Log in



Categories » ‘REBELLION’

The Globalists Strike Back With A Major Push Toward A Cashless Society

February 18th, 2017 by

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-globalists-strike-back-with-a-major-push-toward-a-cashless-society

Cashless SocietyBy Michael Snyder

Their agenda may be on the rocks in the United States at the moment, but that doesn’t mean that the globalists are giving up.  In fact, a major push toward a cashless society is being made in the European Union right now.  Last May we learned that the 500 euro note is being completely eliminated, and just a few weeks ago the European Commission released a new “Action Plan” which instructs member states to explore “potential upper limits to cash payments”.  In the name of “fighting terrorism”, this “Action Plan” discusses the benefits of “prohibitions for cash payments above a specific threshold” and it says that those prohibitions should include “virtual currencies (such as BitCoin) and prepaid instruments (such as pre-paid credit cards) when they are used anonymously.”

This new document does not mention what an appropriate threshold would be for member states, but we do know that Spain already bans certain cash transactions above 2,500 euros, and Italy and France already ban cash transactions above 1,000 euros.

This is a perfect way to transition to a cashless society without creating too much of an uproar.  By setting a maximum legal level for cash transactions and slowly lowering it, in effect you can slowly but surely phase cash out without people understanding what is happening.

And there are many places in Europe where it is very difficult to even use cash at this point.  In Sweden, many banks no longer take or give out cash, and approximately 95 percent of all retail transactions are entirely cashless.  So even though Sweden has not officially banned cash, using cash is no longer practical in most situations.  In fact, many tourists are shocked to find out that they cannot even pay bus fare with cash.

So most of Europe is already moving in this direction, and now this new Action Plan is intended to accelerate the transition toward a cashless society.  The public is being told that these measures are being taken to fight money laundering and terrorism, but of course that is only a small part of the truth.  The following comes from the Anti-Media

The European Action Plan doesn’t mention a specific dollar amount for restrictions, but as expected, their reasoning for the move is to thwart money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Border checks between countries have already been bolstered to help implement these new standards on hard assets. Although these end goals are plausible, there are other clear motivations for governments to target paper money that aren’t as noble.

In a truly cashless society, governments would be able to track where everybody is and what everybody is doing all the time.  And in order to have access to the cashless system, people would have to comply with whatever requirements governments wanted to impose on their helpless populations.  The potential for tyranny that this would create would be off the charts, but very few people seem greatly alarmed by the move toward a cashless system all over the globe.

Even in the United States there are calls for a cashless system.  For example, the former chief economist for the IMF wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal not too long ago in which he recommended the elimination of the $100 bill

“There is little debate among law-enforcement agencies that paper currency, especially large notes such as the U.S. $100 bill, facilitates crime: racketeering, extortion, money laundering, drug and human trafficking, the corruption of public officials, not to mention terrorism. There are substitutes for cash—cryptocurrencies, uncut diamonds, gold coins, prepaid cards—but for many kinds of criminal transactions, cash is still king. It delivers absolute anonymity, portability, liquidity and near-universal acceptance.”

Over in Asia restrictions are being put on cash as well.  Legendary investor Jim Rogers commented on what is currently happening in India during one recent podcast

The time will come when you won’t be able to buy a cup of coffee without being traced, warns investment guru Jim Rogers. To control people, governments will increasingly seek to hunt down cash spending, he adds.

“Governments are always looking out for themselves first, and it’s the same old thing that has been going on for hundreds of years. The Indians recently did the same thing. They withdrew 86 percent of the currency in circulation, and they have now made it illegal to spend more than, I think it’s about $4,000 in any cash transaction. In France you cannot use more than, I think it’s a €1,000,” said Rogers in an interview with MacroVoices Podcast.

The reason why this is taking place all over the planet is because this is a global agenda.

The globalists ultimately plan to completely eliminate cash, and this will give them an unprecedented level of control over humanity.

One thing that many fear may someday be implemented is some form of microchip identification system.  In order to access the cashless grid, you would need your “ID chip” so that the system could positively identify you, but of course there are millions of people around the world that do not intend to get chipped under any circumstances.

In the old days, you would be labeled a “conspiracy theorist” just for suggesting that they may try to chip all of us one day, but in 2017 things have completely changed.

Just look at what is happening in Nevada.  A bill has been introduced in the state senate that would outlaw the “forced microchipping of people”

State Sen. Becky Harris said a bill to prohibit forced microchipping of people is not as far-fetched as it might seem, because it happens in some places around the world.

Senate Bill 109 would make it a Class C felony to require someone to be implanted with a radio frequency identifier, such as microchips placed in pets.

The idea for the bill came from a constituent, the Las Vegas Republican said.

If that sounds very strange to you, then you may not know that companies all around the globe are already starting to explore this type of technology.  For instance, a company in Belgium called NewFusion has actually begun to microchip their employees

In a move that could be lifted straight from science fiction, workers at a Belgian marketing firm are being offered the chance to have microchips implanted in their bodies.

The chips contain personal information and provide access to the company’s IT systems and headquarters, replacing existing ID cards.

The controversial devices raise questions about personal security and safety, including whether they may allow the movements of people with implants to be tracked.

Technology like this often starts off being “voluntary”, but then after enough people willingly accept it the transition to “mandatory” is not too difficult.

We live at one of the most critical moments in all of human history, and the globalists are certainly not going to lay down and die just because Donald Trump won the election.

The U.S. represents less than five percent of the population of the planet, and in most of the world the agenda of the globalists is on track and is rapidly advancing.

The globalists want a unified one world economy, a unified one world religion and a unified one world government.  The election of Donald Trump was a blow to the globalists, but it has also made them more dangerous, more ruthless and more determined than ever before.

And in case you think that using the term “globalists” is a bit strange, the truth is that even the New York Times is using it to describe the global elite and their global agenda.

We are in a life or death battle for the future of our society, and the globalists are never going to give up until they get what they want.  So now is not a time for complacency, because the very future of our country is at stake.

Olddogs Comments!

There is no doubt in my mind that humanity has already been surreptitiously adjusted to accept annihilation. How else can one explain the nearly total lack of outrage? The apparent lack of interest in what the globalist intend to do to the whole planet is mind numbing. By any sense of concern for their future, humanity as a whole should be clamoring for their heads. Trump should be assembling a military strike on every globalist wherever they are. It’s not like there is no proof what they have done and their goals, so why is the whole damn world sitting on their ass?

Globalists Want To Destroy Conservative Principles But They Need Our Help

February 10th, 2017 by

http://alt-market.com/articles/3124-globalists-want-to-destroy-conservative-principles-but-they-need-our-help

CIVIL WAR

By Brandon Smith

For months now, long before the 2016 election, I have been warning about a specific social dynamic which is likely to lead to a form of civil war within the U.S.; namely, the reality that people on the left side of the political spectrum would become despondent at the inevitable loss of their candidate, Hillary Clinton, and that they would react by becoming far more militant. In my article ‘Order Out Of Chaos: The Defeat Of The Left Comes With A Cost’, published November post-election, I stated:

“When I mentioned in my last article the crippling of social justice, I did not mention that this could have some negative reverberations. With Trump and conservatives taking near-total power after the Left had assumed they would never lose again, their reaction has been to transform. They are stepping away from the normal activities and mindset of cultural Marxism and evolving into full blown communists. Instead of admitting that their ideology is a failure in every respect, they are doubling down.

When this evolution is complete, the Left WILL resort to direct violent action on a larger scale, and they will do so with a clear conscience because, in their minds, they are fighting fascism.”

I believed at that time that the social-justice cult would lose mainstream influence but that the existing minority would resort to even more insidious tactics and greater violence to get what they want; and, the so-called “moderate left” would cheer them on.  As it turns out, I have been proven right so far.

Not that extreme Leftists have been averse to violence over the past year, but I think it is safe to say that the volume on the cultural Marxist machine has been turned up a notch. The riot at UC Berkeley over a scheduled speech by gay, conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos is a perfect example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2TkEqnp-2w

Then, there was the raid by SJWs at NYU on a speech by conservative journalist and comedian Gavin McInnes, in which they shouted down all discussion with mindless chants until the event had to be canceled. This was, of course, after they had already physically attacked people outside the building, including McInnes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwA_0FKR9f4

The social justice mantra is changing. At first, it was predominately about forming mobs to “shame” target political opponents into silence. Now, it is about forming mobs to do what they call “punching Nazis.” Leftists are now often seen regurgitating the claim — “This is only the beginning…”

I agree, this IS only the beginning. The Left is driven not only by the ideology of cultural Marxism, but also a very specific activist strategy outlined in Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules For Radicals’. The very core of Alinsky’s method revolves around one important rule in particular: the ends justify the means.

This is the key ingredient of moral relativism, and when a movement is motivated by moral relativism, there is no limit to the depths they will sink to get their way. Activists adopting the “ends justify the means” mentality are not interested in being “right,” or wise, or rational or logical or factual; they ONLY care about “winning.” This is their goal, and they will do anything to achieve it.

It is important to note, however, that all of these protests and the increase in violence is not taking place in a vacuum. As many liberty analysts have noted, Trump has hardly had time to do anything yet that would warrant national protests. Is Trump really the only catalyst? Not quite. The mainstream media and globalists like George Soros have been very effective in agitating or outright paying protesters and provocateurs to generate zombie mobs of gullible Leftists to use as a billy club for harassing conservatives.

That said, I want liberty activists and analysts to ponder on this for a moment — to what end is this being done? Why is Soros so interested in fomenting leftist rage? Is it designed to overthrow Trump? To initiate mob action and frighten conservatives into silence? Or do the globalists have a greater and more important goal in mind?

I have been writing often on the idea of 4th Generation Warfare the past month, and I think my readers are now well versed in the concept of the “three-steps-ahead” style of tactics, as well as the concept of manipulating an opponent to destroy himself, rather than fighting him directly. These are not new methods, the globalists have merely taken them to the next level.

But how do 4th Gen warfare tactics apply to the current Right vs. Left scenario in the U.S.? Well, everything is not as obvious as it seems.

As I outlined in-depth in my article Clinton Versus Trump And The Co-Option Of The Liberty Movement, globalists and the leftist media have been, in a strange way, quietly cheering for Trump, but only as a tool for absorbing the liberty movement (what they still call the “Tea Party”). This glee is made rather evident in an article published by Bloomberg in August titled The Tea Party Meets Its Maker.

There is a point I have been trying to make for most of the year that I think has been consistently missed by many in the liberty movement. That point being that the greatest danger to conservatives is NOT militant Leftists, but how we RESPOND to militant Leftists. That is to say, I believe the globalists are using the Left as a cattle prod to enrage conservatives and lure us into abandoning our principles in the name of defeating Marxists.

Consider this; the argument among most liberty analysts has been that the numerous anti-Constitutional programs put in place by the Obama administration in the past eights years would eventually be used by the political Left and the globalists as weapons to subdue and destroy conservatives and patriot groups. While Obama certainly tested the waters of tyranny over and over again, up to and including using executive orders to assassinate American citizens without trial, it is clear that those extensive powers afforded to the White House are no longer in the hands of the left; they are in the hands of Trump.

Obama even signed the “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” into law AFTER Trump had already won the White House. Trump has now inherited this power as well, which seems to give government the authority to harass or even silence news sources they deem “fake news.” While many liberty activists cried foul and warned of a “coup” designed to shut down alternative news sites and thwart Trump’s inauguration, I warned that there was a much more dangerous scenario in play.

What will conservatives do in the face of the leftist mob funded by globalists and growing ever more vicious? Well, what do the globalists expect us to do? I think they expect us to look at all the government powers we once admonished as unConstitutional and say “hey, maybe these laws and executive orders are not so bad after all…”

I think the globalists are handing us the incredible temptation of far reaching bureaucratic power, and they expect us to abuse that power, as almost anyone would.

As an alternative analyst I am privy to trends in the liberty movement and in conservative circles that might not be immediately obvious to casual readers. Already, I am witnessing calls among conservatives to abuse government power to defeat the Left. I have seen comments such as:

“Trump should use the NDAA to imprison these leftists indefinitely…”

“The only solution is to throw the leftists into FEMA camps…”

“Trump needs to shut down the leftist media…”

“Sometimes it is okay to bend the rules of the constitution if you have the right president…”

And comments like this are popping up everywhere in liberty media boards. Now, I recognize that some of this talk is being posted by paid disinformation agents and provocateurs, but, I have heard regular conservatives and patriots, people who are long time proponents of the Constitution, echo similar sentiments.

I often use the analogy of the “One Ring” from The Lord Of The Rings to describe big government power. I really can’t find a better fictional symbol. Anyone who comes into possession of the “one ring” is eventually corrupted by it. Many good people believe that its darker energy can be contained and directed for good purposes, but they, too, are ultimately undone by it. The only answer, the only solution, is to abandon the ring, or to destroy it.

Overt government power is very much the same; it corrupts any person or group that comes in contact with it. Every group thinks that if only THEY were in possession of government that they would do things differently. This is a delusion. No person or group is benevolent enough to handle this responsibility, and this includes conservatives. Many groups would commit egregious and heinous crimes to take government for themselves, or keep it for themselves, all the while so many Saurons (globalists) laugh and smack their lips as the masses battle over numerous rings of power.

As I have noted time and time again for the past several months, Trump is the perfect tool for scapegoating conservative movements for the economic crisis the elites have already engineered. But, this is only one part of the agenda. In the midst of chaos generated by financial calamity, the morals of an entire society can become “malleable”.  The most important target of the globalists is not only conservatives, but the conservative philosophy. They don’t just want to annihilate conservatives today, they want to annihilate conservatives for all time.

The globalists cannot accomplish this task without our help. They NEED us to adopt an attitude of moral relativism, much like the Left. They need us to turn into totalitarians. They need us to become the monster we claim we want to defeat. Only then can conservative principles be demonized for all time. Only then will history look back on us as a stain on the human record.

This is the globalist’s long game.

While Leftists are being encouraged to mutate into wild frothing packs of rabid dogs, conservatives will be encouraged either through temptation or manipulation to respond in kind. The Left’s propaganda train asserts that we are “fascists.” Obviously, we are the furthest thing from this. But, with enough violence and aggressive censorship on their part, we might end up saying “Okay, you want to see fascism, we’ll show you fascism!”

The social justice cult has no idea what they are being led into. The globalists are going to throw them to the wolves, and WE are the wolves.

It is important to note that the Left is also not the only instigator for conservatives to turn totalitarian. Islamic terrorism is always a perfect rationale for increased government intrusion in the name of safety. The worst part is, the threats from the Left and the threats from Islamic extremism are in most cases quite legitimate, and they seem to be working hand-in-hand more each day.

The progressive interference with steps towards more rational immigration policies and their steady defense of Sharia Law leads many conservatives to see them as one in the same enemy.  No foreigner is entitled to citizenship in the U.S., but leftists live in a fantasy world of open borders.  The left’s refusal to entertain reasonable and selective immigration will eventually push conservatives towards more drastic measures, which is the ultimate point.

Very few Americans like Communists, and very few Americans like Muslim zealotry; the justification for totalitarian measures to disrupt such threats is relatively easy for many people.

This is why I am going to make my next prediction of a major geopolitical event to close out this article — I believe there will be a large scale terrorist attack within the next three months, beyond the mob actions of the Left already in progress.

It will either be similar in scope to 9/11, or, it will be a succession of many smaller attacks occurring over the course of a few days to a couple of weeks. I believe that the current dispute over border controls and immigration denial will come immediately into play. Trump will blame Leftists for obstructing his efforts for secure immigration. Leftists and the media will blame Trump for “radicalizing” Muslims with his immigration policies, or perhaps even accuse him of staging the attacks himself. Trump will begin taking extraordinary measures beyond the Constitution to ensure immigration denial and the thwarting of the Left, and conservatives will applaud him for it.

Again, conservatives are being led by globalists into the temptations of power. The only way for us to fight back is to maintain our principles and refuse to support ANY government measure that is unConstitutional, even if it is to be used against our enemies. The only way that the heritage of liberty can be defeated is if the proponents and champions of liberty forsake it. We beat the globalists in the long run by standing by our ideals and fighting back within the bounds of the principles we hold dear. Dominance through government is never the answer.

 If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here.  We greatly appreciate your patronage.

 You can contact Brandon Smith at:

brandon@alt-market.com

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

WANTED:

One hundred million AMERICAN’S

capable of understanding the principals AMERICA was founded on and willing to join hands in a national resistance to CORPORATE GOVERNANCE. Men and women who love their freedom more than their bondage who will circulate copies of the Constitution with the stipulation of a promise to read it and demand a Constitutional Government not under the control of the International Investment banking cartel. A second civil war will be the total end of freedom in this country. And that’s where this country is headed!

Contact olddog@anationbeguiled.com

FOR INSTRUCTIONS!

CIVIL WAR

HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM OLDDOG and ANNA VON REITZ

January 1st, 2017 by

HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM OLDDOG

As the excellent article below will show you, the average American still can’t get their head out of their ass long enough to learn a damn thing, and before you know it we will be killing one another in a civil war to make all other’s look like a child’s game. What most of you do not understand and the rest cannot accept is, “there are millions of real men in this country who have had a belly full of the bull shit in Washington DC.

They are done with acceptance of the status quo, and demand their freedom from corporate governance, and corporate control of their very lively-hood, and everything their children are being taught in so-called government education. They are completely incapable of accepting any more of the shit that think tanks put out and their government supports. They are sick and tired of being dominated by a hand full of the Banking Cartel’s front men.

It will not be long until there will be wailing and agony in every house-hold and all because the people long ago were brain washed by the media and education corporations into little trained monkey’s that supported every tyranny the bastards in DC shoved down their throats.

We now stand as a nation divided as the stupid will not accept the truth and the reeducated will not accept anymore tyranny. Good luck to all you who believe it is possible for TRUMP to turn things around, because he is one of them and has no plan to give up what ever control the Bankers give him. I am sadden beyond my ability to express my disappointment in my fellow American who would die before admitting a democracy is just as tyrannical as a dictatorship, and in the long run will cure all our problems. May the Holy Lord of Glory have mercy on you who support our enemy!

Olddog

 

LESSONS UNLEARNED AND UNINTENDED

CONSEQUENCES

http://www.rebelmadman.com/?p=609

 

By Michael Gaddy

“Without reflection, we go blindly on our way, creating more unintended consequences, and failing to achieve anything useful.” ~ Margaret J. Wheatley

Janus, the Roman god who has faces on both sides of his head in order to look forward as well as backward is the symbol for January, and as we are on the threshold of a new year, would it not be proper for us to look to the past for lessons for the future?

Over the course of several decades, I have learned firsthand the hazards of being knowledgeable of history and trying to relay that knowledge to others to avoid the admonishment so eloquently stated by George Santayana that those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat its mistakes. Such a venture would certainly qualify as an effort in futility. People, especially those on the right of the political spectrum, become most agitated and angry when one draws back the curtain revealing their historical ignorance and unwillingness to learn those historical lessons.

In early 2000, a so-called “conservative think-tank” formulated a plan that has led to continual war, rampant mass immigration and acts of terror all over the globe. The big problem is, the Neocons (read Republicans) who operated and funded this think-tank not only influenced their own political party but made their totally failed plan the hallmark of the current Democrat administration. Not only that but following through with the principles of the Hegelian Dialectic, they have made the majority of Americans believe the way to cure the problem created with their policies is to apply more of what caused the problem in the first place.

A quick perusal of any social media site will show a great many Americans believe the way to stop terrorism and mass immigration is to continue doing what caused it in the first place.

Back in 2003, because of the massive false hype for the invasion of Iraq, I wrote an article on the above-referenced think-tank which is known as the Project For The New American Century. (PNAC) In the title for that article, I claimed PNAC’s plan was the death certificate for our Republic. I stand by my prognostication. I ask you, the reader, to review this article and compare it with where we are today. (Please note: I have emphasized in bold some things that are most relevant)

Project For The New American Century:
The Death Certificate For Our Republic

By Michael Gaddy  (Originally published on 03/03/03)

I, like many other supporters of the Constitution, have been asking since the 2000 election; exactly what drives the foreign policy of the Bush Administration. The answer is revealed in the doctrines of the Policy for the New American Century, (PNAC)

Neil Mackay, in the Scotland Sunday Herald, reveals the master plan now driving this administration.

“A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure ‘regime change’ even before he took power in January 2001.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a ‘global Pax Americana’ was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defense secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld’s deputy), George W Bush’s younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney’s chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).”

This plan can be found here in PDF format.

The plan put forth by PNAC reveals, regardless of whether Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq, an attack there was preordained. Maybe this can explain why the powers that be and their lap-dog media continue the war beat no matter how many times this administration is caught prevaricating about Iraq.

Inside the document prepared by PNAC is the following: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

To facilitate their plans, our military cannot be constrained by our Constitution. The plan calls our military, “the cavalry on the new American frontier.” In other words, the new American frontier is wherever our government says it is. If this is not a game plan of empire, I have never seen one.

The thoughts brought forth in this document should scare the bejeezus out of anyone who calls him or herself an American.

The PNAC plan:

Supports a “blueprint for maintaining global US preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests.”

This “American grand strategy” must be advanced for “as far into the future as possible,” the report says. It also calls for the US to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars” as a “core mission.”

  1. Refers to key allies such as the UK as “the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership.”
  2. Describes peacekeeping missions as “demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations.”
  3. Reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA.
  4. Says “even should Saddam pass from the scene” bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently — despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops — as “Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has.”
  5. Spotlights China for “regime change” saying “it is time to increase the presence of American forces in Southeast Asia”. This, it says, may lead to “American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratization in China”
  6. Calls for the creation of “US Space Forces”, to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent “enemies” using the Internet against the US. (How long will it be before those of us who oppose this quest for empire, become the “enemy”?)
  7. Hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons — which the nation has banned — in decades to come. It says: “New methods of attack — electronic, ‘non-lethal’, biological — will be more widely available … combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes … advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”
  8. Pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a “worldwide command-and-control system.”

Our European allies know of this plan. Perhaps that is why the administration’s plan for “regime change” is meeting such opposition there.

Tam Dalyell, father of the House of Commons in the UK, and one of the leading British voices against war with Iraq said: “This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks — men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam War. This is a blueprint for US world domination — a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.”

Ironically, the policies of PNAC were first brought forth in Papa George’s administration, but it was not well received and the would-be world controllers backed off for the time being. Scott McConnell of the American Conservative magazine says; “In the final year of the first Bush administration, Paul Wolfowitz penned a memo under the aegis of then Secretary of Defense Cheney, calling for the United States to ramp up its defense spending in order to deter any other country from “even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” China, Russia, Germany, and Japan were to be intimidated from seeking more power in their own regions. After the Wolfowitz draft was leaked to the press, it received widespread ridicule, and the Bush I diplomats rushed to reassure allies that Wolfowitz’s views did not truly reflect American foreign policy.

