Categories » ‘Secession’
February 10th, 2017 by olddog
By Brandon Smith
For months now, long before the 2016 election, I have been warning about a specific social dynamic which is likely to lead to a form of civil war within the U.S.; namely, the reality that people on the left side of the political spectrum would become despondent at the inevitable loss of their candidate, Hillary Clinton, and that they would react by becoming far more militant. In my article ‘Order Out Of Chaos: The Defeat Of The Left Comes With A Cost’, published November post-election, I stated:
“When I mentioned in my last article the crippling of social justice, I did not mention that this could have some negative reverberations. With Trump and conservatives taking near-total power after the Left had assumed they would never lose again, their reaction has been to transform. They are stepping away from the normal activities and mindset of cultural Marxism and evolving into full blown communists. Instead of admitting that their ideology is a failure in every respect, they are doubling down.
When this evolution is complete, the Left WILL resort to direct violent action on a larger scale, and they will do so with a clear conscience because, in their minds, they are fighting fascism.”
I believed at that time that the social-justice cult would lose mainstream influence but that the existing minority would resort to even more insidious tactics and greater violence to get what they want; and, the so-called “moderate left” would cheer them on. As it turns out, I have been proven right so far.
Not that extreme Leftists have been averse to violence over the past year, but I think it is safe to say that the volume on the cultural Marxist machine has been turned up a notch. The riot at UC Berkeley over a scheduled speech by gay, conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos is a perfect example:
Then, there was the raid by SJWs at NYU on a speech by conservative journalist and comedian Gavin McInnes, in which they shouted down all discussion with mindless chants until the event had to be canceled. This was, of course, after they had already physically attacked people outside the building, including McInnes:
The social justice mantra is changing. At first, it was predominately about forming mobs to “shame” target political opponents into silence. Now, it is about forming mobs to do what they call “punching Nazis.” Leftists are now often seen regurgitating the claim — “This is only the beginning…”
I agree, this IS only the beginning. The Left is driven not only by the ideology of cultural Marxism, but also a very specific activist strategy outlined in Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules For Radicals’. The very core of Alinsky’s method revolves around one important rule in particular: the ends justify the means.
This is the key ingredient of moral relativism, and when a movement is motivated by moral relativism, there is no limit to the depths they will sink to get their way. Activists adopting the “ends justify the means” mentality are not interested in being “right,” or wise, or rational or logical or factual; they ONLY care about “winning.” This is their goal, and they will do anything to achieve it.
It is important to note, however, that all of these protests and the increase in violence is not taking place in a vacuum. As many liberty analysts have noted, Trump has hardly had time to do anything yet that would warrant national protests. Is Trump really the only catalyst? Not quite. The mainstream media and globalists like George Soros have been very effective in agitating or outright paying protesters and provocateurs to generate zombie mobs of gullible Leftists to use as a billy club for harassing conservatives.
That said, I want liberty activists and analysts to ponder on this for a moment — to what end is this being done? Why is Soros so interested in fomenting leftist rage? Is it designed to overthrow Trump? To initiate mob action and frighten conservatives into silence? Or do the globalists have a greater and more important goal in mind?
I have been writing often on the idea of 4th Generation Warfare the past month, and I think my readers are now well versed in the concept of the “three-steps-ahead” style of tactics, as well as the concept of manipulating an opponent to destroy himself, rather than fighting him directly. These are not new methods, the globalists have merely taken them to the next level.
But how do 4th Gen warfare tactics apply to the current Right vs. Left scenario in the U.S.? Well, everything is not as obvious as it seems.
As I outlined in-depth in my article Clinton Versus Trump And The Co-Option Of The Liberty Movement, globalists and the leftist media have been, in a strange way, quietly cheering for Trump, but only as a tool for absorbing the liberty movement (what they still call the “Tea Party”). This glee is made rather evident in an article published by Bloomberg in August titled The Tea Party Meets Its Maker.
There is a point I have been trying to make for most of the year that I think has been consistently missed by many in the liberty movement. That point being that the greatest danger to conservatives is NOT militant Leftists, but how we RESPOND to militant Leftists. That is to say, I believe the globalists are using the Left as a cattle prod to enrage conservatives and lure us into abandoning our principles in the name of defeating Marxists.
Consider this; the argument among most liberty analysts has been that the numerous anti-Constitutional programs put in place by the Obama administration in the past eights years would eventually be used by the political Left and the globalists as weapons to subdue and destroy conservatives and patriot groups. While Obama certainly tested the waters of tyranny over and over again, up to and including using executive orders to assassinate American citizens without trial, it is clear that those extensive powers afforded to the White House are no longer in the hands of the left; they are in the hands of Trump.
Obama even signed the “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” into law AFTER Trump had already won the White House. Trump has now inherited this power as well, which seems to give government the authority to harass or even silence news sources they deem “fake news.” While many liberty activists cried foul and warned of a “coup” designed to shut down alternative news sites and thwart Trump’s inauguration, I warned that there was a much more dangerous scenario in play.
What will conservatives do in the face of the leftist mob funded by globalists and growing ever more vicious? Well, what do the globalists expect us to do? I think they expect us to look at all the government powers we once admonished as unConstitutional and say “hey, maybe these laws and executive orders are not so bad after all…”
I think the globalists are handing us the incredible temptation of far reaching bureaucratic power, and they expect us to abuse that power, as almost anyone would.
As an alternative analyst I am privy to trends in the liberty movement and in conservative circles that might not be immediately obvious to casual readers. Already, I am witnessing calls among conservatives to abuse government power to defeat the Left. I have seen comments such as:
“Trump should use the NDAA to imprison these leftists indefinitely…”
“The only solution is to throw the leftists into FEMA camps…”
“Trump needs to shut down the leftist media…”
“Sometimes it is okay to bend the rules of the constitution if you have the right president…”
And comments like this are popping up everywhere in liberty media boards. Now, I recognize that some of this talk is being posted by paid disinformation agents and provocateurs, but, I have heard regular conservatives and patriots, people who are long time proponents of the Constitution, echo similar sentiments.
I often use the analogy of the “One Ring” from The Lord Of The Rings to describe big government power. I really can’t find a better fictional symbol. Anyone who comes into possession of the “one ring” is eventually corrupted by it. Many good people believe that its darker energy can be contained and directed for good purposes, but they, too, are ultimately undone by it. The only answer, the only solution, is to abandon the ring, or to destroy it.
Overt government power is very much the same; it corrupts any person or group that comes in contact with it. Every group thinks that if only THEY were in possession of government that they would do things differently. This is a delusion. No person or group is benevolent enough to handle this responsibility, and this includes conservatives. Many groups would commit egregious and heinous crimes to take government for themselves, or keep it for themselves, all the while so many Saurons (globalists) laugh and smack their lips as the masses battle over numerous rings of power.
As I have noted time and time again for the past several months, Trump is the perfect tool for scapegoating conservative movements for the economic crisis the elites have already engineered. But, this is only one part of the agenda. In the midst of chaos generated by financial calamity, the morals of an entire society can become “malleable”. The most important target of the globalists is not only conservatives, but the conservative philosophy. They don’t just want to annihilate conservatives today, they want to annihilate conservatives for all time.
The globalists cannot accomplish this task without our help. They NEED us to adopt an attitude of moral relativism, much like the Left. They need us to turn into totalitarians. They need us to become the monster we claim we want to defeat. Only then can conservative principles be demonized for all time. Only then will history look back on us as a stain on the human record.
This is the globalist’s long game.
While Leftists are being encouraged to mutate into wild frothing packs of rabid dogs, conservatives will be encouraged either through temptation or manipulation to respond in kind. The Left’s propaganda train asserts that we are “fascists.” Obviously, we are the furthest thing from this. But, with enough violence and aggressive censorship on their part, we might end up saying “Okay, you want to see fascism, we’ll show you fascism!”
The social justice cult has no idea what they are being led into. The globalists are going to throw them to the wolves, and WE are the wolves.
It is important to note that the Left is also not the only instigator for conservatives to turn totalitarian. Islamic terrorism is always a perfect rationale for increased government intrusion in the name of safety. The worst part is, the threats from the Left and the threats from Islamic extremism are in most cases quite legitimate, and they seem to be working hand-in-hand more each day.
The progressive interference with steps towards more rational immigration policies and their steady defense of Sharia Law leads many conservatives to see them as one in the same enemy. No foreigner is entitled to citizenship in the U.S., but leftists live in a fantasy world of open borders. The left’s refusal to entertain reasonable and selective immigration will eventually push conservatives towards more drastic measures, which is the ultimate point.
Very few Americans like Communists, and very few Americans like Muslim zealotry; the justification for totalitarian measures to disrupt such threats is relatively easy for many people.
This is why I am going to make my next prediction of a major geopolitical event to close out this article — I believe there will be a large scale terrorist attack within the next three months, beyond the mob actions of the Left already in progress.
It will either be similar in scope to 9/11, or, it will be a succession of many smaller attacks occurring over the course of a few days to a couple of weeks. I believe that the current dispute over border controls and immigration denial will come immediately into play. Trump will blame Leftists for obstructing his efforts for secure immigration. Leftists and the media will blame Trump for “radicalizing” Muslims with his immigration policies, or perhaps even accuse him of staging the attacks himself. Trump will begin taking extraordinary measures beyond the Constitution to ensure immigration denial and the thwarting of the Left, and conservatives will applaud him for it.
Again, conservatives are being led by globalists into the temptations of power. The only way for us to fight back is to maintain our principles and refuse to support ANY government measure that is unConstitutional, even if it is to be used against our enemies. The only way that the heritage of liberty can be defeated is if the proponents and champions of liberty forsake it. We beat the globalists in the long run by standing by our ideals and fighting back within the bounds of the principles we hold dear. Dominance through government is never the answer.
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
You can contact Brandon Smith at:
One hundred million AMERICAN’S
capable of understanding the principals AMERICA was founded on and willing to join hands in a national resistance to CORPORATE GOVERNANCE. Men and women who love their freedom more than their bondage who will circulate copies of the Constitution with the stipulation of a promise to read it and demand a Constitutional Government not under the control of the International Investment banking cartel. A second civil war will be the total end of freedom in this country. And that’s where this country is headed!
February 3rd, 2017 by olddog
By Anna Von Reitz
This morning I looked in my email inbox and saw 50,410 unanswered emails blinking at me. There is no way on Earth that I can answer all or even a small fraction of these. It just isn’t possible. If I had a full-time staff devoted to answering emails for me, they might keep up. As it is, it would take 50 people working over 1,000 emails each today.
