Categories » ‘DEPRAVITY’
December 14th, 2015 by olddog
By Peggy Noonan
Trump, hopefully, is waking some of the RINOs up. The criticisms of Trump are amazingly missing something. They are lacking in negative stories from those who work for him or have had business dealings with him. After all the employees he’s had and all the business deals he’s made there is a void of criticism. In fact, long term employees call him a strong and merciful leader and say he is far more righteous and of high integrity than people may think. And while it may surprise many, he’s actually humble when it comes to his generosity and kindness. A good example is a story that tells of his limo breaking down on a deserted highway outside of New York City. A middle-aged couple stopped to help him and as a thank you he paid off their mortgage, but he didn’t brag about that. Generous and good people rarely talk of charity they bestow on others. But as much as all this is interesting, the real thing that people want to know is what Donald Trump‘s plan is for America. It’s funny how so many people say they don’t know what it is, or they act like Trump is hiding it. The information is readily available if people would just do a little homework. But, since most Americans won’t.
1.) Trump believes that America should not intervene militarily in other country’s problems without being compensated for doing so. If America is going to risk the lives of our soldiers and incur the expense of going to war, then the nations we help must be willing to pay for our help. Using the Iraq War as an example, he cites the huge monetary expense to American taxpayers (over $1.5 trillion, and possibly much more depending on what sources are used to determine the cost) in addition to the cost in human life. He suggests that Iraq should have been required to give us enough of their oil to pay for the expenses we incurred. He includes in those expenses the medical costs for our military and $5 million for each family that lost a loved one in the war and $2 million for each family of soldiers who received severe injuries.
2.) Trump wants America to have a strong military again. He believes the single most important function of the federal government is national defense. He has said he wants to find the General Patton or General MacArthur that could lead our military buildup back to the strength it needs to be. While he hasn’t said it directly that I know of, Trump’s attitude about America and about winning tells me he’d most likely be quick to eliminate rules of engagement that handicap our military in battle. Clearly Trump is a “win at all costs” kind of guy, and I’m sure that would apply to our national defense and security, too
3.) Trump wants a strong foreign policy and believes that it must include 7 core principles American interests come first. Always. No apologies. Maximum firepower and military preparedness. Only go to war to win. Stay loyal to your friends and suspicious of your enemies. Keep the technological sword razor sharp. See the unseen Prepare for threats before they materialize. Respect and support our present and past warriors.
4.) Trump believes that terrorists who are captured should be treated as military combatants, not as criminals like the Obama administration treats them.
5.) Trump makes the point that China’s manipulation of their currency has given them unfair advantage in our trade dealings with them. He says we must tax their imports to offset their currency manipulation, which will cause American companies to be competitive again and drive manufacturing back to America and create jobs here. Although he sees China as the biggest offender, he believes that America should protect itself from all foreign efforts to take our jobs and manufacturing. For example, Ford is building a plant in Mexico and Trump suggests that every part or vehicle Ford makes in Mexico be taxed 35% if they want to bring it into the U. S., which would cause companies like Ford to no longer be competitive using their Mexican operations and move manufacturing back to the U.S., once again creating jobs here.
6.) Trump wants passage of NOPEC legislation (No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act – NOPEC – S.394), which would allow the government to sue OPEC for violating antitrust laws. According to Trump, that would break up the cartel. He also wants to unleash our energy companies to drill domestically (sound like Sarah Palin’s drill baby, drill?) thereby increasing domestic production creating jobs and driving domestic costs of oil and gas down while reducing dependence on foreign oil.
7.) Trump believes a secure border is critical for both security and prosperity in America. He wants to build a wall to stop illegals from entering and put controls on immigration. (And he says he’ll get Mexico to pay for the wall, which many have scoffed at, but given his business successes I wouldn’t put it past him.) He also wants to enforce our immigration laws and provide no path to citizenship for illegals.
8.) Trump wants a radical change to the tax system to not only make it better for average Americans, but also to encourage businesses to stay here and foreign businesses to move here. The resulting influx of money to our nation would do wonders for our economy. He wants to make America the place to do business. He also wants to lower the death tax and the taxes on capital gains and dividends. This would put more than $1.6 trillion back into the economy and help rebuild the 1.5 million jobs we’ve lost to the current tax system. He also wants to charge companies who outsource jobs overseas a 20% tax, but for those willing to move jobs back to America they would not be taxed. And for citizens he has a tax plan that would allow Americans to keep more of what they earn and spark economic growth. He wants to change the personal income tax to: Up to $30,000 taxed at 1%. From $30,000 to $100,000 taxed at 5%. From $100,000 to $1,000,000 taxed at 10%. $1,000,000 and above taxed at 15%.
9.) Trump wants Obamacare repealed. He says it’s a “job-killing, health care-destroying monstrosity” that “can’t be reformed, salvaged, or fixed.” He believes in allowing real competition in the health insurance marketplace to allow competition to drive prices down. He also believes in tort reform to get rid of defensive medicine and lower costs.
10.) Trump wants spending reforms in Washington, acknowledging that America spends far more than it receives in revenue. He has said he believes that if we don’t stop increasing the national debt once it hits $24 trillion it will be impossible to save this country.
11.) Even though he says we need to cut spending, he does not want to harm those on Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. He believes that the citizens have faithfully paid in to the system to have these services available and that the American government has an obligation to fulfill its end of the bargain and provide those benefits. Therefore, he wants to build the economy up so that we have the revenue to pay those costs without cutting the benefits to the recipients. He disagrees with Democrats who think raising taxes is the answer and says that when you do that you stifle the economy. On the other hand, when you lower taxes and create an environment to help businesses they will grow, hire more workers, and those new workers will be paying taxes that become more tax revenue for the government.
12.) Trump also wants reform of the welfare state saying that America needs “a safety net, not a hammock.” He believes in a welfare to work program that would help reduce the welfare roles and encourage people to get back to work. And he wants a crackdown on entitlement fraud.
13.) Trump believes climate change is a hoax.
14.) Trump opposes Common Core.
15.) Trump is pro-life, although he allows for an exception due to rape, incest, or the life of the mother.
16.) Trump is pro 2nd Amendment rights.
17.) Trump’s view on same-sex marriage is that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he also believes that this is a states rights issue, not a federal issue.
18.) Trump supports the death penalty. Trump believes that there is a lack of common sense, innovative thinking in Washington (Hmmm… looks like he believes in horse sense!). He says it’s about seeing the unseen and that’s the kind of thinking we need to turn this country around. He tells a personal story to illustrate the point: “When I opened Trump National Golf Club at Rancho Palos Verdes in Los Angeles, I was immediately told that I would need to build a new and costly ballroom. The current ballroom was gorgeous, but it only sat 200 people and we were losing business because people needed a larger space for their events. Building a new ballroom would take years to get approval and permits (since it’s on the Pacific Ocean), and cost about $5 million. I took one look at the ballroom and saw immediately what needed to be done. The problem wasn’t the size of the room, it was the size of the chairs. They were huge, heavy, and unwieldy. We didn’t need a bigger ballroom, we needed smaller chairs! So I had them replaced with high-end, smaller chairs. I then had our people sell the old chairs and got more money for them than the cost of the new chairs. In the end, the ballroom went from seating 200 people to seating 320 people. Our visitors got the space they desired, and I spared everyone the hassle of years of construction and $5 million of expense. It’s amazing what you can accomplish with a little common sense. On top of his saving years of construction and $5 million in expenses, he also was able to keep the ballroom open for business during the time it would have been under remodeling, which allowed him to continue to make money on the space instead of losing that revenue during construction time.
19) Donald Trump’s entire life has been made up of success and winning. He’s been accused of bankruptcies, but that’s not true. He’s never filed personal bankruptcy. He’s bought companies and legally used bankruptcy laws to restructure their debt, just as businesses do all the time. But he’s never been bankrupt personally.
20) He’s a fighter that clearly loves America and would fight for our nation. Earlier I quoted Trump saying, “I love America. And when you love something, you protect it passionately – fiercely, even.” We never hear that from Democrats or even from most Republicans. Donald Trump is saying things that desperately need to be said but no other candidate has shown the fortitude to stand up and say them. Looking over this list of what he wants for America I see a very necessary set of goals that are long past due.
Before we criticize someone because the media does, maybe we should seriously consider what he has to offer, as it is important to know what each of our candidates to replace a President who has ruined us globally, and who has put us on a path to disaster! This is not an appeal to vote for Trump, only to give some depth of comparison, before this week’s debate.
I have absolutely no reason to dislike Trump, or to doubt the sincerity of Ms. Noonan’s article, but my research on the International Banking Cartels massive army of loyal soldiers convinces me Trump would have a short life span if he is allowed to win, which I also doubt. The Bankers have the big stick and are adept at swinging it. My instinct is, this is all a dog and pony show to demoralize his supporters.
December 12th, 2015 by olddog
The Mind Unleashed
On November 28th, 2015, Alaska State Judge Anna von Reitz (Anna Maria Riezinger) addressed an open letter to all federal agents, including the FBI and US Marshals to arrest Congress, the President and the Secretary of the Treasury. She goes into incredible detail on the fraud that has been committed. Anyone who reads this is sure to learn at least something. Below is the text and you can open the original pdf here. This has been encouraged to be shared widely.
Anna Maria Riezinger (Anna Von Reitz)
November 28, 2015 Big Lake,
Alaska Dear Federal Agents:
I am addressing this letter in this way, because it is my understanding that it will be read by members of both the FBI and the US Marshals Service. It is also my understanding that you have available for examination a wet-ink signed copy of the illustrated affidavit of probable cause entitled “You Know Something Is Wrong When…..An American Affidavit of Probable Cause” as back-up reference and evidence.
Since the publication of the affidavit a plethora of new supporting documentation and evidence has come to light. We found, for example, that on June 30, 1864, the members of Congress acting as the Board of Directors of a private, mostly foreign-owned corporation doing business as “The United States of America, Incorporated” changed the meaning of “state”, “State” and “United States” to mean “District of Columbia Municipal Corporation”. Like the 1862 change of the meaning of the word “person” to mean “corporation” cited in our affidavit, these special coded meanings of words render a drastically different picture of the world around us.
It turns out that your “personal bank account” is actually a “corporate bank account”. The “Colorado State Court” is actually the “Colorado District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Court”. If you are shocked to learn these facts, you are not alone. So are millions of other Americans. These changes were made 150 years ago and tucked away in reams of boring meeting minutes and legalistic gobbledygook meant to be applied only to the internal workings of a private governmental services corporation and its employees.
There was no public announcement, just as there was no public announcement or explanation when Congress created “municipal citizenship” known as “US citizenship” in 1868. Properly, technically, even to this day, this form of “citizenship” applies only to those born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and other Insular States, so there was no real reason to educate the general public about the topic. As Congress was secretively using the labor and the private property assets of these “citizens” as collateral backing the corporate debts of “The United States of America, Inc.” there was plenty of reason to obscure this development.
At the end of the Civil War it would have been very unpopular to reveal that they were simply changing gears from private sector slave ownership to public sector slave ownership. You may be surprised to learn that slavery was not abolished by the Thirteenth or any other Amendment to any constitution then or now. Instead, slavery was redefined as the punishment meted out to criminals. Look it up and read it for yourselves. It remains perfectly legal to enslave criminals, and it was left to Congress to define who the criminals were, because Congress was given plenary power over the District of Columbia and its citizenry by the original Constitution of the Republic and could do whatever it liked within the District and the Washington, DC Municipalities.
A child picking dandelions on the sidewalk could be arbitrarily defined as a criminal and enslaved for life by the renegade Congress functioning as the government of the District of Columbia and as the Board of Directors for the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation, but for starters, Congress simply defined “US citizens” as debt slaves under the 14th Amendment of their corporation’s articles and by-laws—-which they deceptively named the “Constitution of the United States of America”.
The actual Constitution was and still is called “The Constitution for the united States of America”, but most people untrained in the Law and trusting what they believed to be their government didn’t notice the difference between “The Constitution for the united States of America” and the “Constitution of the United States of America”. Are you beginning to see a pattern of deliberate deceit and self-interest and double-speak and double-dealing? And are you also beginning to catch the drift—the motivation—behind it? Let’s discuss the concept of “hypothecation of debt”.
This little gem was developed by the bankers who actually owned and ran the governmental services corporations doing business as “The United States of America, Inc.” and as the “United States, Incorporated”. When you hypothecate debt against someone or against some asset belonging to someone else, you simply claim that they agreed to stand as surety for your debt — similar to cosigning a car loan — and as long as you make your payments, nobody is any the wiser. Normally, it’s not possible for us to just arbitrarily claim that someone is our surety for debt without proof of consent, but that is exactly what Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Conference of Governors did in March of 1933.
They named all of us and all our property as surety standing good for the debts of their own bankrupt governmental services corporation during bankruptcy reorganization—-and got away with it by claiming that they were our “representatives” and that we had delegated our authority to them to do this “for” us. The exact date and occasion when this happened and where it is recorded, is given in our affidavit. In order to pull this off, however, they had to allege that we were all “US citizens”, and therefore, all subject to the plenary power of Congress acting as an oligarchy ruling over the District of Columbia and the Federal Territories.
They did this by abusing the public trust and creating and registering millions of foreign situs trusts named after each of us. Under their own diversity of citizenship rules, corporations are considered to be “US citizens”. So they created all these foreign situs trusts as franchises of their own bankrupt corporation, used our names styled like this: John Quincy Adams—-and placed commercial liens against our names as chattel owned by their corporation and standing as surety for its debts. A group of thugs elected to political office grossly transgressed against the American people and the American states and committed the crime of personage against each and every one of us without us ever being aware of it.
They couldn’t enslave us, but they could enslave a foreign situs trust named after us— that we conveniently didn’t know existed— and by deliberately confusing this “thing” with us via the misuse of our given names, they could bring charges against what appeared to be us and our private property in their very own corporate tribunals. And so the fleecing of America began in earnest. The hirelings had our credit cards, had stolen our identities, and were ready to begin a crime spree unheralded in human history.
They claimed that we all knew about this arrangement and consented to it, because we “voluntarily” gave up our gold when FDR sent his henchmen around to collect it—-when as millions of Americans can attest, people gave up their gold in preference to being shot or having to kill federal agents. They chose life for everyone concerned over some pieces of metal, and for that, they are to be honored; unfortunately, their decision gave the rats responsible an excuse to claim that Americans wanted to leave the gold standard and wanted the “benefits” of this New Deal in “equitable exchange” for their gold, their identities, the abuse of their good names as bankrupts and debtors, the loss of allodial title to their land and homes, and their subjection as slaves to the whims of Congress.
According to them—that is, those who benefited from this gross betrayal of the public trust— we all voluntarily left the Republic and the guarantees of the actual Constitution behind, willingly subjected ourselves to Congressional rule, donated all our assets including our labor and property to the Public Charitable Trust (set up after the Civil War as a welfare trust for displaced plantation slaves), and agreed to live as slaves owned by the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation in exchange for what? Welfare that we paid for ourselves. Social Security that we paid for ourselves.
The criminality of the “US Congress” and the “Presidents” acting since 1933 is jaw-droppingly shocking. Their abuse of the trust of the American people is even worse. They have portrayed this circumstance as a political choice instead of an institutionalized fraud scheme, and they have “presumed” that we all went along with it and agreed to it without complaint. Thus, they have been merrily and secretively having us declared “civilly dead” as American State Citizens the day we are born, and entering a false registration claiming that we are “US Citizens” instead. We are told, when we wake up enough to ask, that we are free to choose our political status.
We don’t have to serve as debt slaves. We can go back and reclaim our guaranteed Republican form of government and our birthright status if we want to—- but that requires a secret process in front of the probate court and expatriation from the Federal United States to the Continental United States and all sorts of voo-doo in backrooms that can only be pursued by the few and the knowledgeable and the blessed. Everyone else has to remain as a debt slave and chattel serving whatever corporation bought the latest version of corporate “persona” named after us.
So let me ask you, as members of the FBI and as US Marshals—- does this sound like something you want to be involved with enforcing on innocent people, or does it sound like something you want to end as expeditiously as possible? The frauds that took root in the wake of the Civil War and which blossomed in the 1930’s have come to their final fruition.
Employees of the “District of Columbia Municipal Corporation” and its United Nations successors are being used as jack-booted thugs to throw Americans into privately owned “federal correctional facilities” when those who need correction—- the members of the American Bar Association and the euphemistically named and privately owned and operated “DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE”—continue to ignore the fact that Americans DO have a choice and that by the millions we are demanding our freedom from all these pathetic false commercial claims and presumptions.
We are standing up before the whole world and telling these privately owned “governmental services corporations” to go bankrupt like any other corporation that doesn’t do its job and mind its budget. These entities deserve to go bankrupt and worse. They have spent money and credit that was never theirs to spend. They have defrauded millions if not billions of innocent people and they have prevented Americans from claiming their birthrights for far too long.
These people— the members of Congress and the various “Presidents” of the numerous “United States” corporations — have acted as criminals. They deserve to be recognized as such. The members of the American Bar Association have attempted to wash their hands while profiting from the situation and obstructing justice. They stand around shrugging and saying, “Well, it’s a political choice. We don’t have anything to say about that.”—–yet at the same time, they refuse to correct the probate records to reflect our chosen change of political status when we plainly identify ourselves and enunciate our Will for them.
They, too, deserve to be recognized as self-interested criminals and accomplices to identity theft, credit fraud, and worse— which is why we have recently issued a $279 trillion dollar commercial obligation lien against the American Bar Association, the International Bar Association, and the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. All our assets— our bodies, homes, businesses, lands, and labor—have been signed over into the “Public Charitable Trust” by con men merely claiming to represent us. Then, when we object to their lies and entrapment, they use the same fraud against us as their excuse for bringing more false claims against us and throwing us in jail. Enough is enough.
The British Monarch and the Lords of the Admiralty have promoted this fraud against us at the same time they have claimed to be our trustees, allies and friends in perpetuity. It’s time to clear the way for us to politely and peaceably exit from any presumption that we are or ever were “US citizens”, willing participants in the “Public Charitable Trust”, or willing “sureties” for the debts of any private bank-run governmental services corporation merely calling itself the United States of Something or Other.
We repudiate any presumption of private municipal citizenship or obligation to the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation or any successor thereof, and demand an immediate and permanent correction of the civil record to reflect our birthright status as American State Citizens, nunc pro tunc.
As for you, as “Federal Agents”, you have a lot to think about. For starters— who really pays your paycheck? Is it the goons in Washington, DC? Or does it all come from the American people you are supposed to be serving? Do you believe for one moment that anyone just lined up and gave their gold to FDR voluntarily? Do you believe that anyone gave away all their property and the guarantees of the actual Constitution for the “privilege” of paying for Social Security? No? Wake up and smell the java and start doing your real jobs. If anyone complains—arrest him.
