Log in



Categories » ‘ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT’

War: Still a Racket

August 17th, 2015 by

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/36474/War-Still-a-Racket/

 By Philippe Gastonne

This Saturday marks one full year since the US military began its still-undeclared war against Islamic State that the government officials openly acknowledge will last indefinitely. What do we have to show for it? So far, billions of dollars have been spent, thousands of bombs have been dropped, hundreds of civilians have been killed and Isis is no weaker than it was last August, when the airstrikes began.

But don’t take it from me – that’s the conclusion of the US intelligence community itself. As the Associated Press reported a few days ago, the consensus view of the US intelligence agencies is that Isis is just as powerful as it was a year ago, and they can replace fighters faster than they are getting killed.

Like it does for every stagnant and endless war, this inconvenient fact will likely will only lead others to call for more killing, rather than an introspection on why continuing to bomb the same region for decades does not actually work. Perhaps we’re not firing missiles at a high enough rate, they’ll say, perhaps we need a full-scale ground invasion, or perhaps we need to kill more civilians to really damage the enemy. – The Guardian, Aug. 8, 2015

Like the proverbial frog in a kettle, the American public is almost completely unaware that its president is waging an illegal war. President Obama has been spending American blood and treasure in and around Syria for a full year now.

Whether attacking the Islamic State is necessary or advisable is beside the point. The War Powers Resolution clearly requires the president to withdraw from hostilities within 60 days unless Congress consents. It has not.

The administration contends that the 2001 authorization for military force against al Qaeda gives it authority to attack the Islamic State as an allied force. Yet al Qaeda and Islamic State are not even remotely allied. They are bitter enemies, in fact. By bombing the Islamic State, the U.S. is actually helping al Qaeda.

Why does Congress not defend its prerogative? Because our representatives and senators are cowards. Taking a vote would mean taking a stand, either for or against the action. The members fear (correctly) that opponents will use this stand against them in subsequent elections. Dodging responsibility is far easier. They retain the option to either claim credit or blame Obama, whichever is more expedient.

Keep in mind, this same Congress claims Obama has overstepped his authority in other areas and has taken many symbolic votes to prove it. They have filed lawsuits against him on matters far less serious than an illegal war. Yet in this case, they are happy to let him keep bombing. Why?

The real answer is that war is very profitable. The Pentagon must replace the expended weaponry, buy parts for its aircraft and pay contractors for all sorts of tasks. One man’s waste is another man’s profit margin. Those who profit from U.S. military action use their influence to make sure it continues.

War is a racket. It always has been and will always be so. The racketeers succeed because they have help from a cowardly Congress and a public obsessed with its bread and circuses.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Any Nation obsessed with immorality, diversity, self-centeredness, and cowardice will not survive if WAR is their only attribute. Sadly, America is at the point of imminent destruction and no-one seems to care enough to stand up and publically declare the right to reorganize its own Government. Let it be clear that we were given that right the second we were born, so why are you standing on the tracks while waiting on the train? I don’t mean to say that every person has the ability to be a leader, and to be honest a real leader is few and far between, but if the majority do not believe that  the present danger exist, that capable person is certainly intelligent enough to avoid certain death. My fellow Americans, unless you find a capable person to rally around and pledge your life to protecting him/her, and show the deadheads you will die for your freedom from economic tyranny and immorality then you most certainly will have to accept slavery FOREVER! It could begin by finding a capable Governor for each State who can organize a resistance in his/her own State against the tyrannical Corporation in D.C. and together compose a new contract between each State, and then appoint potential  candidates for protector of the contract. We don’t need an all powerful nation to show the world our strength, all we need is to be a good neighbor. That begins by EDUCATING THE PEOPLE and being honest with ourselves.

10 13 11 flagbar

OUR GOVERNMENT IS A CORPORATION

August 14th, 2015 by

http://parentsagainstmandatoryvaccines.wikispaces.com/Our+Government+is+a+Corporation

8-14-2015 1-23-54 PM

And so are our schools . . .

See also: What is Our Government . . . Really?

We are living in a duality that most don’t recognize. Many suspect things aren’t going well as jobs are outsourced, public utilities and roads are privatized, and our elected officials keep passing bills they don’t read and that don’t solve any of the “real” problems we face. Most of us feel that our elected officials don’t really represent us anymore. Why is that?

Because they don’t! They represent corporations aka our state, local and federal governments; GOVERNMENT, INC.
The corporatization of our governments (which started long ago) changed the role in government our elected officials play. Once they take office, they no longer represent the folks who voted for them, but become trustees (or employees) of the federal, state, or local corporations. [1]

This scam has been going on a long time [2], but we feel the results of it more each year.

  • Have you noticed how our elected officials are distant and difficult to reach once in office?
  • Have you noticed how no matter how valid our complaints are – we are ignored?
  • Have you noticed how few people ever get justice in our court system?

This is because we are primarily living under admiralty, maritime or business “contract” law not Common Law or Constitutional Law.

Many years ago (1851) the Ohio Constitution was created. From the Ohio Constitution:
We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution.

Article 1: Bill of Rights
§1 INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety. (1851)

Unfortunately that document does not represent the primary legal system currently being implemented. Instead, we are now living with the ‘rules’ aka ‘statutes’ that corporate government entities (i.e. the STATE OF OHIO) pass to govern ‘society’ and to ensure their control and revenue streams. And the police force has become the rule enforcement officers for ‘Government, Inc.’ To serve and protect the public, in most cases, is no longer their primary function. It is critical to remember that a corporation’s PRIMARY GOAL is to produce profits for that corporation. It is literally their legal “fiduciary” responsibility.

The definition of an act or a statute:
A legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed, as a rule, by a corporation.
By its own definition it is not law, it is only given the FORCE of law by the CONSENT of the GOVERNED. The only way to get CONSENT is through the implementation of signed contracts. Corporations are bound by the law of contracts, i.e. the Uniform Commercial Code.

Statutes are the rules made by incorporated government bodies so they can “do business”, i.e: extract money from and control the population.

The H1N1 flu “pandemic” and the pandemic response system, that has been constructed in Ohio over the past seven years [3], helps demonstrate how our current legal/government system works. Each legal entity involved has two names; one is the common name we are familiar with and the other is their commercial or business name as listed on the Dun and Bradstreet [4] web site.

Name the public recognizes Dun and Bradstreet Corporate Listing
United States of America UNITED STATES
Dept of Health and Human Services HEALTH & HUMANS SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
Center for Disease Control CDC
Ohio STATE OF OHIO
Ohio Governor EXECUTIVE OFFICE STATE OF OHIO
Ohio state legislators LEGISLATIVE OFFICE OF THE STATE OF OHIO
Ohio judges JUDICIARY/SUPREME COURTS OF THE STATE OF OHIO
Ohio Dept of Health HEALTH, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
Franklin County Health Dept FRANKLIN CO OH HEALTH
“My Town”, Ohio “MY TOWN”, CITY OF
“My Town” Board of Education [5] “MY TOWN” BOARD OF EDUCATION also traded as “MY TOWN” SCHOOL DISTRICT and “MY TOWN” SCHOOLS

Corporate government entities involved with public health and vaccination programs
In 2006-2007 the UNITED STATES government gave OH $13.8 million (as payment per contract aka cooperative agreement) for the pandemic planning that the STATE OF OHIO had completed. This pandemic planning included 1) the passage of Senate Bill/House Bill 6 redefining public health “rules” aka “statutes” in 2003 and 2) the completion of a pandemic policy manual, Limitations of Movement and Infection Control Practices, in 2005 by HEALTH, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF. This was a business/contractual arrangement between the UNITED STATES and the STATE OF OHIO. [details]

Senate Bill/House Bill 6
The CEO (director of health) of HEALTH, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF [6] (Ohio Revised Code: 3701.03) was granted authority to:

  • raise money for Ohio Department of Health [7] (ORC 3701.04) by selling their services to anyone they choose
  • accept and spend money raised as a gift, bequest or contribution for the purpose the gift, bequest or contribution was made [8] (ORC: 3701.04)
  • order home or business invasions of those who are suspected of violating their “health rules” with little or no justification (violation of Article 1, §15 of the Bill of Rights – Ohio Constitution) [9] (ORC: 3701.06)
  • quarantine and/or isolate anyone with little or no justification [10] (ORC: 3701.13). This is in direct violation of Article 1, §1 and §8 of the Bill of Rights – Ohio Constitution.

Limitations on Movement and Infection Control Practices sites the “statutes” that public health officials can refer to as legal authority to enforce actions against the public regarding forced vaccinations, property searches and quarantine/isolation

Then in April 2009, the STATE OF OHIO and OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH accepted $7.5 million from the UNITED STATES government for OH’s statewide H1N1 vaccination program, which included the

School-located Vaccination (SLV) program.

In Sept 2009 I contacted the elected Board Members (BOARD OF EDUCATION) of my local school district and expressed my grave concerns regarding the dangerous/untested H1N1 vaccine and the implementation of their mass school vaccination program. I received a formal letter as a response. The President of the BOE stated their intentions to proceed with the mass vaccination program. She also acknowledged that a business arrangement had been entered into with Franklin County Board of Health (FCOH). ” . . . our school district and all school districts in the central Ohio area have a memorandum of understanding with the Board of Health . . . ” As I have not seen the actual Memorandum of Understanding the BOE signed, I do not know the date. But, essentially these memorandums precede cooperative agreements. School districts have entered into business contracts whereby they will get paid after allowing the mass vaccination program of the children in their schools. The school districts were incorporated by legislation passed in Ohio in the 50s. However, it is important to remember that no law or “statute” allows for the school board to authorize child endangerment [11], which is a felony. [12] The H1N1 vaccine is an experimental untested vaccine and the risk of vaccine injury is quite high. [13]

While the public naively believes Government, Inc. represents the taxpayers, Government Inc. is much like Business Inc., i.e. “They have no soul to save and they have no body to incarcerate” [14]. But, unlike Business Inc, Government Inc. can (and does) pass statutes giving themselves legal immunity from most of their unscrupulous business arrangements that cause harm to the general public – and there are many! This is the mechanism that allows those who are profiting from (Business Inc) and those who are administering (Government Inc) the dangerous/experimental H1N1 vaccination programs to our school children – to do so with impunity. . . so far.

Supporting Supreme Court DecisionClearfield Doctrine
Supporting Supreme Court Decision explained by a Judge:

Judge Says USA INC is Just a Corporate Franchise Network

Supporting documentaries:
Exposé on Business, Inc: The Corporation
Exposé on Government, Inc: Corporation Nation

And It’s an Illusion

ENDNOTES:

[1] Here is a short explanation as to when and how our government was turned into a corporate entity:

Our government is just another corporation
[2] For an excellent explanation as to when and how our legal system was established and manipulated read Common Law at the DetaxCanada web site: http://detaxcanada.org/cmlawintro.htm
[3] Both House Bill 6 and Senate Bill 6 were passed in 2003 and changed the “rules” regarding public health policies and authorities.
[4] The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation (NYSE: DNB), headquartered in Short Hills, New Jersey, USA, is a provider of credit information on businesses and corporations. Often referred to as just D&B, the company is perhaps best known for its D-U-N-S (Data Universal Numbering System) identifiers assigned to over 150 million global companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dun_%26_Bradstreet
The DUN System is utilized by many major banks/lenders, insurance and finance companies as well as municipalities, Federal agencies and endorsed by the European Union as the primary identification system for International business assessment and validation throughout the world. The DUNS/BIR (Business Information Report) is required for many US federal government transactions, so are widely used as a leveraging tool to win bids and portray a stable and creditworthy business, able to meet its obligations and can validate what it professes. The System is frequently used for corporate research.
[5] ORC 3313.17 Corporate powers of the board.
“The board of education of each school district shall be a body politic and corporate, and, as such, capable of suing and being sued, contracting and being contracted with, acquiring, holding, possessing, and disposing of real and personal property, and taking and holding in trust for the use and benefit of such district, any grant or devise of land and any donation or bequest of money or other personal property.”
Effective Date: 10-01-1953
[6] 3701.03 General duties of director of health.
(A) The director of health shall perform duties that are incident to the director’s position as chief executive officer of the department of health. The director shall administer the laws relating to health and sanitation and the rules of the department of health. The director may designate employees of the department and, during a public health emergency, other persons to administer the laws and rules on the director’s behalf.
(B) Nothing in this section authorizes any action that prevents the fulfillment of duties or impairs the exercise of authority established by law for any other person or entity.
Effective Date: 02-12-2004
[7] 3701.04 Director of health – powers and duties.
(B) The director of health may enter into agreements to sell services offered by the department of health to boards of health of city and general health districts and to other departments, agencies, and institutions of this state, other states, or the United States. Fees collected by the director for the sale of services shall be deposited into the state treasury to the credit of the general operations fund created in section 3701.83 of the Revised Code.
Effective Date: 02-12-2004; 04-14-2006
[8] 3701.04 Director of health – powers and duties.
. . . and expend the grant, gift, devise, bequest, or contribution for the purpose for which made.
Effective Date: 02-12-2004; 04-14-2006
[9] 3701.06 Right of entry to investigate violations.
The director of health and any person the director authorizes may, without fee or hindrance, enter, examine, and survey all grounds, vehicles, apartments, buildings, and places in furtherance of any duty laid upon the director or department of health or where the director has reason to believe there exists a violation of any health law or rule.
Effective Date: 02-12-2004
[10] 3701.13 Department of health – powers.
The department of health shall have supervision of all matters relating to the preservation of the life and health of the people and have ultimate authority in matters of quarantine and isolation, which it may declare and enforce, when neither exists, and modify, relax, or abolish, when either has been established. The department may approve methods of immunization against the diseases specified in section 3313.671 of the Revised Code for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of that section and take such actions as are necessary to encourage vaccination against those diseases.
Effective Date: 02-12-2004; 05-06-2005
[11] To surrender children to public health officials, while they are in school, for the purpose of the administration of dangerous untested vaccines (that have harmed many children) is not protecting the child but exposing him/her to potentially serious injury.
[12] Ohio Legal Services:

http://www.ohiolegalservices.org/public

/legal_terms_dictionary/child-endangerment
[13] Exposed by Dr Roby Mitchell’s in depth analysis of the vaccine package insert
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqEeQzMGzzc
[14] Quote of Baron Thurlow describing corporations.