But, during the 1990s, these did become the views of the neoconservatives, packaged under the slogan “benevolent global hegemony” touted by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The positions of the neoconservative foreign policy team in exile were fleshed out in a PNAC book, Present Dangers, which called for the U.S. to “shape the international environment to its own advantage” by being “at once a European power, an Asian power, a Middle Eastern power, and of course a Western Hemisphere power” and to “act as if instability in important regions of the world … affect[s] us with almost the same immediacy as if [it] was occurring on our own doorstep.” In practice, this meant assertive risk-taking virtually everywhere. Jonathan Clarke, reviewing the volume in the National Interest, wrote, “If the book’s recommendations were implemented all at once, the U.S. would risk unilaterally fighting a five-front war, while simultaneously urging Israel to abandon the peace process in favor of a new no-holds-barred confrontation with the Palestinians.” This book has become the blueprint for the foreign policy of George W. Bush.”

The most alarming part of this document is the proposals for our military. Those of us who believe that we maintain a military for defense are in for a real shock. When this plan is implemented there will have to be a name change in our government. We will no longer have a department of defense; it will have to be changed to the department of offense.

Does anyone really believe we can accomplish the outlined military goals with an “all volunteer” force? Or will we once again be required to subject our young people to a draft so they can be made indentured servants to a government so as to “fight for freedom?” Don’t forget Secretary of Offense, Donald Rumsfeld, recently praised our “all volunteer’ military as being one where everyone is there by choice, yet days later froze all lengths of service for the U.S. Marines and all forces in Korea until further notice. (stop-loss)

This plan for world domination, written in 2000, called for raising our outlay on military spending to 3.8 percent of our GNP from the then level of 3.5. With the last increase in military spending by this administration, we reached the exact figure of 3.8!

The steps of this plan, which are being followed to the letter by George W. Bush, (and then by Obama for the past 8 years) will lead to the end of what little is left of our Republic and a disaster for us as a nation on the world stage. History is resplendent with the tragedies of nations that sought empire and failed. We will be no different.

All allies will be repulsed in our desire to dominate the world. It is happening already. Our European allies have gone from those with headlines on 9/11 that proclaimed “We are all Americans now,” to disgust with our leaders, our foreign policy and its intended goal of world domination. Sure, we will be able to buy some allies, just as we have Turkey, but we must be aware we have only purchased the support of the government. The people of the world will never support a foreign power that seeks to make everyone victims of its democratization and moral superiority.

When we subdue Iraq, will the oil resources be given to the citizens? I think not. A puppet government will be installed and the oil resources will be channeled to US interests, just as poppy production is being done in Afghanistan. Why else would a supposed “leader” of a country require 24/7 protection by US Special Forces soldiers from his own citizens?

We call what we seek to impose on the world, “democracy.” What majority of citizens in Afghanistan elected Hamid Karzai to be head of the country? Could it be coincidence Karzai was a former Unocal employee? Is it also coincidence the plan for the oil line across Afghanistan is now being implemented? Could the Taliban have become military opponents of the United States simply because they refused this same pipeline deal with Unocal after being wined and dined in Texas back when Dubya was governor in 1997?

What will it take for the majority of citizens in this country to realize we are becoming that which we fought so hard to oppose 50+ years ago? By continuing to implement this policy set forth by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle and Bush, do we not become the same as the Soviet Union whom we fought so hard to defeat, costing us tens of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars? One need only to compare the proposed ideologies of our new neoconservative leaders with those of Leon Trotsky!

Another thing this plan for world domination will bring us here at home is terrorism too intense to be imagined. When we have separated ourselves from the other people of this planet by our quest for domination, by what other means will they be able to retaliate? Does the thought of Rome being invaded by the Barbarians bring forth any visions? If they invade across our Southern Border, they will be assisted by our government’s policies rather than opposed?

What will become of those here in this country who seek to remain loyal to the Constitution? Will we not become just as much an opposing force to those who seek world domination as those in other countries who do not wish to become American subjects?

How much more of our personal resources will be required to accomplish world domination? How many more of our freedoms?

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

Mike

New Year’s Eve 2016 Greeting

from Anna Von Reitz

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/01/new-years-eve-2016-greeting.html

By Anna Von Reitz

It’s New Year’s Eve.  Where I am, the skies are leaden grey, the temperatures cold, and the days are dark.  I am holed up like some small furry animal in a burrow watching the swirling snow and everything is very quiet.  The day has been spent making whatever progress could be made in a mountain of correspondence and on house cleaning—-getting ready to greet 2017 and make a clean start.  

I suppose people don’t remember this, but besides being “Judge Anna” I am also a woman with a house to keep, dust bunnies to chase, and an endless fight against dog hair that has been ongoing since 1956.

Many great things have happened in 2016.  Jural assemblies have been re-established in many counties and American Common Law courts have begun functioning again throughout these fifty states.  A great many people have awakened and they are now engaged in awakening others. 

The Living Law Firm has made great strides in unraveling the mechanisms of the Great Fraud and its many symptomatic results—- unlawful foreclosures, corrupt banking practices, kidnapping, unlawful taxation and more.  I feel more encouraged than ever that we shall soon have the keys to unlock the central identity theft upon which these evils depend. 

Gallant research groups all over this country and abroad have made stunning progress.  Thanks to researchers in Australia we now know for sure exactly what the All Capitals Name is and how it is being used to defraud us.  Thanks to researchers in Canada we now know how the Queen and the Vatican have siphoned and laundered American assets through Canadian banks.  Thanks to researchers in this country we now know for sure that the “American Civil War” wasn’t actually a war at all, but was instead an illegal mercenary conflict staged on our soil—–and an international crime.

We have come to understand the depths of British perfidy and depravity.  While obligated by most solemn international treaty to act as our Trustee on the High Seas and Navigable Inland Waterways, the British Monarchs from George III onward have steadily and secretively acted in Breach of Trust against the American people and have sought the overthrow of our lawful government and  sought to replace our lawful government with a system of commercial feudalism similar to the Raj in India.

We know for sure that the American Bar Association has acted in breach of the Bar Association Treaty of 1947 and that they have been instrumental in the effort to mischaracterize, defraud, and enslave the American people. Researchers in New England, Georgia, Texas, and California have proven without a doubt that Bar Members have been barred from holding any office in our government since the early 1800’s and that they have finagled the British-controlled “federal government” to create a system of “federated states” called “States of States” to usurp upon our lawful government.

Indeed, the process of defining “The Problem” is well-advanced and the secretive enemies of the peace and the people are now clearly in view.  These undeclared foreign agents, members of the Bar Associations,  have been wrecking havoc and pillaging and causing trouble on our shores for a hundred and fifty years.  For this, we have the Lord Mayor of London, the Lords of the Admiralty, the Queen, and the Pope to thank. 

As we bring 2016 to a close, it’s time for Americans to stop “shooting ourselves in the foot” and apply ourselves to creating remedy for this circumstance. 

Donald Trump has been elected to serve as President of the federal corporation(s) and he clearly has a new policy agenda, but that is what it is— a policy agenda of a CEO.  While it is to be sincerely hoped that he will bring the so-called United States Congress to its senses and clean up the mess in Washington, DC, we must realize that reform of the federal government is only one part of the solution we need.

We are called upon to self-govern in this country, and it is axiomatic that if we fail to govern ourselves, someone else has to do the job for us.  The permanent solution requires declaring our proper political status as American state nationals, forming our lawful county jural assemblies, forming our lawful state jural assemblies, and finally, choosing fiduciary deputies to convene an actual Continental Congress to act in behalf of the states on the land. 

There’s a lot of work in front of us and the members of the Bar Associations will be trying to gainsay and discourage and disparage our efforts to keep us from doing it every step of the way.  The ascendancy of the people’s government will spell the doom of their own hegemony, for while they have been claiming to be our stewards, we have been defrauded of our rights and our sovereignty, our land and our labor.

When we appear in our true capacities, their claims against us fail— and they are revealed to be faithless, dishonest, self-interested servants of the British Monarch and British Crown engaged in illegally pillaging American public trusts.  It is completely understandable that the members of the Bar Associations would try to portray us as “Tin Hats” and seek to hide from these facts to avoid their own guilt and culpability, but the facts are nonetheless the facts.

Whatever government they are running on our shores, it isn’t our government.  It has nothing to do with us and it has no right whatsoever to make any claims against us or our assets, no ability to regulate us, no public delegation of authority to rule over us and no valid private contract to do so, either.   

The American Bar Association is running the biggest racketeering scheme in history on our shores and getting away with it, simply because millions of Americans are still asleep, still waiting for “George” to do it all for them.

This is your 2017 wake up call. 

A dozen times a day I have people asking me — what’s going on?  And I turn to the culprit and say, “I dunno.  What are you making happen?” 

George Washington has been dead over 200 years.  There’s nobody here but us chickens. 

If you want to see things change for the better in 2017, get busy and make them change. 

Declare and record your lawful political status.  Expatriate from any presumption of federal citizenship.  Rescind all voter registrations and powers of attorney issued effective with your first birthday.  Create a witnessed record of your action and establish it either by publication in the local newspapers or recording with the county land recorder’s office.

You and like-minded people in your county are now ready to convene your actual county jural assembly and to choose among yourselves a county sheriff to enforce the organic and public law, justices of the peace to run your American Common Law courts, and all the other county offices you may need or see fit to create. 

Having restored your county government, it is time to do the outreach and gather together the other counties to restore the lawful and actual state government. 

It’s a lot of thankless work, but it has to be done.

The other thing that you can do is to support those who support you.  The Living Law Firm and the Research Groups need ongoing funding to continue their vital work.  Some of our best people are men in their 30’s and 40’s with young families to support and they have given up lucrative careers as attorneys  to do the right thing.  Others are retirees on fixed incomes who are traveling many miles on research assignments and having to pay for certified copies of documents out of their own pockets.

All of these people are continuing the work despite being attacked on every side by paid agents of these rogue federal corporations and harassed by their hired mercenaries acting under color of law.  If all you can do is send these guys $5 and a prayer, at least do what you can do. 

I want to thank all those who have taken the plunge and made the commitment to take action in their own behalf and in behalf of their country in 2016.  I want to thank all those who have taken the time to read and think for themselves. I am deeply grateful to fellow researchers near and far—from Queensland and Alberta, from Glasgow and Mombasa, from New York and Shreveport and many other states and places throughout the world where men still cherish freedom.

Happy 2017 to you all!

See this article and over 400 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

Incrementalism, Regionalism and Revolution

December 15th, 2016 by

http://americanpolicy.org/2016/12/15/incrementalism-regionalism-and-revolution/?mc_cid=018dae2700&mc_eid=1fcd84cb2c

11-11-2016-3-13-54-pm

by Kathleen Marquardt

This is an article I wrote in 2012, and I am running it now in hopes that those who think Trump is our knight in shining armor and is going to wipe out all the evil/anti-western culture things that are now in our government policies. Even if he tries, he can’t. These policies are embedded in every level of local, state, and federal government. We can hope that he is able to steer the ship of state away from the far left it has been going in. But, we the people will still have the job of getting these policies out of our local governments, some of which have been part of our laws and regulations for over 100 years.

revolution – (rev-loo-sh-n)
1 a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system.
 ( the Revolution) the American Revolution.
 (often the Revolution) (in Marxism) the class struggle that is expected to lead to political change and the triumph of communism.

How many times have you heard someone say, “They (government) will only get my guns over my dead body.” Or, “Don’t worry, we patriots are locked, loaded and ready; we will save the Republic,”? Or “I HAVE MY GUNS AND AMMO, WHEN THEY COME TO GET THEM WITHOUT “CAUSE” THEY SHOULD PACK A LUNCH AND BRING BODY BAGS!” I spent some time wondering when all this was going to be sparked; what was going to be the incident that would bring about an uprising of the people.

To all those who carry that sentiment in their hearts, sorry, you are way too late. The globalists have been taking away our rights and conditioning us for slavery over the past hundred years. They bypassed the revolution and have co-opted us with barely a whimper. The sparks are many but way too small to be noticed by the naked eye.

Oh, there are plenty who can see exactly what is going on and can see who are the perpetrators of this take-over of America. But most of America is just wondering what hit them. If it could be explained in sound bites, we might get somewhere but the answer is not terribly complicated — just long.

So how did we get co-opted, and how did it start so long ago? I won’t go to the beginning. To know the early history of the American road to serfdom, read Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A. 1884-1966 by Rose L. Martin (Jan 1, 1966), or The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by G. Edward Griffin (May 1998). There are many more books and also videos that expose the early foundations of our downfall.

The result of Fabian planning, or better put, scheming is something called Communitarianism. This is the version of Collectivism or Socialism that is being foisted on the entire world. A simple definition is that the rights of the individual must be balanced against the interests of society as a whole. Where have we heard that before? We have been pummeled with the social justice notion of promoting the common good over that of the individual; that we must think of the community, the earth, our global neighbors, everything but us and our individual freedoms and rights.

But as Tibor Machan pointed out in 1991, “Communitarians wish to place community and individual on a collision course, saying there is some kind of balance that is needed between the rights of individuals and the rights of the community. But if we consider that “community” means simply a lot of other people than oneself, this makes for majority rule. If we consider that such other people usually leave it to a few who will speak out in their behalf, we will have a few community representatives dictating to the rest of us what we must do and what our “responsibilities” are. Communitarians are interested in diminishing the decision-making power of people as individuals. Yet, it is just such power that is required for a morally responsible life, including one that does full justice to our moral responsibilities to others.” [Link]

But that presupposes those in power care whether their form of governance promotes responsible behavior. The globalists or Communitarians are saddled with having a desired outcome (the reduction of 85% of the people on the planet, making slaves of the rest and taking all the land in the world for themselves {nothing about responsible behavior}) but, because that outcome might enrage most of the populace, they must disguise their desired end in touchy, feel-good doublespeak so that the people will not only accept it but use it as their guiding light. So far they have achieved their aims far better and easier than one would hope by using the environment as the club to beat us with: if you don’t quit using air conditioning . . . if you don’t quit building fences . . . if you don’t quit making dust you are going to destroy the earth. (At least they have quit with the global warming scare for the most part.)

Regionalism is the means to complete the final stage of taking our private property rights from us and firmly embed us in Communitarianism. It started in the 60s with Urban Renewal and Workable Programs for Community Development. Under Urban Renewal there were two types: redevelopment and rehabilitation. In redevelopment, “the land and its title move from the owner to the local public urban renewal agency (LPA). Formerly taxed, the property becomes tax-exempt and ceases to bear a share of the city expenses. The owner is out. The LPA may: (a) sell the land to a redeveloper, (b) retain the land for parks, streets, and other public uses or lease it out.”[1]

Under urban renewal rehabilitation, “the land title remains with the owner (theoretically). Actually, due to urban renewal punishment, most property owners are forced out, losing their land and title. The “fix up” idea is put in motion under urban renewal conservation. Forced to comply, homeowners may either choose to knuckle under to years of debt and interest, or they may sell cut-rate and move out.”[2]

But as Jo Hindman pointed out in her book, “planning assistance from the Federal government has been readily available to local communities which subscribe to urban renewal’s . . . city razing-rebuilding” since the National Housing Act of 1949 was passed. That was over 50 years ago and it wasn’t the first means of achieving their evil ends.

Today the globalists are using the very same means, sometimes calling them by different names — Wildlands Project, Livable Communities — but often using the same ones, i.e., urban renewal, preservation. We are to live in Smart Growth Communities, the designs of which were originally designed by Communists for East Germany. At least one-half of our own country will be “off limits” to humans; of the rest much will be wildlife corridors and buffer zones. We will be relegated to human settlement areas — zoos for humans as the wildlife roams free.

We rail about “them” and want to “throw the bums out” of office. But who are the bums? The Democrats? Yes. And the Republicans. As Dr. John Coleman says, “In every election since Calvin Coolidge ran for the White House, the Committee of 300* has been able to plant its agents in key positions in government so that it matters not who gets the White House post. For example, every one of the candidates who ran for the Presidency, from the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt, were selected, some like to call it (sic) ‘hand-picked,’ by the Council on Foreign Relations. . ..”[3]

We, America and the UN, are fighting wars around the world. None of them legitimate; all of them for the same reason as taking our property — to bring us to a One World Government. After WW1, the winning powers rearranged much of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, putting rival sects and peoples together and telling them to form governments and get on with life. For a long time I wondered why intelligent people would do this; why Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds would be expected to live in peaceful coexistence for ever after. Then I realized that it must be by design; the globalists WERE too intelligent to do it by mistake. The globalists want strife and turmoil in those areas. They want to be able to use the excuse of instilling Democracy to go in and make war. Read 1984 again to comprehend their thinking.

All of this is being done slowly, like water on a rock, wearing away at our property rights and our freedom. They offer no scenarios where it would be understandable to “lock and load.” They are far too sinister and devious. Many of the same people who say “over my dead body,” have fallen for the ruses the globalist use to relieve them of their land. They don’t realize when the key moment is happening and they are succumbing to the oily talk of facilitators and their shills, the bureaucrats and the Non-governmental Organizations working hand in hand to relieve us of everything we hold dear — our lives and liberty.

Our values, attitudes and beliefs are being brainwashed out of our children in school, on TV, in the playground. The belief system that made America, call it Western Culture or Judeo-Christianity, is anathema to those who would rule the world. In the Declaration of Interdependence (a nice play on words?) it is stated:

Moral codes that prevail today are often rooted in ancient parochial and tribal loyalties. Absolutistic moral systems emerged from the values of the rural and nomadic societies of the past; they provide little useful guidance for our post-modern world. We need to draw on the moral wisdom of the past, but we also need to develop a new, revisionary ethic that employs rational methods of inquiry appropriate to the world of the future, an ethic that respects the dignity and freedom of each person but that also expresses a larger concern for humanity as a whole. The basic imperative face by humankind today is the need to develop a world-wide ethical awareness of our mutual interdependence and a willingness to modify time-hardened attitudes that prevent such consensus.

Yes, we are in need of a new moral code, according to the globalists; one that is not absolutistic so obviously moral relativity is wanted in the New World Order. While they say that they wish to show respect for the “dignity and freedom of each person,” they add that a big need is “a larger concern for humanity as a whole.” Social Justice wrought large. Our “time-hardened attitudes,” the Judeo-Christian ethics of our Forefathers, must be eradicated.

To introduce you to one of the “they” of the globalist/Communitarian useful idiots, here is a description of Amitai Etzioni who works, as Niki Raapana tells it, “deftly behind the scenes” on the obscure Communitarian Network.

He directs “a coalition of individuals and organizations who have come together to shore up the moral, social, and political environment. We are a nonsectarian, nonpartisan, transnational association…The Communitarian Network investigates issues and policies such as the balance between rights and responsibilities in society, community justice, multiculturalism, the community’s moral voice, and developing global society.” The buzzwords of sustainable development, and all of them are being used, very successful, to destroy property rights and individual freedom yet they are the accepted lexicon of today’s world.

In 1964, John Stormer wrote None Dare Call It Treason which, like Jo Hindman and others, told us what was happening, how our birthright was being sold to the lowest bidder. Look at just one of the things he told us:

A key “piece” in the blueprint for revolution described by Senator Jenner is an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution which permits the Constitution to be changed — or even abolished — by a treaty. Article VI provides:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in State shall be bond thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding.

As interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, this means that treaties supersede the Constitution.[4]

In the past 50 years we have seen treaties used to make law and change the law of the U.S. to be more in line with UN sentiments, an early one being the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Since then there have been so many Treaties and Protocols (a treaty or international agreement that supplements a previous treaty or international agreement.

A protocol can amend the previous treaty, or add additional provisions.) that the normal person cannot keep up with them. Just a few that affect us especially because they are being used to destroy the Constitution are: UN Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm 1972) Brundtland Commission Report, 1983 Our Common Future, 1987 Earth Summit (1992) Rio Declaration on Environment and Development Agenda 21 (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) ICPD Programme of Action (1994) Earth Charter Lisbon Principles UN Millennium Declaration (2000) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). These are some of the treaties relating to Agenda 21.

Between the incrementalism and regionalism, the globalists or Communitarians have executed a revolution; one realized without a shot being fired (other than all the mayhem committed in the Middle East as the byproduct of the world-change). So that is the revolution that has taken place and is still going on — executed not by patriots but by tyrants; executed not to restore the republic but to destroy it once and for all.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

10-19-2016-9-17-36-am2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

How Americas Cities May Explode In Violence

December 12th, 2016 by

https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/bracken-when-the-music-stops-how-americas-cities-may-explode-in-violence/

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

I have been saving this article since 12 09 03 for the event I saw coming that would surely trigger a mass uprising in American Cities. The event I predicted is the loss of currency and total reliance on digital credits, or in truth (TOTAL PURCHING CONTROL) BY OUR GOVERNMENT. Remember this as long as you live! When you are unable to buy and sell with cash, you are totally at the mercy of your government. They can starve you of everything you need to survive with the flick of a switch. And for you stupid government lovers, the less inhibited, infuriated government dependents will show no mercy. You will be on your own and if you trust the military to help you, just remember, they are afraid of everyone in that scenario.  Just raising your voice will get you shot.  Everyone will be in survival mode and this has been proven time after time. SO! If you do not raise holy hell with the Banking Cartel and the government, they will steal your life by stealing your money. You mean nothing to them, as they consider you as the scum of the earth, and are only loyal to The International Investment Banking Cartel. They have tried for generations to bury us with debt, and every kind of statutes (LAWS) so we would be too intimidated to fight back, but nothing can help you if there is no access to hard cash. Tell your representatives you will shit on their families graves if they outlaw cash. And if anyone tries to take your weapons away, take em out!

12-12-2016-11-26-09-am

Illustration: Bracken’s CW2 Cube

By Matt Bracken:

In response to recent articles in mainstream military journals discussing the use of the U.S. Army to quell insurrections on American soil, I offer an alternate vision of the future. Instead of a small town in the South as the flash point, picture instead a score of U.S. cities in the thrall of riots greater than those experienced in Los Angeles in 1965 (Watts), multiple cities in 1968 (MLK assassination), and Los Angeles again in 1992 (Rodney King). New Yorkers can imagine the 1977 blackout looting or the 1991 Crown Heights disturbance. In fact, the proximate spark of the next round of major riots in America could be any from a long list cribbed from our history.

We have seen them all before, and we shall see them all again as history rhymes along regardless of the century or the generation of humankind nominally in control of events. But the next time we are visited by widespread, large-scale urban riots, a dangerous new escalation may be triggered by a fresh vulnerability: It’s estimated that the average American home has less than two weeks of food on hand. In poor minority areas, it may be much less. What if a cascading economic crisis, even a temporary one, leads to millions of EBT (electronic benefit transfer) cards flashing nothing but ERROR? This could also be the result of deliberate sabotage by hackers, or other technical system failures. Alternatively, the government might pump endless digits into the cards in a hopeless attempt to outpace future hyperinflation. The government can order the supermarkets to honor the cards, and it can even set price controls, but history’s verdict is clear: If suppliers are paid only with worthless scrip or blinking digits, the food will stop.

STEP ONE: FLASH MOB LOOTING

In my scenario, the initial riots begin spontaneously across affected urban areas, as SNAP (supplemental nutrition assistance program) and other government welfare recipients learn that their EBT cards no longer function. This sudden revelation will cause widespread anger, which will quickly lead to the flash-mob looting of local supermarkets and other businesses. The media will initially portray these “food riots” as at least partly justifiable. Sadly, millions of Americans have been made largely, or even entirely, dependent on government wealth transfer payments to put food on their tables.