We are reopening the American Common Law Courts expressly for the purpose of settling disputes related to living people and their property assets in excess of $20 as mandated by the Seventh Amendment. We, the American people, are the ones holding absolute civil authority upon the land of the Continental United States, and we give you permission to arrest the members of Congress, the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, and any other politician or appointee pretending to speak for us so as to enslave us and bring false claims against us via this institutionalized fraud scheme.
We want it recognized for what it is and dismantled and repudiated tout de suite. Any court that is caught arresting and prosecuting Americans under the presumptions just described to you— such as bringing charges against foreign situs trusts with names styled like this: John Quincy Adams, or Cestui Que Vie trusts styled like this: JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, or Puerto Rican public transmitting utilities styled like this: JOHN Q. ADAMS—-it is your responsibility to make sure that any individuals being addressed by these courts were actually born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, or one of the other Insular States and that they are not ignorant American State Citizens being falsely registered and railroaded.
Do you understand? Is it now completely clear who the criminals are? Your actual employers and benefactors are being attacked and defrauded by criminals pretending to act as their elected representatives and accomplices in black robes who are serving as enforcers of this fraud for profit. This has been happening right under your noses. This whole circumstance has escaped broad scale public understanding because it was being pursued by private governmental services corporations owned and operated by international banking cartels who claimed that these “private arrangements” were none of the public’s business, despite the grotesque and far-ranging impact these cozy understandings have had upon the people of this and many other countries.
Let it be perfectly clear to you that the business of these private corporations has become our business because they have operated in violation of their charters, in violation of the treaties allowing their existence, and in violation of the National Trust. The American Bar Association and the Internal Revenue Service have both been owned and operated as private foreign bill collectors and trust administrators by Northern Trust, Inc., in violent conflict of interest. They are not professional associations, non-profits, nor units of government. They are con artists and privateers whose licenses expired as of September 1, 2013.
The United States Marshals Service is enabled to act in the capacity of constitutionally – sworn Federal Marshals and we invoke their office and service as such; failure to accept the public office means rejection of all authority related to us. The same may be said of the FBI. Either you do your jobs as constitutionally sworn public officers, or you act as private mall cops in behalf of the offending corporations and under color of law when you pretend to have any public authority or function.
This is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Judge Anna Maria Riezinger
Alaska State Superior Court
December 11th, 2015 by olddog
Submitted by Tyler Durden
Most Iraqis, be they civilians, military personnel, or government officials, do not trust Americans.
At a base level, that makes all kinds of sense. After all, the US did launch what amounted to a unilateral invasion of the country just a little over a decade ago, and when it was all said and done, a dictator was deposed but it’s not entirely clear that Iraqis are better off for it.
ISIS controls key cities including the Mosul, the country’s second largest, and security is a daily concern for the populace. The Americans are still seen – rightly – as occupiers, and Washington’s unwillingness inability to effectively counter ISIS has created a culture of suspicion in which most Iraqis believe the US is in cahoots with the militants for what WaPo described as “a variety of pernicious reasons that have to do with asserting U.S. control over Iraq, the wider Middle East and, perhaps, its oil.”
Some of the distrust, the US contends, is fostered by Iran. Tehran wields considerable influence both within the Iraqi military and in political circles in Baghdad. When Ash Carter announced that the US was set to send an “expeditionary targeting force” to the country to assist in raids on Islamic State targets, PM Haider al-Abadi flatly rejected the proposal, saying that “Iraq does not need foreign ground combat forces on Iraqi land.” Abadi rejected a similar Pentagon trial balloon involving Apaches helicopters last month.
Meanwhile, Tehran’s Shiite militias threatened to attack any US soldiers operating on Iraqi soil. “We will chase and fight any American force deployed in Iraq. Any such American force will become a primary target for our group. We fought them before and we are ready to resume fighting,” a spokesman for Kata’ib Hezbollah said. Similarly, influential Shiite lawmakers like the infamous Hakim al-Zamili have called on Abadi to seek direct military intervention from Moscow to expel foreign forces from the country.
Now, in the latest example of just how tenuous Washington’s grip on the region has become, the Iraqi parliament’s Security and Defense Committee is calling for the review and cancellation of Baghdad’s security agreement with the US.
“The government and parliament need to review the agreement signed with the United States on security because the United States does not seriously care about its fulfillment,” committee member Hamid al-Mutlaq, a senior Sunni lawmaker told Sputnik on Wednesday. “We demand that it be annulled,” he added.
Who will fill the void you ask? You guessed it:
“Soon, a meeting [of the committee] with Prime Minister Haider Abadi will be held, at which we will propose cooperating with Russia in carrying out airstrikes against IS and in the fight against terrorism in Iraq,” another committee member said earlier this week.
Recall that this is precisely what we said would happen once we learned in September that Russia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria had set up a joint intelligence sharing cell in Baghdad.
It was clear from the beginning that Tehran saw an opportunity to consolidate its power in Iraq and preserve its influence in Syria by convincing Vladimir Putin that Russia could replace the US as Mid-East superpower puppet master by helping Tehran to defeat the insurgency in Syria and boot the US from Iraq once and for all. Moscow will of course get a warm reception from Iraqi lawmakers thanks to the fact that many MPs are loyal to Iran.
This makes sense logistically as well. Once the Russians and Iranians have retaken Aleppo (which admittedly is taking a while), they can push east towards Raqqa and from there, move straight across the border, effectively pinching ISIS between an advance from the west and Iran’s Shiite militias already operating in Iraq. Of course that will entail some measure of cooperation with the US, France, Britain, and, once in Iraq, the Peshmerga. It is at that point that Washington’s resolve when it comes to preserving whatever charade is being perpetrated in Raqqa will be put to the ultimate test.
In the meantime, it will be interesting to see how the US responds to a move by Baghdad to nullify the security agreement.
Washington knows it can land troops in Iraq by simply going through Erbil which is precisely what Turkey did last Friday. The KRG/ Barzani end-around serves to give the troop deployments a kind of quasi-legitimacy. That is, the Kurds control the territory and are self governing, so when Erdogan (and, soon Obama) drop troops in northern Iraq against Baghdad’s wishes, they can claim it’s not a violation of sovereignty. As we saw over the weekend, Iraqi officials aren’t going to stand for it going forward although now that it’s become clear that NATO and the Security Council aren’t going to be any help (just as we said), Iraq’s ambassador to the UN is striking a concilliatory tone, saying Baghdad will try to settle the dispute with Turkey “bilaterally.”
It now appears that the stage is set for Baghdad to claim that the US, like Turkey, is illegitimately occupying the country (again). If Iraq nullifies the security agreement and moves to invite the Russians into the country, the US will be forced to either pack up and leave, cooperate with Moscow, or fight for the right to preserve American influence.
December 9th, 2015 by olddog
By Ron Ewart
“If you fail to subdue or kill the bully, the bully owns you, either by fear, or by force.” -Ron Ewart
We do not know if Obama is a Muslim in his heart and mind, but without a doubt Obama is a Muslim sympathizer. He has proven it time and time again starting with his Cairo speech in June 2009, early on in his presidency. Perhaps this is a projection of his early childhood when raised in Indonesia, a Muslim country. Or perhaps it was because his Kenyan father was a Muslim. Maybe he was converted to Islam during his clandestine trip to Pakistan in 1981. Or, perhaps it goes deeper than that. Could it be that Obama is a Muslim version of the Manchurian candidate? You decide!
But Obama is more than just a Muslim sympathizer. He has aided and abetted radical Islam causes by failing to protect Americans from all enemies, foreign and domestic and by his in-action in the face of a direct threat against American sovereignty and security.
By not seeing the potential growth of an Al Qaeda splinter group in Iraq, (ISIS) Obama negligently pulled our troops out of Iraq against the advice of his generals. Not only did this criminal action by Obama allow ISIS to metastasize, it allowed Iran, a sponsor of international terrorism, to move in and influence the government of Iraq, thus rendering Iraq just another Iranian puppet.
As a result, Iran’s puppet, Iraq, (both Muslim Shia) refused to let the Sunnis and Kurds in Northern Iraq participate in the Iraq government, thereby fueling disaffection, insurrection and the growth of ISIS. It also re-ignited the 1,500-year-old civil war between Shia and Sunnis over the successor to the prophet Muhammad. Because of the Sunni’s sympathy with ISIS and not the government of Iraq, when the bully ISIS came to conquer, the Sunni military that American soldiers trained, turned over their weapons to ISIS that American taxpayers funded and then ran for the shadows. Suddenly, virtually overnight, ISIS had a powerful military, armed with American hardware, funded by Iraqi oil and the spoils of war.
But Obama’s actions and in-actions go even deeper than criminal negligence, to virtually aiding and abetting the enemy. That, by any definition, is treason. Iraq was and still is a strategic nation, in the middle of Muslim tribal chaos and Islamic civil war. American military presence was crucial to the stability of the entire, unstable Middle East region.
American taxpayers had already funded the war in Iraq to the tune of over $2,000,000,000,000 (that’s Trillion) and over 4,000 of its sons and daughters paid the ultimate price, with thousands more severely wounded or permanently disabled.
America’s continued military presence in Iraq would have been a significant deterrent against the rise of radical Islam (ISIS), Syria and Iran adventurism and a Sunni-Shia civil war. We had military and air bases built all over Iraq, at taxpayer expense. Those same taxpayers further funded a $1,000,000,000 (that’s Billion) American Embassy in Baghdad. (God knows why the State Department needed a $1 Billion embassy in Baghdad. Perhaps it was more than an embassy. Perhaps the embassy was and still is a front for the CIA.)
When ISIS kept growing, Obama played it down. When ISIS took town after town in Syria and Iraq, Obama did nothing. After being pressured to DO SOMETHING, he commenced a limited, hands-tied-behind-their-backs, military pinprick. ISIS kept growing. Obama limited American air strikes so as to prevent civilian casualties, or inflict environmental damage. Many warplanes returned to base with bomb loads still attached to the aircraft. The military begrudgingly carried out Obama’s insane orders to fight a war with no purpose, no goal and no end game. It was Obama’s war for show and propaganda with no intention of winning anything. Sacrificing military lives and hardware for show and propaganda, is even more treasonous.
ISIS is still growing and implanting itself in other countries and aligning itself with other radical Islamic groups. Because they have been so successful, they attract radical Muslim youths from all over the world to join them, including American Muslim immigrants that were imported to America from other Muslim countries. ISIS is, without a doubt, an existential threat to the United States that Obama refuses to acknowledge, much less confront that threat decisively.
With each terror attack success, more radicals flock to the cry of Allahu Akbar (Allah is great), fueled by a radical interpretation of the Qur’an. (It still remains a question whether radical Islamists are really radical when they are just following the ramblings of the alleged prophet Muhammad, as he laid out his personal interpretations of Allah‘s mandates in the Qur’an.)
For failing to keep troops in Iraq, the blood spilled at each ISIS or Al Qaeda terrorist attack is on Obama’s hands. He alone had the power to prevent it. Radical Islamic groups are now competing with each other to see who can inflict the most civilian casualties. Each of these growing terrorist attacks where blood is spilled is on Obama’s hands.
In the recent Paris terrorist attack, 130 died needlessly and over 350 were wounded. Their blood is on Obama’s hands.
In Egypt a Russian passenger jet was blown out of the sky over the desolate Sinai Peninsula by an ISIS bomb. Russian blood is on Obama’s hands.
For failing to stop the Syrian butcher, Basar Al Assad, the blood of 250,000 Syrians is on Obama’s hands. That civil war, that Obama could have stopped, is creating floods of refugees pouring into Europe and trying to get into America. Many of those refugees are terrorists. Russia has now joined Assad with Russian military assets, making the removal of Assad by America an invitation to a third world war between the two super powers.
Now, spilled blood from Islamic terrorism has landed on American shores in what is surely the first of more to come terrorist attacks by radical or radicalized Muslims. If there is any doubt in anyone’s mind, given the preliminary evidence that the San Bernardino attack was a radical Islamic terrorist attack, they are delusional. Even before the time this article is published, all doubt will have been removed.
Syed Rizwan Farook, the San Bernardino terrorist attacker and his Muslim wife, were prepared to perpetrate massive, unprecedented carnage somewhere in America. Perhaps his anger over an employment injustice or dispute, enraged him to the point he attacked his co-workers instead for personal reasons, prior to the planned terrorist event. Or maybe the attack on the service center was the plan all along. Nevertheless, there is no doubt he was planning a massive terrorist attack, given the arsenal he had assembled. The question is, who are his co-conspirators. He had to have had help.
But it makes no difference whether the San Bernardino terrorist attack was inspired by ISIS, Al Qaeda, or just a self-radicalized Islamic nut case. The growth of radical Islam has been and is on Obama’s watch. The American blood spilled in San Bernardino is on Obama’s hands.
It must be clear to everyone with any intellect at all, that terrorism will not be stopped until the terrorists are crushed where they live. Once crushed the draw to terrorism for young Jihadists will cease. Obama’s job was to crush the terrorists and he has failed miserably to do the job, leaving all Americans in grave peril in their own country.
Obama’s Sunday night speech did nothing to allay the fears of those Americans who will now think twice about going to the mall, or the theater, or a sports event for fear of another terrorist attack. He offered nothing new in the fight on terror in that speech. His emphasis on more gun control and trying to make us feel guilty about a possible Muslim backlash were hollow and meaningless. More gun control would not have stopped the San Bernardino attack and there is no noticeable backlash against Muslims in America, even though out of the five major religions in the world, only one of those religions, Islam, is mandating that everyone else convert or die.
We say, “Muslims, heal thine self or the wrath of righteous indignation will descend upon you with full force and fury.”
We predict that another San Bernardino style terrorist attack in America, will incite the people to call for all Islamic terrorists to be crushed, anywhere on the planet, with America’s full military might and they won’t care about civilian casualties or environmental damage. Trump is already making that call and that is why he is still popular and rising in popularity.
Obama’s foreign policy actions or in-actions don’t stop at criminal negligence, or even treason. His socialist, radical environmental policies, Muslim loving and unconstitutional Executive Orders just add to the list of what may be the most irreparable damage that any president has done to American freedom and sovereignty. His obsession with “climate change”, gun control, amnesty for illegal aliens and importing Syrian refugees into America while people are dying all over the planet from Islamic terrorist attacks, borders on neurotic paranoia, just plain stupidity, or pure evil. Any sane person knows gun controls won’t stop terrorists or lone, crazed gunmen in America, or anywhere else.
Obama’s constant deflection to other issues, or blaming others for his failures, when presented with major crises, is classic narcissism. He is either clueless, or diabolically evil.
Why Obama has not been impeached or indicted for treason by now will ring in the history books for centuries. How a man like Obama, with such a tortured past, ever became president of the Unites States of America, falls squarely on an electorate that has lost all allegiance to the values and foundation of a free society conceived in liberty and dedicated to the preservation of the individual, unalienable rights of its citizens. Obama was before his election and still is as President and will continue to be at the end of his term, anti-America and pro Muslim.
It will take decades to repair what this monster and the Democrats, that aided and abetted him, have unleashed on America and its people. It may even be irreparable. Meanwhile, because of his foreign policy failures, the streets of America could run red with blood as radical Islam infiltrates the fabric of America and becomes a cancer that can’t be cured. That blood will be on Obama’s hands and those people that supported him and those people that elected him.
Yes, Obama is the cause, but millions of Americans who voted for this Islamic Trojan Horse are the cause of the cause and they too share the responsibility and the blame for all that blood that will be spilled in American cities, in the name of radical Islam. That blood will stain Obama’s hands and forever render him the most dangerous and inept president that clueless liberal Americans ever elected to this high office. Will that same clueless liberal group of Americans be stupid enough to elect a hopelessly corrupt, female carbon copy of Obama? If they do …… ?
We’d like to know what is on your mind regarding Obama and Islam:
1- “Should Obama be impeached or indicted for treason?”
2- “Is Obama a narcissist that should have never been elected president?”
3- “Has Obama been good for America?”
4- “Is Islam a peaceful religion?”
Hit SEND after clicking one of the links. Feel free to leave a constructive comment. Don’t be reluctant to respond to more than one question, if you are of a mind.
[NOTE: The forgoing article represents the opinion of the author and is not necessarily shared by the owners, employees, representatives, or agents of this publisher.]
© 2015 Ron Ewart — All Rights Reserved
Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property issues and author of his weekly column, “In Defense of Rural America”, is the President of the National Association of Rural Landowners, (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org) a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State, an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners. He can be reached for comment at email@example.com.
December 8th, 2015 by olddog
Back in 2011 we facetiously noted that innocent Americans were being added to terror watchlists and No-Fly lists at an alarming pace. So much so, we opined, that by 2020every person in the United States would be deemed a terrorist and that the entire world would be on a government watchlist by 2025.
We were kind of joking… but only kind of, because as we highlighted last year, the President approved a substantial expansion of the lists wherein concrete facts are no longer necessary for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to flag pretty much anyone, for any reason as being suspected of terrorism. In fact, the new rules set forth by the administration make it possible for one to be added to a watchlist for being suspected of being a suspected terrorist. Yes, it is absolutely ridiculous on its face.
As we warned, the anti-gun left and especially the Obama administration is always looking for new and innovative ways to disarm American citizens. Whether it be high taxation of ammunition, identification requirements for purchasing ammo as in California (but no worries, because you can still vote without an I.D.), or outright bans on the importation of firearms and related accessories, there is an overt and sustained push to overhaul (i.e. eliminate) the rights protected by the Second Amendment.
In what can only be described as nothing short of a full-court Obama press against America’s gun owners, in his weekly Saturday address to the nation the President has now taken his disarmament agenda to the next level, suggesting that it is “insane” for anyone on a watch list to own a gun.
“This tragedy reminds us of our obligation to do everything in our power, together, to keep our communities safe,” Obama said in his address. “We know that the killers in San Bernardino used military-style assault weapons — weapons of war — to kill as many people as they could. It’s another tragic reminder that here in America it’s way too easy for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun.”
Obama, who has said that failing to pass comprehensive gun reform is the greatest frustration” of his time in office, said it was ridiculous that people on a no-fly list in the United States could legally purchase a gun.
“That is insane. If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun. And so I’m calling on Congress to close this loophole, now,” he said. “We may not be able to prevent every tragedy, but — at a bare minimum — we shouldn’t be making it so easy for potential terrorists or criminals to get their hands on a gun that they could use against Americans.”