All Rights Reserved
Redistribution permitted provided author/website accredited and link to original displayed.
Contact author at sayno2flushots@gmail.com

10 13 11 flagbar

Don’t Be Fooled by the Political Game: The Illusion of Freedom in America

August 12th, 2015 by

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/36471/John-Whitehead-

Dont-Be-Fooled-by-the-Political-Game-The-Illusion-of-Freedom

-in-America/?uuid=D61DE0D0-0752-0845-33435892AAF62EB6

8-12-2015 8-07-24 AM

By John Whitehead

Being a citizen in the American corporate state is much like playing against a stacked deck: you’re always going to lose.

The game is rigged, and “we the people” keep getting dealt the same losing hand. Even so, most stay in the game, against all odds, trusting that their luck will change.

The problem, of course, is that luck will not save us. As I make clear in my book, Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the people dealing the cards—the politicians, the corporations, the judges, the prosecutors, the police, the bureaucrats, the military, the media, etc.—have only one prevailing concern, and that is to maintain their power and control over the citizenry, while milking us of our money and possessions.

It really doesn’t matter what you call them—Republicans, Democrats, the 1%, the elite, the controllers, the masterminds, the shadow government, the police state, the surveillance state, the military industrial complex—so long as you understand that while they are dealing the cards, the deck will always be stacked in their favor.

Incredibly, no matter how many times we see this played out, Americans continue to naively buy into the idea that politics matter, as if there really were a difference between the Republicans and Democrats (there’s not).

As if Barack Obama proved to be any different from George W. Bush (he has not). As if Hillary Clinton’s values are any different from Donald Trump’s (with both of them, money talks). As if when we elect a president, we’re getting someone who truly represents “we the people” rather than the corporate state (in fact, in the oligarchy that is the American police statean elite group of wealthy donors is calling the shots).

Politics is a game, a joke, a hustle, a con, a distraction, a spectacle, a sport, and for many devout Americans, a religion.

In other words, it’s a sophisticated ruse aimed at keeping us divided and fighting over two parties whose priorities are exactly the same. It’s no secret that both parties support endless war, engage in out-of-control spending, ignore the citizenry’s basic rights, have no respect for the rule of law, are bought and paid for by Big Business, care most about their own power, and have a long record of expanding government and shrinking liberty.

Most of all, both parties enjoy an intimate, incestuous history with each other and with the moneyed elite that rule this country. Don’t be fooled by the smear campaigns and name-calling. They’re just useful tactics of the psychology of hate that has been proven to engage voters and increase voter turnout while keeping us at each other’s throats.

Despite the jabs the candidates volley at each other for the benefit of the cameras, they’re a relatively chummy bunch away from the spotlight, presenting each other with awards (remember when Jeb Bush presented Hillary Clinton with a Liberty Medal for her service to the country), attending each other’s weddings (Bill and Hillary had front-row seats for Trump’s 2005 wedding), and embracing with genuine affection.

Trump’s various donations to the Clintons (he donated to Hillary’s Senate campaigns, as well as the Clinton Foundation) are not unusual. Remember, FOX News mogul Rupert Murdoch actually hosted a fundraiser for Hillary’s Senate reelection campaign back in 2006 and contributed to her presidential campaign two years later. In fact, FOX News has reportedly been one of Hillary’s biggest donors for the better part of two decades.

Are you starting to get the picture? It doesn’t matter who wins the White House, because they all work for the same boss: Corporate America. In fact, many corporations actually hedge their bets on who will win the White House by splitting their donations between Democratic and Republican candidates.

We’re in trouble, folks, and picking a new president won’t save us.

Just consider how insidious, incestuous and beholden to the corporate elite the various “parts” of the government mechanism have become.

Congress. Perhaps the most notorious offenders and most obvious culprits in the creation of the corporate-state, Congress has proven itself to be both inept and avaricious, oblivious champions of an authoritarian system that is systematically dismantling their constituents’ fundamental rights. Long before they’re elected, Congressmen are trained to dance to the tune of their wealthy benefactors, so much so that they spend two-thirds of their time in office raising money.

The President. With the 2016 presidential election shaping up to be the most expensive one in our nation’s history, with estimates as high as $10 billion, “the way is open for an orgy of spending by well-heeled interest groups and super rich individuals on both political sides.” Yet even after the votes have been counted and favors tallied, the work of buying and selling access to the White House is far from over. Such access comes with a steep price tag.

The Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court—once the last refuge of justice, the one governmental body really capable of rolling back the slowly emerging tyranny enveloping America—has instead become the champion of the American police state, absolving government and corporate officials of their crimes while relentlessly punishing the average American for exercising his or her rights. Indeed, law professor Erwin Chemerinsky makes a compelling case that the Supreme Court, whose “justices have overwhelmingly come from positions of privilege,” almost unerringly throughout its history, sides with the wealthy, the privileged, and the powerful.

The Media. Of course, this triumvirate of total control would be completely ineffective without a propaganda machine provided by the world’s largest corporations. Besides shoving drivel down our throats at every possible moment, the so-called news agencies which are supposed to act as bulwarks against government propaganda have instead become the mouthpieces of the state. The pundits which pollute our airwaves are at best court jesters and at worst propagandists for the false reality created by the American government.

The American People. “We the people” now belong to a permanent underclass in America. It doesn’t matter what you call us—chattel, slaves, worker bees, drones, it’s all the same—what matters is that we are expected to march in lockstep with and submit to the will of the state in all matters, public and private. Through our complicity in matters large and small, we have allowed an out-of-control corporate-state apparatus to take over every element of American society.

Our failure to remain informed about what is taking place in our government, to know and exercise our rights, to vocally protest, to demand accountability on the part of our government representatives and at a minimum to care about the plight of our fellow Americans has been our downfall.

Now we find ourselves once again caught up in the spectacle of another presidential election, and once again the majority of Americans is acting as if this election will make a difference and bring about change—as if the new boss will be any different from the old boss.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Come on John, admit it you’re working both sides of the table until you give up your bar credentials. You are also laying a smoke screen between what you call Corporate America and the International Investment Banking Cartel. How about publishing all of their names and the hierarchy ranking.

10 13 11 flagbar

FBI SAYS THAT CITIZENS SHOULD HAVE NO SECRETS THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T ACCESS: THE ORWELLIAN CYBER POLICE STATE HAS ARRIVED

August 11th, 2015 by

http://www.naturalnews.com/050653_police_state_national_security_FBI.html

By: J. D. Heyes

The police and surveillance state predicted in the forward-looking 1940s classic “1984” by George Orwell, has slowly, but steadily, come to fruition. However, like a frog sitting idly in a pan of steadily-warming water, too many Americans still seem unaware that the slow boil of big government is killing their constitutional liberties.

The latest sign of this stealth takeover of civil rights and freedom was epitomized in recent Senate testimony by FBI Director James Comey, who voiced his objections to civilian use of encryption to protect personal data – information the government has no automatic right to obtain.

As reported by The New American, Comey testified that he believes the government’s spy and law enforcement agencies should have unfettered access to everything Americans may store or send in electronic format: On computer hard drives, in so-called i-clouds, in email and in text messaging – for our own safety and protection. Like many in government today, Comey believes that national security is more important than constitutional privacy protections or, apparently, due process. After all, aren’t criminals the only ones who really have anything to hide?

In testimony before a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee entitled “Going Dark: Encryption, Technology, and the Balance Between Public Safety and Privacy” Comey said that in order to stay one step ahead of terrorists, as well as international and domestic criminals, Uncle Sam’s various spy and law enforcement agencies should have access to available technology used to de-encrypt protected data. Also, he believes the governmentshould be the final arbiter deciding when decryption is necessary.

What could go wrong there?

Find more articles on the police state at PoliceState.news

Government, at all levels, is responsible

During the hearing, TNA reported, technology experts warned the panel that giving the FBI limitless access to the personal electronic data of Americans would open it up to exploitation by “bad actors.” But Comey was having none of that.

“It is clear that governments across the world, including those of our closest allies, recognize the serious public safety risks if criminals can plan and undertake illegal acts without fear of detection,” he told the committee.

“Are we comfortable with technical design decisions that result in barriers to obtaining evidence of a crime?”
So, in essence, Comey  like many before him, especially since the global war on terror was launched – believes that, in the name of national security Americans ought to give up more of their individual and constitutional rights because that’s the only way we can be adequately protected.

Perhaps realizing that his Senate hearing testimony was public, Comey gave the Constitution a passing glance, noting that the government should respect the “requirements and safeguards of the laws” and the country’s founding document. However, as Americans now know, spy agencies during the past two presidential administrations have been tasked increasingly with conducting warrantless, unchecked surveillance of Americans’ electronic data and communications.

But all of this is not on men like Comey and Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Congress bears its share of responsibility, too.

This is the way it is – shut up and take it

When such activities of the National Security Agency were exposed in 2013 by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, many in the media and among the American electorate were quick to blame the agency, as if it was somehow acting out of rogue instinct.

The reality is, however, that the agency is tasked to perform its duties– either by statutory law (think the USA Patriot Act) or by presidential directive (think Bush’s order after 9/11 to conduct warrantless surveillance).

“We are not asking to expand the government’s surveillance authority, but rather we are asking to ensure that we can continue to obtain electronic information and evidence pursuant to the legal authority that Congress has provided to us to keep America safe,” Comey said during the Senate hearing.

What does all this mean? It simply means that at every level, government considers its own citizens hostile.

OH, AND THERE’S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT!

Supreme Court: Citizens cannot challenge government surveillance laws

http://www.naturalnews.com/039307_Supreme_Court_

surveillance_government.html#ixzz3iVovidtX

By  J. D. Heyes

A “sharply divided” U.S. Supreme Court erected yet another barrier between the people and their government on Feb. 26 by ruling that ordinary citizens don’t have standing to question government surveillance laws.

In a five to four ruling, a majority of justices threw out a bid by a group of lawyers, journalists and other organizations to challenge a 2008 expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, ostensibly because they could not prove the government would monitor their conversations in addition to those of potential intelligence targets and terrorist operatives.

In writing for the court’s majority, Justice Samuel Alito said his colleagues “have been reluctant to endorse standing theories that require guesswork.”

Your concerns are not founded, slave

The act first became law in 1978. It gives the government authority to monitor conversations of foreign spies, terrorist subjects and others abroad for the purpose of collecting intelligence.

In 2008, new FISA amendments “allow the government to obtain from a secret court broad, yearlong intercept orders, raising the prospect that phone calls and emails between those foreign targets and innocent Americans in this country would be swept under the umbrella of surveillance,” The Associated Press reported.

However, without actual proof that the law would directly affect American citizens, Alito said in the court’s ruling that citizens would not be able to sue.

Regardless of their documented concerns, along with the expense of activities some Americans have taken to make sure they aren’t swept up in officially sanctioned government monitoring, they “have set forth no specific facts demonstrating that the communications of their foreign contacts will be targeted,” Alito added.

He also said the expansion of FISA only authorized, but does not direct or mandate, the government surveillance. And because of that provision, “respondents’ allegations are necessarily conjectural.”

“Simply put, respondents can only speculate as to how the attorney general and the Director of National Intelligence will exercise their discretion in determining which communications to target,” Alito wrote.

He was joined in his decision by Chief Justice John Roberts, the man who invented the constitutionality of Obamacare out of thin air, along with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

The minority gets one right

Writing in dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have permitted the lawsuit to move ahead because he thinks “the government has a strong motive to listen to conversations of the kind described.”

“We need only assume that the government is doing its job (to find out about, and combat terrorism) in order to conclude that there is a high probability that the government will intercept at least some electronic communication to which at least some of the plaintiffs are party,” Breyer said.

The majority of justices are incorrect when they describe the harm threatened plaintiffs as “speculative,” Breyer added.

He was joined in his dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Originally, a federal judge threw out the lawsuit, saying plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. However, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the suit. The high court was not considering the constitutionality of the law’s expansion, but rather whether lawyers could file a lawsuit to challenge it in federal court.

High court’s solution: Wait until you’ve been violated

Jonathan Hafetz, a former ACLU attorney and an expert on national security and privacy issues who also teaches at Seton Hall University‘s law school, told AP, “The decision effectively insulates the government’s increasingly broad surveillance powers from meaningful court review, threatening constitutional liberties in the name of secrecy and security.”

The ACLU represented the plaintiffs before the Supreme Court.

In writing his opinion, Alito emphasized the court’s role, saying the ruling did not prevent the expansion of FISA from judicial scrutiny or review, even going so far as to suggest a couple of ways in which a challenge to the law could be brought to court.

“It is possible that the monitoring of the target’s conversations with his or her attorney would provide grounds for a claim of standing on the part of the attorney,” Alito said. “Such an attorney would certainly have a stronger evidentiary basis for establishing standing than do respondents in the present case.”

In late December, President Obama quietly reauthorized FISA, which was set to expire at the end of 2012. (http://www.naturalnews.com)

10 13 11 flagbar

 

The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives.

August 8th, 2015 by

http://www.trueactivist.com/the-real-reason-america-used-nuclear-

weapons-against-japan-it-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/

8-8-2015 10-01-18 AM

By Washington’s Blog / globalresearch.ca

 

Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives.

But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise.

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:

The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike

Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380):

In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude….

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

General Douglas MacArthur agreed (pg. 65, 70-71):

MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed …. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.

Moreover (pg. 512):

The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.

Similarly, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500):

I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.

Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said:

I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted.

***

In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn’t have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb.

War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.