A new social contract has been created, where bread and circuses buy a measure of peace in our minority-populated urban zones. In the era of ubiquitous big-screen cable television, the internet and smart phones, the circus part of the equation is never in doubt as long as the electricity flows. But the bread is highly problematic. Food must be delivered the old-fashioned way: physically. Any disruption in the normal functioning of the EBT system will lead to food riots with a speed that is astonishing. This will inevitably happen when our unsustainable, debt-fueled binge party finally stops, and the music is over. Now that the delivery of free or heavily subsidized food is perceived by tens of millions of Americans to be a basic human right, the cutoff of “their” food money will cause an immediate explosion of rage. When the hunger begins to bite, supermarkets, shops and restaurants will be looted, and initially the media will not condemn the looting. Unfortunately, this initial violence will only be the start of a dangerous escalation.

The ransacked supermarkets, convenience stores, ATMs and gas stations will not be restocked during this period due to the precarious security situation. A single truck loaded with food or gasoline would be perceived to be a Fort Knox on wheels and subject to immediate attack unless heavily protected by powerfully armed security forces, but such forces will not be available during this chaotic period. Under those conditions, resupply to the urban areas cannot and will not take place. The downward spiral of social and economic dysfunction will therefore both accelerate and spread from city to city. These delays, in turn, will lead to more riots with the constant underlying demand that hungry people be fed, one way or another.

Catch-22, anyone? When these demands do not bring the desired outcome, the participants will ratchet up the violence, hoping to force action by the feckless state and national governments.

The “food riots” will be a grass-roots movement of the moment born out of hunger and desperation. It will not be dependent upon leaders or an underlying organization, although they could certainly add to the sauce. Existing cell phone technology provides all the organization a flash mob needs. Most of the mobs will consist of minority urban youths, termed MUYs in the rest of this essay. Which minority doesn’t matter; each urban locale will come with its own unique multi-ethnic dynamic.

Some locales will divide upon religious or political lines, but they will not be the dominant factors contributing to conflict. In the American context, the divisions will primarily have an ethnic or racial context, largely because that makes it easy to sort out the sides at a safe distance. No need to check religious or political affiliation at a hundred yards when The Other is of a different color.

We Americans are all about doing things the easy way, so, sadly, visible racial and ethnic features will form the predominant lines of division.

Would that it were not so, but reality is reality, even when it’s is a bitch.

Especially then.

NEXT STEP: FLASH MOB RIOTS

In order to highlight their grievances and escalate their demands for an immediate resumption of government benefits, the MUY flash mobs will next move their activities to the borders of their ethnic enclaves. They will concentrate on major intersections and highway interchanges where non-MUY suburban commuters must make daily passage to and from what forms of employment still exist. People making a living will still be using those roads to get to where they earn their daily bread.

The results of these clashes will frequently resemble the intersection of Florence and Normandie during the Rodney King riots in 1992, where Reginald Denny was pulled out of his truck’s cab and beaten nearly to death with a cinder block. If you don’t remember it, watch it on Youtube. Then imagine that scene with the mob-making accelerant of texting and other social media technology added to stoke the fires. Instead of a few dozen thugs terrorizing the ambushed intersections, in minutes there will be hundreds.

Rioters will throw debris such as shopping carts and trash cans into the intersection, causing the more timid drivers to pause. The mobs will swarm the lines of trapped cars once they have stopped. Traffic will be forced into gridlock for blocks in all directions. Drivers and passengers of the wrong ethnic persuasions will be pulled from their vehicles to be beaten, robbed, and in some cases raped and/or killed. It will be hyper-violent and overtly racial mob behavior, on a massive and undeniable basis.

Some of those trapped in their cars will try to drive out of the area, inevitably knocking down MUY pedestrians and being trapped by even more outraged MUYs. The commuters will be dragged out of their cars and kicked or beaten to death. Other suburban commuters will try to shoot their way out of the lines of stopped cars, and they will meet the same grim fate once they run out of bullets and room to escape.

The mob will be armed with everything from knives, clubs and pistols to AK-47s. A bloodbath will result. These unlucky drivers and their passengers will suffer horribly, and some of their deaths will be captured on traffic web cameras. Later, these terrible scenes will be released or leaked by sympathetic government insiders and shown by the alternative media, which continue to expand as the traditional media become increasingly irrelevant.

Implausible, you insist?

This grim tableau is my analysis of age-old human behavior patterns, adding flash mobs and 2012 levels of racial anger to the old recipe. Early-teenage MUYs today are frequently playing “The Knockout Game” on full bellies, just for kicks, and proudly uploading the videos. They and their older peers can be expected to do far worse when hunger and the fear of starvation enter their physical, mental, and emotional equations. The blame for their hunger will be turned outward against the greater society, and will be vented at first hand against any non-MUY who falls into their grasp while they are in the thrall of mob hysteria. These episodes of mass psychology we will refer to as “flash mob riots”, “wilding”, or some other new name.

THE OFFICIAL POLICE RESPONSE TO FLASH MOB RIOTS

To gear up for even a single “Florence and Normandie on steroids” flash mob street riot, city police departments will require an hour or longer to stage their SWAT teams and riot squads in position to react. Ordinary patrol cars in small numbers will not venture anywhere near such roiling masses of hysterical rioters, not even to perform rescues. Those citizens trapped in their cars cannot expect timely assistance from local or state authorities.

Even in the first days of widespread riots, when the police forces are well rested, it might take several hours to mount a response sufficient to quell the disturbance and restore order to even one major street intersection riot. In the meantime, scores of innocent commuters will have been attacked, with many of them injured or killed and left at the scene. It will be a law enforcement nightmare to quell the disturbance, mop up lingering rioters, restore security, and bring medical attention to the living and get medical examiners to the dead. And each jurisdiction will face potentially dozens of such scenes, thanks to the ability for MUYs to cross-communicate at will using their wireless devices.

The far more difficult challenge for the police is that by the time they are suited in riot gear, armed and geared up to sweep the intersection, it will probably be empty of rioters. The police, with their major riot squad reaction times measured in hours, will be fighting flash mobs that materialize, cause mayhem, and evaporate in only fractions of hours. This rapid cycle time is a clear lesson taken from massive riots by immigrant French Muslim MUYs in their own religious enclaves and bordering areas.

The American flash mob riot will exist almost entirely inside the law enforcement OODA (observe, orient, decide, act) loop. In other words, the rioters will have a much quicker reaction time than the police. Until fairly recently, superior police communications meant that they could use their radio networks as a force multiplier. With their networking advantage and cohesive reactions both within a department and among cooperating local agencies, police could act as shepherds guiding or dispersing a wayward stampeding flock.

Today, the mob has the greater advantage, immediately spreading word of every police preparation by text and Tweet, even in advance of the police movement. Attempts by the authorities to stop the flash mobs by blocking and jamming wireless transmissions will have limited success.

It is at this point that the situation spirals out of control.

The enraged mobs in urban America will soon recognize that their spontaneous street riots cannot be stopped by the police, and then they will grow truly fearsome. For the police, it will be a losing game of Whack-a-Mole, with riots breaking out and dispersing at a speed they cannot hope to match. The violence will spread to previously unaffected cities as an awareness of law enforcement impotence is spread by television and social media. After a few days, the police forces will be exhausted and demoralized. As the violence intensifies and spreads, and in the absence of any viable security arrangements, supermarkets and other stores will not be restocked, leaving the MUYs even more desperate and angry than before. The increasing desperation born of worsening hunger will refuel the escalating spiral of violence.

Nor will violent conflict be only between the inhabitants of the urban areas and the suburbs. The international record of conflict in tri-ethnic cities is grim, making the old bi-racial dichotomy formerly seen in America seem stable by comparison. In tri-ethnic cities the perceived balance of power is constantly shifting, with each side in turn feeling outnumbered and outmuscled. Temporary truces, betrayals and new alliances follow in rapid succession, removing any lingering sense of social cohesion.

The former Yugoslavia, with its Catholic, Orthodox and Muslim divisions, comes starkly to mind. The Lebanese Civil War between the Christians, Sunnis, Shiites and Druze raged across Beirut (at one time known as “The Paris of the Middle East”) for fifteen brutal years. Once a city turns on itself and becomes a runaway engine of self-destruction, it can be difficult to impossible to switch off the process and return to normal pre-conflict life. It’s not inconceivable that the United States could produce a dozen Sarajevos or Beiruts, primarily across racial instead of religious divides.

Vehicle traffic by non-minority suburban commuters through adjoining minority areas will virtually halt, wrecking what is left of the local economy. Businesses will not open because employees will not be able to travel to work safely. Businesses in minority areas, needless to say, will be looted. “Gentrified” enclaves of affluent suburbanites within or near the urban zones will suffer repeated attacks, until their inhabitants flee.

Radically disaffected minorities will hold critical infrastructure corridors through their areas hostage against the greater society. Highways, railroad tracks, pipe and power lines will all be under constant threat, or may be cut in planned or unplanned acts of raging against “the system.” As long as security in the urban areas cannot be restored, these corridors will be under threat. Even airports will not be immune. Many of them have been absorbed into urban areas, and aircraft will come under sporadic fire while taking off and landing.

In the absence of fresh targets of value blundering into their areas, and still out of food, MUYs will begin to forage beyond their desolated home neighborhoods and into suburban borderlands. “Safe” supermarkets and other stores will be robbed in brazen commando-like gang attacks. Carjackings and home invasions will proliferate madly. As I have discussed in my essay “The Civil War Two Cube,” so-called “transitional” and mixed-ethnic areas will suffer the worst violence. These neighborhoods will become utterly chaotic killing zones, with little or no help coming from the overstretched police, who will be trying to rest up for their next shift on riot squad duty, if they have not already deserted their posts to take care of their own families.

THE SUBURBAN ARMED VIGILANTE RESPONSE

In the absence of an effective official police response to the exploding levels of violence, suburbanites will first hastily form self-defense forces to guard their neighborhoods—especially ones located near ethnic borders. These ubiquitous neighborhood armed defense teams will often have a deep and talented bench from which to select members, and they will not lack for volunteers.

Since 9-11, hundreds of thousands of young men (and more than a few women) have acquired graduate-level educations in various aspects of urban warfare. In the Middle East these troops were frequently tasked with restoring order to urban areas exploding in internecine strife. Today these former military men and women understand better than anyone the life-or-death difference between being armed and organized versus unarmed and disorganized.

Hundreds of thousands if not millions of veterans currently own rifles strikingly similar to those they carried in the armed forces, lacking only the full-automatic selector switch. Their brothers, sisters, parents, friends, and neighbors who did not serve in the military are often just as familiar with the weapons, if not the tactics. Today the AR-pattern rifle (the semi-automatic civilian version of the familiar full-auto-capable M-16 or M-4) is the most popular model of rifle in America, with millions sold in the past decade. Virtually all of them produced in the past decade have abandoned the old M-16’s signature “carrying handle” rear iron sight for a standardized sight mounting rail, meaning that virtually every AR sold today can be easily equipped with an efficient optical sight. Firing the high-velocity 5.56×45 mm cartridge and mounted with a four-power tactical sight, a typical AR rifle can shoot two-inch groups at one hundred yards when fired from a steady bench rest. That translates to shooting eight- to ten-inch groups at four hundred yards.

Four hundred yards is a long walk. Pace it off on a straight road, and observe how tiny somebody appears at that distance. Yet a typical AR rifle, like those currently owned by millions of American citizens, can hit a man-sized target at that range very easily, given a stable firing platform and a moderate level of shooting ability.

And there are a far greater number of scoped bolt-action hunting rifles in private hands in the United States. Keep this number in mind: based on deer stamps sold, approximately twenty million Americans venture into the woods every fall armed with such rifles, fully intending to shoot and kill a two-hundred-pound mammal. Millions of these scoped bolt-action deer rifles are quite capable of hitting a man-sized target at ranges out to and even beyond a thousand yards, or nearly three-fifths of a mile. In that context, the 500-yard effective range of the average semi-auto AR-pattern rifle is not at all remarkable.

So, we have millions of men and women with military training, owning rifles similar to the ones they used in combat operations overseas from Vietnam to Afghanistan. Many of these Soldiers and Marines have special operations training. They are former warriors with experience at conducting irregular warfare and counter-terrorism operations in dangerous urban environments. They are the opposite of unthinking robots: their greatest military talent is looking outside the box for new solutions. They always seek to “over-match” their enemies, using their own advantages as force multipliers while diminishing or concealing their weaknesses. These military veterans are also ready, willing and able to pass on their experience and training to interested students in their civilian circles.

Let’s return to our hypothetical Florence and Normandie intersection, but this time with hundreds of rioters per city block, instead of mere dozens. Among the mobs are thugs armed with pistols and perhaps even AK-47s equipped with standard iron sights, and except in rare cases, these rifles have never been “zeroed in” on a target range. In other words, past a medium distance of fifty to a hundred yards, these MUY shooters will have little idea where their fired bullets will strike—nor will they care. Typically, most of the rioters armed with a pistol, shotgun or an iron-sighted rifle could not hit a mailbox at a hundred yards unless by luck. Inside that distance, any non-MUY could be at immediate risk of brutal death at the hands of an enraged mob, but beyond that range, the mob will pose much less danger.

Taking this imbalance in effective ranges of the firearms most likely to be available to both sides, certain tactical responses are sure to arise, and ranking near the top will be the one described next.

THE SNIPER AMBUSH: THE NEW TACTIC OF CHOICE

The sniper ambush will predictably be used as a counter to rampaging mobs armed only with short- to medium-range weapons. This extremely deadly trick was developed by our war fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan, taking advantage of the significant effective range and firepower of our scoped 5.56mm rifles. Tactics such as the sniper ambush may not be seen early in the civil disorder, but they will surely arise after a steady progression of atrocities attributed to rampaging MUYs.

Street intersection flash mob riots will not be the only type of violence exploding during periods of civil disorder. As mentioned earlier, the number and ferocity of home invasions will skyrocket, and they will be very hard to defend against. Neighborhood self-defense forces will be able to protect a group of homes if they are located on cul-de-sacs or in defensible subdivisions with limited entrances, turning them overnight into fortified gated communities. Individual homes and apartment buildings located in open grid-pattern neighborhoods with outside access from many directions will be much more difficult to defend, and the home invasions will continue.

Carjacking and other forms of armed robbery will proliferate to previously unimagined levels, leading to a total loss of confidence in the government’s ability to provide security across all social lines. Stray bullets striking pedestrians or penetrating houses will take a frightening toll, even in areas previously considered to be safe. The police will be exhausted by constant riot-squad duty, and will not even respond to reports of mere individual acts of violent criminality. They will simply be overwhelmed, and will be forced to triage their responses. The wealthy, powerful and politically well-connected will demand the lion’s share of remaining police resources, further diminishing the safety of average Americans.

In that context, neighborhood self-defense forces will form the nucleus of the armed vigilante direct action groups which will spring up next in the progression. Suburban anger will continue to build against the MUYs, who are perceived to be the originators of the home invasions and gang-level armed looting raids. Survivors of street ambushes, carjackings and home invasions will tell blood-curdling tales and show horrific scars.

The neighborhood defense teams will evolve into proactive suburban armed vigilante groups (SAVs) out of a desire to preemptively take the violence to their perceived enemies, instead of passively waiting for the next home invasion or carjacking. The SAV teams will consist of the more aggressive and gung-ho members of the self-defense forces, who met and compared notes. Often they will be young men with recent combat experience in the armed forces, who will apply their military training to the new situation. Major intersections and highway interchanges where ambush riots have previously occurred will be among the SAV targets. The SAV reaction times will be measured in minutes, compared to the hours required by major police department SWAT teams and riot squads.

A SAMPLE SNIPER AMBUSH SCENARIO

When word is received that a flash mob is forming at one of their pre-reconnoitered intersections or highway interchanges, the SAV team will assemble. Sometimes cooperating police will pass tactical intel to their civilian friends on the outside. Some clever individuals will have exploited their technical know-how and military experience to build real-time intel collection tools, such as private UAVs. Police will have access to urban security camera footage showing MUYs moving barricade materials into position—a normal prerequisite to a flash mob riot intended to stop traffic. Tip-offs to the vigilantes will be common, and where the networks are still functioning, citizens may still be able to access some video feeds. Sometimes, police will even join the SAV teams, incognito and off-duty, blurring the teams into so-called “death squads.”

The operation I will describe (and it’s only one of dozens that will be tried) uses two ordinary pickup trucks and eight fighters. Two riflemen are lying prone in the back of each truck, facing rearward, with removable canvas covers concealing their presence. Their semi-automatic, scoped rifles are supported at their front ends on bipods for very accurate shooting. A row of protective sandbags a foot high is between them and the raised tailgate.

In the cab are a driver and a spotter in the passenger seat who also serves as the vehicle’s 360-degree security. The two trucks don’t ever appear on the same stretch of road, but coordinate their movements using one-word brevity codes over small FRS walkie-talkie radios. Each truck has a series of predetermined elevated locations where the intersection in question will lie between 200 and 500 yards away. Each truck is totally nondescript and forgettable, the only detail perhaps being the non-MUY ethnicity of the suburbanite driver and spotter driving relatively near to a riot in progress.

By the time the two SAV pickup trucks arrive at their firing positions on different streets and oriented ninety degrees to one another, the flash mob riot is in full swing. A hundred or more of the rampaging youths are posturing and throwing debris into traffic in order to intimidate some cars into stopping. The riflemen in the backs of the pickups are waiting for this moment and know what to expect, trusting their spotters and drivers to give them a good firing lane. The spotters in each truck issue a code word on their radios when they are in final position. The tailgates are swung down, and the leader among the riflemen initiates the firing. All-around security is provided by the driver and spotter.

Lying prone and using their bipods for support, the shooters have five to ten degrees of pan or traverse across the entire intersection. Individual rioters are clearly visible in the shooters’ magnified optical scopes. Each of the four snipers has a plan to shoot from the outside of the mob toward the middle, driving participants into a panicked mass. The left-side shooters start on the left side and work to the middle, engaging targets with rapid fire, about one aimed shot per two seconds. Since the two trucks are set at ninety degrees to one another, very complete coverage will be obtained, even among and between the stopped vehicles.

The result is a turkey shoot. One magazine of thirty aimed shots per rifle is expended in under a minute, a coded cease-fire is called on the walkie-talkies, and the trucks drive away at the speed limit. The canvas covering the truck beds contains the shooters’ spent brass. If the trucks are attacked from medium or close range, the canvas can be thrown back and the two snipers with their semi-automatic rifles or carbines will add their firepower to that of the driver and spotter.

Back at the intersection, complete panic breaks out among the rioters as a great number of bullets have landed in human flesh. Over a score have been killed outright, and many more scream in pain for medical attention they will not receive in time. The sniper ambush stops the flash mob cold in its tracks as the uninjured flee in terror, leaving their erstwhile comrades back on the ground bleeding. The commuters trapped in their vehicles may have an opportunity to escape.

This type of sniper ambush and a hundred variations on the theme will finally accomplish what the police could not: put an end to mobs of violent rioters making the cities through-streets and highways impassible killing zones. Would-be rioters will soon understand it to be suicidal to cluster in easily visible groups and engage in mob violence, as the immediate response could come at any time in the form of aimed fire from hundreds of yards away. Even one rifleman with a scoped semi-auto can break up a medium-sized riot.

Many citizens will take to carrying rifles and carbines in their vehicles, along with their pistols, so that if their cars are trapped in an ambush they will have a chance to fight their way out. If their vehicle is stopped outside the immediate area of the flash mob, they will be able to direct accurate fire at the rioters from a few hundred yards away. Inside the fatal hundred-yard radius, unlucky suburbanite drivers and passengers pulled from their cars will still be brutally violated, but the occurrences of large mob-driven street ambushes will be much less frequent once long-range retaliation becomes a frequent expectation.

THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO VIGILANTISM

Where they will be unable to respond swiftly or effectively to the outbreaks of street riots by MUY flash mobs, the police and federal agents will respond vigorously to the deadly but smaller vigilante attacks. These sniper ambushes and other SAV attacks will be called acts of domestic terrorism and mass murder by government officials and the mainstream media. A nearly seamless web of urban and suburban street cameras will reveal some of the SAV teams by their vehicles, facial recognition programs, and other technical means. Some early arrests will be made, but the vigilantes will adapt to increasing law enforcement pressure against them by becoming cleverer about their camouflage, most often using stolen cars and false uniforms and masks during their direct-action missions. Observe Mexico today for ideas on how this type of dirty war is fought.

Eventually, the U.S. Army itself might be called upon to put out all the social firestorms in our cities, restore order and security, pacify the angry masses, feed the starving millions, get vital infrastructure operating again, and do it all at once in a dozen American Beiruts, Sarajevos and Mogadishus.

Good luck to them, I say.

A few hundred “Active IRA” tied down thousands of British troops in one corner of a small island for decades. The same ratios have served the Taliban well over the past decade while fighting against the combined might of NATO. Set aside for a moment the angry starving millions trapped in the urban areas, and the dire security issues arising thereof. Just to consider the official reaction to vigilantism separately, it’s unlikely that any conceivable combinations of local and state police, federal law enforcement, National Guard or active-duty Army actions could neutralize or eliminate tens of thousands of former special operations troops intent on providing their own form of security. Millions of Americans are already far better armed and trained than a few hundred IRA or Taliban ever were. And the police and Army would not be operating from secure fire bases, their families living in total safety thousands of miles away in a secure rear area. In this scenario, there is no rear area, and every family member, anywhere, would be at perpetual risk of reprisal actions by any of the warring sides.

In this hyper-dangerous environment, new laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in vehicles would be ignored as the illegitimate diktat of dictatorship, just when the Second Amendment is needed more than ever. Police or military conducting searches for firearms at checkpoints would themselves become targets of vigilante snipers. Serving on anti-firearms duty would be seen as nothing but pure treason by millions of Americans who took the oath to defend the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. Politicians who did not act in the security interest of their local constituents as a result of political correctness or other reasons would also be targeted.

A festering race war with police and the military in the middle taking fire from both sides could last for many years, turning many American cities into a living hell. Remember history: when the British Army landed in Northern Ireland in 1969, they were greeted with flowers and applause from the Catholics. The Tommys were welcomed as peacekeepers who would protect them from Protestant violence. That soon changed. Likewise with our tragic misadventure in Lebanon back in 1982 and 1983. Well-intended referees often find themselves taking fire from all sides. It’s as predictable as tomorrow’s sunrise. Why would it be any different when the U.S. Army is sent to Los Angeles, Chicago or Philadelphia to break apart warring ethnic factions?

For a long time after these events, it will be impossible for the warring ethnic groups to live together or even to mingle peacefully. Too much rage and hatred will have been built up on all sides of our many American multi-ethnic fault lines. The new wounds will be raw and painful for many years to come, as they were in the South for long after the Civil War. The fracturing of the urban areas, divided by no-man’s-lands, will also hinder economic redevelopment for many years because the critical infrastructure corridors will remain insecure.