Realizing— and finally admitting—- that I am never, ever going to be able to get through all those emails, I just had to hit the “delete” button and hope that the ultimate answers to the mysteries of government and life were not part of the overload.
I also had a heartbreaking question forwarded to me by my Webmaster — a friend who has been sending $10 a month since September and never got a thank you from me. Did it arrive? Did it make a difference? I burst into tears.
We could never come so far, so fast, without the good wishes and help and prayers and $10 donations. This has been a very, very hard winter for everyone on my team, including me. There have been deaths, accidents, illnesses, injuries— you name it, we’ve had it. It’s as if Satan himself took an interest in making our lives miserable the past four months, and with all those setbacks, we wouldn’t have survived it without all of you coming forward and sending us money for gas and copy service and stamps.
I had to sit back and shake my head. I can’t even keep up with thanking all the people all over this country who are and who have been loyally supporting the research and the efforts of our Living Law Firm team. Again, it just isn’t possible. I would have to spend all day every day on nothing but correspondence —- and then I wouldn’t get the actual work done that you want me to do.
So, yes, your PayPal donations to email@example.com do matter, and so do all the checks and money orders and other gifts sent to me in care of Post Office Box 520994, Big Lake, Alaska 99652. You have all helped lift the burden and make it bearable and though I admit to many sins, ingratitude is not one of them! I do get the mail eventually and I bless you all and thank you from the bottom of my heart!
Here is today’s strange but true tidbit that we all need to know: your SURNAME is that of a Warrant Officer in the Merchant Marines known as a Withholding Agent; HE is under a services contract which makes HIM responsible for paying the DEBTS of the government.
Isn’t that cute? All these years they had you convinced that you were paying debts that you owed, but in fact, you are merely a faceless military services subcontractor tasked with paying off the debts of the UNITED STATES and its franchises. As long as you retain a SURNAME, you are presumed to be operating in their foreign system and to be obligated in this way.
So one of the key points to make and prove is that you are no longer in any form of military, quasi-military, or civil service employment. And if they think you are, then they need to produce the contract and the dates and the amounts you have been paid and the name of your supervisor and your job description and all the rest of it.
Once again we find that this entire system is built on nothing more than deceit and self-interested lies. Pure bunko.
So the work excavating the manure pile goes on, and this is what occupies my time and the time of many others every day. We are now at a point where we can begin pulling together the actual pleadings to bring suit against the rats in international courts. Stay tuned for more to come.
See this article and over 400 others on Anna’s website here:
We can delight in the fact that we have an all mighty God who will use some of us to put in place justice and recompense, and then woe to the Banking Cartels and their puppets, who will burn in hell forever.
THANK YOU ANNA, AND ALL YOUR HELPERS AND DONORS.
August 9th, 2016 by olddog
Olddog says, this is Mike’s Masterpiece
By Michael Gaddy
Any semi-conscious individual with a modicum of intelligence would advise anyone caught up in an abusive relationship of any kind to sever all ties to the opprobrious partner. Yet, almost to a person, these same people would readily inform you that secession by a state is unlawful and should be met with the appropriate force and violence to prohibit such an irresponsible act on the part of a state and its sovereign people, regardless of the proclaimed reasons for the separation.
One of the most critical subjects which our founders faced both in the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 and the subsequent state ratification conventions was where did sovereignty reside, was it with the people, the states or the newly proposed government? In the vernacular of today, who would be the boss of whom?
It is of significant import that one view the wording of the Treaty of Paris when discussing this topic. In Article 1, the United States was acknowledged to be 13 “free, sovereign and independent states.”
But, where does the “ultimate sovereignty” sit in residence? Is it with the federal government, the state governments or with the people? Most of the colonists understood the belief in Great Britain, prevalent since 1640, that the ultimate sovereignty resided in Parliament. This concept is confirmed in the words of Sir William Blackstone in his description of Parliament, “the place where that absolute despotic power which in all governments reside somewhere, is intrusted by the constitutions of these kingdoms. The power and jurisdiction of Parliament” was so “transcendent and absolute that it cannot be confined… True it is that what Parliament doth, no authority upon Earth can undo.” Using this same paradigm, the majority of people in this country today, especially cops and judges, believe that our central government has the ultimate sovereignty, that nothing can undo its will and often point to Article VI Section II of our Constitution (Supremacy Clause) as the basis for confirmation of their beliefs. But to believe thusly is to completely dismiss a crucial element in why the colonists fought an eight-year war in order to gain their independence from such a Parliament.
We also have those who believe that true sovereignty, in some cases ultimate sovereignty, lies with the states. To believe that ultimate sovereignty lies with either the central or state governments is to discount the very concept and purpose of our Declaration of Independence.
Our basic organic document, The Declaration of Independence, is a document of secession, the proof of which can be found in its words and phrases. “dissolve the political bands, … assume among the powers of the earth, declare the causes which impel them to the separation … it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and institute new government … it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government and to provide new Guards for their future security … that all political connection between them is and ought to be totally dissolved.”
To refuse to accept the Declaration of Independence as an article of secession is to call attention to one’s own ignorance. The demanded separation contained in our Declaration is a complete refutation of any government being the ultimate sovereign over the people.
Our founders, including those on both sides of the Federalist/Antifederalist divide, wrote and spoke often of the ultimate sovereignty of the individual. James Wilson of Pennsylvania was a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 as well as a delegate to the Ratification Convention of his state. It was during that ratification debate James Wilson stated the following as to the forms of government that might be created.
“The United States may adopt any one of four different systems. They may become consolidated into one [National] government, in which the separate existence of the states shall be entirely absorbed. They may reject any plan of union or association and act as separate and unconnected states. They may form two or more confederacies. They may unite in one federal republic. Which of these systems ought to have been formed by the Convention? To support, with vigor, a single government over the whole extent of the United States would demand a system of the most unqualified and the most unremitted despotism.” (All emphasis mine)
Patrick Henry also addressed the issue of a consolidated government during the Virginia Ratification Convention when on June 5, 1788, Henry rose to speak and said this about the new proposed government.
“Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: And cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?”
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both stated the actual meaning of the Constitution was to be found in the debates at the various state ratification conventions. Reading through these debates one will find the descriptions and meanings of the proposed constitution are very well stated by those who advocated for ratification and were “selling” the constitution (Federalists) to those who had questions (Anti-federalists) or those who opposed ratification outright. The Federalists were most clear; the government would not be a national government, the powers “delegated” to the government would be few and limited; the states would at the very least have an equal say in the actions of the government. I list below just a sampling of what form of government was promised to the states and to the people.
“It is the opinion of the greatest writers, that a very extensive country cannot be governed on democratical principles, on any other plan than a confederation of a number of small republics, possessing all the powers of internal government but united in the management of their foreign and general concerns. It would not be difficult to prove, that anything short of despotism could not bind so great a country under one government; and under whatever plan you might, at first setting out, establish, it would issue in a despotism.” ~ George Bryan of Pennsylvania
In this one simple paragraph, George Bryan describes not only what was happening at the time of the ratification conventions but also perfectly describes how unconstitutional and tyrannical our government has become since its creation. Mr. Bryan mentions first “a very extensive country.” Please remember that at that time our “country” only contained the 13 original colonies. Then there is the mention of “democratical principles’ which is a reference to a democratic form of government which if you asked the common person on the street what form of government we have today, the majority would answer “a democracy.” If 13 colonies or states would be too large for a democracy, what makes anyone believe a democracy would work for 50 states? (57 if you believe our current chief magistrate)
Mr. Bryan then spoke to the proposition that all smaller parts of this confederacy (the states) would possess all the powers of “internal government.” Is that true today? Absolutely not! Bryan then states “nothing short of despotism” would issue from the implementation of any other form of government other than what the people were guaranteed would be created with the ratification of the constitution.
“Any law … of the United States, for securing to Congress more than a concurrent right with each state is usurpation and void.” ~ Theophilus Parsons, Massachusetts, 1788
“Any law,” says Mr. Parsons, is void if passed by Congress and does not provide a “concurrent right” to the states. I would begin to cite for you the hundreds of laws that should be void and unenforceable, but time and logistics of such a listing prohibit such.
“If the gentleman will attend, he will see this is a government for confederated states; that, consequently, it can not meddle where no power is given.” ~ Archibald Maclaine, North Carolina, 1788
Mr. Mcclaine states very clearly that the government cannot meddle where no power is given. Again, time and space do not permit an accurate listing of all of the laws passed by Congress that “meddle” where no such power was ever delegated by the states and the people to the central government. Of, course any such list would include the Affordable Care Act and the many variations of the Patriot Act.
“The State governments can put a veto, at any time, on the general government, by ceasing to continue the executive power.” ~ William Richardson Davie, North Carolina, 1788
Is what Mr. Davie so clearly stated in 1788 true today? If, not our government has been perverted, stolen and used to enslave us all. Are we any more subjects than were our founders in 1775 and who declared their grievances and separation in our most famous of founding documents?
John Adams predicted what would occur should the tenets and principles of what the people of their respective states were promised if these principles were violated and usurped by the central government.
“It is not even said in our Constitution that the People shall be guarranteed in a Free Republican Government. The Word is So loose and indeffinite that Successive Predominant Factions will put Glosses and Constructions upon it as different as light and darkness, and if ever there should be a Civil War which Heaven forbid, the conquering General in all his Tryumphs may establish a Military Despotism and yet call it a constitutional Republic as Napoleon has already Set him the Example. The only Effect of it that I could ever See, is to deceive the People: and this practice my heart abhors, my head disapproves, and my Tongue and my Pen have ever avoided.” (Spelling and capitalization in the original)
John Adams was most knowledgeable of history and he correctly predicted usurpations on the part of the government which included the assumption of powers the states and the people were guaranteed would never occur would eventually lead to a “civil war.” Adams also predicted a triumph in such a “civil war” by military forces of the central government would lead to a military despotism such as that of Napoleon. He also correctly predicted that such a government would continue to call itself a “constitutional republic.” This is precisely why the Pledge of Allegiance, written by an avowed socialist, is embraced by those who support a continuation of the Napoleonic constitutional republic mentioned by John Adams.
The type and form of government promised to the people and the states in their ratification conventions ceased to exist well before the election of Abraham Lincoln and the assumption of power by the so-called Radical Republicans. The election of Lincoln simply brought all of the simmering resentments to a full boil in 1860. With the assumption of power by the Lincolnites, the government promised 72 years prior to the people and the states had ceased to exist.