He also noted (pg. 144-145, 324):

It definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn’t get any imports and they couldn’t export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in.

General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force “hawk,” stated publicly shortly before the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan:

The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

The Vice Chairman of the U.S. Bombing Survey Paul Nitze wrote (pg. 36-37, 44-45):

[I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.

***

Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary.

Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias wrote:

Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.

Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.

I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds.

Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.

Brigadier General Carter Clarke – the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors – said (pg. 359):

When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.

Many other high-level military officers concurred. For example:

The commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. Also, the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz was reported to have said in a press conference on September 22, 1945, that “The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia’s entry into the war.” In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.” It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower’s assessment was “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.” Eisenhower also stated that it wasn’t necessary for Truman to “succumb” to [the tiny handful of people putting pressure on the president to drop atom bombs on Japan.]

British officers were of the same mind. For example, General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, said to Prime Minister Churchill that “when Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.”

On hearing that the atomic test was successful, Ismay’s private reaction was one of “revulsion.”

Why Were Bombs Dropped on Populated Cities Without Military Value?

Even military officers who favored use of nuclear weapons mainly favored using them on unpopulated areas or Japanese military targets … not cities.

For example, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss proposed to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal that a non-lethal demonstration of atomic weapons would be enough to convince the Japanese to surrender … and the Navy Secretary agreed (pg. 145, 325):

I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate… My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood… I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest… would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will… Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation

It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world…

General George Marshall agreed:

Contemporary documents show that Marshall felt “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave–telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers….”

As the document concerning Marshall’s views suggests, the question of whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified turns … on whether the bombs had to be used against a largely civilian target rather than a strictly military target—which, in fact, was the explicit choice since although there were Japanese troops in the cities, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was deemed militarily vital by U.S. planners. (This is one of the reasons neither had been heavily bombed up to this point in the war.) Moreover, targeting [at Hiroshima and Nagasaki] was aimed explicitly on non-military facilities surrounded by workers’ homes.

Historians Agree that the Bomb Wasn’t Needed

Historians agree that nuclear weapons did not need to be used to stop the war or save lives.

As historian Doug Long notes:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission historian J. Samuel Walker has studied the history of research on the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan. In his conclusion he writes, “The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisors knew it.” (J. Samuel Walker, The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update, Diplomatic History, Winter 1990, pg. 110).

Politicians Agreed

Many high-level politicians agreed. For example, Herbert Hoover said (pg. 142):

The Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945…up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; …if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs.

Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew noted (pg. 29-32):

In the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.

If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer.

Why Then Were Atom Bombs Dropped on Japan?

If dropping nuclear bombs was unnecessary to end the war or to save lives, why was the decision to drop them made? Especially over the objections of so many top military and political figures?

One theory is that scientists like to play with their toys:

On September 9, 1945, Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet, was publicly quoted extensively as stating that the atomic bomb was used because the scientists had a “toy and they wanted to try it out . . . .” He further stated, “The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment . . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it.”

However, most of the Manhattan Project scientists who developed the atom bomb were opposed to using it on Japan.

Albert Einstein – an important catalyst for the development of the atom bomb (but not directly connected with the Manhattan Project) – said differently:

“A great majority of scientists were opposed to the sudden employment of the atom bomb.” In Einstein’s judgment, the dropping of the bomb was a political – diplomatic decision rather than a military or scientific decision.

Indeed, some of the Manhattan Project scientists wrote directly to the secretary of defense in 1945 to try to dissuade him from dropping the bomb:

We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear bombs for an early, unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable. If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.

Political and Social Problems, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 76, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 323-333).

The scientists questioned the ability of destroying Japanese cities with atomic bombs to bring surrender when destroying Japanese cities with conventional bombs had not done so, and – like some of the military officers quoted above – recommended a demonstration of the atomic bomb for Japan in an unpopulated area.

The Real Explanation?

History.com notes:

In the years since the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, a number of historians have suggested that the weapons had a two-pronged objective …. It has been suggested that the second objective was to demonstrate the new weapon of mass destruction to the Soviet Union. By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War.

New Scientist reported in 2005:

The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.

Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.

“He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species,” says Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, US. “It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity.”

***

[The conventional explanation of using the bombs to end the war and save lives] is disputed by Kuznick and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, US.

***

New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.

According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden.

John Pilger points out:

The US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was “fearful” that the US air force would have Japan so “bombed out” that the new weapon would not be able “to show its strength”. He later admitted that “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb”. His foreign policy colleagues were eager “to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip”. General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: “There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis.” The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the “overwhelming success” of “the experiment”.

We’ll give the last word to University of Maryland professor of political economy – and former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State – Gar Alperovitz:

Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945. Moreover, this essential judgment was expressed by the vast majority of top American military leaders in all three services in the years after the war ended: Army, Navy and Army Air Force. Nor was this the judgment of “liberals,” as is sometimes thought today. In fact, leading conservatives were far more outspoken in challenging the decision as unjustified and immoral than American liberals in the years following World War II.

***

Instead [of allowing other options to end the war, such as letting the Soviets attack Japan with ground forces], the United States rushed to use two atomic bombs at almost exactly the time that an August 8 Soviet attack had originally been scheduled: Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. The timing itself has obviously raised questions among many historians. The available evidence, though not conclusive, strongly suggests that the atomic bombs may well have been used in part because American leaders “preferred”—as Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Martin Sherwin has put it—to end the war with the bombs rather than the Soviet attack. Impressing the Soviets during the early diplomatic sparring that ultimately became the Cold War also appears likely to have been a significant factor.

***

The most illuminating perspective, however, comes from top World War II American military leaders. The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that … most Americans haven’t paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.

***

Shortly before his death General George C. Marshall quietly defended the decision, but for the most part he is on record as repeatedly saying that it was not a military decision, but rather a political one.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

With what has been learned about the power of the International Banking Cartel, who in their right mind would doubt they controlled the Political Powers who committed this unspeakable scourge on humanity? Only when people world wide understand how and why humanity has been beguiled will they rise up and demand these monsters be burned at the stake. They are the purest form of evil, and deserve unspeakable deaths. Likewise, the Popes who have participated in the destruction of Christianity should surely be acknowledged as the Bankers assistants. Enlighten yourself and ACCEPT  THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY!
10 13 11 flagbar

The Pope Is Going to Tell You What Lies In Your Future and You Better Listen

August 7th, 2015 by

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2015/08/06/the-pope-is-going

-to-tell-you-what-lies-in-your-future-and-you-better-listen/

8-7-2015 12-27-34 PM

By Dave Hodges

By now most of you have heard the rumors, but they may be much more than rumors.

Recently, the Pope has sounded more like a bankster than a respected religious figure. The true colors of this Pope will soon be revealed. In September of 2015, the Pope will announce the orderly transition of the surrender of the national sovereignty of all nations which will culminate in world government. In other words, this Pope who says he endorses perversions repugnant to true Bible-believing Catholics, is allegedly going to announce the formation of the New World Order and that all 1 billion plus Catholics should willing to submit to the New World Order as is their duty as per the bastardized interpretation of Romans 13.

Is the Pope Mentally Ill or Merely a Servant of Satan?

8-7-2015 1-58-26 PM

8-7-2015 1-59-24 PM

I have long thought that this Pope might be suffering from early onset dementia as he recently said he would baptize extraterrestrials as they would visit the Earth. This is the same Pope who has stated thatIslam and Christianity are basically one and the same religion. This false doctrine sets the stage for the official state sponsored (United Nations) approved religion which we commonly call Gaia which is about as a pagan of a religion that there is.

When the Pope addresses the United Nations on September 25th, he will be endorsingAgenda 21 and its sustainability concepts. Sustainability seeks to reduce at least 80% of all energy use. Some are even calling for a the total obliteration of the private use of energy. Sustainability walks hand in glove with the coming currency collapse. If the people can be brainwashed to accept sustainability concepts, the reduction of the currency by astronomical amounts will be more easily accepted by the masses. And if the Pope is telling people that this is what God would want, then it must be OK.

Implications of the Pope’s UN Speech

Last year, when the IMF devalued the Venezuela currency by 61%, the event was barely noticed. The event came like a thief in the night. For the most part, the people of Venezuela accepted their fate. I believe the same is about to happen here. When the Pope basically calls for the establishment of world government, a currency collapse will hasten the event. It almost as if the Venezuelan situation was an IMF Beta test for what is coming here.

When I stop and take a closer look at the things that this Pope has said and compare it to a whole host of corresponding events, it is difficult to not be concerned about what is coming. Especially disturbing is the fact that that Pope’s UN speech will be followed by what many are saying will be a wholesale devaluation of every national currency in the conversion to a global currency which is reportedly going to be digital. The off-the-record analysis of this supposed coming devaluation of the dollar will mean for every dollar one has in the bank, that dollar will lose 90% of its buying power in the conversion when it takes place in October.

What Will a Currency Devaluation Mean to You?

If this conversion takes place, most of you will not be able to afford to drive to work, because you will not be able to afford put gas in your tank. If these conversion rates are anywhere close to being accurate, you won’t be paying the present $3.00 per gallon, you would be paying somewhere around $30.00 per gallon! Your $200,000 mortgage would now be $2 million dollar mortgage! Now it makes sense why so many of our home mortgages have been transferred to either the International Monetary Fund or directly to our new landlords, the Chinese government.

Where will Americans secure food and other life-sustaining supplies? All of the above events would force Americans in the short-term into FEMA camps in order to receive the aforementioned life-saving supplies. Remember, the average American family has no savings and only three days of food on hand in their home.

Eventually, Americans would be forced into the “stack and packs” that the globalists talk about in Mike Krulig’s “America 2050″ derived from his Agenda 21 “Build One America” program.

8-7-2015 2-01-13 PM

The above map was taken from the America 2050 website which clearly shows the population redistribution which is planned for by Agenda 20 crowd and in particular, Mike Krulig, Obama’s mentor during his early “community service” days.

8-7-2015 2-02-12 PM

This is the picture that the globalists do not want you to see as Mike Krulig is advising the President on the America 2050 plan.

I have written about America 2050 in recent days as it is globalist plan, headed by the Obama’s administration, Mike Krulig, the founder of the Agenda 21 population centralization plan known as “Building One America”. Building One America is the first steps toward the fulfillment of the creation of 11 mega-regions which will contain six million people each. The missing 250 million people in the America 2050 plan, matches the Deagel Report of a similar population reduction for the United States to take place by 2025.

Conclusion

If what has been announced is true, then every individual has only a short time to get their house in order. There are no shortage of articles which talk about individual preparation. Among the preparations that everyone needs to make has to do with getting out of cash and into precious metals. Adding silver and gold to your portfolio is the only way to ensure that your currency will be accepted following the collapse. This Sunday evening from 8-9pm Eastern, Steve Quayle will be appearing on The Common Sense Show and talking about what is happening with gold and why everyone should be heavily invested in previous metals.

Tomorrow’s article analyzes recent events and their connection to the Pope’s coming proclamation.

10 13 11 flagbar

 

 

A Declaration of Independence from Big Government

August 4th, 2015 by

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/36394/Richard-Ebeling-

A-Declaration-of-Independence-from-Big-Government/

By Richard Ebeling

Many forms of personal liberty are under attack today, from economic regulations that hinder people from their peaceful pursuits of earning a living and improving the material conditions of life to an increasingly intrusive surveillance state that seems to follow every step we make and every breath we take.

Equally disturbing is the extent to which too many Americans have become desensitized and indifferent to this growth in the size and scope of government. Around this Fourth of July time of the year, after the hotdogs and burgers have been grilled and eaten and the evening firework displays have been enjoyed, it is worth remembering the meaning and significance of this holiday.

The Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

The Declaration of Independence, proclaimed by members of the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, is the founding document of the American experiment in free government. What is too often forgotten is that what the Founding Fathers argued against in the Declaration was the heavy and intrusive hand of big government.

Most Americans easily recall those eloquent words with which the Founding Fathers expressed the basis of their claim for independence from Great Britain in 1776:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

But what is usually not recalled is the long list of enumerated grievances that make up most of the text of the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers explained how intolerable an absolutist and highly centralized government in faraway London had become. This distant government violated the personal and civil liberties of the people living in the 13 colonies on the eastern seaboard of North America.

Grievances Against the Crown’s Economic Controls

In addition, the king’s ministers imposed rigid and oppressive economic regulations and controls on the colonists that was part of the 18th-century system of government central planning known as mercantilism.

“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” the signers declared.

Concentrating Power in the Hands of Government

At every turn, the British Crown had concentrated political power and decision-making in its own hands, leaving the American colonists with little ability to manage their own affairs through local and state governments. Laws and rules were imposed without the consent of the governed; local laws and procedures meant to limit abusive or arbitrary government were abrogated or ignored.

The king also had attempted to manipulate the legal system by arbitrarily appointing judges that shared his power-lusting purposes or were open to being influenced to serve the monarch’s policy goals. The king’s officials unjustly placed colonists under arrest in violation of writ of habeas corpus, and sentenced them to prison without trial by jury. Colonists often were violently conscripted to serve in the king’s armed forces and made to fight in foreign wars.

A financially burdensome standing army was imposed on the colonists without the consent of the local legislatures. Soldiers often were quartered among the homes of the colonists without their approval or permission.

In addition, the authors of the Declaration stated, the king fostered civil unrest by creating tensions and conflicts among the different ethnic groups in his colonial domain (the English settlers and the Native American Indian tribes).

But what was at the heart of many of their complaints and grievances against King George III were the economic controls that limited their freedom and the taxes imposed that confiscated their wealth and honestly earned income.

Governmental Controls at Every Turn

The fundamental premise behind the mercantilist planning system was the idea that it was the duty and responsibility of the government to manage and direct the economic affairs of society. The British Crown shackled the commercial activities of the colonists with a spider’s web of regulations and restrictions. The British government told them what they could produce, and dictated the resources and the technologies that could be employed. The government prevented the free market from setting prices and wages, and manipulated what goods would be available to the colonial consumers. It dictated what goods might be imported or exported between the 13 colonies and the rest of the world, thus preventing the colonists from benefiting from the gains that could have been theirs under free trade.