Eventually, high concrete “Peace Walls” like those in Belfast, Northern Ireland, will be installed where the different ethnic groups live in close proximity. That is, if recovery to sane and civilized norms of behavior are ever regained in our lifetimes and we don’t slide into a new Dark Age, a stern and permanent tyranny, warlordism, anarchy, or any other dire outcome.

Dark Ages can last for centuries, after sinking civilizations in a vicious, downward vortex. “When the music’s over, turn out the lights,” to quote Jim Morrison of The Doors. Sometimes the lights stay out for a long time. Sometimes civilization itself is lost. Millions of EBT cards flashing zeroes might be the signal event of a terrible transformation.

It is a frightening thing to crystallize the possible outbreak of mass starvation and racial warfare into words, so that the mind is forced to confront agonizingly painful scenarios. It is much easier to avert one’s eyes and mind from the ugliness with politically correct Kumbaya bromides. In this grim essay, I am describing a brutal situation of ethnic civil war not differing much from the worst scenes from recent history in Rwanda, South Africa, Mexico, Bosnia, Iraq, and many other places that have experienced varying types and degrees of societal collapse. We all deplore the conditions that might drive us toward such a hellish outcome, and we should work unceasingly to return America to the path of true brotherhood, peace and prosperity. Race hustlers of every stripe should be condemned.

Most of us wish we could turn back the calendar to Norman Rockwell’s America. But we cannot, for that America is water long over the dam and gone from our sight, if not from our memories. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” If that is true, judging by current and even accelerating cultural shifts, we might already have passed the point of no return.

The prudent American will trim his sails accordingly.

Matt Bracken is the author of “When The Music Stops” and other essays in The Bracken Anthology, the Enemies Foreign And Domestic trilogy, and his latest novel, Castigo Cay.

Editor’s Note – 0900 EDT 14 SEPT 2012: Per Matt’s request, the second paragraph has been edited slightly to reflect the more probable government actions regarding EBT cards.

Editor’s Note – 0210 EDT 16 SEPT 2012: I have taken the liberty of taking Matt’s note below, originally posted at the end of “Coup”, and placing it here so that new readers would learn of that related essay.

Author’s Note: This essay and last week’s “What I Saw At The Coup” were both written in response to the article published on July 25, 2012 in the semi-official Small Wars Journal titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A Vision of the Future.”

My twin essays represent starkly different “visions of the future” that would-be tyrants, their hopeful henchmen and other self-deluded nimrods may want to consider, before ordering the U.S. military or federal agencies to suppress Americans.

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

The Tyranny at Standing Rock: The Governments Divide and Conquer Strategy Is Working

November 29th, 2016 by

http://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_tyranny_at_standing_rock_the_governments_divide_and_conquer_strate

9-6-2016 8-35-41 PM

By John W. Whitehead

“We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”— Benjamin Franklin, as quoted in The Works of Benjamin Franklin

Divide and conquer.

It’s one of the oldest military strategies in the books, and it’s proven to be the police state’s most effective weapon for maintaining the status quo.

How do you conquer a nation?

Distract them with football games, political circuses and Black Friday sales. Keep them focused on their differences—economic, religious, environmental, political, racial—so they can never agree on anything. And then, when they’re so divided that they are incapable of joining forces against a common threat, start picking them off one by one.

What we’re witnessing at Standing Rock, where activists have gathered to protest the Dakota Access Pipeline construction on Native American land, is just the latest incarnation of the government’s battle plan for stamping out any sparks of resistance and keeping the populace under control: battlefield tactics, military weaponry and a complete suspension of the Constitution.

Militarized police. Riot and camouflage gear. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Drones. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Concussion grenades. Arrests of journalists. Intimidation tactics. Brute force.

This is what martial law looks like, when a government disregards constitutional freedoms and imposes its will through military force.

Only this is martial law without any government body having to declare it.

This is martial law packaged as law and order and sold to the public as necessary for keeping the peace.

These overreaching, heavy-handed lessons in how to rule by force have become standard operating procedure for a government that communicates with its citizenry primarily through the language of brutality, intimidation and fear.

What Americans have failed to comprehend is that the police state doesn’t differentiate.

In the eyes of the government—whether that government is helmed by Barack Obama or Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton—there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, between blacks and whites and every shade in the middle, between Native Americans and a nation of immigrants (no matter how long we’ve been here), between the lower class and the middle and upper classes, between religious and non-religious Americans, between those who march in lockstep with the police state and those who oppose its tactics.

This is all part and parcel of the government’s plan for dealing with widespread domestic unrest, no matter the source.

2008 Army War College report revealed that “widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security.” The 44-page report goes on to warn that potential causes for such civil unrest could include another terrorist attack, “unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters.”

Subsequent reports by the Department of Homeland Security call on the government to identify, monitor and label right-wing and left-wing activists, military veterans and sovereign citizens as extremists (the words extremist and terrorist are used interchangeably in the reports).

These reports indicate that for the government, anyone seen as opposing the government—whether they’re Left, Right or somewhere in between—is labeled an extremist.

Divide and conquer.

What the government has figured out is that as long as its oppression is focused on one particular group at a time—inner city blacks, gun-toting ranchers, environmental activists, etc.—there will be no outcry from the public at large.

The liberal left will not speak up for the conservative right.

The rightwing will not speak up for the leftwing.

The economic elite will not speak up for the economically disadvantaged and vice versa.

The ranchers will not speak up for the environmentalists, and the environmentalists will not speak up for the ranchers.

The Democrats will not criticize endless wars, drone killings, militarized police, private prisons, etc., when sanctioned by their candidate. Same goes for the Republicans.

Are you starting to get the picture?

What we’re dealing with is a full-blown case of national hypocrisy.

For too long now, the American people have allowed their personal prejudices and politics to cloud their judgment and render them incapable of seeing that the treatment being doled out by the government’s lethal enforcers has remained consistent, no matter the threat.

The government’s oppressive tactics have not changed.

The same martial law maneuvers and intimidation tactics used to put down protests and muzzle journalists two years ago in Ferguson and Baltimore are being used to flat-line protesters and journalists at Standing Rock this year.

The same infiltration and surveillance of ranch activists opposing the Bureau of Land Management in Oregon and Nevada over the past several years were used against nonviolent anti-war protesters more than a decade ago. That same mindset was embodied in the use of surveillance against those who gathered for Barack Obama’s inauguration eight years ago.

The same brutality that was in full force 20-plus years ago when the government raided the Branch Davidian religious compound near Waco, Texas—targeting residents with loud music, bright lights, bulldozers, flash-bang grenades, tear gas, tanks and gunfire, and leaving 80 individuals, including two dozen children, dead—were on full display more than 50 years ago when government agents unleashed fire hoses and police dogs on civil rights protesters, children included.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The sticking point is not whether Americans must see eye-to-eye on these varied issues but whether they can agree that no one should be treated in such a fashion by their own government.

Our greatest defense against home-grown tyranny has always been our strength in numbers as a citizenry.

America’s founders hinted at it again and again. The Declaration of Independence refers to “one people.” The preamble to the Constitution opens with those three powerful words: “We the People.” Years later, the Gettysburg Address declared that we are a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Despite these stark reminders that the government exists for our benefit and was intended to serve our needs, “We the People” have yet to marshal our greatest weapon against oppression: our strength lies in our numbers.

Had 318 million Americans taken to the streets to protest the government’s SWAT team raids that left innocent children like Aiyana Jones or Baby Bou Bou dead or scarred, there would be no 80,000 SWAT team raids a year.

Had 318 million Americans raised their voices against police shootings of unarmed citizens such as Alton Sterling and Walter Scott, there would be far less use of excessive force by the police.

Had 318 million Americans stood shoulder-to-shoulder and rejected the ruling oligarchy, pork barrel legislation, profit-driven prisons, endless wars and asset forfeiture schemes, government corruption would be the exception rather than the rule.

Had 318 million Americans told the government to stop drilling through sacred Native American lands, stop spraying protesters with water cannons in below-freezing temperatures, stop using its military might to intimidate and shut down First Amendment activity, and to stop allowing Corporate America to dictate how the battle lines are drawn, there would be no Standing Rock.

Unfortunately, 318 million Americans have yet to agree on anything, especially the source of their oppression.

This is how tyrants come to power and stay in power.

Authoritarian regimes begin with incremental steps. Overcriminalization, surveillance of innocent citizens, imprisonment for nonviolent—victimless—crimes, etc. Slowly, bit by bit, the citizenry finds its freedoms being curtailed and undermined for the sake of national security.

No one speaks up for those being targeted. No one resists these minor acts of oppression. No one recognizes the indoctrination into tyranny for what it is.

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, historically this failure to speak truth to power has resulted in whole populations being conditioned to tolerate unspoken cruelty toward their fellow human beings, a bystander syndrome in which people remain silent and disengaged—mere onlookers—in the face of abject horrors and injustice.

Time has insulated us from the violence perpetrated by past regimes in their pursuit of power: the crucifixion and slaughter of innocents by the Romans, the torture of the Inquisition, the atrocities of the Nazis, the butchery of the Fascists, the bloodshed by the Communists, and the cold-blooded war machines run by the military industrial complex.

We can disassociate from such violence. We can convince ourselves that we are somehow different from the victims of government abuse. We can treat news coverage of protests such as Standing Rock and the like as just another channel to flip in our search for better entertainment. We can continue to spout empty campaign rhetoric about how great America is, despite the evidence to the contrary. We can avoid responsibility for holding the government accountable. We can zip our lips and bind our hands and shut our eyes.

In other words, we can continue to exist in a state of denial.

Whatever we do or don’t do, it won’t change the facts: the police state is here.

“There comes a time,” concluded Martin Luther King Jr., “when silence is betrayal.”

The people of Nazi Germany learned this lesson the hard way.

A German pastor who openly opposed Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in a concentration camp, Martin Niemoller warned:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

The people of the American Police State will never have any hope of fighting government tyranny if we’re busy fighting each other.

When all is said and done, the only thing we really need to agree on is that we are all Americans.

So if this isn’t your fight—if you believe that authority is more important than liberty—if you don’t agree with a particular group’s position on an issue and by your silence tacitly support the treatment meted out to them—if you think you’re a better citizen or a more patriotic American—if you want to play it safe—and if don’t want to risk getting shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton, thrown to the ground, arrested and/or labeled an extremist—then by all means, remain silent. Stand down. Cower in the face of the police. Turn your eyes away from injustice. Find any excuse to suggest that the so-called victims of the police state deserved what they got.

But remember, when that rifle (or taser, or water cannon, or bully stick) finally gets pointed in your direction—and it will—when there’s no one left to stand up for you or speak up for you, remember that you were warned.

WC: 1845

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.

Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission

John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Regardless of who you hate, and believe me I am as bad as anyone reading this, if you have any intelligence at all, then you must see that John is absolutely right on this subject. I do not support his continued allegiance to the Bar, but on this subject he has nailed it. Think for a minute about who and what you are, and consider the truth about having been brainwashed by our government controlled education and media industry’s, now just who are you loyal to? Are you stupid enough to think being a hard core liberal or conservative makes you an American? Do you call yourself an American by hating everyone but your political ideology? We are all in this shit-hole together and the Banking Cartel has no favorites. Does it not make more sense to turn your hatred on those who are responsible for manipulating the whole damn country into becoming a war zone against their neighbor? It is true that our government is a putrid agent of the Banking Cartel, and directly responsible, but just who is supporting them? Is it you? The time has come for all Americans to reject this government in all its corporate forms, and revert to the Declaration of Independence for guidance. Let the bastards know you will not stand by and be slaves to tyranny. If we had a real Republic and honest currency, the scumbags in DC would have no wind in their sails. The Media pukes would have to support us or go belly up. The military would have to choose between the Banking Cartel and their loved ones, and ditto for the killer cops. A tyrannical government is no different than the most insane killer, and needs to be done away with. Remember this, the Banking Cartel must have degenerate politicians to function, and ditto for soldiers to kill for them, so take out the bankers and protect your freedom. Call for a world wide illumination of the International Banking Cartel. Let them have no place to hide.

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

This Is How War Begins

November 19th, 2016 by

http://charleseisenstein.net/this-is-how-war-begins/

11-19-2016-8-46-11-am

 By Charles Eisenstein

“Their stupidity is amusing.”

“Stopping Trump is essential. Anyone who says otherwise is either foolish or blinded by privilege.”

“People should get hated for voting for Johnson because he is a moron.”

“Are Trump supporters too dumb to know they’re dumb?”

“Hillbots have complete inability to do anything except parrot their hero Shillary’s endless lies”

“Anyone who votes for Killary has already been drugged and taken the stupid pill.”

“They will never change.”

“Disgusting, twisted human beings.”

Anyone who reads Facebook or pretty much any political website is sure to see comments like these that dehumanize not only the opposing candidate, but the candidate’s supporters too. This polarization and vitriol, unprecedented in my lifetime, has me more concerned than the prospect of an evil candidate winning. It is as if what is really going on here is a preparation for civil war.

Dehumanization is a predecessor of war. When you see your opponents as subhuman in their morals, conscience, or intelligence, then you will have to defeat them by force. Moral or rational persuasion won’t do it. That is what the above-quoted comments imply.

The dehumanization runs top to bottom, from the headlines in major news outlets to the comments on Facebook and Twitter. Photos of political candidates chosen to provoke contempt, statements taken deliberately out of context… the no-holds-barred tactics of war. Both sides feature the most outrageous comments made by partisans of the other side, seeking to indict all of them through guilt by association. Similar to the atrocity stories used to whip up war hysteria among a pacifist public before World War One, these reports polarize the electorate and sow paranoia and distrust.

If you read only one side, you don’t know that the other side expresses the same outraged grievances as yours does. Most of my readers are probably familiar with articles about gun-toting “poll watchers” sent by Trump operatives to intimidate voters. But unless you read right-wing media, you won’t be aware of its earnest, indignant articles about agents provocateur from the Clinton camp seeking to sow violence at Trump rallies. Each side claims the other exaggerates and misconstrues. Each side is constructing a reality in which the other is hideous.

Reading right-wing and left-wing news sites side by side, one gets the impression that reality has diverged into two. I read both, in order to understand the sickness that has infected my country. Headline news in one camp is totally absent from the other. It isn’t just the interpretation of the news that is different – the two sides don’t even agree on fundamental facts. Here’s how one Facebook commentator, Amelia Bagwell, describes the experience of reading a conservative friend’s news feed: “News agencies I have never heard of with bold headlines of’Breaking News’ announcing HRC’s pending arrest. Trump is second to none in morality, decency and honor…loves Jesus…and is a perfect example of a godly family man. If the same stories are reported, they are akin to reading two different languages. We are divided not just ideologically, but at a core level of raw information.”

Such a gulf of perception inflamed by hatred presents a very dangerous situation.

I will not venture an opinion on whether the candidates themselves are hideous. We live in a system that encourages and rewards corrupt and even psychopathic behavior. What I do know, though, is that the vast majority of ordinary people are not the cartoonish caricatures of human beings that political rhetoric has made them out to be. They have an experience of life, a history, a convergence of circumstances that has brought them to their opinions. Just like you.

Statements like those quoted above create a climate for extreme measures. Take them seriously, and you have to conclude that there are an awful lot of people out there who just need to be locked up, medicated, forcibly re-educated, or maybe shot. They are reprehensible, appalling… they are deplorable.

Once the name-calling starts it is self-perpetuating, since anyone who says that you are a deplorable person will seem to you deplorable themselves. How could they be so wrong about you? How could they not see your deep humanity, the good reasons you have for voting the way you do, your sincere attempts to make the world a better place? They seem just hateful.

And so, the body politic tilts further and further into extreme polarization. This will not end well, no matter which side wins.

Dehumanizing narratives are never the truth. The truth can only be sourced from the sincere question, “What is it like to be you?” That is called compassion, and it invites skills of listening, dialog, and communicating without violence or judgement. Now there may be times when such skills fail and there is no choice but to fight. Failure is guaranteed, though, when the surrounding narrative casts the opponent as evil, twisted, disgusting, or deplorable. In that case, war is the likely result.

Can we please stop creating conditions for war? Can we please stop demonizing those who disagree with us? Can we stop the cheap and degrading psychoanalyzing of our opponents? These tactics might seem to succeed in the short term – one side or another will win – but in the end we have only strengthened the climate of hate and the mentality of war.

What can you do about it? I suggest the following: see to it that you imbue everything that you post to social media, every comment, every reply, with a spirit of compassion and respect. Do not let your pain erupt forth as an implicit call to hatred. Do not beat the drums of war.

Look, I’m all for hope and optimism. But it’s important to stay rational. These problems aren’t going away.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Hope and Optimism are for dreamers! Reality has proven that Homo Sapiens are incapable of harmonious relationships. The only sure thing in this life is it will end.

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

Trump Reopening 9/11, Reversing Rome, in Bid to Be Greatest American Steward?

November 12th, 2016 by

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/trump-reopening-911-reversing-rome-in-bid-to-be-greatest-american-steward/

11-11-2016-3-13-54-pm

By Daily Bell Staff

Trump: I’m Reopening 9/11 Investigation … “First of all, the original 9/11 investigation is a total mess and has to be reopened,” Trump said … Donald Trump believes that 9/11 has not been properly investigated and has promised to find out what really happened when he takes office in January.  Donald Trump’s plans for his first 100 days in office are raising eyebrows around the world, but of all the items on his agenda it is the reopening of the 9/11 investigation that will provide the greatest earthquake for the establishment. -YourNewsWire

Is new president-to-be Donald Trump really going to make major moves to roll back globalism?

We’ve indicated that one way or another the “establishment” wished for Donald Trump to be elected. In our view, they certainly have the power – and we think Brexit offers a similar story.

The idea is that the various military and economic disasters pent-up around the world will be released and blamed on people’s impulse to flee global technocracy.

In this way the elite takeover of the world continues under the cover of politics.

This process of inflicting disaster has already begun with the so-called riots taking place in the US. There are certainly reports these “riots” and general civil unrest are not in all cases genuine.

One can spot, perhaps, Soros funding and even “crisis actors.” But the idea is to make it clear that “populists” are bitterly resented by many if not most Americans.

Of course, Trump has little to do with populism. There is a specific globalist agenda that has been implemented around the world and certainly in America.

This agenda involves trade deals that drain away American prosperity; too-low interest rates that create inflation, stock markets crashes and ongoing depression; and a variety of rules, regulations and cover ups designed to concentrate power into fewer and fewer hands.

This agenda is what Trump is apparently taking aim at. If he follows through on  some of his recent statements and positions we can’t imagine the secret rulers of America and the West will be too happy with his ascension.

9/11 is at the bottom of much of modern globalist cover-up. It Trump reveals the truth about 9/11, the globalist movement based on in London with tentacles throughout the West will likely collapse or at least become far less powerful.

More:

Trump believes that 9/11 has not been properly investigated and he plans to get to the bottom of it. “First of all, the original 9/11 investigation is a total mess and has to be reopened,” Trump said. …

The election of Donald Trump has rocked the establishment and things are only going to get rockier for them during his first term. There is a reason George W. Bush didn’t vote for Trump in the election, leaving the presidential line blank and voting Republican down-ballot.

Trump has pledged to investigate 9/11 in a way it has not been investigated before.  For the first time 9/11 will be investigated by someone who isn’t part of the establishment, with skin in the game and plenty to lose.

Of course, despite such reports, there remains considerable skepticism on the ‘Net that Trump will follow through on a re-investigation of 9/11. For one thing, his campaign is close to Rudy Giuliani who helped apparently orchestrate the original cover-up.

In researching Trump’s most recent comments on 9/11, we also find ‘Net claims that Trump’s intentions regarding 9/11 have been revealed on “satire” sites and and have not been reported “in the mainstream.” But in fact there is a growing list of reports affirming his intentions regarding 9/11, including an article posted at dailystar.co.uk.

Take Trump at his word and the 9/11 re-investigation is only one of numerous ant-globalist moves that Trump intends to make. It is emerging he has a long list of globalist rollbacks in mind.

On his transition website GreatAgain.gov, Trump presents some of them. He wants to significantly cut taxes, cut regulation, push back against the fake climate change movement, get rid of Obamacare, build “the Wall,” between the US and Mexico and reduce or remove unconstitutional executive orders.

Generally he claims to want to make government less intrusive and destructive. This is certainly not the direction the US government has been traveling for decades and even centuries.

Trump also wants to build up the America military – last seen mislaying $8 trillion. But while he wants to give the US military more funding (which it doesn’t need) he also wants to reduce or eliminate the endless serial wars that the Pentagon has been engaging in for the past half-century.

As a libertarian publication, we can think of a lot more that Trump could try to do. He could try to get rid of the Federal Reserve entirely, close up America’s military bases around the world, reduce or remove the federal “justice system” and its prison system that incarcerates 25 percent of the world’s prison population at any one time.

While he’s at it, he could get rid of laws making drugs illegal and other laws regulating behaviors that benefit no one but America’s burgeoning, authoritarian police strucure.

Basically, the closer that Trump can bring the country back to its original Constitution, the better. Freedom produces prosperity and the Constitution (which wasn’t actually needed either) at least codified limits on the federal government.

We’ve argued regularly for years that individual freedom cannot be gained or regained via the political process. Politics inevitably reduce freedom, no matter the intentions of politicians.

Additionally, empires like America are probably impossible to roll back and this has likely never happened in the  history of humankind. If Trump really means to do what he says he will, and sticks to his word, he will be that rarest of all creatures: a politician who keeps his word.

He will also reintroduce real freedom into America and begin the significant crushing of the globalist conspiracy. Again we find all this hard to believe given that globalist control (from what we can tell) of much of Western society and trillions of dollars via the central bank system. Intelligence agencies and secret societies also seem to be under globalist control.

Conclusion: Given the enemies he faces and the challenges he needs to surmount, Trump will need to have more courage and determination than we can begin to contemplate. But if he really intends to follow through and manages to make significant difference, he will go down as America’s greatest president.

11-3-2016-11-57-52-am

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

THE ONLY AMERICAN CANADATE

October 21st, 2016 by

OLDDOGS PLEA TO THE SOUTH

Folks the amount of history articles I have read in the last ten years must be in the tens of thousand, and REBELS VERSUS TYRANTS: A PERPETUAL FIGHT FOR LIBERTY has been the most inspiring since the first time I read it. Mike is beyond doubt the most gifted author I know, and a southern gentleman extraordinaire. If you also love the South and your freedom I am pleading with you to go to the polls and enter Michael Gaddy as your candidate for President. There is no other person I have even heard of who has a smidgen of his freedom spirit, intelligence, memory recall, and writing ability. Few men in America even come close to his knowledge of American History and the importance of defending and repeating it to the younger generation. Granted, it may do no good, but both candidates running are globalist to the core, which is beyond doubt the total destruction of freedom. The two party system is the epitome of evil and only by standing up and making a bold statement will we ever get their attention in DC. Our infatuation with entertainment over the last fifty years has come back to bite us in the throat and we are bleeding out, as few are left who will stand up and fight back. Mike will fight until the very end, and you can be assured of that. He will also change the education system so the next several generations will grow up with the knowledge our children are now being denied. He alone will adhere to the principles of freedom from tyranny in government. If you think this will only be throwing your vote away, you are far behind in knowledge of our present circumstances. VOTES DON’T ELECT, YOU FOOLS, THEY ARE APPOINTED. THE ELECTION SYSTEM HAS BEEN UNDER THE BANKERS CONTROL FROM THE GET GO. Casting a vote for Mike is just letting them know the next step is going to be kicking ass. Besides that, if you are a real southerner, it is your duty to let the bastards know they are now on a short lease.
Give me liberty, or give me death!
Olddog

 REBELS VERSUS TYRANTS A PERPETUAL FIGHT FOR LIBERTY

http://www.rebelmadman.com/?p=532

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worse state, an intolerable one.” ~ Thomas Paine

Down through the pages of time, governments have done that which they do best; they transform from necessary evil to intolerable evil. Our country has followed in those footprints and has become as tyrannical as their predecessors. Also, traversing the annals of history are those with uncompromising principles and an unquenchable thirst for freedom and liberty. I truly believe it is genetic. History tells us this unusual breed of man has been referred to most often as Rebels. He is often rebelling against tyranny masquerading as a strong centralized government. Imagine if you will the last scene in the movie Braveheart in which with his dying breath William Wallace screams “Freedom.”

