Log in



Categories » ‘REBELLION’

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

The Tyranny of 9-11: The Building Blocks of the American Police State from A to Z

September 7th, 2016 by

http://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_tyranny_of_9_11_the_building_blocks_of_the_american_police_state_f

2-12-2015 9-29-40 AM9-6-2016 8-35-41 PM

By John W. Whitehead

“No one man can terrorize a whole nation unless we are all his accomplices.” ― Edward R. Murrow

We’ve walked a strange and harrowing road since September 11, 2001, littered with the debris of our once-vaunted liberties.

We have gone from a nation that took great pride in being a model of a representative democracy to being a model of how to persuade the citizenry to march in lockstep with a police state. In doing so, we have proven Osama Bin Laden right. He warned that “freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.”

These past 15 years have indeed been an unbearable, choking hell.

What began with the passage of the USA Patriot Act in October 2001 has snowballed into the eradication of every vital safeguard against government overreach, corruption and abuse.

The citizenry’s unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security has resulted in a society where the nation is being locked down into a militarized, mechanized, hypersensitive, legalistic, self-righteous, goose-stepping antithesis of every principle upon which this nation was founded.

This is not freedom. This is a jail cell.

Set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches, roving VIPR raids and the like—all of which have been sanctioned by Congress, the White House and the courts—our constitutional freedoms have been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded.

Our losses are mounting with every passing day.

Free speech, the right to protest, the right to challenge government wrongdoing, due process, a presumption of innocence, the right to self-defense, accountability and transparency in government, privacy, press, sovereignty, assembly, bodily integrity, representative government: all of these and more have become casualties in the government’s war on the American people, a war that has grown more pronounced since 9/11.

Since the towers fell on 9/11, the American people have been treated like enemy combatants, to be spied on, tracked, scanned, frisked, searched, subjected to all manner of intrusions, intimidated, invaded, raided, manhandled, censored, silenced, shot at, locked up, and denied due process.

In allowing ourselves to be distracted by terror drills, foreign wars, color-coded warnings, underwear bombers and other carefully constructed exercises in propaganda, sleight of hand, and obfuscation, we failed to recognize that the true enemy to freedom was lurking among us all the while.

The U.S. government now poses a greater threat to our freedoms than any terrorist, extremist or foreign entity ever could.

While nearly 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government and its agents have easily killed at least ten times that number of civilians in the U.S. and abroad since 9/11 through its police shootings, SWAT team raids, drone strikes and profit-driven efforts to police the globe, sell weapons to foreign nations, and foment civil unrest in order to keep the military industrial complex gainfully employed. (Syria’s bloody civil war in which CIA-armed militias have been fighting FBI-armed militias is a prime example of the government’s Machiavellian schemes gone awry.)

No, the U.S. government is not the citizenry’s friend, nor is it our protector, and life in the United States of America post-9/11 is no picnic.

Here’s an A-to-Z primer to spell out exactly what government tyranny means post 9/11.

A is for the AMERICAN POLICE STATE. A police state “is characterized by bureaucracy, secrecy, perpetual wars, a nation of suspects, militarization, surveillance, widespread police presence, and a citizenry with little recourse against police actions.”

B is for our battered BILL OF RIGHTS. In the cop culture that is America today, where you can be kicked, punched, tasered, shot, intimidated, harassed, stripped, searched, brutalized, terrorized, wrongfully arrested, and even killed by a police officer, and that officer is rarely held accountable for violating your rights, the Bill of Rights doesn’t amount to much.

C is for CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE. The latest governmental scheme to deprive Americans of their liberties—namely, the right to property—is being carried out under the guise of civil asset forfeiture, a government practice wherein government agents (usually the police) seize private property they “suspect” may be connected to criminal activity. Then, whether or not any crime is actually proven to have taken place, the government keeps the citizen’s property.

D is for DRONES. It is estimated that at least 30,000 drones will be airborne in American airspace by 2020, part of an $80 billion industry. Although some drones will be used for benevolent purposes, many will also be equipped with lasers, tasers and scanning devices, among other weapons—all aimed at “we the people.”