Everywhere, the king appointed various “czars” who were to control and command much of the people’s daily affairs of earning a living. Layer after layer of new bureaucracies were imposed over every facet of life. “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance,” the Founding Fathers explain.

In addition, the king and his government imposed taxes upon the colonists without their consent. Their income was taxed to finance expensive and growing projects that the king wanted and that he thought was good for the people, whether the people themselves wanted them or not.

The 1760s and early 1770s saw a series of royal taxes that burdened the American colonists and aroused their ire: the Sugar Act of 1764, the Stamp Act of 1765, the Townsend Acts of 1767, the Tea Act of 1773 (which resulted in the Boston Tea Party) and a wide variety of other fiscal impositions.

The American colonists often were extremely creative at avoiding and evading the Crown’s regulations and taxes through smuggling and bribery. (Paul Revere smuggled Boston pewter into the West Indies in exchange for contraband molasses.)

The British government’s response to the American colonists’ “civil disobedience” against their regulations and taxes was harsh. The king’s army and navy killed civilians and wantonly ruined people’s private property. “He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people,” the Declaration laments.

Defending Freedom as the Last Resort Against Tyranny

After enumerating these and other complaints, the Founding Fathers said in the Declaration:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Thus, the momentous step was taken to declare their independence from the British Crown. The signers of the Declaration then did “mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor,” in their common cause of establishing a free government and the individual liberty of the, then, three million occupants of those original 13 colonies.

Never before in history had a people declared and then established a government based on the principles of the individual’s right to his life, liberty and property. Never before was a society founded on the ideal of economic freedom, under which free men may peacefully produce and exchange with each other on the terms they find mutually beneficial without the stranglehold of regulating and planning government.

Never before had a people made clear that self-government meant not only the right of electing those who would hold political office and pass the laws of the land, but also meant that each human being had the right to be self-governing over his own life. Indeed, in those inspiring words in the Declaration, the Founding Fathers were insisting that each man should be considered as owning himself, and not be viewed as the property of the state to be manipulated by either king or Parliament.

It is worth remembering, therefore, that what we celebrate every July 4 is the idea and the ideal of each human being’s right to his life and liberty, and his freedom to pursue happiness in his own way, without paternalistic and plundering government getting in his way.

Dr. Richard Ebeling is the BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. He was professor of economics at Northwood University in Midland, Michigan (2009-2014). He served as president of the Foundation for Economic Education (2003-2008) and held the Ludwig von Mises Chair in Economics at Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan (1988-2003).

OLDOGS COMMENTS

How repulsively sad it is that so few in America are willing to die for this kind of governance. It is also repulsively sad that the first declaration of Independence turned out to be a bold face lie. It was just another atrocity by the incredibly greedy Investment Bankers who surreptitiously used human nature to enslave millions of unsuspecting Americans. That’s right folks, our fore fathers swallowed the rhetoric hook line and sinker, just as we have done via government control of education and media sources. The real truth is; they and all future generations were enslaved by legal methods too complicated to be believable, and remain so. Don’t believe me? Please read YOU KNOW SOMETHING IS WRONG WHEN…. “An American Affidavit of Probable Cause” By Anna Maria Riezinger & James Clinton Belcher

 OLDDOGS AMAZON REVIEW ON: YOU KNOW SOMETHING IS WRONG WHEN….

http://www.amazon.com/You-Know-Something-Wrong-When/dp/1491279184

 Anna and James should receive National support for this gift to America. Now there is no excuse to continue supporting the political system that enslaves us, and every reader should make it a personal obligation to promote this work. I envision a hundred million people reading this book over and over until they can recite verbatim the skulduggery used to rob, rape, and pillage millions of unsuspecting Americas; not to mention the trillions of dollars these Tyrant Bankers have made from our ignorance. This fiasco is akin to a Preacher in a mega Church raping the women thereof and getting away with it for years, because they had so much faith in him. I will demand every family member and friend read this magnificent piece of research. More praise and info on this book will continue to be available at http://scannedretina.com/ and http://anationbeguiled.com

10 13 11 flagbar

 

 

Nothing You Love Will Survive Without White People

August 3rd, 2015 by

When you see an article like this published on a non-racist website…

 … it may be sign of the ice breaking a little. Anyone who has grown to adulthood on earth (and quite a few who never got the chance) knows that racial differences are profound, that they govern the nature of every culture. The question is, how long will the prohibition on speaking of these matters hold, how long will the lemmings continue to self-police and attempt to police the rest of us.  -D.W.

From the author of Paved With Good Intentions, Jared Taylor. As published on Beforeitsnews.com

Nothing You Love Will Survive Without White People

A REDNECK’S GUIDE TO REVERSING THEIR CONTROL OF YOUR BRAIN

An Open Letter to Cuckservatives

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, July 30, 2015

You aren’t just betraying your principles.

Dear Cuckservative,

You are not alone. Like you, Erick Erickson at RedState.com, Matt Lewis at the Daily Caller, Taylor Millard at Hot Air, the blogger Ace of Spades, and Jim Harper with the Cato Institute are all squirming under the lash of this new coinage. They are squirming because a single word–cuckservative–lays bare the rot at the heart of your movement: American conservatism can conserve nothing if it cannot conserve the nation’s founding stock. I’ll put it bluntly: Nothing you love will survive without white people.

Do you stand for limited government and a balanced budget? Count your black and Hispanic allies. Do you admire Thomas Jefferson? He was a slave-holder who will end up on the dung heap with the Confederate flag. Do you care about stable families and the rights of the unborn? Look up illegitimacy, divorce, and abortion rates for blacks and Hispanics. Do you cherish the stillness at dawn in Bryce Canyon? When the park service manages to get blacks and Hispanics to go camping they play boom-boxes until 1:00 a.m. Was Ronald Reagan your hero? He would not win a majority of today’s electorate.

Do you love Tchaikovsky? Count the non-whites in the concert hall. Do you yearn for neighborhoods where you can leave the keys in your car? There still are some; just don’t expect them to be “diverse.” Are hunting and firearms part of your heritage? Explain that to Barack Obama or Sonia Sotomayor. Are you a devout Christian? Muslim immigrants despise you and your faith. Do you support Israel? Mexicans, Haitians, Chinese, and Guatemalans don’t.

Your great festival–CPAC–is as white as a meeting of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. That’s because blacks and Hispanics and even Asians don’t share your dreams. You’ve heard the old joke: “What do you call the only black person at a conservative meeting? The keynote speaker.” Outreach doesn’t work. You can’t talk someone into loving what you love. Faith, patriotism, duty, and honor come from deeply cultural, religious, and ancestral sources you can’t reach.

Why do you evoke Martin Luther King when you call for a “colorblind” America? You know he wanted quotas for blacks. You evoke King because you think he’ll help you silence blacks and liberals. But it doesn’t work, does it? That’s because only whites–and Asians, when it suits them–even think in terms of “colorblindness.” Blacks and Hispanics will squeeze every unfair advantage out of you they can. At what point will they ever abandon their aggressive racial agenda? When they’re the majority just think how hard they’ll squeeze your grandchildren.

You tell yourself that the things you love about America–and I love them, too–are rooted in certain principles. That is your greatest mistake. They are rooted in certain people. That is why Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love. Do you really believe that a future Afro-Hispanic-Caribbean-Asiatic America will be anything like the America your ancestors built?

Let’s consider your principles. Do you dream of a traditional, religious, free-market society with small government, low taxes, and no gun control, where same-sex marriage is illegal, and abortion, divorce, prostitution, and illegitimacy are scorned? There are such places: the tribal areas of Pakistan and Somalia.

And what about countries that violate your principles–with high taxes, huge government, clogged markets, a weak church, strict gun control, and sexual license of all kinds? There’s Scandinavia. And yet if you had to leave the United States you’d much rather live in Denmark than in Waziristan.

Do you see the pattern? Even when they violate your principles, white people build good societies. Even when they abide by your principles, non-whites usually don’t.

We see that in America. Can you think of a majority non-white neighborhood you’d like to live in, or a majority non-white school you’d like your children to attend? No, you can’t. Why, then, don’t you fight with all your strength against the forces of immigration and integration that are turning ever-greater parts of your county into Third-World wastelands?

I know it would be frightening for you to step outside the ever narrower confines of what we are permitted to say about race. You would court the disapproval of every institution in America. You would pay a heavy price. Not since the last Red Scare has the price of speaking out been so high. In the 1950s, it was dangerous to spout Marxist foolishness. Today, the most dangerous ideas are the historical, biological, and moral truths that men such as Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, and your grandparents took for granted.

Muster up the courage. Speak these truths. They are your heritage. They are your destiny. They are in your bones. And when you speak these truths, you will join the people who see the only future for America in which the things you love are even conceivable. When you speak these truths you will join the camp of the saints.

And until you speak these truths you will feel the sting of the word “cuckservative.” You will feel its sting because you are not just betraying the heritage and promise of America. You are not just betraying your principles and dreams–even though you think you are working for them. You are betraying your people.

Written by Jared Taylor at American Renaissance

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

When will Americans realize that the self appointed elite are promoting and enforcing  brain eating social regulations, disguised as love language, which are nothing less than social destruction techniques, and a subliminal takeover of your already established world view and conscience? Who in their right mind have not already concluded that different races are happier and more content when they live with and marry their own kind? Where societies have their heritage in common, they are happier, more productive, peaceful, and much more prosperous.  Massage their guilt for not sharing all they have with strangers, and you are on your way to a subjugated society. Works every time! White folks don’t need to feel guilty for just being human. Every race has this natural tendency to band together, and they are much happier when they do. What’s so bad about that? It’s been working for tens of thousands of years before the Bankers took charge of our past, present, and future life. Don’t ever let these Monster Banker, self styled elite humanity managers make you feel like you do not have the right to your own social preferences. We are no better or worse than any other race of people but, white is right, suits the shit out of me, as long as it is not used to hurt other races. What better example of human inconsistency is that? LESSON? We are not required to be perfect! JUST PEACEFUL!

Lawmakers Vote to Let Obama Take Your Passport Without Trial

July 30th, 2015 by

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/21334-lawmakers

-vote-to-let-obama-take-your-passport-without-trial

7-30-2015 12-05-45 PM

 By Alex Newman

 

In a radical attack on the due-process rights of Americans that received virtually no media attention, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to give the Obama administration the unilateral power to strip you of your passport and right to travel without a trial or even criminal charges. The scheme does not even include a way to challenge your status as a non-person involuntarily trapped inside U.S. borders on orders from the secretary of state. Lawmakers, some of whom could themselves be caught in the dragnet along with myriad administration officials, praised the effort as a way to stop alleged terrorists from travelling. But critics said it was yet another attack on the fundamental rights of Americans, such as due-process protections, and that it must be resisted.

As if to illustrate how out of touch with the U.S. Constitution most members of Congress have become, the legislation, HR 237, also known as “FTO (foreign terrorist organization) Passport Revocation Act,” did not even receive a recorded vote — supposedly because it was so “uncontroversial.” It passed after 15 minutes of alleged “debate.” Bill sponsor Ted Poe (R-Texas) claimed the measure, adopted under a “suspension of the rules” typically used for trivialities such as renaming post offices, was passed unanimously. Of course, in an age in which the White House openly claims the unilateral authority to murder or indefinitely detain American citizens without even charging them with a crime, passport revocations likely seem trivial by comparison. But opponents of the measure said it was a big deal nonetheless.

Under the bill, “the Secretary of State may refuse to issue a passport to any individual whom the Secretary has determined has aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise helped an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization,” the text states. “The Secretary of State may revoke a passport previously issued to any individual” whom Secretary of State John Kerry, or future administrations that could be even more radical, unilaterally decides may have done any of those things. The terms are left undefined, opening up widespread potential for abuse, and there is no appeals process outlined in the legislation.

In essence, if approved by the Senate and signed into law by Obama, one man — far-left radical Kerry, for now — would have the power to strip you of your unalienable, God-given rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Under the measure, individuals targeted by Kerry or his successors would have no right to due-process of law — no trial by jury, no chance to contest the findings in open court (or anywhere else), no right to be presumed innocent before proven guilty, not even a right to see the accusations. Indeed, even actual criminal charges are unnecessary under the scheme for somebody to be permanently trapped in or out of the United States based on secret evidence, with no mechanism to appeal.

Lawmakers who supported the measure, though, put a different spin on it. “Daily, deadly attacks around the world remind us that radical Islamic terrorists are spreading their murderous rampage worldwide,” said Rep. Poe, who sponsored the legislation and has a 70 percent cumulative score on the Freedom Index. “The threat to America from these groups has never been greater. But some of our own citizens have travelled to the terrorist hotbeds in Syria and beyond to fight for the other side. These Benedict Arnold traitors who have turned against America and joined the ranks of foreign radical terrorist armies should lose all rights afforded to our citizens.”

Of course, after being proven guilty of terrorism or treason in a court of law, actual terrorists and traitors would — and regularly do — lose the rights guaranteed to Americans in the U.S. Constitution. However, Rep. Poe fails to mention that, and instead of a trial by jury to determine guilt, individuals would lose their rights merely on the word of one administration official. “This will help law enforcement locate these individuals by making it easier to flag the individuals who are trying to travel internationally,” Poe continued. “Most importantly, this legislation will help prevent turned Americans from coming back to the United States undetected.”

“The House has now acted to locate and contain these traitors,” Rep. Poe added, without explaining the implications of giving the Obama administration the unilateral authority to declare somebody a “traitor” without any semblance of due process. “It’s time for the Senate to quickly do the same. These people are not returning to America to open coffee shops; they are coming back to kill. Let’s stop them from coming back at all.” Other Republican lawmakers issued similar statements in support of the measure. Existing U.S. statutes already allowed Americans’ passports to be revoked for “national security,” but apparently the administrative appeals process available under that program was too much for Congress.   