Keep in mind that, as Senator Rand Paul warned on the Senate floor, Someone Who Has Guns, Ammunition, 7 Days of Food can be considered a potential terrorist. Moreover, a recent report highlights scores of other reasons for why someone may qualify as a domestic terrorist:
So how does a person qualify as a potential domestic terrorist? Based on the training I have attended, here are characteristics that qualify:
• Expressions of libertarian philosophies (statements, bumper stickers)
• Second Amendment-oriented views (NRA or gun club membership, holding a CCW permit)
• Survivalist literature (fictional books such as “Patriots” and “One Second After” are mentioned by name)
• Self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies)
• Fear of economic collapse (buying gold and barter items)
• Religious views concerning the book of Revelation (apocalypse, anti-Christ)
• Expressed fears of Big Brother or big government
• Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties
• Belief in a New World Order conspiracy
And once you’re on the list, there is pretty much no way to get off because the government, citing national security reasons, doesn’t have to release any details and the burden of proof falls on the individual who has been identified as a terrorist, potential terrorist, or someone suspected of being a suspected terrorist.
Those secretly blacklisted have no real path to challenge their status, states a new report, thus indefinitely restricting those listed from travel or simply getting a job.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans and foreigners languish in the watchlist system, considered “known or suspected terrorists” based on secret rules and evidence that are basically impenetrable should the average suspect attempt to contest them, says a new report by the ACLU that highlights these challenges.
Source: The Daily Sheeple
Obama’s latest proposal would mean that not only would those added to watch lists without cause or due process be restricted from flying or have a near impossible time getting a job, they would not be allowed to purchase firearms. The next step, of course, would be the disarmament of those who already own guns.
Do You Qualify as a Domestic Terrorist?
Terrorist Watch List May Exceed US Population by 2019, World Population by 2023
‘Terror’ Watchlists Erasing American Rights: Feds to “Revoke Passports Without Charge or Trial”
Obama Approves Substantial Expansion of Terrorist Watch Lists: “Concrete Facts Are Not Necessary”
Shock Report About Secret Obama Treaty: “Unlimited Migration From Mexico… Gun Import Bans… Ammunition Bans”
Paul to Congress: “Someone Who Has Guns, Ammunition, 7 Days of Food” Can Be Considered a Potential Terrorist
December 7th, 2015 by olddog
By Dave Hodges
The numbers do not lie, false flag mass murder events are exponentially increasing under Obuma. First, it was a case of “give up your guns” and we will protect you from the mentally ill mass murderers. Now, the Obuma mantra consists of “giving up your guns” and we will protect you from ISIS (that we created).
Mass Shootings Under the Last Five Presidents
Mother Jones acquired data, immediately following the most recent mass murder event, and the numbers were related to the totality of mass murders for the last five Presidents. The numbers associated with mass murder and the Obuma Presidency are stunning. The numbers simple do not lie.
Ronald Reagan- 1981-1989 11 mass shootings
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5
George H. W. Bush- 1989-1993 12 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 3
Bill Clinton- 1993-2001 23 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 4
George W. Bush- 2001-2009 20 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5
Obuma- 2009-2015 (< 7 years) 162 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 18
The numbers do not lie with regard to the number of mass murders that have taken place under Obuma vs. the four Presidents that have come before him.
President Average Number of Mass Murders Per Month
- Obuma 23+ per year or almost 2 per month
- GHW Bush 3.0 per year
- Clinton 2.875 per year
- GW Bush 2.5 per year
- Ronald Reagan 1.375 per year
An American citizen is nearly 8 (7.666) times more likely to be killed in a mass murder event under the current President than the previous four Presidents.
During the incomplete tenure of the Obuma administration, there have a total of 163 murders in less than 7 years. During the previous tenure of the last 4 Presidents, 66 total mass murder events. These 66 mass murders took place in 28 Presidential years. When one takes this perspective, an American is 10 times more likely to be killed in a mass murder event under Obuma than the four previous Presidents.
If Obuma’s mass murder statistics were only limited to one year, we might safely conclude that we are merely witnessing a statistical anomaly. However, as Obuma approaches his 7th year in office and see such a dramatic uptick in mass murder events under his watch, we no longer have an anomaly; we have a clear and undeniable pattern. We desperately need to be asking why?
It is an undeniable fact that every time there is an active shooter event, Obuma turns up the propaganda about how his is going to be forced to use executive action (Executive Order) in order to separate most Americans from their Second Amendment rights to own a firearm.
As we approach the inevitable, World War III, there is a desperate need to put America into a type of undeclared martial law in order to control the people before they become the cannon fodder for the very next banker war for profit.
In the Beginning
When mass murders increased under the Obama administration, the reason most cited was mental illness. The Virginia Tech event and the “alleged” Sandy Hook event are cases in point in which the alleged shooter was on psychotropic medication for mental illness. Very quickly, this administration quickly moved to take as many guns as they could from veterans citing reasons related to PTSD diagnoses. This move made a lot of sense when one realizes that veterans would form the backbone of any resistance movement against the coming martial law tyranny which will precede World War III.
The Obuma administration is now attempting to perpetrate a new fraud on the US. Instead of the mentally ill engaging in acts of mass murder, it is now ISIS that is threat. Why the shift? Because the emphasis of the Obuma administration has shifted from gun confiscation from the veterans, to including gun confiscation for the entire population. History speaks very clearly as to what lies next.
EXCEPT FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO
PISS ON HIS GRAVE
December 5th, 2015 by olddog
Posted by truther
The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”
During the 1970′s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.
Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980′s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.
America’s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.
The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.
There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.
America’s Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.
ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.
The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and expeditions. Despite what the Western media’s war cries would have you believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington is. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.
America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance.
Dear readers, please for just a moment consider how easy it would be for a force that was ideologically consolidated and in complete control of almost all public information, to keep the Nations of earth confused and terrorized. Think about something besides your next infatuation with entertainment and consider how stupid it would be for the people controlling all governments to destroy all of earths natural, and man made assets, especially when it is so easy to get people to do whatever they wanted through FEAR! Think for a moment how easy it is to control your children by FEAR of losing their recreation time, or a good old fashion ass whupping! THINK about how stupid it would be to destroy all of your own assets and no longer have the ability to start over and build something better. In short; a Nuclear Armageddon ain’t gonna happen! That would destroy everything they need to control anything, and CONTROL is their only real long term objective! Why would they make the earth uninhabitable for their offspring when they have been using FEAR successfully for generations? What they will do however is use our FEAR to create a world wide hatred of our neighbors and keep us killing each other. Conventional warfare will over time demoralize and bankrupt all Nations and starve those not capable of fighting. At the present time AMERICA is their number one target and it will be destroyed economically and create chaos never before seen in AMERICA. We will wind up killing each other for a rifle or loaf of bread. This CHAOS will justify our imprisonment and selective extermination. Their plan is presently in operation and unstoppable because we the people are almost incapable of cognitive thought from years and years of being self-centered and infatuated with pleasure and leisure time. Our brains are just like our physical health; use it or lose it! Our minds are as obese as our fat backsides and we are so self centered it is impossible to plan what we will do in an emergency or fix for dinner tomorrow.
IS IT TIME TO GIVE UP!
NOW is the time to admit our stupidity and get ready to fight back at those who want us dead or controllable. Do your home work and learn how important it is to IDENTIFY the International Banking Cartel and home-in on them PERSONALLY. Make them known and the one thing on every human beings mind. Find out every thing you can about their daily lives and make it known to everyone else. Make them the only thing people talk about continuously. Abandon all of your entertainment obsessions and focus on their every bowel movement, every breath of air, every though in their chaotic minds. Make them as visible as the scumbags we call our so called elected leaders. Make it impossible for them to pass gas without being ridiculed. THEIR PRIVACY IS THEIR ACHILLES HEEL; USE IT TO BLEED THEM TO DEATH! WE WILL LOSE EVERYTHING IF WE DON’T FIGHT FOR OUR FREEDOM! REAL AMERICANS WOULD RATHER BE DEAD THAN SLAVES!
STAND UP AND FIGHT BACK
See more at: http://www.pakalertpress.com/vladimir-putin-illuminati-truth-about-isis-ukraine-ww3-illuminati-documentary-3/
December 4th, 2015 by olddog
By Chris Veritas
In conversations with various people, I have often brought up the fact that the Media seems to have no memory of the past, is entirely uniform when it comes to urging war, and patently ignores a plethora of glaring issues. The issues it does catch sight of, it seems incapable of penetrating, remaining at the surface of things, and therefore keeping discourse at the most superficial level. When questioned about these tendencies of Media, the responses I’ve received range from “well, that’s just the way they maintain ratings”, to “but my paper or network has the better ideology”. Americans appear satisfied to accept what occurs to them as given, and like Pangloss to reply, indeed, this is “the best of all possible worlds”.
I beg to differ.
Here are a few troubling questions that I feel greatly undermine the idea that Mainstream Media is credible:
1: Why is it that when it comes to war, the same news sources that criticize the president constantly, suddenly all seem to lionize his cause? Shouldn’t the opposite be true? Shouldn’t there be at least some dissent among the Mainstream sources? Isn’t this a little suspicious, if the press is free and independent?
2: How can it be that not only the press, but the entire nation has forgotten that the first case made to the American people concerning war with Syria was sold as being in order to depose Assad? Clearly ISIS existed at that point, so why were they not the target? When exactly did they become the world’s Super Enemy? Apparently this happened a few months after the Media campaign to attack Syria by other means failed.
3: When did it become okay to terrorize the viewing audience, weaving dubious tales of extremists hiding under every bush, meanwhile replaying distressing footage over and over again (like the falling of the towers), until the public is thoroughly brutalized. How many times did we need to see the towers fall? 1,000? 10,000? How disrespectful to the dead, and to the living.
4: When exactly did the trail of bodies following the Clintons not become news anymore?
Questions, questions, questions. And these are just the tip of the iceberg.
With a bit of research it becomes apparent that the entire Media apparatus is beholden to a handful of enormously powerful Corporations, which teach the public that this, of course, is a good thing. Corporations ought to be as large as possible they say, because: Capitalism! If the prevailing ideology makes them insanely powerful, and “accidentally” coincides with 99% of Americans being poor and in debt, well, at least we’re not Communists!
And that is what you call a false dialectic.
These entities, therefore, through their Media medium, construct opinion, polarize politics, shred the past like Winston in 1984, and obscure the present with the dope of hypnotic flicker rates, tantalizing tag lines, and the literal dope of drugs like Prozac and Ritalin, à la Brave New World.
But what would a legitimate media look like, you might ask?
1: A legitimate media would harp incessantly on our nation’s constant violation of international law when waging war, and the hypocrisy of claiming to defend Democracy while violating it.
2: A legitimate media would remember that the Fed promised before its inception to scientifically prevent booms and busts, inflation, depressions, and crashes. Rather than analyze its promises and policies, what we get is stale superficial commentary, which completely overlooks history and current reality. No one apparently can criticize the printing of endless paper money, the mountains of debt our economy runs on, or the international banks (of which the Fed is one), which strip countries bare of resources (see: North America), and gamble trillions on derivatives while forcing austerity onto entire nations. And all the economists can say is: “wow, look at those fourth quarter gains.”
3: A legitimate media would run Trump and Hillary straight into the Gulf, and refuse to ratify the side show spectacle of our so-called presidential electoral proceedings.
Amidst the glossy blues and reds of our dynamic digital cable displays (which seem to progress faster than the state of politics), planes are disappearing and we’re chasing pings, North Korea is hacking Sony in a fit of pique, Bill O’Reilly is killing great men faster than you can say “obstreperous,” while talking heads yell talking points on split screens to a divided audience.
Is this “just the way things are,” or are we being gamed?
To many it is becoming clear that the Media is now an organized apologetics machine, and is no longer a source for information, as it pours forth the dialectics of the Anglo-American establishment. Big Money, which owns Big Media, supersizes the insignificant; barricades inconvenient facts; sells politics like Big Macs; tempts cravenly the debt-ridden with overpriced expendables; is tre cool with hyping vacuous celebrities, one-note politicians and golden doors, all at one time and with great gusto.
And we become dumber and dumber as we absorb it all: fake news, fake money, fake culture, and fake representative Government. (Ah, America in 2015. Each day is better than the next.)
Former president Eisenhower once famously said, “Beware the military industrial complex,” and we should have listened to him. But now the objectives of Big Military, Big Media/ Business/ Entertainment, and Big White House all seamlessly merge and overlap. One could be excused for wondering if we’re living in a thinly disguised tyranny, when the light of truth seems so strictly verboten.
You can read more from Chris Veritas at his site Some Cry Wolf
December 3rd, 2015 by olddog
By Brandon Smith
“The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another.” — Henry Kissinger, “Henry Kissinger On The Assembly Of A New World Order”
“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.” — Barack Obama
“We reiterate our strong commitment to the United Nations (UN) as the foremost multilateral forum entrusted with bringing about hope, peace, order and sustainable development to the world. The UN enjoys universal membership and is at the center of global governance and multilateralism.” — Fifth BRICS Summit Declaration
“We support the reform and improvement of the international monetary system, with a broad-based international reserve currency system providing stability and certainty. We welcome the discussion about the role of the SDR in the existing international monetary system including the composition of SDR’s basket of currencies. We support the IMF to make its surveillance framework more integrated and even-handed.” — Fifth BRICS Summit Declaration
Here is where many political and economic analysts go terribly wrong in their examination of current global paradigms: They tend to blindly believe the mainstream narrative rather than taking into account conflicting actions and statements by political and financial leaders. Even in the liberty movement, composed of some of the most skeptical and media savvy people on planet Earth, the cancers of assumption and bias often take hold.
Some liberty proponents are more than happy to believe in particular mainstream dynamics. They are happy to believe, for example, that the growing “conflict” between the East and West is legitimate rather than engineered.
You can list off quotation after quotation and policy action after policy action proving that Eastern governments, including China and Russia, work hand in hand with globalist institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the Bank for International Settlements, the World Bank and the U.N. toward the goal of global governance and global economic centralization. But these people simply will not listen. They MUST believe that the U.S. is the crowning villain, and that the East is in heroic opposition. They are so desperate for a taste of hope they are ready to consume the poison of false dichotomies.
The liberty movement is infatuated with the presumption that the U.S. government and the banking elites surrounding it are at the “top” of the new world order pyramid and are “clamoring for survival” as the U.S. economy crumbles under the facade of false government and central banking statistics. How many times have we heard over the past year alone that the Federal Reserve has “backed itself into a corner” or policy directed itself “between a rock and a hard place?”
I have to laugh at the absurdity of such a viewpoint because central bankers and internationalists have always used economic instability as a means to gain political and social advantage. The consolidation of world banking power alone after the Great Depression is a testament to this fact. And even former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has admitted (at least in certain respects) that the Federal Reserve was responsible for that terrible implosion, an implosion that conveniently served the interests of international cartel banks like JPMorgan.
But the Federal Reserve is no more than an appendage of a greater system; it is NOT the brains of the operation.
In his book Tragedy And Hope, Carroll Quigley, Council on Foreign Relations member and mentor to Bill Clinton, stated:
It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called “international” or “merchant” bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks.
In “Ruling The World Of Money,” Harper’s Magazine established what Quigley admitted in Tragedy And Hope — that the control of the global economic policy and, by extension, political policy is dominated by a select few elites, namely through the unaccountable institutional framework of the BIS.
The U.S. and the Federal Reserve are mere tentacles of the great vampire squid that is the new world order. And being a tentacle makes one, to a certain extent, expendable, if the trade will result in even greater centralization of power.
The delusion that some people within the liberty movement are under is that the fall of America will result in the fall of the new world order. In reality, the fall of America is a necessary step towards the RISE of the new world order. The Rothschild-owned financial magazine The Economist reaffirmed this trend of economic “harmonization” in its 1988 article “Get Ready For A World Currency By 2018,” which described the creation of a global currency called the “Phoenix” over three decades:
The phoenix zone would impose tight constraints on national governments. There would be no such thing, for instance, as a national monetary policy. The world phoenix supply would be fixed by a new central bank, descended perhaps from the IMF. The world inflation rate — and hence, within narrow margins, each national inflation rate — would be in its charge. Each country could use taxes and public spending to offset temporary falls in demand, but it would have to borrow rather than print money to finance its budget deficit. With no recourse to the inflation tax, governments and their creditors would be forced to judge their borrowing and lending plans more carefully than they do today. This means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case.
…The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today. In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power.
We are now on the cusp of the “prediction” set forth by The Economist over 27 years ago. The BRICS nations, including Vladimir Putin’s Russia, have all consistently called for the formation of a global reserve currency system under the direct control of the IMF and predicated on the basket methodology of the SDR. This new global system, as The Economist suggested, requires the marginalization of existing power structures and the end of sovereign economic control. Governments around the world including the U.S. would be at the fiscal mercy of the new financial high priests through the use of insidious debt based incentives given or withheld at the whim of the IMF.
China is set to be inducted into the SDR basket in 2015, with specific economic changes to be made by September 2016, a development I have been warning about for years. The “vote” is in and the decision has been finalized. While some in the mainstream media are playing off the rise of the Yuan as meaningless, IMF head Christine Lagarde presents the shift as a major event, not for China, but for the IMF and the SDR which she proudly refers to as the “currency of currencies”.
The addition of China to the SDR, I believe, is the next trigger event for the continuing removal of the dollar as the world reserve currency. The monetary shift may explode with speed if Saudi Arabia follows through with a possible plan to depeg from the dollar, effectively ending the petrodollar status the U.S. has enjoyed for decades.
This is, of course, the same IMF-controlled SDR system that Putin and the Kremlin have called for, despite the running fantasy that Putin is somehow an opponent of the globalists.
Putin continues to press the “U.S. as bumbling villain” narrative, while at the same time supporting globalist institutions and the internationalization of economic and political governance. While many people were overly focused on his “calling out” of the U.S. and its involvement in the creation of ISIS in his recent speech at the U.N., they seemed to have completely overlooked his adoration of the United Nations and the development of a global governing body. Putin often speaks at cross purposes just as Barack Obama does — one minute supporting sovereignty and freedom, the next minute calling for global centralization:
Russia is ready to work together with its partners to develop the UN further on the basis of a broad consensus, but we consider any attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They may result in the collapse of the entire architecture of international relations, and then indeed there will be no rules left except for the rule of force.
Dear colleagues, ensuring peace and global and regional stability remains a key task for the international community guided by the United Nations. We believe this means creating an equal and indivisible security environment that would not serve a privileged few, but everyone.