E is for ELECTRONIC CONCENTRATION CAMP. In the electronic concentration camp, as I have dubbed the surveillance state, all aspects of a person’s life are policed by government agents and all citizens are suspects, their activities monitored and regulated, their movements tracked, their communications spied upon, and their lives, liberties and pursuit of happiness dependent on the government’s say-so.

F is for FUSION CENTERS. Fusion centers, data collecting agencies spread throughout the country and aided by the National Security Agency, serve as a clearinghouse for information shared between state, local and federal agencies. These fusion centers constantly monitor our communications, everything from our internet activity and web searches to text messages, phone calls and emails. This data is then fed to government agencies, which are now interconnected: the CIA to the FBI, the FBI to local police.

G is for GRENADE LAUNCHERS and GLOBAL POLICE. The federal government has distributed more than $18 billion worth of battlefield-appropriate military weapons, vehicles and equipment such as drones, tanks, and grenade launchers to domestic police departments across the country. As a result, most small-town police forces now have enough firepower to render any citizen resistance futile. Now take those small-town police forces, train them to look and act like the military, and then enlist them to be part of the United Nations’ Strong Cities Network program, and you not only have a standing army that operates beyond the reach of the Constitution but one that is part of a global police force.

H is for HOLLOW-POINT BULLETS. The government’s efforts to militarize and weaponize its agencies and employees is reaching epic proportions, with federal agencies as varied as the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration stockpiling millions of lethal hollow-point bullets, which violate international law. Ironically, while the government continues to push for stricter gun laws for the general populace, the U.S. military’s arsenal of weapons makes the average American’s handgun look like a Tinker Toy.

I is for the INTERNET OF THINGS, in which internet-connected “things” will monitor your home, your health and your habits in order to keep your pantry stocked, your utilities regulated and your life under control and relatively worry-free. The key word here, however, is control. This “connected” industry propels us closer to a future where police agencies apprehend virtually anyone if the government “thinks” they may commit a crime, driverless cars populate the highways, and a person’s biometrics are constantly scanned and used to track their movements, target them for advertising, and keep them under perpetual surveillance.

J is for JAILING FOR PROFIT. Having outsourced their inmate population to private prisons run by private corporations, this profit-driven form of mass punishment has given rise to a $70 billion private prison industry that relies on the complicity of state governments to keep their privately run prisons full by jailing large numbers of Americans for inane crimes.

K is for KENTUCKY V. KING. In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that police officers can break into homes, without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home as long as they think they have a reason to do so. Despite the fact that the police in question ended up pursuing the wrong suspect, invaded the wrong apartment and violated just about every tenet that stands between us and a police state, the Court sanctioned the warrantless raid, leaving Americans with little real protection in the face of all manner of abuses by law enforcement officials.

L is for LICENSE PLATE READERS, which enable law enforcement and private agencies to track the whereabouts of vehicles, and their occupants, all across the country. This data collected on tens of thousands of innocent people is also being shared between police agencies, as well as with fusion centers and private companies. This puts Big Brother in the driver’s seat.

M is for MAIN CORE. Since the 1980s, the U.S. government has acquired and maintained, without warrant or court order, a database of names and information on Americans considered to be threats to the nation. As Salon reports, this database, reportedly dubbed “Main Core,” is to be used by the Army and FEMA in times of national emergency or under martial law to locate and round up Americans seen as threats to national security. As of 2008, there were some 8 million Americans in the Main Core database.

N is for NO-KNOCK RAIDS. Owing to the militarization of the nation’s police forces, SWAT teams are now increasingly being deployed for routine police matters. In fact, more than 80,000 of these paramilitary raids are carried out every year. That translates to more than 200 SWAT team raids every day in which police crash through doors, damage private property, terrorize adults and children alike, kill family pets, assault or shoot anyone that is perceived as threatening—and all in the pursuit of someone merely suspected of a crime, usually possession of some small amount of drugs.

O is for OVERCRIMINALIZATION. Thanks to an overabundance of 4500-plus federal crimes and 400,000 plus rules and regulations, it’s estimated that the average American actually commits three felonies a day without knowing it. As a result of this overcriminalization, we’re seeing an uptick in Americans being arrested and jailed for such absurd “violations” as letting their kids play at a park unsupervised, collecting rainwater and snow runoff on their own property, growing vegetables in their yard, and holding Bible studies in their living room.