The people from Virginia who ratified the Constitution by a very slim margin in 1788, were still very suspicious of the intentions of those who would be assuming the mantle of power and possible future usurpations of the powers of the individual states by an overreaching central government. To this end, they placed the following in their ratification agreement.
“Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will …”
Here, in plain and simple words is established the authority of the states and the people to withdraw from a government of their own creation “whensoever that government shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” The wording also clearly indicates the people of the states are the ones to determine when that injury and oppression has occurred; not the Congress of that government, the executive of that government or the judicial element of that government.
The original ratification documents were presented and discussed during the first Convention of Secession in Virginia in which the people of Virginia, acting the same as those who had ratified the Constitution in 1788, at first voted to remain in the Union. It was the actions of Abraham Lincoln and his radical republicans who forced the acts of secession on Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Missouri.
The states who seceded, did so in an effort to recapture and retain the form of government promised to them 72 years prior. Yet, Lincoln chose to deal with a constitutional issue, not with the courts, mediation or reconciliation, but through the use of force and coercion, both of which comprise the very essence of tyranny.
The only path left to those who wish to oppose the overreach of government enforced tyranny is first nullification, as well outlined in Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolution, and should that fail, a full and complete withdrawal from the forces of tyranny: Secession.
Regardless of who is elected in November, the tyranny and oppression will continue to increase. Such is the natural course of history, for the form of government promised at the ratification conventions totally ceased to exist under the fusillade of bullets, bayonets, and cannons, delivered courtesy of Abraham Lincoln to the people of at least 12 states who only wanted the form of government their ancestors had been promised in 1787-1788.
Delaware Senator James Bayard III stated on the floor of the US Senate in 1861,
” … to warn gentlemen that the system of government adopted in 1787 is inconsistent with the prosecution of war for the subjection of the South: and yet you cannot execute the laws as you claim to do within the Confederate States without their entire conquest and subjugation. You must, if successful, convert, and it has been threatened by many leading papers, and at least one leading member of the administration, that you will convert this government into a single government, and absolve all the state lines. In answer to such a purpose, and as an all-sufficient objection to it, I give you the general truth enunciated by Mr. Wilson, that a government of that kind, to exist over the extent of the this country must be a system of the most unqualified and unremitting despotism.”
The government employees, media shills and useful idiots in academia and the common street idiot, all of whom would guarantee the right of an individual to escape an abusive relationship, would deny the same to the states and its citizens. The government that was promised to our ancestors has long since ceased to exist—-Nullification and Secession are our only options.
IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY
Given the power and ability to do so, I would corral every born in America person in groups and not let them leave their chairs until they totally understood the significance of Mike’s words, whether they crapped on them selves or starved to death matters not to me. They could die in their chair or become a real American ready to die a horrible death before allowing this damnable government to continue.
GIVE ME FREEDOM OR GIVE ME DEATH IS THE
MOST HONORABLE STATEMENT EVER MADE.
July 21st, 2016 by olddog
WHAT DO THEY BELIEVE?
To be a real American, one must understand the history of the different kinds of governments, and insist on lawful protections for the people and their assets. That sentence is the epitome of freedom from tyranny, because history has documented how tyrannical most governments have been to their constituents.
Unless the children are raised up with this knowledge being the focus of their attention, sooner or later they will fall pray to demented desires and lean toward democracy because they want to make the world to suit them.
This is called human nature, and the correct teaching of Christian scripture authenticates all humans are born with a depraved nature, and must seek God for redemption. This ideology was prevalent in the beginning of America, but was denigrated by depraved Pastors, and the ever present desire to be in charge of ones depraved mind. Also, many parents were too lazy to study scripture and allowed these depraved Pastors to “bend their minds” so to speak.
This entire problem human beings have with getting along with one another is directly due to their depraved desire to make their own rules, do their own thing, and be in charge!
Any intelligent person can and should study real history so as to know what human traits to follow and avoid, because those who have the compulsion to lead are usually depraved.
Not all men/women are tyrants, but most will struggle with, and find the ability to get people to obey His/Her dictates until they are holding power over the people. Hence, unbreakable provision must be in place before any government comes to power. This is available in plain English in the Bible, and is the not a hindrance to government, or the unbeliever.
I have never heard of a Church forcing people to attend as the depraved know full well they must have a system of division to play one group over another. So, how can a group of doctrinally ignorant people choose a pastor?
THEY CANNOT! Therefore raising up a child in a godly home and school is of upmost importance. Homo sapiens must be converted before they can live in peace.
I do not write this with the confidence I am a born-again Christian, but from the knowledge gained from a compulsive life of studying the train-wreck of demented human-beings that were never educated on the history of man-kind. How can one avoid tyranny if they know not what it is and looks like?
Surreptitious men and women prowl the world looking for followers, knowing full well the power of their gymnastic word-smithing, and these liars abound everywhere, and the only protection from their linguistic narcotics is knowledge of the past.
I believe coupled with the events this generation has personally witnessed; what I have claimed above should be easy to accept. Even if Christianity is no longer acceptable to the majority of this country and generation, something must convince them to avoid being ignorant of the past failures of the Church, the government, and the morals of the people.
Being convinced that only moral people can lead a group of people if freedom is to prevail, I will now itemize some absolutes that history has authenticated must be followed.
(1)As stated above only intelligent and informed people are equipped to be leaders and that should apply to those who vote. One cannot escape the necessity of having learned from past history that a democracy equalizes everyone regardless of their knowledge and negates the votes of the learned person. The results are catastrophic! The person who wants to vote their self some benefit they have not the skill or intelligence to acquire on their own is a burden to everyone else, denigrates freedom, and has no value to the Nation. Supporting the poor is the obligation of the Christian community and those who have more than they need.
(2)A performance bond should be forced on all who occupy government offices, from the President on down. The people must demand total compliance to the Constitution by their elected representatives and all government employees.
(3)As the need for more and more communication between other Nations has increased from the out of control world commerce the Bankers forced on us, an import export equalization must be designed and adhered to, and only bonded people with prior international commerce experience should be allowed to represent the States.
(4)The people’s militias must be reinstated by the states with no control by the National Government and after a period of time if it becomes a necessity a National army-Navy may be formed with permission of all the States, but never allowed to exercise operations falling under the state Militias’ obligations. Only foreign wars are the obligation of the National armed forces and it is the equal by population, obligation of the States to finance an Army-Navy
(5)From past experience it is foolish for the States to surrender any authority to a National government, and must establish said national government with State governors, leaving the obligation of state operations to the deputy Governor.
(6) Public education facilities should be funded and maintained by State Governments but have no authority over the Teachers or administration and every community should have a school staffed by teachers who have attended and excelled in constitutional law. The number of Government supplied buildings for education must conform to each neighborhood population requirements. An agreed on number of students per buildings should be established by a County Government and controlled by County Commissioners. All physical maintenance needs should be by the private sector. School supplies are the responsibility of the parents and when necessary by the County.
(7)All possible means of eliminating control over the people by powerful organizations, both private, Corporate, and Government must be applied in the States Constitutions.
This is going to be an on going project and all readers are welcome to participate with suggestions by email. I will publish your name with each suggestion or withhold it per your choice. Time prevents me from committing to the full and complete document, and it is your country and future to help protect also, besides no one person has the intelligence and experience to be a lone author of this project.
July 22nd, 2015 by olddog
So, why are we still in the United Nations?
By A. Dru Kristenev — Bio and Archives
After the United States’ president orchestrated the ultimate circumvention of his country’s representative branch of government in order to assist the western world’s archenemy to gain a foothold in the nuclear fraternity, the manner in which Obama achieved his ends must be closely examined. Not only is the president’s rationale questionable, but the five co-conspirator nations must be scrutinized for their complicity in endangering their own citizens.
As much as leaders of the free world praise the arrival of a global economy and each nation’s supposed place in it, the concept of a globally accepted, or acceptable, governing body is yet anathema to the average person. It matters not if they hail from Australia or Uzbekistan, no one is particularly interested in handing over power to an absent agency that, aside from not truly owning real estate in any of the member nations, resembles an absent landlord. The United Nations has become a squalling voice complaining about injustice all the while providing the best path to establish institutional injustice.
Engineering the manner by which the UN was to be used as a surrogate for the United States Congress, Obama laid the foundation with the participation of the Senate. Whether the collusion was attained knowingly or unwittingly, only those senators who voted for the Corker Bill that sidelined their treaty ratification power know for certain. The craftiness that inspired the sly move was accomplished through bending rules of language, something in which the Obama administration has become expert. The fact that Bob Corker and the other assenting senators were sucked into believing the Iran deal (that ensured Iran’s nuclear future) was an ‘executive agreement’ is proof of either their compliance with Obama or their gullibility. Neither description being complimentary, let alone inspiring trust.
Groundwork was laid from the beginning to use the withering body of politically correct UN dupes to do an end run around not just Americans, but the citizens of the other nations at the negotiation table.
The question should then be asked, why does the United States continue to hold membership in an organization that vilifies it, the sponsor nation? A nation that bankrolls a group harboring so-called diplomats from enemy countries who are welcomed inside its borders, walk its streets freely and plot its destruction, is simply dense for continuing any association. All one need do is listen to the Iranian parliament complain that the deal’s ICBM ban isn’t tolerable as it might keep them from developing the method to deliver nuclear missiles overseas and eventually into the laps of the Great Satan… us. That is, after they’ve annihilated Israel.
If Congress has any self-respect, or plain respect for those it represents, the citizens who constituted this nation, then it’s time the Senate and House disassociated the United States from the adversarial United Nations. There is no good purpose in belonging to an organization that makes every effort to bite the hand that feeds it. How much contempt should America endure from a batch of ragtag nations that are perfectly comfortable bleeding us monetarily while threatening our very lives?
The answer should be obvious except for the self-hate that has been fostered by public re-education that rewrites history to demean our heritage.
It is past time to terminate membership in the United Nations and boot them from our shores.
Only the most stupid person, or deviant traitor would let their country and its people – economy – traditions – and every other facet of their lives be dominated by a shadow governing body. People of America please grow a set and demand the U.N. be evicted, dismantled, and disgraced. For God’s sake folks, wake the hell up and make your demands heard. Stop this stupid, idea you can’t do anything about it, because you can! “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas [from Mexico]. (By Paul Craig Roberts)
May 12th, 2015 by olddog
Barack Hussein Obama has served 14-State Governors in the United States with National Security Letters(NSLs) warning that the Governors’ actions in attempting to form “State Defense Forces” needs to be halted “immediately” or they will face arrest for the crime of treason.