As hard as it is for most folks whose strongest attachments are to the worship of government, this country owes its founding and very existence to a band of Rebels who bore the names of Hancock, Revere, and Adams, among others. Major John Pitcairn of the Royal Marines admonished those brave souls on Lexington Green who had the audacity to challenge the most powerful force on the planet by the name Rebels when he ordered them to “disperse.” Being the stalwart men they were, they refused a direct order from those in charge. Today, the majority of people in this country would condemn the actions of the Rebels as subversive and would have referred to Major Pitcairn as a “hero” who was just doing his duty. After all, he was wearing a government costume!

Then, in 1861, the people of the South rebelled against one of the most evil tyrants in history as they resisted the Yankee invader of their homes and firesides. 94% of those who took up arms to defend their states, families, and homes did not own slaves, yet revisionist court historians have painted them all as racists in order to legitimize their crimes. Ironically, it was the Rebels of the South who embraced the Constitution and Bill of Rights against Lincoln and the Radical Republicans in Congress who were working diligently to destroy them both.

After the surrender of Robert E. Lee on April 9, 1865, the tyrannical government of Lincoln, Charles Sumner, Thaddeus Stevens and William Seward, imposed martial law and the horrors of the Reconstruction Act of 1867 on the people of the South. This epidemic of treason and tyranny would be known as Reconstruction. To ensure the Rebels learned their lesson and future generations would look upon those who dared to resist the forces of a government which had become “an intolerable” evil, the Radical Republicans sent legions of “Carpetbaggers” and other useful idiots into the South to teach these Rebels a lesson. The government “of the people, by the people and for the people” referenced by Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address did “perish from the earth,” at least the earth of the South. (It had long since perished from the earth of the North under Lincoln) The Radical Republicans sent large numbers of faithful servants and sycophants into the South to take over the education of the young. The children were commanded to sing songs glorifying the Yankee cause and its servants. The children were also ordered to pray for the Yankee government each day. Just as General Patrick Cleburne had predicted, almost immediately the children of the South were taught “the history of the heroic struggle” was being taught by their enemies, and through “the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as subjects for derision.” This paradigm continues still today.

The Yankees also sent new ministers to the churches throughout the South during Reconstruction to preach the Yankee sermons and to pray for the Yankee cause and to teach the people to repent from their Rebel proclivities.

Senator Charles Sumner, in eulogizing Lincoln, said the Gettysburg Address was more important than the battle itself. Others eulogized Lincoln as “Of the noblest personage,” comparing him to Jesus Christ. But, I believe a more accurate assessment of Lincoln and the Gettysburg Address came years later from H. L. Mencken when he wrote,

“The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the whoopings of the Websters, Sumners and Everetts seem gaudy and silly. It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost child-like perfection—the highest emotion reduced to one graceful and irresistible gesture. Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.

But let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all. Am I the first American to note the fundamental nonsensicality of the Gettysburg address? If so, I plead my aesthetic joy in it in amelioration of the sacrilege.”

Yes, Mencken too was a Rebel, albeit a literary one. He had the vision to see through the veils of civic religion and hypocrisy and to write the truth.

So, how does a government morph from a necessary evil created to protect the rights of the individual to an intolerable one of totalitarian proportions? It requires a majority of the people to accept a world in which their government becomes a proxy religion. It must especially envelop those who claim to be Christian as well as those who call themselves humanitarians and those who are considered, according to Tolstoy, as “nice and kind.”  Tolstoy speaks of this paradigm as a problem in psychology. He states to get these people to “commit the most heinous crimes without feeling any guilt” these “good Christian folk” must be made into governors, superintendents, officers or policemen.” By becoming servants of the government, these people can completely ignore their blatant acts of hypocrisy. By accepting “something that goes by the name of government service” this allows these pillars of the community to treat people of other countries and their own fellow citizens “like inanimate objects, precluding any humane or brotherly relationships, and, secondly ensures that people working for this government service must be so interdependent that responsibility for any consequences of the way they treat people never devolves on any of them individually.”

Tolstoy nails it. What better example than the “law enforcement” officer who enforces unconstitutional, immoral laws on his fellow man, taking their lives if they resist while claiming “I don’t make the laws, I just enforce them.” And “if you have a problem with that take it up with the courts.” Therefore he/she can then claim to be good “public servants” while completely ignoring their responsibilities to society which was included in their sacred oath to “uphold and defend” our rights against “all enemies foreign or domestic.” How many of them will then assume the mantle of Christian, humanitarian or a nice and kind neighbor? Of course, judges and prosecutors will use the very same excuse when taking people’s money and freedom, claiming, of course, they too do not “make the laws.”

Then for the politicians who also deviously refer to themselves as public servants. My life’s experience has taught me the most dangerous of these are those who claim to be Christians. A great example, other than George W. Bush, who claimed God told him to invade Iraq which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, has to be a current candidate for Vice President named Mike Pence. First of all, he demanded the government aid the destruction of religious liberties in Indiana reference the demands of homosexual activists and corporate bullies. His support for Common Core flies in the face of those who oppose that program on principle. Also having taken a sacred oath to uphold and defend our Constitution and Bill of Rights, Pence voted for the Patriot Act on several occasions and also voted as a globalist instead of a representative of the people who elected him. He consistently voted to fund the UN and the Import-Export Bank, both of which destroy our country’s sovereignty. Most revealing, this professing Christian, voted to veto an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act that would have blocked Obama from illegally and unconstitutionally detaining American citizens without due process. Probably the most truthful thing Pence has said during the campaign is that he would model his vice presidency after Dick Cheney. Rebels throughout this country should be cringing inside knowing that if elected this man will be a “heartbeat” away from the presidency. But the majority of the species Ignoramus Americanus will judge him not by his record but how well he does debating a socialist clown by the name of Kaine. No true Rebel will ever vote for the lesser of evils, knowing full well evil can not be quantified and evil in any amount is the destruction of all he holds dear.

Rebels are the outcasts of a society as revealed by Tolstoy, but throughout history, Rebels have stood firmly for liberty and freedom and have stood steadfast on those principles in the face of monumental opposition. Undoubtedly, that is why they and their symbols are seen as apostate to those who embrace government as their god.

I stand as a proud and unreconstructed Rebel defending the principles of Liberty. Where do you stand?

Let them call me Rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man.” ~ Thomas Paine, The Crisis.

IN RIGHTFUL LIBERTY

 

“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worse state, an intolerable one.” ~ Thomas Paine

Down through the pages of time, governments have done that which they do best; they transform from necessary evil to intolerable evil. Our country has followed in those footprints and has become as tyrannical as their predecessors. Also, traversing the annals of history are those with uncompromising principles and an unquenchable thirst for freedom and liberty. I truly believe it is genetic. History tells us this unusual breed of man has been referred to most often as Rebels. He is often rebelling against tyranny masquerading as a strong centralized government. Imagine if you will the last scene in the movie Braveheart in which with his dying breath William Wallace screams “Freedom.”

As hard as it is for most folks whose strongest attachments are to the worship of government, this country owes its founding and very existence to a band of Rebels who bore the names of Hancock, Revere, and Adams, among others. Major John Pitcairn of the Royal Marines admonished those brave souls on Lexington Green who had the audacity to challenge the most powerful force on the planet by the name Rebels when he ordered them to “disperse.” Being the stalwart men they were, they refused a direct order from those in charge. Today, the majority of people in this country would condemn the actions of the Rebels as subversive and would have referred to Major Pitcairn as a “hero” who was just doing his duty. After all, he was wearing a government costume!

Then, in 1861, the people of the South rebelled against one of the most evil tyrants in history as they resisted the Yankee invader of their homes and firesides. 94% of those who took up arms to defend their states, families, and homes did not own slaves, yet revisionist court historians have painted them all as racists in order to legitimize their crimes. Ironically, it was the Rebels of the South who embraced the Constitution and Bill of Rights against Lincoln and the Radical Republicans in Congress who were working diligently to destroy them both.

After the surrender of Robert E. Lee on April 9, 1865, the tyrannical government of Lincoln, Charles Sumner, Thaddeus Stevens and William Seward, imposed martial law and the horrors of the Reconstruction Act of 1867 on the people of the South. This epidemic of treason and tyranny would be known as Reconstruction. To ensure the Rebels learned their lesson and future generations would look upon those who dared to resist the forces of a government which had become “an intolerable” evil, the Radical Republicans sent legions of “Carpetbaggers” and other useful idiots into the South to teach these Rebels a lesson. The government “of the people, by the people and for the people” referenced by Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address did “perish from the earth,” at least the earth of the South. (It had long since perished from the earth of the North under Lincoln) The Radical Republicans sent large numbers of faithful servants and sycophants into the South to take over the education of the young. The children were commanded to sing songs glorifying the Yankee cause and its servants. The children were also ordered to pray for the Yankee government each day. Just as General Patrick Cleburne had predicted, almost immediately the children of the South were taught “the history of the heroic struggle” was being taught by their enemies, and through “the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as subjects for derision.” This paradigm continues still today.

The Yankees also sent new ministers to the churches throughout the South during Reconstruction to preach the Yankee sermons and to pray for the Yankee cause and to teach the people to repent from their Rebel proclivities.

Senator Charles Sumner, in eulogizing Lincoln, said the Gettysburg Address was more important than the battle itself. Others eulogized Lincoln as “Of the noblest personage,” comparing him to Jesus Christ. But, I believe a more accurate assessment of Lincoln and the Gettysburg Address came years later from H. L. Mencken when he wrote,

“The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the whoopings of the Websters, Sumners and Everetts seem gaudy and silly. It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost child-like perfection—the highest emotion reduced to one graceful and irresistible gesture. Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.

But let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all. Am I the first American to note the fundamental nonsensicality of the Gettysburg address? If so, I plead my aesthetic joy in it in amelioration of the sacrilege.”

Yes, Mencken too was a Rebel, albeit a literary one. He had the vision to see through the veils of civic religion and hypocrisy and to write the truth.

So, how does a government morph from a necessary evil created to protect the rights of the individual to an intolerable one of totalitarian proportions? It requires a majority of the people to accept a world in which their government becomes a proxy religion. It must especially envelop those who claim to be Christian as well as those who call themselves humanitarians and those who are considered, according to Tolstoy, as “nice and kind.”  Tolstoy speaks of this paradigm as a problem in psychology. He states to get these people to “commit the most heinous crimes without feeling any guilt” these “good Christian folk” must be made into governors, superintendents, officers or policemen.” By becoming servants of the government, these people can completely ignore their blatant acts of hypocrisy. By accepting “something that goes by the name of government service” this allows these pillars of the community to treat people of other countries and their own fellow citizens “like inanimate objects, precluding any humane or brotherly relationships, and, secondly ensures that people working for this government service must be so interdependent that responsibility for any consequences of the way they treat people never devolves on any of them individually.”

Tolstoy nails it. What better example than the “law enforcement” officer who enforces unconstitutional, immoral laws on his fellow man, taking their lives if they resist while claiming “I don’t make the laws, I just enforce them.” And “if you have a problem with that take it up with the courts.” Therefore he/she can then claim to be good “public servants” while completely ignoring their responsibilities to society which was included in their sacred oath to “uphold and defend” our rights against “all enemies foreign or domestic.” How many of them will then assume the mantle of Christian, humanitarian or a nice and kind neighbor? Of course, judges and prosecutors will use the very same excuse when taking people’s money and freedom, claiming, of course, they too do not “make the laws.”

Then for the politicians who also deviously refer to themselves as public servants. My life’s experience has taught me the most dangerous of these are those who claim to be Christians. A great example, other than George W. Bush, who claimed God told him to invade Iraq which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, has to be a current candidate for Vice President named Mike Pence. First of all, he demanded the government aid the destruction of religious liberties in Indiana reference the demands of homosexual activists and corporate bullies. His support for Common Core flies in the face of those who oppose that program on principle. Also having taken a sacred oath to uphold and defend our Constitution and Bill of Rights, Pence voted for the Patriot Act on several occasions and also voted as a globalist instead of a representative of the people who elected him. He consistently voted to fund the UN and the Import-Export Bank, both of which destroy our country’s sovereignty. Most revealing, this professing Christian, voted to veto an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act that would have blocked Obama from illegally and unconstitutionally detaining American citizens without due process. Probably the most truthful thing Pence has said during the campaign is that he would model his vice presidency after Dick Cheney. Rebels throughout this country should be cringing inside knowing that if elected this man will be a “heartbeat” away from the presidency. But the majority of the species Ignoramus Americanus will judge him not by his record but how well he does debating a socialist clown by the name of Kaine. No true Rebel will ever vote for the lesser of evils, knowing full well evil can not be quantified and evil in any amount is the destruction of all he holds dear.

Rebels are the outcasts of a society as revealed by Tolstoy, but throughout history, Rebels have stood firmly for liberty and freedom and have stood steadfast on those principles in the face of monumental opposition. Undoubtedly, that is why they and their symbols are seen as apostate to those who embrace government as their god.

I stand as a proud and unreconstructed Rebel defending the principles of Liberty. Where do you stand?

Let them call me Rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man.” ~ Thomas Paine, The Crisis.

IN RIGHTFUL LIBERTY

Mike                                                                                                               10-19-2016-9-17-36-am

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

OLD JACK HINSON AN ACCIDENTAL TERRORIST: SPECIAL REPORT

October 19th, 2016 by

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Well folks I turned 76 today (10 19 40) and have finally found my kindred spirit. If I could wake up tomorrow with Mike’s brain I would consider it the same as waking up in heaven. Men such as him should be our Nations leaders, but I guess they are too few and far between. You would do well to emulate him. Although I do not have his intelligence, memory recall, and a host of other abilities, I do have his conclusions. Such as, all men should be willing to die for their freedom from tyranny, and have the ability to recognize it when forced upon him. There is no other way to live a happy life and be a productive citizen. Both of which is something we all should have the opportunity to pursue. If men with morals and intelligence like his were common, there would be no wars, no hunger, no tyranny, no financially destitute,  and all people without his ability would have their needs met from an economy that produced enough employment for everyone. If you doubt my words, compare his articles to any past and especially the present CEO of America INC. Does it not bother you that you are owned, and controlled by some far off Investment Banker who you have never known? Does it not embarrass you to tears to have obtained your present age and have never know these facts, when they have been available from the get go? Are you not humiliated beyond imagination to have been beguiled your entire life into worshiping a non existing government which made you complicit in all this mess. Do you even understand what I am telling you this very moment? In case you are waking up or just pissed off enough by my words that you want to see for your self if it’s all true? You can do that right here!

You Know Something is Wrong When…..: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause (Paperback) by Judge Anna Maria Riezinger & James Clinton Belcher

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1491279184/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk

Buy it and compare it to what you have witnessed, AND IF YOU THINK YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN READ MIKE’S ARTICLE BELOW!


 OLD JACK HINSON AN ACCIDENTAL TERRORIST

http://www.rebelmadman.com/?p=548

By Michael Gaddy

What is the point of no return? What could possibly happen to an individual that would cause them to abandon all sense of order and seek instead violent and deadly revenge against another human being or group of people, many of whom are personally unknown to the perpetrator(s) of violence? Is this human action a devotion to some fanatical practice of religion or simply a reaction to violent stimuli?

If religious fanaticism is the answer, is it possible such religious fervor exhibited in the acts of the “terrorist” creates in its opponent an overwhelming desire to abandon their professed religion? If we are truly fighting a war against radical Islam, is it OK to abandon the tenets of Christianity, a faith professed by the great majority of the so-called conservatives who support the perpetual war for peace paradigm of our government? If that has actually occurred, have the radical terrorists not already won the war? What else could constitute acceptance of the deaths of hundreds of thousands; many of them civilians, to prosecute wars we know are based on lies hatched in the halls of our own government and nurtured to maturity by a state-owned and controlled media?

This past week I read an email written by a professed man of the cloth writing in support of one of his military heroes who is credited with killing several hundred of our “enemy” as a sniper. His statement was “we can only imagine how many soldier’s lives were saved by this man’s actions.” Unwittingly, this preacher struck at the very core of the issue. To support the actions of a government we personally claim to abhor when it comes to our individual liberty, imaginations must be employed in order to salve our collective conscience as we go about supporting wars perpetrated on government lies, deception and propaganda.

It has been stated facts are the basis for rational thought, therefore supporting wars based on official government prevarication that creates more terrorists than it eliminates requires irrational thought and/or a very healthy imagination. Supporting these wars that make slaves of us and our posterity could only qualify as some form of mental illness. Could this be the exhibition of the Stockholm syndrome on a national scale with the government as kidnapper and the citizens the kidnaped?

Only a people suffering from such an affliction could believe that a people who lose those they love such as those killed in drone strikes on wedding parties could ever embrace the tenets of our government or our faith. It is really hard to accept a “democracy” when the promoters of that form of government killed your family and blew up your country.

Over 70% of the people who died so far in Iraq as the result of our war were civilians. What kind of hate and desire for revenge resides in the relatives of those civilians? Where in our religious beliefs is there any justification for such mass genocide? We euphemistically refer to these deaths as “collateral damage,” while the people in Iraq referred to them as family, friends, and neighbors.

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do you even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets,” rings rather hollow, does it not?

The history of America contains similar stories and reactions to the violence of war inflicted on the innocent.

John W. (Old Jack) Hinson just wanted to be left alone. As a farmer in Tennessee, he cared nothing for the war between the North and the South and even opposed secession. He just wanted to get on with his life, enjoy his family and farm his land.

At some point in time, the area around the Hinson farm was occupied by Union forces. Occupation by armed forces in any area is not unlike occupying someone’s home by force. It just doesn’t sit well. The occupiers don’t want to be there and the occupied resent their presence. Perfect ingredients for an act of violence.

Somehow, Hinson’s two teenage sons came to be at odds with the Union soldiers. The reports of the day indicate the soldiers accused the two boys of being bushwhackers. Subsequently, the soldiers killed the two boys, beheaded them and placed their heads on poles near the entrance to their father’s farm. I’m sure the man of the cloth previously mentioned above would defend such action claiming he could only imagine how many Union soldiers lives were saved by this heinous act. After all, were these Union soldiers not wearing the uniform of the same military that now occupies much of the Middle East?

Obviously, Old Jack Hinson was traumatized by the death and beheading of his two sons. His hatred and desire for revenge led him to have a special long-range rifle constructed and he then set out to avenge the death of his sons by becoming a sniper, directing his assaults on the occupying army that had taken the lives of his sons. According to available records, at no time did Hinson engage civilians in his quest for revenge. His preference gravitated to Union officers in uniform.

I’m absolutely positive the US government and Union forces saw Old Jack Hinson as a “terrorist” or “insurgent” as he went about summarily killing more than one hundred Union soldiers and was also credited with single-handedly capturing a Union transport ship. Union Infantry and Cavalry forces and a specially equipped marine task force tried in vain to locate and eliminate Old Jack Hinson, who by all records always operated alone and was able to elude all Union forces for the duration of the war, even though he was near 60 years old at the time.

Occupying forces wearing the uniform of the United States military have created hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties in the wars being prosecuted in the Middle East. If only a small minority of their family and friends have the dedication and resolve of Old Jack Hinson, we have created a whirlwind of violence that will last for decades. Now, many officials in our government, supported by the pleas of plastic talking heads in the media and academia want to bring those people to our country and pay them money when they arrive. Where, indeed, is a better definition of insanity?

It is imperative that we understand that wars for empire, barely concealed by the rhetoric of wars to implement democracy, are in truth unwinnable on any level. As a supposed “Christian” nation we must also come to the realization that blind patriotism and Christianity are totally incompatible.

Perhaps a movie glorifying the exploits of Old Jack Hinson would constitute a beginning of understanding! How many would stand and cheer?

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” ~ James Madison said by many to be the Father of our Constitution (Emphasis added)

“Continual warfare” and freedom cannot exist on the same plane. The last 15 years of continual warfare and the subsequent loss of Liberty and the creation of a police state unequivocally prove Madison’s warning to be true.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

Mike

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

THE SPECIES IGNORAMUS AMERICANUS

October 18th, 2016 by

http://www.rebelmadman.com/?p=546

By Michael Gaddy

The evil that is in this world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding.” ~ Albert Camus

For quite some time now I have referred to the majority of Americans, especially those who vote, as the species “Ignoramus Americanus.” Some have taken exception to this, but, so far they have been found guilty of assuming facts not in evidence.

This morning, on social media, there was a posting which stated, “If a 12-year term limit was ratified today, 227 members of Congress would not be eligible for re-election. Time to clean up DC! Do you agree? The absolute insanity of this post is overwhelming to anyone with a basic understanding of how government and voting are supposed to function.

Perhaps this post would have been better stated thusly, “Please help me, for decades now I have voted for the lesser of two evils and now the resulting evil is destroying everything I hold dear. Would everyone please ratify an amendment to our Constitution which would enable me to protect myself and those I care about from my own ignorance and cowardice!”

Another post on social media came from someone who claimed that a vote for Donald Trump was a vote to restore our Constitution and Bill of Rights. A simple question to the one who posted this claim asking documentation of when Trump has discussed in detail any limits the Constitution and Bill of Rights places on government actions, especially the Executive Branch, or how any of his opponents promises are outside of constitutional limits, went unanswered.

Completely overlooked, especially to those who claim to support the principles of the South, was Trump’s promise to the people in the black church in Detroit: “Becoming the nominee of the Party of Abraham Lincoln — a lot of people don’t realize that Abraham Lincoln, the great Abraham Lincoln was a Republican — has been the greatest honor of my life. It is on his legacy that I hope to build the future of the Party but more important the future of the country and the community.” (Emphasis mine)

If this statement alone does not scare the bejeezus out of any person who claims any fealty at all to our Constitution and Bill of Rights, we as a relevant country are well on our way to extinction. No president in the history of this country did more to destroy the principles of our Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence than did “Honest Abe.” The current occupant of the people’s house in the District of Criminals and his eight years of mendacity can’t hold a candle to Lincoln’s full frontal assaults on the government of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Monroe, John Taylor of Caroline and others of our founders who stood for Liberty and Freedom.

