candidates. (Check Facebook; According to his supporters Trump will cancel all of Obama’s executive orders and prosecute the Obama’s and the Clinton’s as soon as he takes office.)

The huge problem is: that no matter which candidate wins the election they will be very limited in what they personally can do–simply because our government has been controlled by what has been referred to as the “Deep State,” “The Power Cabal,” “The National Security State” or simply the “Continuity of Government” plan which was implemented over 15 years ago. Yes, the candidate you vote for is simply a puppet who for 4 or 8 years will simply move according to pressure applied to their strings by operatives within the “Deep State” and dance to the music of the international banking orchestra. Here is an article I wrote on this subject some time back but it is most relevant today as well.

“The existence of the secret government was so closely held that Congress was completely bypassed.” ~James Bamford

Should anyone trust a man former president Richard Nixon once praised as “a ruthless little bastard?” What if this man teamed up with another lifelong politician who stated emphatically, “Principle is ok up to a certain point, but principle doesn’t do any good if you lose the nomination?” These two men experienced tremendous influence in the power politics of our country for decades.

Although these men, void of any scruples other than might-makes-right, played musical chairs in the Gerald Ford administration, switching between Chief of Staff and Secretary of Defense. They came together again with a purpose in the Ronald Reagan administration. They are, of course, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

Reagan, every true Republican’s dream of the perfect president, was responsible for initiating the development of a plan which would totally suspend the Constitution and Bill of Rights and place the control of a “shadow government” into the hands of a very few people. Ostensibly this would only occur during a nuclear attack on this country and would ensure the continuity of government through the crisis. But, unfortunately, we have learned in this country that if a politician sees the opportunity to gain power and to do so would require a crisis, it is not beyond these people of little to no principles to create the necessary crisis. Since fabricating a nuclear attack on this country would require perhaps insurmountable challenges, the bar for the implementation of this shadow government had to be significantly lowered.

Reagan knew, or should have known, there were no provisions in the Constitution for its suspension in the time of emergency. Yet, Reagan set in motion, by secret directive, the formation and operational designs for such a proxy government. This was not only a written decree from the executive, it was actually practiced. Once a year three “teams” would be deployed throughout the country with people playacting the parts of president and cabinet members. These exercises would be conducted on a closed military facility or in some remote part of the country. Even though Donald Rumsfeld was not in government at the time, but was the CEO of a large pharmaceutical company and Dick Cheney was a member of Congress from Wyoming, both participated in these mock drills on a continuing basis. Since former presidential chiefs-of-staff usually played the part of the president in these drills, Rumsfeld and Cheney got lots of practice.

Presidential succession is set forth by the Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 6) and the 25th Amendment; the continuity of government plan (COG) completely ignores both. Indeed, as previously stated, the entire COG is unconstitutional as an unelected bureaucrat could act as president.

Since the days of Alexander Hamilton and his merry band of monarchists, enterprising politicians with no principles, but tons of ambition, have set about to circumvent the restrictions and impediments to wealth and power known as either the Articles of Confederation or a Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The existence of the plans for a suspension of the constitution and rule by executive directive appears to have first surfaced publicly during the Iran-Contra hearings.

Brooks: Colonel North, in your work at the N.S.C. were you not assigned, at one time, to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?

Both North’s attorney and Sen. Daniel Inouye, the Democratic Chair of the Committee, responded in a way that showed they were aware of the issue:

Brendan Sullivan [North’s counsel, agitatedly]: Mr. Chairman?

[Senator Daniel] Inouye: I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area so may I request that you not touch upon that?

Brooks: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman because I read in Miami papers, and several others, that there had been a plan developed, by that same agency, a contingency plan in the event of emergency that would suspend the American constitution. And I was deeply concerned about it and wondered if that was an area in which he had worked. I believe that it was and I wanted to get his confirmation.

Inouye: May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon at this stage. If we wish to get into this, I’m certain arrangements can be made for an executive session.

Near the end of Reagan’s term in 1988, he would redefine the plan to include events other than a nuclear attack. (Executive Order 12656) COG now could be implemented with anything a member of the political power structure deemed a “national emergency.” Of course, what constitutes a national emergency is left to the discretion of those who would profit from such a determination. One cannot help but be reminded of Alexander Hamilton’s explanation to Thomas Jefferson as to what “necessary” means to a politician. Is there any wonder that Jefferson would write, “Hamilton was not only a monarchist, but for a monarchy bottomed on corruption.”

“… [N]ecessary often means no more than needfulrequisiteincidentaluseful, or conducive to …” ~ Alexander Hamilton

Was it plan or providence that brought Rumsfeld and Cheney back into power when the Supreme Court suspended an election, ordered the state of Florida to stop counting the people’s votes, and declared George W. Bush president?

Cheney, when made the chair of the committee to select a VP candidate to fill out the ticket of George W. Bush, decided the most qualified candidate for that office was himself. And his longtime political partner, Rumsfeld, was installed as Secretary of Defense.

Then, of course, along came 9/11. In the interest of full disclosure, let me here state the only thing I am sure of concerning the events of 9/11 is that our government is lying about the entire event.

But, it is beyond argument that 9/11 did occur; it is also beyond debate that within hours of those events, Dick Cheney, not President Bush, enacted the Continuity of Government (COG) plan which suspended the Constitution. (Please note: one of the originators of an act which suspended constitutional governance in this country, implemented that plan to suspend the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, an unconstitutional act on its face.) I’m sure that Hamilton and his disciples Cheney and Rumsfeld would declare 9/11 necessitated the need for such an action.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants” ~ William Pitt

“Useful and necessary was always the tyrant’s plea.” ~ C. S. Lewis

Unfortunately, most citizens of this country had no idea a plan had been implemented that created a secret “shadow government” unencumbered with rules, regulations and inspection by Congress or the public. The first possible awareness appeared in an article in the Washington Post in March of 2002 titled, “Shadow Government is at work in Secret.” The article can be found here.

It became readily apparent neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives were aware of this “shadow government” and certainly had not been consulted on its implementation. Could it be the Patriot Act, a tyrannical, unconstitutional piece of legislation was created by this secret government? One thing for sure is: two of the strongest dissenters to this proposal were Tom Daschle, Senate Majority leader and Patrick Leahy, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Is it mere coincidence these two opponents to the Patriot Act received letters containing spores of deadly Anthrax? Is it also coincidence that shortly after that, both dropped their opposition?

We know that President George W. Bush continued the “shadow government” on May 9, 2007, with National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20. Only the unclassified portions of these directives were published. When Congressman Peter DeFazio of the Homeland Security Commission asked to see the classified portions of this presidential and Homeland Security directive, his request was denied.

We also know that Obama continued the continuity of government plans as established during the Bush administration on July 27th, 2009 stating his administration draws “no distance between their own policies and those left behind by the Bush administration.”

John McCain stated in 2008 that the “war on terror” could last 100 years. Leon Panetta, another former SecDef, said the war against ISIS could take up to 30 years. We know that to continue with the suspension of at least portions of the Constitution requires a “national emergency.” There is no finer claim for emergency than being in a war that is expected to last for years.

War requires an enemy, and for the better part of 40 years our out-of-control national security apparatus has either lied us into wars or created the enemies we fight. There is substantial, credible evidence our shadow government created, financed and equipped al-Qaeda, ISIS, al Nusra and the Azov Battalion in the Ukraine. See here for evidence of our support for the Nazis in the Ukraine.

War is the reason for this secret government and those within this power cabal will continue to foment and prosecute wars because it accomplishes two important goals: The cabal has no restrictions on its actions while those in the military/industrial/congressional complex grow wealthy beyond their wildest dreams and the people are continually subjected to liberty destroying legislation such as the Patriot Act, NDAA, and a heavily militarized police state.

We have a criminal enterprise in power in this country that has suspended our Constitution and Bill of Rights and rules by secret orders from a shadow government. Elections mean nothing. Electing a person to congress who has no power when it comes to confronting this shadow government is an effort in futility. Electing a new president is a waste of time, money and effort. He/she has already bought into this madness or they would not stand a chance of being elected for the cabal controlled mainstream media is truly the electorate. They declare who or who is not electable and the masses follow their lead.

No American will ever be free as long as this shadow government is in control.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

Mike

10 13 11 flagbar

A hidden world growing beyond control

September 17th, 2016 by

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/1

 

Part 1

The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.

9-17-2016-10-00-07-am

These are some of the findings of a two-year investigation by The Washington Post that discovered what amounts to an alternative geography of the United States, a Top Secret America hidden from public view and lacking in thorough oversight. After nine years of unprecedented spending and growth, the result is that the system put in place to keep the United States safe is so massive that its effectiveness is impossible to determine.

The investigation’s other findings include:

* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.

* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

* In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings – about 17 million square feet of space.

* Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.

* Analysts who make sense of documents and conversations obtained by foreign and domestic spying share their judgment by publishing 50,000 intelligence reports each year – a volume so large that many are routinely ignored.

An alternative geography

Since Sept. 11, 2001, the top-secret world created to respond to the terrorist attacks has grown into an unwieldy enterprise spread over 10,000 U.S. locations. Launch Photo Gallery »

These are not academic issues; lack of focus, not lack of resources, was at the heart of the Fort Hood shooting that left 13 dead, as well as the Christmas Day bomb attempt thwarted not by the thousands of analysts employed to find lone terrorists but by an alert airline passenger who saw smoke coming from his seatmate.

They are also issues that greatly concern some of the people in charge of the nation’s security.

“There has been so much growth since 9/11 that getting your arms around that – not just for the

In the Department of Defense, where more than two-thirds of the intelligence programs reside, only a handful of senior officials – called Super Users – have the ability to even know about all the department’s activities. But as two of the Super Users indicated in interviews, there is simply no way they can keep up with the nation’s most sensitive work.

“I’m not going to live long enough to be briefed on everything” was how one Super User put it. The other recounted that for his initial briefing, he was escorted into a tiny, dark room, seated at a small table and told he couldn’t take notes. Program after program began flashing on a screen, he said, until he yelled ”Stop!” in frustration.

“I wasn’t remembering any of it,” he said.

Underscoring the seriousness of these issues are the conclusions of retired Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who was asked last year to review the method for tracking the Defense Department’s most sensitive programs. Vines, who once commanded 145,000 troops in Iraq and is familiar with complex problems, was stunned by what he discovered.

“I’m not aware of any agency with the authority, responsibility or a process in place to coordinate all these interagency and commercial activities,” he said in an interview. “The complexity of this system defies description.”

The result, he added, is that it’s impossible to tell whether the country is safer because of all this spending and all these activities. “Because it lacks a synchronizing process, it inevitably results in message dissonance, reduced effectiveness and waste,” Vines said. “We consequently can’t effectively assess whether it is making us more safe.”

The Post’s investigation is based on government documents and contracts, job descriptions, property records, corporate and social networking Web sites, additional records, and hundreds of interviews with intelligence, military and corporate officials and former officials. Most requested anonymity either because they are prohibited from speaking publicly or because, they said, they feared retaliation at work for describing their concerns.

The Post’s online database of government organizations and private companies was built entirely on public records. The investigation focused on top-secret work because the amount classified at the secret level is too large to accurately track.

Today’s article describes the government’s role in this expanding enterprise. Tuesday’s article describes the government’s dependence on private contractors. Wednesday’s is a portrait of one Top Secret America community. On the Web, an extensive, searchable database built by The Post about Top Secret America is available at washingtonpost.com/topsecretamerica.

Defense Secretary Gates, in his interview with The Post, said that he does not believe the system has become too big to manage but that getting precise data is sometimes difficult. Singling out the growth of intelligence units in the Defense Department, he said he intends to review those programs for waste. “Nine years after 9/11, it makes a lot of sense to sort of take a look at this and say, ‘Okay, we’ve built tremendous capability, but do we have more than we need?’ ” he said.

CIA Director Leon Panetta, who was also interviewed by The Post last week, said he’s begun mapping out a five-year plan for his agency because the levels of spending since 9/11 are not sustainable. “Particularly with these deficits, we’re going to hit the wall. I want to be prepared for that,” he said. “Frankly, I think everyone in intelligence ought to be doing that.”

In an interview before he resigned as the director of national intelligence in May, retired Adm. Dennis C. Blair said he did not believe there was overlap and redundancy in the intelligence world. “Much of what appears to be redundancy is, in fact, providing tailored intelligence for many different customers,” he said.

Blair also expressed confidence that subordinates told him what he needed to know. “I have visibility on all the important intelligence programs across the community, and there are processes in place to ensure the different intelligence capabilities are working together where they need to,” he said.

Weeks later, as he sat in the corner of a ballroom at the Willard Hotel waiting to give a speech, he mused about The Post’s findings. “After 9/11, when we decided to attack violent extremism, we did as we so often do in this country,” he said. “The attitude was, if it’s worth doing, it’s probably worth overdoing.”

Part 2

Outside a gated subdivision of mansions in McLean, a line of cars idles every weekday morning as a new day in Top Secret America gets underway. The drivers wait patiently to turn left, then crawl up a hill and around a bend to a destination that is not on any public map and not announced by any street sign.

Liberty Crossing tries hard to hide from view. But in the winter, leafless trees can’t conceal a mountain of cement and windows the size of five Wal-Mart stores stacked on top of one another rising behind a grassy berm. One step too close without the right badge, and men in black jump out of nowhere, guns at the ready.

Past the armed guards and the hydraulic steel barriers, at least 1,700 federal employees and 1,200 private contractors work at Liberty Crossing, the nickname for the two headquarters of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and its National Counterterrorism Center. The two share a police force, a canine unit and thousands of parking spaces.

Liberty Crossing is at the center of the collection of U.S. government agencies and corporate contractors that mushroomed after the 2001 attacks. But it is not nearly the biggest, the most costly or even the most secretive part of the 9/11 enterprise.

In an Arlington County office building, the lobby directory doesn’t include the Air Force’s mysteriously named XOIWS unit, but there’s a big “Welcome!” sign in the hallway greeting visitors who know to step off the elevator on the third floor. In Elkridge, Md., a clandestine program hides in a tall concrete structure fitted with false windows to look like a normal office building. In Arnold, Mo., the location is across the street from a Target and a Home Depot. In St. Petersburg, Fla., it’s in a modest brick bungalow in a run-down business park.

9-17-2016-10-02-53-am

Each day at the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean, workers review at least 5,000 pieces of terrorist-related data from intelligence agencies and keep an eye on world events. (Photo by: Melina Mara / The Washington Post)

Every day across the United States, 854,000 civil servants, military personnel and private contractors with top-secret security clearances are scanned into offices protected by electromagnetic locks, retinal cameras and fortified walls that eavesdropping equipment cannot penetrate.

This is not exactly President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex,” which emerged with the Cold War and centered on building nuclear weapons to deter the Soviet Union. This is a national security enterprise with a more amorphous mission: defeating transnational violent extremists.

Much of the information about this mission is classified. That is the reason it is so difficult to gauge the success and identify the problems of Top Secret America, including whether money is being spent wisely. The U.S. intelligence budget is vast, publicly announced last year as $75 billion, 21/2 times the size it was on Sept. 10, 2001. But the figure doesn’t include many military activities or domestic counterterrorism programs.

At least 20 percent of the government organizations that exist to fend off terrorist threats were established or refashioned in the wake of 9/11. Many that existed before the attacks grew to historic proportions as the Bush administration and Congress gave agencies more money than they were capable of responsibly spending.

The Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, for example, has gone from 7,500 employees in 2002 to 16,500 today. The budget of the National Security Agency, which conducts electronic eavesdropping, doubled. Thirty-five FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces became 106. It was phenomenal growth that began almost as soon as the Sept. 11 attacks ended.

Nine days after the attacks, Congress committed $40 billion beyond what was in the federal budget to fortify domestic defenses and to launch a global offensive against al-Qaeda. It followed that up with an additional $36.5 billion in 2002 and $44 billion in 2003. That was only a beginning.

With the quick infusion of money, military and intelligence agencies multiplied. Twenty-four organizations were created by the end of 2001, including the Office of Homeland Security and the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Task Force. In 2002, 37 more were created to track weapons of mass destruction, collect threat tips and coordinate the new focus on counterterrorism. That was followed the next year by 36 new organizations; and 26 after that; and 31 more; and 32 more; and 20 or more each in 2007, 2008 and 2009.

In all, at least 263 organizations have been created or reorganized as a response to 9/11. Each has required more people, and those people have required more administrative and logistic support: phone operators, secretaries, librarians, architects, carpenters, construction workers, air-conditioning mechanics and, because of where they work, even janitors with top-secret clearances.

With so many more employees, units and organizations, the lines of responsibility began to blur. To remedy this, at the recommendation of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, the George W. Bush administration and Congress decided to create an agency in 2004 with overarching responsibilities called the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to bring the colossal effort under control.

Part 3

While that was the idea, Washington has its own ways.

The first problem was that the law passed by Congress did not give the director clear legal or budgetary authority over intelligence matters, which meant he wouldn’t have power over the individual agencies he was supposed to control.

The second problem: Even before the first director, Ambassador John D. Negroponte, was on the job, the turf battles began. The Defense Department shifted billions of dollars out of one budget and into another so that the ODNI could not touch it, according to two senior officials who watched the process. The CIA reclassified some of its most sensitive information at a higher level so the National Counterterrorism Center staff, part of the ODNI, would not be allowed to see it, said former intelligence officers involved.

And then came a problem that continues to this day, which has to do with the ODNI’s rapid expansion.

When it opened in the spring of 2005, Negroponte’s office was all of 11 people stuffed into a secure vault with closet-size rooms a block from the White House. A year later, the budding agency moved to two floors of another building. In April 2008, it moved into its huge permanent home, Liberty Crossing.