P is for PATHOCRACY and PRECRIME. When our own government treats us as things to be manipulated, maneuvered, mined for data, manhandled by police, mistreated, and then jailed in profit-driven private prisons if we dare step out of line, we are no longer operating under a constitutional republic. Instead, what we are experiencing is a pathocracy: tyranny at the hands of a psychopathic government, which “operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups.” Couple that with the government’s burgeoning precrime programs, which will use fusion centers, data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics in order to identify and deter so-called potential “extremists,” dissidents or rabble-rousers. Bear in mind that anyone seen as opposing the government—whether they’re Left, Right or somewhere in between—is now viewed as an extremist.

Q is for QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. Qualified immunity allows officers to walk away without paying a dime for their wrongdoing. Conveniently, those deciding whether a police officer should be immune from having to personally pay for misbehavior on the job all belong to the same system, all cronies with a vested interest in protecting the police and their infamous code of silence: city and county attorneys, police commissioners, city councils and judges.

R is for ROADSIDE STRIP SEARCHES and BLOOD DRAWS. The courts have increasingly erred on the side of giving government officials—especially the police—vast discretion in carrying out strip searches, blood draws and even anal probes for a broad range of violations, no matter how minor the offense. In the past, strip searches were resorted to only in exceptional circumstances where police were confident that a serious crime was in progress. In recent years, however, strip searches have become routine operating procedures in which everyone is rendered a suspect and, as such, is subjected to treatment once reserved for only the most serious of criminals.

S is for the SURVEILLANCE STATE. On any given day, the average American going about his daily business will be monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways, by both government and corporate eyes and ears. A byproduct of this new age in which we live, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, is listening in and tracking your behavior. This doesn’t even begin to touch on the corporate trackers that monitor your purchases, web browsing, Facebook posts and other activities taking place in the cyber sphere.

T is for TASERS. Nonlethal weapons such as tasers, stun guns, rubber pellets and the like have been used by police as weapons of compliance more often and with less restraint—even against women and children—and in some instances, even causing death. These “nonlethal” weapons also enable police to aggress with the push of a button, making the potential for overblown confrontations over minor incidents that much more likely. A Taser Shockwave, for instance, can electrocute a crowd of people at the touch of a button.

U is for UNARMED CITIZENS SHOT BY POLICE. No longer is it unusual to hear about incidents in which police shoot unarmed individuals first and ask questions later, often attributed to a fear for their safety. Yet the fatality rate of on-duty patrol officers is reportedly far lower than many other professions, including construction, logging, fishing, truck driving, and even trash collection.

V is for VIPR SQUADS. So-called “soft target” security inspections, carried out by roving VIPR task forces, comprised of federal air marshals, surface transportation security inspectors, transportation security officers, behavior detection officers and explosive detection canine teams, are taking place whenever and wherever the government deems appropriate, at random times and places, and without needing the justification of a particular threat.

W is for WHOLE-BODY SCANNERS. Using either x-ray radiation or radio waves, scanning devices and government mobile units are being used not only to “see” through your clothes but to spy on you within the privacy of your home. While these mobile scanners are being sold to the American public as necessary security and safety measures, we can ill afford to forget that such systems are rife with the potential for abuse, not only by government bureaucrats but by the technicians employed to operate them.

X is for X-KEYSCORE, one of the many spying programs carried out by the National Security Agency that targets every person in the United States who uses a computer or phone. This top-secret program “allows analysts to search with no prior authorization through vast databases containing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals.”

Y is for YOU-NESS. Using your face, mannerisms, social media and “you-ness” against you, you can now be tracked based on what you buy, where you go, what you do in public, and how you do what you do. Facial recognition software promises to create a society in which every individual who steps out into public is tracked and recorded as they go about their daily business. The goal is for government agents to be able to scan a crowd of people and instantaneously identify all of the individuals present. Facial recognition programs are being rolled out in states all across the country.

