Categories » ‘DEPRAVITY’
August 10th, 2015 by olddog
By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
August 9, 2015
The Fox News Republican debates Thursday night had a record-breaking audience of 24 million.
I don’t know the size of the audience for the earlier debate which hosted presidential candidates Senator Lindsay Graham, former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, former Texas Governor Rick Perry, former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, former Senator Rick Santorum, and former New York Governor George Pataki.
What became apparent in the early debate is that Governor Gilmore and Carly Fiorina belong onstage with those we consider serious candidates for the Republican presidential race and the others belong exactly where they are… junior varsity.
In the Big Star Debate that same night, entrepreneur real estate mogul Donald Trump, the strong leader in the race, appeared with former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, former Arkansas Governor and former Fox News commentator Mike Huckabee, Dr. Ben Carson, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Ohio Governor John Kasich, and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.
The word used most often during the debate was “conservative.” The candidates know they cannot win a Presidential election without the votes of the conservative wing of the Republican Party and make sure their comments feature any conservative actions, thoughts or deeds to which they can lay claim. Equally, those audience members who truly are conservative are left wondering what candidates mean when they say “I’m conservative.” Some of their “I support this or that” comments shout “I’m a neo-conservative” or “I’m a social liberal.”
The hosts of the show did not clarify the term and they should have done so. They made the journalistic mistake of not requesting clarification of a term everyone was using but which was being interpreted differently by different candidates. They assumed that everyone has the same definition of the word “conservative.” They did not.
Whenever Jeb Bush and John Kasich use the word, it translates to “fiscal conservative, social liberal.” In other words, they are part of the neo-conservative family of politics. How do I know that? Both support Common Core. Both support amnesty for illegal aliens in one form or another. You can put all the lipstick on that pig you want, it’s still a pig.
How do you define “conservative?” First, it’s a philosophy of life, not an independent action (or a series of actions). For example, someone who supports building a wall to cease illegal alien entry into our country may call him or herself a “conservative.” But if that person also supports some form of amnesty their conservative credentials should be questioned. Why? Because conservatives believe first and foremost in the rule of law that flows from the Constitution and the first thing illegal’s do when they enter America is violate our laws. It’s sad that they entered our nation illegally and built an illegal life here and even sadder that their children may have been born here and call this country home, but it doesn’t change that their very presence shows disregard for our Constitution and laws that tell them how to legally become an American.
A conservative is a constitutionalist. First and foremost, that is what a conservative is. Second, you don’t get to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you support and reject those parts with which you disagree. It’s an all or nothing deal which, when honored under one set of circumstances but not another, indicates the person is like President Obama, believing he or she has the right to set aside this or that constitutional law when they feel like it. A real conservative doesn’t believe that.
Because conservatives are constitutionalists, they believe in the Rule of Law that flows from the Constitution. You don’t get to pick and choose which laws you respect. Either you respect and obey them, or you work to change them. You don’t break laws… not even when you’re out for a Sunday drive and want to exceed the speed limit. I admit that when government becomes tyrannical and passes bad or unlawful laws, it is time to protest and if that doesn’t work, to disobey. Government and its laws must be kept in check.
Conservatives value and respect the truth. They do not ignore reality. They do not live their lives as if things are as they want them to be rather than how they really are. They identify problems and search for solutions. They do not put on rose-colored glass while ignoring reality, letting things get worse. Or, worse yet, they don’t compromise truth with lies thinking they have somehow advanced an otherwise hopeless cause. To compromise truth with lies and expect truth to shine through is to mix milk with coffee and expect the coffee to remain black.
Perhaps rather than asking a question about whether everyone on stage will support the Republican candidate who gains the nomination (regardless of who it is), Fox moderators might ask candidates if they believe in and support the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and if they value truth over political correctness. If they don’t want to ask those questions, they might ask each candidate to define what he or she means when they use the word “conservative.” Without that definition, an audience cannot make logical sense out of the answers given by debate participants who apply the word differently from one another.
If you look at the answers given Thursday night with those three things in mind, you will find Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Dr. Ben Carson, and Rand Paul are constitutionalists. And, it may surprise you, but so is Donald Trump. From the earlier debate, so is former business executive Carly Fiorina.
When you look at the issue of abortion, Mike Huckabee gave a truly conservative answer to that particular question. De-funding Planned Parenthood as supported by Senators Cruz and Rubio is a good band-aid, but it’s only a band-aid – and it doesn’t solve the real problem. The question that needs to be answered is when can what a woman carries in her womb be defined as “human life” deserving of the protections the Constitution gives all Americans? Huckabee, however, supports Common Core… a socially liberal position.
Scott Walker opposes abortion on the grounds of personal belief – and God blerss him for it. So, too, do John Kasich and several other debaters. The Constitution, not any individual’s personal beliefs, however, is what needs to guide the behavior of any lawmaker and certainly the behavior of our President. Walker is right that there are better, less risky alternatives than late-term abortion to save the life of a woman in the late stages of pregnancy… but even that is a humanitarian, not a constitutional, reason late-term abortion is wrong.
When you look at the issue of privacy violations that result from the NSA’s gathering of data that tells them who all citizens of the United States talk with on their telephones or email daily, Rand Paul clearly placed the Fourth Amendment into the debate. He was right. It is a constitutional answer.
As it relates to the candidates, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Dr. Ben Carson, Governor Jim Gilmore, Carly Fiorina, and Rand Paul appear to be real conservatives based on the questions asked and my definition of the word. Some of the others appear to be fiscal conservatives and social liberals. Some appear to merely be politicians trying to enhance their political reputations by running for the presidency. Donald Trump remains a question mark relative to whether he is a fiscal conservative but a social liberal.
Marco Rubio removed himself from my list of possibilities when I learned his first major speech after the announcement of his candidacy was given at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Most of the problems in America today had their start at the CFR which controls far too much of what goes on in Washington, D.C.
Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal are not natural born Americans. That is a constitutional requirement for a person to hold the office of the President. I love Ted Cruz and would vote for him, but this is a major roadblock. The fact that his wife, Heidi, has worked for Goldman Sachs for years is another.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any definition other than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. The most often quoted Supreme Court case is Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) but USA We the People makes available several Supreme Court decisions that define “natural born.” They all say it means an American citizen born of two American citizens.
A lot of Americans don’t take the “natural born citizen” clause in the Constitution very seriously. Perhaps they have bought the liberal/progressive line that a legitimate candidate for the Presidency need only be a citizen – born in the United States. A lot of anchor babies whose mothers unlawfully come across the border to give birth in San Diego or El Paso are born every year. They can, using this definition of “natural born,” become President – even if they were raised and educated in Mexico. The point is, “natural born citizen” is a very important qualification for anyone wanting to become President of the United States – and it is part of our Constitution.
To believe otherwise is a very dangerous, anti-constitutional position for several reasons – including an acceptance by the Republican Party that Barack Obama was always a legitimate candidate (and in my opinion he is not and never has been). Obama’s birth certificate has nothing to do with it. His father’s Kenyan birth has everything to do with it. He is not and has never been a natural-born American citizen because his father was not a citizen of the United States at the time of Barack Obama’s birth.
By approving the idea that to qualify for the Presidency all you need to do to run for president is be born in America makes what Obama did lawful – and it is not. To accept one of these three men – Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio – as a legitimate Republican candidate for the Presidency removes the possibility that Obama’s Presidency (and all of the programs and appointments put in place under his pretend Administration) will one day be declared unlawful because he was unqualified to be President (not a natural born American). Think about it. What a great way to get rid of most of the Obama Administration’s bad legislation, including Obama Care. If a Republican candidate who is not a natural born American is accepted as the legitimate Republican candidate, the possibility of one day declaring Obama’s Presidency void due to natural born citizenship non-qualification is dead.
As for Donald Trump’s performance Thursday night, had I been standing on the stage with him I would have raised my hand with him. There are people running for the Republican nomination that I would not support just because the Republican Party says this is the person they want elected to office. They also recommended John Boehner and Mitch McConnell who have kept none of the Republican promises made before the 2012 and 2014 elections.