Today, many officials who work in the intelligence agencies say they remain unclear about what the ODNI is in charge of. To be sure, the ODNI has made some progress, especially in intelligence-sharing, information technology and budget reform. The DNI and his managers hold interagency meetings every day to promote collaboration. The last director, Blair, doggedly pursued such nitty-gritty issues as procurement reform, compatible computer networks, tradecraft standards and collegiality.

But improvements have been overtaken by volume at the ODNI, as the increased flow of intelligence data overwhelms the system’s ability to analyze and use it. Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications. The NSA sorts a fraction of those into 70 separate databases. The same problem bedevils every other intelligence agency, none of which have enough analysts and translators for all this work.

The practical effect of this unwieldiness is visible, on a much smaller scale, in the office of Michael Leiter, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Leiter spends much of his day flipping among four computer monitors lined up on his desk. Six hard drives sit at his feet. The data flow is enormous, with dozens of databases feeding separate computer networks that cannot interact with one another.

There is a long explanation for why these databases are still not connected, and it amounts to this: It’s too hard, and some agency heads don’t really want to give up the systems they have. But there’s some progress: “All my e-mail on one computer now,” Leiter says. “That’s a big deal.”

Part 4

To get another view of how sprawling Top Secret America has become, just head west on the toll road toward Dulles International Airport.

As a Michaels craft store and a Books-A-Million give way to the military intelligence giants Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, find the off-ramp and turn left. Those two shimmering-blue five-story ice cubes belong to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which analyzes images and mapping data of the Earth’s geography. A small sign obscured by a boxwood hedge says so.

Across the street, in the chocolate-brown blocks, is Carahsoft, an intelligence agency contractor specializing in mapping, speech analysis and data harvesting. Nearby is the government’s Underground Facility Analysis Center. It identifies overseas underground command centers associated with weapons of mass destruction and terrorist groups, and advises the military on how to destroy them.

Clusters of top-secret work exist throughout the country, but the Washington region is the capital of Top Secret America.

About half of the post-9/11 enterprise is anchored in an arc stretching from Leesburg south to Quantico, back north through Washington and curving northeast to Linthicum, just north of the Baltimore-Washington International Marshall Airport. Many buildings sit within off-limits government compounds or military bases.
Others occupy business parks or are intermingled with neighborhoods, schools and shopping centers and go unnoticed by most people who live or play nearby.

Many of the newest buildings are not just utilitarian offices but also edifices “on the order of the pyramids,” in the words of one senior military intelligence officer.

Not far from the Dulles Toll Road, the CIA has expanded into two buildings that will increase the agency’s office space by one-third. To the south, Springfield is becoming home to the new $1.8 billion National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency headquarters, which will be the fourth-largest federal building in the area and home to 8,500 employees. Economic stimulus money is paying hundreds of millions of dollars for this kind of federal construction across the region.

9-17-2016-10-04-16-amConstruction for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency in Springfield (Photo by: Michael S. Williamson / The Washington Post)

It’s not only the number of buildings that suggests the size and cost of this expansion, it’s also what is inside: banks of television monitors. “Escort-required” badges. X-ray machines and lockers to store cellphones and pagers. Keypad door locks that open special rooms encased in metal or permanent dry wall, impenetrable to eavesdropping tools and protected by alarms and a security force capable of responding within 15 minutes. Every one of these buildings has at least one of these rooms, known as a SCIF, for sensitive compartmented information facility. Some are as small as a closet; others are four times the size of a football field.

SCIF size has become a measure of status in Top Secret America, or at least in the Washington region of it. “In D.C., everyone talks SCIF, SCIF, SCIF,” said Bruce Paquin, who moved to Florida from the Washington region several years ago to start a SCIF construction business. “They’ve got the penis envy thing going. You can’t be a big boy unless you’re a three-letter agency and you have a big SCIF.”

SCIFs are not the only must-have items people pay attention to. Command centers, internal television networks, video walls, armored SUVs and personal security guards have also become the bling of national security.

“You can’t find a four-star general without a security detail,” said one three-star general now posted in Washington after years abroad. “Fear has caused everyone to have stuff. Then comes, ‘If he has one, then I have to have one.’ It’s become a status symbol.”

Part 5

Among the most important people inside the SCIFs are the low-paid employees carrying their lunches to work to save money. They are the analysts, the 20- and 30-year-olds making $41,000 to $65,000 a year, whose job is at the core of everything Top Secret America tries to do.

At its best, analysis melds cultural understanding with snippets of conversations, coded dialogue, anonymous tips, even scraps of trash, turning them into clues that lead to individuals and groups trying to harm the United States.

Their work is greatly enhanced by computers that sort through and categorize data. But in the end, analysis requires human judgment, and half the analysts are relatively inexperienced, having been hired in the past several years, said a senior ODNI official. Contract analysts are often straight out of college and trained at corporate headquarters.

When hired, a typical analyst knows very little about the priority countries – Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan – and is not fluent in their languages. Still, the number of intelligence reports they produce on these key countries is overwhelming, say current and former intelligence officials who try to cull them every day. The ODNI doesn’t know exactly how many reports are issued each year, but in the process of trying to find out, the chief of analysis discovered 60 classified analytic Web sites still in operation that were supposed to have been closed down for lack of usefulness. “Like a zombie, it keeps on living” is how one official describes the sites.

The problem with many intelligence reports, say officers who read them, is that they simply re-slice the same facts already in circulation. “It’s the soccer ball syndrome. Something happens, and they want to rush to cover it,” said Richard H. Immerman, who was the ODNI’s assistant deputy director of national intelligence for analytic integrity and standards until early 2009. “I saw tremendous overlap.”

Even the analysts at the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which is supposed to be where the most sensitive, most difficult-to-obtain nuggets of information are fused together, get low marks from intelligence officials for not producing reports that are original, or at least better than the reports already written by the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency or Defense Intelligence Agency.

When Maj. Gen. John M. Custer was the director of intelligence at U.S. Central Command, he grew angry at how little helpful information came out of the NCTC. In 2007, he visited its director at the time, retired Vice Adm. John Scott Redd, to tell him so. “I told him that after 4 1/2 years, this organization had never produced one shred of information that helped me prosecute three wars!” he said loudly, leaning over the table during an interview.

Two years later, Custer, now head of the Army’s intelligence school at Fort Huachuca, Ariz., still gets red-faced recalling that day, which reminds him of his frustration with Washington’s bureaucracy. “Who has the mission of reducing redundancy and ensuring everybody doesn’t gravitate to the lowest-hanging fruit?” he said. “Who orchestrates what is produced so that everybody doesn’t produce the same thing?”

He’s hardly the only one irritated. In a secure office in Washington, a senior intelligence officer was dealing with his own frustration. Seated at his computer, he began scrolling through some of the classified information he is expected to read every day: CIA World Intelligence Review, WIRe-CIA, Spot Intelligence Report, Daily Intelligence Summary, Weekly Intelligence Forecast, Weekly Warning Forecast, IC Terrorist Threat Assessments, NCTC Terrorism Dispatch, NCTC Spotlight . . .

It’s too much, he complained. The inbox on his desk was full, too. He threw up his arms, picked up a thick, glossy intelligence report and waved it around, yelling.

“Jesus! Why does it take so long to produce?”

“Why does it have to be so bulky?”

“Why isn’t it online?”

The overload of hourly, daily, weekly, monthly and annual reports is actually counterproductive, say people who receive them. Some policymakers and senior officials don’t dare delve into the backup clogging their computers. They rely instead on personal briefers, and those briefers usually rely on their own agency’s analysis, re-creating the very problem identified as a main cause of the failure to thwart the attacks: a lack of information-sharing.

9-17-2016-10-06-19-am

A new Defense Department office complex goes up in Alexandria. (Photo by: Michael S. Williamson / The Washington Post)

The ODNI’s analysis office knows this is a problem. Yet its solution was another publication, this one a daily online newspaper, Intelligence Today. Every day, a staff of 22 culls more than two dozen agencies’ reports and 63 Web sites, selects the best information and packages it by originality, topic and region.

Analysis is not the only area where serious overlap appears to be gumming up the national security machinery and blurring the lines of responsibility.

Within the Defense Department alone, 18 commands and agencies conduct information operations, which aspire to manage foreign audiences’ perceptions of U.S. policy and military activities overseas.

And all the major intelligence agencies and at least two major military commands claim a major role in cyber-warfare, the newest and least-defined frontier.

“Frankly, it hasn’t been brought together in a unified approach,” CIA Director Panetta said of the many agencies now involved in cyber-warfare.

“Cyber is tremendously difficult” to coordinate, said Benjamin A. Powell, who served as general counsel for three directors of national intelligence until he left the government last year. “Sometimes there was an unfortunate attitude of bring your knives, your guns, your fists and be fully prepared to defend your turf.” Why? “Because it’s funded, it’s hot and it’s sexy.”

Part 6

Last fall, U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly opened fire at Fort Hood, Tex., killing 13 people and wounding 30. In the days after the shootings, information emerged about Hasan’s increasingly strange behavior at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where he had trained as a psychiatrist and warned commanders that they should allow Muslims to leave the Army or risk “adverse events.” He had also exchanged e-mails with a well-known radical cleric in Yemen being monitored by U.S. intelligence.

 

Anti-Deception Technologies

From avatars and lasers to thermal cameras and fidget meters, this multimedia gallery takes a look at some of the latest technologies being developed by the government and private companies to thwart terrorists. Launch Gallery »

But none of this reached the one organization charged with handling counterintelligence investigations within the Army. Just 25 miles up the road from Walter Reed, the Army’s 902nd Military Intelligence Group had been doing little to search the ranks for potential threats. Instead, the 902’s commander had decided to turn the unit’s attention to assessing general terrorist affiliations in the United States, even though the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI’s 106 Joint Terrorism Task Forces were already doing this work in great depth.

The 902nd, working on a program the commander named RITA, for Radical Islamic Threat to the Army, had quietly been gathering information on Hezbollah, Iranian Republican Guard and al-Qaeda student organizations in the United States. The assessment “didn’t tell us anything we didn’t know already,” said the Army’s senior counterintelligence officer at the Pentagon.

Secrecy and lack of coordination have allowed organizations, such as the 902nd in this case, to work on issues others were already tackling rather than take on the much more challenging job of trying to identify potential jihadist sympathizers within the Army itself.

Beyond redundancy, secrecy within the intelligence world hampers effectiveness in other ways, say defense and intelligence officers. For the Defense Department, the root of this problem goes back to an ultra-secret group of programs for which access is extremely limited and monitored by specially trained security officers.
These are called Special Access Programs – or SAPs – and the Pentagon’s list of code names for them runs 300 pages. The intelligence community has hundreds more of its own, and those hundreds have thousands of sub-programs with their own limits on the number of people authorized to know anything about them. All this means that very few people have a complete sense of what’s going on.

“There’s only one entity in the entire universe that has visibility on all SAPs – that’s God,” said James R. Clapper, undersecretary of defense for intelligence and the Obama administration’s nominee to be the next director of national intelligence.

Such secrecy can undermine the normal chain of command when senior officials use it to cut out rivals or when subordinates are ordered to keep secrets from their commanders.

One military officer involved in one such program said he was ordered to sign a document prohibiting him from disclosing it to his four-star commander, with whom he worked closely every day, because the commander was not authorized to know about it. Another senior defense official recalls the day he tried to find out about a program in his budget, only to be rebuffed by a peer. “What do you mean you can’t tell me? I pay for the program,” he recalled saying in a heated exchange.

Another senior intelligence official with wide access to many programs said that secrecy is sometimes used to protect ineffective projects. “I think the secretary of defense ought to direct a look at every single thing to see if it still has value,” he said. “The DNI ought to do something similar.”

The ODNI hasn’t done that yet. The best it can do at the moment is maintain a database of the names of the most sensitive programs in the intelligence community. But the database does not include many important and relevant Pentagon projects.

Part 7

Because so much is classified, illustrations of what goes on every day in Top Secret America can be hard to ferret out. But every so often, examples emerge. A recent one shows the post-9/11 system at its best and its worst.

Last fall, after eight years of growth and hirings, the enterprise was at full throttle when word emerged that something was seriously amiss inside Yemen. In response, President Obama signed an order sending dozens of secret commandos to that country to target and kill the leaders of an al-Qaeda affiliate.

In Yemen, the commandos set up a joint operations center packed with hard drives, forensic kits and communications gear. They exchanged thousands of intercepts, agent reports, photographic evidence and real-time video surveillance with dozens of top-secret organizations in the United States.

That was the system as it was intended. But when the information reached the National Counterterrorism Center in Washington for analysis, it arrived buried within the 5,000 pieces of general terrorist-related data that are reviewed each day. Analysts had to switch from database to database, from hard drive to hard drive, from screen to screen, just to locate what might be interesting to study further.

As military operations in Yemen intensified and the chatter about a possible terrorist strike increased, the intelligence agencies ramped up their effort. The flood of information into the NCTC became a torrent.

Somewhere in that deluge was even more vital data. Partial names of someone in Yemen. A reference to a Nigerian radical who had gone to Yemen. A report of a father in Nigeria worried about a son who had become interested in radical teachings and had disappeared inside Yemen.

These were all clues to what would happen when a Nigerian named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab left Yemen and eventually boarded a plane in Amsterdam bound for Detroit. But nobody put them together because, as officials would testify later, the system had gotten so big that the lines of responsibility had become hopelessly blurred.

“There are so many people involved here,” NCTC Director Leiter told Congress.

“Everyone had the dots to connect,” DNI Blair explained to the lawmakers. “But I hadn’t made it clear exactly who had primary responsibility.”

And so Abdulmutallab was able to step aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253. As it descended toward Detroit, he allegedly tried to ignite explosives hidden in his underwear. It wasn’t the very expensive, very large 9/11 enterprise that prevented disaster. It was a passenger who saw what he was doing and tackled him. “We didn’t follow up and prioritize the stream of intelligence,” White House counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan explained afterward. “Because no one intelligence entity, or team or task force was assigned responsibility for doing that follow-up investigation.”

Blair acknowledged the problem. His solution: Create yet another team to run down every important lead. But he also told Congress he needed more money and more analysts to prevent another mistake.

More is often the solution proposed by the leaders of the 9/11 enterprise. After the Christmas Day bombing attempt, Leiter also pleaded for more – more analysts to join the 300 or so he already had.

The Department of Homeland Security asked for more air marshals, more body scanners and more analysts, too, even though it can’t find nearly enough qualified people to fill its intelligence unit now. Obama has said he will not freeze spending on national security, making it likely that those requests will be funded.

More building, more expansion of offices continues across the country. A $1.7 billion NSA data-processing center will be under construction soon near Salt Lake City. In Tampa, the U.S. Central Command’s new 270,000-square-foot intelligence office will be matched next year by an equally large headquarters building, and then, the year after that, by a 51,000-square-foot office just for its special operations section.

Just north of Charlottesville, the new Joint-Use Intelligence Analysis Facility will consolidate 1,000 defense intelligence analysts on a secure campus.

Meanwhile, five miles southeast of the White House, the DHS has broken ground for its new headquarters, to be shared with the Coast Guard. DHS, in existence for only seven years, already has its own Special Access Programs, its own research arm, its own command center, its own fleet of armored cars and its own 230,000-person workforce, the third-largest after the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.

Soon, on the grounds of the former St. Elizabeths mental hospital in Anacostia, a $3.4 billion showcase of security will rise from the crumbling brick wards. The new headquarters will be the largest government complex built since the Pentagon, a major landmark in the alternative geography of Top Secret America and four times as big as Liberty Crossing.

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Ladies and gentlemen there is nothing on earth that government can’t fuck up, when their secret objective is to bankrupt every thing in America and the rest of the world, so the new world order is justified. At least in their minds, this is being obedient to their masters, The Investment Banking Cartel. What stupid s.o.b. will be advising his/her boss that I am a threat to National security, just so he/she can take home more money than they’re worth? Welcome to hell on earth!

10 13 11 flagbar

 

Why Governments Want a Central Bank-Issued Digital Currency

September 16th, 2016 by

https://mises.org/blog/why-governments-want-central-bank-issued-digital-currency

9-16-2016-10-27-55-amBy Xiong Yue

On January 20, 2016, People’s Bank of China (PBoC) released an announcement on its website about its digital currency conference. At the conference, the PBoC urged its digital currency team to speed up effort and release its own digital currency quickly. Similarly, Bank of England, Bank of Canada, and some other central banks also expressed similar intentions to or claimed that they had considered issuing their own digital currencies. Since its creation, Bitcoin and other digital currencies have inspired the issuance of many private-issued and denationalized digital currencies. Now, it looks like that the central bank-issued digital currency is also becoming a global trend.

Why do central banks, which already fully control the issuance of currencies, need to bother with its own digital currency?

Well, this question is both interesting and important. To answer it, we need first to understand some basics, the Digital Currency 101:

Unlike Internet banking and third-party payment services using traditional electronic payment tools to facilitate fiat money transmission, digital currencies represent a new class of technology. They are developed out of a number of brand new and groundbreaking technologies — they are not tools to transmit money; they are arguably money themselves. Among them, one particular kind utilizes modern cryptography, earning its name crypto-currency. Bitcoin is an example of this kind of digital currency. After its creation, the idea inspired and led to many similar systems. Some commercial banks and central banks also work on their own digital currencies. Depending on their issuers, we can divide all digital currencies into three categories:

  1. Digital Currencies Issued by Non-Financial Institutions

In November, 2008, someone under the alias of Satoshi Nakamoto invented a new technology called Blockchain and for the first time introduced the concept of a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, also known as Bitcoin.1 On January 3, 2009, the code was released. Due to its peer-to-peer and electronic nature, digital currencies can be transferred directly between two individuals without a centralized clearance house. Thus, it is a fast, low-cost, and nationality-neutral payment system. 