Z is for ZERO TOLERANCE. We have moved into a new paradigm in which young people are increasingly viewed as suspects and treated as criminals by school officials and law enforcement alike, often for engaging in little more than childish behavior. In some jurisdictions, students have also been penalized under school zero tolerance policies for such inane “crimes” as carrying cough drops, wearing black lipstick, bringing nail clippers to school, using Listerine or Scope, and carrying fold-out combs that resemble switchblades. The lesson being taught to our youngest—and most impressionable—citizens is this: in the American police state, you’re either a prisoner (shackled, controlled, monitored, ordered about, limited in what you can do and say, your life not your own) or a prison bureaucrat (politician, police officer, judge, jailer, spy, profiteer, etc.).

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the reality we must come to terms with is that in the post-9/11 America we live in today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned.

The choices before us are straight-forward.

We can live in the past, dwell on what freedoms we used to enjoy and shrug helplessly at the destruction of our liberties.

We can immerse ourselves in the present, allowing ourselves to be utterly distracted by the glut of entertainment news and ever-changing headlines so that we fail to pay attention to or do anything about the government’s ongoing power-grabs.

We can hang our hopes on the future, believing against all odds that someone or something—whether it be a politician, a movement, or a religious savior—will save us from inevitable ruin.

Or we can start right away by instituting changes at the local level, holding our government officials accountable to the rule of law, and resurrecting the Constitution, recognizing that if we fail to do so and instead follow our current trajectory, the picture of the future will be closer to what George Orwell likened to “a boot stamping on a human face—forever.”

WC: 2954

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.

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

GUN CONTROL Background of the Issue: Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?

September 3rd, 2016 by

http://gun-control.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=006436

9-3-2016 2-38-56 PM

Infographic illustrating the attributes of the average American gun owner.

The United States has 88.8 guns per 100 people, or about 270,000,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women). America’s pervasive gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, frontier expansion, and the Second Amendment, which states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Proponents of more gun control laws state that the Second Amendment was intended for militias; that gun violence would be reduced; that gun restrictions have always existed; and that a majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions.

Opponents say that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns; that guns are needed for self-defense from threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders; and that gun ownership deters crime rather than causes more crime.

Guns in Colonial and Revolutionary America

Guns were common in the American Colonies, first for hunting and general self-protection and later as weapons in the American Revolutionary War. [105] Several colonies’ gun laws required that heads of households (including women) own guns and that all able-bodied men enroll in the militia and carry personal firearms. [105]

Some laws, including in Connecticut (1643) and at least five other colonies, required “at least one adult man in every house to carry a gun to church or other public meetings” in order to protect against attacks by Native Americans; prevent theft of firearms from unattended homes; and, as a 1743 South Carolina law stated, safeguard against “insurrections and other wicked attempts of Negroes and other Slaves.” [105] Other laws required immigrants to own guns in order to immigrate or own land. [105]

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution was ratified on Dec. 15, 1791. The notes from the Constitutional Convention do not mention an individual right to a gun for self-defense. [106] Some historians suggest that the idea of an individual versus a collective right would not have occurred to the Founding Fathers because the two were intertwined and inseparable: there was an individual right in order to fulfill the collective right of serving in the militia. [105] [106]

Although guns were common in colonial and revolutionary America, so were gun restrictions. Laws included banning the sale of guns to Native Americans (though colonists frequently traded guns with Native Americans for goods such as corn and fur); banning indentured servants (mainly the Irish) and slaves from owning guns; and exempting a variety of professions from owning guns (including doctors, school masters, lawyers, and millers). [105]

9-3-2016 2-40-09 PM

An 1879 sign in Dodge City, KS prohibiting the carrying of guns.
Source: Saul Cornell, “What the ‘Right to Bear Arms’ Really Means,” www.salon.com, Jan. 15, 2011

A 1792 federal law required that every man eligible for militia service own a gun and ammunition suitable for military service, report for frequent inspection of their guns, and register his gun ownership on public records. [101] Many Americans owned hunting rifles or pistols instead of proper military guns, and even though the penalty fines were high (over $9,000 in 2014 dollars), they were levied inconsistently and the public largely ignored the law. [105] [106]

State Gun Laws: Slave Codes and the “Wild West”

From the 1700s through the 1800s, so-called “slave codes” and, after slavery was abolished in 1865, “black codes” (and, still later, “Jim Crow” laws) prohibited black people from owning guns and laws allowing the ownership of guns frequently specified “free white men.” [98] For example, an 1833 Georgia law stated, “it shall not be lawful for any free person of colour in this state, to own, use, or carry fire arms of any description whatever… that the free person of colour, so detected in owning, using, or carrying fire arms, shall receive upon his bare back, thirty-nine lashes, and that the fire arm so found in the possession of said free person of colour, shall be exposed for public sale.” [107]