Putin also proclaimed his support for the UN’s fight against “climate change”, the same climate change which Secretary of State John Kerry argued was a “contributing factor” in the crisis in Syria and the rise of ISIS. I have written in the past on the fraud of “man made climate change (global warming)” and will not enter that tangent here now, but the point remains that Putin is fully on board with said fraud like all other puppet politicians around the globe:
…One more issue that shall affect the future of the entire humankind is climate change. It is in our interest to ensure that the coming UN Climate Change Conference that will take place in Paris in December this year should deliver some feasible results. As part of our national contribution, we plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 70–75 percent of the 1990 levels by the year 2030.
It is indeed a challenge of global proportions. And I am confident that humanity does have the necessary intellectual capacity to respond to it. We need to join our efforts, primarily engaging countries that possess strong research and development capabilities, and have made significant advances in fundamental research. We propose convening a special forum under the auspices of the UN to comprehensively address issues related to the depletion of natural resources, habitat destruction, and climate change. Russia is willing to co-sponsor such a forum.
Indeed, it has been Putin’s intention all along to support and defend the internationalist framework while at the same time participating in the theatrical East versus West false paradigm:
In the BRICS case we see a whole set of coinciding strategic interests.
First of all, this is the common intention to reform the international monetary and financial system. In the present form it is unjust to the BRICS countries and to new economies in general. We should take a more active part in the IMF and the World Bank’s decision-making system. The international monetary system itself depends a lot on the US dollar, or, to be precise, on the monetary and financial policy of the US authorities. The BRICS countries want to change this.
The Chinese support the same agenda of an IMF managed economic world:
The world economic crisis shows the “inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in the existing international monetary system,” Gov. Zhou Xiaochuan said in an essay released Monday by the bank. He recommended creating a currency made up of a basket of global currencies and controlled by the International Monetary Fund and said it would help “to achieve the objective of safeguarding global economic and financial stability.”
It is rather interesting how the desires of the BRICS seem to directly coincide with the designs of international bankers. This Hegelian dialectic is perhaps the most elaborate public distraction of all time, with the ultimate solution to the artificially engineered problem being a single “multilateral” but centrally dictated world economic system and world government, i.e., the new world order.
Again, the globalists at the BIS and the IMF require a diminished U.S. dollar, greatly reduced U.S. living standards and a much smaller U.S. geopolitical footprint before they can establish and finalize a single publicly accepted global elitist oligarchy.
If you cannot understand why it seems that the Federal Reserve and U.S. government appear hell-bent on self-destruction, then perhaps you should consider the facts and motivations at hand. Then, you’ll realize it is THEIR JOB to destroy America, not save America. When you are finally willing to accept this reality, every disastrous development since the inception of the Fed a century ago, as well as all that is about to happen in the next few years, makes perfect sense.
This is not to say that the ultimate endgame of the new world order will result in victory. But the cold, hard, concrete evidence shows that internationalists do have a plan; they are implementing that plan systematically; and all major governments around the world are participating in that plan. This plan involves the inevitable collapse and reformation of America into a Third World enclave, a goal that is nearly complete, as I will outline in my next article.
As the U.S. destabilizes, we are not escaping the clutches of the Federal Reserve system, only trading out one totalitarian management model for another. It is absolutely vital that the liberty movement in particular finally and fully embrace this reality. If we do not, then there will truly be no obstacle to such a plan’s success and no end to the tyrannies of the old world or the new world.
You can read more from Brandon Smith at his site Alt-Market.com. If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
You can contact Brandon Smith at: firstname.lastname@example.org
December 2nd, 2015 by olddog
By Daily Bell Staff
Obama pushes for gun control after Planned Parenthood shooting … After a gunman opened fire at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood on Friday, killing three people and injuring several others, President Obama urged the nation to increase controls over “the easy accessibility of weapons of war.” – CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-gun-control-planned-parenthood-shooting-colorado-springs/
Dominant Social Themes: Guns kill people.
Free-Market Analysis: Do guns kill people, or do people kill people? We think it’s the latter. It’s the reason that the British are now suffering from a rash of murderous biting.
Sorry, we just made that up, and, sure, it’s nothing to joke about but it could be true. The Brits – living on an island as enlightened as Antarctica under a trillion tons of ice – have seemingly made every kind of weapon illegal. You can’t even shoot a burglar in your own home without being hauled into court with the threat of life imprisonment.
And what’s the result? The Brits are onto knives now, well … really anything pointy. Last year, The Daily Sheeple posted an article on the next wave of confiscations. The title: “Is This a Joke? British Police Push for Ban on Pointy Knives.”
You can’t laugh about it. It’s not a joke anymore. There is no longer any limit to what can be controlled and regulated. Most people would have laughed hysterically if you told them there would be calls for knife control someday. And not just butterfly knives and switchblades, but apparently, anything that is “pointy”.
The British are thorough as well as often compulsively authoritarian. We learn from the article that, “Researchers consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen. None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.”
Point taken. Even professional chefs won’t miss their knives since a short-bladed tool can do the job as well. Presumably it didn’t occur to the surveyed chefs that once the long-bladed knives have been confiscated, short-bladed ones will be the next to go. Presumably, then, if they want to cut something up they can make snipping motions with their thumbs and index fingers.
The article excerpted above from CBS never tells us what President Barack Obama intends to do about gun violence but it does mention Obama’s frustration several times. It’s not good to make Obama frustrated. The last time it happened, it seems he came up with Obamacare. Here’s some more from the article:
“This is not normal,” the president said in a statement Saturday. “We can’t let it become normal.” “If we truly care about this – if we’re going to offer up our thoughts and prayers again, for God knows how many times, with a truly clean conscience – then we have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them,” Mr. Obama added. “Enough is enough.”
We’ll wait to see what Obama has in mind but we are not hopeful. He is an enormously energetic and destructive man and the Republicans in Congress don’t seem to be capable of resisting him.
We would recommend, in any case, (he won’t) that Obama take a look at a just-published article on gun control by Eric Englund over at LewRockwell.com. Entitled, “Politically Correct Thinking about Guns,” it is re-published on http://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com today.
Fortunately, this simple-minded view of guns is unsupportable as it implies every human being is deranged enough to commit murder by merely having access to a gun. Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser, fortuitously, have produced a study dispelling the anti-gun drivel spewed by progressives; and, no surprise here, guns do not mysteriously impel individuals to commit murder and suicide.
Although the truth does not matter to progressives, it is critical to speak truth to the anti-gun, power-seeking psychopaths in the progressive movement. Many people will listen and our liberty depends upon doing so.
While Englund’s essay is putatively about gun control, it has just as much to say about the warped logic of “progressives” who believe the state power of confiscatory force is a “magic bullet” that will do away with shooting and shooters.
England is probably correct when he writes, “The attractiveness of progressivism is that it relieves people from having to think for themselves while making them believe they are intellectuals.”
Englund also points out that progressivism is “not grounded in philosophy, logic, political science or economic theory. Rather, it springs from emotion or magical thinking.” And he makes the terrific point that progressivism is actually fear-based, which is why it’s so hard to counter. The memes of political correctness have been carefully designed to appeal to fearful people.
He tells us about some of the conclusions reached by Kates and Mauser in their study (published by the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, spring of 2007), especially when it comes to murderers who are not ordinary “law-abiding citizens.” Instead, “almost all murderers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors.”
In other words, these are violent people for one reason or another and they will be violent with or without guns. Confiscating guns will not make them any less violent, which is one reason why gun control in Britain has devolved into pointy knife control.
The impulse is always to confiscate one last weapon, but the confiscation has nothing to do with the reality of violence and those perpetrating it.
Englund concludes that “Kates and Mauser have armed us with the truth about privately-owned firearms. In the battle of ideas, I’m optimistic the truth will win out. Millions of gun owners know this.”
We wish we could be as optimistic as Englund but, in our view, the political economy currently (and historically) only moves in one direction, forward. The US – the West, really – is suffering from a severe bout of authoritarianism. And the more authoritarianism advances, the more fearful people become. It’s very hard to break that cycle with “logic.”
For this reason, as always, we suggest that people concentrate on making a difference for themselves and their loved ones. Arm yourself with knowledge regarding your own self-sufficiency before you tackle the rest of the world. We’re not suggesting that you be selfish, merely realistic. Perhaps we can continue to help you in that regard.
As my readers surely expect, I have considerably different suggestion for every single America that knows what our de-funk Constitution promised us. And with no apology here it is. First; do not pay any attention to what the fear mongers are trying to do, which is to make you feel guilty and afraid of guns. They only do this because they are the most perfect example of a coward; who is too fearful to protect their own life and their family. Consider them as having been born with a defective mind and absolutely no courage. They are the pukes of society! Almost all animals will die protecting their own offspring. What possible good could they offer society? Ignore them, other than showing them your contempt. Given the power to do so, I would deport them all too Middle Eastern countries. In today’s article on http://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com By Eric Englund everything about progressives and their gun free world brain fart is clearly explained. One can only wonder how these idiots manage to survive.
November 30th, 2015 by olddog
Written By: Patrick Wood
TN Note: This article was originally written by Patrick Wood on March 18, 2009, but it is as pertinent today as it was then. The movement toward polarization of law enforcement has continued unabated and unchecked.
Patriots, Christians and concerned citizens are increasingly in the cross hairs of the U.S. intelligence community, and battle lines are being quietly drawn that could soon pit our own law enforcement and military forces against us.
A February 20 report entitled “The Modern Militia Movement” was issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) that paints mainstream patriotic Americans as dangerous threats to law enforcement and to the country. Operating under the Missouri State Highway Patrol, the MIAC is listed as a Fusion Center that was established in cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice.
Because authenticity of the report was questioned by some, this writer contacted Missouri state Representative Jim Guest (R-King City) who had personally verified that the report had indeed been issued. Rep. Guest is chairman of the Personal Privacy Committee and is a prominent leader in the national blowback against the Real ID Act of 2005 that requires states to issue uniform driver’s licenses containing personal biometric data. (See Guest warns against Big Brother, Real ID)
Rep. Guest stated that he was “shocked and outraged” at the report, which clearly paints him and many other elected state leaders, as a potential threats to law enforcement.
Instead of focusing on actual criminal incidents of “home-grown” terrorism, the MAIC report instead lists issues that it believes are common to the threats it perceives. Thus, Americans involved with the following issues are highly suspect:
“Ammunition Accountability Act” requiring each bullet to to be serialized and registered to the purchaser.
“Anticipation of the economic collapse of the US Government” Prominent scholars and economists are openly debating the bankruptcy and insolvency of the United States government.
“Possible Constitutional Convention (Con Con)” 32 states have called for a Constitutional Convention to force Congress and the Executive Branch into a balanced budget, but many are concerned that if called, Con Con would be taken over by hostile interests who would introduce Amendments that are harmful to national sovereignty.
“North American Union” MIAC states that “Conspiracy theorists claim that this union would link Canada, the United States, and Mexico. The NAU would unify its monetary system and trade the dollar for the AMERO. Associated with this theory is concern over a NAFTA Superhighway, which would fast track trade between the three nations. There is additional concern that the NAU would open up the border causing security risks and free movement for immigrants.”
“Universal Service Program” “Statements made by President Elect Obama and his chief of staff have led extremists to fear the creation of a Civilian Defense Force. This theory requires all citizens between the age of 18 and 25 to be forced to attend three months of mandatory training.” (This is exactly what Obama and Rahm Emmanuel have repeatedly stated on national TV, and thus is hardly a theory.)
“Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)” This includes human implantation, but the larger concern is universal id cards and personal property identification that can be read electronically without the bearer’s knowledge.
Citizens who are concerned about the above issues are then lumped into radical ideologies such as Christian Identity, White Nationalists (e.g., neo-Nazi, Skinheads, etc.) and anti-Semites. Tax Resisters and Anti-Immigration advocates are thrown into the same category.
The MIAC report then sternly warns law enforcement personnel,
“You are the Enemy: The militia subscribes to an antigovernment and NWO mind set, which creates a threat to law enforcement officers. They view the military, National Guard, and law enforcement as a force that will confiscate their firearms and place them in FEMA concentration camps.” [Bold emphasis appears in original]
On the last page of the MIAC report, a section listing Political Paraphernalia (flags and symbols) states,
“Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr.
Militia members commonly display picture, cartoons, bumper stickers that contain anti-government rhetoric. Most of this material will depict the FRS, IRS, FBI, ATF, CIA, UN, Law Enforcement, and the ‘New World Order’ in a derogatory manor (sic). Additionally, Racial, anti-immigration, and anti-abortion, mate¬rial may be displayed by militia members.”
What was the ostensible genesis of all these “threats” to law enforcement? The report explains it this way…
“Academics contend that female and minority empowerment in the 1970s and 1960s caused a blow to white male’s sense of empowerment. This, combined with a sense of defeat from the Vietnam War, increased levels of immigration, and unemployment, spawned a paramilitary culture. This caught on in the 1980’s with injects such as Tom Clancy novels, Solder of Fortune Magazine, and movies such as Rambo that glorified combat. This culture glorified white males and portrayed them as morally upright heroes who were mentally and physically tough.
“It was during this time frame that many individuals and organizations began to concoct conspiracy theories to explain their misfortunes. These theories varied but almost always involved a globalist dictatorship the“New World Order (NWO), which conspired to exploit the working class citizens.”
In other words, these “ridiculous NWO theories” were created by psychological deviants who were trying to justify their own self-induced misfortunes.
Fear ye, all troopers
For unsuspecting law enforcement personnel, this MIAC training document polarizes unsuspecting officers to fear peaceful, law-abiding citizens and greatly increases the risk of armed confrontation. For instance, a routine traffic stop would be escalated if the officer observes a Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin bumper sticker on the rear bumper of the car. The mere possession of printed material such as the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights would be viewed as subversive, even though most officers are required to take an oath to “defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States” as a condition of their employment.
Additionally, troopers are indoctrinated that all such topics are pure fantasy and without any factual basis. Even if they had their own concerns, they would be ridiculed into accepting the position that all criticism of the New World Order is dangerous to their well being.
The Columbia Daily Tribune (Columbia, Missouri) reports this concern from local resident Tim Neal, who apparently fits the MIAC’s “Modern Militia” profile:
If a police officer is pulling me over with my family in the car and he sees a bumper sticker on my vehicle that has been specifically identified as one that an extremist would have in their vehicle, the guy is probably going to be pretty apprehensive and not thinking in a rational manner, and this guys walking up to my vehicle with a gun. [see ‘Fusion Center’ draws fire over assertions]
MIAC is a Fusion Center
As mentioned above, the Missouri Information Analysis Center is one of a network of over 50 Fusion Centers around the country.
According to the National Criminal Intelligence Resource Center (NCIRC), a Fusion Center is “a collaborative effort of two or more agencies that provide resources, expertise, and/or information to the center with the goal of maximizing the ability to detect, prevent, apprehend, and respond to criminal and terrorist activity.”
As of 2006, the NCIRC listed 50 Fusion Centers in various states.
Most importantly, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security are the driving forces behind Fusion Centers, having published “Fusion Center Guidelines: Developing and Sharing Information and Intelligence in a New World.” This report headlines “Fusion” as “Turning Information and Intelligence Into Actionable Knowledge.”
Fusion Centers are one of five areas of information sharing under the Information Sharing Environment (ISE) that was established by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
ISE membership includes the Department of Commerce, CIA, Department of Defense, Director of National Intelligence, Department of Energy, FBI, Health and Human Services, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Homeland Security, National Counter-Terrorism Center, Department of Interior, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Justice, Department of State, Department of Transportation and the Department of Treasury.
According to one white paper (on the ISE web site) entitled The Intelligence Fusion Process for State, Local and Tribal Law Enforcement, “The most important output of the intelligence Fusion Center is actionable intelligence. This means that the intelligence produced by the center will drive operational responses and strategic awareness of threats.” Accordingly,
“The heart of good intelligence analysis is to have a diverse array of valid and reliable raw information for analysis. The more robust the raw information, the more accurate the analytic output (i.e., intelligence) will be.”
The above mentioned MIAC report, issued by an official Fusion Center, is apparently part of this “diverse array of valid and reliable raw information.”
However, ISE’s understanding of intelligence is foolish. Any intelligence analyst knows that so-called raw information is treated as garbage until verified from multiple sources to validate accuracy, completeness and freedom from bias. Secondly, analytic output depends upon trained and experienced human reasoning and judgment, not on the “robustness” of the raw information itself.
Where do Fusion Centers get inputs?
According to their own documents, Fusion Cen¬ters are “seeded” with ideas for analysis by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. Although this is problematic in itself, attention is better directed to the left-wing nonprofit organization, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
Upon careful word and theme comparison between the MIAC report and SPLC literature, it is apparent that there is a significant link between the two. Either MIAC received training or training material from SPLC or some of its personnel had some previous exposure to it.
The SPLC aggressively offers training to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. According to the SPLC web site, “We focus on the history, background, leaders and activities of far-right extremists in the U.S.” and states that it “is internationally known for its tolerance education programs, its legal victories against white supremacists and its tracking of hate groups.”
Hate crimes are essentially acts of vilification of a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, such as racial, religious, sexual orientation, nationality, gender, etc. While hate crimes are wrong under any circumstance, the SPLC sees no conflict in profiling conservative whites, Christians, Constitutionalists, and patriots as being associated with, if not responsible for, hate crimes in America. This is the pot calling the kettle black.
For instance, consider the SPLC statement, “…a basic fact about all three movements: Patriots, white supremacists and anti-abortion militants are all fueled by interpretations of religion.”
Aside from the fact that this sweeping generalization is plainly not true, it is mud-slinging at its best: Patriots are lumped in with white supremacists, anti-abortionists are militants, and all are driven by an obviously irrational and fanatical application of religion.
In another SPLC article about a tragic killing in South Carolina, entitled “The Abbeville Horror”, the writer goes well beyond just the facts of the story and is careful to sprinkle in words and phrases such as:
Patriots, tax protestors, sovereign citizens, antigovernment extremists, New World Order paranoia, Disarming U.S. Citizens, hard-line Christian Right, constitutional rights, antigovernment “Patriot” literature, anti-Semitic conspiracy, “Live Free or Die,” Ruby Ridge and Waco, Second Amendment, extremist organizing, “closet extremists,” paranoid beliefs, “Give me liberty or give me death.” [quotes appear in original text]
These are the same kinds of words and themes that are seen in The Modern Militia Movement article, where distinctions between good and bad people are blurred and confused: All are guilty by association, if nothing else.
Should a private organization like SPLC be allowed to provide official training to public-entrusted law enforcement agencies? Most would say, “No.” Even if the training was free, the agency should reject influence from the public sector, and even more so if it presents biased and one-sided information that is claimed to be factual.