  1. Commercial Banks-issued Digital Currency

Some large international financial institutions, attracted by digital currency for its low cost, high speed, and security, are also trying to utilize its underlying technology, known as Blockchain, as the basis to build their own proprietary digital currencies. Banks involved in such areas include UBS, Deutsche Bank, Santander, and BNY Mellon, some of the most prestigious banks worldwide. Their digital currencies are similar to the aforementioned ones, only they have different issuers. Especially worth noting is most financial institutions’ digital currencies are designed to meet their need for fast settlement, rather than to challenge the financial status quo by replacing the central bank-issued fiat money.

  1. Central Bank-issued Digital Currency

Some central banks, such as PBoC and Bank of England, after having done some research on digital currency, also plan to issue their own central bank-issued digital currencies (CBDCs). Technologically, CBDC is similar to the aforementioned two, but due to its pedigree, it might have greater economic implications and this is exactly the outcome that PBoC intend by introducing CBDC.

There are at least three implications of CBDC, i.e., three reasons for CBDC to governments.

To Create a Cashless Society

Governments hate cash. This is to a great degree the reason that the governments want the central banks to issue their own digital currencies.

For government, although cash is the original form of its fiat money, it has some obvious shortcomings. When compared funds stored in financial institutions, cash is less controlled by the government. Once cash leaves the banks, it becomes hard to trace. The government can’t know the location of each bank note, who owns it, or even if it still exists. This made cash easy to be used for drug dealing, smuggling, tax evasion, money laundering, and even funding terrorist activities. Meanwhile, cash owned by individuals can also be the target of burglars and robbers.

What’s more important is that cash can undermine the effectiveness of the government’s negative interest policy. When the negative interest rates dropped to a unbearable level, savers would abandon the convenience and security of depositing money in banks — they may withdraw their money and store it at home in cash. This makes it hard to implement the negative interest rate policy.

This is the very reason why the European Central Bank decided to stop issuing the 500-euro note while Lawrence Summers, the former US Treasury Secretary, advocated abolishing the 100-dollar note — prior to it, the US already stopped issuing the 500-dollar note and larger ones in 1945.

However, as long as the public still have the ability to withdraw cash from banks, no matter how the government restricts the use of cash, there will still be a large amount of cash outside the government-controlled finance system. This is not something that the government wants to see. But, in a society where central bank-issued digital cash is fully adopted, CBDC can replace traditional form of money and achieve the central bank’s goal of removing cash. Once that comes true, the government can monitor its citizen’s personal financials down to every single transaction and invalidate ones that are deemed to be illegal. It also makes it impossible for people to withdraw cash and store it at home in response to negative interest rates. This will only serve to worsen the financial exploitation. Just as Joseph T. Salerno pointed out in his article “Why Government Hates Cash:

Now the reason given by our rulers for suppressing cash is to keep society safe from terrorists, tax evaders, money launderers, drug cartels, and other villains real or imagined. The actual aim of the flood of laws restricting or even prohibiting the use of cash is to force the public to make payments through the financial system. This enables governments to expand their ability to spy on and keep track of their citizens’ most private financial dealings, in order to milk their citizens of every last dollar of tax payments that they claim are due.

Steal the Spotlight from Bitcoin and Other Private-issued Digital Currencies

The current monetary system is unfair, riddled with flaws and built on shaky ground. Economists of the Austrian school, among others, have gone to great efforts to explain this. The birth of private digital currencies presented an opportunity to make a difference by reforming money and the financial systems. The governments, however, are inevitably threatened. They envy the attention that digital currencies have received. But most governments were reluctant to declare digital currencies as illegal since that would contradict their perceived stance of being supportive of technological innovation.

Thus, although there is no unified stance among different governments with respect to digital currencies, the difference among them is merely a matter of degrees — there is not a single government that has wholeheartedly embraced digital currencies. Those egomaniacs want to divert the public attention away from digital currencies by creating ones they can control themselves.

The outcome is that the government’s stances are often in conflict with their own: On the one hand, they try to restrict the development of digital currencies, on the other, they also actively study and develop their own digital currencies modeled on Bitcoin. Take China, for example. On December 5, 2013, the central bank stated, “In order to protect the public’s right to property and ensure RMB’s legal status as a legal tender and reduce anti-money laundering law, and maintain financial stability.” The PBoC worked with the Ministry of Industry and Information, China Banking Regulation Commission, China Securities Regulation Commission, and China Insurance Regulation Commission, and released a notice:

Although Bitcoin is often called “Money,” given it is not issued by any monetary authorities, they don’t have the status as a legal lender, thus is not a true currency. Judging by its nature, Bitcoin is a virtual good. It doesn’t have the same legal standing as currencies, and shouldn’t be allowed to be in circulation in the market like real currencies.

No financial institutions and payment institutions should use Bitcoins to price their products and services. They shouldn’t buy or sell Bitcoin or seek to insure any Bitcoin-related services or Bitcoin itself. They should not provide their clients with Bitcoin-related services, directly or indirectly.

But this doesn’t mean that the PBoC considers digital currency as completely worthless; on the contrary, at their 2016 digital currency conference, they admitted that: “…. We had established a dedicated research team starting in 2014, and it believes that “… exploring the central bank issuing digital currency has positive and real implications and fundamental historical meanings.”

Replacing the genuine by releasing a copycat — this is certainly not the first time that a government has done such a thing. 

To Achieve a More Accurate Monetary Policy

Central bankers — a bunch of social engineers — have every confidence that they can regulate and control the economy by manipulating monetary policies. Every time their efforts fail, however, they try to scapegoat the market. For example, they would increase monetary supply as a way to give stimulus; however, the money meant to stimulate the real economy was often funneled into the financial market and used for purposes that contradict its original one by the “greedy” businessmen. In comparison, digital currencies can afford them better control of monetary policy. This is more than sending “money from the helicopter” to people’s wallets; given that these digital currencies are programmable; the government can even control exactly how to spend this new money using scripts.

For example, if the government plans to subsidize certain farms, say some corn farms, to support this sector of agriculture, they can directly add a certain amount of money to the wallets of some farms, for instance 100 million dollars and program this money to be sent to certain fertilizer merchants at a certain time, and that each can only spend maximum of 10 million dollars per year, and in this way, they can make sure that the farmers won’t squander the windfalls, and that this money won’t flow to other sectors, for instance, the stock market or real estate market.

Even though this kind of monetary policy is bound to fail, from the perspective of government officials, CBDC provides them a better tool. For them, with the help of the CBDC, they can plan and manage the economy better.

Conclusion

Although sharing some similar traits with Bitcoin and other free digital currencies, CBDC is in essence the opposite of what Bitcoin represents with the following three implications. (1) With central banks being the issuers of new digital currencies, the government may achieve its goal of building a cash-less society, and, for the general public, the financial exploitation they are subject to are likely to worsen. (2) CBDC will steal the spotlight of Bitcoin and therefore help governments to repress the digital currency revolution. (3) CBDC may be used as a tool for a more accurate monetary policy (although such effort is bound to fail in the long run). Confronting this upcoming huge threat, lovers of liberty should stay vigilant and work on countermeasures early.

Tyler Xiong Yue is a Master’s degree student studying under Jesús Huerta de Soto, and is a translator of many Mises Institute essays and books into Chinese.


Someone Dumped 70 Tons Of Paper Gold At 8:30 a.m.

http://investmentresearchdynamics.com/someone-dumped-70-tons-of-paper-gold-at-830-a-m/

At 8:30 a.m. this morning, 10 minutes after the Comex gold pit opens, over 70 tons of gold was dropped into the entire Comex trading system.  If this happened on the NYSE, one of the ECN’s (usually BATS) would have mysteriously “broke” and trading would have been halted – before the damaging effects of the systemic paper overload hit the market.

9-16-2016-10-26-38-am

From 8:30 to 9:30 a.m. EST, a total of 6,289,900 ozs of paper gold, or 196.5 tons was unloaded on the Comex.   To put this in perspective, the Comex is reporting 2.37 million ounces of gold in its registered account (the gold that can be delivered).  That amount of paper gold that would unloaded was 2.7x the amount of gold available to be delivered.   It represents 58% of the entire amount of gold reported to be in Comex vaults.

It’s hard to find any specific news trigger that would have motivated anyone to sell one ounce of gold, let alone nearly 3x the amount of physical gold available to be delivered.

Perhaps the worst economic news reported was retail sales, which dropped .3% in August vs. the expectation of no change.  This is the 4th month in a row retail sales have dropped on monthly sequential basis.  Retail sales have declined 6 out of 8 months this year.

There’s probably nothing to see in that chart above – just like the allegations of Hillary’s poor health…

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

DEATH TO THE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT

BANKING CARTEL!

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

COME OUT OF BABYLON

September 14th, 2016 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/

12-21-2015 3-19-06 PM

by Anna Von Reitz

I have tried and tried and tried to get this point across: there are two governments in America, one British, one American.  There are two populaces in America—- one of British Subjects, one of American State nationals.

This is the way it is and it is the way it has always been.  For all those who want proof in the founding documents go to http://www.freesovereignandindependent.com/page-2—education-begins.html and look at what the Definitive Treaty of Peace (1783) which ended the Revolutionary War reveals: two populations. One population known as the “free, sovereign, and independent people of the United States” and the other known as “inhabitants”—- British Subjects left here to provide “essential government services.” 

Look at Article IV of the actual Constitution.  There it is again, the provision of essential government services by federal employees.

The original United States (Trading Company) which provided these nineteen enumerated services was bankrupted by Lincoln in 1863.  That original company operated on the land and under the law of the land, but it was operated by British Subjects called “United States Citizens” even then. 

When the open hostilities of the War of Secession ended on the land jurisdiction, the filthy British Monarchs continued to wage war in the international jurisdiction of the sea against the “rebels” and they continued to use the fanciful excuse that there were still “rebels” to prosecute as a smoke screen to attack and prosecute and fleece and defraud average, law-abiding, peaceful Americans for the next 150 years.

Most people would stare at you as if you were crazy if you suggested that the American Civil War is ongoing even now, but so it is and has been.  We have been at constant “war” since 1863, because these British buggers and their sycophants acting as the “Congress” — a Board of Directors of the corporations they have fostered as successors to the original constitution’s commercial services contract— have never declared an official peace treaty ending the Civil War. 

You can look all day long for a month of Sundays for a Peace Treaty ending the Civil War and you will find that what I am telling you is true.  The Civil War never officially ended and the British rats have used that as an excuse to attack and plunder innocent American civilians ever since.

After Lincoln bankrupted the United States (Trading Company) the Brits and their supporters in this country spawned a new governmental services corporation called, “The United States of America, Inc.” which ran from 1868 to 1907 when it was purchased by a consortium of mostly European banks calling themselves the “Federal Reserve”. 

The Federal Reserve acquired “The United States of America, Inc.” and bankrupted it in turn, giving rise to the First World War.  They changed the name slightly and booted up another version calling it “the United States of America, Inc.” and ran it into the ground and bankrupted it in 1933, causing the Second World War. 

During the Second World War and using it as an excuse, pleading the need to “harness” the vast resources of America and the American People “for the War Effort” the Brits and their Cronies in America —- all British Subjects, all “United States Citizens” or “citizens of the United States”, conspired to set up a system to enslave Americans and use our assets as collateral backing their debts. 

Here are a couple good examples of it. 

During the Second World War, patriotic Americans were urged to donate a portion of their earnings for the “War Effort”—- and millions upon millions dutifully signed up and paid the “Victory Tax”— a “voluntarily income tax” on their earnings.  This tax was supposed to automatically sunset upon the end of hostilities, but the legislation creating it had no specific ending date. 

As a result, when the war ended in 1945, the tax system kept right on chugging and neither the British King nor his loyal Subjects running the UNITED STATES, INC.  bothered to put an end date on the “Victory Tax” and release all those patriotic Americans from the obligation to keep on paying.  Instead, they renamed it the “Federal Income Tax” and booted up the IRS to become the most ferocious private Bill Collection Agency on earth, deliberately gave people the idea that the IRS was associated with our lawful government, and used it to jail and fine and tax millions of Americans who never owed them a dime.

Worse yet was the means devised to enforce all this rot, including the draft, which was all predicated on the totally false idea that all the Americans knowingly and willingly and voluntarily agreed to be British Subjects—- “United States Citizens” and/or “citizens of the United States”. 

They mischaracterized and deliberately, self-interestedly misidentified hundreds of millions of innocent Americans as British Subjects—- a crime of political genocide recognized by the Geneva Conventions as a death penalty war crime.  They used various means of false registrations and disinformation to coerce the victims and especially the victim’s Mothers to provide false statements to the effect that all these Americans were “United States Citizens” or “citizens of the United States” instead of being what they are and always were: Americans known as American State nationals—- Ohioans, Virginians, Californians, Texans, Wisconsinites, and so on.

It has been the biggest human trafficking crime in world history, resulting in the press ganging of hundreds of millions of Americans over the course of one hundred and fifty years.  It has been the biggest tax crime, the biggest racketeering and identity theft scheme, the biggest counterfeiting racket, the biggest credit fraud scheme, the biggest unlawful conversion theft, the biggest securities fraud, and the most tortuous copyright infringement ever conceived.

And it was brought to you by the Lords of the Admiralty, the British Monarchs, and the “United States Citizens” responsible for running the “federal government”—- a corporation operated out of the District of Columbia for the purpose of providing the States of America with essential governmental services under commercial services contract.

Now, some people, mainly British Subjects—foreign politicians masquerading as if they “represent” you and Bar Attorneys up to their ears in it—-would like to present this circumstance as a political issue, but it isn’t.  It’s a matter of crime practiced against their employers, benefactors, and allies for 150 years and it is finally coming to an end.

Now that you have this firmly in mind I want to raise a flag of caution and promote a bit of understanding.  All this harm to us has been allowed under The Constitution—-except for the semantic deceits and constructive frauds that have been used as a means to promote and prolong this circumstance.  Under The Constitution, the “Congress” has been allowed to exist and to operate its affairs as plenary oligarchs operating the government of the District of Columbia however they see fit.

It is a foreign corporate government with respect to us.  And instead of operating it as it always should have been, the British Monarchs have instead acted in Breach of Trust and treaty and used it to wage war and practice crime and fraud against us and our lawful government.  The British Government operating a backdoor fraud scheme against us under the pretense of being our friends and Allies has done us more harm than any enemy entering through the front door could ever do and the members of “Congress” misrepresenting themselves as our “representatives” and fiduciary agents have done still more harm to millions of innocent, peaceful, trusting Americans who have fought their wars and paid their debts since 1863.

What you are looking at is a mammoth international crime syndicate, fostered by international banks and European trading companies.  The British Government started it and milked it all the way through the Second World War, but in 1944, the French Government had to get in on the act, too.  They chartered the IMF, and the IMF chartered the UNITED STATES, INC., yet another “assumed successor” to the commercial services contract to provide the nineteen enumerated services required by the original Constitution.

Here is the Take Home Lesson for today: none of this, absolutely none of it, has anything to do with you or with your lawful government owed the land jurisdiction of the United States.  The name of this country is “States of America” and our fifty nations on the land hold the land jurisdiction in trust for the people known variously as Californians and New Yorkers and North Dakotans and so on.  The States of America are alive and well and bringing claim forward as the Priority Creditors of the foreign bankrupt corporations.

Stand up and be counted as members of the free, sovereign, and independent people of the United States, living people not corporations, American State nationals, not “United States Citizens” and not “citizens of the United States”.  Send your Acts of Expatriation to the State Secretary of State and the Attorney General making it clear that you do not voluntarily assume any such foreign political status and that you have been mischaracterized and defrauded.

See this article and over 300 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

Wall Street Thugs Jubilant About TPP Super Court Scam: Obama Knows and Still Pushes Disastrous Trade Deal

September 6th, 2016 by

http://www.prosperousamerica.org/wall_street_thugs_jubilant_

about_tpp_super_court_scam_obama_

knows_and_still_pushes_disastrous_trade_deal

9-6-2016 12-09-51 PM

Very few people are aware of the system known as the ISDS, the existence of which threatens the very principle of national sovereignty – and even Democracy itself. The acronym stand for Investor-State Dispute Settlement, and it is part of every bad free trade deal passed since the 1990s. It is at the heart of the worst one of all, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, yet President Obama is still determined to shove it down our collective throats.

[ KJ McElrath | August 31, 2016 | Ring of Fire]

The ISDS system, which stands outside of a sovereign nation’s own judiciary, was put in place in order to provide a neutral platform for dispute resolution under international law – protecting citizens and preventing trade and business disputes from escalating into all-out war. For example, if Company X builds a factory in Kazakhstan, and the Kazakhstanian government seizes control of the facility or the company’s financial resources, Company X can go through the ISDS in order to sue that government (read about a specific case here).

The primary danger is that rulings made in such a court can supersede national law. A multinational corporation that doesn’t care for a country’s environmental regulations or rules on worker protection can sue the government, effectively overturning such laws. Worse, the hearings are conducted before a tribunal consisting of three private attorneys who frequently switch roles – acting as judge in one case, and representing corporations in another.

It’s not hard to figure out what happens next. When the corporation prevails, the government being sued must pay up. As of June 2015, lawsuits under this system has cost U.S. taxpayers $440 million. Most ISDS cases involve challenges again a country’s environmental laws, worker health and safety regulations, and national resource policies.  During the first thirty years of the system’s existence, fewer than 50 such actions were filed. However, since the introduction of so many “free trade” deals, the number of ISDS lawsuits has exploded.

There is another reason for that increase that has opponents of the TPP greatly concerned. As it turns out, the ISDS is becoming yet another way for the 1% oligarchy to gamble by speculating on lawsuits. One way they do this is to purchase companies with a cause of action to bring an ISDS suit. These financiers are even known to set up shell companies for no other reason than to sue a government – then sit back and reap their ill-gotten gain. In many cases, they will even finance such a company’s lawsuit. In the past, this kind of third-party lawsuit funding was known as champerty and was illegal.