Despite images of the “Wild West” from movies, cities in the frontier often required visitors to check their guns with the sheriff before entering the town. [108] In Oct. 1876, Deadwood, Dakota Territory passed a law stating that no one could fire a gun without the mayor’s consent. [109] A sign in Dodge City, Kansas in 1879 read, “The Carrying of Fire Arms Strictly Prohibited.” [108] The first law passed in Dodge City was a gun control law that read “any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the laws of the State shall be dealt with according to law.” [108]

Federal Gun Laws in the 1900s

The St. Valentine’s Day Massacre on Feb. 14, 1929 in Chicago resulted in the deaths of seven gangsters associated with “Bugs” Moran (an enemy of Al Capone) and set off a series of debates and laws to ban machine guns. [110] [111] Originally enacted in 1934 in response to mafia crimes, the National Firearms Act (NFA) imposes a $200 tax and a registration requirement on the making and transfer of certain guns, including shotguns and rifles with barrels shorter than 18 inches (“short-barreled”), machine guns, firearm mufflers and silencers, and specific firearms labeled as “any other weapons” by the NFA. [112] [113] Most guns are excluded from the Act.

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 made it illegal to sell guns to certain people (including convicted felons) and required federal firearms licensees (FFLs; people who are licensed by the federal government to sell firearms) to maintain customer records. [114] This Act was overturned by the 1968 Gun Control Act.

9-3-2016 2-42-05 PM

Former Reagan Press Secretary Jim Brady sits by President BIll Clinton as Clinton signs the Brady Bill into law on Nov. 30, 1993
Source: Eric Bradner, “Hinckley Won’t Face New Charges in Reagan Press Secretary’s Death,” www.cnn.com, Jan 3, 2015

In 1968 the National Firearms Act was revised to address constitutionality concerns brought up by Haynes v. US (1968), namely that unregistered firearms already in possession of the owner do not have to be registered, and information obtained from NFA applications and registrations cannot be used as evidence in a criminal trial when the crime occurred before or during the filing of the paperwork. [112]

On Oct. 22, 1968, prompted by the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy (1963), Malcolm X (1965), Martin Luther King, Jr. (1968), and Robert F. Kennedy (1968), as well as the 1966 University of Texas mass shooting, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) into law. [115] The GCA regulates interstate gun commerce, prohibiting interstate transfer unless completed among licensed manufacturers, importers, and dealers, and restricts gun ownership. [114]

The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) revised prior legislation once again. [112] [113] The Act, among other revisions to prior laws, allowed gun dealers to sell guns away from the address listed on their license; limited the number of inspections the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (now the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) could perform without a warrant; prevented the federal government from maintaining a database of gun dealer records; and removed the requirement that gun dealers keep track of ammunition sales. [114]

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (also called the Brady Act) was signed into law on Nov. 30, 1993 and required a five-day waiting period for a licensed seller to hand over a gun to an unlicensed person in states without an alternate background check system. [116] The five-day waiting period has since been replaced by an instant background check system that can take up to three days if there is an inconsistency or more information is needed to complete the sale. [114] Gun owners who have a federal firearms license or a state-issued permit are exempt from the waiting period. [114]

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act), part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on Sep. 13, 1994. The ban outlawed 19 models of semi-automatic assault weapons by name and others by “military features,” as well as large-capacity magazines manufactured after the law’s enactment. [114] The ban expired on Sep. 13, 2004 and was not renewed due in part to NRA lobbying efforts. [114] [117]

Federal and State Gun Laws in the 2000s

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 was enacted on Oct. 26 by President George W. Bush and gives broad civil liability immunity to firearms manufacturers so they cannot be sued by a gun death victim’s family. [114] [118] The Child Safety Lock Act requires that all handguns be sold with a “secure gun storage or safety device.”[119]