The handful of critics who were aware of the scheming ahead of the vote slammed a wide range of provisions in the measure. “The bill provides no ability for someone wrongly denied a passport to challenge the Secretary of State’s findings that they helped a terrorist,” explained Norm Singleton, vice president for policy at the Campaign for Liberty and a founding member of the Republican Liberty Caucus. “So much for due process and reining in executive power.” Before the vote, he urged supporters of due process to call their representatives and tell them to oppose the scheme, but it was approved in the House the next day anyway.  

In a wide-ranging and widely re-published criticism of the legislation, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity chief Daniel McAdams blasted the process used to adopt it, the anti-liberty ideology underpinning it, and the bill itself. “This means the Secretary of State can, unilaterally, with no due process and no oversight, deprive an American citizen the privileges of citizenship, thus relegating him to internal exile inside the United States — a practice most recently perfected in the Soviet Union,” he wrote. “What does the word ‘aided’ mean? No one knows. Is there any wiggle room for inadvertency? No one knows. And what about the very political nature of the US ‘terror’ list in the first place?”    

“The U.S. Secretary of State can revoke my passport without meeting any burden of proof that I am actually a terrorist or even that I have ever supported terrorism. He can keep his evidence against me totally secret and will never be required to justify his actions against me,” McAdams continued. “And this is considered ‘uncontroversial’ in the United States? Even in revolutionary France you had the Vendée which resisted the madness of the totalitarian state. Here we have the ‘suspension calendar,’ a modern guillotine of our rights.”

Ironically, as liberty-minded critics such as McAdams subtly pointed out, if the measure had been in effect just a few years ago, a broad range of top current and former officials in both major political parties would have been subject to losing their passports for openly supporting (after being paid big bucks) the Iranian Mujahedin-e Khalq, a designated terror group until 2012 often described as an Islamo-Marxist “cult.” Until 2008, supporters of Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress, which included top U.S. officials, would have also been targeted. Meanwhile, the Obama administration was exposed years ago openly supporting proud al-Qaeda leaders, first in their war against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, and more recently in Syria.

Americans with alleged tax debts are also in Congress’ crosshairs for being stripped of their right to travel and due process, and have been for years. In fact, just this week, the Senate included a provision in the “transportation” bill it introduced that would strip the passports of anyone the IRS claims owes over $50,000. And analysts said this is all just the beginning, with efforts to use passports and citizenship as leverage against Americans — and as a means of bypassing due process — steadily gaining steam.     

Under the administration’s outlandish “interpretations” of unconstitutional U.S. statutes, Obama already claims to have the dictatorial power to assassinate or indefinitely detain anyone without even charging them with a crime — much less proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in front of a jury. Already, the former chief of the CIA and NSA can boast openly that “we kill people based on metadata.” By comparison, then, revoking passports does indeed seem trivial. However, the expanding attack on due-process rights under the guise of the “terror war” has far-reaching implications.

Consider, for example, the Obama administration’s extreme definitions of “extremist” — pro-life activists, opponents of illegal immigration, returning veterans, and more — as outlined in myriad official government reports. Then consider the extremism of revoking individual rights based on the secret word of one government official.

Americans can be sure that without a serious effort to rein in the attacks on the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it protects, the lawless extremism pouring out of Washington D.C. will continue to accelerate.        

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached atanewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

Related articles:

UN & Obama Supporting Islamo-Marxist Terror Group in Iraq

IRS Would Revoke Passports for Alleged Tax Debt Under Bill

“We Kill People Based on Metadata,” Admits Former CIA/NSA Boss

DOJ Seeks Dismissal of Case Challenging NDAA Indefinite Detention

Obama Decision on Islamo-Marxist Terror Cult Will Lead to U.S. Funding, Experts Say

Der Spiegel Reveals Loose Standards Needed for Drone Assassination

U.S. Intel: Obama Coalition Supported Islamic State in Syria

ISIS: The Best Terror Threat U.S. Tax Money Can Buy

Obama’s “Anti-ISIS” Coalition Built ISIS, Biden Admits

Obama and UN Created Terror State in Libya

10 13 11 flagbar

Greece Today, America Tomorrow?

July 28th, 2015 by

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/36410/Ron-Paul

-Greece-Today-America-Tomorrow/

7-28-2015 10-23-25 AM

By Ron Paul 

The drama over Greece’s financial crisis continues to dominate the headlines. As this column is being written, a deal may have been reached providing Greece with yet another bailout if the Greek government adopts new “austerity” measures. The deal will allow all sides to brag about how they came together to save the Greek economy and the European Monetary Union. However, this deal is merely a Band-Aid, not a permanent fix to Greece’s problems. So another crisis is inevitable.

The Greek crisis provides a look into what awaits us unless we stop overspending on warfare and welfare and restore a sound monetary system. While most commentators have focused on Greece’s welfare state, much of Greece’s deficit was caused by excessive military spending. Even as its economy collapses and the government makes (minor) cuts in welfare spending, Greece’s military budget remains among the largest in the European Union.

Despite all the hand-wringing over how the phony sequestration cuts have weakened America’s defenses, the United States military budget remains larger than the combined budgets of the world’s next 15 highest spending military’s. Little, if any, of the military budget is spent defending the American people from foreign threats. Instead, the American government wastes billions of dollars on an imperial foreign policy that makes Americans less safe. America will never get its fiscal house in order until we change our foreign policy and stop wasting trillions on unnecessary and unconstitutional wars.

Excessive military spending is not the sole cause of America’s problems. Like Greece, America suffers from excessive welfare and entitlement spending. Reducing military spending and corporate welfare will allow the government to transition away from the welfare state without hurting those dependent on government programs. Supporting an orderly transition away from the welfare state should not be confused with denying the need to reduce welfare and entitlement spending.

One reason Greece has been forced to seek bailouts from its EU partners is that Greece ceded control over its currency when it joined the European Union. In contrast, the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency is the main reason the US has been able to run up huge deficits without suffering a major economic crisis. The need for the Federal Reserve to monetize ever-increasing levels of government spending will eventually create hyperinflation, which will lead to increasing threats to the dollar’s status. China and Russia are already moving away from using the dollar in international transactions. It is only a matter of time before more countries challenge the dollar’s reserve currency status, and, when this happens, a Greece-style catastrophe may be unavoidable.

Despite the clear dangers of staying on our recent course, Congress continues to increase spending. The only real debate between the two parties is over whether we should spend more on welfare or warfare. It is easy to blame the politicians for our current dilemma but the politicians are responding to demands from the people for greater spending. Too many Americans believe they have a moral right to government support. This entitlement mentality is just as common, if not more so, among the corporate welfare queens of the militarily-industrial complex, the big banks and the crony capitalists as it is among lower-income Americans.

Congress will only reverse course when a critical mass of people reject the entitlement mentality and understand that the government is incapable of running the world, running our lives and running the economy. Therefore, those of us who know the truth must spread the ideas of, and grow the movement for, limited government, free markets, sound money and peace.

This article provided courtesy of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

How many of you remember my past warning about building a one hundred million re-educated people force as the only possible way to defeat this foreign owned imposter government we live under. Are you still ignorant of the truth to consider it treason to survive? TAKE THIS TO THE BANK FOLKS, EITHER YOU PARTICIPATE IN RE-EDUCATING EVERY ONE YOU CAN, OR THE REST OF YOUR SHORT LIFE WILL BE HELL ON EARTH!

10 13 11 flagbar

AN OPEN LETTER TO MR. WESLEY CLARK U. S. GENERAL RETIRED

July 27th, 2015 by

General Clark,

My name is James P. Harvey and I own the following two web sites, http://anationbeguiled.com and http://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com

Concerning your recent statement about incarcerating American citizens who disagree with our governments political policies, I am requesting further information on your idea’s of what kind of actions would put the average political dissident in with the radicals you would incarcerate.

To wit: Would Dr. Ron Paul qualify after posting the following article on the internet? Do We Need to Bring Back Internment Camps? http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/36439/Ron-Paul-Do-We-Need-to-Bring-Back-Internment-Camps/?uuid=D61DE0D0-0752-0845-33435892AAF62EB6

How about Attorney John Whitehead for posting this article? Freedom or the Slaughterhouse? The American Police State from A to Z

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/36415/John-Whitehead-Freedom-or-the-Slaughterhouse-The-American-Police-State-from-A-to-Z/

Or for that matter: What would you personally do to me after reading the articles I post on my sites?

Sir: If you believe we who are obsessed with bringing back the America we grew up with and were then willing to die for, should be incarcerated along with the ragheads who want their promised virgins, than I hope you have the balls to try and personally arrest me and I’m older than you.

If by chance, after reading the following articles by Retired Judge Anna von Reitz at  http://scannedretina.com/anna-von-reitz-alaska/ you are still convinced we are a danger to America, and traitors, then I accuse you publicly of being a cowardly traitor to the principles of the Constitution, freedom in general, and the oath you took to defend America and the Constitution. Perhaps you should be incarcerated!

 OR, perhaps you just need to be re-educated on the principles of freedom. You Know Something is Wrong When…..: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause  By Anna von Reitz

Critical:  Before Things Get Out of Hand……Judge Anna von Reitz

Conversations with Judge Anna.  Unraveling the 200 year tapestry of fraud

About the fraud of the 14th Amendment:
A lot of needed information is here for individual people.

  1. Relief Is NOT Remedy by Judge Anna von Reitz
  2. Public Notice – Buyer beware! More specific Details
  3. Questions Related to Common-Law Grand-Jury Jurisdictions
  4. Many politicians are just now beginning to wake up…..by Anna von Reitz
  5. It remains for us to revive it—the organs of our land and State based government.
  6. So, we need to hold a One People’s Court again… 
  7. “Constitution” = a business contract = an equity contract = a commercial contract
  8. A question regarding the 13th Amendment – Judge Anna responds…
  9. classic disinformation – Anna Maria Wilhelmina Hanna Sophia: Riezinger-von Reitzenstein von Lettow-Vorbeck – Got it Right!
  10. DEFINED: The source of the fraud! From the beginning! From Anna von Reitz 
  11. Stories from the game in which you have no idea you are playing
  12. UNCUT—UNCENSORED—UNEDITED! This is priceless!
  13. DEFINED: The source of the fraud! From the beginning
  14. Starting at First Base…
  15. Second Base — What “They” Have Done “For” You
  16. Third Base – The Guilty Parties By Anna von Reitz | Scanned Retina Resource
  17. Is it possible to go beyond treason? With link to related documents
  18. We give legitimacy to the impostors.
  19. The Real Criminals
  20. The Crown Temple misrepresents the Church;
  21. Your Offer to Contract is Hereby Rejected!
  22. I AM YOUR ANCHOR BABY: The Significance Of My Will – by Anna Von Reitz, Judge in Alaska
  23. The Role of the Trustee…Members of Congress
  24. The Other Americas of which few are aware! 
  25. Alaska UCC 1 filing 2014-787015-2
  26. A question regarding the 13th Amendment – Judge Anna responds…
  27. The Real Criminals – Judge Anna Von Reitz
  28. Great Grand Mother Anna offers some advice – Part 01
  29. Great Grand Mother Anna offers some advice – Part 02 “Political Action”
  30. Anna addresses Cardinal George 
  31. Anna and Karen – on FB 
  32. Anna sez….Ernie Gets IT! How about you? 
  33. FINAL JUDGMENT AND CIVIL ORDERS – Background – A visit with Anna
  34. UCC1 Financing Statement – Anna M. Riezinger 
  35. To the adults in the room… by Judge Anna von Reitz
  36. The Cheapest, Most Efficient Prison of All – Your Own Mind. by Anna von Reitz 
  37. Challenge was accepted. I was proven Wrong! In gratitude…Thank you Anna!
  38. James P. Harvey aka Olddog at olddog@anationbeguiled.com
  39. 10 13 11 flagbar

WHY IMPEACH? WHY NOW, AND HOW?

July 25th, 2015 by

http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams307.htm

By J.B. Williams
NewsWithViews.com

America is on the final brink of collapse as freedom and liberty teeter on the brink of extinction, all for one simple reason, your silence is your consent… and the people have been far too silent for far too long. Until someone is held accountable, no one is accountable to the people for anything…

Up until now, “the people” have not been part of any viable solutions, despite pouring millions of dollars and hours of energy into things they thought might work. Too many Americans have been led to believe that elections are the only solution available to “the people” when in fact, pro-American conservatives have not won an election in 35 years, since Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980.

Many thought they were on the right track when they elected Republicans to control the U.S. purse strings in the House in 2010, only to watch Republicans continue to fund every evil agenda item forced down the people’s throats by the most impeachable administration in U.S. history.

Others were told “nullification” at the state level will solve the problem, despite the fact that both Jefferson and Madison failed in their nullification attempts over 200 years ago and state level nullification of federal overreaches has never worked even once in U.S. history since.

Still others are being sold a bill of goods regarding a false interpretation of the Article V Convention, now often referred to as “a convention of the states” and an “assembly of the states.” Truth be told, any meeting of the states with the intended purpose of “amending the federal constitution” is by definition, a “constitutional convention.”

Any such convention must be convened and run by the U.S. Congress, and the states will have no control at all over the outcome, other than their ability to refuse ratification of the can of worms they opened by requesting the convention. It makes no difference how many “constitutional scholars” tell you different. They are the same people destroying our legal system and taking all of your rights away with their “expertise.”

Then you have the new militia folks, who never studied the Civil War or the Bonus Army of 1932, or bothered to notice that “the people” have allowed the federal government to enjoy such technological advancements that will allow the Obama administration to end any uprising before you can get out of your front yard, without them even needing a pilot in the cockpit of the drone.

Meanwhile, the constitutional solution was under the people’s nose the entire time…. IMPEACH, remove from office and charge with high crimes in criminal court after removal.