Abraham Lincoln perpetrated war on the people of the North as well as the people of the South. All too many, thanks to revisionist history, are unaware of Lincoln’s military invasions of the states of New York, Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware. This was done to achieve military control of the voting process and oppose lawful dissent. Today this is not needed as the voters opt for tyranny on a regular basis every two years at the voting booth.

The sordid 12 years of history known as “Reconstruction” set the template for the total destruction of any government operating within the framework of “consent of the governed.” This was all perpetrated on the people of the South by the “Party of Lincoln” which Donald Trump is so honored to be a part of. Obviously, his knowledge of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is severely limited as is his knowledge of history.

I have had people who have defended Trump’s remarks to the black folks in Detroit as necessary to gain their votes. Wow, if anyone supports a candidate they know will lie to gain votes, how does that separate them from the liberal progressives they claim to despise?

How about my Southern brethren? How many of them will vote for a candidate who promises to bring them the government of Lincoln they have been writing and complaining about for 150+ years? Possibly, as one Magna Cum Laude graduate of the college of institutionalized ignorance wrote to me recently, “Well, I guess your criticism of Trump means you are a Hillary supporter!” No, I am not a supporter of the female spawn of satan in a jumpsuit, but as a true Southron I cannot despoil the sacrifices of my ancestors by voting for a candidate who has promised to bring me and my fellow Southerners a replica of the government they fought and died to protect their homes, country, and progeny, from assuming control of their lives, property, and fortunes.

So, what to do, exclaims the right-wing of the species Ignoramus Americanus? Well, folks, behold the end result of supporting political party over the principles of our founders for the past five or six decades. Have you not noticed the candidate you avidly supported for Vice President just four short years ago is not a “conservative” but is indeed just as bad politically as the man who won that election? Have you perhaps noticed the man you swore “kept you safe” for eight years, the brilliant man who claimed God told him to invade Iraq, is not the wonderful conservative you thought he was? Has he and his family not embraced the aforementioned female spawn of satan for the office of president? Ask yourself, how could you have been so blind to support him and his draconian, unconstitutional government for eight years? Are you not using the same criteria you used to vote for him now in your support for Trump? Four or eight years from now, if this country still exists, will you be asking yourself the same questions about Trump you are now asking about Ryan and Bush?

Only the institutionalized ignorant could believe that voting for a candidate who has little to no concept of the history and restraints of our Constitution and Bill of Rights will somehow magically produce constitutional governance with its attendant principles of Liberty and Freedom. Dream on broomstick cowboy.

One of my favorite writers in defense of Southern principles and history is Clyde Wilson. Here, in his words, are some of the reasons that define how we got in this mess in which a candidate who promises to bring to us the horrors of Lincoln is the best we have to choose from for the highest office in the land. Pay heed–professor Wilson nails it.

“Always, if you possibly can, avoid singing the praises of people who

—launch aggressive wars unrelated to national defense and in callous disregard of the suffering of innocents: Attila the Hun, the first French emperor, the chancellor of the German Third Reich,  U.S. Presidents Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, Clinton, Bush II, etc.

—spend profligately and burden future generations with immense debts: the U.S. Congress.

—deliberately misuse and undermine the vital foundational principles and texts of a society: the Supreme Soviet, the U.S. Supreme Court, televangelists, the Hague Tribunal, etc.

—systematically distort and misrepresent public events and persons with malice aforethought:
Joseph Goebels. Pravda, U.S. television news, multicultural historians, etc.

—glorify selfish, immoral, vulgar, and decadent behaviour: U.S. entertainment media and professional sports industry.”

Ah, the total impossibility of being ignorant and free. Jefferson said it was impossible, but Ignoramus Americanus is determined to prove him wrong.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

Mike

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

10-18-2016-9-32-40-am

Dear Folks, Have you ever wondered just why and how America has become such a shit hole after we were promised a wonderland of freedom by our so called wonderful Constitution? Have you ever wondered why and how our so called representatives get away with passing laws that take our freedom of choice away and rob us of our money? May I humbly suggest that you do some more research and find out how all these things are possible without the scumbags going to jail! You can do that by reading more of Mike’s articles and Anna von Reitz. Then you can get busy and inform everyone you know and inspire them to do the same. You see folks, as long as you ignore things they just get worse because the bastards you think you elected don’t work for us. They work for a corporation that rewards them for their loyalty while we get the crap laws that destroy our life. Get this through your head, they are only loyal to their masters; the International Investment banking Cartel who are the major stock-holders of the present corporation that keeps going bankrupt and restarting under a new name. Anna has documented the whole ball game and all you have to do is READ IT! She has also worked out how to rebuild our Nation States without going to war. Now, don’t go back to your stupid TV show!

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

REBELS VERSUS TYRANTS A PERPETUAL FIGHT FOR LIBERTY

October 13th, 2016 by

http://www.rebelmadman.com/?p=532

 

By Michael Gaddy

“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worse state, an intolerable one.” ~ Thomas Paine

Down through the pages of time, governments have done that which they do best; they transform from necessary evil to intolerable evil. Our country has followed in those footprints and has become as tyrannical as their predecessors . Also, traversing the annals of history are those with uncompromising principles and an unquenchable thirst for freedom and liberty. I truly believe it is genetic. History tells us this unusual breed of man has been referred to most often as Rebels. He is often rebelling against tyranny masquerading as a strong centralized government. Imagine if you will the last scene in the movie Braveheart in which with his dying breath William Wallace screams “Freedom.”

As hard as it is for most folks whose strongest attachments are to the worship of government, this country owes its founding and very existence to a band of Rebels who bore the names of Hancock, Revere, and Adams, among others. Major John Pitcairn of the Royal Marines admonished those brave souls on Lexington Green who had the audacity to challenge the most powerful force on the planet by the name Rebels when he ordered them to “disperse.” Being the stalwart men they were, they refused a direct order from those in charge. Today, the majority of people in this country would condemn the actions of the Rebels as subversive and would have referred to Major Pitcairn as a “hero” who was just doing his duty. After all, he was wearing a government costume!

Then, in 1861, the people of the South rebelled against one of the most evil tyrants in history as they resisted the Yankee invader of their homes and firesides. 94% of those who took up arms to defend their states, families, and homes did not own slaves, yet revisionist court historians have painted them all as racists in order to legitimize their crimes. Ironically, it was the Rebels of the South who embraced the Constitution and Bill of Rights against Lincoln and the Radical Republicans in Congress who were working diligently to destroy them both.

After the surrender of Robert E. Lee on April 9, 1865, the tyrannical government of Lincoln, Charles Sumner, Thaddeus Stevens and William Seward, imposed martial law and the horrors of the Reconstruction Act of 1867 on the people of the South. This epidemic of treason and tyranny would be known as Reconstruction. To ensure the Rebels learned their lesson and future generations would look upon those who dared to resist the forces of a government which had become “an intolerable” evil, the Radical Republicans sent legions of “Carpetbaggers” and other useful idiots into the South to teach these Rebels a lesson. The government “of the people, by the people and for the people” referenced by Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address did “perish from the earth,” at least the earth of the South. (It had long since perished from the earth of the North under Lincoln) The Radical Republicans sent legions of faithful servants into the South to take over the education of the young. The children were commanded to sing songs glorifying the Yankee cause and its servants. The children were also ordered to pray for the Yankee government each day. Just as General Patrick Cleburne had predicted, almost immediately the children of the South were taught “the history of the heroic struggle” was being taught by their enemies, and through “the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as subjects for derision.” This paradigm continues still today.

The Yankees also sent new ministers to the churches throughout the South during Reconstruction to preach the Yankee sermons and to pray for the Yankee cause and to teach the people to repent from their Rebel proclivities.

Senator Charles Sumner, in eulogizing Lincoln, said the Gettysburg Address was itself more important than the battle itself. Others eulogized Lincoln as “Of the noblest personage,” comparing him to Jesus Christ. But, I believe a more accurate assessment of Lincoln and the Gettysburg Address came years later from H. L. Mencken when he wrote,

“The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the whoopings of the Websters, Sumners and Everetts seem gaudy and silly. It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost child-like perfection—the highest emotion reduced to one graceful and irresistible gesture. Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.

But let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all. Am I the first American to note the fundamental nonsensicality of the Gettysburg address? If so, I plead my aesthetic joy in it in amelioration of the sacrilege.”

Yes, Mencken too was a Rebel, albeit a literary one. He had the vision to see through the veils of civic religion and hypocrisy and to write the truth.

So, how does a government morph from a necessary evil created to protect the rights of the individual to an intolerable one of totalitarian proportions? It requires a majority of the people to accept a world in which their government becomes a proxy religion. It must especially envelop those who claim to be Christian as well as those who call themselves humanitarians and those who are considered, according to Tolstoy, as “nice and kind.”  Tolstoy speaks of this paradigm as a problem in psychology. He states to get these people to “commit the most heinous crimes without feeling any guilt” these “good Christian folk” must be made into governors, superintendents, officers or policemen.” By becoming servants of the government, these people can completely ignore their blatant acts of hypocrisy. By accepting “something that goes by the name of government service” this allows these pillars of the community to treat people of other countries and their own fellow citizens “like inanimate objects, precluding any humane or brotherly relationships, and, secondly ensures that people working for this government service must be so interdependent that responsibility for any consequences of the way they treat people never devolves on any of them individually.”

Tolstoy nails it. What better example than the “law enforcement” officer who enforces unconstitutional, immoral laws on his fellow man, taking their lives if they resist while claiming “I don’t make the laws, I just enforce them.” And “if you have a problem with that take it up with the courts.” Therefore he/she can then claim to be good “public servants” while completely ignoring their responsibilities to society which was included in their sacred oath to “uphold and defend” our rights against “all enemies foreign or domestic.” How many of them will then assume the mantle of Christian, humanitarian or a nice and kind neighbor? Of course, judges and prosecutors will use the very same excuse when taking people’s money and freedom, claiming, of course, they too do not “make the laws.”

Then for the politicians who also deviously refer to themselves as public servants. My life’s experience has taught me the most dangerous of these are those who claim to be Christians. A great example, other than George W. Bush, who claimed God told him to invade Iraq which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, has to be a current candidate for Vice President named Mike Pence. First of all, he demanded the government aid the destruction of religious liberties in Indiana reference the demands of homosexual activists and corporate bullies. His support for Common Core flies in the face of those who oppose that program on principle. Also having taken a sacred oath to uphold and defend our Constitution and Bill of Rights, Pence voted for the Patriot Act on several occasions and also voted as a globalist instead of a representative of the people who elected him. He consistently voted to fund the UN and the Import-Export Bank, both of which destroy our country’s sovereignty. Most revealing, this professing Christian, voted to veto an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act that would have blocked Obama from illegally and unconstitutionally detaining American citizens without due process. Probably the most truthful thing Pence has said during the campaign is that he would model his vice presidency after Dick Cheney. Rebels throughout this country should be cringing inside knowing that if elected this man will be a “heartbeat” away from the presidency. But the majority of the species Ignoramus Americanus will judge him not by his record but how well he does debating a socialist clown by the name of Kaine. No true Rebel will ever vote for the lesser of evils, knowing full well evil can not be quantified and evil in any amount is the destruction of all he holds dear.

Rebels are the outcasts of a society as revealed by Tolstoy, but throughout history, Rebels have stood firmly for liberty and freedom and have stood steadfast on those principles in the face of monumental opposition. Undoubtedly, that is why they and their symbols are seen as apostate to those who embrace government as their god.

I stand as a proud and unreconstructed Rebel defending the principles of Liberty. Where do you stand?

Let them call me Rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man.” ~ Thomas Paine, The Crisis.

IN RIGHTFUL LIBERTY

Mike

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Let it be known; THIS Old Hoosier would cut off both his legs with a rusty saw, if he gained the writing ability of this giant of a man. ATTABOY MIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The PUKES who support this putrid excuse of a government are among the dumbest Homo Sapiens alive.

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

All the Ways You Can Comply and Still Die During An Encounter with Police

October 4th, 2016 by

http://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/all_the_ways_you_can_comply_and_still_die_during_an_encounter_with_police

 BLESSED ARE THE PEACE KEEPERS, WHO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM OPPRESSION!

OLDDOG

By John W. Whitehead
October 03, 2016

Police are specialists in violence. They are armed, trained, and authorized to use force. With varying degrees of subtlety, this colors their every action. Like the possibility of arrest, the threat of violence is implicit in every police encounter. Violence, as well as the law, is what they represent.”—Author Kristian Williams

How do you protect yourself from flying fists, choking hands, disabling electrified darts and killing bullets?

How do you defend yourself against individuals who have been indoctrinated into believing that they are superior to you, that their word is law, and that they have the power to take your life?

Most of all, how can you maintain the illusion of freedom when daily, Americans are being shot, stripped, searched, choked, beaten and tasered by police for little more than daring to frown, smile, question, challenge an order or just exist?

The short answer: you can’t.

Now for the long answer, which is far more complicated but still leaves us feeling hopeless, helpless and vulnerable to the fears, moods and misguided training of every cop on the beat.

If you ask police and their enablers what Americans should do to stay alive during encounters with law enforcement, they will tell you to comply (or die).

It doesn’t matter where you live—big city or small town—it’s the same scenario being played out over and over again in which Americans are being brainwashed into believing that anyone who wears a government uniform—soldier, police officer, prison guard—must be obeyed without question, while government agents, hyped up on their own authority and the power of their uniform, ride roughshod over the rights of the citizenry.

For example, a local law enforcement agency in Virginia has started handing out a guide—developed in cooperation with a group of African American pastors—on how to interact with police. The purpose of this government resource, according to the police, is to make sure citizens feel “comfortable” and know what to do when interacting with police in order to “promote public safety and respectful interaction.”

Curiously, nowhere in the “Guide to Interacting with Police” is there any mention of the Constitution, or the rights of the citizenry, other than the right to remain silent.

In fact, the primary point stressed throughout the bilingual guide aimed at “building trust and cooperation,” is that citizens should comply, cooperate, obey, not resist, not argue, not make threatening gestures or statements, avoid sudden movements, and submit to a search of their person and belongings.

The problem, of course, is what to do when compliance is not enough.

I’m not talking about the number of individuals—especially young people—who are being shot and killed by police for having a look-alike gun in their possession, such as a BB gun. I’m not even talking about people who have been shot for brandishing weapons at police, such as scissors.

I’m talking about the growing numbers of unarmed people are who being shot and killed for just standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.

Killed for standing in a “shooting stance.” In California, police opened fire on and killed a mentally challenged—unarmed—black man within minutes of arriving on the scene, allegedly because he removed a vape smoking device from his pocket and took a “shooting stance.”

Killed for holding a cell phone. Police in Arizona shot a man who was running away from U.S. Marshals after he refused to drop an object that turned out to be a cellphone.

Killed for behaving oddly and holding a baseball bat. Responding to a domestic disturbance call, Chicago police shot and killed 19-year-old college student Quintonio LeGrier who had reportedly been experiencing mental health problems and was carrying a baseball bat around the apartment where he and his father lived.

Killed for opening the front door. Bettie Jones, who lived on the floor below LeGrier, was also fatally shot—this time, accidentally—when she attempted to open the front door for police.

Killed for being a child in a car pursued by police. Jeremy David Mardis, six years old and autistic, died after being shot multiple times by Louisiana police in the head and torso. Police opened fire on the car—driven by Jeremy’s father, Chris Few, who was also shot—and then allegedly lied, claiming that they were attempting to deliver an outstanding warrant, that Few resisted arrest, that he shot at police (no gun was found), and that he tried to ram his car into a police cruiser. Body camera footage refuted the police’s claims.

Killed for attacking police with a metal spoon. In Alabama, police shot and killed a 50-year-old man who reportedly charged a police officer while holding “a large metal spoon in a threatening manner.”

Killed for running in an aggressive manner holding a tree branch. Georgia police shot and killed a 47-year-old man wearing only shorts and tennis shoes who, when first encountered, was sitting in the woods against a tree, only to start running towards police holding a stick in an “aggressive manner.

Killed for crawling around naked. Atlanta police shot and killed an unarmed man who was reported to have been “acting deranged, knocking on doors, crawling around on the ground naked.” Police fired two shots at the man after he reportedly starting running towards them.

Killed for hunching over in a defensive posture. Responding to a domestic trouble call, multiple officers with the Baltimore County police forced their way inside a home where, fearing for their safety and the safety of others,” three officers opened fire on an unarmed 41-year-old man who was hunched over in a defensive posture. The man was killed in front of his two young daughters and their mother.

Killed because a police officer accidentally pulled out his gun instead of his taser. An Oklahoma man suspected of trying to sell an illegal handgun was shot and killed after a 73-year-old reserve deputy inadvertently fired his gun instead of his taser. “Oh! I shot him! I’m sorry!” the deputy cried out.

Killed for wearing dark pants and a basketball jersey. Donnell Thompson, a mentally disabled 27-year-old described as gentle and shy, was shot and killed after police—searching for a carjacking suspect reportedly wearing similar clothing—encountered him lying motionless in a neighborhood yard. Police “only” opened fire with an M4 rifle after Thompson first failed to respond to their flash bang grenades and then started running after being hit by foam bullets.

Killed for telling police you lawfully own a firearm and have a conceal-and-carry permit. Philando Castile was shot and killed during a routine traffic stop allegedly over a broken tail light. As he was reaching for his license and registration, Castile explained to police that he had a  conceal-and-carry permit. That’s all it took for police to shoot Castile four times in the presence of his girlfriend and her 4-year-old daughter.

Killed for leaving anywhere at all when a police officer pulls up. Deravis Caine Rogers was killed after starting to drive away from an apartment complex right around the same time as a police officer pulled up. Despite the fact that the police officer had no reason to believe Rogers was a threat or was suspected of any illegal activity, the officer fired into Rogers’ passenger side window.

Killed for driving while deaf. In North Carolina, a state trooper shot and killed 29-year-old Daniel K. Harris—who was deaf—after Harris initially failed to pull over during a traffic stop.

Killed for being homeless. Los Angeles police shot an unarmed homeless man after he failed to stop riding his bicycle and then proceeded to run from police.

Killed for being old and brandishing a shoehorn. John Wrana, a 95-year-old World War II veteran, lived in an assisted living center, used a walker to get around, and was shot and killed by police who mistook the shoehorn in his hand for a 2-foot-long machete and fired multiple beanbag rounds from a shotgun at close range.

Killed for having your car break down on the road. Terence Crutcher, unarmed and black, was shot and killed by Oklahoma police after his car broke down on the side of the road. Crutcher was shot in the back while walking towards his car with his hands up.

Killed for holding a garden hose. California police were ordered to pay $6.5 million after they opened fire on a man holding a garden hose, believing it to be a gun. Douglas Zerby was shot 12 times and pronounced dead on the scene.

Shot seven times for peeing outdoors. Eighteen-year-old Keivon Young was shot seven times by police from behind while urinating outdoors. Young was just zipping up his pants when he heard a commotion behind him and then found himself struck by a hail of bullets from two undercover cops. Allegedly officers mistook Young—5’4,” 135 lbs., and guilty of nothing more than taking a leak outdoors—for a 6’ tall, 200 lb. murder suspect whom they later apprehended. Young was charged with felony resisting arrest and two counts of assaulting a peace officer.

Now you can make all kinds of excuses to justify these shootings, and in fact that’s exactly what you’ll hear from politicians, police unions, law enforcement officials and individuals who are more than happy to march in lockstep with the police. However, to suggest that a good citizen is a compliant citizen and that obedience will save us from the police state is not only recklessly irresponsible, but it is also deluded and out of touch with reality, because in the American police state, compliance is no longer enough.

Frankly, as these incidents make clear, the only truly compliant, submissive and obedient citizen in a police state is a dead one.

If you’re starting to feel somewhat overwhelmed, intimidated and fearful for your life and your property, you should be.

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, “we the people” are now at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”

Sad, isn’t it, how quickly we have gone from a nation of laws—where the least among us had just as much right to be treated with dignity and respect as the next person (in principle, at least)—to a nation of law enforcers (revenue collectors with weapons) who treat us all like suspects and criminals?

WC: 1798

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission: John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

WHY NWV CONSPIRATORS FEAR GUNS IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE?

October 3rd, 2016 by

http://newswithviews.com/Gonzalez/servando166.htm

By Servando Gonzalez, Author of…
Psychological Warfare and the New World Order and I Dare Call It Treason, and the DVDs Treason in America and Partners in Treason.
October 3, 2016
NewsWithViews.com

Liberty is not inherent in any form of government, it is in the heart of the free man. — Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Reveries.

No amount of force can control a free man; the most you can do is kill him. — Robert A. Heinlein, “If This Go On.”

New World Order globalist conspirators and their agents keep churning out books advancing all types of anti-gun theories. Among the latest barrage of anti-gun books are: Adam Winkle, Gun Fight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America; Dennis A. Henigan, Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy; Richard Feldman, Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist; Pamela Haag, The Gunning of America: Business and the Making of American Culture; Robert J. Spitzer, Guns Across America: Reconciling Gun Rules and Gun Rights, and Firmin DeBrabander, Do Guns Make Us Free: Democracy and the Armed Society.

Though the theories advanced in these books range from the illogical to the ridiculous, there are two main arguments characterizing them: first, the authors of these books only fear guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens but not in the hands of criminals or the government. Second, they mostly blame the NRA, gun makers, and the so-called “pro-gun lobby,” for Americans’ love of guns.

Facts, however, refute the NRA-gun lobby theory. The highest number of gun-related deaths in the past twenty years have occurred in Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Cleveland and Oakland, cities under strict gun control laws. So, it makes sense to guess that most of these crimes were committed by people who have acquired their guns by illegal means. Therefore, I’d bet that none of the criminals who committed the murders were NRA members. So, why this fixation of the Left on blaming the NRA for the illegal use of guns by criminals who are not NRA members?

Before going on with this article I would like to make clear two things: I am not a NRA member and, contrary to the NRA, I am not a Second Amendment supporter for the simple reason that basic rights don’t need protection — which explains why there are no amendments to the Constitution protecting the right to life, freedom and property. The reason for this is because those are inherent human rights that don’t need government “protection.”

Actually, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is redundant, superfluous and unnecessary: the right of the people to own and bear arms should not be infringed because those who own and bear arms will use them against whoever tries to infringe those rights. The government would not protect those rights because historically governments have been the main violators of those rights. Also, if there are rights that need to be protected by the government, they stop being rights and become privileges — such as a driving or fishing license — the government can cancel at will.

Nevertheless, my facetious article “Abolish the Second Amendment,”[1] in which among other things I suggested the NRA should make Obama an honorary member — every time Obama has made an anti-gun speech the NRA membership has increased dramatically — was so misinterpreted and generated such strong criticism from readers lacking a sense of humor that it compelled me to write an even more satirical second part where I further clarified my points.

The second part brought no criticism. I suggest the reader to take a look at my article to see why.

One of the sources of my skepticism about the true motives of the anti-gun activists is that abortionists and prescription drug corporations kill more people in this country than gun owners, but they have never been criticized by the gun grabbers. Another is that the U.S. is the largest seller of military hardware in the world and this role has only increased under the guidance of the impostor and Nobel Peace Prize winner currently living in the White House. No wonder the anti-gun Lefties never include tanks, attack helicopters, aircraft carriers and killer drones[2] among the tools of mass murderers they are so eager to ban.