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 was enacted as a condition of the Brady Act and provides incentives to states (including grants from the Attorney General) for them to provide information to NICS including information on people who are prohibited from purchasing firearms. [114] The NCIS was implemented on Nov. 30, 1998 and later amended on Jan. 8, 2008 in response to the Apr. 16, 2007 Virginia Technical University shooting so that the Attorney General could more easily acquire information pertinent to background checks such as disqualifying mental conditions. [120]

On Jan. 5, 2016, President Obama announced new executive actions on gun control. His measures take effect immediately and include: an update and expansion of background checks (closing the “gun show loophole”); the addition of 200 ATF agents; increased mental health care funding; $4 million and personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (used to link crimes in one jurisdiction to ballistics evidence in another); creating an Internet Investigations Center to track illegal online gun trafficking; a new Department of Health and Human Services rule saying that it is not a HIPAA violation to report mental health information to the background check system; a new requirement to report gun thefts; new research funding for gun safety technologies; and more funding to train law enforcement officers on preventing gun casualties in domestic violence cases. [142] [143]

9-3-2016 2-43-12 PM

Open carry activists in Texas pose with rifles.
Source: TruthVoice, “Texas Set to Approve Open Carry of Pistols,” www.truthvoice.com, Apr. 19, 2015

In addition to federal gun laws, each state has its own set of gun laws ranging from California with the most restrictive gun laws in the country to Arizona with the most lenient, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign’s “2013 State Scorecard.” [121]. 43 of 50 states have a “right to bear arms” clause in their state constitutions. [101]

The most common state gun control laws include background checks, waiting periods, and registration requirements to purchase or sell guns. [121] [122] Most states prevent carrying guns, including people with a concealed carry permit, on K-12 school grounds and many states prevent carrying on college campuses. [121] [122] Some states ban assault weapons. [121] [122]

Gun rights laws include concealed and open carry permits, as well as allowing gun carry in usually restricted areas (such as bars, K-12 schools, state parks, and parking areas). [121] [122] Many states have “shoot first” (also called “stand your ground”) laws. [121] [122] Open carry of handguns is generally allowed in most states (though a permit may be required). [121] [122]

Collective v. Individual Right: Guns and the Supreme Court

Until 2008, the Supreme Court repeatedly upheld a collective right (that the right to own guns is for the purpose of maintaining a militia) view of the Second Amendment, concluding that the states may form militias and regulate guns. [47]

The first time the Court upheld an individual rights interpretation (that individuals have a Constitutional right to own a gun regardless of militia service) of the Second Amendment was the June 26, 2008 US Supreme Court ruling in DC v. Heller. The Court stated that the right could be limited: “There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited… Thus we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.” [1] [3]

9-3-2016 2-44-14 PM

A portrait of General Ambrose Burnside, first president of the NRA
Source: John Hathorn, “General Ambrose E. Burnside, May 23-1924-September 13, 1881,” www.history.ncsu.edu (accessed May 11, 2015)

The US Supreme Court ruled on June 28, 2010 in McDonald v. Chicago that the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the Due Process Clause, includes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and, thus, the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as the federal government, effectively extending the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment to the states. [123]

On June 27, 2016, in Voisine v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled (6-2) that someone convicted of “recklessly” committing a violent domestic assault can be disqualified from owning a gun under the 1996 Lautenberg Amendment to the 1968 Gun Control Act. Associate Justice Elena Kagan, JD, writing the majority opinion, stated: “Congress enacted §922(g)(9) [the Lautenberg Amendment] in 1996 to bar those domestic abusers convicted of garden-variety assault or battery misdemeanors–just like those convicted of felonies–from owning guns.” [150] [151] [152] [153]

The National Rifle Association (NRA)

The National Rifle Association calls itself “America’s longest-standing civil rights organization.” [124] Granted charter on Nov. 17, 1871 in New York, Civil War Union veterans Colonel William C. Church and General George Wingate founded the NRA to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis” to improve the marksmanship of Union troops. [125] General Ambrose Burnside, governor of Rhode Island (1866 to 1869) and US Senator (Mar. 4, 1875 to Sep. 13, 1881), was the first president. [125] [126]

Over 100 years later, in 1977, in what is known as the “Revolt at Cincinnati,” new leadership changed the bylaws to make the protection of the Second Amendment right to bear arms the primary focus (ousting the focus on sportsmanship). [127] [128] The group lobbied to disassemble the Gun Control Act of 1968 (the NRA alleged the Act gave power to the ATF that was abused), which they accomplished in 1986 with the Firearms Owners Protection Act. [127]