It is critical to understand that the legitimate law enforcement agencies of cities, counties and states are not adversaries of the people. They are greatly needed for protection against crime and for keeping order in our communities.
They are, however, being methodically seeded with very wrong headed and dangerous infomation, the specific intent of which is to polarize law enforcement against peaceful citizens who simply care about the downfall of their country.
This writer interviewed Chuck Baldwin and asked about how he felt when he first saw his good name associated with those who would threaten bodily harm to law enforcement agencies. “Personally, I was stunned,” he said, “but my family has taken this very personally as well. This is more than disturbing.”
When asked about the possible affect of the report on the Constitution Party, of which he was the 2008 presidential candidate, he replied, “I think it will galvanize people and help them to understand the nature of the battle we are in. Freedom must be defended.”
In fact, the MIAC report has created a firestorm all over America. Tens of thousands of protests are being called, written, emailed and faxed to authorities and legislators in Missouri. It would not be surprising to see the report rescinded and an apology given.
Even so, behind the scene groups like the SPLC will continue unabated and undeterred in their effort to misinform and disrupt healthy community relations with worthy law enforcement agencies and personnel.
The message to every jurisdiction: Don’t let it happen!
Locate the Fusion Center in your state and keep a close eye on the information they are releasing. Stay close to as many law enforcement personnel as you can, asking them to keep their eyes open for reports similar to the Missouri report. Petition your state legislators to ban law enforcement training by private organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The original publication date of this article (03 18 09) should tell some of you folks just how little attention you have been paying to the destruction of our freedom. Everything Patrick wrote about back then is common knowledge today, and still the American complacency is present. What will it take to wake you folks up to reality?
November 28th, 2015 by olddog
By Andrew Gavin Marshall
On Nov. 13, the United Kingdom’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) announced it was charging 10 individual bankers, working for two separate banks, Deutsche Bank and Barclays, with fraud over their rigging of the Euribor rates. The latest announcement shines the spotlight once again on the scandals and criminal behavior that have come to define the world of global banking.
To date, only a handful of the world’s largest banks have been repeatedly investigated, charged, fined or settled in relation to a succession of large financial scams, starting with mortgage fraud and the Libor scandal in 2012, the Euribor scandal and the Forex (foreign exchange) rate rigging. At the heart of these scandals, which involve the manipulation of interest rates on trillions of dollars in transactions, lie a handful of banks that collectively form a cartel in control of global financial markets – and the source of worldwide economic and financial crises.
Banks such as HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays, Bank of America, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland and UBS anchor the global financial power we have come to recognize as fraud. The two, after all, are not mutually exclusive. In more explicit terms, this cartel of banks functions as a type of global financial Mafia, manipulating markets and defrauding investors, consumers and countries while demanding their pound of flesh in the form of interest payments. The banks force nations to impose austerity measures and structural reforms under the threat of cutting off funding; meanwhile they launder drug money for other cartels and organized crime syndicates.
Call them the global Mafiocracy.
In May, six major global banks were fined nearly $6 billion for manipulation of the foreign exchange market, which handles over $5 trillion in daily transactions. Four of the six banks pleaded guilty to charges of “conspiring to manipulate the price of U.S. dollars and euros exchanged.” Those banks were Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland, while two additional banks, UBS and Bank of America, were fined but did not plead guilty to the specific charges. Forex traders at Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and other banks conspired to manipulate currency prices through chat room groups they established, where they arrogantly used names like “The Mafia” and “The Cartel.”
The FBI said the investigations and charges against the big banks revealed criminal behavior “on a massive scale.” The British bank Barclays paid the largest individual fine at around $2.3 billion. But as one trader at the bank wrote in a chat room conversation back in 2010, “If you aint cheating, you aint trying.” The total fines, while numerically large, were but a small fraction of the overall market capitalization of each bank – though the fine on Barclays amounted to some 3.4% of the bank’s market capitalization, the highest percentage by far among the group.
Despite the criminal conspiracy charges covering the years 2007 through 2013, the banks and their top officials continue to lay the blame squarely at the feet of individual traders. Axel Weber, the former president of the German Bundesbank (the central bank of Germany), who is now chairman of Switzerland’s largest bank, UBS, commented that “the conduct of a small number of employees was unacceptable and we have taken appropriate disciplinary actions.”
Looking at the larger scale of bank fines and fraud in the roughly eight years since the global financial crisis, the numbers increase substantially. In addition to a 2012 settlement for mortgage-related fraud in the U.S. housing market, which amounted to some $25 billion, several large banks paid individual fines related to mortgage and foreclosure fraud – including a $16 billion fine for Bank of America, and $13 billion for JPMorgan Chase. Added to these are fines related to the rigging of the Libor rate (the interest rate at which banks lend to each other) and the Forex rigging, as well as money laundering, violating sanctions, manipulating the price of gold, manipulating the U.S. electricity market and assisting tax evasion, among other crimes.
According to a research paper published in June, the total cost of litigation (fines, penalties, settlements, etc.) paid by 16 major global banks since 2010 has reached more than $300 billion. Bank of America paid the most, amounting to more than $66 billion, followed by JPMorgan Chase, Lloyds, Citigroup, Barclays, RBS, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, BNP Paribas, Santander, Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, UBS, National Australia Bank, Standard Chartered and Société Générale.
Virtually all of these banks also appear on a list of data, compiled through 2007, revealing them to be among the most interconnected and powerful financial institutions in the world. This core group of corporations forms part of a network of 147 financial institutions that Swiss scientists refer to as the “super-entity,” which, through their various shareholdings, collectively control and own each other and roughly 40% of the world’s 43,000 largest transnational corporations.
In other words, the big banks – along with large insurance companies and asset management firms – do not simply act as a cartel in terms of engaging in criminal activities, but they form a functionally interdependent network of global financial and corporate control. Further, the banks work together in various industry associations and lobbying groups where they officially represent their collective interests.
The largest European banks and financial institutions are represented by the European Financial Services Round Table (EFR), whose membership consists of the CEOs or Chairmen of roughly 25 of the top financial institutions on the continent, including Deutsche Bank, AXA, HSBC, Allianz, RBS, ING, Barclays, BNP Paribas, UBS, and Credit Suisse, among others.
In the United States, the Financial Services Forum (FSF) represents the largest American along with some European banks and financial institutions. The Forum’s membership consists of less than 20 executives, including the CEOs or Chairmen of such firms as Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, UBS, HSBC, AIG, Bank of New York Mellon, State Street Corporation, Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo, among others.
And on a truly global scale, there is the Institute of International Finance (IIF), the premier global association representing the financial industry, with a membership of nearly 500 different institutions from more than 70 countries around the world, including banks, insurance companies, asset management firms, sovereign wealth funds, central banks, credit ratings agencies, hedge funds and development banks.
In addition to these various groups and associations, many of the same large banks and their top executives also serve as members, leaders or participants in much more secretive groups and forums – for example, the International Monetary Conference (IMC), a yearly meeting of hundreds of the world’s top bankers hosted by the American Bankers Association, which invites selected politicians, central bankers and finance ministers to attend their off-the-record discussions. In addition, there is the Institut International d’Etudes Bancaires (International Institute of Banking Studies), or IIEB, which brings together the top officials from dozens of Europe’s major financial institutions for discussions with central bankers, presidents and prime ministers in “closed sessions” with virtually no coverage in the media.
These financial institutions are major owners of government debt, which gives them even greater leverage over the policies and priorities of governments. Exercising this power, they typically demand the same thing: austerity measures and “structural reforms” designed to advance a neoliberal market economy that ultimately benefits those same banks and corporations. The banks in turn create the very crises that require governments to bail them out, racking up large debts that banks turn into further crises, pressuring economic reforms in return for further loans. The cycle of crisis and control continues, and all the while, the big banks and financial institutions engage in criminal conspiracies, fraud, manipulation and money-laundering on a massive scale, including acting as the financial services arm of the world’s largest drug cartels and terrorists organizations.
Welcome to the world governed by the global financial Mafiocracy – because if you’re not concerned, you’re not paying attention.
Now do you have some idea of why I have been calling for their heads? And I mean that literally! These scumbags must be brought to justice before they blow up the entire financial world and the lives of BILLIONS of people. The damage they have already caused is un-calculable. Murder, rape, incest, theft, is their daily activity. They are the scum of the earth. They should be subjected to the most pain-full death ever invented.
November 27th, 2015 by olddog
Chicago Police Officer Charged with Murder in Shooting of Black Teenager as City Releases Video Footage
Man Beaten by SAPD Officers Paralyzed After Complications From Surgery
NYC Emergency Responders Go Through Active Shooter Drill
Federal Lawyers Fly to Minneapolis to Investigate Shooting
Release of Video of Police Shooting Will Cast Spotlight on Chicago
Complaints Against Boston Police Pile up Officers Face Multiple Grievances; Resolutions Lengthy
A Badge, a Gun and No Self-Control
By Matthew Spina / News Staff Reporter
A Louisiana police chief ushers a drunken woman to his office and forces her into sex.
A Utah officer takes advantage of a suicidal woman before escorting her into a hospital.
A Buffalo cop insists a vulnerable mother give in to him whenever he pounds on her door.
In the past decade, a law enforcement official was caught in a case of sexual abuse or misconduct at least every five days. Nearly all were men. Nearly all victims were women, and a surprising number were adolescents.
Details of more than 700 credible cases from the past 10 years are now available, county by county and state by state, from The Buffalo News.
No federal agency tracks job-related sexual misconduct by police officers. So The Buffalo News combed through news reports and court records to compile a database. More than 700 credible cases from the past 10 years are now detailed, county by county and state by state.
The violators pulled over drivers to fish for dates, had sex on duty with willing or reluctant partners, extorted favors by threatening arrest and committed rapes.
In more than 70 percent of the cases, officers wielded their authority over motorists, crime victims, informants, students and young people in job-shadowing programs. Then there were covert acts. One officer on patrol would hunt for WiFi signals and use them to collect child pornography. Another secretly photographed girls’ underwear.
The numbers are almost certainly higher. Sex offenses go widely unreported even when cops are not suspects. Victims may be even less likely to report offenses when they fear it will be their word versus an officer’s. Police often prey on accursers with weak credibility, such as prostitutes, addicts or parolees.
“This is just the tip of the iceberg,” said former police officer Timothy M. Maher, now a criminal justice professor in St. Louis, whose research shows that police sexual misconduct is under-reported. Maher says most officers do not commit felony sex crimes. But he believes many offenses never come to light or are swept under the rug.
Detailed in The News data are some 160 offenses against young people. An Alabama officer raped a 13-year-old girl attending the school where he served as a crossing guard. A cop in North Carolina told a 14-year-old crime victim that having sex with him would prove she was telling the truth.
A school resource officer in Arkansas climbed into a student’s bedroom window. He was 48. She was 16.
Sex-related misconduct generates more citizen complaints than any factor except excessive force, the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank tracking police wrongdoing, found in a 2010 study.
A Niagara Falls patrolman completed a pat-down then let his hands roam over a woman’s breasts, buttocks and between her legs. A California officer sent to quiet a loud party stripped down and splashed into a pool of women. A Texas officer told a motorist she could drive off without a ticket if she let him lick her feet or take her underwear.
Norm Stamper hit the streets as a San Diego patrolman in 1966 and ended his career 34 years later as police chief in Seattle. During those decades, Stamper said he saw racism, sexism and misogyny in the ranks. He saw cops come to believe that no one may defy them.
In 2005, he published a book that included a chapter called “sexual predators in uniform.”
“You won’t find a major law enforcement agency that has been around for more than five minutes that has not had a chapter in its history of sexual abuse by a police officer on duty,” Stamper said.
“We’ve got too many rapists in uniform.”
A picture emerges
The News data includes only cases in which an officer’s bad acts were linked to police work. That doesn’t mean all were on duty. Jeffrey Pelo, a sergeant in Bloomington, Ill., stalked and raped women in his private time but used police resources to find his victims, so the data includes his case. Minneapolis Officer Bradley Schnickel used no police resources as he sought adolescent girls for sex. The data omits his name, and the names of hundreds more officers convicted of serious sex crimes unconnected to their jobs.
All but five of the officers named in the data are men, though women make up 13 percent of sworn officers nationwide. Among the five women: A Texas probation officer struck up a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old boy she supervised, and went to prison; and a Georgia sheriff’s deputy who failed to provide backup to a colleague because she was off having sex. She resigned.
Most of the offenders had enough time on the job to learn to evade varying levels of supervision. The officers averaged 38 years of age, with nine years of service to their departments, when those factors could be determined.
Just 6 percent were department rookies who started to strike soon after hitting the streets. A 25-year-old in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, N.C., for example, pressured a half-dozen women for sex during traffic stops. He went to prison. So did a rookie in Houston, Texas, who took his victims to a remote area and forced them to strip.
Road cops are most likely to offend. About 72 percent were patrol deputies, troopers, officers, constables. Others were detectives, officers with rank, or federal agents, federal security workers, or parole or probation officers.
About 3 percent held high-level posts: chiefs, deputy chiefs and sheriffs, such as the sheriff in Custer County, Okla., who forced female drug defendants into sex with him in exchange for better treatment. Some 28 percent were suspected of engaging with more than one person.
Many of those named faced only departmental charges and were fired or resigned. Some have been indicted and their cases are still playing out. But most officers in the data, 63 percent, were convicted of a crime after being accused of various acts of abuse, assault or misconduct.
A case in Buffalo years ago looks typical.
A knock on the door
At around 9 on a November night in 2004, a single mother gassed up her Honda as she headed out to return a book to a fellow University at Buffalo student. Joyce Pecky was 42, a slender 5 feet, 5 inches tall, with reddish brown hair falling to her shoulders. She was determined to write a new chapter in her life, and it would go like this: Bid farewell to a drug habit, earn a master’s degree in nutrition and provide solid support to the 6-year-old daughter riding in the back seat.
Joyce Pecky says she was preyed upon by former Buffalo Police Officer
Greg O’Shei, who was convicted in 2006 in connection with the demands he placed on Pecky for sexual favors. Photo by Robert Kirkham / Buffalo News
The Buffalo News does not identify the victims of sex-related crimes, but Pecky says the problem of police sexual misconduct has been in the shadows for too long. She wants to speak publicly about her ordeal. Her account:
Standing at the pump in jeans and a heavy sweatshirt, Pecky was unaware of a police car nearby. But soon after she returned the nozzle and angled toward Bailey Avenue, a squad car threw streaks of light across the road, and Pecky slowed to a stop on a dark East Side street.
Pecky handed over her license, and the officer left her for a few minutes. Then he reappeared with an odd request, she said. Would she walk with him to the rear of her car?
Once there, the cop moaned things in her ear, crude things, she said. He implied that she was out searching for drugs and questioned whether she was a good mother for having her little girl out so late, Pecky recalled.
Pecky said she was stunned — and bending backward over the trunk of her car to get some space.
Can I please leave? Pecky asked again and again, she said.
Finally, Officer Greg O’Shei told her she could drive home. He would not arrest her.
O’Shei, as he described himself for a deposition years later, was a large man, about 6 feet 3 and 215 pounds. When he stopped Pecky he was 41, with a family at home. He first donned a Buffalo police badge nine years before the traffic stop, but a brain injury suffered in an on-duty crash had idled him for years and played games with his memory and temperament. If he acted oddly at times, the Buffalo Police Department wasn’t one in which an officer questioned another about such things, he said.
O’Shei would also say he had seen Pecky in the past trying to score drugs and wanted to know who was selling them. She insists she had never seen him before. Regardless, Pecky realized the officer never called in her information from the traffic stop. If he had, he would have learned she was driving with a suspended license.
Pecky returned to her flat on Mineral Springs Road, put her daughter to bed, then went to bed herself.
At 2 a.m., someone pounded on the door.
“I just wanted to make sure you are OK,” O’Shei explained, according to Pecky.
O’Shei was still on duty but miles outside his Ferry-Fillmore district. Pecky cracked opened the door, and seconds later he was roaming the apartment. He complained it was messy, questioned her mothering skills and mentioned the child could be taken away with one arrest, Pecky said.
With the girl waking up, Pecky persuaded O’Shei to leave. But he came back the next day, when he was off duty and the girl was at school, and got the sexual favor he wanted from Joyce Pecky.
O’Shei came by again and again for months while on duty, Pecky said. Sometimes she and her daughter would hide, pretending no one was home as he banged on the door and the windows and shined his flashlight inside. But when they hid, she said, O’Shei returned the very next night.
Looking the other way
One author called sexual abuse by law enforcement authorities “the police violence we aren’t talking about.”
When people die at the hands of police, reports are filed and the public responds. Not so with sex acts.
Some researchers say the problem is more widespread than many administrators realize.
Just two years before Officer O’Shei first banged on Joyce Pecky’s door, Criminal Justice Professor Samuel Walker of the University of Nebraska at Omaha used the term “driving while female” after seeing that cases of police sexual abuse tend to begin with traffic stops. Among his examples: A Suffolk County officer on New Year’s Day 2001 forced a woman to strip and walk home wearing only her underpants. A California Highway Patrol trooper in 1986 strangled a 20-year-old college student, Cara Knott, and threw her body off a bridge.
Walker’s report, written with Dawn Irlbeck, said sex offenses can multiply when departments allow sexist cultures, tolerate wrongdoing, ignore citizen complaints and fail to supervise. They suggested departments collect data on the types of drivers their officers pull over — do they tend to be young women? — and hire more women because female officers generate few sexual misconduct complaints.
Timothy Maher began as a police officer in 1985.
“When I went through the academy 30 years ago, it was never brought up,” he said. “Yet working the road … I was seeing all kinds of at least minor stuff. But it was enough to get some guys fired if they had been caught.”
As a criminal justice professor at the University of Missouri at St. Louis, Maher presented male police chiefs in the St. Louis metropolitan area with a questionnaire asking about the prevalence of sexual misconduct. Maher compiled the answers and learned that the chiefs, on average, suspected nearly one in five officers were committing at least low-level acts that would nonetheless violate department rules, like pulling over women drivers to fish for dates.
Maher surveyed road cops in and around St. Louis. On average, they suspected it was about one in every three officers violating the rules. Then he surveyed just female officers around St. Louis. On average, they suspected that even more cops – better than two out of every five – were probably committing at least noncriminal offenses.
Maher says too many police officers fail to report bad conduct they know about.
“It’s that tolerance level,” he said. “Even when some of them hear about it or know about it, they tolerate it and don’t report on it.”
A school resource officer in Atlanta molested a 12-year-old developmentally disabled girl as he drove her around town after school one day. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
A New Mexico officer who investigated cases of child abuse and sex crimes sexually assaulted a high school intern trying to learn about police work. He was sentenced to nine years in prison.