The employment of NSLs was authorized by the Patriot Act introduced by George W. Bush. Contained within the section related to these letters, it is forbidden for anyone receiving a NSL warning to even acknowledge the existence of said communication.
Obama is angered by several State Governors who have reestablished “State Defense Forces.” These forces are described as:
“State Defense Forces (also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves, State Militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are not regulated by the National Guard Bureau nor are they part of the Army National Guard of the United States. State Defense Forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state. State Defense Forces are distinct from their state’s National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities.“
Mr. Obama is fearful of these State Defense Forces, in that he does not have control of said forces, and with the U.S. Military stretched to near breaking from multiple deployments and theatre actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, these State military forces would be under the direct command and authority of the Governors in which states have said forces. In essence, the Governors would have “de facto control” of the United States.
The two Governors leading this move are: Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota; and Rick Perry, Governor of Texas. Both of these State Governors stated they have:
…deep fear the President is destroying their Nation.
Governor Pawlenty’s fear of Obama is that since Obama took office he has appeased America’s enemies and has shunned some of America’s strongest allies, especially Israel. Governor Perry has declared that Obama is punishing his State of Texas by dumping tens-of-thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants into the cities and small towns of Texas. Governor Perry further recently stated:
If Barack Obama’s Washington doesn’t stop being so oppressive, Texans might feel compelled to renounce their American citizenry and secede from the union.
Obama fearing a revolution against him by the states, has moved swiftly by nationalizing nearly all National Guard Forces in multiple states; Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, Minnesota, Tennessee, Virginia, Louisiana, South Carolina – to name a few.
The Governors of the Great States of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia still have under their Command-and-Control the State Defense Forces to go against U.S. Federal forces should the need arise. Also important to note: There are NO U.S. laws prohibiting National Guard troops from also joining their State’s Defense Forces. This dilemma occurred during the Civil War with many “citizen soldiers” choosing to serve their states instead of the Federal Government.
Call your representatives and find out if your governor has been warned by OBUMA and if not demand your rep. relay your request to form a state militia and tell OBUMA to go piss up a rope. Who does this communist, traitor, niga think he is? Every State should have a State Militia!
March 9th, 2015 by olddog
“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.”- John Adams
Last Saturday the 03 07 15 I Re-Published two articles at these addresses
The Cataclysmic Conflict Yet to Come And What We Can Do To Stop It
and ROLLING STONE ROTHSCHILD CORRUPTION GOES MAINSTREAM
Those of you who have read both articles should well understand that the principles on which we were told America was founded on are now relics of the past. We who survive the next few years are going to have a life of living hell. I have no doubts that this condition is the results of our own apathy, and voracious pursuit of pleasure, but neither do I intend on accepting the living hell as though there is no other alternative. That “alternative” is something I am willing to die for!
Again, if you have read both articles, you have probably been reading others of similar content, but are now convinced that we are facing an enemy so powerful that we cannot even begin to recover our once free status as law abiding citizens. Do you see as I do that nothing can possibly be done to correct the present system of governance? There is no hope! America is lost!
So what do we do now?
The only acceptable answer is that we start over the same way we were told our ancestors did, by telling the powers that be to shove it up their ass, and refuse to comply, with the objective of rebuilding another America with the principle of freedom as the soul objective of a new set of rules that will control the new government from ever being coerced again. We have learned the hard way that to take our eyes off the government is to invite tyranny to creep back in, and that is why we will draft a document that leaves nothing to be questioned. We are a hell of a lot more experienced from having experienced this disaster, and know for certain that contracts will be broken just as soon as we take our eyes off of those who swear their allegiance to uphold them and protect our freedom. We are now ready to form a bullet proof document that will keep our administrators on the straight and narrow path of obedience, or lose their life in a very painful and unhurried manner.
We now know that it is not possible for hundreds of millions of people to govern their actions based only on their own desires, and a central concept of obedience to law is imperative to the security of our Nation and the people who populate it. That is what written doctrines are for, to explain in no uncertain terms what is and what is not permitted, and they should be written in the common mans vernacular, so as to leave no room for misinterpretation.
Today’s society has been brain washed to object to permanent and inflexible doctrines, and that leaves open the door of tyranny to creep in by the use of linguistic gymnast posing as judges and lawyers. We know better now. One cannot do or say everything that suddenly pops in our head, such as; I am going to beat that old bastard next door senseless for cussing out my children, just because they stepped on his flowers. NO YOU CANNOT DO THAT WITHOUT BEING SUED AND OR THROWN IN JAIL! OR, I AM GOING TO KILL THAT QUEER FOR RAPING MY SON, which means we must address the divisive problem of marriage and homosexuality. As human beings we are subject to various levels of intelligence and personal beliefs and inflexible laws are difficult for some people to obey, but never the less, every one must accept.
Those are the kind of problems we must address in our new Constitution in minute detail, so as to leave no room for error. A good example is the way commerce was left open to enumerable interpretations in our first Constitution. Read it, and see for yourself how lacking it is in determining what is and what is not lawful. Maybe the framers had writer’s cramps, or maybe they were paid to leave the door open for future profit. Who knows?
We are going to have to address the problem of multiple interpretations in how we conduct commerce, personal relations, Banking, currency, and many more subjects, but we simply cannot have any law that is not completely expanded and explained, and expect it to govern effectively, fairly and not have to wade through thousands of freedom limiting laws only lawyers can understand. We must also address the problem of international relations, and how to keep our Nation, our people, and our States as sovereigns, and make restitution for the atrocities we have committed to other Nations.
Whether we want a national government at all, or just a department must be examined. To leave open the door to hell because we have many thousands of opinions on every subject ever thought of is to admit we have not the intelligence or commitment to build a just and orderly society, because we want to do as we please, when we please, and to hell with other peoples idea of what is acceptable behavior. Suck it up Americans; we have work to do, and enemies to subdue.
OH, one more thing, if you think we can do this without Gods help, you have excrement for brains!!! God given rights means, no government, person, or other bodies, can override them, and (NO God) means, NO PERMANENT RIGHTS! That’s how we got in this mess. If you don’t like what I have written here, give me a better solution, and be prepared to participate in the rebirth of the greatest nation on earth. This time it will really be the people who design our future. firstname.lastname@example.org
I am not stupid enough to be unaware that some people will be very angry with me for this article, but I am ready and willing to take on all who are too stupid or bull headed to participate in a gentlemanly manor. Don’t F#$k with me! If you have nothing constructive to say, piss off!
January 31st, 2015 by olddog
By Paul Craig Roberts
Anyone paying attention knows that 9/11 has been used to create a police/warfare state. Years ago NSA official William Binney warned Americans about the universal spying by the National Security Agency, to little effect. Recently Edward Snowden proved the all-inclusive NSA spying by releasing spy documents, enough of which have been made available by Glenn Greenwald to establish the fact of NSA illegal and unconstitutional spying, spying that has no legal, constitutional, or “national security” reasons. Yet, Americans are not up in arms. Americans have accepted the government’s offenses against them as necessary protection against “terrorists.”
Neither Congress, the White House, or the Judiciary has done anything about the wrongful spying, because the spying serves the government. Law and the Constitution are expendable when the few who control the government have their “more important agendas.”
Bradley Manning warned us of the militarization of US foreign policy and the murderous consequences, and Julian Assange of WikiLeaks posted leaked documents proving it.
Were these whistleblowers and honest journalists, who alerted us to the determined attack on our civil liberty, rewarded with invitations to the White House and given medals of honor in recognition of their service to American liberty?
No. Bradley Manning is in federal prison, and so would be Julian Assad and Edward Snowden if Washington could get its hands on them.
Binney escaped the Police State’s clutches, because he did not take any documents with which to prove his allegations, and thus could be dismissed as “disgruntled” and as a “conspiracy kook,” but not arrested as a “spy” who stole “national secrets.”
Greenwald, so far, is too prominent to be hung for reporting the truth. But he is in the crosshairs, and the Police State is using other cases to close in on him.
These are only five of the many people who have provided absolute total proof that the Bill of Rights has been overthrown. Washington continues to present itself to the world as the “home of the free,” the owner of the White Hat, while Washington demonstrates its lack of mercy by invading or bombing seven countries on false pretenses during the past 14 years, displacing, killing, and maiming millions of Muslims who never raised a fist against the US.
Many commentators have written articles and given interviews about government’s ever expanding police powers. The totality of the American Police State is demonstrated by its monument in Utah, where an enormous complex has been constructed in which to store every communication of every American. Somehow a son or daughter checking on an aged parent, a working mother checking on her children’s child care, a family ordering a pizza, and sweethearts planning a date are important matters of national security.
Some educated and intelligent people understand the consequences, but most Americans perceive no threat as they “have nothing to hide.”
The Founding Fathers who wrote the Bill of Rights and attached it to the US Constitution did not have anything to hide, but they clearly understood, unlike modern day Americans, that freedom depended completely on strictly limiting the ability of government to intrude upon the person.
Those limits provided by the Founding Fathers are gone. The hoax “war on terror” demolished them.
Today not even the relationships between husband and wife and parents and children have any protection from arbitrary intrusions by the state.
Essentially, government has destroyed the family along with civil liberty.
Those insouciant Americans who do not fear the police state because they “have nothing to hide” desperately need to read: Home-schooled Children Seized By Authorities Still In State Custody:http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/gary-north/homeschool-children-kidnapped/
In Police State America, authorities can enter your home on the basis of an anonymous “tip” that you are, or might be, somehow, abusing your children, or exposing them to medicines that are not in containers with child-proof caps or to household bleach that is not under lock and key, and seize your children into state custody on the grounds that you present a danger to your children.
The government does not have to tell you who your accuser is. It can be your worst enemy or a disgruntled employee, but the tipster is protected. However, you and your family are not.
The authorities who receive these tips treat them as if they are valid. A multi-member goon squad shows up at your house. This is when the utterly stupid “I have nothing to hide” Americans discover that they have no rights, regardless of whether they have anything to hide.
We owe this police power over parents and children to “child advocates” who lobbied for laws based on their fantasies that all parents are serial rapists of children, and if not, are medieval torturers, trained by the CIA, who physically and psychologically abuse their children.