The U.S. Constitution tells us all exactly what to do when we find our nation being torn to shreds by an evil occupant of the Oval Office and his cabal of evildoers….

Article II – Section IV says – “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Whenever bad actors seize the White House and act in a manner destructive of the Constitutional Republic, Article II of the U.S. Constitution says we impeach and remove the bad actors from office in protection of the Republican form of government, we are supposed to impeach and remove…

Why have “the people” been focused on anything else since January 2009? Who told them to focus on everything else?

On 11.11.11 a group of Military Veterans and true patriots stood on the Washington Mall and demanded the Restoration of our Constitutional Republic, as guaranteed every state and every American in the U.S. Constitution.

Do you think those Vets had no further idea how they might accomplish such a lofty goal at such a late date? Since that day, these people have worked together on literally countless opportunities to make a difference in the direction of our beloved nation… SEE HERE

Only after exhausting a laundry list of other real, tangible and constitutional means of moving the nation in the right direction, did these leaders came to the conclusion that only Impeachment can stop what is happening in our country today. They arrived at that conclusion in June of 2014 and released a copy of very carefully researched and crafted Articles of Impeachment in July of 2014, along with a public demand from sister division North American Law Center calling for impeachment.

The Articles failed to gain any traction in 2014, as many “patriots” claimed an election year could be lost as a result of trying to impeach, and that only after Republicans controlled both congressional chambers, should such an effort be launched.

Of course, after the 2014 elections, with Republicans in control of both chambers, those same “patriots” now suggest we should wait until after the 2016 elections… despite witnessing the reality that congress is functioning the same under Republican control as it did under Democrat control.

When will the people get in the mood to hold anyone accountable?

“The people” allowed a total fraud to seize control of the people’s White House in 2008. They allowed congress and the Supreme Court to sit silent and watch it happen. They allowed day after day, year after year, Obama regime total destruction of the Rule of Constitutional Law and our Republic. They allowed the RNC and DNC to dictate all rules of engagement, limiting “the people” to only election solutions, while both work together to control the outcome of those election before they are ever held.

The people have been vocal in their opposition, but usually preaching to the choir rather than confronting the evil directly, which comes with some risks attached.

Since January 2009, a long list of infringements, violations of law and constitutional text, the Bill of Rights and international law have accrued under what can only be described as the most criminal cabal to ever hold power in the U.S. Federal Government.

The North American Law Center (NALC) took great care to research and develop a set of Articles of Impeachmentdesigned to not just start a fight, but finish it. It is not only important to impeach, but to impeach correctly, so that conviction, removal and criminal prosecution are possible and even likely to succeed.

The simple fact is the Obama Administration is the most impeachable administration in U.S. history and nearly every American seems to be scared to death to impeach. A nation that fears its government is living in tyranny… only when that government fears its people, is there freedom and liberty.

As the NALC Articles lay out in great depth, the Obama Administration is guilty of the following High Crimes, all of which justify impeachment and some of which rise to the level of treason.

  • ARTICLE I – Usurpation of the Oval Office via criminal identity fraud
    ARTICLE II – Malfeasance, misconduct and abuse of the Oval Office
     ARTICLE III – Aiding and Abetting known enemies of the United States

Over the past few years, very influential Republicans like Allen WestGen. Jerry Boykin and Sarah Palin have openly called for the impeachment of Barack Obama. On numerous occasions,Admiral Lyons has called for impeachment as well. In fact, more than 25 House Republicans have openly stated that Barack Obama is guilty of many impeachable offenses and should be impeached…

But so far, it is North American Law Center and theConstitutional Accountability Coalition that is actually doing the heavy lifting of researching and drafting proper Articles, while unifying and mobilizing thousands of “patriots” in state by state coalitions focused entirely upon advancing the NALC Articles to the House Judiciary Committee, where impeachment must begin.

According to our laws, House Republicans have only two choices, impeach (or) become guilty of crimes themselves.

There’s a talking thing and a doing thing… most people were busy talking while only 56 men signed the Declaration of Independence 239 years ago. It seems not much has changed since then, except the assault on freedom is no longer coming from King George of Britain, but rather from within, Barack Hussein Obama & Co.

The country is full of talkers, and not as many doers…

Impeachment has always been the constitutional solution and now it is the only peaceful solution. Still, many Americans hope to escape personal responsibility for making impeachment happen, as they sit back, refusing to engage in that process while ridiculing those who are willing to stand up and take action.

For every doer engaged in constitutional solutions, there are thousands of American naysayers, hand wringers and teeth gnashers… with a hundred reasons why it can’t or shouldn’t be done… most of them knowing full well that there is no other viable option at this point.

Freedom is always lost at some point and always for the same reasons, complacency, ignorance and cowardice.

A few Americans will be able to look their children and grandchildren in the eye and tell them with all due honesty, that they did everything they could possibly do to prevent the collapse of the greatest nation ever known to mankind, everything within their power to educate, unify and mobilize American citizens, who were supposed to be forever vigilant in the preservation of freedom and liberty, but were just too busy or frightened to do it.

The rest, will be recorded in history as the generation that lost America, the beacon of freedom and hope for the entire world. From the Greatest Generation during WWI and WWII to the generation that lost it all in WWIII, without ever directly engaging the enemy.

Those willing to defend freedom and liberty should immediately unite with others also willing and engaged, at either North American Law Center or the Constitutional Accountability Coalition.

In the end, every America who refuses to become part of the solution, is part of the problem. Real patriots should joinPatriots Union and patriotic Veterans should join Veteran Defenders in order to lead the restoration of the Constitutional Republic and Rule of Law.

 

These groups have been around, doing all the right things and waiting for the Cavalry, “the people” to show up and engage. Now they are leading by example on Impeachment and praying that “the people” will soon have had enough and begin to engage before the clock ticks out on America.

Last night, CAC and NALC hosted the first Blog Talk Event in support of the NALC Articles of Impeachment, archived here. The group meets every Wednesday evening at 8:30 PM ET… the subject is Impeachment and nothing else… state by state coalition groups are growing across the country, fast, but not yet fast enough.

What are you waiting for? If not you, then who do you expect to save this nation?

If you are too busy are too scared to defend freedom and the Rule of Law, you will no longer be free… I can’t say it any plainer than that!

© 2015 JB Williams – All Rights Reserved

Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.

JB Williams is a writer on matters of history and American politics with more than 3000 pieces published over a twenty-year span. He has a decidedly conservative reverence for the Charters of Freedom, the men and women who have paid the price of freedom and liberty for all, and action oriented real-time solutions for modern challenges. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, a researcher, writer and a business owner. He is co-founder of action organizations The United States Patriots Union, a civilian parent organization for The Veteran Defenders of America. He is also co-founder of The North American Law Center, a citizen run investigative legal research and activism organization preparing to take on American’s greatest legal battles. Williams receives mail at:jb.uspu@gmail.com

Web site 1: www.PatriotsUnion.org

Web site 2: www.VeteranDefenders.org

E-Mail: JB.USPU@gmail.com

10 13 11 flagbar

It is past time to terminate membership in the United Nations and boot them from our shores

July 22nd, 2015 by

http://canadafreepress.com/article/73938?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=2bd04541c5-5_20_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-2bd04541c5-297722005

So, why are we still in the United Nations?

7-22-2015 8-07-33 AM

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.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

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)

 

Why Does The War on Terror Serve Western Policy?

July 21st, 2015 by

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/07/why-does-war-on-terror-serve-western.html

Peter O’Toole as British Intelligence agent, T.E. Lawrence.

 By Jay Dyer

From Benghazi to Turkey, the ISIS “supply lines” are directly from NATO-controlled territory, and apparently it never occurs to the minds of Western media to ask where, in fact, the so-called Islamic State obtains their arms. The reason for this is obvious, as it would demonstrate that the Islamic State is not a homegrown, indigenous Wahhabist extremist group, but Western creation, funded and aided like Al Qaeda since its inception, as Carter and Brzezinski openly discussed. Not much has changed in the international terror theater since 1979, save the targets. Counterpunch noted over a decade ago: Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct? Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979.

But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Concerning the aiding and funding of the updated Mujahideen-Al Qaeda-ISIS brand, Tony Cartalucci comments: The London Telegraph would report in their 2013 article, “CIA ‘running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked’,” that: [CNN] said that a CIA team was working in an annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armouries to Syrian rebels. Weapons have also come from Eastern Europe, with the New York Times reporting in 2013 in their article, “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A.,” that: From offices at secret locations, American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive, according to American officials speaking on the condition of anonymity.

And while Western media sources continuously refer to ISIS and other factions operating under the banner of Al Qaeda as “rebels” or “moderates,” it is clear that if billions of dollars in weapons were truly going to “moderates,” they, not ISIS would be dominating the battlefield. Recent revelations have revealed that as early as 2012 the United States Department of Defense not only anticipated the creation of a “Salafist Principality” straddling Syria and Iraq precisely where ISIS now exists, it welcomed it eagerly and contributed to the circumstances required to bring it about.” In terms of foreign policy, the target with ISIS is still Syria, as Washington elites have expounded through their Brookings Institution discussion of June 24, a rebound from the failed attempt by John Kerry to drum up support for war with Syria that fell flat due to the exposure of the laughable false flag “chlorine attack” propaganda pinned on Assad.

Now ISIS is both the means and the raison d’etre for invading and saving Syria, in the classic problem-reaction-solution strategy the West never tires from enacting in the global “freedom” war. Acting far inferior to Peter O’Toole. The endless, eternal war on terror is a contrived strategy of tension the Atlanticist establishment has used for over a hundred years, dating back to the exploits of Harry St. John Philby, T.E. Lawrence and the British carving up of the Middle East and special relationship with Saudi Arabia.

As mentioned, nothing has changed in the last century, other than the focal point of the terror attacks, as the Middle East must constantly be broken up, destabilized and reorganized into “micro-nations” more amenable to Washington’s corrupt corporate and ideological expansionist domination. Recent so-called “terror events” are merely dots on the long timeline of terror, a scripted narrative designed to remodel the American landscape as much as the Middle East, according to D.C. think tank machinations. Saudi Arabia, of course if one of the world’s chief funders of terror, operating as a proxy for the Western elites. Jordan, Qatar, the UAE, Oman, Bahrain and Kuwait are all “Gulf Cooperation nations,” arising from the aegis of the British Empire, and adopted under the U.S. empire.

And what is constantly forgotten is the origin of this cadre’s alignment of the West through oil production was not merely the result of OPEC and Kissinger, it was in fact organized by Bilderberg: It was Bilderberg that organized the ’70s OPEC oil debacle. Isn’t it curious the GCC pro-terror states are also Western-supplying oil states? Citing William F. Engdahl in his A Century of War, Andrew Gavin Marshall writes: One enormous consequence of the ensuing 400 per cent rise in OPEC oil prices was that investments of hundreds of millions of dollars by British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell [both present at Bilderberg] and other Anglo-American petroleum concerns in the risky North Sea could produce oil at a profit,” as “the profitability of these new North Sea oilfields was not at all secure until after the OPEC price rises.” In 2001, the former Saudi representative to OPEC, Sheik Ahmed Yamani, said, “’I am 100 per cent sure that the Americans were behind the increase in the price of oil. The oil companies were in real trouble at that time, they had borrowed a lot of money and they needed a high oil price to save them.”

When he was sent by King Faisal to the Shah of Iran in 1974, the Shah said that it was Henry Kissinger who wanted a higher price for oil. (136-7) In other words, war is a racket, as General Smedley Butler famously stated, and the new “War on Terror” (TM) of our day is not new, but an updated version of the old British strategy of staving off Russia. Little has changed a century later, as the major power bloc of the West, the Atlanticists still charge forward according to the Mackinder Heartland doctrine that the Western merchant/banking sea power must dominate and control the Eurasian “heartland” to ensure no Eastern rivalry.

Through the export of Opium, China was subjugated, and through export of Marxism, both China and Russia experienced the havoc of Western-born ideological materialism. Heartland versus Rimland. It is precisely this same utilitarian Anglo-empiricist, pragmatist philosophy that has ultimately turned on its own populace in a parasitical fashion unheard of for past empires.

Promising sensual and economic utopia, the Bolshevik export to Russia on the part of the Atlantic banking power is not the top-down social engineering strategy of the corporate elite upon the U.S. population itself. The great delusion is that the West is “free,” when it is entering the realm of greater enslavement than Sovietism experienced. The only difference is the foolish Western populace cannot grasp their enslavement is at the hands of Marxist corporations.

The central banks, the Fortune 100 and their shareholders love cultural Marxism and command and control, socialist economic models because it is the quickest way to consolidate wealth and transfer the actually valuable assets to the controlling oligarchy. In such a system, the opposition will inevitably all be titled “terrorists,” as the appellation is already being extended beyond radical Islamists. And after it extends beyond the average person, the conditioning will be so strong that any thoughts, words, actions or potential-pre-crime actions will also follow under the elastic notion of “terror.”

Terrorism is thus a social weapon, not of indigenous, individual “actors” and lone wolves, but stage managed dupes, patsies and tools of an international oligarchical cartel, as Orwell demonstrated in 1984 with the fictional villain of Immanuel Goldstein. Indeed, who funds these groups? (We saw who, above). The most obvious fact of the contradiction of the “War on Terror” (TM) is that it almost always works to further Washington’s domestic and geopolitical aims. Terror, then, is like Trotsky’s notion of perpetual war – perpetual war on the psyche of the globe (it’s a global war on terror), as a phase in the dialectical convergence on the path to global government. That is why terrorism serves western political aims. You can read more from Jay Dyer at his site Jay’s Analysis.

This article may be re-posted in full with attribution. 