I respect Trump for his honesty. What puts me off about The Donald is that he relates himself to the problems of the world (rather than relating the problems of the world to himself) That is a text book definition of a narcissist and we’ve had more than six years of watching a narcissistic President in action.
Trump may not be a narcissist. Maybe he relates himself to the problems of the world because he lacks a record as Congressman or Senator or Governor and his personal success is what he has to relate to when he speaks of problems and solutions.
The Donald can dissipate the view many people have of him – that of narcissist – by talking about solutions to problems rather than just pointing out the problems and telling us how stupid politicians are. Though in most instances he’s right telling us how stupid they are, it tells us nothing of how he would have been smarter in solving the specific problems the “stupid” politicians have failed to solve.
He can talk about how to create jobs, not just point out something we all know: Jobs must be created. He can talk about how to stimulate independent business growth, not just point out that the current Congress and White House are destroying independent banks which removes access to credit needed by independent businesses (which employs the largest percentage of America’s workers). We’ll see if he has specific suggestions in mind or if his campaign is just going to point out problems most of us know exist.
It’s hard for me to say this because when Carly Fiorina was fired from Hewlett Packard, I wrote a relatively nasty article about her. After watching the first debates, she stands out solidly as the best prepared, the clearest thinking, the most knowledgeable candidate on the long list of Republican candidates for the 2016 presidential race. We need to know more about her.
I’m not into wars against women or feminism, but I think it would be a riot if Republicans elected the first women President of the United States of America… if a woman is the most qualified to hold that job.
© 2015 Marilyn M. Barnewall – All Rights Reserved
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.
Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who of American Women, Who’s Who in Finance and Business, and Who’s Who in the World.
Web site: http://marilynwrites.blogspot.com
August 8th, 2015 by olddog
By Washington’s Blog / globalresearch.ca
Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives.
But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise.
The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:
The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.
Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike
Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380):
In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude….
Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
General Douglas MacArthur agreed (pg. 65, 70-71):
MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed …. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.
Moreover (pg. 512):
The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.
Similarly, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500):
I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.
Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said:
I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted.
In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn’t have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb.
War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.
He also noted (pg. 144-145, 324):
It definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn’t get any imports and they couldn’t export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in.
General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force “hawk,” stated publicly shortly before the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan:
The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
The Vice Chairman of the U.S. Bombing Survey Paul Nitze wrote (pg. 36-37, 44-45):
[I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.
Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary.
Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias wrote:
Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.
Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.
I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds.
Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.
Brigadier General Carter Clarke – the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors – said (pg. 359):
When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.
Many other high-level military officers concurred. For example:
The commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. Also, the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz was reported to have said in a press conference on September 22, 1945, that “The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia’s entry into the war.” In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.” It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower’s assessment was “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.” Eisenhower also stated that it wasn’t necessary for Truman to “succumb” to [the tiny handful of people putting pressure on the president to drop atom bombs on Japan.]
British officers were of the same mind. For example, General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, said to Prime Minister Churchill that “when Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.”
On hearing that the atomic test was successful, Ismay’s private reaction was one of “revulsion.”
Why Were Bombs Dropped on Populated Cities Without Military Value?
Even military officers who favored use of nuclear weapons mainly favored using them on unpopulated areas or Japanese military targets … not cities.
For example, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss proposed to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal that a non-lethal demonstration of atomic weapons would be enough to convince the Japanese to surrender … and the Navy Secretary agreed (pg. 145, 325):
I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate… My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood… I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest… would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will… Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation…
It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world…
General George Marshall agreed:
Contemporary documents show that Marshall felt “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave–telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers….”
As the document concerning Marshall’s views suggests, the question of whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified turns … on whether the bombs had to be used against a largely civilian target rather than a strictly military target—which, in fact, was the explicit choice since although there were Japanese troops in the cities, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was deemed militarily vital by U.S. planners. (This is one of the reasons neither had been heavily bombed up to this point in the war.) Moreover, targeting [at Hiroshima and Nagasaki] was aimed explicitly on non-military facilities surrounded by workers’ homes.
Historians Agree that the Bomb Wasn’t Needed
Historians agree that nuclear weapons did not need to be used to stop the war or save lives.
As historian Doug Long notes:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission historian J. Samuel Walker has studied the history of research on the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan. In his conclusion he writes, “The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisors knew it.” (J. Samuel Walker, The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update, Diplomatic History, Winter 1990, pg. 110).
Many high-level politicians agreed. For example, Herbert Hoover said (pg. 142):
The Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945…up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; …if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs.
Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew noted (pg. 29-32):
In the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.
If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer.
Why Then Were Atom Bombs Dropped on Japan?
If dropping nuclear bombs was unnecessary to end the war or to save lives, why was the decision to drop them made? Especially over the objections of so many top military and political figures?
One theory is that scientists like to play with their toys:
On September 9, 1945, Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet, was publicly quoted extensively as stating that the atomic bomb was used because the scientists had a “toy and they wanted to try it out . . . .” He further stated, “The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment . . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it.”
However, most of the Manhattan Project scientists who developed the atom bomb were opposed to using it on Japan.
Albert Einstein – an important catalyst for the development of the atom bomb (but not directly connected with the Manhattan Project) – said differently:
“A great majority of scientists were opposed to the sudden employment of the atom bomb.” In Einstein’s judgment, the dropping of the bomb was a political – diplomatic decision rather than a military or scientific decision.
Indeed, some of the Manhattan Project scientists wrote directly to the secretary of defense in 1945 to try to dissuade him from dropping the bomb:
We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear bombs for an early, unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable. If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.
Political and Social Problems, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 76, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 323-333).
The scientists questioned the ability of destroying Japanese cities with atomic bombs to bring surrender when destroying Japanese cities with conventional bombs had not done so, and – like some of the military officers quoted above – recommended a demonstration of the atomic bomb for Japan in an unpopulated area.
The Real Explanation?
In the years since the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, a number of historians have suggested that the weapons had a two-pronged objective …. It has been suggested that the second objective was to demonstrate the new weapon of mass destruction to the Soviet Union. By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War.
New Scientist reported in 2005:
The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.
Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.
“He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species,” says Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, US. “It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity.”
[The conventional explanation of using the bombs to end the war and save lives] is disputed by Kuznick and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, US.
New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.
According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.
“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden.
John Pilger points out:
The US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was “fearful” that the US air force would have Japan so “bombed out” that the new weapon would not be able “to show its strength”. He later admitted that “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb”. His foreign policy colleagues were eager “to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip”. General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: “There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis.” The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the “overwhelming success” of “the experiment”.
We’ll give the last word to University of Maryland professor of political economy – and former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State – Gar Alperovitz:
Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945. Moreover, this essential judgment was expressed by the vast majority of top American military leaders in all three services in the years after the war ended: Army, Navy and Army Air Force. Nor was this the judgment of “liberals,” as is sometimes thought today. In fact, leading conservatives were far more outspoken in challenging the decision as unjustified and immoral than American liberals in the years following World War II.
Instead [of allowing other options to end the war, such as letting the Soviets attack Japan with ground forces], the United States rushed to use two atomic bombs at almost exactly the time that an August 8 Soviet attack had originally been scheduled: Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. The timing itself has obviously raised questions among many historians. The available evidence, though not conclusive, strongly suggests that the atomic bombs may well have been used in part because American leaders “preferred”—as Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Martin Sherwin has put it—to end the war with the bombs rather than the Soviet attack. Impressing the Soviets during the early diplomatic sparring that ultimately became the Cold War also appears likely to have been a significant factor.
The most illuminating perspective, however, comes from top World War II American military leaders. The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that … most Americans haven’t paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.
Shortly before his death General George C. Marshall quietly defended the decision, but for the most part he is on record as repeatedly saying that it was not a military decision, but rather a political one.
With what has been learned about the power of the International Banking Cartel, who in their right mind would doubt they controlled the Political Powers who committed this unspeakable scourge on humanity? Only when people world wide understand how and why humanity has been beguiled will they rise up and demand these monsters be burned at the stake. They are the purest form of evil, and deserve unspeakable deaths. Likewise, the Popes who have participated in the destruction of Christianity should surely be acknowledged as the Bankers assistants. Enlighten yourself and ACCEPT THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY!