An officer in Cleveland, Ohio, videotaped himself having sex, in uniform, with a 15-year-old he met while working security at a recreation center. He was sentenced to nearly 20 years in prison.
More than 160 people — 23 percent of those in the data — are included because authorities alleged they trafficked in child pornography or engaged inappropriately with young people under the age of 18. They were students, young motorists, runaways, teen prostitutes.
About 5 percent of the offenders – 34 cops – had been assigned to work with young people, typically as school resource officers, DARE officers or leaders in their department’s Explorer programs, which acquaint young people with law enforcement careers.
Some were caught grooming young people for physical relationships that never began.
A Kentucky officer sent suggestive texts to a student and was fired. A school resource officer in North Carolina sent suggestive pictures and was stripped of his law-enforcement certification and placed on probation. A police chief, also in North Carolina, engaged in sexually graphic computer chats, sometimes from his office, with people he thought were underage females.
In reality, they were criminal investigators. He was sent to a federal prison for more than 12 years.
The power imbalance
In Buffalo, Joyce Pecky agonized about her situation with Officer O’Shei. He would park his patrol car outside her home and bang at her door with his expectations.
If she reported him, would the department take her seriously?
She had a record.
If O’Shei found out, would it only get worse for her?
A woman in Jacksonville, Texas, accused an officer of rape. When he later spotted her on the street, he wrapped a belt around her neck and dragged her toward his van. She escaped, and he was sentenced to 12 years in prison.
In many cases in The News’ database, officers preyed on women with weak credibility: prostitutes, ex-convicts, women named in arrest warrants, drug informants, drug abusers, women on probation or parole.
Who would believe their word over a police officer’s?
But to prove her claim, a parolee in Broward County, Fla., set up a hidden camera to record her parole officer forcing her into sex in her home under the threat of imprisonment. The parole officer was fired and now faces charges.
When confronting overwhelming evidence against them, accused officers often argue that the sex was consensual – forbidden by department rules, but not sexual assault and certainly not rape.
In his December 2010 deposition, Officer O’Shei said he believed the sex with Pecky and others was consensual.
O’Shei admitted he knocked on windows and peered into Pecky’s apartment with his flashlight. He agreed he said things that could be taken as threats. He admitted she told him she wasn’t interested.
Yes, he mentioned to her what could happen if a Child Protective Services worker ever showed up. Yes, his gun remained on him at all times. And yes, Pecky was vulnerable to his police powers.
But O’Shei did not think Pecky or any of the other women would report him – “because I didn’t feel we were involved in a situation where one felt compelled to do something,” he explained.
“As you look back now you realize otherwise?” a lawyer asked.
“Yes,” he said.
Day in court
The chances for criminal convictions and stiff sentences depend on the strength of the case, a victim’s willingness to testify, the skill of prosecutors, a jury’s attitudes toward police and the accuser.
An officer in Indianapolis threatened to arrest a 19-year-old woman on a warrant if she did not have sex with him. He was charged with seven felonies, including rape, but was allowed to plead guilty to sexual misconduct and official misconduct. Instead of jail time, he received two years of home confinement, a year of probation and an order to register as a sex offender while on probation.
A cop in Edgewater, Fla., had a woman perform a sex act on him or be arrested for marijuana possession. He was sentenced to a year of probation but had to surrender his certification as a law enforcement officer.
In Flagstaff, Ariz., a state officer out for a night of drinking and entertainment flashed his badge to get into a music venue for free and later threatened to have the bouncers who evicted him arrested. He had walked up to a friend of a friend and rubbed his hand up her skirt and across her genitals. Convicted of sexual abuse, the officer was placed on probation for two years and fired.
With a few fellow cops in court to support their colleague, the judge lectured the victim: “If you hadn’t been there that night, none of this would have happened to you,” Judge Jacqueline Hatch said, according to the Arizona Daily Sun. The judge later apologized.
Some officers go to prison for decades.
In New Orleans, an officer who took a woman in his custody to a warehouse and sexually assaulted her was given 45 years.
An officer in Anchorage, Alaska, received 87 years for sexually assaulting several women.
A deputy in Cobb County, Ga., grew angry at a waitress as he drank in a bar. He accused the woman, who spoke little English, of stealing his cell phone. He flashed his badge, took her to the apartment complex where they both lived and raped her and beat her at gunpoint. A judge sentenced him to 25 years to life.
Victims can sue police officers or other law enforcement officials accused of such wrongdoing. They can go after the officers themselves or their supervisors who fail to address known wrongdoing or are grossly negligent in their supervision.
To reach the deeper pockets of government, plaintiffs must link the municipality to the crime by some fact other than the officer’s mere employment. Was the misconduct part of a policy or pattern? Was it so consistent and widespread that officials should have known about it? Did a failure to monitor, supervise or train amount to deliberate indifference to the rights of victims? Was the supervisor grossly negligent?
Houston Officer Abraham Joseph used his patrol car to pull over female motorists and would rape them. But the victims lost their civil rights claims against the city after a judge ruled Houston’s practices for hiring, training and supervising officers were not so poor that they were unconstitutional.
Civil outcomes are all over the board. The City of San Diego paid $1.3 million to settle a lawsuit filed by two women who had been groped by a San Diego officer.
In their lawsuits against the City of Buffalo, Joyce Pecky and two other plaintiffs have so far collected nothing.
Early this year, dozens of organizations advocating for women of color told the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing that police sexual misconduct is “by no means an isolated phenomenon” and requires “a policy response by law enforcement agencies.”
The wheels for a policy response were already in motion. Four years earlier, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, in Alexandria, Va., created a “working group on sexual offenses by police officers.” Named to the group were professors Walker and Maher.
The international association, widely respected by police administrators, stated in 2011 that sexual misconduct by police represents a “grave abuse of authority” and warrants “the full attention of law-enforcement leadership.” The IACP presented a guide to help administrators recognize and deal with cases and prevent new episodes.
No one at the organization can say how many of the nation’s 18,000 police agencies follow the guidelines. But the volume of incidents coming to light has not abated. In 2014, newspapers and television stations around the country reported 105 new and credible cases of job-related sexual misconduct by police.
It was the highest annual total in the 10 years’ of data, and an average of two cases every week.
He is ‘the cops’
Joyce Pecky never called the police about Officer O’Shei. But Susan Phister did.
Like Pecky, Phister wanted to talk publicly about her experience. Ten years ago, Phister’s life was a dangerous mix of drug abuse and sex for money, she said, and O’Shei would show up expecting her to give in to avoid arrest.
Phister would agree with O’Shei when he says he never worried about being caught. She recalled looking out the window after one encounter. As O’Shei slept, his squad car remained as he left it — the emergency lights swirling, the driver’s door open and the dome light shining. “It was lit up like a firecracker,” Phister said in an interview.
O’Shei became enraged, she said, if she ever tried to say no or could not be found. She was afraid of him and went to the police department when she couldn’t take it anymore. Phister produced text messages from O’Shei to back up her story.
O’Shei in 2006 admitted using his police powers to coerce sexual favors. He pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors — linked to his conduct with Pecky and Phister. Neither was a sex charge. O’Shei was sentenced to probation, not jail. While he had already resigned, the conviction ensured he would not be a police officer in New York.
Pecky today spends hours with her battered laptop computer, searching for cases of police sexual misconduct from around the country. She studies policy statements and research on the problem of predators in uniform. She read the reports by Samuel Walker in Omaha and Timothy Maher in St. Louis and read former Seattle Chief Norm Stamper’s chapter on the subject.
She plans to write a book of her own.
She is angry. Why don’t police departments accept responsibility for their offenders when facing lawsuits? she wonders. Why does the FBI take on so few “color of law” violations involving sexual abuse? Federal authorities were active in less than 10 percent of the cases in The News’ data.
Pecky never got her master’s degree. During the months that O’Shei hounded her she started using drugs again.
No one took her daughter away.
Now 16, the girl is studious, pleasant and poised. She still remembers a night when she was about 7.
As the officer pounded on the door and peered inside, the girl and her mother crouched near the floor to hide.
“I remember telling my mother ‘I’m scared.’ ”
She said she suggested to her mother that they “call the cops” then immediately thought better of it.
He is “the cops,” she realized.
“It was actually terrifying,” she said.
Luis Edward Hermosillo
U.S. Border Patrol Agent Luis Hermosillo in June 2009 allowed a woman, with her two children in the car, to pass into the country through his checkpoint near Mecca, Calif. Then he hurried to his vehicle and pulled her over, on the pretext that he had forgotten to search her luggage.
Hermosillo ordered her out of her car and, in the course of a pat down, penetrated her with his fingers, according to her civil lawsuit. Then he pulled her into his car, started kissing her buttocks over her skirt and penetrated her again with his fingers, her court complaint said. In time, she was allowed to drive off,
It was easy for her to identify the agent who had assaulted her. Hermosillo had given her his phone number, in case she would like to go out on a date, according to a statement from the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security. Hermosillo in 2012 pleaded guilty to charges of sexual assault and kidnapping and was sentenced to eight years in a California prison.
— Matthew Spina
State police in Arkansas were waiting for him.
They were told by the parents of a 16-year-old girl that something was wrong with the attention that Neil Hamilton Riley, a 48-year-old school resource officer, was lavishing on their daughter. So the state investigators had some advance notice and were in the family’s home when Riley clambered into the girl’s bedroom window around 1 on a February morning in 2010.
Later that day, Riley resigned from the police department in Searcy, Ark., which had employed him for almost eight years. He had met the girl through his work at Ahlf Junior High, a prosecutor on the case told the Associated Press.
Some parents and students interviewed by a local television station reacted with disgust at Riley’s conduct. One person told the station that Riley and his wife had split about five months earlier.
As incredible as the circumstances are, The News found that it was hardly a unique event. Over a 10-year span, more than 30 officers assigned to work with young people as school resource officers, DARE officers or as leaders of Explorer programs were accused of crossing the line.
Riley’s lawyer had sought probation for his client. But Riley said little as a judge in 2011 ordered him to spend 15 years in prison.
— Matthew Spina
Ryan G. Warme
This is the sexual misconduct that Ryan Warme admitted: In July 2007 he encountered a woman parked in a high-crime area of Niagara Falls. He ordered her out of the car for a pat down. “Instead of stopping once the ‘pat down’ was finished,” prosecutors wrote, Warme touched the woman’s “breasts, buttocks and genital area” without her consent. As a result, Warme deprived the woman of her civil rights.
A federal grand jury in 2008 had accused the officer of much more: rape and sodomy while on duty and receiving sexual favors from a prostitute while on duty. In one case, according to court records, Warme showed up unannounced at the apartment of a female acquaintance, stripped off his police gear and forced himself on her. When she protested he told her, “Shut up, you know you want this,” according to an FBI affidavit.
Meanwhile, Warme was suspected of selling and using cocaine, and prosecutors wanted a conviction on that conduct as well. As part of his plea agreement, Warme admitted to drug-related wrongdoing and a charge related to his possession of a firearm.
“I have shamed my family and humiliated myself,” Warme wrote in a letter to U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Arcara before he was sentenced in 2010 to almost 14 years in prison. “There are no excuses.
I crossed the line and used drugs. I knew better.
When Warme stood before him in an orange jumpsuit, Arcara wondered what had gone wrong with him. He’d been a talented athlete from a solid family.
“It’s my fault,” Warme said, “and now I have to pay for it.”
— Matthew Spina
Earl Theriot was the police chief in Sorrento, La. – population 1,500 – when he received a call in November 2013 about an unresponsive woman in a gas station’s parking lot.
Theriot drove her back to his office and, taking advantage of her drunken state, had her perform sex acts. When FBI agents investigated her complaint weeks later, Theriot told them he only drove the woman straight home, he did not know she had been in his office, that he was never alone with her there, and they had no sexual contact.
Theriot admitted to the lies and the sexual misconduct in federal court. But he never went to jail. His age, 66, his health problems and his willingness to immediately resign worked in his favor when sentenced.
The judge gave him a lecture. “You believed yourself to be above the law,” he told Theriot, according to television station WAFB. But Theriot was sentenced to just two years’ probation and fined $2,500.
The News was unable to contact Theriot. But the former police chief told a local TV station that he had been sufficiently punished because the matter “cost me my law enforcement career and brought embarrassment to my family and the town of Sorrento.”
— Matthew Spina
Nelson Tuatagaloa and another officer in West Jordan, Utah, responded in September 2008 to a call about a woman sitting in her car and contemplating suicide over family and personal problems. The woman had been drinking and had a gun, according to the Deseret News.
In time, Tuatagaloa offered to drive the woman to the Jordan Valley Hospital and placed her, handcuffed, in the front seat of his squad car. But he later removed the cuffs, drove her to a dark part of the hospital parking lot and engaged with her in sex acts without her consent.
Tuatagaloa later resigned from the department and, with his trial about to begin, pleaded guilty in February 2010 to two felony counts of custodial sexual relations.
He was sentenced to a year in jail and three years of probation, and his police officer certification was revoked.
November 26th, 2015 by olddog
By Nick Turse
THE GENERAL LEADING the U.S. military’s hidden war in Africa says the continent is now home to nearly 50 terrorist organizations and “illicit groups” that threaten U.S. interests. And today, gunmen reportedly yelling “Allahu Akbar” stormed the Radisson Blu hotel in Mali’s capital and seized several dozen hostages. U.S. special operations forces are “currently assisting hostage recovery efforts,” a Pentagon spokesperson said, and U.S. personnel have “helped move civilians to secured locations, as Malian forces clear the hotel of hostile gunmen.”
In Mali, groups like Ansar Dine and the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa have long posed a threat. Major terrorist groups in Africa include al Shabaab, Boko Haram and al Qaeda in the Islamic Magreb (AQIM). In the wake of the Paris attacks by ISIS, attention has been drawn to ISIS affiliates in Egypt and Libya, too. But what are the dozens of other groups in Africa that the Pentagon is fighting with more special operations forces, more outposts, and more missions than ever? For the most part, the Pentagon won’t say.
Brigadier General Donald Bolduc, chief of U.S. Special Operations Command Africa, made a little-noticed comment earlier this month about these terror groups. After describing ISIS as a transnational and transregional threat, he went on to tell the audience of the Defense One Summit, “Although ISIS is a concern, so is al Shabaab, so is the Lord’s Resistance Army in Central Africa and the 43 other illicit groups that operate in the area … Boko Haram, AQIM, and other small groups in that area.”
Bolduc mentioned only a handful of terror groups by name, so I asked for clarification from the Department of Defense, Africa Command (AFRICOM), and Special Operations Command Africa (SOCAFRICA). None offered any names, let alone a complete accounting. SOCAFRICA did not respond to multiple queries by The Intercept. AFRICOM spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Anthony Falvo would only state, “I have nothing further for you.”
While the State Department maintains a list of foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs), including 10 operating in Africa (ISIS, Boko Haram, Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, al Shabaab, AQIM, Ansaru, Ansar al-Din, Ansar al-Shari’a in Tunisia, as well as Libya’s Ansar al-Shari’a in Benghazi and Ansar al-Shari’a in Darnah), it “does not provide the DoD any legal or policy approval,” according to Lt. Col. Michelle Baldanza, a Defense Department spokesperson.
“The DoD does not maintain a separate or similar list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations for the government,” she said in an email to The Intercept. “In general, not all groups of armed individuals on the African continent that potentially present a threat to U.S. interests would be subject to FTO. DoD works closely with the Intel Community, Inter-Agency, and the [National Security Council] to continuously monitor threats to U.S. interests; and when required, identifies, tracks, and presents options to mitigate threats to U.S. persons overseas.”
This isn’t the first time the Defense Department has been unable or unwilling to name the groups it’s fighting. In 2013, The Intercept’s Cora Currier, then writing for ProPublica, asked for a full list of America’s war-on-terror enemies and was told by a Pentagon spokesman that public disclosure of the names could increase the prestige and recruitment prowess of the groups and do “serious damage to national security.” Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School who served as a legal counsel during the George W. Bush administration, told Currier that the Pentagon’s rationale was weak and there was a “very important interest in the public knowing who the government is fighting against in its name.”
The secret of whom the U.S. military is fighting extends to Africa. Since 9/11, U.S. military efforts on the continent have grown in every conceivable way, from funding and manpower to missions and outposts, while at the same time the number of transnational terror groups has increased in linear fashion, according to the military. The reasons for this are murky. Is it a spillover from events in the Middle East and Central Asia? Are U.S. operations helping to spawn and spread terror groups? Is the Pentagon inflating the terror threat for its own gain? Is the rise of these terrorist organizations due to myriad local factors? Or more likely, is it a combination of these and other reasons? The task of answering these questions is made more difficult when no one in the military is willing to name more than a handful of the transnational terror groups that are classified as America’s enemies.
Before 9/11, Africa seemed to be free of transnational terror threats, according to the U.S. government.
In 2000, for example, a report prepared under the auspices of the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute examined the “African security environment.” While noting the existence of “internal separatist or rebel movements” in “weak states,” as well as militias and “warlord armies,” it made no mention of Islamic extremism or major transnational terror threats.
In early 2002, a senior Pentagon official speaking on background told reporters that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan might drive “terrorists” out of that nation and into Africa. “Terrorists associated with al Qaeda and indigenous terrorist groups have been and continue to be present in this region,” he said. “These terrorists will, of course, threaten U.S. personnel and facilities.”
Pressed about genuine transnational threats, the official drew attention to Somali militants, specifically several hundred members of al Itihaad al Islamiya—a forerunner of al Shabaab — but admitted that even the most extreme members “really have not engaged in acts of terrorism outside Somalia.” Questioned about ties between Osama bin Laden’s core al Qaeda group and African militants, the official offered tenuous links, like bin Laden’s “salute” to Somali fighters who killed U.S. troops during the infamous 1993 Black Hawk Down incident.
The U.S. nonetheless deployed military personnel to Africa in 2002, while the State Department launched a big-budget counterterrorism program, known as the Pan Sahel Initiative, to enhance the capabilities of the militaries of Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger. In 2005, that program expanded to include Algeria, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, and Tunisia and was renamed the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership.
In the years that followed, the U.S. increased its efforts. In 2014, for example, the U.S. carried out 674 military missions across the continent — an average of nearly two per day and an increase of about 300 percent since U.S. Africa Command was launched in 2008. The U.S. also took part in a number of multinational military interventions, including a coalition war in Libya, assistance to French and African forces fighting militants in Central African Republic and Mali, and the training and funding of African proxies to do battle against extremist groups like al Shabaab and Boko Haram.