According to the website Public Citizen, if President Obama signs the TPP into law, as many as 9000 more multinational corporations will have the right to sue the U.S. government under a system that is secretive and corrupt – and it will accelerate the transfer of wealth away from those who actually work and produce into the pockets of a tiny, elite plutocracy.

Yet Mr. Obama, for all he has done to help average Americans, continues to insist that the treaty will “do even more to lower the costs of exporting, eliminating taxes and custom duties and raising intellectual property standards that protect data and ideas and jobs.” He fails to mention that it could (and likely will) cost American taxpayers billions of dollars, sending that money straight into the coffers of the 1%.

Although President Obama is encountering stiff resistance from Congress and both Clinton and Trump stand against the TPP, he could still push it through during the coming lame duck session. However, if he is to succeed, he will have to address a number of issues – not the least of which is the ISDS.

http://www.prosperousamerica.org/Obama Pushes For TPP As

Opponents Leverage Presidential Politics to Kill Trade Deal

9-6-2016 12-10-58 PM

Two presidential candidates oppose it. So does much of the American public. But President Barack Obama, having staked much of his foreign policy credibility on a “pivot to Asia,” shows all the signs of wanting to push a major trade deal through Congress after the November elections.

[ Inside Sources | August 31, 2016 | Value Walk]

It may be quixotic; it will certainly be contentious. It may tear apart Democrats one more time over the issue of how much globalization is too much, while also testing the appetite of Republicans for splitting their own party now that Donald Trump has laid bare how much the rank-and-file loathe trade agreements.

The Obama administration completed negotiations on the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership nearly a year ago. Since then it has languished amid Republican quibbling with parts of the agreement and a presidential campaign season that has seen Trump and Hillary Clinton rail against it.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, have both demurred on the TPP, with McConnell going so far as to say there will be no vote this year. But the fog of election-year politics may be obscuring an impending fight during the lame-duck Congress.

“It’s impossible to tell before the election because nobody has any incentive to say anything other than whatever they’ve been saying,” said Bill Reinsch, a longtime business lobbyist and now a fellow at the Stimson Center. “After the election there will be a vote count, more people will answer honestly, and based on that they’ll either go forward or decide there’s not enough time.”

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

 

State UCC Filings: The way you want it

September 5th, 2016 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2016/09/state-ucc-filings-way-you-want-it.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+http%2Fpaulstramerfeedburnercom+%28http%3A%2F%2Fwww.paulstramer.net++++Paul+Stramer+personal+blog%29

12-21-2015 3-19-06 PM
By Anna Von Reitz

http://annavonreitz.com/nonuccfilingsofall50states.pdf
The Fifty States Claim Update

Yesterday, September 2, in the Three Days of Grace following September 1— the “Time of Resurrection” in the Year of Golden Jubilee— the actual States recorded Non-UCC liens against the bankrupt “State of_______________” organizations.

Those of you who have read “You Know Something Is Wrong When….An American Affidavit of Probable Cause” already know that a mostly foreign-owned corporate entity was formed under the agreements (treaties) ending the Revolutionary War and setting up the original “Constitution”.

The first company formed to “provide essential government services” under this arrangement was The United States (Trading Company) formed by a consortium of old colonial investment companies under the leadership of The Virginia Company.  These mostly-British companies continued to provide the nineteen enumerated services stipulated in The Constitution for the united States of America until 1863 when this first version of “United States” was bankrupted by Lincoln.

The next corporate actor on the stage was The United States of America, born 1868.  It took over as the service provider at the federal level in that year and published its corporate charter as the look-alike, sound-alike “constitution” called The Constitution of the United States of America.

This corporation was bankrupted and  bought out by creditors in 1907 by a consortium of mostly-European banks calling itself “the Federal Reserve” which operated under the name “the United States of America” and the Constitution of the United States of America.

In 1933, FDR bankrupted the United States of America (Inc.) and all the  “State of__________” franchisees “pledged” the “good faith and credit of their states and citizens thereof”.  Millions upon millions of Americans were falsely presumed to be acting as “United States citizens” and were “attached” as sureties responsible for paying off the debts of this private, mostly foreign-owned corporation from 1933-1999.

Meantime, other service providers were named as successors to the service contract, and in 1944, the UNITED STATES (INC.) fronted by the International Monetary Fund, a French-chartered international banking cartel, began operations on our shores and opened up fifty STATE franchises.

These “STATE OF_____” franchises have created a multitude of Cestui Que Vie trusts named after living Americans and also “International Organizations” named after living Americans and used these as a means to attach and seize upon our assets—- our names, our patents, our copyrights, our land, our homes, our businesses, our very bodies— have been mischaracterized and our identities have been stolen so as to promote fraud and false claims in commerce against us.

In comments made July 4, 2016, President Obama expressed the hope that the Republic would finally prove to be “dead”.

Yesterday we proved that rumors of the Republic’s death have been greatly exaggerated.

With the UNITED STATES, INC. under liquidation and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC. under Chapter 11, the federal side of the original equity contract was “vacated” last year, leaving international trustees — the United Nations— in charge.  We protested and made new arrangements for new federal service providers, establishing new Sovereign Letters Patent and issuing a new Declaration of Joint Sovereignty, naming the Native American Nations our international agents for the American States.

This countered any claim that we were not internationally represented and also kept the original Constitution in full force and effect.

The entire aim of the IMF and the FEDERAL RESERVE and numerous other banking interests has been first to defraud and mischaracterize Americans as “United States Citizens” and/or “citizens of the United States” which most of us have never been, tax us and coerce us and charge us under false pretenses, and finally, at the end of the day, mount a “claim on abandonment”—– say that our States of the Union no longer exist, that we all agreed to give them everything in sight, voluntarily, in exchange for “benefits” that we also agreed to pay for.

Right.

Sideshow Shinola.  Malarkey. Fraud. Attempted Identity Theft of our entire nation.

But yesterday, we supposedly “dead” States of America — the actual States owed the land jurisdiction of this country and every piece of dirt and stick of wood and block of cement standing upon the soil— issued our counterclaim and liened the rats and their trustees up the wazoo.

You may use the attached list of States and file reference numbers to look up the Non-UCC Lien filed for your State of the Union.

You will notice that I am named as the Executor.  This is because each Constitution is a Will and it requires an Executor to execute and enforce it.  As Priority Creditors, we are claiming the land jurisdiction and assets we are owed and which are insured and must be held harmless from any bankruptcy or liquidation of the “federal” service providers. The Remainder-man States on the land which were released from bankruptcy in 1999 have been re-populated by the grandsons of men who were in turn “grandfathered” into the protections of the original Constitution.

Each one of these men has formally expatriated from any presumption of “United States Citizenship” or being a “citizen of the United States”.

Check. Checkmate.

We are not going to endure another round of fraudulent involvement in foreign corporate bankruptcies.  We are not going to put up with having foreign commercial mercenary armies operating under color of law on our soil.  We are not assuming any debts or paying for any services beyond those which our states actually ordered. And no, we don’t care what happens to the “Federal Reserve” or the “IMF” or the “World Bank” or the “IBRD” or any of these other criminal banking cartels.  We and our States of the Union are not their sureties, not their “citizens” and not their chattel.

We are their erstwhile employers, who have been grossly misrepresented, mischaracterized, and defrauded by our own employees.

It is time for this whole con job to end, the odious debts to be discharged, and all Americans to seize back their true identities.

The banking cartels were formed as corporations in order to avoid accountability for their actions.  They have breached their charters and breached the public trust and operated as criminal cartels involved in inland piracy, racketeering, unlawful conversion, enslavement, human trafficking, gross fraud based on semantic deceit and more.  These institutions deserve to go down in infamy, to be routed out, exposed, and liquidated for the benefit of humanity.

The media and education monopolies which have played footsie with these false “governments” need to be broken up and their assets sold off to American —not foreign interests. Only fools or traitors let foreigners establish monopolies and issue private scripts instead of public money.  Only fools or traitors allow foreign corporations to dominate the American airwaves and buy up all the American newspapers, television and radio outlets.  Only fools or traitors allow foreign corporations to control public education in America and dominate our universities.  Only fools or traitors allow our public courts to be replaced with private courts operating as bill collectors for these same banks and corporations.

What all this adds up to is an attempt by certain parties to return to the days of Feudalism, supported by a virulent form of Commercial Colonialism and criminality that has pillaged humanity since before the Flood.

Now you finally have the chance to recognize it for what it is and put an end to it.

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AMAnna has left a new comment on your post “State UCC Filings — The way you want it“:

http://annavonreitz.com/nonuccfilingsofall50states.pdf

There is a separate list of the fifty state filings to be posted yet. It was sent out first as an email attachment.

This action puts an end to any hope or expectation that the banks could succeed in claiming that the land assets of America were “abandoned” by the actual owners and therefore available for seizure by secondary creditors — the banks themselves, the perpetrators of all this fraud against the Americans and virtually everyone else, too.

Having set up the UNITED STATES for liquidation and having placed THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in Chapter 11 the rats figured they could wash their hands and nobody else— certainly not the victims of this fraud— would speak up and claim back the assets owed the actual states and people.

They thought they would make their false claim of “abandonment” and secure a legal claim on abandonment and use their commercial mercenary armies disguised as legitimate agencies of government to come in here and seize our property— and nobody would be the wiser.

But guess what?

There are now fifty liens against all the land assets of the fifty states and very plain words recorded in the international record.

We aren’t dead or asleep after all. We aren’t putting up with this garbage, criminality, and Breach of Trust anymore. We are done paying debts we don’t owe for the enrichment of con artists who have been bilking the entire world.

We hear that Jacob Rothschild has a personal fortune of 500 trillion dollars. Now you know how he got it. And you also know that it is all nothing but paper and lies and the fruit of labor and assets belonging to others and to their sons and daughters who have been mischaracterized by these bankers and cheated and defrauded and murdered by the billions by these freaks.

And for what? Digits on a ledger.

Go to the nearest computer and type in “500” and then thirteen zeroes after that. See that number?

That number represents the billions of lives ruined, lost, maimed, spent in needless poverty, sickness, forced labor, ignorance, and want. It represents every wounded and dying soldier from 780 AD onward.

It is a representation of just part of what these demons have stolen from humanity.

And it is NOT just Jacob Rothschild responsible. In the barrel of rotten banker apples he may be the wealthiest but he is far from the worst.

The time has come to realize just how badly you have been treated, how completely you have been deluded. Wake up! You have traded everything worthwhile in life for worthless pieces of paper and numbers on a ledger kept by thieves and con men.

No wonder they are laughing and cutting deals “in your behalf” and calling you “livestock” and planning to slaughter their creditors— you and your families— to avoid paying back what they owe you all. Wake up!

You have got to wake up now. You must tell your brothers and sisters throughout the world. You must bring forward your claims and make them stick. You must hold the bankers and politicians and members of the Bar Assiciations accountable for this.

And the Roman Pontiff, too.
Take an interest and lend a hand. Expose the rats. Do it now.

See this article and over 300 others on Anna’s website here:www.annavonreitz.com

 

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

GUN CONTROL Background of the Issue: Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?

September 3rd, 2016 by

http://gun-control.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=006436

9-3-2016 2-38-56 PM

Infographic illustrating the attributes of the average American gun owner.

The United States has 88.8 guns per 100 people, or about 270,000,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women). America’s pervasive gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, frontier expansion, and the Second Amendment, which states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Proponents of more gun control laws state that the Second Amendment was intended for militias; that gun violence would be reduced; that gun restrictions have always existed; and that a majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions.

Opponents say that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns; that guns are needed for self-defense from threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders; and that gun ownership deters crime rather than causes more crime.

Guns in Colonial and Revolutionary America

Guns were common in the American Colonies, first for hunting and general self-protection and later as weapons in the American Revolutionary War. [105] Several colonies’ gun laws required that heads of households (including women) own guns and that all able-bodied men enroll in the militia and carry personal firearms. [105]

Some laws, including in Connecticut (1643) and at least five other colonies, required “at least one adult man in every house to carry a gun to church or other public meetings” in order to protect against attacks by Native Americans; prevent theft of firearms from unattended homes; and, as a 1743 South Carolina law stated, safeguard against “insurrections and other wicked attempts of Negroes and other Slaves.” [105] Other laws required immigrants to own guns in order to immigrate or own land. [105]

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution was ratified on Dec. 15, 1791. The notes from the Constitutional Convention do not mention an individual right to a gun for self-defense. [106] Some historians suggest that the idea of an individual versus a collective right would not have occurred to the Founding Fathers because the two were intertwined and inseparable: there was an individual right in order to fulfill the collective right of serving in the militia. [105] [106]

Although guns were common in colonial and revolutionary America, so were gun restrictions. Laws included banning the sale of guns to Native Americans (though colonists frequently traded guns with Native Americans for goods such as corn and fur); banning indentured servants (mainly the Irish) and slaves from owning guns; and exempting a variety of professions from owning guns (including doctors, school masters, lawyers, and millers). [105]

9-3-2016 2-40-09 PM

An 1879 sign in Dodge City, KS prohibiting the carrying of guns.
Source: Saul Cornell, “What the ‘Right to Bear Arms’ Really Means,” www.salon.com, Jan. 15, 2011

A 1792 federal law required that every man eligible for militia service own a gun and ammunition suitable for military service, report for frequent inspection of their guns, and register his gun ownership on public records. [101] Many Americans owned hunting rifles or pistols instead of proper military guns, and even though the penalty fines were high (over $9,000 in 2014 dollars), they were levied inconsistently and the public largely ignored the law. [105] [106]

State Gun Laws: Slave Codes and the “Wild West”

From the 1700s through the 1800s, so-called “slave codes” and, after slavery was abolished in 1865, “black codes” (and, still later, “Jim Crow” laws) prohibited black people from owning guns and laws allowing the ownership of guns frequently specified “free white men.” [98] For example, an 1833 Georgia law stated, “it shall not be lawful for any free person of colour in this state, to own, use, or carry fire arms of any description whatever… that the free person of colour, so detected in owning, using, or carrying fire arms, shall receive upon his bare back, thirty-nine lashes, and that the fire arm so found in the possession of said free person of colour, shall be exposed for public sale.” [107]

Despite images of the “Wild West” from movies, cities in the frontier often required visitors to check their guns with the sheriff before entering the town. [108] In Oct. 1876, Deadwood, Dakota Territory passed a law stating that no one could fire a gun without the mayor’s consent. [109] A sign in Dodge City, Kansas in 1879 read, “The Carrying of Fire Arms Strictly Prohibited.” [108] The first law passed in Dodge City was a gun control law that read “any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the laws of the State shall be dealt with according to law.” [108]

Federal Gun Laws in the 1900s

The St. Valentine’s Day Massacre on Feb. 14, 1929 in Chicago resulted in the deaths of seven gangsters associated with “Bugs” Moran (an enemy of Al Capone) and set off a series of debates and laws to ban machine guns. [110] [111] Originally enacted in 1934 in response to mafia crimes, the National Firearms Act (NFA) imposes a $200 tax and a registration requirement on the making and transfer of certain guns, including shotguns and rifles with barrels shorter than 18 inches (“short-barreled”), machine guns, firearm mufflers and silencers, and specific firearms labeled as “any other weapons” by the NFA. [112] [113] Most guns are excluded from the Act.

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 made it illegal to sell guns to certain people (including convicted felons) and required federal firearms licensees (FFLs; people who are licensed by the federal government to sell firearms) to maintain customer records. [114] This Act was overturned by the 1968 Gun Control Act.