August 7th, 2015 by olddog
By Dave Hodges
By now most of you have heard the rumors, but they may be much more than rumors.
Recently, the Pope has sounded more like a bankster than a respected religious figure. The true colors of this Pope will soon be revealed. In September of 2015, the Pope will announce the orderly transition of the surrender of the national sovereignty of all nations which will culminate in world government. In other words, this Pope who says he endorses perversions repugnant to true Bible-believing Catholics, is allegedly going to announce the formation of the New World Order and that all 1 billion plus Catholics should willing to submit to the New World Order as is their duty as per the bastardized interpretation of Romans 13.
Is the Pope Mentally Ill or Merely a Servant of Satan?
I have long thought that this Pope might be suffering from early onset dementia as he recently said he would baptize extraterrestrials as they would visit the Earth. This is the same Pope who has stated thatIslam and Christianity are basically one and the same religion. This false doctrine sets the stage for the official state sponsored (United Nations) approved religion which we commonly call Gaia which is about as a pagan of a religion that there is.
When the Pope addresses the United Nations on September 25th, he will be endorsingAgenda 21 and its sustainability concepts. Sustainability seeks to reduce at least 80% of all energy use. Some are even calling for a the total obliteration of the private use of energy. Sustainability walks hand in glove with the coming currency collapse. If the people can be brainwashed to accept sustainability concepts, the reduction of the currency by astronomical amounts will be more easily accepted by the masses. And if the Pope is telling people that this is what God would want, then it must be OK.
Implications of the Pope’s UN Speech
Last year, when the IMF devalued the Venezuela currency by 61%, the event was barely noticed. The event came like a thief in the night. For the most part, the people of Venezuela accepted their fate. I believe the same is about to happen here. When the Pope basically calls for the establishment of world government, a currency collapse will hasten the event. It almost as if the Venezuelan situation was an IMF Beta test for what is coming here.
When I stop and take a closer look at the things that this Pope has said and compare it to a whole host of corresponding events, it is difficult to not be concerned about what is coming. Especially disturbing is the fact that that Pope’s UN speech will be followed by what many are saying will be a wholesale devaluation of every national currency in the conversion to a global currency which is reportedly going to be digital. The off-the-record analysis of this supposed coming devaluation of the dollar will mean for every dollar one has in the bank, that dollar will lose 90% of its buying power in the conversion when it takes place in October.
What Will a Currency Devaluation Mean to You?
If this conversion takes place, most of you will not be able to afford to drive to work, because you will not be able to afford put gas in your tank. If these conversion rates are anywhere close to being accurate, you won’t be paying the present $3.00 per gallon, you would be paying somewhere around $30.00 per gallon! Your $200,000 mortgage would now be $2 million dollar mortgage! Now it makes sense why so many of our home mortgages have been transferred to either the International Monetary Fund or directly to our new landlords, the Chinese government.
Where will Americans secure food and other life-sustaining supplies? All of the above events would force Americans in the short-term into FEMA camps in order to receive the aforementioned life-saving supplies. Remember, the average American family has no savings and only three days of food on hand in their home.
Eventually, Americans would be forced into the “stack and packs” that the globalists talk about in Mike Krulig’s “America 2050″ derived from his Agenda 21 “Build One America” program.
The above map was taken from the America 2050 website which clearly shows the population redistribution which is planned for by Agenda 20 crowd and in particular, Mike Krulig, Obama’s mentor during his early “community service” days.
This is the picture that the globalists do not want you to see as Mike Krulig is advising the President on the America 2050 plan.
I have written about America 2050 in recent days as it is globalist plan, headed by the Obama’s administration, Mike Krulig, the founder of the Agenda 21 population centralization plan known as “Building One America”. Building One America is the first steps toward the fulfillment of the creation of 11 mega-regions which will contain six million people each. The missing 250 million people in the America 2050 plan, matches the Deagel Report of a similar population reduction for the United States to take place by 2025.
If what has been announced is true, then every individual has only a short time to get their house in order. There are no shortage of articles which talk about individual preparation. Among the preparations that everyone needs to make has to do with getting out of cash and into precious metals. Adding silver and gold to your portfolio is the only way to ensure that your currency will be accepted following the collapse. This Sunday evening from 8-9pm Eastern, Steve Quayle will be appearing on The Common Sense Show and talking about what is happening with gold and why everyone should be heavily invested in previous metals.
Tomorrow’s article analyzes recent events and their connection to the Pope’s coming proclamation.
August 5th, 2015 by olddog
By Paul Rosenberg
I’ve written about dumping Microsoft before – and I stand by those comments – but the newest outrage from Redmond forces me to it again. I don’t care how “inconvenient” you think it may be, you have to stop enriching Microsoft. NOW.
Yes, I have serious issues with Apple too, but at least Wozniak and Jobs started out as real hackers. Gates was a political monopolist, and it still shows.
What’s Happening Now
The European Digital Rights organization examined these new policies in depth and concluded this:
Summing up these 45 pages, one can say that Microsoft basically grants itself very broad rights to collect everything you do, say, and write with and on your devices in order to sell more targeted advertising or to sell your data to third parties. The company appears to be granting itself the right to share your data either with your consent “or as necessary.”
If you’d like to verify anything, you can find the privacy statement here and the services agreement here.
The Ugly Details
The first detail to mention is that this applies to “Bing, Cortana, MSN, Office, OneDrive, Outlook.com, Skype, Windows, Xbox, and other Microsoft services… Microsoft websites, apps, software, and devices.” So, more or less anything of theirs that you touch.
And of course, they are doing all of this for you! Or at least they say so.
They collect… in their own words:
[Y]our first and last name, email address, postal address, phone number, … passwords, password hints, and similar security information, … your age, gender, country and preferred language, … your location, … the teams you follow, … the stocks you track, … favorite cities, … credit card number and the security code, … items you purchase, the web pages you visit, and the search terms you enter, … IP address, device identifiers, … your contacts and relationships, … your documents, photos, music or video you upload, … subject line and body of email, text or other content of an instant message, audio and video recording of a video message.
And so on.
Now, if you are prepared to jump through a lot of hoops, they say you can opt out of some of this… not that many people will ever do it.
I’m not going to bore you with everything, but I will add just a few more tidbits:
Windows now has a device encryption feature, but they keep a copy of your recovery key, stored in their (very secure, trust us) “cloud.”
The also grab “data about the networks you connect to.” I interpret that as, “All your networks are belong to us too.”
“[W]e will access, disclose, and preserve personal data, including your content (such as the content of your emails, other private communications, or files in private folders), when we have a good faith belief that doing so is necessary.” (Their own words!) What that really means is, “We’ll listen in, record what you type, then store it or sell it as we see fit.”
Why Do They Do This?
Fundamentally, there are three reasons they do this:
People are suckers for ‘free.’ For reasons that I won’t go through here, the Internet has been overrun with an expectation that services should be free. That’s impossible, of course, but people want it all the same. So, clever people learned how to do make it possible: by trading in personal information.
And so, being an amoral, money-centric operation, Microsoft is running after the new model. Anything for a buck.
Keeping up with the Zuckerbergs. Google and Facebook became famous, sexy, and powerful playing the “own their private data” game, and Microsoft doesn’t want to be an also-ran. They want to be and remain the big dog. They want their status.
To service their masters. As best I can tell, Microsoft has sucked up to spy agencies and governments from the beginning, and this is just more of the same. A year or so ago, the FBI was complaining about encryption, moaning that it would enable people to “go dark.” These new policies will ensure that it never happens to anyone who uses a Microsoft product. I’m sure the watchers are appreciative.
What Should I do?
Move to Linux. Now.
And no, it’s not too hard. Millions of people use Linux every day, including housewives, children, and grandparents.
The version of Linux I like best is Linux Mint. With it, you can run OpenOffice (also called LibreOffice), which does everything essential that MS Office does. Then get Firefox for a browser and Thunderbird for email, and you’re in business.