In the opinion of “child advocates,” children are brought into the world in order to be abused by parents. Dogs and cats and the fish in the fishbowl are not enough. Parents need children to abuse, too, just as the Police and the Police State need people to abuse.
Of course, sometimes real child abuse occurs. But it is not the routine event that the Child Protective Services Police assume. A sincere investigation, such as was missing in the report on the home-schooled children, would have had one polite person appear at the door to explain to the parents that there had been a complaint that their children were being exposed to a poisonous substance in the home. The person should have listened to the parents, had a look at the children, and if there was any doubt about the water purifier, ask that its use be discontinued until its safety could be verified.
But nothing sensible happened, because the Police State does not have to be sensible.
Instead, a half dozen goon thugs show up. The parents are put outside in the snow for 5 hours while the children are scared to death with questions and then carried away from their home, mother, and father.
In Police State America, this is called Protecting Children. We owe this tyranny to the idiot “child advocates.”
It is no longer important to protect children from homosexuals, unless the homosexuals are Catholic child pedophiles. But it is absolutely necessary to protect children from their parents.
So, yes, dear insouciant American fool, whether you have anything to hide or not, you are in grave danger, and so are your children, in Police State America.
You can no longer rely on the Constitution to protect you.
This is the only way that you can protect yourself: grovel before your neighbors, your co-workers, your employees and employers, and, most definitely, before “public authority” and your children, as your children can report you. Don’t complain about anything. Do not get involved in protests. Don’t make critical comments on the Internet or on your telephone calls. Don’t homeschool. Don’t resist vaccines. Turn your backs to leaders who could liberate you as it is too dangerous to risk the failure of liberation. Be an abject, cowardly, obedient, servile member of the enserfed, enslaved American population. Above all, be thankful to Big Brother who protects you from terrorists and Russians.
You, dear insouciant, stupid, American are back on the Plantation. Perhaps that is your natural home. In his masterful A People’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn documents that despite their best efforts the exploited and abused American people have never been able to prevail against the powerful private interests that control the government. Whenever in American history the people rise up they are struck down by brute force.
Zinn makes totally clear that “American freedom, democracy, liberty, blah-blah” are nothing but a disguise for the rule over America by money.
Wave the flag, sing patriot songs, see enemies where the government tells you to see them, and above all, never think. Just listen. The government and its presstitute media will tell you what you must believe.
More evidence of Police State America: http://www.globalresearch.ca/notes-on-police-violence-in-america-police-shoot-and-kill-two-teenage-girls-within-two-weeks/5428432
Does it piss you off to read the truth? Maybe you should grow a set and do a little protesting to your local citizen elected representative; you know him/her, the ones that dine with the Banking Cartel.
January 30th, 2015 by olddog
Although I have resisted attachment to libertarianism in the past, this article is the best first step to recovering our freedom. Here, you will find the most common sense method of governance possible if you will only read it with an open mind and consider the consequences of continuing like we presently are. We are not just being subjected to tyrannical governance, we are supporting it, which is as stupid as it gets. Open your mind to a better path to freedom. If the majority of the States and education were under our control, we could demand a better system of governance. The Banking Cartel cannot control our government if we don’t use their worthless paper, but we would probably have to defend our country from those Nations who do use it. Which suits me fine! I would much rather die fighting to support good governance than being subjected to one that claims the power to tell me which direction to wipe my ass!
Sam Adams told his fellow patriots in 1773 in the build-up to the Boston Tea Party, “It does not take a majority to prevail…but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
The Libertarian Principle of Secession
By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
For a century and a half, the idea of secession has been systematically demonized among the American public. The government schools spin fairy tales about the “indivisible Union” and the wise statesmen who fought to preserve it.
Decentralization is portrayed as unsophisticated and backward, while nationalism and centralization are made to seem progressive and inevitable. When a smaller political unit wishes to withdraw from a larger one, its motives must be disreputable and base, while the motivations of the central power seeking to keep that unit in an arrangement it does not want are portrayed as selfless and patriotic, if they are considered at all.
As usual, disinformation campaigns are meant to make potentially liberating ideas appear toxic and dangerous, conveying the message that anyone who seeks acceptance and popularity ought to steer clear of whatever it is – in this case, secession – the regime has condemned. But when we set the propaganda aside, we discover that support for secession means simply this: it is morally illegitimate to employ state violence against individuals who choose to group themselves differently from how the existing regime chooses to group them. They prefer to live under a different jurisdiction. Libertarians consider it unacceptable to aggress against them for this.
The libertarian principle of secession is not exactly embraced with enthusiasm by the people and institutions I call “regime libertarians.” Although these people tend to be located in and around the Beltway, regime libertarianism transcends geographical location, which is why I coined this special term to describe it.
The regime libertarian believes in the market economy, more or less. But talk about the Federal Reserve or Austrian business cycle theory and he gets fidgety. His magazine or institute would rather invite Janet Yellen for an exclusive cocktail event than Ron Paul for a lecture.
The regime libertarian loves the idea of reform – whether it’s the Fed, the tax code, government schools, whatever. He flees from the idea of abolition. Why, that just isn’t respectable! He spends his time advocating this or that “tax reform” effort, instead of simply pushing for a lowering or repeal of existing taxes. It’s too tough to be a libertarian when it comes to antidiscrimination law, given how much flak he’s liable to get, so he’ll side with left-liberals on that, even though it’s completely incompatible with his stated principles.
He is antiwar – sometimes, but certainly not as a general principle. He can be counted on to support the wars that have practically defined the American regime, and which remain popular among the general public. He sups in happy concord with supporters of the most egregiously unjust wars, but his blood boils in moral outrage at someone who told an off-color joke 25 years ago.
I suppose you can guess where our regime libertarian stands on secession. Since the modern American regime emerged out of the violent suppression of the attempted secession of eleven states, he, too, is an opponent of secession. If cornered, he may grudgingly endorse secession at a theoretical level, but in practice he generally seems to support only those acts of secession that have the approval or connivance of the CIA.
Mention secession, and the subject immediately turns to the southern Confederacy, whose moral enormities the regime libertarian proceeds to denounce, insinuating that supporters of secession must be turning a blind eye to those enormities. But every libertarian worthy of the name opposes any government’s support for slavery, centralization, nationalism, inflation, conscription, taxation, or the suppression of speech and press. That goes without saying.
We shouldn’t be surprised by this kind of charge, though. Accusing libertarians of sympathy for slavery because they oppose wars of centralization is the intellectual cousin of the regime’s familiar claim that opponents of the war in Iraq must have supported Saddam Hussein, or that opponents of US intervention in World War I were just apologists for the Kaiser. We expect juvenile nonsense like this from neoconservatives and from the regime itself. When it emerges from the pens of alleged libertarians, it says far more about them and their own allegiances than it does about us.
The classical liberal, or libertarian, tradition of support for secession can boast such luminaries as Alexis de Tocqueville, Richard Cobden, and Lord Acton, among many others. I’d like to add two more figures: in the 19th century, Lysander Spooner, and in the 20th, Frank Chodorov.
Spooner presents a real problem for the regime libertarians. Every libertarian acknowledges the greatness and importance of Spooner. The trouble is, he was an avowed secessionist.
Lysander Spooner was born in Massachusetts in 1808, and would go on to become a lawyer, an entrepreneur, and a political theorist. He believed that true justice was not so much a matter of compliance with man-made law, but a refusal to engage in aggression against peaceful individuals. His American Letter Mail Company competed successfully against the US Post Office, offering better service at lower prices, until the government forced him out of business in 1851.
His work No Treason, a collection of three essays, took the position that the Constitution, not having been agreed to by any living person and only ever expressly consented to by a small handful, cannot be binding on anyone.
In a work called The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, Spooner had argued that the primary interpretive key in understanding the Constitution was what we now call “original meaning.” This is different from “original understanding,” the concept referred to by figures like Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia. According to that view, we should interpret the Constitution according to the original intent of those who drafted and ratified that document. Spooner rejected this.
What mattered, according to Spooner, was not the inscrutable “intention” behind this or that word or passage, but rather the plain meaning of the word or passage itself. Furthermore, given that human liberty was a mandate of the natural law, anytime constitutional language might appear to run contrary to the principle of liberty, we ought to prefer some other meaning of the words in question, even if we have to strain a bit to do so, and even if the anti-liberty interpretation is the more natural reading.
Thus Spooner could claim, contrary to the majority of abolitionists, that the Constitution was in fact an anti-slavery document, and that its oblique and fleeting references to slavery – a word never used in the Constitution – did not have to carry the meanings commonly attributed to them. Frederick Douglass, the celebrated former slave turned abolitionist writer and speaker, adopted Spooner’s approach in his own work.
Spooner’s anti-slavery work went well beyond this exercise in constitutional exegesis. He provided legal services, sometimes pro bono, for fugitive slaves, and advocated jury nullification as a means of defending escaped slaves in court. His 1858 “Plan for the Abolition of Slavery,” called for insurrection in the South, as well as such lesser measures as flogging slaveholders who themselves used the whip, and encouraging slaves to confiscate their masters’ property. Spooner’s approach was informed by four principles with which he introduced his plan:
- That the Slaves have a natural right to their liberty.
- That they have a natural right to compensation (so far as the property of the Slaveholders and their abettors can compensate them) for the wrongs they have suffered.
- That so long as the governments, under which they live, refuse to give them liberty or compensation, they have the right to take it by stratagem or force.
- That it is the duty of all, who can, to assist them in such an enterprise.
Spooner was also a supporter of John Brown, and in fact raised money and formulated a plan to kidnap the governor of Virginia until Brown was released.
In other words, it would be difficult to deny Spooner’s dedication to the anti-slavery cause.
And yet here is Spooner on the so-called Civil War:
“On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.”
Ludwig von Mises gave succinct expression to the libertarian view of secession when he said, “No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want.” Simple.
According to Spooner, the US regime waged the war on behalf of the opposite principle. “The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.”
No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle – but only in degree – between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man’s ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.
Spooner was withering on the Lincoln regime and the northern mythology of the war and its allegedly noble origins. These were all “gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one,” he said.
By the logic of the regime libertarian, Spooner was a “neo-Confederate” defender of slavery – after all, he asserted the southern states’ right to withdraw from the Union! What other motivation could he have? But this is too preposterous even for them.