The U.S. has also carried out a shadow war of special ops raids, drone strikes and other attacks, as well as an expanding number of training missions by elite forces. U.S. special operations teams are now deployed to 23 African countries “seven days a week, 24/7,” according to Bolduc. “The most effective thing that we do is about 1,400 SOF operators and supporters integrated with our partner nation, integrated with our allies and other coalition partners in a way that allows us to take advantage of each other’s capabilities,” he said.
The U.S. military has also set up a network of bases — although it is loath to refer to them in such terms. A recent report by The Intercept, relying on classified documents leaked by a whistleblower, detailed an archipelago of outposts integral to a secret drone assassination program that was based at the premier U.S. facility on the African continent, Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti. That base alone has expanded since 2002 from 88 acres to nearly 600 acres, with more than $600 million allocated or awarded for projects and $1.2 billion in construction and improvements planned for the future.
A continent relatively free of transnational terror threats in 2001 is — after almost 14 years of U.S. military efforts — now rife with them, in the Pentagon’s view. Bolduc said the African continent is “as lethal and dangerous an environment as anywhere else in the world,” and specifically invoked ISIS, which he called “a transnational threat, a transregional threat, as are all threats that we deal with in Africa.” But the Pentagon would not specify whether the threat levels are stable, increasing, or decreasing. “I can’t get into any details regarding threats or future operations,” Lt. Col. Baldanza stated. “I can say that we will continue to work with our African partners to enable them in their counter-terrorism efforts as they further grow security and stability in the region.”
In the end, Bolduc tempered expectations that his troops might be able to transform the region in any significant way. “The military can only get you so far,” he told the Defense One Summit audience. “So if I’m asked to build a counter-violent extremist organization capability in a particular country, I can do that … but if there’s not … a valid institution to plug it into, then we are there for a long time.”
Top photo: Republic of Mali and United States Special Operations Forces troops stand in formation next to each other during the opening ceremony of the Flintlock 10 Exercise held May 3, 2010 in Bamako, Mali.
November 25th, 2015 by olddog
Are We Now Witnessing The Buildup To The Final False Flag That Will Lead To Martial Law And The Globalists ‘Endgame’?
By Stefan Stanford – All News Pipeline – Live Free Or Die
An absolutely bizarre story from the NY Daily News tells us that just days after ISIS released a video threatening New York City with a terrorist attack, 150 people on a plane flight from Mexico to JFK airport were permitted to skip customs and leave JFK without having their passports or bags checked as also shared in the 3rd video below.
In just the latest event that makes us believe that certain members of the current administration want terrorists to be successful in America, we also look at this story from Intellihub where we’re given more proof that this administration is bringing refugees (and possible terrorists) into the country under the cover of darkness aboard commercial airline flights.
When we tie in this information with news from a former FBI official who recently went on Fox News to discuss Obama’s dangerous plan to import thousands of Syrian refugees, we see a highly ‘orchestrated event’ (in former FBI assistant director James Kallstrom’s own words!) unfolding that may soon lead to the total destruction of America and the implementation of martial law all across the country as shared in the 2nd video below.
With new claims coming out that the Pentagon actually doctors ISIS intelligence to fit the White House as shared in this Daily News story and news coming out that both the FBI and the DHS oppose the new refugee screening bill recently passed by the House of Representatives we have to ask if we’re now being set up for the slaughter with more than 1 out of every 4 Americans now believing that government IS the enemy of the American people?
More than 1 in 4 Americans believe that the government is the enemy, according to a new poll.
Pew Research Center found that 27 percent of registered voters say they think of government as an enemy, up 8 points since 1996. The latest poll looked at general public opinion regarding the federal government.
More than a third (35 percent) of Republicans believe the federal government is the enemy, while 34 percent of Independents believe the same. The poll found that half of all Democrats (50 percent) view the government as a friend and only 12 percent see it as the enemy.
Other findings include that few think the government is run for the benefit of all the people and that it is viewed as wasteful and inefficient. About 3 in 4 Americans say the federal government is “run by a few big interests” and 57 percent say the “government is almost always wasteful and inefficient.”
Why has former FBI assistant director Kallstrom put himself in danger by telling us that letting potential terrorists into countries is an ‘orchestrated event’? Does he know something that we don’t know? Telling us that we have NO IDEA who the people are that we are letting into the country we quickly see, the handwriting is on the wall as govt prepares to brutally attack their own people while blaming it on the terrorists it’s continually flying into the country.
Why would Barack Obama (or other ‘globalist’ members of this administration) WANT a successful terrorist attack upon America? All we need to do is remember what happened here after 9/11 or what is happening in Paris now…a total crackdown on civil liberties, another uptick of the ‘surveillance state’ and the ‘need’ for a totalitarian government to ‘fix’ what’s broken. Would totalitarian globalists intent upon implementing global government REALLY want another 9/11 in America? Of course they would! Much more below videos including X22Report in the 1st video telling us that the US government and Central banks are preparing for the final stages of collapse.
Is Barack Obama setting the stage for martial law in America by ushering terrorists in?
Why did customs let over 100 people just ‘leave’ upon arrival from Mexico when we KNOW that possible Syrian terrorists are trying to get into our country through our southern border? This incident reeks of being something other than we’re being told.
With news coming out of Russia that the US helped to created ISIS, will Americans finally get some truth about ISIS’ creation or will the globalists be successful at their next false flag in America, possibly a massive Paris-style massacre in several US locations or cities at the same time, forever silencing truth in this nation as martial law and total government censorship and complete dictatorship are brought in?
We know that there is a possibility, if slight, that the 2016 elections won’t be held in America, leaving Barack Obama a dictator and an America that will never learn truth from lies. Would a series of massive terrorist attacks upon America grant Mr. Obama his wish, endless terms in office, and an America that never finds out the truth? If massive attacks are launched upon Americans and in US cities, will those in Washington DC who are clearly aiding and abetting ISIS terrorists be held responsible for their actions?
We strongly believe that the next series of massive terrorist attacks upon America will lead to the globalists end game – a total crackdown on the few Rights that Americans still have remaining and the ‘new world order’ that the criminal elite globalists have been working towards for many years. We are running out of time America.
May God stand with the brave men and women across the nation in law enforcement and the US military who are diligently working to keep America safe – our thoughts and prayers for strength and protection are with you.
November 23rd, 2015 by olddog
By LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD
As Winston Churchill noted in his indictment of appeasement of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, “there is a great danger in refusing to believe things you do not like.”
Barack Hussein Obama is succeeding in his fundamental transformation; that is, dismantling the United States as a capitalist republic, based on Judeo-Christian democratic principles.
Obama is dangerous as a President because his ideologies, Marxism and sympathy for Islam, drive him to pursue policies that run counter to the national interest, the well-being of the American people and, quite frankly, the survival of the country. His mendacity is compounded by his arrogance and narcissism that prevent him from accepting responsibility and learning from his mistakes. He is not on our side.
People ask – How can this be happening to our country? What can we do to stop it?
It can happen because the political-media establishment does not consider the United States “our” country. The political-media establishment considers the United States “their” country, in which ordinary Americans are permitted to live as long as we elect those they want elected and continue to pay taxes to support their lavish life styles and to maintain the corrupt status quo. Welcome to feudal America.
It can happen because, like Obama, the Democrat Party, the liberal media and academia are populated with the same Islamo-Marxists, a totalitarian marriage of convenience, distinguished by the traits they share – their hatred of Western civilization and a belief that the United States is the embodiment of evil on earth. While Islamic radicals seek to purge the world of heresies and of the infidels who practice them, leftist radicals seek to purge society of the vices allegedly spawned by capitalism — those being racism, sexism, imperialism, and greed. Through unregulated immigration, Democrats seek to alter the demographics of the United States to create a permanent one-party state to implement their far-left totalitarian agenda. Islamists have something similar in mind, albeit even more brutal and oppressive.
It can happen because America’s domestic enemies promulgate notions that attack the basis of Western Judeo-Christian civilization, which emphasizes the uniqueness and sacredness of the individual. They also promote policies that weaken our ability to transmit to the next generation the values and traditions upon which the United States was built e.g. the Common Core assault on American education. Anti-American, messianic political movements can only succeed when the individual believes that his or her actions are determined, not by personal freedom endowed by the Creator, but by the destiny of the community, endowed by a ruling elite of commissars or mullahs.
In can happen in any otherwise sophisticated society that loses a sense of its own history, succumbs to a present-tense culture and embraces the false promises of a leftist utopia in order to generate the truly blessed-out and vacant servitude required by the Obama strategy. Using media deception and historical revisionism, the low-information voter will slouch towards Obama’s utopia by a combination of governmental coercion as in George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” and the hedonist nihilism of a painless, amusement-sodden, and stress-free consensus managed by the nanny-state found in Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.
It can happen because the Republican establishment and its propaganda arm, Fox News, choose not to expose and oppose Obama to any extent that it might place in jeopardy their position as junior partners in the corrupt political-media status quo. They are funded by and serve the Chamber of Commerce and a broader class of wealthy global financiers, locusts, who view America as just another landmass and people to exploit. Republicans are not in Congress to represent their constituency or solve the nation’s problems, but to perpetuate themselves in office. As the Republican establishment’s grip on power becomes ever more tenuous, they will more aggressively oppose internal political challenges, whether it is from Donald Trump or the Tea Party and they more eagerly work together with Obama and the Democrats.
Case in point is the cynical piece of legislative window dressing, but appropriately-named SAFE ACT (American Security Against Foreign Enemies), recently passed by a bipartisan “veto-proof” 289-137 majority in the Paul Ryan (R-WI)-led House of Representatives. It is being heralded by the political-media establishment as a bill that would “erect high hurdles for Syrian and Iraqi refugees coming to American shores” and “require new FBI background checks and individual sign-offs from three high-ranking U.S. officials before any refugee could come to the U.S. from Iraq or Syria.”
Those descriptions are nonsensical at best, outright lies at worst. FBI Director James Comey already testified before the House Committee on Homeland Security that the federal government does not have the ability to conduct thorough background checks for terrorist ties on all Syrian refugees. The legislation does not cover potential terrorists coming from countries other than Iraq and Syria. Finally, the SAFE ACT gives final approval authority for entry solely to the Obama Administration, which has vowed to flood the country with refugees i.e. to facilitate a Muslim invasion of the U.S. similar to that we are witnessing in Europe, all financed by George Soros. The SAFE ACT does not provide physical safety for the American people, but it does provide political safety for the Republican establishment in the form of disinformation and legislative legerdemain.
In essence, the Republican establishment, in choosing to collaborate with Obama and the Democrats, is choosing national suicide. They prefer that option to representative government.
What can we do to stop it?
More than anything else, the political-media establishment does not want the American people to take back our country. The legislation, executive orders and judicial decisions emanating from Washington D.C. are geared to maintain the status quo or enhance the power of the federal government over the American people.
More than any other time in our history has the separation between the rulers and the ruled been as great and it bears comparison to the events leading up to the American Revolution. Whenever the interests of government officials are in such stark conflict with those of the people, tyranny ensues.
Frederick Douglass wrote: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
I think the American people are running out of words.
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 email@example.com.
What’s the big deal here Lawrence, what else would you expect from a government that can change the definition of the word Citizen, to Subject?
And when are you going to learn that America is a corporation totally under the control of the International Banking Cartel? Corporations are only interested in producing PROFITS not protecting A Constitution! As a matter of fact the U.S. Corporation has it’s own Constitution, and it sure as hell does not protect the People! Let’s all get on the same page Lawrence.
It is past time for the internet Patriots to wake up to the truth, learn it, and revise their commentary to fight it with all their might. This means educate the sheep non stop until they are as outraged as we all should be. We need to get this information out to a hundred million people ASAP. Why would an entire Nation accept a Corporation for a government? There is only one way for things to change for the better, and that is for a hundred million people to read this: You Know Something is Wrong When…..: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause (Paperback) by Anna Maria Riezinger & James Clinton Belcher
November 21st, 2015 by olddog
By Brandon Smith
Government engineered false-flag terrorism is a historically established fact. For centuries, political and financial elites have been sinking ships, setting buildings on fire, assassinating diplomats, overthrowing elected leaders, and blowing people up, then blaming these disasters on convenient scapegoats so that they can induce fear in the public and transfer more power to themselves. Skeptics might argue whether certain calamities have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be false-flag events, but no one can argue that such tactics have not been used by the establishment in the past. Governments have openly admitted to creating bloody and catalyzing tragedies under false pretenses, like Operation Gladio, a false-flag program in Europe supported by European and American covert agencies which lasted decades, from the 1950’s to the 1990’s.
Gladio utilized well-paid and trained rogue groups and agents as well as patsies, compartmentalized and controlled, who would commit atrocities against the European public. These atrocities would then be blamed on “left wing extremists”, galvanizing the citizenry and political representatives towards the false East/West paradigm. The superficial motivation given by whistleblowers was that Gladio was to be used to keep the right wing in power. However, the broader and deeper goal was clearly to manipulate Europeans into accepting a unification mindset, paving the way for the eventual centralization of Europe into the EU supranational block. Gladio, is only one well documented example of false-flag terrorism being exploited by governments to mold mass psychology towards greater collectivism.
It is therefore vital that the public question the legitimacy of EVERY so-called “terrorist attack” or geopolitical incident, otherwise, we may find ourselves duped into supporting wars and unconstitutional actions that only end up poisoning our society and elevating tyrants.
Why do I believe a new false-flag event is imminent? America has not suffered a large scale terrorist attack for over 13 years, after all. I can only say that current trends and international developments seem to be spiraling towards a breaking point; a kind of singularity, and if you understand that the majority of these events are deliberately engineered, then you also understand that the inevitable singularity (or primary disaster) is engineered as well.
The foremost current threat and most useful scapegoat is, of course, the ISIS insurgency in the Middle East. If one’s source of information was the mainstream media alone, one might be inclined to believe that ISIS has materialized out of nowhere to become a menace so organized and effective it has eclipsed Al-Qaeda as the hot button boogeyman used by the establishment. ISIS is certainly a disturbing militant group that goes out of its way to play the villain, complete with scary Muslim clothing and beards, not to mention the severed heads and indiscriminate genocide. Where is Jack Bauer when you need him, right?
The cartoonish nature of ISIS is not accidental, but I can see why they frighten a subset of the American population; if I didn’t know that they were funded by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, with military aid from Israel, then I might find them a terrifying enigma as well.
ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was held at a U.S. run detention facility called Camp Bucca from 2005 until 2009. Before his imprisonment, Baghdadi’s friends and family reported him to be a “quiet, studious fellow who was also a talented soccer player”. Only one year after being released from U.S. detention, however, he was a fanatical Islamic extremist who would go on to command the ISIS caliphate. In 2011, the U.S. State Department listed Bagdhadi as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” with a bounty of $10 million. There is no public record as to why Baghdadi was originally detained.
Former U.S. Air Force security officer, James Skylar Gerrond, served at Camp Bucca while Bagdhadi was held there, and is quoted as saying “Many of us at Camp Bucca were concerned that instead of just holding detainees, we had created a pressure cooker for extremism.” Indeed…
Let’s look at the culmination of events that led to the current incarnation that is ISIS:
George W. Bush signed and Barack Obama enforced (sorry politifact cultists, but they are BOTH to blame) a new foreign policy framework which allowed the release of numerous (and now somehow radicalized) prisoners from facilities like Camp Bucca in 2009.
The Libyan civil war erupts, as “rebels” are aided by the CIA and multiple foreign governments. These are the same rebels who would ultimately participate in the Benghazi raid on a U.S. consulate/CIA complex.
Libyan agents along with CIA operatives move into Jordan, where they have been training Syrian insurgents for over a year (officially – much longer unofficially), and still train them to this day, despite the apprehensions of the Jordanian government.
Libyan insurgents along with newly trained operatives have also shifted into Syria, turning general civil unrest into outright war.
ISIS recently gave praise to one of its commanders, a man from Libya, who had fought in the Libyan civil war, and in Syria, and in Iraq.
The U.S. has been secretly arming and training ISIS extremists in Syria for years, but only at the end of 2013 and the beginning of 2014 did it begin a more open campaign to provide support.
The Israeli government also aided insurgent groups in Syria using airstrikes to cripple Syrian Government regional command centers. It is also currently providing medical aid to Syrian rebels.
It was insurgent Sunni majority groups, trained in Jordan and funded by Saudi Arabia that have linked with Saudi funded groups in Iraq to form what we now know as ISIS. These are NOT separate groups acting autonomously. These are U.S. backed organizations acting in concert, and coalescing into a single movement – ISIS.
Violent genocidal actions, mass executions, as well as torture have become the common calling card of the establishment organized Islamic insurgent groups. Despite this horrifying development, Barack Obama is STILL seeking over $500 million in aid to Syrian rebels, though the rhetoric now specifies that funds and arms will only go to “moderate and well-vetted” insurgents. As far as I can tell, there are no “moderate” insurgents in Syria; insurgents that are now moving into Iraq and bringing their distinct brand of barbarism with them.
On the Council On Foreign Relations website, the globalist think-tank argued that the inclusion of extremist Al-Qaeda elements in the Syrian insurgency “improved the moral” of the movement, stating that the “Free Syrian Army needs Al-Qaeda now”. The CFR acknowledges that the goal of Al-Qaeda operatives in Syria is not necessarily to overthrow Assad, but to establish an Islamic state. Despite this, the CFR still continues its support of the strategy to overthrow Assad.
In an absurd display of forced schizophrenia, globalist organizations along with the puppet White House now argue that the existence of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, the same ISIS insurgency THEY CREATED, requires the U.S. to execute air strikes and military intervention in the region. Of course, to remain “fair and balanced”, the White House proposes to strike Syrian Government targets as well in order to avoid “strengthening Assad”. Yeah, read that twice, folks…
Remember the Syrian crisis at the end of last year? Remember how the U.S. and Russia were on the verge of conflict over Obama’s funding of the insurgency as well as his proposal to provide air support? Well, now the plan is to utilize air strikes against the same insurgents we had originally planned to help with air strikes.
Now, I have asked this question in the past, and I’ll ask it again – Is it merely irony that the White House is going to war with the covert militant group it gave birth to?
No, it is not irony. It is planned. ISIS is the new and improved Al-Qaeda. All of the terrorist disaster scenarios showcased in propaganda shows like ’24’ that seem rather ridiculous to many Americans if plotted by Al-Qaeda goat herders hiding in caves in Afghanistan and Pakistan now become believable if plotted by highly organized and savvy ISIS operatives.
Don’t believe ISIS is savvy? I don’t either, aside from the CIA agents pulling their strings. However, DoD officials and others have been bombarding the mainstream media with one specific meme: ISIS is awesome!