A Final Warning
The stealing of your personal data is a much bigger deal than you probably think it is. I devoted an entire issue of my subscription newsletter to this (FMP #59), and I won’t be able to cover it today, but it is a majorthreat to the future… and the near future.
If you’re even thinking about getting Windows 10, please take a look at these annotated pages of Win 10 documentation. You can enlarge them.
August 4th, 2015 by olddog
By Richard Ebeling
Many forms of personal liberty are under attack today, from economic regulations that hinder people from their peaceful pursuits of earning a living and improving the material conditions of life to an increasingly intrusive surveillance state that seems to follow every step we make and every breath we take.
Equally disturbing is the extent to which too many Americans have become desensitized and indifferent to this growth in the size and scope of government. Around this Fourth of July time of the year, after the hotdogs and burgers have been grilled and eaten and the evening firework displays have been enjoyed, it is worth remembering the meaning and significance of this holiday.
The Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
The Declaration of Independence, proclaimed by members of the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, is the founding document of the American experiment in free government. What is too often forgotten is that what the Founding Fathers argued against in the Declaration was the heavy and intrusive hand of big government.
Most Americans easily recall those eloquent words with which the Founding Fathers expressed the basis of their claim for independence from Great Britain in 1776:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
But what is usually not recalled is the long list of enumerated grievances that make up most of the text of the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers explained how intolerable an absolutist and highly centralized government in faraway London had become. This distant government violated the personal and civil liberties of the people living in the 13 colonies on the eastern seaboard of North America.
Grievances Against the Crown’s Economic Controls
In addition, the king’s ministers imposed rigid and oppressive economic regulations and controls on the colonists that was part of the 18th-century system of government central planning known as mercantilism.
“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” the signers declared.
Concentrating Power in the Hands of Government
At every turn, the British Crown had concentrated political power and decision-making in its own hands, leaving the American colonists with little ability to manage their own affairs through local and state governments. Laws and rules were imposed without the consent of the governed; local laws and procedures meant to limit abusive or arbitrary government were abrogated or ignored.
The king also had attempted to manipulate the legal system by arbitrarily appointing judges that shared his power-lusting purposes or were open to being influenced to serve the monarch’s policy goals. The king’s officials unjustly placed colonists under arrest in violation of writ of habeas corpus, and sentenced them to prison without trial by jury. Colonists often were violently conscripted to serve in the king’s armed forces and made to fight in foreign wars.
A financially burdensome standing army was imposed on the colonists without the consent of the local legislatures. Soldiers often were quartered among the homes of the colonists without their approval or permission.
In addition, the authors of the Declaration stated, the king fostered civil unrest by creating tensions and conflicts among the different ethnic groups in his colonial domain (the English settlers and the Native American Indian tribes).
But what was at the heart of many of their complaints and grievances against King George III were the economic controls that limited their freedom and the taxes imposed that confiscated their wealth and honestly earned income.
Governmental Controls at Every Turn
The fundamental premise behind the mercantilist planning system was the idea that it was the duty and responsibility of the government to manage and direct the economic affairs of society. The British Crown shackled the commercial activities of the colonists with a spider’s web of regulations and restrictions. The British government told them what they could produce, and dictated the resources and the technologies that could be employed. The government prevented the free market from setting prices and wages, and manipulated what goods would be available to the colonial consumers. It dictated what goods might be imported or exported between the 13 colonies and the rest of the world, thus preventing the colonists from benefiting from the gains that could have been theirs under free trade.
Everywhere, the king appointed various “czars” who were to control and command much of the people’s daily affairs of earning a living. Layer after layer of new bureaucracies were imposed over every facet of life. “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance,” the Founding Fathers explain.
In addition, the king and his government imposed taxes upon the colonists without their consent. Their income was taxed to finance expensive and growing projects that the king wanted and that he thought was good for the people, whether the people themselves wanted them or not.
The 1760s and early 1770s saw a series of royal taxes that burdened the American colonists and aroused their ire: the Sugar Act of 1764, the Stamp Act of 1765, the Townsend Acts of 1767, the Tea Act of 1773 (which resulted in the Boston Tea Party) and a wide variety of other fiscal impositions.
The American colonists often were extremely creative at avoiding and evading the Crown’s regulations and taxes through smuggling and bribery. (Paul Revere smuggled Boston pewter into the West Indies in exchange for contraband molasses.)
The British government’s response to the American colonists’ “civil disobedience” against their regulations and taxes was harsh. The king’s army and navy killed civilians and wantonly ruined people’s private property. “He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people,” the Declaration laments.
Defending Freedom as the Last Resort Against Tyranny
After enumerating these and other complaints, the Founding Fathers said in the Declaration:
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Thus, the momentous step was taken to declare their independence from the British Crown. The signers of the Declaration then did “mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor,” in their common cause of establishing a free government and the individual liberty of the, then, three million occupants of those original 13 colonies.
Never before in history had a people declared and then established a government based on the principles of the individual’s right to his life, liberty and property. Never before was a society founded on the ideal of economic freedom, under which free men may peacefully produce and exchange with each other on the terms they find mutually beneficial without the stranglehold of regulating and planning government.
Never before had a people made clear that self-government meant not only the right of electing those who would hold political office and pass the laws of the land, but also meant that each human being had the right to be self-governing over his own life. Indeed, in those inspiring words in the Declaration, the Founding Fathers were insisting that each man should be considered as owning himself, and not be viewed as the property of the state to be manipulated by either king or Parliament.
It is worth remembering, therefore, that what we celebrate every July 4 is the idea and the ideal of each human being’s right to his life and liberty, and his freedom to pursue happiness in his own way, without paternalistic and plundering government getting in his way.
Dr. Richard Ebeling is the BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. He was professor of economics at Northwood University in Midland, Michigan (2009-2014). He served as president of the Foundation for Economic Education (2003-2008) and held the Ludwig von Mises Chair in Economics at Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan (1988-2003).
How repulsively sad it is that so few in America are willing to die for this kind of governance. It is also repulsively sad that the first declaration of Independence turned out to be a bold face lie. It was just another atrocity by the incredibly greedy Investment Bankers who surreptitiously used human nature to enslave millions of unsuspecting Americans. That’s right folks, our fore fathers swallowed the rhetoric hook line and sinker, just as we have done via government control of education and media sources. The real truth is; they and all future generations were enslaved by legal methods too complicated to be believable, and remain so. Don’t believe me? Please read YOU KNOW SOMETHING IS WRONG WHEN…. “An American Affidavit of Probable Cause” By Anna Maria Riezinger & James Clinton Belcher
OLDDOGS AMAZON REVIEW ON: YOU KNOW SOMETHING IS WRONG WHEN….
Anna and James should receive National support for this gift to America. Now there is no excuse to continue supporting the political system that enslaves us, and every reader should make it a personal obligation to promote this work. I envision a hundred million people reading this book over and over until they can recite verbatim the skulduggery used to rob, rape, and pillage millions of unsuspecting Americas; not to mention the trillions of dollars these Tyrant Bankers have made from our ignorance. This fiasco is akin to a Preacher in a mega Church raping the women thereof and getting away with it for years, because they had so much faith in him. I will demand every family member and friend read this magnificent piece of research. More praise and info on this book will continue to be available at http://scannedretina.com/ and http://anationbeguiled.com
August 3rd, 2015 by olddog
When you see an article like this published on a non-racist website…
… it may be sign of the ice breaking a little. Anyone who has grown to adulthood on earth (and quite a few who never got the chance) knows that racial differences are profound, that they govern the nature of every culture. The question is, how long will the prohibition on speaking of these matters hold, how long will the lemmings continue to self-police and attempt to police the rest of us. -D.W.
From the author of Paved With Good Intentions, Jared Taylor. As published on Beforeitsnews.com
Nothing You Love Will Survive Without White People
A REDNECK’S GUIDE TO REVERSING THEIR CONTROL OF YOUR BRAIN
An Open Letter to Cuckservatives
Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, July 30, 2015
You aren’t just betraying your principles.