Spooner was correct about all of this, needless to say. The war was in fact launched not to free the slaves, as any historian must concede, but for purposes of mysticism – why, the sacred “Union” must be preserved! – and on behalf of economic interests. The regime libertarian expects us to believe that the analysis we apply to all other wars, in which we look beneath the official rationales to the true motivations, does not apply to this single, glorious exception to the catalogue of crimes that constitute the story of mankind’s experiences with military aggression.
Let’s turn now to the second libertarian figure I’ve chosen to discuss today. Frank Chodorov was one of the great writers of the Old Right. Liberty Fund published a collection of his writings, Fugitive Essays. The Mises Institute has brought four of his books back into print: Out of Step, Rise and Fall of Society, One Is a Crowd, and Income Tax Root of All Evil. Chodorov founded what was then called the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists, and served as an editor of Human Events, where the early presence of Felix Morley ensured that noninterventionist voices, at least at the beginning, would get a hearing. Murray N. Rothbard considered Chodorov’s monthly publication analysis to be one of the greatest independent publications in American history.
Naturally, Chodorov supported both secession and “states’ rights.” In fact, he thought every schoolchild should “become familiar with the history and theory of what we call states’ rights, but which is really the doctrine of home rule.”
Ralph Raico, the great libertarian historian and senior fellow of the Mises Institute, has documented how the decentralized political order of Europe made possible the emergence of liberty. The lack of a single political authority uniting Europe, and to the contrary a vast multiplicity of small jurisdictions, placed a strict limit on the ambitions of any particular prince. The ability to move from one place to another meant that a prince would lose his tax base should his oppressions grow intolerable.
Chodorov made the same observation:
When the individual is free to move from one jurisdiction to another, a limit is put on the extent to which the government may use its monopoly power. Government is held in restraint by the fear of losing its taxpaying citizens, just as loss of customers tends to keep other monopolies from getting too arrogant.
Chodorov noted that in the years leading up to the New Deal in 1933, various states had embarked upon quasi-socialistic experiments. He referred to a Wisconsin law, passed early in the Depression, that required restaurants to serve two ounces of Wisconsin-made cheese with every meal, whether or not the patron wanted the cheese. He mentioned the platform of the Farm-Labor party, which emerged in several states. What caused these and other such schemes to fail was people’s ability to move their capital and their physical bodies across state lines. The federal government’s socialism, on the other hand, can (in Chodorov’s words) “be made to operate somehow only because there is no escape from its constabulary.”
No tyrant ever supports divided or decentralized power, which is why twentieth-century totalitarians were such opponents of federalism. The US regime, too, has devoted over two centuries to dismantling the barriers that the states once imposed to the untrammeled exercise of power. As Chodorov put it, “The unlikelihood of getting the states to vote themselves out of existence turned the centralizers to other means, such as bribing the state authorities with patronage, alienating the loyalty of the citizenry with federal subsidies, establishing within the states independent administrative bodies for the management of federal works programs.”
Here’s how Chodorov concluded:
There is no end of trouble the states can give the centralizers by merely refusing to cooperate. Such refusal would meet with popular acclaim if it were supplemented with a campaign of education on the meaning of states’ rights, in terms of human freedom. In fact, the educational part of such a secessionist movement should be given first importance. And those who are plumping for a “third party,” because both existing parties are centralist in character, would do well to nail to their masthead this banner: Secession of the 48 states from Washington.
Now that is a libertarian speaking.
Secession is not a popular idea among the political and media classes in America, to be sure, and regime libertarians may roll their eyes at it, but a recent poll found about a quarter of Americans sympathetic to the idea, despite the ceaseless barrage of nationalist propaganda emitted from all sides. A result like this confirms what we already suspected: that a substantial chunk of the public is willing to entertain unconventional thoughts. And that’s all to the good. Conventional American thoughts are war, centralization, redistribution, and inflation. The most unconventional thought in America today is liberty.
This talk was delivered at the Mises Circle in Houston, Texas, on January 24, 2015.
July 12th, 2014 by olddog
Thomas Jefferson, the author of America’s July 4, 1776 Declaration of Secession from the British empire, was a lifelong advocate of both the voluntary union of the free, independent, and sovereign states, and of the right of secession. “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form,” he said in his first inaugural address in 1801, “let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.”
In a January 29, 1804 letter to Dr. Joseph Priestley, who had asked Jefferson his opinion of the New England secession movement that was gaining momentum, he wrote: “Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern . . . and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family…” Jefferson offered the same opinion to John C. Breckinridge on August 12, 1803 when New Englanders were threatening secession after the Louisiana purchase. If there were a “separation,” he wrote, “God bless them both & keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.”
Everyone understood that the union of the states was voluntary and that, as Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York stated in their constitutional ratification documents, each state had a right to withdraw from the union at some future date if that union became harmful to its interests. So when New Englanders began plotting secession barely twenty years after the end of the American Revolution, their leader, Massachusetts Senator Timothy Pickering (who was also George Washington’s secretary of war and secretary of state) stated that “the principles of our Revolution point to the remedy – a separation. That this can be accomplished without spilling one drop of blood, I have little doubt” (In Henry Adams, editor, Documents Relating to New-England Federalism, 1800-1815, p. 338). The New England plot to secede from the union culminated in the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814, where they ultimately decided to remain in the union and to try to dominate it politically instead. (They of course succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, beginning in April of 1865 up to the present day.)
John Quincy Adams, the quintessential New England Yankee, echoed these Jeffersonian sentiments in an 1839 speech in which he said that if different states or groups of states came into irrepressible conflict, then that “will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation…” (John Quincy Adams,>The Jubilee of the Constitution, 1939, pp. 66-69).
There is a long history of American newspapers endorsing the Jeffersonian secessionist tradition. The following are just a few examples.
The Bangor, Maine Daily Union once editorialized that the union of Maine with the other states “rests and depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each. When that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone, and no power exterior to the withdrawing [state] can ever restore it.” Moreover, a state can never be a true equal member of the American union if forced into it by military aggression, the Maine editors wrote.
“A war … is a thousand times worse evil than the loss of a State, or a dozen States” the Indianapolis Daily Journal once wrote. “The very freedom claimed by every individual citizen, precludes the idea of compulsory association, as individuals, as communities, or as States,” wrote the Kenosha, Wisconsin Democrat. “The very germ of liberty is the right of forming our own governments, enacting our own laws, and choosing or own political associates … The right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state.”
Using violence to force any state to remain in the union, once said the New York Journal of Commerce, would “change our government from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism” where one part of the people are “slaves.” The Washington (D.C.) Constitution concurred, calling a coerced union held together at gunpoint (like the Soviet Union, for instance) “the extreme of wickedness and the acme of folly.”
“The great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of American Independence, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,” the New York Daily Tribune once wrote, “is sound and just,” so that if any state wanted to secede peacefully from the union, it has “a clear moral right to do so.”
A union maintained by military force, Soviet style, would be “mad and Quixotic” as well as “tyrannical and unjust” and “worse than a mockery,” editorialized the Trenton (N.J.) True American. Echoing Jefferson’s letter to John C. Breckinridge, the Cincinnati Daily Commercial once editorialized that “there is room for several flourishing nations on this continent; and the sun will shine brightly and the rivers run as clear” if one or more states were to peacefully secede.
All of these Northern state editorials were published in the first three months of 1861 and are published in Howard Cecil Perkins, editor, Northern Editorials on Secession (Gloucester, Mass.: 1964). They illustrate how the truths penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence — that the states were considered to be free, independent, and sovereign in the same sense that England and France were; that the union was voluntary; that using invasion, bloodshed, and mass murder to force a state into the union would be an abomination and a universal moral outrage; and that a free society is required to revere freedom of association — were still alive and well until April of 1865 when the Lincoln regime invented and adopted the novel new theory that: 1) the states were never sovereign; 2) the union was not voluntary; and 3) the federal government had the “right” to prove that propositions 1 and 2 are right by means murdering hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens by waging total war on the entire civilian population of the Southern states, bombing and burning its cities and towns into a smoldering ruin, and calling it all “the glory of the coming of the Lord.”
[LewRockwell.com, July 4, 2014]
For those who have read this essay, does your heart not expand with the lust for freedom? Does the adrenalin of freedom not make you light headed? Can any one deny that this is what we need to enforce on the corporate scumbags that rule our country? Yes I agree there would be many problems to solve if America was not a slave state to the Banksters, but how little confidence would one have to not pursue it? Who care’s if the Vatican has title from the Dead King of England. We did not have a problem when we thought we were taking it by force. SO WHAT’S WRONG WITH DOING IT RIGHT THIS TIME? For those who have not been educated yet, here is the real history of America.
The King of England had seeded America, along with All the Kings holdings and power to the Pope to recover his soul for the sin of Divorce. The Banksters were hired by the Pope to control the Governments, and now we are sucking hind tit as slaves to the corporations that have managed to control the Government. America is run as a profit producing business as witnessed by all the laws they use to fine us. It’s all one huge extortion racket that has expanded globally. Pretty soon we will have to get a permit to take a crap. Hint, Never go through an air-port without some change in your pocket, just in case Nature Calls.
June 28th, 2014 by olddog
By Servando Gonzalez
Marx and Engels began their Communist Manifesto with a warning and a threat: “A specter is haunting Europe — the specter of Communism.” According to French economist Thomas Picketty, a new threatening specter is haunting the world: the specter of economic inequality.
According a reviewer, Picketty’s new book, Capital in the Twenty First Century, has almost overnight captivated “Main Street, Wall Street and the cream of Washington’s trend-minded policymakers and think tankers.”What is Picketty’s book main thesis? That the gap between the poor and the rich has reached dangerous levels. Picketty warns that the U.S. may be on the same trajectory as France before the Revolution, where the very rich ended with their heads chopped-off.
After analyzing data from the U.K., France, Germany, Japan and the U.S., Picketty proved with hard data what many people already have been talking about for many years: the rich really are getting richer, and their wealth is not trickling down. Actually, it is trickling up.
In his study, Picketty shows how the wealthy, who make their money mostly out of stock portfolios, pay less or no taxes at all and get richer, while the working middle class, who make their money out of heavily taxed paychecks, get poorer. But then, he jumps to the farfetched conclusion that the sure and only way to change this economic inequality is by modifying the current tax system. According to him, the current form of wealth tax is not adapted to the 21st century structure of wealth. The solution, according to Picketty, is adopting a more just, equitable global wealth tax.