In 1993 the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) funded a study completed by Arthur Kellerman and colleagues, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, titled “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor in the Home,” which found that keeping a gun at home increased the risk of homicide. [129] [130] [131] The NRA accused the CDC of “promoting the idea that gun ownership was a disease that needed to be eradicated,” and argued that government funding should not be available to politically motivated studies. [129] [130] [131] The NRA notched a victory when Congress passed the Dickey Amendment, which deducted $2.6 billion from the CDC’s budget, the exact amount of its gun research program, and restricted CDC (and, later, NIH) gun research. [129] [130] [131] The amendment stated that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” [129] [130] [131] The admonition effectively stopped all federal gun research because, as Kellerman stated, “[p]recisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency’s funding to find out.” [130] Jay Dickey (R-AR), now retired from Congress, was the author of the Dickey Amendment and has since stated that he no longer supports the amendment: “I wish we had started the proper research and kept it going all this time… I have regrets.” [144]

As of Jan. 2013, the NRA had approximately 3 million members, though estimates have varied from 2.6 million to 5 million members. [132] In 2013 the NRA spending budget was $290.6 million. [133] The NRA-ILA actively lobbies against universal checks and registration, “large” magazine and “assault weapons” bans, requiring smart gun features, ballistic fingerprinting, firearm traces, and prohibiting people on the terrorist watchlist from owning guns; and in favor of self-defense (stand your ground) laws. [134] In 2014 the NRA and NRA-ILA spent $3.36 million on lobbying activity aimed primarily at Congress but also the US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Forest Service. [135]

09 01 16 The Gun Control Lobby
http://gun-control.procon.org/
The start of the modern gun control movement is largely attributed to Mark Borinsky, PhD, who founded the National Center to Control Handguns (NCCH) in 1974. [136] After being the victim of an armed robbery, Borinsky looked for a gun control group to join but found none, founded NCCH, and worked to grow the organization with Edward O. Welles, a retired CIA officer, and N.T. “Pete” Shields, a Du Pont executive whose son was shot and killed in 1975. [136]

9-3-2016 2-45-22 PMGun control activists, including Mayor Vincent Gray, march in Washington, DC
Source: Bijon Stanard, “Let’s Talk: Obama Speaks; Dr. King’s March on Washington 50th Anniversary!,” letstalkbluntly.com, Aug. 8, 2013

In 2001, after a few name changes, the National Center to Control Handguns (NCCH) was renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and its sister organization, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, was renamed the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, though they are often referred to collectively as the Brady Campaign. [137] The groups were named for Jim Brady, a press secretary to President Ronald Reagan who was shot and permanently disabled on Mar. 30, 1981 during an assassination attempt on the President. [137]

The 2014 gun control lobby was composed of Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Sandy Hook Promise, Americans for Responsible Solutions, and Violence Policy Center. [138] Collectively, these groups spent $1.94 million in 2014, primarily aimed at Congress but also the Executive Office of the President, the Vice President, the White House, Department of Justice, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. [138]

The most-recently available total annual spending budgets for gun control groups were $13.7 million collectively (4.7% of the NRA’s 2013 budget): including Everytown for Gun Safety ($4.7 million in 2012); the Brady Campaign ($2.7 million in 2012); the Brady Center ($3.1 million in 2010); Coalition to Stop Gun Violence ($308,761 in 2011); Sandy Hook Promise ($2.2 million in 2013); and the Violence Policy Center ($750,311 in 2012). [133]

The Current Gun Control Debate

Largely, the current public gun control debate in the United States occurs after a major mass shooting. There were at least 126 mass shootings between Jan. 2000 and July 2014. [139] [140] Proponents of more gun control often want more laws to try to prevent the mass shootings and call for smart gun laws, background checks, and more protections against the mentally ill buying guns. Opponents of more gun laws accuse proponents of using a tragedy to further a lost cause, stating that more laws would not have prevented the shootings. A Dec. 10, 2014 Pew Research Center survey found 52% of Americans believe the right to own guns should be protected while 46% believe gun ownership should be controlled, a switch from 1993 when 34% wanted gun rights protected and 57% wanted gun ownership controlled. [141]

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Since the corporate government we have been suckered into accepting, due to mind altering media bios, and education, I contend that very few people in America see the real issue and have been influenced in many sub-conscious ways so they are no longer capable of understanding the reality of this issue.