You are not alone. Like you, Erick Erickson at RedState.com, Matt Lewis at the Daily Caller, Taylor Millard at Hot Air, the blogger Ace of Spades, and Jim Harper with the Cato Institute are all squirming under the lash of this new coinage. They are squirming because a single word–cuckservative–lays bare the rot at the heart of your movement: American conservatism can conserve nothing if it cannot conserve the nation’s founding stock. I’ll put it bluntly: Nothing you love will survive without white people.
Do you stand for limited government and a balanced budget? Count your black and Hispanic allies. Do you admire Thomas Jefferson? He was a slave-holder who will end up on the dung heap with the Confederate flag. Do you care about stable families and the rights of the unborn? Look up illegitimacy, divorce, and abortion rates for blacks and Hispanics. Do you cherish the stillness at dawn in Bryce Canyon? When the park service manages to get blacks and Hispanics to go camping they play boom-boxes until 1:00 a.m. Was Ronald Reagan your hero? He would not win a majority of today’s electorate.
Do you love Tchaikovsky? Count the non-whites in the concert hall. Do you yearn for neighborhoods where you can leave the keys in your car? There still are some; just don’t expect them to be “diverse.” Are hunting and firearms part of your heritage? Explain that to Barack Obama or Sonia Sotomayor. Are you a devout Christian? Muslim immigrants despise you and your faith. Do you support Israel? Mexicans, Haitians, Chinese, and Guatemalans don’t.
Your great festival–CPAC–is as white as a meeting of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. That’s because blacks and Hispanics and even Asians don’t share your dreams. You’ve heard the old joke: “What do you call the only black person at a conservative meeting? The keynote speaker.” Outreach doesn’t work. You can’t talk someone into loving what you love. Faith, patriotism, duty, and honor come from deeply cultural, religious, and ancestral sources you can’t reach.
Why do you evoke Martin Luther King when you call for a “colorblind” America? You know he wanted quotas for blacks. You evoke King because you think he’ll help you silence blacks and liberals. But it doesn’t work, does it? That’s because only whites–and Asians, when it suits them–even think in terms of “colorblindness.” Blacks and Hispanics will squeeze every unfair advantage out of you they can. At what point will they ever abandon their aggressive racial agenda? When they’re the majority just think how hard they’ll squeeze your grandchildren.
You tell yourself that the things you love about America–and I love them, too–are rooted in certain principles. That is your greatest mistake. They are rooted in certain people. That is why Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love. Do you really believe that a future Afro-Hispanic-Caribbean-Asiatic America will be anything like the America your ancestors built?
Let’s consider your principles. Do you dream of a traditional, religious, free-market society with small government, low taxes, and no gun control, where same-sex marriage is illegal, and abortion, divorce, prostitution, and illegitimacy are scorned? There are such places: the tribal areas of Pakistan and Somalia.
And what about countries that violate your principles–with high taxes, huge government, clogged markets, a weak church, strict gun control, and sexual license of all kinds? There’s Scandinavia. And yet if you had to leave the United States you’d much rather live in Denmark than in Waziristan.
Do you see the pattern? Even when they violate your principles, white people build good societies. Even when they abide by your principles, non-whites usually don’t.
We see that in America. Can you think of a majority non-white neighborhood you’d like to live in, or a majority non-white school you’d like your children to attend? No, you can’t. Why, then, don’t you fight with all your strength against the forces of immigration and integration that are turning ever-greater parts of your county into Third-World wastelands?
I know it would be frightening for you to step outside the ever narrower confines of what we are permitted to say about race. You would court the disapproval of every institution in America. You would pay a heavy price. Not since the last Red Scare has the price of speaking out been so high. In the 1950s, it was dangerous to spout Marxist foolishness. Today, the most dangerous ideas are the historical, biological, and moral truths that men such as Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, and your grandparents took for granted.
Muster up the courage. Speak these truths. They are your heritage. They are your destiny. They are in your bones. And when you speak these truths, you will join the people who see the only future for America in which the things you love are even conceivable. When you speak these truths you will join the camp of the saints.
And until you speak these truths you will feel the sting of the word “cuckservative.” You will feel its sting because you are not just betraying the heritage and promise of America. You are not just betraying your principles and dreams–even though you think you are working for them. You are betraying your people.
Written by Jared Taylor at American Renaissance
When will Americans realize that the self appointed elite are promoting and enforcing brain eating social regulations, disguised as love language, which are nothing less than social destruction techniques, and a subliminal takeover of your already established world view and conscience? Who in their right mind have not already concluded that different races are happier and more content when they live with and marry their own kind? Where societies have their heritage in common, they are happier, more productive, peaceful, and much more prosperous. Massage their guilt for not sharing all they have with strangers, and you are on your way to a subjugated society. Works every time! White folks don’t need to feel guilty for just being human. Every race has this natural tendency to band together, and they are much happier when they do. What’s so bad about that? It’s been working for tens of thousands of years before the Bankers took charge of our past, present, and future life. Don’t ever let these Monster Banker, self styled elite humanity managers make you feel like you do not have the right to your own social preferences. We are no better or worse than any other race of people but, white is right, suits the shit out of me, as long as it is not used to hurt other races. What better example of human inconsistency is that? LESSON? We are not required to be perfect! JUST PEACEFUL!
August 1st, 2015 by olddog
Grand Juries Not So Grand
In the beginning, back about 1215 AD in Europe, grand juries were comprised of 25 good and honorable men who stood as a shield to protect the people from corrupt bureaucrats and overly-aggressive prosecutors; and a sword to bring wrongdoers to justice.
Fast-forward to the beginning of the 1900s in America: grand juries stood as an obstacle to the greed and corruption of the legal profession and their co-conspirators, the judiciary (sometimes referred to lawyers on steroids). With a little help from their other partners in crime, lawyer/legislators, statutes were passed, gradually bringing grand juries under control of the courts and the state attorneys, and away from any effective connection with the People. ‘Can’t have all them little people running around thinkin’ for themselves, now, can we?’
Today, Grand Juries are a plaything, a rubber stamp, for state attorneys, paying nothing more than lip service to our Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…” An infamous crime being any infraction that could result in loss of property or liberty (fines or jail).
Anything less than a grand jury review is obstruction of justice and lack of due process.
“If a district attorney wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”
Which pretty much sums up where we are—garbage in, garbage out. A
grand jury can only consider the information they receive. If the court determines who is on the grand jury, and the state attorney decides information they receive, the results are 99.9%, the state attorney gets what he wants.
How does that serve the People? Obviously it can’t.
So, what can we do about it?
It would be pretty good to have a place to go where someone will listen to your concern and actually has the power to do something about it.
First let’s find out who has the power. According to the Constitution, “All power derives from the People.” So that would lead us to believe the People have the power. Second, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” –Tenth Amendment.
Since there are no provisions for the federal government to control grand juries, that leaves the states or the People to decide.
When the states decide (and many states simply decided to do away with grand juries) their decisions are always on the side of what best benefits Bar Association members.
That leaves the People—remember, the ones with the power? Some People decided, enough is enough and are joining a rapidly-growing trend by setting up their own grand juries. Some call themselves Citizen Grand Jury, others Common Law Grand Jury, or The People’s Grand Jury. Regardless the name, the purpose and process is much the same: secrecy of deliberations, independence of influence, and, self-managed, of, by, and for the People.
This may not be the answer to all our problems, but it’s a really good start. For more info: firstname.lastname@example.org
Hello from James P. Harvey aka Olddog,
http://anationbeguiled.com and http://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com
Not having the education or intellect to properly investigate, research, and write my own articles I have resorted to re-publishing the works of my betters as the only course of action I can control. Please reflect on the word control, because as I see it a citizens Grand Jury is, and will remain impotent unless they acquire the power to convict and control the verdict, and an educated public supports them.
Please inform me of who would enforce a Grand Jury conviction, as I stand ready to give my life to reverse the tyranny of our government.
I will be 75 on 10-19-15 and live with a rage that only the very best word-smith could elucidate. My former ignorance of the real state of the Union was much more comfortable to live with.
I commend you and all who want freedom from tyrannical governance, but the very best minds have designed this state of affairs and presently have the muscle to enforce their decisions, while we dream of revenge. Our results so far can only be compared to intellectual masturbation.