A key to discovering the source of Picketty’s ideas is that the institution that funded his study is the Institute for New Economic Thinking, a George Soros-backed nonprofit organization. Therefore, it doesn’t come as a surprise that Picketty’s solution to the problem is exactly the one the hyper rich globalist conspirators have been pushing for many years, of lately disguised as a “carbon tax.”
But, though Picketty’s “discovery” that the one percent is getting richer and the rest of us are getting poorer is absolutely right, the solution he offers is not only simplistic but also outright naïve. Apparently Picketty believes that the hyper rich are not aware of the problem, and that, just by telling them that what they are doing is wrong (and immoral, unscrupulous, unethical, dishonest, criminal, wicked) they will change their evil ways
Unfortunately, that will not be the case. Nevertheless, whether they like it or not, the monster they have created will turn against them, because eventually a Ponzi scheme of this magnitude will end in disaster for the schemers themselves.
True Capitalism VS Monopoly Capitalism
Unknowingly, when Henry Ford decided to pay his workers twice the amount other companies were paying their workers for similar type of work, he jumpstarted the American middle class. As a result, well-paid workers were able to buy houses, cars, fridges, radio, TV sets, and many other household items that otherwise would have been available only to the rich. This unexpected economic phenomenon contributed to an expanding economic growth never seen before in the history of mankind.
This economic growth propelled the entrepreneurial spirit of many Americans to create their own private companies to provide the newly-created consumers with the products they wanted to buy. This started an upwardly expanding spiral of economic progress that extended for half a century.
Initially, these companies were individually or family-owned. Of course, the possibility of monetary gain was key in their efforts, but because they felt proud of the product they were creating, many of them gave their names to their companies.
Unfortunately, however, the bankers who illegally created the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913 needed a way to fill their arks, and the easiest way to do it was by stealing other people’s money. So, to steal it “legally,” they also imposed a federal tax and created the infamous Internal Revenue Service to enforce its collection.
In theory, all citizens were supposed to pay the federal tax. But, given the fact that the idea of a national tax was one of the planks of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, they created a progressive or graduated income tax as Marx advised. According to this plank, the more money you made the higher percent of taxes you were supposed to pay. Most people were happy, because this tax was supposed to hurt only the very rich.
But you have to be very naïve to believe that the very ones who created the tax were really going to pay it. Actually, they created a tax code full of loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Currently, if one is to believe Rush Limbaugh and other dis-informers, the U.S. has the highest corporate rate of the industrialized countries. What he never mentions, though, is that the U.S. Tax Code also has the highest number of loopholes.
Another method the robber barons invented to avoid paying taxes was by changing their private companies into corporations, but this opened a Pandora’s box. Contrary to privately owned companies, which have an emotional connection to the products they made, corporations are impersonal entities. Despite that the Supreme Court has asserted the legal standing that corporations are people, pride is an emotion corporations lack. Despite their pervasive propaganda, the corporations’ goal is not to serve society with the products they create. Their main goal is to maximize the earnings of their executives and stockholders, and they reach these goals mostly by exploiting their workers and eliminating the competition.
Most people would agree that competition is probably one of the best characteristics of true capitalism. Competition benefits customers and fuels innovation. No wonder monopoly capitalists hate it so much. John D. Rockefeller, the inventor of the trust (a monopoly of monopolies) once said, “Competition is a sin.”
This goal —maximize earnings by exploiting their workers and destroying the competition — have been exacerbated with globalization. With the implementation of the so-called “free trade,” transnational corporations have totally lost their link to the countries where they originally were created. Proof of it this their callousness when they decided to move their production lines to Third World countries in order to increase their profit margin.
One of the main costs of any business is paying the workers who create the product. So, to minimize this cost, they moved their factories abroad to countries where they hired quasi-slave workers who are paid miserly salaries. They never gave a thought to whatever would happen to the lives of the American workers and their families they were sending into unemployment and poverty.
The corporations who pioneered the outsourcing move got an immediate economic edge over the rest. They were producing cheaper products and selling them to the still employed American consumers at the same price as before, when they were produced here in the U.S. But, as most big corporations joined the outsourcing trend, the growing mass of workers who had lost their jobs now was not able to buy the products these corporations were now producing abroad and importing to the U.S. without paying any tariffs because of the “free trade” policies.”
This has created a downward economic spiral. While the corporations’ stockholders and top executives are getting richer, the American middle class of well-paid workers is in serious trouble. Currently, 90 million Americans are unemployed. The economic crisis we are now experiencing is the direct result of a economic phenomenon known as “the tragedy of the commons.”
The Current Tragedy of the Commons
The Tragedy of the Commons is an economics theory developed in 1833 by William Foster Lloyd, according to which individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one’s self-interest, behave contrary to the whole group’s long-term best interests by depleting some common resource.
To demonstrate his theory, Lloyd used as an example a group of herders sharing a common parcel of land on which they are each entitled to let their cows graze. In many English and European villages, shepherds sometimes grazed their sheep in common areas, and sheep ate the grass closer to the ground than cows. Overgrazing could result when, out of greediness, each shepherd adds additional sheep, and he could receive benefits, but just for a while, because if in the long run all herders made this individually rational economic decision, the common could be depleted or even destroyed, to the detriment of all.
In the present case, the common resource the greedy corporations are destroying is the American middle class of well-paid workers, and this is a real tragedy for everybody in America. As Lloyd predicted, eventually it will be a tragedy even for the very greedy transnational corporations that created the problem.
Unfortunately, some naïve or ill-intentioned politicians are trying to convince us that just by raising the minimum wage America’s economic problems will be solved overnight. But no. Far from solving it, rising the minimum wage would only serve to somewhat hide the true source of the problem for some time until it becomes intolerable. Actually, the minimum wage will very soon become the maximum wage for most American workers.
So, is there a right solution to this problem? Well, there is, but none of the politicians we elected allegedly to protect our interests will tackle it. The true problem is corporations, particularly the big transnational corporations, but our elected politicians will never bite the hand that feeds them.
For more than half a century, under the pretext of protecting the national security, We the People of the United States have been paying, with our blood and taxes, for a military whose only job has been to defend the spurious interests abroad of U.S.-based transnational corporations. Adding insult to outrage, most of these corporations pay no taxes at all. If they need and army to defend their billionaire enterprises abroad, the least they can do is to pay for it by hiring mercenaries to o the job.
No anti-American terrorist organization could have accomplished what U.S.-based transnational corporations are doing: destroying the middle class, America’s economic and social backbone. U.S.-based transnational corporations are the greatest threat to the national security of the United States. They are conspiring in the shadows to eliminate the sovereignty of all nations and impose a global government under their full control — a totalitarian communo-fascist government they call the New World Order.
U.S.-based transnational corporations are the true enemy of America. The choice cannot be clearer: either we get rid of them as soon as possible, or eventually they will completely destroy us.
© 2014 Servando Gonzalez – All Rights Reserved
- Rana Foroohar, “Marx 2.0: How Thomas Picketty’s Unlikely Blockbuster,Capital, Set the World’s Economists and Leaders Spinning,” Time, May 29, 2014, p.46.
2. Most big transnational corporations exhibit the characteristics associated with sociopathic behavior. They are manipulative and conning, have a grandiose sense of self, are pathological liars, lack remorse, shame or guilt, are callous and lack empathy, frequently engage in criminal behavior. This is a direct result of the fact that they are controlled by psychopaths. See, Andy McNab and Kevin Dutton, The Good Psychopath’s Guide to Success. See also, Theo Merz, “Why psychopaths are more successful. Andy McNab and Oxford psychology professor Kevin Dutton reveal how acting like psychopaths could help us in work, life and love,” Telegraph UK, May 7, 2014
3. See, Thom Hartmann, Unequal Protection: How Corporations Became “People.”
4. Big corporations spend a large amount of money in advertising campaigns whose only purpose is to convince you about how much they care for you, your family, the community and their own employees. The truth, however, is quite different. See, i.e., WalMart: The High Cost of Low Price, a documentary film by Robert Greenwald.
5. A March 23, 2013, article by Jerry Z. Muller in Foreign Affairs, “Capitalism and Inequality: What the Right and the Left Get Wrong,” expressed the idea that it is true that “inequality is indeed increasing almost everywhere in the postindustrial capitalist world. But Inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity, and expanding equality of opportunity only increases it — because some individuals and communities are simply better able than others to exploit the opportunities for development and advancement that capitalism affords.” What the author does not say, however, is that this inequality is not the result of expansion of true capitalism, but of monopoly capitalism. And monopoly capitalism, both in its communist and fascist varieties, is not capitalism but socialism.
6. See, Thom Hartman, Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class.
Share This Article
Click Here For Mass E-mailing
Servando Gonzalez, is a Cuban-born American writer, historian, semiologist and intelligence analyst. He has written books, essays and articles on Latin American history, intelligence, espionage, and semiotics. Servando is the author of Historia herética de la revolución fidelista, Observando, The Secret Fidel Castro: Deconstructing the Symbol, The Nuclear Deception: Nikita Khrushchev and the Cuban Missile Crisis and La madre de todas las conspiraciones: Una novela de ideas subversivas, all available at Amazon.com.
He also hosted the documentaries Treason in America: The Council on Foreign Relations and Partners in Treason: The CFR-CIA-Castro Connection, produced by Xzault Media Group of San Leandro, California, both available at the author’s site at http://www.servandogonzalez.org.
His book, Psychological Warfare and the New World Order: The Secret War Against the American People is available at Amazon.com. Or download a .pdf copy of the book you can read on your computer, iPad, Nook, Kindle or any other tablet. His book, OBAMANIA: The New Puppet and His Masters, is available at Amazon.com. Servando’s book (in Spanish) La CIA, Fidel Castro, el Bogotazo y el Nuevo Orden Mundial, is available at Amazon.com and other bookstores online.
His most recent book, I Dare Call It treason: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Betrayal of the America, just appeared and is available at Amazon.com and other bookstores online.
Servando’s two most recent books in digital versions only are The Swastika and the Nazis: A Study of the Misuse of the Swastika by the Nazis and the first issue of the political satire series OBSERVANDO: American Inventors.
Mr. Gonzalez is to be congratulated for a excellent article that has only one flaw, and that is; the International Investment Banking Cartel is the true head of the Corporate Elite, with a 30% investment strangle hold on the top money earners. Governments who are beholden to those who control the Nations debt are manipulated by the corporate elite and Bankers which leaves the people sucking hind teat. This is, the NEW WORLD ORDER, AND ONLY A GLOBAL AWAKENING OF THE PEOPLE CAN STOP IT. When they wake up there will be blood shed like nothing history can match. When you see it coming, head for the mountains, as blood lust will morph into mayhem, as the underprivileged take their vengeance against all who stand in their way. May God have mercy on us.