9-3-2016 2-42-05 PM

Former Reagan Press Secretary Jim Brady sits by President BIll Clinton as Clinton signs the Brady Bill into law on Nov. 30, 1993
Source: Eric Bradner, “Hinckley Won’t Face New Charges in Reagan Press Secretary’s Death,” www.cnn.com, Jan 3, 2015

In 1968 the National Firearms Act was revised to address constitutionality concerns brought up by Haynes v. US (1968), namely that unregistered firearms already in possession of the owner do not have to be registered, and information obtained from NFA applications and registrations cannot be used as evidence in a criminal trial when the crime occurred before or during the filing of the paperwork. [112]

On Oct. 22, 1968, prompted by the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy (1963), Malcolm X (1965), Martin Luther King, Jr. (1968), and Robert F. Kennedy (1968), as well as the 1966 University of Texas mass shooting, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) into law. [115] The GCA regulates interstate gun commerce, prohibiting interstate transfer unless completed among licensed manufacturers, importers, and dealers, and restricts gun ownership. [114]

The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) revised prior legislation once again. [112] [113] The Act, among other revisions to prior laws, allowed gun dealers to sell guns away from the address listed on their license; limited the number of inspections the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (now the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) could perform without a warrant; prevented the federal government from maintaining a database of gun dealer records; and removed the requirement that gun dealers keep track of ammunition sales. [114]

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (also called the Brady Act) was signed into law on Nov. 30, 1993 and required a five-day waiting period for a licensed seller to hand over a gun to an unlicensed person in states without an alternate background check system. [116] The five-day waiting period has since been replaced by an instant background check system that can take up to three days if there is an inconsistency or more information is needed to complete the sale. [114] Gun owners who have a federal firearms license or a state-issued permit are exempt from the waiting period. [114]

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act), part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on Sep. 13, 1994. The ban outlawed 19 models of semi-automatic assault weapons by name and others by “military features,” as well as large-capacity magazines manufactured after the law’s enactment. [114] The ban expired on Sep. 13, 2004 and was not renewed due in part to NRA lobbying efforts. [114] [117]

Federal and State Gun Laws in the 2000s

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 was enacted on Oct. 26 by President George W. Bush and gives broad civil liability immunity to firearms manufacturers so they cannot be sued by a gun death victim’s family. [114] [118] The Child Safety Lock Act requires that all handguns be sold with a “secure gun storage or safety device.”[119]

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 was enacted as a condition of the Brady Act and provides incentives to states (including grants from the Attorney General) for them to provide information to NICS including information on people who are prohibited from purchasing firearms. [114] The NCIS was implemented on Nov. 30, 1998 and later amended on Jan. 8, 2008 in response to the Apr. 16, 2007 Virginia Technical University shooting so that the Attorney General could more easily acquire information pertinent to background checks such as disqualifying mental conditions. [120]

On Jan. 5, 2016, President Obama announced new executive actions on gun control. His measures take effect immediately and include: an update and expansion of background checks (closing the “gun show loophole”); the addition of 200 ATF agents; increased mental health care funding; $4 million and personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (used to link crimes in one jurisdiction to ballistics evidence in another); creating an Internet Investigations Center to track illegal online gun trafficking; a new Department of Health and Human Services rule saying that it is not a HIPAA violation to report mental health information to the background check system; a new requirement to report gun thefts; new research funding for gun safety technologies; and more funding to train law enforcement officers on preventing gun casualties in domestic violence cases. [142] [143]

9-3-2016 2-43-12 PM

Open carry activists in Texas pose with rifles.
Source: TruthVoice, “Texas Set to Approve Open Carry of Pistols,” www.truthvoice.com, Apr. 19, 2015

In addition to federal gun laws, each state has its own set of gun laws ranging from California with the most restrictive gun laws in the country to Arizona with the most lenient, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign’s “2013 State Scorecard.” [121]. 43 of 50 states have a “right to bear arms” clause in their state constitutions. [101]

The most common state gun control laws include background checks, waiting periods, and registration requirements to purchase or sell guns. [121] [122] Most states prevent carrying guns, including people with a concealed carry permit, on K-12 school grounds and many states prevent carrying on college campuses. [121] [122] Some states ban assault weapons. [121] [122]

Gun rights laws include concealed and open carry permits, as well as allowing gun carry in usually restricted areas (such as bars, K-12 schools, state parks, and parking areas). [121] [122] Many states have “shoot first” (also called “stand your ground”) laws. [121] [122] Open carry of handguns is generally allowed in most states (though a permit may be required). [121] [122]

Collective v. Individual Right: Guns and the Supreme Court

Until 2008, the Supreme Court repeatedly upheld a collective right (that the right to own guns is for the purpose of maintaining a militia) view of the Second Amendment, concluding that the states may form militias and regulate guns. [47]

The first time the Court upheld an individual rights interpretation (that individuals have a Constitutional right to own a gun regardless of militia service) of the Second Amendment was the June 26, 2008 US Supreme Court ruling in DC v. Heller. The Court stated that the right could be limited: “There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited… Thus we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.” [1] [3]

9-3-2016 2-44-14 PM

A portrait of General Ambrose Burnside, first president of the NRA
Source: John Hathorn, “General Ambrose E. Burnside, May 23-1924-September 13, 1881,” www.history.ncsu.edu (accessed May 11, 2015)

The US Supreme Court ruled on June 28, 2010 in McDonald v. Chicago that the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the Due Process Clause, includes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and, thus, the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as the federal government, effectively extending the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment to the states. [123]

On June 27, 2016, in Voisine v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled (6-2) that someone convicted of “recklessly” committing a violent domestic assault can be disqualified from owning a gun under the 1996 Lautenberg Amendment to the 1968 Gun Control Act. Associate Justice Elena Kagan, JD, writing the majority opinion, stated: “Congress enacted §922(g)(9) [the Lautenberg Amendment] in 1996 to bar those domestic abusers convicted of garden-variety assault or battery misdemeanors–just like those convicted of felonies–from owning guns.” [150] [151] [152] [153]

The National Rifle Association (NRA)

The National Rifle Association calls itself “America’s longest-standing civil rights organization.” [124] Granted charter on Nov. 17, 1871 in New York, Civil War Union veterans Colonel William C. Church and General George Wingate founded the NRA to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis” to improve the marksmanship of Union troops. [125] General Ambrose Burnside, governor of Rhode Island (1866 to 1869) and US Senator (Mar. 4, 1875 to Sep. 13, 1881), was the first president. [125] [126]

Over 100 years later, in 1977, in what is known as the “Revolt at Cincinnati,” new leadership changed the bylaws to make the protection of the Second Amendment right to bear arms the primary focus (ousting the focus on sportsmanship). [127] [128] The group lobbied to disassemble the Gun Control Act of 1968 (the NRA alleged the Act gave power to the ATF that was abused), which they accomplished in 1986 with the Firearms Owners Protection Act. [127]

In 1993 the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) funded a study completed by Arthur Kellerman and colleagues, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, titled “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor in the Home,” which found that keeping a gun at home increased the risk of homicide. [129] [130] [131] The NRA accused the CDC of “promoting the idea that gun ownership was a disease that needed to be eradicated,” and argued that government funding should not be available to politically motivated studies. [129] [130] [131] The NRA notched a victory when Congress passed the Dickey Amendment, which deducted $2.6 billion from the CDC’s budget, the exact amount of its gun research program, and restricted CDC (and, later, NIH) gun research. [129] [130] [131] The amendment stated that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” [129] [130] [131] The admonition effectively stopped all federal gun research because, as Kellerman stated, “[p]recisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency’s funding to find out.” [130] Jay Dickey (R-AR), now retired from Congress, was the author of the Dickey Amendment and has since stated that he no longer supports the amendment: “I wish we had started the proper research and kept it going all this time… I have regrets.” [144]

As of Jan. 2013, the NRA had approximately 3 million members, though estimates have varied from 2.6 million to 5 million members. [132] In 2013 the NRA spending budget was $290.6 million. [133] The NRA-ILA actively lobbies against universal checks and registration, “large” magazine and “assault weapons” bans, requiring smart gun features, ballistic fingerprinting, firearm traces, and prohibiting people on the terrorist watchlist from owning guns; and in favor of self-defense (stand your ground) laws. [134] In 2014 the NRA and NRA-ILA spent $3.36 million on lobbying activity aimed primarily at Congress but also the US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Forest Service. [135]

09 01 16 The Gun Control Lobby
http://gun-control.procon.org/
The start of the modern gun control movement is largely attributed to Mark Borinsky, PhD, who founded the National Center to Control Handguns (NCCH) in 1974. [136] After being the victim of an armed robbery, Borinsky looked for a gun control group to join but found none, founded NCCH, and worked to grow the organization with Edward O. Welles, a retired CIA officer, and N.T. “Pete” Shields, a Du Pont executive whose son was shot and killed in 1975. [136]

9-3-2016 2-45-22 PMGun control activists, including Mayor Vincent Gray, march in Washington, DC
Source: Bijon Stanard, “Let’s Talk: Obama Speaks; Dr. King’s March on Washington 50th Anniversary!,” letstalkbluntly.com, Aug. 8, 2013

In 2001, after a few name changes, the National Center to Control Handguns (NCCH) was renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and its sister organization, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, was renamed the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, though they are often referred to collectively as the Brady Campaign. [137] The groups were named for Jim Brady, a press secretary to President Ronald Reagan who was shot and permanently disabled on Mar. 30, 1981 during an assassination attempt on the President. [137]

The 2014 gun control lobby was composed of Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Sandy Hook Promise, Americans for Responsible Solutions, and Violence Policy Center. [138] Collectively, these groups spent $1.94 million in 2014, primarily aimed at Congress but also the Executive Office of the President, the Vice President, the White House, Department of Justice, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. [138]

The most-recently available total annual spending budgets for gun control groups were $13.7 million collectively (4.7% of the NRA’s 2013 budget): including Everytown for Gun Safety ($4.7 million in 2012); the Brady Campaign ($2.7 million in 2012); the Brady Center ($3.1 million in 2010); Coalition to Stop Gun Violence ($308,761 in 2011); Sandy Hook Promise ($2.2 million in 2013); and the Violence Policy Center ($750,311 in 2012). [133]

The Current Gun Control Debate

Largely, the current public gun control debate in the United States occurs after a major mass shooting. There were at least 126 mass shootings between Jan. 2000 and July 2014. [139] [140] Proponents of more gun control often want more laws to try to prevent the mass shootings and call for smart gun laws, background checks, and more protections against the mentally ill buying guns. Opponents of more gun laws accuse proponents of using a tragedy to further a lost cause, stating that more laws would not have prevented the shootings. A Dec. 10, 2014 Pew Research Center survey found 52% of Americans believe the right to own guns should be protected while 46% believe gun ownership should be controlled, a switch from 1993 when 34% wanted gun rights protected and 57% wanted gun ownership controlled. [141]

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Since the corporate government we have been suckered into accepting, due to mind altering media bios, and education, I contend that very few people in America see the real issue and have been influenced in many sub-conscious ways so they are no longer capable of understanding the reality of this issue.

To wit: our government is not the only real threat to our natural right to independent decision making, as our real government was subverted many years ago by the International Investment Banking Cartel who have every since practiced mind control as a weapon to destroy our understanding of societal responsibilities. They have used every weapon in the book to control what we think and believe and only those few who had the natural instinct to know something was very wrong, and took it upon their-self to research the issue, have any idea of just how dangerous we have become to our own freedom from tyranny.

The issue of allowing the government to decide if we have natural rights is insanity at its worse.

Who of you reading this is arrogant enough to support gun control in light of this present dysfunctional society, and tyrannical government?

The day is coming when you will all, and I mean every damn one of you, beg your neighbor for a weapon; if you don’t steal it from them first! It is not the gangs, or gun nuts like myself, or organized criminals, you should be afraid of, it’s the government you worship that will kill you. It all boils down to this, gun haters are like ass-holes without toilet paper.

10 13 11 flagbar

Patriots vs. Politicians

September 2nd, 2016 by

https://deweesereport.com/2016/08/17/patriots-vs-politicians-2/?mc_cid=b2024fe6ba&mc_eid=1fcd84cb2c

By Tom DeWeese

Many of the younger generation must be truly bewildered over the emotions older Americans display when expressing love, devotion, respect and reverence for our country. A tear in the eye for a patriotic song… a hand over the heart as the national anthem plays… a salute to the flag as it passes in a parade. Why would we older folks do that?

What frame of reference could younger Americans possibly have? Patriotism, nationalism – even American citizenship are taboo in today’s school curriculum. Globalism, diversity, and political correctness trump real history, sound economics, and science. Communism is just another economic system. The Founding Fathers are simply old, dead slave-owning white guys. The UN’s Declaration on Human Rights trumps the Declaration of Independence.

Where are the heroes for today’s young people to admire? Principled leaders who understood the roots of America’s greatness now are replaced by blow-dried sound-byte kings whose professional campaign staffs understand only how to maneuver a special interest group or a voting block.

How can young people make decisions in the voting booth? Who can they choose? Are there any candidates who offer anything other than meaningless gibberish? If today’s young people could learn some of the history that brings the older generation a sense of pride then they could be helped to understand that ordinary people in history knew that there were life principles worth sacrificing or even dying for. Perhaps they could help demand a better future for themselves.

Here are three little known examples from three separate eras of our nation’s history which demonstrate how Americans once thought. They are examples of how we as a nation once stood proud, ready to defend ideals to the death if necessary. And these examples clearly show why the rest of the world understood that such unwavering devotion to those ideals meant our word was true. Our steadfast principles of freedom clearly showed the rest of the world that America offered the human race something different, something wonderful. Our unmatched freedoms meant that Americans were more secure, more prosperous and happier than any people in history.

Perhaps, through the following  examples, today’s young Americans will understand that the tear in an eye or the hand over a heart expressed by the older generation wasn’t for a flag or a song. That show of emotion is really for the brave actions taken by the men and women which resulted in making the flags and the songs symbols of freedom.

Thomas Nelson, Jr.

Thomas Nelson, Jr. was born and raised in a wealthy family in Yorktown, Virginia. Educated in England, he was elected to the House of Burgesses in 1761. He loved everything British and was proud to be a British subject. That is until King George decided that his American subjects were good for little more than a revenue source to pay for his wars with France. The King imposed the hated Stamp Act on the American colonies and Nelson became a dedicated opponent. He believed he had rights to his own hard-earned money and he believed it was wrong to impose the tax when he had virtually no say in the matter. Such was the foundation of the American Revolution. It mattered.

Soon Nelson was elected to represent Virginia in the Continental Congress where he became one of fifty-six men to sign the Declaration of Independence. By adding his name to the bottom of the document he pledged his life, fortune and sacred honor. In other words Nelson and his fifty-five colleagues gambled everything in exchange for the ability to live their lives in freedom.

Thomas Nelson, Jr. backed up that pledge by becoming a brigadier general in George Washington’s army. But he did more than just fight. He used his own fortune to help Washington fund the army. His money helped make payrolls for the men who needed it for their families back home. His contributions to help keep the army on the battlefield would have equaled $2 million today.

Finally, in the last battle of the war Nelson found himself commanding troops outside his own hometown of Yorktown. As Washington laid siege to the British-held town, Nelson watched as a cannon battery continually missed an important target. It was British General Cornwallis’ command post. Nelson inquired of the troops why they weren’t shooting at the house. “Because,” they said, “it’s your house.” Nelson said, “give me the torch.” He then fired the first cannon aimed at his own home and gave the order for the other cannon to fire at the target as well. The home was destroyed. Not long after, Cornwallis surrendered and the United States was born.

For his service, Nelson died a pauper as his health and fortune were wrecked by the war. Thomas Nelson, Jr. made the sacrifice because he believed freedom was more important than comfort and material wealth. He was not alone as almost all signers of the Declaration of Independence met similar fates. Some died in the war effort. Many lost their fortunes. Some even lost their “sacred honor.” They did it so that future generations might live a better life.

Francis Scott Key

Most young people today think of the Star Spangled Banner as simply a hard song to sing before sporting events. To them, its curious words about bombs bursting in air and flags flying just sound like a Fourth of July party. Where’s the beer? Play ball.

But the words mean much more. The song’s lyrics are actually a testimony to sacrifice, death and courage. Francis Scott Key personally witnessed the events described in the song and wrote what he saw as it was happening.

Key was an attorney who lived in Washington, D.C. during the War of 1812. Again the United States was at war with Great Britain. The British had never really gotten over losing the American colonies. In the 20 years since Cornwallis had surrendered at Yorktown, they had continually harassed American ships on the high seas. The U.S. tried diplomacy to solve the problems as the country sought to freely and honestly trade with both England and France. Peace was the goal of the young nation.

But American ships seeking trade with Europe faced blockades by the British, who dominated the seas with their vast fleet, the largest in the world. In addition to preventing trade, the British claimed the right to take their sailors off the American ships. The problem was, they also took American sailors, making them serve against their will on British ships. Finally, the Americans had enough. Diplomacy wasn’t working. American lives and freedoms were being threatened. So the U.S. Government declared war on the British, again.
It didn’t go well for the Americans. The British used their vast sea power to attack the United States. First the fleet sailed up the Hudson River to control New York. They launched an attack on New Orleans, gaining control of the Mississippi. And then they sailed up the Chesapeake, into the Potomac to invade Washington D.C. With little resistance, the British ransacked the Capital city, burning buildings, including the White House. First Lady Dolly Madison was able to escape with little more than the Declaration of Independence. As the Americans were forced to flee, the British fleet set its sights on the next target, one of the nation’s most prosperous cities, Baltimore – just a short trip up the Chesapeake. It was meant to be the final victory before reestablishing the Americans as British subjects.

Meanwhile, as the ships wreaked havoc from the sea, British troops were on the ground in countless towns and villages, arresting American citizens and putting them in makeshift jails or on prison ships. The Americans were not happy having these occupying troops in their communities and tried to fight back. In the small community of Upper Marlborough, Maryland two drunken British soldiers were arrested by Dr. William Beanes and thrown into jail. One escaped, caught up to his unit and reported what had happened. The British returned to the town, released their soldier and arrested Dr. Beanes.

Enter Francis Scott Key. The people of Upper Marlborough enlisted Key to help free Dr. Beanes who was now being held in the hold of a prison ship in Baltimore harbor. Key was allowed on the ship and taken to the prison hold. There he found the ship packed with American prisoners, including Beanes. Key met with Rear Admiral Sir George Cockburn to negotiate a prisoner exchange in hopes of freeing all of the Americas. At first Cockburn agreed and Key went below to tell the men they would soon be released.

As the two men met on the deck of the ship, Cockburn told him that, yes the men would soon be released, but not through a prisoner exchange. They would be released, he said, because the war will be over. Then Cockburn pointed down the bay where Key saw hundreds of British ships sailing toward them. “That,” said Cockburn, “is the entire British fleet. They are coming here to take Fort McHenry.” The fort was the last strong hold of the Americans and it protected Baltimore. Its fall would assure the final British victory and the end of the United States.

Key was held on the ship, unable to leave until the battle was over. The bombardment began at dusk in a deafening roar of cannon fire from a hundred ships which stayed outside the range of Fort McHenry’s guns. As the fleet opened fire on the fort, the men held in chains below deck wanted to know what was happening. Key reported what he saw throughout the battle.

Waving from the fort was a large American flag. As night began to fall, the bombs from the British fleet burst through the air. The last thing anyone could see in the twilight’s last gleaming was the flag defiantly flying over the fort. Throughout the night the prisoners called out, “is it still flying.” No matter how many bombs seemed to hit the flag, it continued to fly. Finally, in frustration, the British fleet trained all of its guns on the flag, determined to bring it and the American’s defiance down in a heap. Still it flew.