From: Jury Foreman [email@example.com]
Subject: Re: Grand Juries not so Grand
Attachments: Grand Jury Authority.doc
There is nothing wrong with your ability to express yourself, Sir, you do quite well, and I thank you for your kind words. To be clear, Sol Wachtler was a New York prosecutor credited with making the ‘ham sandwich’ statement. I wrote the article, but because of my direct involvement in the Grand Jury, I use a pen name to deflect attention.
Enforcement of our presentments or True Bills is in the domain of the state attorney or law enforcement office. For a public official to ignore notification of convincing evidence a crime has occurred makes them susceptible to charges of obstruction, malfeasance of office, misprision of felony, violation of oath of office, ad infinitum.
We use their statutes to enforce our laws. See attached. If there is anything else I can answer, I welcome your communications, anytime. Also, if you want to form your own People’s Grand Jury in your county, let us know.
As you can see by the conversation above, I was convinced there was nothing we could accomplish besides exposing juries to civil retribution. But things have recently changed with new information received. Retired Judge Anna Maria Retzinger and James Clinton Snover have authored a book explaining the sequence of events that was used to enslave we the people and now the real accumulation of power can commence. Once we have a hundred million people read and understand the Real State of the Union which will happen as they read this book, then we will have a force so powerful, freedom can be obtained.
So, with hope firmly in mind, please do everything in your power to obtain and read this book, which will give you the courage through understanding to make our demands on the tyrannical tyrants lording over us.
As Moses said, LET MY PEOPLE GO!
It is available here: http://www.amazon.com/You-Know-Something-Wrong-When/dp/1491279184
276 pgs $11.22 + shipping
You Know Something is Wrong When…..: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause Paperback – June 14, 2015
This will empower you through, Comprehension, Hope, Courage and Motivation.
July 30th, 2015 by olddog
By Alex Newman
In a radical attack on the due-process rights of Americans that received virtually no media attention, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to give the Obama administration the unilateral power to strip you of your passport and right to travel without a trial or even criminal charges. The scheme does not even include a way to challenge your status as a non-person involuntarily trapped inside U.S. borders on orders from the secretary of state. Lawmakers, some of whom could themselves be caught in the dragnet along with myriad administration officials, praised the effort as a way to stop alleged terrorists from travelling. But critics said it was yet another attack on the fundamental rights of Americans, such as due-process protections, and that it must be resisted.
As if to illustrate how out of touch with the U.S. Constitution most members of Congress have become, the legislation, HR 237, also known as “FTO (foreign terrorist organization) Passport Revocation Act,” did not even receive a recorded vote — supposedly because it was so “uncontroversial.” It passed after 15 minutes of alleged “debate.” Bill sponsor Ted Poe (R-Texas) claimed the measure, adopted under a “suspension of the rules” typically used for trivialities such as renaming post offices, was passed unanimously. Of course, in an age in which the White House openly claims the unilateral authority to murder or indefinitely detain American citizens without even charging them with a crime, passport revocations likely seem trivial by comparison. But opponents of the measure said it was a big deal nonetheless.
Under the bill, “the Secretary of State may refuse to issue a passport to any individual whom the Secretary has determined has aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise helped an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization,” the text states. “The Secretary of State may revoke a passport previously issued to any individual” whom Secretary of State John Kerry, or future administrations that could be even more radical, unilaterally decides may have done any of those things. The terms are left undefined, opening up widespread potential for abuse, and there is no appeals process outlined in the legislation.
In essence, if approved by the Senate and signed into law by Obama, one man — far-left radical Kerry, for now — would have the power to strip you of your unalienable, God-given rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Under the measure, individuals targeted by Kerry or his successors would have no right to due-process of law — no trial by jury, no chance to contest the findings in open court (or anywhere else), no right to be presumed innocent before proven guilty, not even a right to see the accusations. Indeed, even actual criminal charges are unnecessary under the scheme for somebody to be permanently trapped in or out of the United States based on secret evidence, with no mechanism to appeal.
Lawmakers who supported the measure, though, put a different spin on it. “Daily, deadly attacks around the world remind us that radical Islamic terrorists are spreading their murderous rampage worldwide,” said Rep. Poe, who sponsored the legislation and has a 70 percent cumulative score on the Freedom Index. “The threat to America from these groups has never been greater. But some of our own citizens have travelled to the terrorist hotbeds in Syria and beyond to fight for the other side. These Benedict Arnold traitors who have turned against America and joined the ranks of foreign radical terrorist armies should lose all rights afforded to our citizens.”
Of course, after being proven guilty of terrorism or treason in a court of law, actual terrorists and traitors would — and regularly do — lose the rights guaranteed to Americans in the U.S. Constitution. However, Rep. Poe fails to mention that, and instead of a trial by jury to determine guilt, individuals would lose their rights merely on the word of one administration official. “This will help law enforcement locate these individuals by making it easier to flag the individuals who are trying to travel internationally,” Poe continued. “Most importantly, this legislation will help prevent turned Americans from coming back to the United States undetected.”
“The House has now acted to locate and contain these traitors,” Rep. Poe added, without explaining the implications of giving the Obama administration the unilateral authority to declare somebody a “traitor” without any semblance of due process. “It’s time for the Senate to quickly do the same. These people are not returning to America to open coffee shops; they are coming back to kill. Let’s stop them from coming back at all.” Other Republican lawmakers issued similar statements in support of the measure. Existing U.S. statutes already allowed Americans’ passports to be revoked for “national security,” but apparently the administrative appeals process available under that program was too much for Congress.
The handful of critics who were aware of the scheming ahead of the vote slammed a wide range of provisions in the measure. “The bill provides no ability for someone wrongly denied a passport to challenge the Secretary of State’s findings that they helped a terrorist,” explained Norm Singleton, vice president for policy at the Campaign for Liberty and a founding member of the Republican Liberty Caucus. “So much for due process and reining in executive power.” Before the vote, he urged supporters of due process to call their representatives and tell them to oppose the scheme, but it was approved in the House the next day anyway.
In a wide-ranging and widely re-published criticism of the legislation, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity chief Daniel McAdams blasted the process used to adopt it, the anti-liberty ideology underpinning it, and the bill itself. “This means the Secretary of State can, unilaterally, with no due process and no oversight, deprive an American citizen the privileges of citizenship, thus relegating him to internal exile inside the United States — a practice most recently perfected in the Soviet Union,” he wrote. “What does the word ‘aided’ mean? No one knows. Is there any wiggle room for inadvertency? No one knows. And what about the very political nature of the US ‘terror’ list in the first place?”
“The U.S. Secretary of State can revoke my passport without meeting any burden of proof that I am actually a terrorist or even that I have ever supported terrorism. He can keep his evidence against me totally secret and will never be required to justify his actions against me,” McAdams continued. “And this is considered ‘uncontroversial’ in the United States? Even in revolutionary France you had the Vendée which resisted the madness of the totalitarian state. Here we have the ‘suspension calendar,’ a modern guillotine of our rights.”
Ironically, as liberty-minded critics such as McAdams subtly pointed out, if the measure had been in effect just a few years ago, a broad range of top current and former officials in both major political parties would have been subject to losing their passports for openly supporting (after being paid big bucks) the Iranian Mujahedin-e Khalq, a designated terror group until 2012 often described as an Islamo-Marxist “cult.” Until 2008, supporters of Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress, which included top U.S. officials, would have also been targeted. Meanwhile, the Obama administration was exposed years ago openly supporting proud al-Qaeda leaders, first in their war against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, and more recently in Syria.
Americans with alleged tax debts are also in Congress’ crosshairs for being stripped of their right to travel and due process, and have been for years. In fact, just this week, the Senate included a provision in the “transportation” bill it introduced that would strip the passports of anyone the IRS claims owes over $50,000. And analysts said this is all just the beginning, with efforts to use passports and citizenship as leverage against Americans — and as a means of bypassing due process — steadily gaining steam.
Under the administration’s outlandish “interpretations” of unconstitutional U.S. statutes, Obama already claims to have the dictatorial power to assassinate or indefinitely detain anyone without even charging them with a crime — much less proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in front of a jury. Already, the former chief of the CIA and NSA can boast openly that “we kill people based on metadata.” By comparison, then, revoking passports does indeed seem trivial. However, the expanding attack on due-process rights under the guise of the “terror war” has far-reaching implications.