So, it seems that, at least to some people with a weird sense of logic, killing somebody with a hand gun is bad, but killing his children with a scalpel, or killing him, his family and his dog using a drone is okay.

Nevertheless, the impostor in the White House has used every mass shooting to advance his CFR masters’ anti-gun agenda and has made at least fourteen public statements against guns in the hands of the people. As expected, the CFR-controlled presstitutes in the mainstream media have written innumerable editorials and opinion pieces calling for new laws limiting the people’s access to the tools of protection — which they have tendentiously named “tools of mass murder.”

In an article titled “The Terror of Our Guns,” anti-gun author David Cole expressed his belief that the “individuals inspired by terrorist groups have eagerly adopted the military-style semi-automatic rifle capable of shooting multiple rounds of bullets quickly and accurately as a tool to produce maximum fatalities, mayhem and fear.”[3] Unfortunately, however, Cole does not explain who the “our” in his article is, but it seems he is not referring to al-Qaida or ISIS.

After the Nice, France terrorist attack that killed 85 people dead and injured 303 people, I will expect the gun grabbers adding automatic trucks to the list of killer weapons they want to ban.

One of the anti-gun authors I mention above, Firmin Debrabander, contends that, contrary to the NRA’s claims that the right to bear arms is essential to liberty, guns actually undermine both liberty and democracy. Of course, the guns that he sees undermining both liberty and democracy are the ones in the hands of the people, not in the hands of government thugs.

Another of the authors, Pamela Haag, argues that gun manufacturers have successfully exploited notions of frontier individuality, responsibility and masculinity. Obviously, CFR-brainwashed authors who love collectivism, lack of responsibility and gender confusion are not happy with traditional “frontier” values.

Now, why does the conspirators’-bankrolled “progressive Left” fear guns in the hands of law-abiding, peaceful NRA members but not in the hands of criminals? In the first place, because there is a symbiotic relationship between criminals and the government. Criminals, and now terrorists, give the U.S. government the justification they need for the growing police state in America. Secondly, because while criminals have never rebelled against a tyrannical government, armed citizens are capable of doing so.

Moreover, there has always been a symbiotic relationship between criminals and tyrannical governments. Higher levels of criminality give the government needed pretext for a growing militarized police force.[4]

Both “conservative” Republicans and “progressive” Democrats apparently forget that some of the larger mass shootings in America — from Wounded Knee to Waco — have not been committed by free-lance criminals but by the U.S. government. Nevertheless, most of the people who fear gun in the hands of the citizens don’t seem to fear guns in the hands of government thugs of the growing police state.

According to many of the anti-gun crowd fighting for gun control laws, the National Rifle Association, which they see as a tool of the gun manufacturing industry, is the main force against gun control.[5] But this is nothing but smoke and mirrors. They fear NRA members for the sole reason that most of them are law-abiding, patriotic Americans armed and capable of overthrowing a tyrannical government.

The NRA is the maximum defender of Second Amendment rights. Nevertheless, reading its publications one may reach the conclusion that they do it mostly to protect the people’s right to hunting and self-defense. The truth, however, is that the only reason the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights had nothing to do with “self-defense” but because they believed that the people needed to keep and bear arms for potential use in an armed insurrection against a tyrannical government.

This explains why a noted scholar specializing in the Second Amendment reached the conclusion that it “had almost nothing to do with the classic ‘self defense’ and everything to do with a civic republican argument that ‘the people’ as a collectivity were entitled to keep and bear arms for potential use in an armed insurrection against a tyrannical government.” He also criticizes most lawyers, whether conservative or liberal, who ignore what he calls “the ‘insurrectionist’ origins” of the Second Amendment.[6]

 

Now, why does the U.S. Government not want guns in the hands of the American people? Because guns don’t kill people, governments do, and the U.S. Government, hijacked by and fully under the control of the CFR globalist monopolists, hates competition.

The bottom line is that American love guns not because of NRA lobbying but because they love freedom and don’t trust the greatest potential enemy of their freedom: the armed to the teeth, CFR-controlled U.S. Government.

Servando is the author of Psychological Warfare and the New World Order and I Dare Call It Treason, and the DVDs Treason in America and Partners in Treason, all of them available at NewsWithViews,

Footnotes:

  1. Servando Gonzalez, “Abolish the Second Amendment: We Don’t Need itNewsWithViews.com, December 27, 2014
    2. See Jeremy Scahill, The Assassination Complex: Inside the Government’s Secret Drone Warfare Program; David Cortwright, ed., Drones and the Future of Armed Conflict: Ethical, Legal and Strategic Implications, and Andrew Cockburn, Kill Chain: Drones and the Rise of High-Tech Assassins.
    3. David Cole, “The Terror of Our Guns,” The New York Review of Books, July 14, 2016, p. 28.
    4. See David Whitney, “On Our Knees for America While Domestic Government Agencies Increase Their Arms,” NewsWithViews.com, August 21, 2016,
    5. Actually, the NRA has for many years been playing an important role in true gun control by educating its members and their children on safe gun practices by actually having full control on their firearms.
    6. Sanford Levinson, “The NRA Didn’t Help,” The New York Review of Books, August 18, 2016, p. 73. Dr. Levinson is Centenial Chair in Law Professor, Department of Government, University of Texas at Austin Law School.

© 2016 Servando Gonzalez – All Rights Reserved

Servando Gonzalez, is a Cuban-born American writer, historian, semiologist and intelligence analyst. He has written books, essays and articles on Latin American history, intelligence, espionage, and semiotics. Servando is the author of Historia herética de la revolución fidelista, Observando, The Secret Fidel Castro: Deconstructing the Symbol, The Nuclear Deception: Nikita Khrushchev and the Cuban Missile Crisis and La madre de todas las conspiraciones: Una novela de ideas subversivas, all available at Amazon.com.

He also hosted the documentaries Treason in America: The Council on Foreign Relations and Partners in Treason: The CFR-CIA-Castro Connection, produced by Xzault Media Group of San Leandro, California, both available at the author’s site at http://www.servandogonzalez.org.

His book, Psychological Warfare and the New World Order: The Secret War Against the American People is available at Amazon.com. Or download a .pdf copy of the book you can read on your computer, iPad, Nook, Kindle or any other tablet. His book, OBAMANIA: The New Puppet and His Masters, is available at Amazon.com. Servando’s book (in Spanish) La CIA, Fidel Castro, el Bogotazo y el Nuevo Orden Mundial, is available at Amazon.com and other bookstores online.

His most recent book, I Dare Call It treason: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Betrayal of the America, just appeared and is available at Amazon.com and other bookstores online.

Servando’s two most recent books in digital versions only are The Swastika and the Nazis: A Study of the Misuse of the Swastika by the Nazis and the first issue of the political satire series OBSERVANDO: American Inventors.

Website: www.servandogonzalez.org

E-Mail: servandoglez05(at)yahoo(dot)com

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

How the FBI and DOJ criminalize honest citizens while allowing the criminals in Washington to get away with treason

October 1st, 2016 by

http://www.federalobserver.com/2016/07/06/how-the-fbi-and-doj-criminalize-honest-citizens-while-allowing-the-criminals-in-washington-to-get-away-with-treason/#more-28633

10-1-2016-9-27-38-am

By Mike Adams

Regardless of your political affiliation, this is a must-read article because it describes in raw, naked detail how the FBI / DOJ justice scam really operates in America. Remember, thanks to the absolute corruption of Washington D.C., “justice” really means “just us.” In other words, the politically connected elite write laws and carry out the selective prosecution of laws solely to serve their own self-interest.

And if you’re not part of the politically connected elite, you’re automatically guilty and will sooner or later be prosecuted under some wildly exaggerated, arcane rendition of a law that’s never applied to people like Hillary Clinton.

Here’s exactly how the FBI and DOJ carry out their “justice theater” that’s essentially nothing more than gross injustice that exists in violation of the rule of law.

Step 1: Generate hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations that ensnare anyone who might be targeted for scrutiny
The first step in achieving selecting prosecution is to pass so many laws that no human being can possibly be innocent of them all.

Read the book Three Felonies a Day to learn the startling truth that the average American unknowingly commits three felony crimes each day (thanks to all the insane laws on the books).

The point is that no ordinary person can survive scrutiny without being arrested, prosecuted and jailed.

Step 2: Practice selective prosecution to target your political enemies while looking the other way for your political friends
Since everybody is guilty of three felonies a day, the job of the politically-motivated FBI or DOJ simply becomes one of choosing whom to target.

Since every person in America can be brought up on criminal charges if their actions are sufficiently scrutinized, the goal of criminalizing the government’s enemies is achieved in the simplest manner possible: Focusing surveillance and scrutiny on those individuals the political regime wants to imprison.

And now that the federal government has all your financial records, email records, search engine queries, web surfing activities and even your careless social media posts, they can easily easily link you to any number of crimes you unknowingly committed by violating the multitude of confusing laws you didn’t even know existed.

While people like Hillary Clinton get away with treason by claiming they “didn’t mean to do it,” when the FBI comes knocking on your door, they’ll calmly explain to you that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”

See, laws are for the little people like you and me… not for the Washington elite.

Step 3: If your political friends happen to get caught breaking the law, refuse to prosecute them… problem solved!
Despite the best efforts of the corrupted mainstream media to cover up the criminal behavior of the political establishment, every once in a while some member of the political elite gets caught engaging in a violation of law that’s so heinous, it can’t be swept under the rug.

What to do in such situations? Just “pull a James Comey” and announce to the world that you refuse to prosecute the person who violated those laws. After all, prosecutorial discretion means that “career prosecutors” who work for DOJ can decide to ignore the criminality of all their friends.

And who are their friends? Remember that all the prosecutors who work for DOJ are paid by the government. They know where their paychecks come from, and they fully realize that if they ever attempted to prosecute someone with sufficient power in government, their own careers would be destroyed.

Thus, the primary function of the DOJ becomes one of suppressing the sheeple while protecting the criminal class of Washington political operatives.

Step 4: Arm up all federal departments with military weapons while calling for the complete disarmament of the population
Another important step in accelerating the FBI / DOJ war against the American people is to call for the mass disarmament of the citizenry while ramping up the paramilitary wings of every major government agency with a huge influx of military weapons.

Today, right now, the EPA runs its own paramilitary organization, complete with weapons of war to be trained upon U.S. citizens. From Circanews.com:

The U.S. Agriculture Department’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service doesn’t seem like a Wild West sort of federal agency since its biologists mostly check on the human health impact of animal and plant species.

But it reported buying $4.7 million in high-powered weapons, ammunition and military gear during the last decade, including shotguns, night vision goggles, and propane cannons, according to federal purchasing records reviewed by the nonpartisan government spending watchdog openthebooks.com.

It turns out that U.S. federal agencies are spending between $150 million and $200 million per year on military gear and weapons. While this is happening, the very same government criminals who are granted selective immunity against prosecution for treasonous acts are all over the mainstream media calling for the complete disarmament of the population.

All the guns in America, it turns out, belong solely in the hands of the government… according to government. Funny how that always leads to genocide and tyranny, isn’t it?

Step 5: To sweep up even more citizens into prosecutions, plot acts of domestic terrorism, then recruit low-IQ citizens who you then “catch” in the act
Here’s an irrefutable fact about the FBI that very few people realize is true: The agency routinely plans domestic terrorism attacks and draws up the plans and equipment to carry them out. FBI agents then run around the bad parts of town, recruiting hapless (and sometimes even HOMELESS) victims to carry out those acts of terrorism so they can be conveniently “caught in the act.”

Right before the bomb goes off, the FBI swoops in and declares victory for “stopping domestic terrorism.” Yet, in all these cases, it was the FBI that masterminded the acts of terror in the first place.

We have extensively documented this fraudulent phenomenon here on Natural News, including in this article review of the book “The Terrorist Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terror.” The New York Times has ever covered the FBI’s fake terror plots, believe it or not.

Also, check out these stories: FBI intercepts its own terrorist plot against US Capitol, Pentagon and FBI halts terror plot dreamed up by the FBI, then claims victory against terrorism.

Like almost everything else done by the fraudulent federal government in America, the FBI is mostly a theatrical production company engaged in elaborate street theater. We now know that most of the so-called “crimes” that are halted by the FBI actually consist of drugged-out patsies who were recruited by the FBI to carry out FBI-inspired terror attacks. Meanwhile, any actual criminals who commit actual crimes ­ like Hillary Clinton ­ are given a free pass even when their crimes violate national security.

The FBI, much like the DOJ and every other federal agency, has become a joke… a hollow shadow of its former self and the laughing stock of informed citizens everywhere. The public perception now is that the only crimes the FBI seems to be able to stop are those crimes its own agents dreamed up in the first place. Yet the agency can’t seem to nail the worst criminals of all… the ones in power in Washington who commit the most heinous crimes against the entire nation by selling out the White House to foreign interests.

Why the citizens are nearing REVOLT
This is how it all works today in the corrupt America we are all desperately trying to save from sinking into despotism. The rule of law has been abandoned everywhere in Washington, and now the agencies of the federal government clearly exist for no other reason than to consolidate power in Washington, no matter what methods of tyranny and totalitarianism must be unleashed against the citizenry.

Those citizens, it turns out, are nearing a state of mass revolt. The obvious criminality in Washington has gone too far. The cover-ups are too numerous. The weaponization of government against innocent people is modeled after totalitarian regimes that almost always end in genocide. Today in America, there are journalists who sit in prison for no reason other than the fact that the government did not like what they reported. There are ranchers in prison who were convicted of the same “crime” the BLM carries out routinely (accidentally burning too much acreage in a controlled burn of rural ranch land). There are whistleblowers in prison who tried to warn the public, but the Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all the other presidential administrations combined… across the entire history of America.

The last straw is now the government’s brazen attempt to completely disarm the citizenry ­ an effort aided by the truly retarded verbal grunts of Hollywood morons like Matt Damon (who now insists that only government officials should have guns, not citizens). This effort will be accelerated in the near future with larger and more numerous false flag shootings, staged by the same theatrical production agencies that already stage fake terror plots to claim victory for “stopping terrorism.” Do you think you know the real story of the Sandy Hook massacre? Watch this video to learn about the ACTORS who played key roles as both parents and FBI swat team members (yes, the same guy plays both roles in all the media coverage).

Elaborate theater to weave a prison for your mind
It’s all theater, friends. The media, the FBI, the DOJ, the U.S. Senate, the Federal Reserve and even the rule of law. It’s all elaborate theater carried out as a prison for your mind, to keep you occupied, confused and manipulated so that you never figure out the greater truth that threatens the entire corrupt establishment.

What greater truth is that? The simple fact that all government power is granted by the People and can be instantly taken away by the People with nothing more than a consensus decision. Government and the rule of law exist as nothing more than consensus mental constructs ­ structural delusions of the mind that are widely shared and thus believed to be real. But government can collapse in an instant when the fraudulent promises of government suddenly collapse in the minds of the populace. Hence the need for drastic, elaborate financial theater to create the illusion of a booming economy even as we teeter on the verge of global, systemic economic collapse.

(By the way, “faith” in fiat currency is also a mental construct that can be shattered in an instant. The only reason another person accepts your green paper dollars as money is because you both share a false believe in the agreed-upon underlying value of the digits printed in cheap ink on near-worthless fiber. If that illusion of value is shattered in both your minds, dollars immediately collapse into worthlessness because they have no tangible value. All fiat money systems are run entirely on FAITH… and faith is fleeting when it comes to money.)

The illusion of government power depends on the continued indoctrination and intimidation of the enslaved masses
Those who run government fully realize that they are a tiny minority who rule only by fiat. Their rule depends entirely on the masses believing in the delusions played in for their minds by the ruling elite. If that delusion were to ever be shattered and the people realized how they were being fraudulently manipulated and exploited, the political elite wouldn’t survive even 24 hours (and there would be a dire shortage of rope in the D.C. area in particular).

That’s the bigger, deeper picture of what’s really happening around you right now. You are living in a nation that’s run by a corrupt, criminal elite who carry out campaigns of elaborate delusion to enslave and manipulate the clueless masses who keep robotically voting for their very own slave masters. Any person who attempts to free the slaves is deemed an enemy of the state and is subjected to selective prosecutorial scrutiny to have them imprisoned (as described above).

In fact, the only reason I am still allowed to function as a relatively free citizen in this nation is because my articles simply aren’t popular enough to warrant the effort of oppression. I’m relatively safe, in other words, because my reach is so tiny compared to the mainstream media. Interestingly, that also means that you who are reading this are among the top 1% of the most informed individuals in the world. You are reading and learning about these eye opening, fundamental truths that 99% of the population will never encounter (partly because the 99% don’t have the mental fortitude to even face reality in the first place, since believing in popular fairy tales requires no real effort… and besides, there are Oreo cookies that need licking, right?).

As long as the system can continue to censor my message and keep it restricted to less than 1% of the population ­ via Google and Facebook censorship, mostly ­ then I will be “allowed” to continue my work because it doesn’t legitimately threaten the establishment in any serious way. But if my message ever somehow explodes in popularity and breaks through 10% of the population, then I would be in serious danger and would be silenced in one way or another. Remember, selective prosecution can target ANYONE and indict them for unknowingly committing three felonies a day.

10-1-2016-9-27-58-am

Have no fear, however: My message of truth is not of much interest to 99% of the population. They are far too happy in their Golden Corral, GMO-infested junk food eat-a-thon fairy tale illusions to ever bother investigating reality. There is virtually zero risk to the establishment that my words will ever be embraced by more than a tiny fraction of the population. Deep truth, it seems, has never really been that popular in delusional societies.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming…

Written by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger and published on Natural News, July 6, 2016.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

2-6-2015-10-13-51-am

The Big One 20 years of work filed in your behalf

September 24th, 2016 by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A much, much better world?  

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

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

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

September 22nd, 2016 by

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

May 23, 2016 · by JohnHenryHill · in Original Articles

My Post:

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

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

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

Original Posting: May 23, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

1.) The Constitution of the United States

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

Article II, Section 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.) The Bill of Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 23, 2016

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

In reply to Ken Johnson.

Ken,                                      May 25, 2016

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

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

In short, you are CORRECT.

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

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

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

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

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

Best wishes!

JHH

Extra Stuff:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMPLETE ARTICLE

Mission not quite accomplished: Obama’s antiterrorism legacy

by Daniel Klaidman and Olivier Knox

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When it comes to terrorism, can Americans do nuance?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

………. END OF ARTICLE ……….

 2 comments

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

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

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

Ken, May 25, 2016

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

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

In short, you are CORRECT.

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

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

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

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

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

Best wishes! JHH

Extra Stuff:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

 

How to Defeat Tyranny: Active Disobedience

September 21st, 2016 by

https://johnhenryhill.wordpress.com/2015/02/02/how-to-defeat-tyranny-active-disobedience/

 

by JohnHenryHill

How to Defeat Tyranny: Active Disobedience

We Are All Voluntary Slaves: A Lesson on How to Defeat Tyranny

by John-Henry Hill, M.D.

JohnHenryHill@Yahoo.com

http://JohnHenryHill.Wordpress.com

 “If we ever pass out as a great nation we ought to put on our tombstone, ‘America died from a delusion that she has moral leadership.’”  – Will Rogers (1879-1935) American Humorist, Actor and Author

Necessity and expediency are NOT legitimate excuses for violating the Constitution you swore to uphold and protect – even during a ‘crisis’” – Alexander Hamilton (1st Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington)

“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), Economist and Political Philosopher, [On Liberty (1859) 1977:220]

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens)

Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”Frederick Douglass

“The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.”  Henry L. Mencken (1880-1956), Journalist and Author

We are reluctant to admit that we owe our liberties to men of a type that today we HATE and FEAR — unruly men, disturbers of the peace, men who resent and denounce what Whitman called ‘the insolence of elected persons’ – in word, free men…” Gerald W. Johnson (1890-1980), American Journalist and Author

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”  —  Thomas Jefferson

“Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.” The more things change, the more they stay the same.

THE PROBLEM

We have all become “Voluntary Slaves” to systems of government and social institutions we dislike, to greater or lesser degrees. To ancient Romans the word “system” referred to the city sewers, so we today live in a government sewer. Not that we knowingly and willingly volunteered to do so; we merely acquiesce – we “go along”. It is the world into which we were born. In the film “The Truman Show with actor Jim Carrey, the show’s director explained why Truman, whose entire life has been broadcast as a TV show, never questioned the authenticity of his world: We all accept the world we are born into – it’s as simple as that.” But like the Truman (True Man) character, we all sense that something is wrong. Our reason and inherent common sense – what many call a “gut feeling” – tell us that the system is corrupt and unjust. If only we would listen to our inner voice of reason!

Who among us would pay the numerous and ever-increasing taxes and fees that are levied by our governments if we were not forced to do so under threats of fines and imprisonment – or worse? What American is not afraid of the IRS, even though all the federal income taxes collected are deposited by the Secretary of the Treasury into a privately-owned corporation in Puerto Rico and thereafter distributed among foreign creditors of the U.S. government to pay for the interest (and ONLY the interest) on America’s national debt. Who would willingly pay to huge corporations the inflated prices demanded for such basic necessities of life as food, electricity, water and fuel to heat our homes? We are further required, under the same threats of violence, to obey statutes, codes and regulations (so-called “laws”) created at the arbitrary whims of our rulers and which we find ridiculous and even hurtful to us. If you were driving your child to the hospital during a life-threatening emergency and came to a very long “red” traffic light on a deserted road, would you wait until the light turned “green”? By all logic waiting for the “green” light, thereby risking your child’s life, makes no sense – it defies reason and our innate common sense! (I am reminded of a cartoon of many years ago where a man sitting on a camel in the middle of a bleak desert waits at a traffic light – a similar scene was in Mel Brooks’ comedy-western film, “Blazing Saddles”, in which a posse on horseback are stopped at a toll-gate in the middle of nowhere. Instead of simply riding around the toll-gate, the character played by actor Slim Pickens shouts, “Somebody go back to town and get a shitload of dimes!”) But there are many among us who would wait – in fact most people will wait. As “law-abiding Americans”, most people would not even think of ignoring the traffic light – and the few people who did ignore it would feel guilty for doing so! Why? Because it is the “law”? Because we should instead seek redress through the courts within our “justice system”, a device clearly controlled by the government rulers?  Is it some type of “herd mentality” that controls our behavior and even our thoughts? In short, why do we obey any government when its demands are arbitrary, excessive, hurtful and defy common sense?

I am a retired physician and medical researcher, so I have a lot of time to indulge in reading everything I come across on the Internet regarding politics, law and history. Not that I am smart – I simply do not like to watch football, etc. on TV. It was only recently that I stumbled upon a brief essay that “explained it all” in fewer than 25 pages. Surprisingly, although it was written by a law-philosophy student in France in 1552, it applies to our political institutions today. It is called, The Discourse on Voluntary Servitude by Etienne De La Boetie.