In the morning the guns stopped. In the dawn’s early light all saw that the flag still flew and the fort remained in American hands. Eventually, the fleet sailed away. Key was released. According to some reports, Key rushed to the fort and there he saw what had happened. The flagpole, say the reports, had been hit numerous times. Some have reported that around the base of the flag were numerous bodies of American soldiers and citizens. Throughout the night, it is said, they had sacrificed themselves to keep the flag waving. As the flagpole splintered from the direct hits it suffered, men rushed out and held up the flag, becoming human flagpoles. One by one, as each was cut down by the bombs bursting in air, another rushed out to take his place.

The nation survived and America became a shining symbol to the world as the land of the free. And the men of Fort McHenry proved it was also the home of the brave.

William Barret Travis

In the winter and early spring of 1836, war raged throughout what is now the State of Texas. Mexico, led by General Santa Anna wanted to control the territory. Santa Anna was a pompous, brutal dictator who had terrorized the citizens, murdering at will, and taking property at his whim. The Texans wanted to be free of him. In a recent battle they had managed to free the town of San Antonio of his rule. Now he wanted it back.

So, Santa Anna began a march on San Antonio with more that 1,000 troops, determined to prove that resistance to his rule was futile. On February 23rd, about 145 Texans under the command of William Barret Travis rushed into a mission called the Alamo. Soon they were surrounded. Travis put out a call for reinforcements, saying, “I am besieged by a thousand or more Mexicans… I have sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours… The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise the garrison are to be put to the sword if the fort is taken.”

Over the following two weeks, the Mexican forces continually strengthened to over 2,000. Answering Travis’s call, a few reinforcements for the Texans were able to break through the lines and build the garrison to 189. Famed frontiersman and former Congressman Davy Crockett arrived with 15 good men from Tennessee. Another famous frontiersman, Jim Bowie was there. There were 30 volunteers from South Carolina, ready to fight with their native son, Travis. More than 81 volunteers were from different countries including England, Scotland, Germany, Ireland and various U.S. states.

Finally, as it became apparent that no large group of reinforcements would be able to come to their aid, Travis called a meeting of the men and told them they were free to leave and save themselves. He took out his sword and drew a line in the sand. He said, if you choose to stay, cross that line. To a man they crossed, determined to stay and fight the Santa Anna tyranny.

After constant bombardment from the Mexican guns, the men inside the Alamo heard a certain bugle signal. It was the command to Santa Anna’s troops to charge and take no prisoners. The men in the Alamo fought to the last man. Travis was one of the first to fall, on the north wall where the main assault occurred. He was 26. Jim Bowie, ill on a stretcher, was killed in a small room on the south side. He was 41. And Davy Crockett’s body was found in a small fort on the west side, surrounded by a pile of dead Mexicans. He was 50 years old.

189 Texans died that day but they took 600 Mexicans with them. The Alamo had fallen, but their courage allowed Texas General Sam Houston the time he needed to raise an army and meet Santa Anna only forty six days later. As Houston’s men charged, they shouted, “Remember the Alamo.” The battle lasted only 18 minutes. The Texans killed 630 of Santa Anna’s men, and captured 730, literally destroying his army. The next day, General Santa Anna was captured, disguised as a peasant. His rule was finished and Texas had won its independence, because 189 heroes had offered their lives in a belief that preserving freedom was more important than living life under tyranny.

Making Sense Of It All

American history is full of stories of sacrifice and heroism in the name of preserving freedom. They were called patriots and they didn’t sacrifice to build the power of government, or to enrich the pockets of a select power elite or to promote one group over another. They did it so they could live their lives in peace, unencumbered and left alone.

Today, our young people are taught in government classrooms that these ideals are old fashioned, quaint and, in many cases just plain wrong. Patriotism is racism, we’re told by modern scholars. Property ownership is selfish, a social injustice. Children are taught that our free society is the root of the Earth’s destruction and must be dismantled through a tightly controlled, organized global village. The Constitution, say some the scholars, is a living document, changeable on a whim. The Declaration of Independence, which Dolly Madison risked everything to save, is just a “war document from the Revolution.” Nothing more.

Yesterday’s patriots have been replaced by politicians who pander to special interests, as they fill their pockets with money in exchange for deals, privilege and power. A foreign policy based on honest trade, avoiding “entangling alliances,” has been replaced with our military meddling in over one hundred countries, as we impose economic and personal values where they aren’t wanted. America today is guilty of the very same kind of “nation building” we fought King George to end. Now America finds itself hated and non-respected, assuring American citizens are unsafe on every street corner in the world.

Politicians

America needs leadership which understands and reveres our roots and the history it took to mold this nation. But who can our young people look to for such ideas? Who among the politicians and self-appointed leaders of our nation would make such sacrifices? Who among them would even advocate such an attitude?

Would Hillary Clinton stand on the front lines in defense of this nation and order her own home destroyed for freedom’s sake? Would Barack Obama stand on the North wall and fight to the death to stop an invasion of the country? Of course not. In fact, both of these “leaders” have actually thrown open the door of Fortress America and are calling for those very descendents of the original invaders of the Alamo to “come on over.” William Travis would have shot them.

Today, instead of statesmen who serve our country out of love and loyalty for its ideals; or leaders who deal with other nations under the guideline of “does it serve the just interest of the United States”, we have politicians looking for a deal. Will it sound good to a certain voter block? Will it make me look good on television? Can I get a leg up on the other candidates if I propose this?

Today’s politicians such as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders propose vast policy programs costing billions of dollars with no concern of where the money is coming from. They grab private land, displace families and regulate private business out of existence in the name of social justice. Meanwhile, House Speaker John Boehner, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the ones we count on to stand in defense of our Constitutional system, join right in, refusing to take action to even slow down the growth and cost of these massive government schemes.

What are the real issues on the minds of the American public? Too-high taxes; ever-creeping government intrusion in our lives; unprotected borders; over 60% say they want us out of the UN; growing corporate power; reduced standard of living; the fall of the dollar and less buying power; massive government debt; high energy prices. These issues affect every single American and we want someone to speak for us.

Yet not one of these issues is being addressed by most of the candidates for president. Instead we have great debates on the so called “War on Women,” racial disparity, and whether or not Donald Trump is too mean to run for president. Each of these issues is a hot button for specific special interest groups which are piling money into campaign coffers. The average American could care less about any of them, yet these are the debates of the day while the real issues are ignored.

Instead of addressing real issues, political campaigns have become little more than an exercise in character assassination of opponents in an attempt to get a leg up in the public. The mainstream news media has become the lap dog for the big government ideology.

These politicians would never be trusted on the front lines next to the heroes of the Alamo or Thomas Nelson, Jr. None would ever inspire a single lyric by Key. And they are not worthy of being elected to lead the country these heroes helped create.

Patriots

But there are still patriots in our nation who are fighting a desperate fight to preserve our freedoms. Some are just citizens who see the wrongs and take local action to fight them. They show up at city council and county commission meetings to express their opposition to policies that affect property and taxes and quality of life. They work tirelessly, producing materials, working in political campaigns, and getting in front of microphones wherever they can. Though just an unorganized, unfunded rag tag band, these freedom fighters are beginning to make an impact and the big government forces are starting to nervously take notice.

Some of the best I’ve had the privilege to work with – to name just a tiny few, include Sheriff Richard Mack, who travels the nation teaching county sheriffs that they are the first line of defense against an oppressive central government. KrisAnne Hall, who travels over 265 days a year to teach Americans the power and justice of the Constitution. Pastor Chuck Baldwin, whose writings demand we think with common sense. And John Anthony, who is one of the very best in teaching local residents how to deal with invading planners as they attempt to transform our communities into socialist utopias.

Others decide to take the big step of running for office. Perhaps they were just local activists to start with, but decided that the cause needed elected representatives that can really make a difference from the inside. In the past couple of years, barely a week goes by without my hearing from new, dedicated representatives who ask me what they can do to take effective action to stop the growing tyranny.

Again, I’ve had the great privilege to not only work with some of these great patriots, but to call them my friend. One of the very first to stand, unwavering against the massive growth and corruption of local government is Carroll County, Maryland Commissioner Richard Rothschild. Even as he is attacked in the news media and falsely labeled a danger to the future of his community, he stands, many times alone, for the principles of freedom. As powerful forces work to remove him, he stands, like Travis on the wall, and refuses to back down.

In the state legislature of Washington stands Representative Matt Shea. In one of the most liberal states in the Union, Rep. Shea has organized a Freedom Team of legislators to fight for limited government and the ideals of freedom. In the past two sessions they have introduced over 100 bills, all aimed at limiting the size, cost, reach and power of government. They have managed to pass about thirty of these into law. Matt Shea and Richard Rothschild are the models for us all. And they are unwavering patriots.

There are many others, in every state, who are beginning to make their efforts felt in the cause to preserve freedom. They understand that private property ownership is the key to prosperity. They had seen that the more powerful the government control, the more corruption, and that it is government itself that must be controlled. And they are becoming a growing force. Their courage is an inspiration.

Matt Shea would order the destruction of his own home if it meant one American would be free. Richard Rothschild would stand on that wall of the Alamo to the last. He already has in our modern day fight. And Kris Anne Hall would sing the glory of the heroes of Fort McHenry. She does it every day.

As your children seek to understand why we older folks get a tear in our eye and a swell of pride in hearts as we hear the songs and see the flags flying – symbols of the incredible sacrifice so many suffered just to defend our freedom – they need look no further than these modern day heroes. Patriots still exist among us and they are still fighting the same tyranny as our Founders, and for the same reasons. We should all stand together so that our children and our children’s children will have a life of their own choosing. It’s that simple.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

When I hear or read the word patriot, I remember the time when I felt like Tom has described above, but now that I am no longer ignorant of how Americans have been brain washed and the atrocities we have committed in the name of patriotism, I feel sorry for those who still feel compelled to follow the orders of psychopaths. Take this to the bank folks, the only people who deserve to die are the ones you are worshipping, and their Masters; the International Investment Central Banking Cartel. THEY ARE THE SCUM OF THE EARTH!  Of course I do justify murder as in self defense, and any intelligent and informed person would conclude that the very people who we are allowing to establish our laws and enforce them are also our enemies. And the only loyalty they have is to the Cartel. Where do you think all the billions of dollars go too besides these bastards who pretend to be our leaders? It cost the Cartel huge amounts of money to have so many loyal employees. If you are a cop, you’re so ignorant you don’t even know who you are really WORKING FOR. Read and learn folks, before you commit your life to tyrants. All of your good intentions are proof you are brain washed. In reality, the America we loved so much was a damn lie. It’s the biggest con in history. It’s like loving a wife who is a whore behind your back. While you work your ass off to give her all the things she wants, she’s screwing your friends and salting the money away. Good intentions without knowledge is like a limp dick.

10 13 11 flagbar

Are You a Mind Controlled CIA Stooge?

September 1st, 2016 by

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/31/are-you-a-mind-controlled-cia-stooge-paul-craig-roberts/

By Paul Craig Roberts

Do you smirk when you hear someone question the official stories of Orlando, San Bernardino, Paris or Nice? Do you feel superior to 2,500 architects and engineers, to firefighters, commercial and military pilots, physicists and chemists, and former high government officials who have raised doubts about 9/11? If so, you reflect the profile of a mind-controlled CIA stooge.

The term “conspiracy theory” was invented and put into public discourse by the CIA in 1964 in order to discredit the many skeptics who challenged the Warren Commission’s conclusion that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald, who himself was assassinated while in police custody before he could be questioned. The CIA used its friends in the media to launch a campaign to make suspicion of the Warren Commission report a target of ridicule and hostility. This campaign was “one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”

So writes political science professor Lance deHaven-Smith, who in his peer-reviewed book, Conspiracy Theory in America, published by the University of Texas Press, tells the story of how the CIA succeeded in creating in the public mind reflexive, automatic, stigmatization of those who challenge government explanations. This is an extremely important and readable book, one of those rare books with the power to break you out of The Matrix.

Professor deHaven-Smith is able to write this book because the original CIA Dispatch #1035-960, which sets out the CIA plot, was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. Apparently, the bureaucracy did not regard a document this old as being of any importance. The document is marked “Destroy when no longer needed,” but somehow wasn’t. CIA Dispatch #1035-960 is reproduced in the book.

The success that the CIA has had in stigmatizing skepticism of government explanations has made it difficult to investigate State Crimes Against Democracy (SCAD) such as 9/11. With the public mind programmed to ridicule “conspiracy kooks,” even in the case of suspicious events such as 9/11 the government can destroy evidence, ignore prescribed procedures, delay an investigation, and then form a political committee to put its imprimatur on the official story. Professor deHaven-Smith notes that in such events as Kennedy’s assassination and 9/11 official police and prosecutorial investigations are never employed. The event is handed off to a political commission.

Professor deHaven-Smith’s book supports what I have told my readers: the government controls the story from the beginning by having the official explanation ready the moment a SCAD occurs. This makes any other explanation a “conspiracy theory.” This is the way Professor deHaven-Smith puts it:

“A SCAD approach to memes assumes further that the CIA and other possibly participating agencies are formulating memes well in advance of operations, and therefore SCAD memes appear and are popularized very quickly before any competing concepts are on the scene.”

The CIA’s success in controlling public perception of what our Founding Fathers would have regarded as suspicious events involving the government enables those in power positions within government to orchestrate events that serve hidden agendas. The events of September 11 created the new paradigm of endless war in behalf of a Washington-dominated world. The CIA’s success in controlling public perceptions has made it impossible to investigate elite political crimes. Consequently, it is now possible for treason to be official US government policy.

Professor deHaven-Smith’s book will tell you the story of the assassination of President Kennedy by elements of the US military, CIA, and Secret Service. Just as the Warren Commission covered up the State Crime Against Democracy, Professor deHaven-Smith shows why we should doubt the official 9/11 story. And anything else that the government tells us.

Read this book. It is short. It is affordable. It is reality preparation. It will innoculate you against being a dumbshit, insouciant, brainwashed American. I am surprised that the CIA has not purchased the entire print run and burned the books. Perhaps the CIA feels secure from its success in brainwashing the public and does not believe that American democracy and accountable government can be restored.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

IS THIS YOU?

 http://farmwars.info/?p=15096&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FarmWars+%28Farm+Wars%29

10 13 11 flagbar

Well what the hell is happening to us?????

August 31st, 2016 by

By Marilyn Barnewall

Personal Mail

I got an email from a friend.  It bothers me in two ways… the fact that what it identifies as problems is accurate and the fact that those who made the problems possible are not properly identified.  So I’m giving you my editorial analysis of the email before you read it.

 All of the written words contained in the email after my comments here do make me angry… but what insults me is the placing of total blame on those who are elected to office to serve.  Do I believe any of them have done a good job?  Maybe a handful, but certainly not many.  How did they get elected?  They were chosen and financially supported by the RNC and the DNC.  Who gave the money to the RNC and DNC to support Republican or Democrat candidates without really checking to find out who they are?  THE PEOPLE!  Who is supposed to select political candidates?  THE PEOPLE!  They are supposed to find and support men and women of character who won’t look at being sent to Washington as a career, rather just a temporary job.  Who got so lazy they gave up involvement with their political system and gave the RNC and the DNC the power to select political candidates?  THE PEOPLE!  For 50 years, Republicans have voted for anyone who was a Republican, same for Democrats. 

 That was the great weakness that allowed this silent shadow coup of our government… all “they” had to do was gain control of the RNC and the DNC then make sure the only candidates that got financial support (which translates to “elected”) were the morally compromised who could be made to do whatever was asked of them by the RNC and DNC.  The number one responsibility of being an American citizen is not voting — they sold everyone on that lie so they could achieve their power takeover of both political parties.  The number one responsibility of an American citizen is finding the highest quality political candidates available to run for office and then support them.  You do not send money — and continue to send money — to the very organization which has filled our Congress with thieves, crooks and otherwise morally compromised people.

 What is said in this email is accurate as it relates to the problems.  What is said as to who is to blame is inaccurate.  We, the People, are specifically to blame for letting the RNC and DNC gain so much power.  How many people who read this will attend their Republican or Democrat monthly luncheon and become involved in making sure that those who run the local political system have stong moral character?  Very darned few!  It’s not that hard to take back control of the political parties and their leadership… you just have to attend Party functions and make sure to get strong candidates for office within the Party nominated and supported.  This isn’t hard.  It doesn’t require going door-to-door to get petitions signed or putting signs in your yard.  It just requires getting enough people who are concerned about their nation to go with you to attend Party functions at the County level.  The Officers of each County are the ones who select the State Party officials.  Thus, changing things at the County level changes things at the State level. You go to a luncheon once a month.  You take friends who are also concerned about their country with you.  So you go to a political lunch once a month.  You get on their mailing list and attend one Party function every six weeks!  Wow!  A horrible price to pay to maintain your freedom… your right to keep having barbecues and boy’s out card nights! 

 That’s how you change the character of the political parties who have pulled off a coup… a takeover of our government with little in the way of Civil War.  MB 

Well….., what the hell is happening to us?????

Democrats and Republicans
“””””(‘different’ ONLY in name)”””””

Someone please tell me what the HELL’s wrong with all the people that run this country!!!!

 Both Democrats and Republicans Say, “We’re broke” And can’t help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless, Etc.,?????

But, over the last several years THEY have provided direct cash aid to….
Hamas – $351 M,

Libya- $1.45 B,

Egypt- $397 M,

Mexico- $622 M,

Russia– 380 M,

Haiti-  $1.4 B,

Jordan- $463 M,

Kenya- $816 M,

Sudan- $870 M,

Nigeria- $456 M,

Uganda- $451 M,

Congo- $359 M,

Ethiopia- $981 M,

Pakistan- $2 B

South Africa- $566 M,

Senegal- $698 M,

Mozambique- $404 M,

Zambia- $331 M,

Kazakhstan- $304 M,

Iraq- $1.08 B,

Tanzania- $554 M,

…with literally Billions of Dollars, and those buttheads still hate us!!!!
But on the other hand, Our retired seniors, Living on a ‘fixed income,’

Receive NO aid!