Consider, for example, the Obama administration’s extreme definitions of “extremist” — pro-life activists, opponents of illegal immigration, returning veterans, and more — as outlined in myriad official government reports. Then consider the extremism of revoking individual rights based on the secret word of one government official.
Americans can be sure that without a serious effort to rein in the attacks on the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it protects, the lawless extremism pouring out of Washington D.C. will continue to accelerate.
Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached firstname.lastname@example.org. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.
UN & Obama Supporting Islamo-Marxist Terror Group in Iraq
IRS Would Revoke Passports for Alleged Tax Debt Under Bill
“We Kill People Based on Metadata,” Admits Former CIA/NSA Boss
DOJ Seeks Dismissal of Case Challenging NDAA Indefinite Detention
Obama Decision on Islamo-Marxist Terror Cult Will Lead to U.S. Funding, Experts Say
Der Spiegel Reveals Loose Standards Needed for Drone Assassination
U.S. Intel: Obama Coalition Supported Islamic State in Syria
ISIS: The Best Terror Threat U.S. Tax Money Can Buy
Obama’s “Anti-ISIS” Coalition Built ISIS, Biden Admits
Obama and UN Created Terror State in Libya
July 28th, 2015 by olddog
By Ron Paul
The drama over Greece’s financial crisis continues to dominate the headlines. As this column is being written, a deal may have been reached providing Greece with yet another bailout if the Greek government adopts new “austerity” measures. The deal will allow all sides to brag about how they came together to save the Greek economy and the European Monetary Union. However, this deal is merely a Band-Aid, not a permanent fix to Greece’s problems. So another crisis is inevitable.
The Greek crisis provides a look into what awaits us unless we stop overspending on warfare and welfare and restore a sound monetary system. While most commentators have focused on Greece’s welfare state, much of Greece’s deficit was caused by excessive military spending. Even as its economy collapses and the government makes (minor) cuts in welfare spending, Greece’s military budget remains among the largest in the European Union.
Despite all the hand-wringing over how the phony sequestration cuts have weakened America’s defenses, the United States military budget remains larger than the combined budgets of the world’s next 15 highest spending military’s. Little, if any, of the military budget is spent defending the American people from foreign threats. Instead, the American government wastes billions of dollars on an imperial foreign policy that makes Americans less safe. America will never get its fiscal house in order until we change our foreign policy and stop wasting trillions on unnecessary and unconstitutional wars.
Excessive military spending is not the sole cause of America’s problems. Like Greece, America suffers from excessive welfare and entitlement spending. Reducing military spending and corporate welfare will allow the government to transition away from the welfare state without hurting those dependent on government programs. Supporting an orderly transition away from the welfare state should not be confused with denying the need to reduce welfare and entitlement spending.
One reason Greece has been forced to seek bailouts from its EU partners is that Greece ceded control over its currency when it joined the European Union. In contrast, the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency is the main reason the US has been able to run up huge deficits without suffering a major economic crisis. The need for the Federal Reserve to monetize ever-increasing levels of government spending will eventually create hyperinflation, which will lead to increasing threats to the dollar’s status. China and Russia are already moving away from using the dollar in international transactions. It is only a matter of time before more countries challenge the dollar’s reserve currency status, and, when this happens, a Greece-style catastrophe may be unavoidable.
Despite the clear dangers of staying on our recent course, Congress continues to increase spending. The only real debate between the two parties is over whether we should spend more on welfare or warfare. It is easy to blame the politicians for our current dilemma but the politicians are responding to demands from the people for greater spending. Too many Americans believe they have a moral right to government support. This entitlement mentality is just as common, if not more so, among the corporate welfare queens of the militarily-industrial complex, the big banks and the crony capitalists as it is among lower-income Americans.
Congress will only reverse course when a critical mass of people reject the entitlement mentality and understand that the government is incapable of running the world, running our lives and running the economy. Therefore, those of us who know the truth must spread the ideas of, and grow the movement for, limited government, free markets, sound money and peace.
This article provided courtesy of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
How many of you remember my past warning about building a one hundred million re-educated people force as the only possible way to defeat this foreign owned imposter government we live under. Are you still ignorant of the truth to consider it treason to survive? TAKE THIS TO THE BANK FOLKS, EITHER YOU PARTICIPATE IN RE-EDUCATING EVERY ONE YOU CAN, OR THE REST OF YOUR SHORT LIFE WILL BE HELL ON EARTH!
July 27th, 2015 by olddog
My name is James P. Harvey and I own the following two web sites, http://anationbeguiled.com and http://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com
Concerning your recent statement about incarcerating American citizens who disagree with our governments political policies, I am requesting further information on your idea’s of what kind of actions would put the average political dissident in with the radicals you would incarcerate.
To wit: Would Dr. Ron Paul qualify after posting the following article on the internet? Do We Need to Bring Back Internment Camps? http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/36439/Ron-Paul-Do-We-Need-to-Bring-Back-Internment-Camps/?uuid=D61DE0D0-0752-0845-33435892AAF62EB6
How about Attorney John Whitehead for posting this article? Freedom or the Slaughterhouse? The American Police State from A to Z
Or for that matter: What would you personally do to me after reading the articles I post on my sites?
Sir: If you believe we who are obsessed with bringing back the America we grew up with and were then willing to die for, should be incarcerated along with the ragheads who want their promised virgins, than I hope you have the balls to try and personally arrest me and I’m older than you.
If by chance, after reading the following articles by Retired Judge Anna von Reitz at http://scannedretina.com/anna-von-reitz-alaska/ you are still convinced we are a danger to America, and traitors, then I accuse you publicly of being a cowardly traitor to the principles of the Constitution, freedom in general, and the oath you took to defend America and the Constitution. Perhaps you should be incarcerated!
OR, perhaps you just need to be re-educated on the principles of freedom. You Know Something is Wrong When…..: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause By Anna von Reitz
Conversations with Judge Anna. Unraveling the 200 year tapestry of fraud
About the fraud of the 14th Amendment:
A lot of needed information is here for individual people.
- Relief Is NOT Remedy by Judge Anna von Reitz
- Public Notice – Buyer beware! More specific Details
- Questions Related to Common-Law Grand-Jury Jurisdictions
- Many politicians are just now beginning to wake up…..by Anna von Reitz
- It remains for us to revive it—the organs of our land and State based government.
- So, we need to hold a One People’s Court again…
- “Constitution” = a business contract = an equity contract = a commercial contract
- A question regarding the 13th Amendment – Judge Anna responds…
- classic disinformation – Anna Maria Wilhelmina Hanna Sophia: Riezinger-von Reitzenstein von Lettow-Vorbeck – Got it Right!
- DEFINED: The source of the fraud! From the beginning! From Anna von Reitz
- Stories from the game in which you have no idea you are playing
- UNCUT—UNCENSORED—UNEDITED! This is priceless!
- DEFINED: The source of the fraud! From the beginning
- Starting at First Base…
- Second Base — What “They” Have Done “For” You
- Third Base – The Guilty Parties By Anna von Reitz | Scanned Retina Resource
- Is it possible to go beyond treason? With link to related documents
- We give legitimacy to the impostors.
- The Real Criminals
- The Crown Temple misrepresents the Church;
- Your Offer to Contract is Hereby Rejected!
- I AM YOUR ANCHOR BABY: The Significance Of My Will – by Anna Von Reitz, Judge in Alaska
- The Role of the Trustee…Members of Congress
- The Other Americas of which few are aware!
- Alaska UCC 1 filing 2014-787015-2
- A question regarding the 13th Amendment – Judge Anna responds…
- The Real Criminals – Judge Anna Von Reitz
- Great Grand Mother Anna offers some advice – Part 01
- Great Grand Mother Anna offers some advice – Part 02 “Political Action”
- Anna addresses Cardinal George
- Anna and Karen – on FB
- Anna sez….Ernie Gets IT! How about you?