10 13 11 flagbar

Why Some People Will Always Bow to Tyrants

July 20th, 2015 by

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/07/why-some-people-will-always-bow-to.html

7-20-2015 10-06-23 AM

By Joshua Krause

As America continues to descend into a vicious police state, many have wondered how it all came to this. The easiest answer to that question, is that we let it happen. No matter how brutal a regime may be, tyrants never come to power unless they gain the approval, or at least the indifferent consent of their people.

So the real question is, how come so many people seem absolutely complacent in the face of our crumbling cultural values, and the steady march of tyranny? Even worse, how can so many people revel in it? It seems like the number of people who truly value freedom are severely outnumbered by idiots and power tripping busybodies. Granted, the number of people who want to be free has grown in recent years, but they’re still few and far between when compared to the glut of grovelling masses that we share the world with.

Here’s the awful answer to that question, and the dirty truth that most people can’t bring themselves to admit. Most people love freedom, but only as an idea. They like the idea that they can do whatever they want, they admire the archetype of the rugged individualist, and everyone loves underdogs and rebels. In other words, people love the banners and symbols of freedom, but do they love freedom in practice?

I would argue that no, many of them don’t. As strange as it may sound, most people really struggle with having freedom. Let me provide an example, of which there are many in the field of marketing.

In the year 2000, two psychologists conducted a study on how the number of choices we have affects our behavior. They went to a supermarket and displayed 24 different gourmet jams on a table, and provided $1 coupons to see how much interest it garnered. They did the same thing the next day, but instead of 24 jams, there were only 6. The large display attracted much more interest, but the small display generated 10 times as many sales.

Maybe you think that study is inconsequential, and I wouldn’t blame you for thinking that, but let me share another case that will clarify my point. One of the psychologists who conducted that study, did another study on the differences between end-of-life care in the United States and France. She interviewed parents in both countries who had children on life support. In France, the doctor makes the decision as to whether or not a child is taken off life support, and in the United States it is the parents’ decision.

She talked to these parents a year after their children had died. The American parents were much more distraught over their decision to pull the plug. They still had nagging doubts about whether it was the right decision to make, and they felt like they had “executed” their children. The French parents, on the other hand, didn’t feel nearly as bad about the situation. They were well on their way to coping with the tragedy.

The point I’m trying to make here is that most people don’t like having choices, despite how much they’ll argue to the contrary. The more choices they’re given, the more likely they are to not like the choices they have or make. There’s much more doubt about whether or not that choice was correct, which leads to some pretty counter-intuitive conclusions. You can measure how free you are by the number of choices you have, and most people claim to love freedom, but in many cases those people are happier when they have fewer, or no choices. I think most people are simply happier without freedom, which is unfortunate and sad to say the least.

And that is why so many people accept tyranny, and why it will always be a problem for the human race. Because tyranny is so much easier than freedom. It is acquiescence. It means giving up. Tyranny is for quitters, and it amounts to handing over the reins to someone else.  Most people are happier when they don’t have a choice, and they don’t even realize it.

However, there is another way to look at this odd human behavior.

There was another interesting fact that was gleaned from that study. The American parents who had chosen to take their sick children off life support, still regretted their decision. But when asked if they would have had it any other way, most of them claimed that they would have still made the same decision. Their decision made them unhappy, they knew it made them unhappy, but when they were asked if they would have rather let the doctor make that choice, they all said no.

And that right there is an example of people who truly want freedom, and not just the rosy idea of freedom. Those who truly want freedom are willing to accept the painful struggle of having a choice in life, and prefer it to the ignorant bliss that comes with not having a choice. However, it was only applicable to that particular situation. Would those same parents prefer to have a choice in every other aspect of their lives?

Unfortunately, that kind of person is a rare bird these days. If you could ask everyone in the world about their ethics and political beliefs, you’d probably find a wide variety, but most of them would have one thing in common. There’s always some part of their lives that they are willing to relinquish to a “higher authority,” and that part differs depending on their ideology. Most people don’t really want the full freedom package.

So it’s up to the rare few who really want freedom, without compromise, to make it a reality for themselves. The human race will always teeter on the edge of a tyrannical abyss, because there is an inherent weakness in our species. We’re happier when we don’t have so many choices (or freedom), which means that accepting tyranny is easy for us. It takes all our strength and moral fiber to rise above it, because we default towards tyranny (which is defined by the lack of choice in our lives) when we stop caring. It’s our natural inclination.

Just as human weakness and apathy leads to ignorance, violence, and hatred, it also destroys freedom. And the political and financial elitists of the world want you to give in to your weaknesses, and fall back on those baser instincts. They want you to give up. They want you to yearn for a simple life, where your choices are taken care of by someone else. They want you to be a slave.

But do you really want that? Do you have the strength to make that choice? 

Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshua’s reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger. 

This article may be re-posted in full with attribution. 

10 13 11 flagbar

 

PUBLIC SCHOOLS WANT TO CHANGE YOUR CHILDS SEX

July 16th, 2015 by

http://www.newswithviews.com/Duigon/lee311.htm

By Lee Duigon

NewsWithViews.com

Outrage of the week (for the time being): Oregon public schools offer sex-change “therapy” to children without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

All right, the Fox News report did make it sound kind of like the schools were rushing a lot of kids into sex-change operations. Liberals fired back by resorting to a Snopes.com refutation of the story, the gist of which was, “Move along, folks, move along—there’s nothing to worry about here,” despite the fact that, admitted by Snopes, “Services already approved for this new, covered line [covered by Medicaid, they mean] include psychotherapy, medical visits, and medications to suppress puberty in gender questioning youth.” Did you get that last bit? “Medications to suppress puberty in gender questioning youth.” Does that strike you as entirely innocuous?

Snopes is all wet on this one, and here’s why.

First, although the actual “gender reassignment” surgery is difficult and very expensive, the ideology behind it isn’t. So a doctor would have to be pretty reckless, financially, to perform such an operation on a 15-year-old without the parents’ consent, based on the extremely small likelihood that the teenager would be able to pay for it (“Honest, doc, I’ll pay you just as soon as I finish working off my college student debt”—at which time the doctor might be on the way to his 100th birthday, presuming he’s still alive).

Indoctrination is cheap, and the schools are big on indoctrination. For instance, there’s a school district in Nebraska where the teachers have been told not to call girls and boys “girls and boys” anymore, but “purple penguins,” because calling them girls and boys would be “uninclusive” of other, largely imaginary, “genders”. [Read]

Second, this “trans ed” caper is only part of a much larger agenda to rush children into sex, any and all sex, as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. Parents who send their kids to public schools deny that this is being done. If they admitted it was being done, they would then have to explain why they were allowing it to be done to their children. It’s too bad these parents can’t be loaded onto a bus and forced to attend one of the “sex educators’” conventions I’ve personally covered in New Jersey. This has been going on for years.

Third, not all of the indoctrination is active. Some of it is passive. Here’s a Catholic school where the “religious director” has been fired for being in a lesbian “marriage”. [Read] Although the Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is a mortal sin, this woman’s daily presence as religious director at a Catholic school gave the message that this teaching is not to be taken at all seriously. God was just kidding when he said that was a sin.

Stuff like this is bound to happen in any society ruled, top to bottom, by perverts, thieves, liars, and wackos. Lib’ral politicians, university pinheads, powerful teachers’ unions, Hollywood, and the nooze media are all solidly behind this push for child sexualization. Jerry Sandusky must feel like a real chump, sitting in jail for doing what is defended and applauded throughout the academic world.

But parents don’t want to believe that, do they? Because then they would have to explain why they send their kids to public school to be taught all this toxic foolishness.

And the American people react to it with all the vigor of algae on the surface of a pond. Hey, do whatever you want to us! Teach our children that they aren’t boys or girls, but “purple penguins” or whatever. Erase our national borders. Replace the electorate with a whole new majority consisting of illegal aliens and welfare drones who know nothing of and care nothing for American traditions. Give Bruce Jenner a Medal of Freedom for being a lost soul and having himself turned into a sham “woman.” Redefine our basic social institutions anytime you feel like it. We won’t resist. We’ll just watch TV and play video games.

What we are doing is setting up our country for a fall of Biblical proportions.

We are killing our culture, and in the not-so-long run, our culture is going to kill us back.

© 2015 Lee Duigon – All Rights Reserved

Lee Duigon, a contributing editor with the Chalcedon Foundation, is a former newspaper reporter and editor, small businessman, teacher, and horror novelist. He has been married to his wife, Patricia, for 34 years. See his new fantasy/adventure novels, Bell Mountain and The Cellar Beneath the Cellar, available on www.amazon.com

Website: LeeDuigon.com

E-Mail: leeduigon@verizon.net

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

I am at odds with the two subjects here as to which is the most ludicrous. For sure, exposing this kind of ideology on children is a putrid betrayal of parental trust. But the success of the frog syndrome on the parents is way beyond my ability to elucidate in acceptable language. I am almost to the point of congratulating the scumbags in our government for their participation in this travesty. After all, this could not have happened without their approval. They are masters at implementing the frog syndrome on an apathetic citizenry. These puke parents only care about their own infatuations. American values are being sodomized while the people play innocent. In my day, I would have dragged any teacher behind my truck over a gravel road for teaching this to my children. Unbeliveable!

10 13 11 flagbar

 

HOW YOU BECAME A SLAVE TO THE BANKERS!

July 15th, 2015 by

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/slavetobanks.php#axzz3fzWjwNDi

7-15-2015 4-20-36 PM

By Michael Rivero

In the good old days, after George Washington and the boys won the war to free us from the bank of England’s predatory and impoverishing practices, they set up a “revolutionary” economic system. The government created and issued all the public currency, spending it into circulation to purchase what the government needed, then after the currency circulated through society to fuel commerce, was taxed back to the government to balance the books.

Simple!

Banks existed, of course. But they were kept off to one side, and use of the banks was optional for the people of the United States. It was possible to go through one’s entire life without dealing with a bank if one chose to do so.

This system not only reserved the choice whether to use the bank to the people, but it was a stable system, because as debt increased, the people could voluntarily choose to stop borrowing from the bank! That was one of the most important freedoms won during the revolution; the freedom to say “no” to the banks!

Then, in 1913, a corrupt Congress and a corrupt President changed the structure of the nation’s economy and stole your freedom to say “no”! The economic system was reverted to a mirror of that same system the nation fought a revolution to be free of. The power to issue money was taken away from the government and given to the bankers and from that day onward, ALL money in circulation was created as the result of a loan at interest from the bankers to the government, to business, and to the people. There is no exception. Every dollar paid in salary, spent to purchase food or gas, or paid in taxes, began as an interest bearing loan. There is no money in circulation in the United States that did not start out as a loan at interest from the bankers at the privately-owned Federal Reserve system.

From that moment on, the freedom of the people to refuse to borrow from the banks and to refuse to pay interest was stripped away. To participate in the commerce of the United States at all means being forced to use money loaned at interest, to the profit of the bankers and the impoverishment of the public. Your freedom to say “no” was stolen by Congress in 1913, without your permission and before you were born.

When you have lost the freedom to say “no”, when you have no choice but to pay a percentage of your earnings as interest to the bankers whether in private debt or taxes to cover the gargantuan debts by the US Government itself, you are a slave to the bankers. And because more money is owed to the bankers than actually exists, because of the interest charged on the loan that created the money, the debt-slavery is permanent! No matter how hard you work, no matter how much you sacrifice, the debt can never be paid off. The system is intentionally designed to trap the nation’s population permantly in unpayable debt, to make them slaves to that debt and to the bankers. This is the purpose behind the design of the Federal Reserve, the International Monitary Fund, the European Central Bank, and indeed every private central bank issuing the public currency as a loan at interest. This is why today every nation is drowning in created debt, and slaved to the private bankers. That is the reason for ever increasing taxes and decreasing benefits; to pay the bankers their unpayable interest on the public currency.

For that enslavement to succeed, your right and freedom to refuse that bank’s interest-bearing money must be stripped away. The government must force you to use that private central bank’s currency, loaned to you at interest, via the Legal Tender Laws. Therein lies your slave chains. You are ordered by the government, on pain of prison, to use the banker’s money, and to pay the interest charged by the bankers through your taxes.

Free people have the right to say “no.” Free people have a right to decide for themselves what medium of exchange they will use and to choose not to involve the bankers!

There is no freedom without the freedom to say “no.” Slaves cannot say “no” when ordered to surrender the products of their labor to their masters.

You are a slave.

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit.We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” — Woodrow Wilson 1919

Slavery exists only because the slaves have been taught to believe that slavery is the way the world is supposed to be. Beliefs are chains used to enslave free people. No chains of steel ever bound a human tighter than the chains made of the beliefs with which we are indoctrinated while young in the state schools and the churches.

Slaves used to be held prisoner by their belief in rule by divine right. Then the slaves regained their freedom when they realized that divine right is only an illusion created by the enslavers to trick the people into obedient servitude.

Then slaves were held prisoner by their belief in rule by chattel ownership of one’s body. Then the slaves regained their freedom when they realized that one person owning another is an illusion created by the enslavers to trick the people into obedient servitude.

Today the modern slaves (that is YOU) are held prisoner by their belief in compound interest; that they owe money that never existed to repay money created out of thin air. And you modern slaves will regain your freedoms when you realize that private central banking is just another illusion created by the enslavers to trick you into obedient servitude.

Stop believing.

Cry freedom!

10 13 11 flagbar

 

Truth is an existential threat to the US government

July 14th, 2015 by

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/truth

-is-an-existential-threat-to-the-us-government?f=must_reads

7-14-2015 7-12-52 AM

By LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD

The United States is not a constitutional republic. It is an oligarchy controlled by wealthy financiers who hire politicians to pass legislation beneficial to them and employ journalists to keep the citizens ignorant and compliant.

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans believe in democracy. It is simply an ideological contest between two different forms of totalitarianism based on big government, where they represent only themselves in their pursuit of personal power and profit.

Over the last hundred years, the Democrat Party has moved farther and farther to the left, evolving from populism to Marxism and developing an operational model resembling that of the mafia. Its leaders are a gaggle of coffeehouse communists and unindicted felons, who seek the lifestyles of the rich and famous while practicing the politics of Joseph Stalin.