April 20th, 2014 by olddog
Received by email
Jan. 17 2013
TO THE EDITOR:
Republicans and “so called” conservatives are at it again. They are claiming that the Constitution gives people the right to have guns without the permission of the government. If that were true, then how could New York and Chicago have laws against it?
We Democrats are sick and tired of Republicans constantly using the Constitution to cover up their true plans, which are to make us all afraid of everyone else. Our great President came from a civilized part of the country where there is strict gun control, and he is only trying to bring the benefits of that more modern way of living to the rest of us.
I don’t know the exact statistics, but I’m quite certain the Chicago is a lot safer than Morehead City NC, when it comes to gun violence.
But do Republicans and Conservatives listen to the voice of reason? No, of course not! All they want to do is whine and complain about how gun control and wealth distribution violate the Constitution, as if the Constitution were all that great, anyway. There are a lot of things that need to be changed about the Constitution I’d say, and president Obama needs to change it.
The Republicans are just trying to stand in the way, because the President is Black. They even dared to question whether He was born in this country. I think that all this demonstrates that the Constitution needs to be amended when it comes to the qualifications for being President.
Right now it says that a person has to be thirty five years old, and to be a natural born citizen. Well that is obviously unfair because there are a great many otherwise qualified people who cannot run for President because their Mother had a C-section. But because the Constitution was written a hundred years ago, nobody even thought of the discrimination that would result from a Doctor having to deliver a baby in this unnatural way.
Now that we Democrats are in control of the government, that’s just one more thing we should change in order to make life fair.
Please withhold my name because I don’t want to receive crank calls.
Which-ever News Paper received this letter to the editor should have dispatched the funny farm cops to pick her/it/him up and take her/it/him to the psychiatric ward for a brain replacement. This is the classic dumbass attitude of government educated whacko’s who want everyone to be like them, and if they’re not, then force them to be. As for me and my house, we desire a separate government to live under, and preferably a different Continent. Stupidity is contagious! HAPPY EASTER FROM OLDDOG
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
April 12th, 2014 by olddog
All the attention over the vote by Crimeans to leave the Ukraine makes for a timely review of other separatist factions that are seeking a similar resolution. The list of active separatist movements in Europe is exhaustive.
The immediate impression is that a pervasive discontent, shared by legions of subjects, who want independence and self-determination, will be hard to derail. When European autocratic and aristocrats ruled, the only option was revolution. Today the descendants of the old regimes still wield power under the guise of democratically elected authorities. However, separatist sentiment does not mean the same to every splinter group.
Examine Europe's Latest Secession Movement: Venice, for a telling indicator.
An organization representing a coalition of Venetian nationalist groups, held an unofficial referendum on breaking with Rome. Voters were first asked the main question -"Do you want Veneto to become an independent and sovereign federal republic?" -followed by three sub-questions on membership in the European Union, NATO, and the eurozone . . .
As the referendum's organizers announced the results: 2,102,969 votes in favor of independence—a whopping 89 percent of all ballots cast—to 257,266 votes against. Venetians also said yes to joining NATO, the EU, and the eurozone.
Note the significance of wanting to be part of NATO and the EU.
Next, look at the more widely reported effort, in the land of "Braveheart" William Wallace. Scottish secession remains unlikely, but momentum is with the schismatics provides a more stately viewpoint from the Commonwealth.
After months of comfort for the pro-unionist ‘Better Together’ campaign, the most recent polls point to a tighter race with 40 percent of Scots supporting secession. With six months to go, the momentum appears to be with those seeking an amicable divorce.
Scottish independence would not lead to a republic. Queen Elizabeth II (I of Scotland) would remain head of state, a smart move by the ‘Yes’ campaign to de-radicalize independence and make the electorate feel more comfortable with a vote for change. The debate has therefore become more focused on incrementalism, with plans for an independent Scotland retaining both membership of NATO and the European Union, a common currency with the rest of the UK, and open borders.
A video from the Carnegie Council gives a spin in Which Separatist Movements Will Succeed, which plays down the urgent motivation for "FREEDOM" for an evolutionary approach.
An essay out of Wharton, Is Secession the Answer? The Case of Catalonia, Flanders and Scotland, points out the obvious, while illustrating the problematic.
It may seem paradoxical in an age of global communications, but the revival of regionalism "is a global phenomenon," notes Jacob Funk Kierkegaard, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington, D.C. think tank. Today’s high-speed technologies, including the Internet, "enable people to start a campaign and get out their message" quickly and repeatedly to like-minded people who might have harbored such desires in private.
Beyond its unique constitutional challenges, Catalonia faces another hurdle: The eurozone has a de facto veto over its independence. "If Catalonia becomes independent, will they [still] be part of the eurozone?" Kierkegaard asks, adding that, if Catalonia votes to secede, the EU response could be that "you will have to issue your own currency, and your banks will have no access to the European Central Bank. You won’t automatically have a seat on the ECB governing council.
In the Spanish situation, by contrast, the establishment would have you believe the militant Basques ETA nationalists harbor violent resolve. The YouTube Thousands March In Spain In Support Of ETA, reports that the EU labels this movement as terrorists. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the Catalan Sovereignty Claim Blocked by Spain Constitutional Court, is but a spillover effort to discredit Catalonia’s claim. "Sovereignty is "not contemplated in our constitution for nationalities and regions that make up the state" and no one can break the principle of the "indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation," the ruling said.
Such illustrations all exhibit unique local concerns and grievances, while sharing a basic distrust of national authority. What stands out is an anserine eagerness to remain part of the EU and NATO. This factor may be a distinctively European trait, which seems to be lacking in the proper understanding that the surrender of national authority to a body of central banksters, social technocrats and empire military mercenaries is the fundamental cause of popular dissatisfaction.
Pat Buchanan in the article, Is Red State America Seceding?, provides numerous other European examples of discontent, then goes on to cite secession initiatives in the United States. It is striking that our country's unique experience has a shape difference from the blue-blooded patricians’ clashes that mark the history of Europe. Because of this difference, the indigenous cultures on the continent have never developed the same passion for individual liberty, which is inborn in the American revolutionary spirit.
Applying the same principles defended in the View from the Mount essay, Secession Movement Ready to Take Hold, would serve our European cousins well, in breaking up the EU and their NWO oppression.
Governments fall, while a consensual nation state can still survive. With the destruction of an accepted traditionalistic national identity, time-honored heritage becomes the target of dictatorial "do gooders" who facilitate subjugation of independent self-governing states.
Blowing out the candles of federal absolutism is the imperative of our age. Secession is not a dirty word, but is an indispensable solution. Dissolving the union of the suppressed, under the auspices of the subverted elite, is the path to social freedom and human liberty.
Libertarian and author L. Neil Smith argues, "What happened in America in the 1860s was a war of secession, a war of independence, no different in principle from what happened in America in the 1770s and 1780s." Compare most of the secession movements in the 21th century as half measure efforts that are not willing to take on the yoke of the globalist central banking financial system. The lessons presented in the Radical Reactionary article, Representation, Secession and Taxation, should be applied and adopted by the European secession movements.
As discontent rises and practical solutions evaporate, that dirty historic sentiment begins to bubble to the surface, SECESSION. Russell D. Longcore provides a standard, when secession is a vital and justified option that many would accept.
Secession should be solemnly deliberated by the elected representatives and the state citizens. Secession should be initiated at the moment that any state reaches the point at which it will no longer accept the despotic tyranny and laws coming from the US Federal Government in Washington, DC. Or, secession should be initiated upon a collapse of the Dollar, or the imposition by Washington DC of martial law in the event of social upheaval.
Discontent is not enough to overthrow the tyrants, who have definitively proven, that a European Union based upon top down authoritarianism is a lawful substitute for locally ruled government based upon common ethics and cultural heritage.
The dramatic rise in opposition to the ruling elites is most encouraging in the eternal struggle against despotism. However, the European socialist welfare model has produced generations of soft stock and irresponsible subjects. Surrendering national sovereignty was the monumental failure of the post-war era. Open borders to a confederation of dissimilar ethnic groups, attracts the disparate and incongruent, which builds even more pressure for secession.
As it stands today, the prospects for successful secession movements to attain their independence and autonomy are slim because each are fragmented. The correct and necessary element for separation, must be based upon the dissolution of the European Union and the elimination of the central banking system under the control of the international banksters.
Countries need to exercise their proper authority to coin their own currencies and maintain low taxation levels that fund minimum governmental functions.
While such a goal and objective is justified, the globalist controllers will not allow a serene exit from the monolith that they created. Marginal regional self-rule may eventually be reluctantly recognized, only if the basic leviathan structure remain intact and accepted by disgruntled camps. Notwithstanding, that approach can and will never bring about a restoration of national self-determination.
It is time for secession movements to unite and coalesce around a few fundamental principles, which they all share. The regional concerns are issues for local administration. Taking on the monster of globalist governance is a universal task.
Consequently, the undertaking domestically is to build groundswell defiance that moves past a modest grassroots opposition to incorporate the bulk of the rapidly declining middle class. This genuine moral majority must be willing to marginalize the federal government and restore the rightful authority of individual state jurisdiction.
If timid and docile Europeans are engaging in secession movements in such significant numbers, what is the excuse for industrious and energetic Americans from doing the same? This was the country for the home of the brave. Now is the time to restore that outlook with direct action.
Original article archived here
SARTRE is the pen name of James Hall, a reformed, former political operative. This pundit's formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic Public Service, independent business interests were pursued in the private sector. Speculation in markets, and international business investments, allowed for extensive travel and a world view for commerce. SARTRE is the publisher of BREAKING ALL THE RULES. Contact email@example.com
You Might Also Like
The Hornets’ Nest of Vaccine Information
5 Warning Signs That Cancer Is Starting in Your Body
4 Hormones All Skinny People Have In Balance
DNA Nanobots Enter Living Organism For First Time – Human Trials Within 5 Years?
#1 WORST food for digestion (are you eating it?)
14 Embarrassing Sex Questions
Testosterone Booster Takes GNC By Storm
A 101 Year Old Marathon Runner Shares His Secret To Limitless Energy