- FINAL JUDGMENT AND CIVIL ORDERS – Background – A visit with Anna
- UCC1 Financing Statement – Anna M. Riezinger
- To the adults in the room… by Judge Anna von Reitz
- The Cheapest, Most Efficient Prison of All – Your Own Mind. by Anna von Reitz
- Challenge was accepted. I was proven Wrong! In gratitude…Thank you Anna!
- James P. Harvey aka Olddog at email@example.com
July 24th, 2015 by olddog
By Ben Crystal
Since the release of the first of the videos collected by the watchdog group Center for Medical Progress, I’ve heard and read more than a few suggestions that Planned Parenthood’s leadership not only deserves a comparison to Adolf Hitler, but suffers by comparison. But I’m not here to join in myriad violations of Godwin’s law; I’m going to set it on fire and then run over it with a tank. It’s not that women who discuss selling surplus baby parts while washing down their Cobb salads with a nice Pinot Grigio don’t make my skin crawl; it’s that compared to the ladies who carry on the life’s work of genocidal eugenicist Margaret Sanger, Hitler was bush league.
Do you think I’m overselling the point? Hitler had direct control over the considerable resources of World War II-era Germany and indirect control over the resources of many of Germany’s neighbors. He exploited those resources to build a machine devoted to exterminating a sizable minority of Europe’s – and, ultimately, the world’s — population. Despite all of that, he failed. Not only do vast herds of Jews, gays, gypsies and other groups whom sociopathic Austrians find unsavory still roam the globe; Hitler didn’t even survive the war his plan set into motion.
Compare Eva Braun’s man to the people at Planned Parenthood, and he fades like Hillary Clinton’s memory after the early-bird special at the home. In his wildest dreams der Führer likely never imagined that not only would a group rise with the stated goal of eliminating as many people as possible, but that the group in question would target children — infants — specifically. Furthermore, said group makes murdering defenseless babies its method of making a killing, and it receives billions of dollars in financial backing from the same nation that united to put Hitler in the ground.
Say what you want about Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong or any of socialism’s other mass-murdering all-stars; none of them ever managed to turn their anti-human agendas into business plans. Planned Parenthood has, and it has managed to rake in an impressive haul of cash while maintaining 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status while doing so.
Since the abysmal Roe v. Wade decision opened the doors to the abattoirs abortionistas call “clinics,” nearly 60 million children have met their end in an abortionists’ office, with Planned Parenthood leading the way. In the last three years alone, Planned Parenthood has been the last stop for nearly 1 million American children, including nearly 330,000 last year alone. It’s worth noting that while the abortion rate has declined nationally, Planned Parenthood’s has risen over the same period. In fact, PP has turned abortion mills into a growth industry; abortion services are the only aspect of its so-called “women’s health services” that actually increased in the past three years.
Planned Parenthood doesn’t include the burgeoning fetal tissue-sales strategy discussed in the now-famous videos as a “women’s health service.” But don’t worry, pro-lifers, that twisted little side effort is just a drop in the bucket compared to PP’s biggest source of revenue: you. No matter what your attitude about abortion, you’ve thrown plenty of change in its bucket. In its 2013 to 2014 annual report, Planned Parenthood noted that the federal government shoveled $528.4 million into its swollen coffers.
In return for our forced largesse, you and I and our fellow American taxpayers have received a true bounty. In addition to the procedure that made PP rich and famous, we’ve picked up the tab to lobby for wholesome fun like free, anonymous abortions for 13-year-olds whose parents think they’re at the mall.
And there’s also PP’s outreach to the African-American community. Thanks to generous grants from Uncle Sam, PP has managed to make real what ought to seem nightmarishly unreal. According to Planned Parenthood’s own numbers, black people, who make up less than 13 percent of the American population, accounted for nearly 35 percent of abortions. In New York City, the most recent numbers reveal that more black babies have been killed in the Big Apple than have been born there.
And, of course, there’s the little matter of two senior Planned Parenthood officers casually haggling over the price of dead baby parts. There was a time when that sort of craven, soulless disregard for those most innocent and delicate among us would have earned you a spot in America’s hall of shame. When Hitler tried to engineer the biggest eugenics project in human history, the United States joined the rest of the world in putting a stop to his madness at a terrible cost. Now, Kermit Gosnell’s fellow abortionists and the people who make a living shilling for them are notconsidered villains. They are, in fact, lauded as heroes, funded primarily by your tax dollars and feted in the White House. Compared to Sanger’s daughters, Hitler was a piker.
Ben Crystal is a 1993 graduate of Davidson College and has burned the better part of the last two decades getting over the damage done by modern-day higher education. He now lives in Savannah, Ga., where he has hosted an award-winning radio talk show and been featured as a political analyst for television. Currently a principal at Saltymoss Productions—a media company specializing in concept television and campaign production, speechwriting and media strategy—Ben has written numerous articles on the subjects of municipal authoritarianism, the economic fallacy of sin taxes and analyses of congressional abuses of power.
Cudos for Mr. Crystal, and where are the rest of competent authors on this subject? OR, as I suspect, no one gives a crap about infants they don’t have any connection to. I doubt not that many Americans are so self absorbed these days that they could care less. Take this to the bank folks, self-centered, hard hearted, societies do not last, they self-destruct! History is full of societies that have suffered agonizing decline in quality of life and freedom for the simple reason they would not stand up for compassion, truth, freedom, honesty, and instead embraced debauchery and authoritarian governance to blame it on. Most of the animal kingdom has more and higher morals than Americans. So much for American exceptionallism. CHECK THIS OUT
PLANNED PARENTHOOD EXPECTS UNDERCOVER REPORTERS TO RELEASE VIDEO OF CLINICS HARVESTING BABY ORGANS
Disguised journalists were “shown a highly sensitive area in a clinic where tissue is processed”
By STEVE WATSON
Planned Parenthood, currently engaging in desperate damage control following the release of two damning videos of officials talking about selling body parts of aborted babies, has also notified Congress that it believes undercover journalists have actual footage of clinics carrying out the procedures.
As reported by Life News Planned Parenthood penned a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee saying that Chief Medical Director, Deborah Nucatola, who sipped wine while talking about selling fetal tissue, would not be available to answer questions at a briefing.
Within the letter, Planned Parenthood, attempting to get ahead of the scandal, also notifies Congress of what it believes will be released by undercover journalists with The Center for Medical Progress who posed as researchers with a fake pharmaceutical company called Biomax.
“Biomax set up exhibits at our National Medical Conference and our National Conference over the last couple of years.” the letter states.
It continues “We believe that on at least one occasion a representative from Biomax was shown a highly sensitive area in a clinic where tissue is processed after abortion procedures.”
In other words, the CMP may have caught Planned Parenthood harvesting baby body parts on camera.
Planned Parenthood, remarkably, sidesteps any questions of the legality of this process, and accuses CMP of breaking the law.
“While this work is standard and essential during any abortion procedure, any filming in such an area would be an extremely serious invasion of our patients’ privacy and dignity.” the letter states.
Planned Parenthood also accuses the journalists of attempting to paint them up as racists.
“We also believe that in at least one interaction at a Planned Parenthood facility, the Biomax representative asked questions about the racial characteristics of tissue donated to researchers studying sickle cell anemia, apparently seeking to create a misleading impression.” the letter states.
As InfoWars reported Tuesday, Planned Parenthood, with the help of it’s corporate media mouthpiece MSNBC, warned before the release of the second damning video that more footage was coming, with “racially-charged” overtones.
The Life News piece also goes into detail about what else may be coming down the line, noting that undercover reporters were able to infiltrate the abortion industry at its highest levels and gain access to conferences and meetings that require written recommendation from senior officials.
The piece notes that ‘Biomax’ managed to set up exhibition booths at two Planned Parenthood conferences as well as sponsoring events held by the National Abortion Federation and the national association for abortion providers in America.
While Republicans in Congress and several states have called for investigations into Planned Parenthood’s actions, Democrats are ignoring the scandal and actually calling for the Center for Medical Progress to be investigated for conducting a sting operation.
The leftist corporate media also continues to shill for Planned Parenthood, with the New York Times the latest outlet to get behind the damage control spin.