The Republicans are democratic only in the sense that they are willing to sell their votes to the highest bidder, where their political power and, ultimately, compensation from their rich donors increase proportionally with the expansion of government.

The federal government is now an industry competing with the private sector for revenues and resources, but, unlike the private sector, government is unconstrained by regulation and the rule of law.

The cost of public-sector pay and benefits, for example, which in many cases far exceed what comparable workers earn in the private sector, combined with hundreds of billions of dollars in unfunded pension liabilities for retired government workers, are weighing down the economy.

The fundamental problem is public-sector collective bargaining. It is appropriate in the private sector, where workers bargain with private, profit-making corporations and where market forces provide an independent check on both sides’ demands.

Yet there is an unholy alliance and a mutually beneficial relationship for money and votes between Democrats and public sector unions, which, in terms of government services, translate into higher costs, lower efficiency and, worst of all, less democracy.

Why are such illogical and dishonest policies allowed to continue? Because it is profitable.

To foster big government from which they personally benefit, the Democrats nurture a Marxist-type victim class, while the Republicans serve the affluent, both at the expense of the Middle Class, whose propensities toward liberty and accountability represent a threat to the hopelessly corrupt status quo that the two major parties and the media endeavor so vigorously to protect.

Ergo, the War on the Middle Class, now pursued by both Democrats and Republicans, albeit for different reasons.

As a consequence and, not surprisingly, today the main the activity of the federal government is lying. Barack Obama lied to get elected, lied to enact his policies and lied when those policies failed. In response, the Republicans added cowardice to their own set of lies.

As George Orwell noted: “In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

That is why the political establishment and the media find Donald Trump so frightening; the danger that the truth might be spoken.

There is, however, a greater peril – when blatant and outrageous lies are no longer sufficient to soothe the electorate into complacency, such a government must begin to curtail liberty and oppress the people in order to sustain itself, an approach with which both Democrats and Republicans find agreement.

The United States is on the cusp of a second civil war, one to determine who should control the federal government. It is not a contest between the Democrats and Republicans or liberals and conservatives, but a battle between the entrenched power and tyranny of the bipartisan political-media establishment versus the rights and liberties of the American people.

Only the truth will set us free.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “. He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

7-14-2015 6-52-12 AM

7-14-2015 6-53-22 AM

7-14-2015 6-54-24 AM7-14-2015 6-54-59 AM

THIS IS A NO BRAINER FOLKS

PICK UP THE PHONE AND DO YOUR DUTY

7-13-2015 7-22-56 AM

10 13 11 flagbar

U.S. Blends Into World Gov’t: Just a Matter of Time

July 8th, 2015 by

http://beforeitsnews.com/new-world-order/2015/07/us-blends-into-

world-govt-just-a-matter-of-time-4684.html

7-8-2015 8-20-10 AM

By Daymond Duck

In Nov. 2010, Pres. Obama travelled to Mumbai, India where he said, “There is going to be a tug-of-war within the U.S. between those who see globalization (world government) as a threat and those who accept that we live in an open integrated (merged) world.” These words indicate that world government is coming to the U.S. and it will cause problems.

On July 22, 2014, at a DNC fund raiser in Seattle, Pres. Obama was talking about the state of the world when he said, “Part of people’s concern is just the sense that around the world the old order isn’t holding and we’re not quite yet to where we need to be in terms of a new order that’s based on a different set of principles, that’s based on a sense of common humanity, that’s based on economies that work for all people.”

Put another way, Pres. Obama was saying he believes our sovereign government is outdated and holding back his agenda, but the world is not quite ready for the new world order (world government) that will be based on a different set of laws (world laws) and the idea that everyone is equal (citizens of the world not citizens of a nation) and a one-world economic system (wealth redistribution).

The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is an eleven-nation secret international document that is being written like a treaty, but it is being called a trade agreement. Leaked reports say the TPP has 29 chapters but only 5 are about trade.

The other 24 chapters are about the environment, global immigration, global wealth redistribution, global education (Common Core), human rights (children’s rights; gay rights, same-sex marriage), gun control, healthcare, women’s reproductive rights (abortion), sustainable development (Agenda 21, the Earth Charter) and other global goals.

Critics say the TPP destroys the U.S. Constitution; the U.S. will never be able to go back to the Constitution again. It speeds up the development of the North American Union providing a framework for world government and speeds that up. It provides a framework for a new world economic system; it establishes laws and courts that will dictate to nations (including the U.S.) the laws that they must pass; it changes immigration laws (erases borders in many nations) and places everyone under the control of a ruling elite that ordinary citizens cannot vote for, remove or replace.

Even worse, the House Ways and Means Committee called it a “Living Agreement.” This means in the future the ruling elite can change anything they want to change and all of the agreeing nations will be bound by those changes.

That is like giving someone an unending supply of signed blank checks that they can fill in for any amount they want at anytime they want and the one who signed them has to make them good. Suppose the ruling elite pass a law that everyone has to take a “mark” to buy and sell. Every country will have to change their laws to force people to comply.

The TPA is a second bill that gives the Pres. fast-track authority to negotiate and sign the TPP and at least two other trade agreements (the Trade in Services Agreement or TiSA and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or TTIP). U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions said these agreements encompass “three-fourths of the world economy and up to ninety percent of the world economy when including countries whose membership is being courted.”

These agreements require every nation that signs them to have the same laws. Up to ninety percent of the world’s economy will be required to have the same laws. They also allow a controlling economic council to write and impose new binding laws on every nation covered by the agreements. (Could this be the 10 kings?)

Let’s consider some of these things. There is a reason why Pres. Obama wanted to keep them secret and the Republican leadership helped him do it.

Pres. Obama is a committed globalist who has insisted that aspects of the globalist agenda be included in the TPP. The globalist agenda includes deciding who writes the laws and what laws are passed; control over all private property; authority over how all land and resources can be used; the right to decide where all buildings can and cannot be built, and where all roads and utilities can and cannot be built.

The TPP includes the right to tell people where they can and cannot live and work; the authority to protect fish, seals, trees, wetlands; and the authority to stop all kinds of land and water pollution, etc. Globalists want to reduce the world’s population; redefine marriage; tell parents how many children they can have; tell couples how they can and cannot discipline their children, keep abortion legal and legalize euthanasia.

Globalists want to establish a government-approved religion, determine which religious beliefs are acceptable, replace the Ten Commandments with the Earth Charter and remove every mention of God from society. Globalists want militaries to deliver food, clean up after natural disasters and control militant citizens instead of fighting wars. They also want to erase all borders and do away with all national flags and monuments.

These Globalist desires are the kinds of things that people can expect to find in the 24 non-trade chapters of the TPA and in the already-planned other three agreements. Control is being given to globalists to write anything they want. The laws they write will be binding on every nation and nothing can be done to stop them. People wish that Obamacare had never been written and it is almost certain that they are going to wish that the TPA had never been written.

The TPP can only be stopped by a two-thirds vote in the Senate before Pres. Obama signs it in late summer or early fall, but many say there is no chance that the Senate will vote it down. In that case, it is just a matter of time until the ten regions of the prophesied one-world government and one-world religion are established.

One final thing: U.S. citizens can go to www.govtrack.us and click on “voting records” to see how their senators and representatives have voted so far. Many have betrayed their constituents for campaign contributions and back-room deals.

Prophecy Plus Ministries
Daymond & Rachel Duck
daymond.duck@yahoo.com

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

If you continue to believe our leaders will turn things around and we will all live long and happy lives, it’s very likely you would also buy a bag of turds with your last dollar instead of a hot-dog.

10 13 11 flagbar

“Take this Supreme Court decision and shove it.”

July 6th, 2015 by

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/04/time-for-the

-states-to-declare-independence-from-the-federal-government/

7-5-2015 1-52-57 PM

By Michael Patrick Leahy

new Rasmussen Poll indicates that a growing number of Americans want state governments to tell the Supreme Court to get out of the business of rewriting laws and telling American citizens how to live their lives.

In a new poll, Rasmussen reported the percentage of Americans who want states to tell the Supreme Court it does not have the power to rewrite the Affordable Care Act or force sovereign states to authorize gay marriages has increased from 24 percent to 33 percent after last week’s Constitution-defying decisions by the court.

A closer look at the poll results indicates that popular sentiment for state defiance of the federal government extends beyond just the Supreme Court’s latest decisions.

“Only 20% [of likely voters] now consider the federal government a protector of individual liberty,” the Rasmussen Poll finds. “Sixty percent (60 %) see the government as a threat to individual liberty instead,” it adds.

“Take this regulation and shove it,” and “take this grant and shove it,” are two additional battle cries which appear to resonate with a growing popular sentiment, especially in “flyover country,” those 38 states outside the dozen in which President Obama won more than 56.2 percent of the vote in 2012.

(In descending order of support for Obama, those twelve states are: Hawaii, Vermont, New York, Rhode Island, Maryland, Massachusetts, California, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, and Maine. Arguably, three additional states where President Obama won between 54 percent and 56.2 percent of the vote in 2012 could be added to this list: Washington, Oregon, and Michigan.)

One hundred and fifty years after the end of the Civil War, it is becoming increasingly clear that there are two Americas—one where the principles of constitutionally limited government and individual liberty are still revered, the other where STATISM and the trampling of individual rights are on the rise.

The Tea Party movement arose in 2009 to restore those principles of constitutionally-limited government. But despite electoral victories that placed Republicans in control of the House of Representatives in 2010, and the Senate in 2014, it is undeniable that the Republican establishment those elections empowered is instead aligned with the forces of statism.

The majority of the members of the Supreme Court itself are also clearly part of the “elitist” camp of anti-constitutionalists. As Breitbart’s Thomas Williams noted, and Justice Scalia himself pointed out in his scathing dissent in the gay marriage decision, not a single member of the nine member court is of the Protestant faith. Not a single member has graduated from a law school other than Harvard, Yale, or Columbia. Nor has a single member done anything other than practice some version of corporate law with “big law” firms, sit on a federal court, work for the federal government, or work in left-wing academia.

With the entire apparatus of the federal government now aligned against constitutionally limited government, some traditionalists have given themselves over to despair and defeatism. That negative view, however, fails to understand the solution provided to usurpations of power by the central government found within the Constitution itself, with origins in the Declaration of Independence, whose signing on July 4, 1776 we celebrate today.

As Rasmussen Reports noted, “The Declaration of Independence, the foundational document that Americans honor on the Fourth of July, says that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, but just 25% believe that to be true of the federal government today.”

Even more significantly, however, the recent Supreme Court decisions are a complete rejection of the concepts of state sovereignty articulated in the 10th amendment, the last element of the Bill of Rights, the promise of whose passage by the First Congress was key to the ratification of the Constitution.

The 10th amendment, ratified along with the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791, reads as follows:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The concept of popular resistance to the unconstitutional encroachment of the federal government on the rights of individuals and states has been gaining momentum over the past several years.

Conservative radio host Mark Levin, for instance, has advocated on behalf of an Article V Convention of the States to propose new amendments to the Constitution for ratification by the states that would limit federal powers.

Conservative author and intellectual leader Charles Murray has also advocated for a type of civil disobedience to resist unlawful federal regulations through the use of well funded legal challenges to the most egregious of those regulations.

Both concepts have merit, but ultimately lack the power and effective counter-attack available through the simple mechanism offered by the 10th amendment—widespread resistance to federal overreaches by the state governments themselves.

Bolder, constitutionally based resistance at the state level, is a practical and viable remedy, one that already has broad popular support among conservatives.

As Rasmussen Reports noted:

[T]he voters who feel strongest about overriding the federal courts – Republicans and conservatives – are those who traditionally have been the most supportive of the Constitution and separation of powers. During the Obama years, however, these voters have become increasingly suspicious and even hostile toward the federal government.

Fifty percent (50%) of GOP voters now believe states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings, compared to just 22% of Democrats and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Interestingly, this represents a noticeable rise in support among all three groups.

Fifty percent (50%) of conservative voters share this view, but just 27% of moderates and 15% of liberals agree.

Widespread resistance at the state level, however, will require two elements: strong governors and strong state legislatures willing to vigorously assert their 10th amendment rights.

At the local level, we’ve already seen the first indications that a movement may be afoot. In Tennessee, for example, the entire Decatur County Clerk’s Office resigned rather than enforce the recent gay marriage decision announced by the Supreme Court.

Isolated pockets of resistance are springing up around the country.

And yet, even among “The Great 38 States”—flyover country where President Obama either lost or won less than 56.2 percent of the vote in the 2012 election—leadership at the executive level is lacking.

The next electoral battle for the preservation of the constitutional republic will be fought not only for the highest office of the executive branch in 2016—it will also be fought in the gubernatorial races of those “Great 38 States” where the vast majority of voters still believe in America, and still believe in constitutionally limited government.

Freedom of the individual states from the usurpations of the federal government does not mean secession from the constitutional republic. It is, instead, the surest realistic mechanism that remains to preserve the constitutional republic.

By limiting the role of the federal government to the exercise of that very narrow set of specifically “enumerated powers” ascribed to it in the Constitution, state governments can guarantee that our constitutional republic will continue to flourish for generations to come.

The alternative is a constitutional republic in name only, a dystopian oligarchy where words have no meaning, right is wrong, good is bad, truth is deception, and the rule of law is invented anew each day by the ruling class of federal royalty.

As for that dirty dozen of liberal blue states, like California, New York, and Massachusetts? Let them continue on their path of reckless spending and experience the fate of modern Greece.

Meanwhile, the rest of us can continue to choose liberty.

Read More Stories About:

Big GovernmentSupreme CourtConstitutionaffordable care act

Declaration of Independencebill of rightsJustice ScaliaTenth Amendment

“Take this Supreme Court decision and shove it.”

10 13 11 flagbar

 


SEO Powered By SEOPressor