Nor do they get any breaks, while our government and religious organizations will pour

Hundreds of Billions Of $$$$$$’s and Tons of Food to Foreign Countries!

Someone needs to explain to them that Charity begins AT HOME!!!

 And another atrocity….

We have Hundreds of adoptable American Children who are shoved aside to make room for the adoption OF Foreign   Orphans.

AMERICA: A country where we have
Countless Homeless without shelter,
Children going to bed hungry,
Elderly going without needed medication
and the Mentally ill without treatment — etc.

YET……….
 They will have a ‘Benefit’ Show For the people of Haiti , on 12 TV Stations; Ships and planes lining up with food, water, tents  clothes, bedding, doctors and medical supplies.

 Now Just Imagine if Our own *GOVERNMENT* Gave ‘US’ the same support they give to foreign countries.

One of the things at the top of Trump’s list (America First).  They’re scared silly of him and worried their gravy train will be gone if they allow him to be elected! I’m not a fan of his mouth, but his opponent is already part of the problem and hasn’t done anything about it, and won’t.

Sad, isn’t it?

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE:

The International Investment Central Banking Cartel is using all this money to build their New World Order. There is not one politician world wide that is immune from their wrath when refusing to comply. At this point, non-cooperation is suicide or imprisonment.

One solution remains, and that is for some government to order the bankers extermination.

Dito for the education and media heads.

The elimination of corporate governments and the return to a republican form of government world wide.

The cooperation of all governments to issue a universal commodity backed currency.

Follow the government building method described by Marilyn above.

Follow the advice of our founders and avoid entanglements with other governments.

Do not let sympathy smother common sense. One must be strong and capable before nursing the world. Make the introduction of other forms of Government a capital offense and there is to be only one political party in America, THE FREEDOM PARTY!

Introduce a world wide instruction manual as a suggestion to the world why instilling freedom in the minds of every child should be a global responsibility.

Promote the universal acceptance that humans are born depraved and must be instructed on accountability.

The legal structure of Corporations must be reorganized and be without personhood.

The Pope and Queen of England must withdraw all liens on corporate government’s world wide.

Every human being on earth should have a Freedom Birth Certificate and no passports are required anywhere.

If any government encounters one or more terrorist,

Post their heads on a stake.

There should be little if any difference between governments world wide, as every human being deserves freedom from tyranny. When individuals world wide are thinking alike there will be peace and prosperity.

The above is the only New World Order I will accept.

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

Update on Living Law Firm Progress

August 30th, 2016 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2016/08/update-on-living-law-firm-progress.html

12-21-2015 3-19-06 PMby Anna Von Reitz

Foreclosures:
We expect that by the end of this week we will have the actual structure and mechanism of the foreclosure fraud detailed out, step by step, in a way that average non-accountants can follow along and grasp. That step by step will give the citations to the patents and trademarks and other public records that are all admissible evidence in any court. We are going to release this to the general public, for free, and let you have at it in your individual cases— at the same time that we pursue remedy in behalf of all Americans. (Flag donations to this effort as: “End Foreclosure Fraud”)

Non-Citizen Status:

We have determined that we, living, breathing Americans are called “United States Nationals” in Federal-eze when it comes to international affairs and are called “American State Nationals” or simply “Nationals” when it comes to business here at home. “National” refers to the land jurisdiction of this country.
So if you are talking to the Passport agencies, tell them you are a “United States National, not a United States Citizen” (unless, of course, you are actually employed by, dependent on, or voluntarily chartered as a corporation by the federal government) and if, for example, you are talking to the Governor of the State of New Mexico, tell him that you are a Texan (not a Resident) who has established residency (which is different) in New Mexico—and you’d like to know what is being done about illegal immigration?
We hope to have routed through the correct process for American State Nationals to obtain correct passports very soon and will publish that info as soon as we are sure we’ve nailed it down and have resource contacts for you. (Flag donations to this project as: “Correct Passports”)

Name Change:
All research and all feedback received to date demonstrates the necessity of claiming back your Trade Name and re-conveying it to the land jurisdiction of the United States— and recording the deed to your own Name. Otherwise, technically, you are a “disregarded entity” and these foreign corporations claim to own YOU — and use the ACCOUNT NAME as a convenient handle to lay false claims against your assets. Once you have your own Trade Name back in your control and operating in proper jurisdiction you can use it to reclaim everything else. Several people have written and been distressed over more complex or expensive name-change processes in their states. Though I recommend getting a formal name change decree — which puts the court on record as agreeing to your action—if at all possible, you can also try a simple Deed of Re-conveyance, laying claim to your Trade Name and removing it to the land jurisdiction of your actual state—- Arkansas State not State of Arkansas— for example. Record it, and if necessary give a land description– “land assets and moveable fixtures generally located at:________________________”. (435 St. Mary’s Street, Hoboken, New Jersey, for example).

Federal Marshals Education:
There are “Federal Marshals” tasked with peacekeeping on the land jurisdiction and there are “United States Marshals” tasked with law enforcement in the foreign, international jurisdiction of the sea. One executes the Public Law and the other executes private international corporate Statutes. Educating these men and women (and also their parallels in state and local government positions) is essential. Even our locally elected Sheriffs are in desperate need of education on these topics. We’ve launched an effort to write a quick-and-easy handbook for those responsible for protecting our communities. We are looking for people who have experience with e-publishing to help expedite this process and also for donations toward printing hard copies for free distribution of these materials. (Flag donations to this project: Law Education Fund.)

American States and Nations Bank:
We have a core group of banking experts working on three different but related tasks— (1) creating a safe depository for American assets, especially those being returned from overseas; (2) creating secure international banks competent to work with both IEX and FOREX transactions and currency exchanges; (3) beginning to build actual State National Banks again, which are run by local bank associations. Along with this goes a lot of technical and security work—and we are doing the best we can to move it forward with limited start-up resources. This project also involves negotiations to receive long-stalled treaty funding owed to the actual States and Nations and recoupment of other property interests that have been held in abeyance—-in some cases since before the Civil War. There are an estimated 45,000 accounts at the national level that have to be secured and audited—which does not begin to deal with the same job that needs to be done at the county and state levels. (Flag donations to this effort: ASAN)

Jural Assemblies:

Building knowledgeable and effective Jural Assemblies is the key to building competent and honest county governments to operate the land jurisdiction of this country. If you have a Jural Assembly already started in your county, join and support it. If not, contact the Michigan General Jural Assembly, and use their proven methods to start one. Bear in mind that members must make a decision and declare that they are not “United States Citizens” but are instead “American State Nationals” before they can regain their lawful status and act as American Common Law Jurors.
(Donate time and money locally.)
****Please Note**** when you act as a juror you are for the time you serve considered an “American State Citizen” because you are occupying an office of the actual State. The same is true for the judges, clerks, bailiffs, sheriffs, and others you elect to serve in your County. The word “citizen” always implies an obligation to serve the government. In this case, you are offering to serve as a Juror.
So, a member of a County Jural Assembly must be an American State Citizen during the time they serve as Jurors and when the people come together to serve on a “Citizens Common Law Grand Jury” this is the kind of jury referenced as the Fourth Branch of Government in Justice Antonin Scalia’s famous ruling. This is American Common Law— the Law of the Land— in operation.
This is different from a Jural Society—which is what lawyers and “United States Citizens” belong to and use to operate the incorporated Counties in the international jurisdiction of the sea. When these people come together they also form what can be called a “Citizen’s Common Law Jury” — but they are operating under Martial Common Law, not the Law of the Land, and have no business pretending to be the Fourth Branch which was created to be a safeguard against usurpation and mismanagement by federal officials and employees, not just another fox to guard our hen house.

Jural Assembly = land jurisdiction (national) unincorporated
American State National = a man without obligation to government.
American State Citizen = man serving the government of his actual state on the land, for example Wisconsin State, Pennsylvania Commonwealth, etc., as a Juror, Clerk, Sheriff, etc.
Jural Society = sea jurisdiction (international) incorporated
United States Citizen = federal employee, dependent, or corporation serving that government, includes those operating the federated “State of” and “County of” franchises.

Always pay attention to the exact words being used. There is a world of difference between a “United States National” and a “United States Citizen” and an equally huge difference between a “Jural Assembly” and a “Jural Society”.
You must educate yourselves to avoid being misidentified, victimized, or entrapped by all this duplicitous wordplay. You must also do this to be able to properly and lawfully run the powerful people-based government you are owed.

International Outreach:

I call it this, because with the exception of our Native American representatives in the United Nations there are no competent people able and willing to speak for America and the American States at this time who have been lawfully elected or otherwise granted ambassadorial capacities –except that as sovereigns of the land jurisdiction we have and individually retain the ability to speak for our states on the land and for the Union of these States of America formed by The Articles of Confederation— under Article X.
This is the capacity in which I and my husband have been able to act as Judges and Ambassadors and Fiduciary Deputies for our States of America, and while—in theory at least—any living American can do this, not many of us have the education and capacity to do so at this time.
We find ourselves triple-tasked to: (1) find competent people in each state to enter into this work; (2) bring them up to speed and give them the information and tools they need; (3) get the current work done.
We have published many pieces of correspondence, both official correspondence when acting as Judges or Fiduciary Deputies, and private correspondences written to foreign leaders, so you have cause to know how important and time-consuming this effort to communicate with the rest of the world is.

Before we can solve problems we have to recognize what they are.
We have been able to detail where in history the train went off the track—- in England, during the reign of Queen Victoria, acting under the influence of Benjamin D’Israeli, leading to the subjugation of the English people by deceit and the subjugation of India by force.
This situation would be a Major Faux Pas if it were just the United States involved, but fortunately or unfortunately, most of the known world is involved in this mess.
The American People have to weigh in now to save their own bacon because they are being defrauded and mischaracterized and suffering extortion and racketeering at the hands of international banks and other commercial institutions. In raising our objections we must inform all the other people of the world who are similarly being run-ragged by gangs of officially sanctioned pirates and thieves.
And we must also “fully inform” those responsible. This means Congress. This means the United Nations. This means the IMF. This means the British Parliament. This means Queen Elizabeth. This means the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. And many, many, many, many more officials and corporate officers. This means, most especially, Pope Francis in his role as Roman Pontiff. Why? Because he can pull the charter on any incorporated entity that violates its charter and functions in a criminal manner—-and he has the obligation to do so.

This is why members of the Catholic Church and Catholic Clergy have a crucial role to play in correcting this horrific situation, both in terms of manpower and outcry, and in terms of enforcement against the offending corporations. These corporations are only allowed to exist by consent. They have no natural basis for their being. When they get out of control, living men must be responsible for (a) correcting their administrators; (b) imposing fines and penalties for bad behavior; (c) liquidating them.
By very long standing international convention and agreement, the responsibility for that oversight has always been with the Roman Curia and the Pope functioning as the Pontiff of Rome. That’s where it remains to this day.
My husband, I, and a dedicated group of others scattered across the United States and around the globe have spent incalculable hours engaged in this kind of forthright communication with “the entire world” for years at a time in order to raise the alarm, report the crime, and shine the light on the subversion of our treaties and agreements.
Now, maybe you feel overawed by the prospect of writing a letter to the President or the Pope or Queen Elizabeth or the Congress or Chief Justice Roberts or the Joint Chiefs of Staff—- but unless you do, who is going to? Just me and the chickens back home?
Everyone—-absolutely everyone on this planet needs to know the Truth. Everyone needs to take up their oar and open their mouth and run their printing presses. I don’t advise any blanket accusations or blaming. Just stick to the facts, which have been abundantly shared.
Along with all the written and verbal communication there is need for actual meetings with people— and international travel. We have had to send researchers and for lack of a better word, agents, abroad, both to meet with members of foreign corporations and governments and banks and so on and on.
Not all the non-Bar attorneys are involved in this part of the effort, but the Senior Team Members are and we have funded the whole thing ourselves out of pocket. So— you can see my private letter to Pope Francis and UN Secretary Ban Ki-Moon to get a taste of what is going on with all that and if you want to help fund these efforts, please flag donations as “Foreign Outreach”.

Finally, thank you, all of you, who are waking up and waking others. Thank you for your efforts and your researches and your prayers and your donations. Please understand that this is all coming to a boil and I am now over my head in work. For those who are just getting oriented and all those who want citations and references, start with the eleven pages of citations in my book “Disclosure 101” and then all the citations in “You Know Something Is Wrong When….An American Affidavit of Probable Cause”—-both available on Amazon. And if you are still stumped, refer to my “Timeline”.
http://annavonreitz.com/public-order-blank-1.pdf

God bless America this Sunday, and all our States of America, and all our dearly beloved People.

See this article and over 300 others on Anna’s website here:www.annavonreitz.com

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

Leaked Soros Strategy: “Globalization Will Increase Migration Pressures”

August 26th, 2016 by

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/25/leaked-soros-strategy-globalization-will-increase-migration-pressures/

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Since most people are infatuated with Professional Sports and have little intellect with which to think critically, it has been my intention to put before you a variety of subjects that are affecting the demise of our freedom from a tyrannical Government, and our ability to perceive what is being done to us on a personal and financial level. In the end I can only pray that you will wake up to these atrocities and get involved in spreading the truth about our National and State Governments and certain rich people like George Soros. The education, and mainstream media has retarded your understanding of human nature and you must abandon your fixation on American exceptionalism if you are ever to regain your freedom, safety and peace of mind. It is your personal responsibility to learn and teach by spreading the word. Or you can bend over and kiss your ass goodbye!

8-26-2016 10-21-58 AMROMA, TX – APRIL 14: A Border Patrol agent speaks with Central American immigrant families who crossed into the United States seeking asylum on April 14, 2016 in Roma, Texas. Border security and immigration, both legal and otherwise, continue to be contentious national issues in the 2016 Presidential campaign. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

8-26-2016 10-20-49 AMBy Peter Hasson

ROMA, TX – APRIL 14: A Border Patrol agent speaks with Central American immigrant families who crossed into the United States seeking asylum on April 14, 2016 in Roma, Texas. Border security and immigration, both legal and otherwise, continue to be contentious national issues in the 2016 Presidential campaign. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

George Soros’s Open Society Foundations is anticipating an increase in “migration pressures in the coming decades” due in part to “globalization,” according to a leaked memo outlining a proposed strategy for successfully influencing immigration policy.

The memo, which was published by “hacktivist” group DCLeaks, contains a proposed strategy for OSF’s International Migration Initiative, which aims to influence global immigration policy. The proposed strategy previews the organization’s work from 2016 to 2019.

“IMI’s work on migration is set against a volatile backdrop. More people than ever before are crossing borders in search of safety and a better life, while in nearly every region xenophobia, populism, and hostility towards migrants are on the rise,” notes the memo.

“In some contexts, governments manage migration through guest worker programs that restrict migrants’ rights by tying them to short-term jobs, satisfying business demand for cheap labor while also appeasing anti-migrant sentiment. Elsewhere, governments pursue policies of deterrence and enforcement designed to keep migrants out. IMI’s work responds to both trends.”

“The fierce opposition to immigration reforms in the US and Europe, rising numbers of deaths in the Mediterranean, and record numbers of unaccompanied children point to a breakdown in the governance and public acceptance of migration,” the memo continues. “This will be amplified as demographic forces, globalization, climate change, and conflicts increase migration pressures in the coming decades.”

As previously reported by The Daily Caller, a (different) leaked OSF memo focusing on OSF’s International Migration Initiative argues that Europe’s refugee crisis should be accepted as a “new normal,” and that the refugee crisis means “new opportunities” for Soros’ organization to influence immigration policies on a global scale. (RELATED: Leaked Soros Memo: Refugee Crisis ‘New Normal,’ Gives ‘New Opportunities’ For Global Influence)

That memo made three key points: OSF — which doles out millions to left-wing causes — has been successful at influencing global immigration policy; Europe’s refugee crisis presents “new opportunities” for the organization to influence global immigration policy; and the refugee crisis is the “new normal.”

“The Crisis of Global Capitalism” by George Soros — $28.02 Hardcover

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

THE UNMISTAKABLE RUMBLINGS OF AN AMERICA ABOUT TO POP

August 24th, 2016 by

http://www.newswithviews.com/Ewart/ron265.htm

By Ron Ewart

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” — John F. Kennedy

Put two people in a room and disagreement, at times, is a virtual certainty. Put 320,000,000 people in a nation and disagreement, sometimes violent, is a daily fact of life. Now add to the mix a heavy dose of multi-culturalism and the brew gets even more volatile. Then add 86,000,000 Americans being forced to pay for the livelihoods of 148,000,000 unproductive Americans and the brew becomes explosive. (Those 148,000,000 Americans think everything is just fine and they can vote to keep it that way.)

In that same nation, millions of illegal aliens are allowed to enter, almost unimpeded and encouraged by a liberal government. They get on the welfare rolls thus costing those 86,000,000 productive Americans billions of dollars in taxes for illegal-alien subsistence and millions of lost jobs, not to mention the drugs, rape, robbery and murder brought to America by the fairly large illegal-alien criminal element.

Let’s not forget the effects of radical environmentalism on the cost of goods and the loss of property rights, fueling rising distrust and anger in our rural communities all across America. We know a lot about that anger and discontent of rural landowners by the calls and e-mails we get every week from besieged landowners. We try to help them with the tools our organization (NARLO) provides, but it isn’t enough. The ability of the government, local, state, or federal, to harass and abuse landowners is greater than our ability to counter it. (See “Rural America In the Crosshairs”)

Add a Federal Reserve that is neither federal or a reserve and an exploding national debt to pay for over one hundred years of liberal, give-away policies, a debt that could lead to a devastating financial collapse and you have a recipe for not only anger and discontent, but the potential for rising violence.

Americans have had difficulty remaining united under any circumstances, except when it is threatened by a foreign enemy. But today, almost eight years of President Obama, it would seem the nation is coming apart at the seems. The great “Uniter” is in fact the great “Divider” and he has done so with malice afore thought to implement his twisted vision of America.