Boetie said there are three types of tyrants: those that rule by conquest or force of arms, those that rule by inheritance (royalty) and those that rule through elections by the people. Of these he felt that an elected leader was the most tyrannical since he never wishes to relinquish his power, even though required to do so upon completion of his term of office. Having tasted power, few men in government wish to yield that power. Today in America we change presidents, senators and representative (not to mention state and local leaders) every few years, but our governments continue their maltreatment of the people regardless of which political party gains power. Why do We the People tolerate this servitude and often even misery?

“That so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him; who could do them absolutely no injury unless they preferred to put up with him rather than contradict him.”

Boetie’s asserted that we tolerate this voluntary servitude by custom and habit. A “Man from Mars” might wonder, How could one man (or small group of men) possibly rule with such maltreatment such great numbers of people? Or as Boetie said, “Who could really believe that one man alone may mistreat a hundred thousand and deprive them of their liberty? When not a hundred, not a thousand men, but a hundred provinces, a thousand cities, a million men, refuse to assail a single man from whom the kindest treatment received is the infliction of serfdom and slavery, what shall we call that? Is it cowardice?” Boetie’s answer was “No”, it was simply that people were accustomed to condition, as were their fathers, grandfathers and so on. “Two, possibly ten, may fear one [man]; but when a thousand, a million men, a thousand cities, fail to protect themselves against the domination of one man, this cannot be called cowardly, for cowardice does not sink to such a depth, any more than valor can be termed the effort of one individual to scale a fortress, to attack an army, or to conquer a kingdom. What monstrous vice, then, is this which does not even deserve to be called cowardice, a vice for which no term can be found vile enough, which nature herself disavows and our tongues refuse to name?” The masses of people become slaves through custom and habit, reinforced by their leader’s exploitation of the people’s own apathy, indifference and laziness. The main reason we so willingly take orders from authority is that we are born submissive serfs, reared as submissive serfs, educated to remain submissive serfs and trained to work as submissive serfs.

THE METHODS

What tools does a leader or government use to keep us in servitude? It is obvious that one man cannot control all the people by himself. The ruler must have the assistance of some of the people among us: first are the ruling elite, followed by a large bureaucracy. the police and a military – each created in hierarchical fashion of rank and class with corresponding levels of rewards. These organizations of servants must be ever-enlarging; not to accomplish anything of substance, but simply to make more and more people dependent on government for their livelihood and status. The police and military cannot exist solely for the protection of the rulers, since history has proved repeatedly that no ruler is truly safe; that if a ruler is greatly despised, he can be deposed or assassinated without much effort (usually by someone in his inner circle). “The torment in which tyrants find themselves when obliged to fear everyone because they do evil unto every man … not daring to entrust weapons in the hands of their own people, whom they have wronged.”

The servants closest to the ruler, the ruling elite (both in and out of government), remain few in number and are controlled by means of what Boetie called “special privileges and large gifts”. Boetie ironically noted: “Men accept servility in order to acquire wealth; as if they could acquire anything of their own when they cannot even assert that they belong to themselves, or as if anyone could possess under a tyrant a single thing in his own name. Yet they act as if their wealth really belonged to them, and forget that it is they themselves who give the ruler the power to deprive everybody of everything, leaving nothing that anyone can identify as belonging to somebody.” Within this ruling elite (most of whom are usually not even formal members of the ruler’s government) are “only four or five who maintain the dictator, four or five who keep the country in bondage to him. Five or six have always had access to his ear, and have either gone to him of their own accord, or else have been summoned by him, to be accomplices in his cruelties, companions in his pleasures, panders to his lusts, and sharers in his plunders. These six manage their chief so successfully that he comes to be held accountable not only for his own misdeeds but even for theirs.” Under the authority of the ruling elite next come the bureaucrats, police and military. Boetie observed: “The six [ruling elites] have six hundred who profit under them, and with the six hundred they do what they have accomplished with their tyrant. The six hundred maintain under them six thousand, whom they promote in rank, upon whom they confer the government of provinces or the direction of finances, in order that they may serve as instruments of avarice and cruelty, executing orders at the proper time and working such havoc all around that they could not last except under the shadow of the six hundred, nor be exempt from law and punishment except through their influence. The consequence of all this is fatal indeed. And whoever is pleased to unwind the skein will observe that not the six thousand but a hundred thousand, and even millions, cling to the tyrant by this cord to which they are tied.”

Obviously the ruling elite and those we today call “public servants” must be paid their “special privileges and large gifts” – some might say, bribes – to maintain their allegiance to the ruler and his government. These gifts from the ruler – extracted from the masses of people – may come as pay, tax breaks and grants. Some among the masses of people often receive gifts as well: welfare, food stamps, and the too-numerous-to-count government programs giving people something for “FREE”, even though the people themselves ultimately pay for it! “Tyrants would distribute largess, a bushel of wheat, a gallon of wine, and a sesterce [an ancient Roman coin]: and then everybody would shamelessly cry, “Long live the King!” The fools did not realize that they were merely recovering a portion of their own property, and that their ruler could not have given them what they were receiving without having first taken it from them … the mob has always behaved in this way — eagerly open to bribes that cannot be honorably accepted.” Clearly, we ALL want “our share” of the government pie – a pie we ourselves provided to government!

However, the ruler system creates universal anxiety. The ruler can have no friends; he can never fully trust anyone or feel completely secure in his power. ”The fact is that the tyrant is never truly loved, nor does he love… there can be no friendship where there is cruelty, where there is disloyalty, where there is injustice.” The ancients wrote: To rule as king is to be alone. Today we say: “It is lonely at the top.” The ruling elite live under similar anxieties as the ruler – “in places where the wicked gather there is conspiracy only, not companionship: these have no affection for one another; fear alone holds them together; they are not friends, they are merely accomplices.” Yet who among us would not accept these “special privileges and large gifts” from the ruler? After all, why work for a living when you can obtain wealth and status with little or no effort? “These wretches see the glint of the despot’s treasures and are bedazzled by the radiance of his splendor. Drawn by this brilliance they come near, without realizing they are approaching a flame that cannot fail to scorch them.” Only later do the ruling elite understand fully that the ruler, upon his mere whim, can take from them all they possess. ”The favorites of a tyrant can never feel entirely secure, and the less so because he [the ruler] has learned from them that he is all powerful and unlimited by any law or obligation.” Even if a member of the ruling elite manages to remain in the good graces of the current ruler, what about the ruler’s successor – the next president, prime minister, king, queen, or dictator? How can any person, even among the highest of the ruling elite, ever feel truly secure in his and his family’s wealth and status now or in the future? “Even admitting that favorites may at times escape from the hands of him they serve, they are never safe from the ruler who comes after him. If he is good, they must render an account of their past and recognize at last that justice exists; if he is bad and resembles their late master, he [the next ruler] will certainly have his own favorites, who are not usually satisfied to occupy in their turn merely the posts of their predecessors, but will more often insist on their wealth and their lives.” Of course, the great lie underpinning our system is that we own nothing – our government can take our property on a whim. Even if you have fully paid off the mortgage on your home, simply look at the deed and you will see that you are probably listed as a “tenant-in-common” with “fee simple” title or “title in equity” – and a tenant is someone who pays rent and taxes. A true owner with “allodial” title pays no rent or taxes. As the actor Peter Fonda stated, “Try not paying your taxes and find out who owns your house.”

In addition to gifts and privileges to his ruling elite, the ruler employs another tool. He creates and maintains a remoteness from the people, thereby creating a mystique and aura of the leader being “special” simply by being inaccessible to the public masses. “The earliest kings of Egypt rarely showed themselves without carrying a cat, or sometimes a branch, or appearing with fire on their heads, masking themselves with these objects and parading like workers of magic. By doing this they inspired their subjects with reverence and admiration … It is pitiful to review the list of devices that early despots used to establish their tyranny; to discover how many little tricks they employed, always finding the populace conveniently gullible.” Tyrants and despots have “always fooled their victims so easily that, while mocking them, they enslaved them the more.” Today when a president, a queen or a prime minister goes out in public, the remoteness is maintained: they travel in limousines with darkly-tinted windows and near which the masses are not allowed. Even when simply playing golf, a president and the people are kept apart. And on rare occasions when the ruler is seen by the people, his appearance is an occasion of great ceremony, accompanied by symbols and pageantry. Today we have ceremonies such as royal coronations, presidential inaugurations, state-of-the-union speeches and proclamations to the nation – all on prime-time TV. The symbols of the ruler’s specialness” appear: the presidential seal, a king or queen’s crown and throne, flags, ornate offices and buildings, monuments and statues. His servants address the ruler by such titles as the “Leader of the Free World”, “Mr. President”, “Her Majesty the Queen” or “His Eminence The Pope” – and in turn the ruling elite are addressed by such titles as Senator, Congressman, Mr. Chief Justice, CEO of XYZ corporation, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Secretary of the ABC Department, Ambassador and so on. After all, without a title, you must be a “nobody” – just one of the people.

Even when simply traveling the ruler, whose life is somehow deemed of greater value than ours, uses special transportation: the president’s plane “Air Force One”, the royal carriage, the royal yacht, the presidential helicopter, not to mention the gaggle of limousines surrounded by hordes of police, “Secret Service” and innumerable security vehicles. Upon arriving at the ceremony, special guards (usually outfitted in ridiculously ornate uniforms) stand to salute the ruler, while offering no real protection – they are part of the show! Visualize, if you will, the queen’s Royal Guards at Buckingham Palace in London. Or the almost clownish formality of the guards at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia – why are they wearing such ornate costumes while guarding dead people? Boetie noted, “Whoever thinks that halberds, sentries, the placing of the watch, serve to protect and shield tyrants is, in my judgment, completely mistaken. These are used, it seems to me, more for ceremony and a show of force than for any reliance placed in them.” Some rulers even encourage the development of a cult-like admiration, often extending into myth and religion such as “the divine right of kings”, the myths about George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, and the god-like status of the later Egyptian pharaohs. Boetie observed: “Tyrants themselves have wondered that men could endure the persecution of a single man; they have insisted on using religion for their own protection and, where possible, have borrowed a stray bit of divinity to bolster up their evil ways.”

In a well-informed and enlightened society, the tools described above could not long maintain a ruler’s tyranny, for eventually the people will become disenchanted, less productive – and even may question the injustice of the system under which they live and challenge the authority of the government. The ruler cannot allow this to happen. Thousands of years ago rulers learned that entertainment and amusements divert the people’s attention away from truly important issues affecting their lives. Boetie noted: “Plays, farces, spectacles, gladiators, strange beasts, medals, pictures, and other such opiates, these were for ancient peoples the bait toward slavery, the price of their liberty, the instruments of tyranny.” Over thousands of years not much has changed – today we have our mass-media, professional sports, TV, computer games, alcohol and drugs, activities, pastimes and pleasures that keep us too busy to notice, much less act upon, the public issues which so greatly affect our lives. By our many entertainments (may I call them “circuses”?) and diversions we are truly similar to the peoples of centuries past. “By these practices and enticements the ancient dictators so successfully lulled their subjects under the yoke, that the stupefied peoples, fascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures flashed before their eyes, learned subservience as naively, but not so creditably, as little children learn to read by looking at bright picture books.”

Ancient rulers also understood the truth in the adage “Divide and Conquer”. They recognized the importance of distracting and dividing the people by income, race and class differences, and through political affiliations (parties). Boetie: “Thus the despot subdues his subjects, some of them by means of others, and thus is he protected by those from whom, if they were decent men, he would have to guard himself; just as, in order to split wood, one has to use a wedge of the wood itself.” To ensure that the masses of people, in their misery and oppression, never challenge the authority of the ruler, the ruler must deflect all blame onto some of his servants, including the ruling elite and the bureaucracy; OR onto forces and peoples outside his kingdom or government – foreigners. The ruler also blames those who challenge his policies, applying such labels as malcontents, hippies, trouble makers, protesters, conspiracy theorists, home-grown terrorists, etc. Likewise the ruler blames foreign rulers and foreign peoples for the misery that he himself created among the masses of his own people – even to the extent of starting wars. The successful ruler will deflect all blame from himself in order that ”the people never blame the tyrant for the evils they suffer, but they do place responsibility on those who influence him; peoples, nations, all compete with one another, even the peasants, even the tillers of the soil, in mentioning the names of the favorites, in analyzing their vices, and heaping upon them a thousand insults, a thousand obscenities, a thousand maledictions. All their prayers, all their vows are directed against these persons; they hold them accountable for all their misfortunes, their pestilences, their famines.” Meanwhile the tyrant remains safely in power.

Past rulers also recognized the power behind money, even “fake money” created by the ruler himself as paper currency or coins of otherwise worthless metals. As Boetie stated, “What comment can I make concerning another fine counterfeit that ancient peoples accepted as true money?” Boetie wondered by what magic a piece of paper, a coin of worthless metal or a piece of wood (English “tally stick”) obtain real value? Boetie queried, “They [the people] believed firmly that the great toe of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, performed miracles and cured diseases … In this wise that a foolish people itself invents lies and then believes them.” Does an otherwise worthless object obtain its value simply because the ruler has decreed this paper, metal or wood to be the only form of money acceptable as payment for taxes? By definition, something of “real value” is something upon which people place value because of its utility, something they need and can use in their daily lives. Otherwise, why would any people possessing reason and common sense accept as money objects possessing no real usefulness? Such trinkets are NOT money – they are, at most, convenient tokens for mere promises to pay you something of REAL usefulness at a later date. Can you say “Federal Reserve note”, today’s official U.S. Dollar?

Finally, among the most useful tools employed by tyrants and governments are propaganda and speeches, the “power of persuasion” through the manipulation of words evoking passion instead of reason within the people. As Boetie observed in 1552, rulers and governments of all types “do not behave very differently: they never undertake an unjust policy, even one of some importance, without prefacing it with some pretty speech concerning public welfare and common good.”

THE SOLUTION

The important question now becomes: How can we escape this voluntary servitude? Or, are we Americans are fond of saying, How can we get government off our backs? In early America our ancestors modeled their society and governments on Christian principles whereby their God, as the creator of all things including man, was the Sovereign and Master of all things, including man. Likewise, man was the sovereign and master of all things he created. Consequently, in America, We the People, as the creators of our local state and federal governments and institutions, were considered the sovereigns and masters of those governments and institutions. As with God, no master or sovereign serves his subjects, else he ceases to be master and sovereign. Until the early 20th century We the People were considered as master and sovereign over our creation: the government. I have attempted to explain how today this relationship has been turned on its head – how the people are now expected to obey every command issued by our supposed servants, the government. Indeed, many Americans today are grateful that the governments seize only 60 percent of their income as taxes and fees! Elections most certainly have made no improvements, despite the promises made every 4 years! – the extortion by government and misery of We the People increase relentlessly. But is a violent revolution really necessary to rid ourselves of the tyranny? If violent action were required, Boetie knew that most men would not participate since they are not men of action; they dislike the time and effort involved and the risk of losing whatever little they possess. In the 20th century the common adage was, “You can’t beat city hall.” Boetie concluded that not only was violent action not required, no action at all is required – only non-action through non-compliance. He wrote, “Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself.” Boetie, unlike most Americans today, recognized the important distinction between a country (the people) and a government (the ruler and the ruling elite).

Boetie implored, “Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.”

CONCLUSIONS

If you do not like what the government does, simply refuse to cooperate. You do not like paying taxes, fees and fines? Then do not pay them! You do not like having to constantly renew this or that license or registration or permit or whatever? Then do not renew them! You do not like paying for parking and traffic tickets? Then ignore them – toss them into the trash! Of course some people might object. “What if EVERYONE did that?” My answers are: 1) Great! Then we would have less government bothering us and stealing our money. 2.) If “everyone did that”, then you would be a fool NOT to do likewise, if it is in your own best interest. I have little hope for the current generations of adults – we are too bound up in our own indulgences, pastimes and apathy; too bound by custom and habit. The motto of adult Americans appears to be: “As it is now, so must it be forever.” My hope lies with those who are too young to have been indoctrinated, distracted or “bought off” by the rulers. Not because they are more courageous than we, but because they will experience such hardship and misery in the coming years that they will not tolerate our rulers and system of government any longer – that they will rebel, not with the sword, but by simple non-cooperation. There is no need for violent revolution; no need even to walk the streets carrying a protest sign. As Boetie concluded centuries ago, they need only resolve to serve no more: to refuse to pay taxes and fees and fines, to refuse to obey so-called “laws” that violate our own powers of reason and common sense. They will cease ALL cooperation with government in any manner; and at once they will be freed.

Now, turn off your computer and go watch the football game on TV!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

Why Governments Want a Central Bank-Issued Digital Currency

September 16th, 2016 by

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Digital Currencies Issued by Non-Financial Institutions

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

  1. Commercial Banks-issued Digital Currency

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

  1. Central Bank-issued Digital Currency

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

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

To Create a Cashless Society

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Achieve a More Accurate Monetary Policy

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

DEATH TO THE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT

BANKING CARTEL!

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

MULTICULTURALISM DISMANTLING WESTERN CULTURE HILLARY AND MERKEL

September 8th, 2016 by

http://newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty1169.htm

By Frosty Wooldridge
September 8, 2016
NewsWithViews.com

Seeding America with Muslim Violence

“Since the days of Charles Martel and Charlemagne, some great victories have been won by the West, but the war is never over. All these historical events can easily be overlooked because of the wording of the standard history books, which blur when they should clarify. These Western books offer scattered anecdotes about “Saracens,” “Moors,” and “Barbary pirates,” but almost never a coherent picture. That is because everywhere in the modern world we see the problem of “political correctness,” but especially in academic situations. Every piece of paper that appears in public must emphasize “multiculturalism” at all costs, in spite of the fact that the expansion of one culture must lead to the shrinking of another.” Peter Goodchild, historian, (Source: Link)

Time Magazine wrote a gushing report on Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel as a woman of compassion and vision when she offered Germany as a refugee camp for 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 (million) African refugees in 2015-2016.

I wrote a letter to Time: “Angela Merkel’s lack of wisdom, foresight and understanding of Islam’s historical trajectory provides the most violent religion on Earth a petri dish with which to expand in every nook and cranny of German society. History shows from the time of Mohammed to Charlemagne that Muslims never quit their prime directive: “Convert or kill all non-believers.” That Islamic death-cult welcomes endless forms of violence to conquer every country it settles. No European, Canadian, American or Australian society will survive Islam’s onslaught—without bloody conflict.”

Goodchild continued, “The people who have that Western legacy, however, are disappearing from much of Europe and North America. Instead, we have “multiculturalism,” which really means the dismantling of “culture,” the decline of the West. In our schools, young people are now taught to be ashamed of their legacy, and any courses in the social sciences are perverted to show the “guilt” of those who spent thousands of years developing all that can truly be called “civilization.” Whether our leaders can be persuaded not to continue dragging us in such a direction is an enormous question.”

As the rapes, violence toward females, bombings, shootings, stabbings and intimidation escalate in Europe—Merkel invites more barbarians from Africa and the Middle East to invade her countrymen. Never mind the Charlie Hebdo massacre, Nice, France; Paris, France; Sweden’s rape and riot conflagration; Holland’s breakdown; Brussels, Belgium bombings, United Kingdom’s throat slitting on London’s streets and thousands of individual acts of Muslim violence toward Europeans. Merkel invites more of the same. So do Sweden, Norway, Italy and Spain.

Few leaders take a stand for their countries. Except Poland and now Austria!

“Muslims are even cruel to one another,” said Goodchild. “Especially to their women. Female genital mutilation is customary. “Honor killing” is common: every year, according to Robert Fisk and others, over twenty thousand women worldwide die at the hands of their own families, and the majority of these women are Muslim. Yet the term “honor killing” is horrendously inaccurate. Most people in the modern West do not regard it as “honorable” for a man to torture and murder a female member of his family on the basis of some slight act of disobedience, often imaginary.”

Notice at no time does Tony Blair of the United Kingdom allow his family or children to be in contact with the 2.5 million Muslims he invited into that country. Same with Merkel in Germany! And, France’s Hollande! The rich elites never allow their hands to be soiled in the commoners’ problems with multiculturalism.

Exit from Europe to America: Hillary Clinton expects to invite 100,000 Syrian refugees to as high as 1,000,000 (million) African-Middle Eastern refugees into America to create a similar climate of civil conflict within the United States. Such immigrants carry scant education, intellectual horsepower or any ability to contribute to American society. Expect them to end up on welfare paid for by you, the American taxpayer. Expect disruption of your communities, schools and local governments.

Muslims cannot and do not assimilate into Western societies. They create chaos, mayhem and sociological-cultural destruction. It’s the nature of Islam, moderate or radical, no difference.

Not only will Hillary Clinton flood America with Muslims, she will enjoy a mandate to present amnesty to 20 to as high as 30 million illegal migrants from all over the world. (Source: Ann Coulter, Adios America: The Left’s Plan to Turn America into a Third World Hellhole.)

“Immigrants devoted to their own cultures and religions are not influenced by the secular politically correct façade that dominates academia, news-media, entertainment, education, religious and political thinking today,” said James Walsh, former Associate General Counsel of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service. “They claim the right not to assimilate, and the day is coming when the question will be how can the United States regulate the defiantly unassimilated cultures, religions and mores of foreign lands? Such immigrants say their traditions trump the U.S. legal system. Balkanization of the United States has begun.”

If Hillary Clinton gains the White House, you, your family, and your community will see Muslims entering every aspect of American life. They will disrupt your schools, your city councils and your churches. Muslims will live off your welfare dollars in order to devour your community as their numbers grow. You can expect riots, rapes and mayhem weekly. Expect endless Orlando’s; San Bernardino’s; Boston Marathon’s; Fort Hood’s; Detroit’s, 9/11’s and Chattanooga’s in your future.

Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel: twin sisters in the destruction of America and Europe.

© 2016 Frosty Wooldridge – All Rights Reserved

 Frosty Wooldridge possesses a unique view of the world, cultures and families in that he has bicycled around the globe 100,000 miles, on six continents and six times across the United States in the past 30 years. His published books include: “HANDBOOK FOR TOURING BICYCLISTS”; “STRIKE THREE! TAKE YOUR BASE”; “IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION: DEADLY CONSEQUENCES”; “MOTORCYCLE ADVENTURE TO ALASKA: INTO THE WIND—A TEEN NOVEL”; “BICYCLING AROUND THE WORLD: TIRE TRACKS FOR YOUR IMAGINATION”; “AN EXTREME ENCOUNTER: ANTARCTICA.” His next book: “TILTING THE STATUE OF LIBERTY INTO A SWAMP.” He lives in Denver, Colorado.

His latest book. ‘IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION—DEADLY CONSEQUENCES.’

Website: www.FrostyWooldridge.com

E:Mail: frostyw@juno.com

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

From the very beginning of recorded history, homo-sapiens have formed clans and ideology different from each other and now the most incomprehensible idiots ever born are insisting multiculturalism will bring everyone together as one big happy family and the dissenters are the scum of the earth. How in the hell did any human being ever become this stupid? Separation of the races is the only possible way for peace and harmony to exist, but that does not mean any race has the right to consider their self superior or demonize any other race. Common sense should tell people not to crap in their own bed.  It is hard enough for each race to co-exist, so why make it any more complicated? Can you idiots not see this is an intentional maneuver to break down our society? It has never worked and WILL NEVER work.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


SEO Powered By SEOPressor