Chuck Hagel, Department of Defense Secretary, has made statements claiming that “ISIL (ISIS) poses a threat greater than 9/11… “
“They’re beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology with a sophisticated strategic and tactical military prowess and they’re tremendously well-funded. This is way beyond anything we have seen. We must prepare for everything. Get Ready!”
U.S. Special Operations sources argue that ISIS is an “incredible fighting force”, acting more like a “state with a military” than a disorganized band of guerrillas. I would argue that ISIS tactics appear sophisticated exactly because they are receiving sophisticated direction from state funded covert intelligence agencies like the CIA.
Retired Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney recently revealed that he believed a new 9/11 event is looming, and I would like to note that even if this is true, the Neo-Conservatives are no more a solution to the problem than the Neo-Liberals.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee claims that ISIS members are “rapidly developing a method of blowing up a major U.S. city…”
Governor Rick Perry of Texas (a Bilderberg attendee) claims that ISIS agents may have already crossed into the U.S. from Mexico.
In the meantime, Senators on both sides of the fake aisle are warning the Obama Administration that ISIS is the “best funded terror group in history”.
With all this hype circling ISIS, I have to suggest that maybe, just maybe, we are being given the ultimate scapegoat for the ultimate false flag attack. When building the narrative of a traditional story, the hero is really a secondary character, because the hero is only as impressive as the villain he must eventually defeat. If you look at mainstream media and geopolitics as a theater script, rather than a series of random events, it appears as though ISIS is being built up as a villain so pervasive and devious the group could accomplish ANYTHING.
I believe the time is in fact ripe for a large scale false-flag on American soil. It may be a singular attack limited to a city or region, or, numerous smaller attacks executed in concert. I see the media overload of ISIS fever as a means to condition the public to believe in the ISIS myth – the myth that they are a sophisticated international super-terrorist conglomerate; a real life Legion of Doom. If Americans are conned into buying this myth, they may also be fooled into abandoning their Constitutional liberties and natural freedoms in the face of a well planned attack blamed on ISIS elements. I believe there will likely come a day when the mere act of exposing the lie or standing against government overreach will be called “treason”, and people like myself will be labeled “no better than ISIS”.
If an attack does take place in the name of ISIS, it is vital that Americans remember that this is not the violent invasion of a foreign army, that there is no Islamic enemy except that which our government created, that this is not some unexpected form of “blowback” from terrorists who used to be our allies, that this is an engineered attack by contracted employees of our own defense and intelligence apparatus leading a horde of useful psychopaths, and just like during Operation Gladio, the goal will be to terrify you and those around you into seeking out a more powerful, more centralized government authority to protect your security, to provide cover for the continued planned collapse of American society into third world status, and out of these ashes, the centralization of the political and financial foundations of our world into the hands of an elite few.
November 20th, 2015 by olddog
By Alessandro Fusillo (Rome)
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The terrible facts of Paris still linger in our minds and hearts. Dozens of innocent people murdered without any reason while they were in a restaurant enjoying a dinner with friends, attending a soccer match or a rock concert. It’s violence without sense. No one is secure any more. The terrorists can strike everywhere, anytime and, as the news keep repeating, it’s impossible for any police force to protect all citizens everywhere against such random violence. Newspapers and televisions keep repeating this depressing message. A feeling of impotence and fear is spreading in an atmosphere of gloom and despondency.
I recently visited Arizona and friends invited me to a very fine show in Phoenix. Visiting a theatre or a concert is a heartwarming experience. It’s free market at work. The actors and musicians sell their services and the spectators buy them. Each party gains. It’s a win-win game. Especially if like in the USA no public authority is involved and the show makes its revenue from the tickets and not from some kind of subvention.
The theatre in Phoenix was completely sold out and thousands of persons occupied every available seat. Would an attack like that in Paris have been possible or conceivable in Arizona? I don’t think so. Why? It’s simple, because the people in Arizona are basically armed to their teeth and are allowed to go around with their guns in open display. Imagine the three or four terrorists entering the theatre in Phoenix. For sure upon entering the theatre and opening fire they would have murdered many innocent spectators, but they would have faced an armed response by a huge number of persons. What would have happened? The terrorists would have been rightly and justly killed way before they could even think of wreaking such damage and suffering as they did in Paris. In Paris the “special forces” of the police intervened when the terrorists already had run out of ammunition, the only reason why they couldn’t continue to murder.
An attack in a restaurant or at a sports venue in Arizona would have had the same predictable outcome. The attacked innocent persons would have opposed an armed response.
By the way, my friend in Arizona, a true man of peace, owns several handguns and two assault rifles. Of course he means no harm, but he rightfully claims his right to defend himself from an attack.
In Europe an armed reaction would have been impossible – and indeed it was as Paris’ tragic facts witness – because we have strict laws prohibiting most of the people from owning and carrying around firearms. Hence, we are defenseless. We can’t meet violence and coercion with an equal amount of violence. Self-defense is forbidden by law. In fact in most countries a home-owner who shoots an armed trespasser faces big problems and possibly substantial jail time.
No one among the very intelligent mainstream commentators of the Paris terrorist attacks voiced this simple and evident truth: we have the right to defend ourselves; we should be allowed to carry our arms in order to meet violence with violence! As Roman military writer Vegetius famously said: si vis pacem para bellum; if you want peace, be prepared for war. Unfortunately even if what is going on is a war, as French President said, we can’t be prepared for it, but we have to put all our trust in a police force that turned out to be incapable of defending the citizens.
This is my proposal. Let’s work for a second amendment for Europe. The American Constitution may have a lot of defects and may have not prevented the American government from an abnormal growth that none of the founding fathers could even imagine, but it is nonetheless a beacon of liberty and justice, at least for Europe. Let’s adopt the good things from America, let’s introduce the Second Amendment in every European constitution. Cives arma ferant: let the citizens bear arms.
Instead, what many commentators said was that the correct reaction should be to suspend the civil liberties, to endow the States and the police forces with even more powers and to imitate the American example of the Patriot Act. “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before”, like Rahm said. That’s the spirit. We don’t imitate the good things form America, but the worst.
On the contrary, we should think of ways to take our defense in our own hands. The right to carry arms and to be able to defend ourselves cannot be infringed. It’s a fundamental right as important as the right of free speech or the religious freedom. On a closer look it’s much more important than the latter fundamental rights because a dead person won’t be able to express any thoughts or to profess any religion.
This is especially true, because all police officers and governmental bureaucrats clearly said that they won’t be able to defend us in theatres and restaurants form random violence. If they aren’t then we should be able to try our own defense.
Moreover, did France’s strict firearms laws stop the terrorists from achieving their bloody and inhuman goals? Not at all. If I’m up to evil and wrongdoing I won’t be stopped by a law forbidding the use of firearms. Firearms laws simply enhance the black market and drive up the process of illegal arms. Thus, the laws regarding the prohibition of firearms reveal themselves in their utter stupidity and uselessness. Such laws don’t prevent criminals from killing and wreaking havoc, but they prevent normal citizens form defending themselves.
Sadly few in Europe will think, let alone voice publicly such a thought. We are so used to our armless condition that thinking out of the box will be very difficult or even impossible.
These considerations may be useful for a reflection about violence from a libertarian point of view. Libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism can be summed up in the non-aggression principle. Violence and coercion may not be initiated against other human beings. Thus, homicide, rape, theft and fraud are clearly prohibited by libertarian legal principles because all of these criminal acts entail the initiation of violence against other peaceful human beings.
Yet, libertarianism does not prohibit any kind of violence. Violence aimed at defense from aggressive and coercive acts is admissible. In fact it’s a stronghold of liberty against all persons who wish to encroach and limit our freedom. Hence, violence – defensive violence – is part and parcel of libertarian philosophy. A libertarian who is against the initiation of violence may and will resort to violence and force in order to repeal an attack.
Individual defense is much stronger and effective than the defense organized by the States. Governments really have a very weak interest in defending their citizens as individuals, i.e. to enhance and protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A simple look at the way the police forces act is a sufficient proof. Whereas a President or chief of State has a big bodyguard at his disposal and can be reasonably sure that he won’t be victim of random violence, the common citizens enjoy almost no protection. Of course this happens because it isn’t true that we are equal before the law. Some, like presidents and chiefs of States, are much more equal than the commoners. The latter may be gunned down by terrorist fanatics. At the end of the day, no one really cares.
What the State will not allow is an attack to its officials and to face an armed citizenship that at some point may affirm that it is fed up by the violence and coercion coming from the State and may begin to resist. This is the biggest fear of any government, a much bigger fear than that of a bunch of terrorists. Bearing such truth in mind it’s easy to understand why the mainstream media almost unanimously didn’t even mention the obvious: if the victims had been armed, the effectiveness of the attack would have been much less and probably there wouldn’t have been any attack at all.
Give us our arms and leave us in peace!
The people of Planet earth have clearly been subjected to a sustained sub-conscious perversion of reality for at least the last hundred years, and the effects have been stupendous. However, some people have been immune to this travesty, and I am one of them. It is impossible for me to accept total control over my mental process; it is impossible for me give up my natural right of self-defense, and that has always meant assuming the responsibility to become proficient with the means to do so. I call that – common sense! It is beyond my ability to understand how anyone would give up the right to defend their self; government diktats be damned! For those poor people who accept Government as their Lord and master, I have absolutely no respect for them, and have concluded long ago that their basic humanity has been altered to accept cowardice as a superior philosophy. If a man does not love his wife and children enough to be their protector, he has no business being a husband and father. I understand that some people have accepted passivism as correct human action, and taking a life cannot be justified under any circumstances, but I for one would kill anyone who tried to kill my family or myself without a second thought. I will not accept passivism in my family or make friends with anyone who would stand by and watch their family murdered. Those who would use any method to deny me this God Given Right are advised to bring their own body bag when making the attempt to disarm me. I don’t really know what you people are who support the confiscation of all weapons, but you sure as hell are not American’s!
STAND UP EUROPE, AND GROW A SET!
TELL YOUR GOVERNMENT TO GO PISS UP A ROPE!
Two Things Banned by Totalitarian
Second Amendment foes lying about
By Lee DeCovnick FOR AMERICANTHINKER.COM
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal self-defense.
Firearms are our constitutionally mandated safeguard against tyranny by a powerful federal government.
Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.
No matter what any president, senator, congressman, or hard-left mainstream media whores tell you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control:
They are lying.
If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control.
These despots truly hate America.
These tyrants hate freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and private property.
These oligarchs fear that America will wake up one day from the MSM’s digital drug of social engineering aimed at an acceptance of the lie of a utopian fantasy of safety and security through gun registration and confiscation.
But the reality is that our citizens’ ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism.
They are demanding to hold the absolute power of life and death over you and your family.
Ask the six million Jews, and the other five million murdered martyrs who perished in the Nazi death camps, how being disarmed by a powerful tyranny ended any chances of fighting back. Ask the murdered martyrs of the Warsaw Ghetto about gun control.
Their single agenda is to control you after you are disarmed. When the people who want to control you hold the absolute power of life and death over your family, you have been enslaved.
The hard-left Marxist and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the MSM media whores who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States into becoming an unarmed population.
Unarmed populations have been treated as slaves and chattel since the dawn of history.
Will we stand our ground, maintaining our constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights, fighting those who would enslave us?
Or do we let these and other rights slip away one by one until we are herded into the gas chambers by armed guards, waiting those last twenty seconds for metallic clicks of the Zyklon B canisters pressurizing the fake shower heads?
Totalitarian governments ban bibles and firearms
Donald Trump says tough gun control laws in Paris contributed to tragedy
This Is The Most Disturbing Muslim ‘Refugee’ Video You Will Ever See
More than half of U.S. state governors refuse Syrian refugees, who get staggeringly generous services from taxpayers
Trump calls Obama “insane” to flood U.S. with Syrian refugees
OLDDOG say’s that OBUMA is not insane, because that would make him non-responsible for his actions. That worthless piece of dogshit knows perfectly well what he is doing; OBEYING HIS BANKER MASTERS AT OUR EXPENSE, because he HATES AMERICA with all his mind.
November 19th, 2015 by olddog
By Dave Hodges
Despite the attacks in Paris, this is what Obama is importing to America. Where is it written that America must admit immigrants from nations identified by the United Nations? Yet, that is where Obama is taking his marching orders from.
Some of the European politicians are getting it.
The Netherlands have a voice for freedom. It is the voice of Geert Wilders who is vehemently speaking out against the Islamization of his Dutch country which has been going for several years. And yet another member of Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom, Machiel de Graaf, ignored the politically correct mandates for leaders boldly spoke out and said, “We must close all mosques and start deporting Muslims.”
Some of the politicians in America are getting it.
Even former GOP House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told Newsmax TV that Obama has “surrendered” to ISIS. DeLay went on to say that “His (Obama’s) worldview is the wrong worldview for a war president and Congress has to say it. Congress has to stand up.” When Pelosi, Reid, McCain and Feinstein are running any organization, moral change is not on the horizon. However, there political leaders in this country that do have insight, vision and courage. More importantly, they have the best interest of their country at the forefront of their actions.
The Governors vs. the Raving Lunatic In the White House
Even some of America’s governors are getting it.
CNN is reporting that more than half of the nation’s Governors are saying no to Obama’s insane plane to continue to import Syrian refugees into the their respective states in the aftermath of the Paris attacks.
As of Tuesday, 26 governors had issued statements saying they would bar Syrian refugees from settling in their states, citing fears that violent extremists will masquerade as refugees in order to gain entry to the United States. Many governors issued their proclamations over Twitter.
The present list of states that will not accept Syrian refugees currently includes Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming. All of these States are led by Republican governors.
Only fifteen governors, all Democrats (AKA the new American Commmunist Party), and except for Governor Herbert of Utah, have issued their own communist manifestos supporting the resettlement of Syrian refugees.
Michael Savage is correct when he said the “liberalism is a mental disease”.
The Republican Governors are saying that they either oppose taking in any Syrian refugees being relocated as part of a national program or asked that they be particularly scrutinized as potential security threats. Obama will not even agree to screen immigrants with regard to national security concerns. Can you believe it? This $19 trillion dollar national debt causing, lunatic President, won’t spend the money to vet people for terrorism in light of the Paris attacks? This is representative of the low regard that Obama holds the American people in. Obama doesn’t give a **** about your safety, America!
Proclamations with No Teeth
Legally, these proclamations don’t hold water because the states don’t have the authority to prevent refugees from settling within their borders. But they can ask the State Department not to send refugees there.owever, once the refugees have arrived, the governors can withhold state funds to help them learn English, provide housing, provide meals, obtain job training, or provide special intervention in for refugee children attending American schools on the American taxpayers dime.
The governors need to go a step further. The states collect much of the tax that goes to DC. The governors need to begin withhold payment of taxes to the Federal government until Obama is gone from office. Further, the states need to stop supporting all unfunded, Federally mandated programs.
It is time for the American, as a group, to say no to this administration. Elections are increasingly becoming meaningless. However, if the people voted with one voice, it would force the hand of administration. You see, voting machines are not programmed to fudge the results beyond 5%. And if the administration continues down this path of national suicide, then it is time for some real civil disobedience, 1960’s style. And please do not forget to pray. God hates evil and we need to give the Almighty a reason to act.
A Presidential Candidate Chimes In
Heretofore, the only Presidential candidate to speak out on a real set of solutions regarding the Syrian refugee/resettlement program, Donald Trump is pulling no punches. He is unquestionably opposed to relocating Syrians inside of the United States as a consequence of the Paris attacks. NBC is reporting that Trump is advocating for relocating Syrian refugees inside of a safe zone within Syria (see clip here). Donald Trump has also proposed obliterating the oil fields which financially support ISIS. One has to ask, has Obama lost his mind, or is this more proof that the Traitor-In-Chief is indeed playing for the other side.
The Betrayal of the American People
On September 20, 2015, during a joint press appearance in held Berlin on September 20. Both Secretary of State, John Kerry, and German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Secretary of State John Kerry revealed that the Obama administration is planning to drastically increase the flow of refugees into the United States. Specifically Syrians were mentioned by Kerry as he stated, “I’m pleased to announce today that the United States will significantly increase our numbers for refugee resettlement in the course of this next year and the year after. Last year I think we were at 70,000”, as he referred to the number of refugees the United States has accepted from around the world. But wait, the Secretary of State went on to say, “We are now going to go up to 85,000 with at least, and I underscore the ‘at least’ — it is not a ceiling, it’s a floor — of 10,000 over the next year from Syria specifically even as we also receive more refugees from other areas. And in the next fiscal year, we’ll target 100,000, and if it’s possible to do more, we’ll do more. In other words and I say it again, America, your leaders have sold out your safety and security.
Doesn’t Kerry and Obama care about this?
November 18th, 2015 by olddog
Posted by truther
As individuals and Nations alike wait in anticipation for COP21 less than a month from now, described as the United Nations’ “legally binding and universal” update to the ever-deleterious Agenda 21, banksters at the supranational level have shown little hesitation in offering their seemingly sage opinions on how their usurious reserves will be put to use in enacting this “Global Sustainable New Deal.”
From veterans of monetary Technocracy like the IMF and World Bank to the “New Kids on the Trading Bloc” represented by the BRICS and AIIB, monetary institutions around the world are poised to receive their slice of the sustainable pie – at the expense of what little freedom and financial security the individual still retains.
Leading the charge on the Western front is none other than the Bank for International Settlements, the “central bank of central banks” as identified by Georgetown Professor Carroll Quigley in his magnum opus Tragedy and Hope. Echoing the credo of “sustainable developers” at the UN and World Bank, the BIS has seen fit to reinforce the meme that the problem of climate change cannot be tackled without complete digital serfdom in the form of an electronic, biometric global I.D.
Euphemistically entitled the “Identification for Development” (or ID4D) program by the World Bank, it represents their “unique” interpretation of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals; a reading that’s as draconian as it is creative. The UN, World Bank, and BIS are calling for nothing short of a completely pervasive global surveillance grid to be implemented by no later than 2030, all under the auspices of “saving the planet.”
Without doubt, the most successful project the Banking Cartel has used against America is the slow process of building political correctness in the minds of the people. Such as, it is no longer possible to converse socially about government atrocities, or anything political for that matter. It is now the lowest form of behavior to even mention anything political in a group of people. Power over the people such as this can only be attributed to their stupidity. If this country does not immediately start raising hell with every member of local, State, and Federal governments, and each other, we are going to be eliminated permanently. Everyone must decide NOW if they want to be surviving slaves or dead heroes, because it would be nearly impossible to rebuild a new Republic at this point.