Obama’s Blacks think they are getting a raw deal and invented Black Lives Matter for non-existent injustices, with a giant boost from the nation’s wealthy liberals. They are stirring up trouble, chaos, violence and riots in every big city in America just for the Hell of it. Blacks voting in a block for Democrats is not because Blacks like liberal policies. It’s because they like the Democrats stealing from everyone else to give to the Blacks. It’s there form of reparations for past American sins.

Latinos are all upset because millions of legal Americans are finally saying enough is enough to illegal immigration, whether it is from Mexico, Central and South America, or the Middle East. The INS and ICE have lost control of the immigration process and are instead just throwing billions of our tax dollars at it, releasing tens of thousands of criminal aliens into the general population and failing to keep track of the millions of visas given out to foreigners.

The Indians are angry because of losing the war 150 years ago and are getting even with the White man by erecting casinos all over the place and confiscating land and water rights using ancient treaties, with the help of the government and radical environmentalists.

On top of that, radical Islam (ISIS and Al Qaeda) is threatening to annihilate our very way of life and our government, sworn to protect us from all enemies, foreign or domestic, is doing so little to crush the enemy that the enemy is free to come to America and kill Americans. Obama’s policies of appeasement and non-confrontation at any cost, are reaching out to bite us in a very big way, with the prospects of it only getting worse. Do you think twice now before going to the mall or the theater?

Then there are the laws. The America government, at every level, has passed so many laws against every human activity to the point that Americans have become lawbreakers every day of their lives, without knowing it …. that is until they get caught.

The wide-eyed, radical academic environmentalist Bill McKibben wants to give wartime powers to government against climate change, giving government the absolute power to do anything it deemed necessary, including confiscation of property, coercing businesses into supporting the effort, telling businesses what to do, when to do it and whom to hire, along with strict control over the economy. Bill has millions of groupies, academia and the news media on his side. But waging war, at any cost, including the loss of liberty, against a boogieman, backed up by unsettled or bad science, is the epitome of tyranny.

But worse, we have allowed growing secularity and worldly forces to rip out the cultural fabric of our Judeo-Christian heritage by allowing certain minorities rights that are in direct conflict with cultural norms and the natural order.

Our public schools and colleges have become institutions of liberal propaganda and indoctrination. Each generation learns less and less about America’s beginning and foundation of freedom. This is born out by millions of young Americans finding socialist Bernie Sanders a fitting presidential candidate. Then you have millions more Americans eager to put one of the most corrupt individuals in American politics, on the Clinton dynasty throne.

Soon the old ones will die off and their perspective of a free and prosperous America will be lost forever. With no heritage of liberty available from the seniors in our midst and no teachings of freedom in our schools, liberty will surely die.

We can’t imagine why proud, self-reliant, responsible Americans are so angry, frustrated and ready to do harm to someone or something. We can’t imagine why millions of those same Americans are listening to Donald Trump and liking what they hear. Or, can we?

Donald Trump, as flawed as he is, is channeling America’s anger, however imperfect his style and demeanor. For the millions of Americans that are sick and tired of business as usual and the institutional corruption, Donald Trump has given them a voice. But Trump is not a Superman that can leap tall buildings in a single bound. He cannot, with a wave of his extended hand, eradicate poverty, provide everyone with a job and kill our enemies. But most of all he cannot change the mindset of a “gimee!” national mentality that has become accustomed to sucking at the teat of mother government. Unfortunately, that “gimee!” mentality can vote to keep the “milk” flowing and they are in the majority.

But there is more to the problem than just an out-of-control government. We as individuals cannot just abdicate our responsibility to hold government accountable if we want to remain free. We cannot give a pass to our kids when they misbehave or act out. If we don’t set standards for them and demand they meet those standards, they end up derelicts on the street, criminals, or workers and businessmen without a moral compass …. or God forbid, Democrats.

John Scolinos, a famous baseball coach, gave a speech at a coach convention in Nashville, TN back in January of 1996. John stated that: “This is the problem in our homes today, with our marriages, with the way we parent our kid and with our lack of discipline. We don’t teach accountability to our kids, and there is no consequence for failing to meet standards. This is the problem in our schools today. The quality of our education is going downhill fast and teachers have been stripped of the tools they need to be successful, and to educate and discipline our young people.”

If our young people are not brought up with true knowledge, discipline, standards and moral underpinnings, they will be incapable of holding government accountable and will be easily manipulated by or become dependent on government.

We are running out of time. So just how long will self-reliant, independent, responsible Americans, worried about the loss of their freedoms and the collapse of the Republic, put up with:

The government erecting a multitude of new offices, and sending hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

The government has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving its assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For imposing huges taxes on us without our consent to pay for the unconstitutional promises they have made to millions of our citizens for their votes.

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.
We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.

We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

Millions of Americans have not seen this language before, or know the vital importance of its words, because they have no knowledge of how America came into being and the fundamentals of liberty contained in its beginning documents. They are truly freedom ignorant. How can they defend or care about what they don’t know?

The first reaction to tyranny is resistance. The final reaction to tyranny is revolution. We are in the first stages in the reaction to tyranny and we strongly urge Americans to resist wherever they can before the second stage becomes unavoidable? All it takes is a flash point and the whole experiment with freedom could begin to unravel overnight, if it hasn’t already.

But then how can we peacefully stop a tyrannical government and the mob mentality it created, if we don’t have the votes? Short of revolution, there is only open and defiant resistance.

Ladies and gentlemen, the colonials broke with England in revolution for far less than what the American government has heaped upon its citizens in the quest for power, lust, greed and control over the masses. If government continues this abuse and usurpations upon its citizens, eventually they will make “peaceful revolution impossible and make violent revolution inevitable.”

America is about to boil over, especially if Hillary Clinton is elected President. That 86,000,000 minority that is paying for everything, the rich and middle class alike, may just decide to stop paying. Some of the wealthiest among us already have. If that 86,000,000 minority wants to be free from the yoke of liberal servitude they had better start resisting and they better start now because their vote means nothing against the liberal mob.

When the checks don’t show up at the welfare or unemployment office, or there is no food at the local Albertson’s store, we guarantee you there will be riots, mayhem and burnings in the street in every city in America. That leads to insurrection and civil war. In such an event, what is to stop the government from declaring martial law and suspending the constitution and all of the rights it promises? Absolutely nothing! Abraham Lincoln and Congress suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. It’s only a small step to suspend the whole constitution, or to confiscate all your money you have in the bank, or in your retirement accounts.

The fate of America, freedom or tyranny, is in the hands of its people that is if the people have even the slightest concept of what freedom means or place any value on it. We’re not convinced they do because of several generations of Progressive and one-world-government brainwashing.

John Galt where are you when we need you?

Let us know if you LIKED this article. Constructive comments are welcome.

[NOTE: The opinion in this 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 info@narlo.org.

Website: www.narlo.org

E-Mail: info@narlo.org

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

As always Ron hits the nail on the head again, and those who do not prepare will perish in the holocaust to follow. If you love your life, you will lose it is one passage from the bible I have never forgotten, and maybe that time has come for the majority, because they are certainly in love with their life. As for me and my house we will die fighting for the love of freedom, not worldly possessions, or fear.

BUCKEL UP AMERICA!

10 13 11 flagbar

 

Yes US Government Propaganda Use Against American Citizens Is Officially Legal Now

August 23rd, 2016 by

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/in-case-you-missed-it-yes-us-government-propaganda-use-against-american-citizens-is-legal-now_082016by

8-23-2016 12-41-27 PMSome people still aren’t sure on this point, so just for the record, yes: US government propaganda use against American citizens has been fully made legal.

You see kids, once upon a time in 1948, we had something known as the Smith-Mundt Act (or, more officially, The US Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948). This act specified the State Department’s propaganda operations outside (key word “outside”) of US borders in a shift from wartime to peacetime use of propaganda as an instrument of the new post-World War II foreign policy.

The first restriction on this act was to prohibit domestic propaganda dissemination, with assurances that Congress, academia, and the mainstream media would filter out the foreign propaganda. As you can see, that obviously worked out really well.

Anyway, fast forward to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, in which the Smith-Mundt Act was officially amended to allow materials produced by the State Department and Broadcasting Board of Governors to be released inside the United States.

In other words, Government use of propaganda against the American people became legal.

And free game. Obviously. Why else would we have scenes like this State Department spokesman bursting into laughter at welcoming the journalists to his press conference, which he referred to sarcastically as an “exercise in transparency and democracy”:

They aren’t even trying to pretend anything they say is true anymore.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Truthstream Media of TruthstreamMedia.com.

Aaron Dykes and Melissa Melton created Truthstream Media.com as an outlet to examine the news, place it in a broader context, uncover the deceptions, pierce through the fabric of illusions, grasp the underlying factors, know the real enemy, unshackle from the system, and begin to imagine the path towards taking back our lives, one step at a time, so that one day we might truly be free…

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

Dollar Disaster Looms China and Russian Currencies Break Away

August 22nd, 2016 by

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/dollar-disaster-looms-as-china-and-russias-currencies-break-away/

 

By Daily Bell Staff – August 20, 2016

Russia leaves the Dollar based monetary system and adopts a system of Sovereign Currency. The implications are phenomenal! “In 1990 the first priority of Washington and the IMF was to pressure Yeltsin and the Duma to “privatize” the State Bank of Russia, under a Constitutional amendment that mandated the new Central Bank of Russia, like the Federal Reserve or European Central Bank, be a purely monetarist entity whose only mandate is to control inflation and stabilize the Ruble. In effect, money creation in Russia was removed from state sovereignty and tied to the US dollar.”

2016: “The Stolypin club report advises to increase the investment, pumping up the economy with money from the state budget and by the issue of the Bank of Russia”. Putin decided to follow the Stolypin club advice as the new monetary policy of the country. -Before It’s News

Money is changing fast and the US dollar is going to crash.

Here’s an excerpt from yet another recently published article (translated from the Russian) describing how the ruble may now evolve (here).

We must nationalize the ruble. What does it mean? It means that we must separate the internal markets from the external ones.

… Thus, the first step for Russia is secession from the IMF and others similar institutions designed to keep the entire world in bondage. The dollar noose must be cut.

Now the amount of printed rubles will not be determined by how many dollars we have but by the actual needs of our economy.

… We have absolutely no need in the central bank in its current form, but we do need a financial regular. Under any regime, it was the Treasury that performed this function. Let it remain the same now regardless of the official name. It may continue to be called the Central Bank. If the essence is changed, there is no need in changing plaques.

You can also see an article (here)that goes into this issue more deeply and claims that Putin has in mind backing a portion of the ruble with gold as well. (We should note there are claims the  ruble is backed by gold already.)

The dramatic – historical – Russian currency changes (if these articles are accurate) seem a little difficult to discern in full at this moment, but obviously things are changing fast. And they are changing for China’s “money” as well. In fact, some have speculated China and Russia could launch a joint, gold-backed currency (here, see bottom of article).

At the beginning of October, the yuan joins the IMF’s SDR  basket (here). This means that major international institutions can issue bonds payable in yuan (actually RMB, the Chinese external currency).

And that is just what has happened already. The World Bank is issuing a large yuan/RMB tranche and this will be the first of many (here).

Investors who want to place funds in RMB rather than dollars will use the new yuan/RMB-based instruments. The US will continue to print dollars but those dollars may not find a home abroad so easily. Instead they may circulate back into the US economy creating significant price inflation.

The US was able to do so much damage domestically and abroad because of its virtually unlimited spending power. It’s been able to prosecute endless, horrible wars and imprison up to five percent of its adult population at any one time.

Now things are changing. Between the Russian announcement and yuan/RMB convertibility, the US will gradually have more trouble printing money at will. Perhaps the corrupt military-industrial complex will be impelled to shrink and large-scale social programs like the wretched Obamacare will have more difficulty with funding as well.

As a libertarian publication, we should rejoice over the upcoming starvation of the US fedgov.

But we will not. We are well aware that the same banking influences that created the monstrous, modern state is ruining US and the West generally in order to build up a more febrile internationalism.

The BRICs, invented by Goldman Sachs are part of it. So is this reconfiguration of reserve currencies.

It seems natural, of course, as “directed history”always does. But it is not natural in the slightest. From what we can tell, it is pre-planned.

Remember both the IMF and the World Bank are controlled by the US. And yet it is these two organizations that are facilitating the rise of the yuan/RMB.

Also, please pay attention to how Russia will issue rubles into the economic system (from the same translated article we quoted previously):

How can we calculate [how many rubles Russia needs]? In exactly the same way as the United States calculates the amount of dollars needed for its economy. Just as the European Union does the same.

The best justification would be that from now on Russia issues rubles based on the value (in rubles) of all natural resources explored on its territory. It is quite amusing that subsequent steps are no rocket science; they are dictated by common sense itself. Since we are breaking down the disadvantageous system,

Putin may be taking a big step, but by circumventing his central bank (initially imposed by the West) he can be seen as moving toward more state control of Russian currency.

And for years, we have debated heatedly with people like Ellen Brown (here) who believe that federal governments can do a much better job of printing money than quasi-independent central banks.

Good Lord! What’s wrong with a little monetary freedom?

All Putin has to do if he wants a healthy currency is declare that the new ruble will be backed by gold and that its issuance will be a private or regional matter.

Let a thousand gold mines bloom. Let the circulation of gold and its related paper notes travel up or down depending on quantity and demand – not the determinations of yet another shadowy, elite clique.

This is the way the US ran before the Civil War and created one of the world’s most prosperous and freest cultures. Those in the US live yet on the dregs of that “golden” period.

But this is not well understood. As time goes on the often-illiterate alternative media may join in hosannas for Putin’s upcoming currency shift. But, again, just because “Russia” will now control its currency instead of a central bank reporting to the IMF, doesn’t necessarily create a better system.

Of course, the argument will be made this sort of system is what Hitler installed in Nazi Germany in order to create the German “miracle” of the 1930s (which we are supposedly not able to talk about). But that system might have destroyed itself over time. Surely it would have.

To begin with, such systems may work very well. But since the “money” is being created by human deciders rather than the competitive market, distortions are inevitable. Price-fixing, which is what it is, never works.

And while we are making the point that this newfound ruble freedom may not be so profound as advertised, let us note that the advent of a currency war is being accompanied by military tension as well.

Conclusion: Whether such tensions are legitimate or dramatized is difficult to say. But given elite banking control of so much around the world, we would not be surprised if we are simply being exposed to a gigantic performance of sorts directed from the top down. Ironically, despite apparent “setbacks,” London’s City surely leads the way.

10 13 11 flagbar

Where’s the Mandate?

August 20th, 2016 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/

12-21-2015 3-19-06 PM

By Anna Von Reitz

Years ago there was a wonderful TV commercial with a feisty old woman who looked at her puny fast food sandwich, wrinkled her nose and spouted, “Where’s the beef?”

Now you’ve got another feisty old lady saying, “Where’s the mandate?”

You’ve all learned that the United States is not America. You’ve learned that, most likely, you aren’t a “United States Citizen” nor a “citizen of the United States”, either. You’ve learned that their elections aren’t our elections. You’ve learned that they are not the actual government of this country—- just a foreign jurisdictional enclave and a corporation under contract to provide us and our Several States of the Union with “essential governmental services”—–Well, there is something else you have to think about now.

All your life you have heard it endlessly repeated: “Democracy, Democracy, Democracy…..” as if “democracy” were some great thing and we were proud to be a “democracy”—–but America was never a “democracy”. The 50 nation states are all republics, and republics are very, very different from democracies.

Republics honor and protect each one of the people. Democracies have no respect for your one-each rights at all. They function by Mob Rule— whatever the majority wants, the majority gets.

So, if 51% of your neighbors want to eat you for Christmas Dinner, that’s a-okay in a “democracy.” If they want to steal your land, that’s okay, too. If they want to rape your daughters or your house guests like in old Sodom and Gomorrah, well, what do you think?

Demon-cracy.

Your country–meaning your state of the Union— is not a “democracy” and you certainly don’t want to spread “democracy” around the world.

But there is one thing about a “democracy”—- it requires a “majority” to work, and without a majority, it doesn’t have a mandate to act—-even according to its own profoundly disgusting rules.

Take that fact in— without a majority there is no mandate.

Now, let’s do another little thought—

Only about half of the potential “voters” are registered to vote, and of those, only about 30% regularly show up at the polls, and that 30% is split roughly down the middle into two political parties, one of which will get the lion’s share of votes so that at the end of the day, only about 15% of those “represented” actually get their own way—-and that number is FAR, FAR less than 50% of anything, much less a popular mandate from over half of the entire population.

It’s a tiny percentage of people that are actually being represented by all these frou-frou-rah elections. There hasn’t been an honest mandate in this country in my lifetime. So, by their own rules, and their own admissions, nothing these jokers have done has had a mandate.

None of it is lawful even under their own system.

The perpetrators have tried to excuse themselves by pretending that whatever “the majority of those who show up at the polls” wants is a mandate, but it’s not.

The “demos” is the entire group of voters and they never get close to 50% of that group on one side of anything, much less any popular mandate from the public at large.

So not only have you been lied to and not only has a stinking immoral “democracy” been enabled to usurp the republican form of government you are heir to and owed, but they haven’t even been able to operate a democracy lawfully.

They have no mandate. And in my lifetime they have never had a mandate. Ever.

See this article and over 300 others on Anna’s website here:www.annavonreitz.com

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

I cannot imagine how it is possible for cognitive dissonant people to continue in their insane attachment to AMERICAN PROPAGANDA. They literally believe any and every thing their teachers, media and politicians tell them is the truth, so help them God. Anyone with half a brain should know by now that voting is no different than pissing upwind.

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM


SEO Powered By SEOPressor