To wit: our government is not the only real threat to our natural right to independent decision making, as our real government was subverted many years ago by the International Investment Banking Cartel who have every since practiced mind control as a weapon to destroy our understanding of societal responsibilities. They have used every weapon in the book to control what we think and believe and only those few who had the natural instinct to know something was very wrong, and took it upon their-self to research the issue, have any idea of just how dangerous we have become to our own freedom from tyranny.

The issue of allowing the government to decide if we have natural rights is insanity at its worse.

Who of you reading this is arrogant enough to support gun control in light of this present dysfunctional society, and tyrannical government?

The day is coming when you will all, and I mean every damn one of you, beg your neighbor for a weapon; if you don’t steal it from them first! It is not the gangs, or gun nuts like myself, or organized criminals, you should be afraid of, it’s the government you worship that will kill you. It all boils down to this, gun haters are like ass-holes without toilet paper.

10 13 11 flagbar

THE UNMISTAKABLE RUMBLINGS OF AN AMERICA ABOUT TO POP

August 24th, 2016 by

http://www.newswithviews.com/Ewart/ron265.htm

By Ron Ewart

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” — John F. Kennedy

Put two people in a room and disagreement, at times, is a virtual certainty. Put 320,000,000 people in a nation and disagreement, sometimes violent, is a daily fact of life. Now add to the mix a heavy dose of multi-culturalism and the brew gets even more volatile. Then add 86,000,000 Americans being forced to pay for the livelihoods of 148,000,000 unproductive Americans and the brew becomes explosive. (Those 148,000,000 Americans think everything is just fine and they can vote to keep it that way.)

In that same nation, millions of illegal aliens are allowed to enter, almost unimpeded and encouraged by a liberal government. They get on the welfare rolls thus costing those 86,000,000 productive Americans billions of dollars in taxes for illegal-alien subsistence and millions of lost jobs, not to mention the drugs, rape, robbery and murder brought to America by the fairly large illegal-alien criminal element.

Let’s not forget the effects of radical environmentalism on the cost of goods and the loss of property rights, fueling rising distrust and anger in our rural communities all across America. We know a lot about that anger and discontent of rural landowners by the calls and e-mails we get every week from besieged landowners. We try to help them with the tools our organization (NARLO) provides, but it isn’t enough. The ability of the government, local, state, or federal, to harass and abuse landowners is greater than our ability to counter it. (See “Rural America In the Crosshairs”)

Add a Federal Reserve that is neither federal or a reserve and an exploding national debt to pay for over one hundred years of liberal, give-away policies, a debt that could lead to a devastating financial collapse and you have a recipe for not only anger and discontent, but the potential for rising violence.

Americans have had difficulty remaining united under any circumstances, except when it is threatened by a foreign enemy. But today, almost eight years of President Obama, it would seem the nation is coming apart at the seems. The great “Uniter” is in fact the great “Divider” and he has done so with malice afore thought to implement his twisted vision of America.

Obama’s Blacks think they are getting a raw deal and invented Black Lives Matter for non-existent injustices, with a giant boost from the nation’s wealthy liberals. They are stirring up trouble, chaos, violence and riots in every big city in America just for the Hell of it. Blacks voting in a block for Democrats is not because Blacks like liberal policies. It’s because they like the Democrats stealing from everyone else to give to the Blacks. It’s there form of reparations for past American sins.

Latinos are all upset because millions of legal Americans are finally saying enough is enough to illegal immigration, whether it is from Mexico, Central and South America, or the Middle East. The INS and ICE have lost control of the immigration process and are instead just throwing billions of our tax dollars at it, releasing tens of thousands of criminal aliens into the general population and failing to keep track of the millions of visas given out to foreigners.

The Indians are angry because of losing the war 150 years ago and are getting even with the White man by erecting casinos all over the place and confiscating land and water rights using ancient treaties, with the help of the government and radical environmentalists.

On top of that, radical Islam (ISIS and Al Qaeda) is threatening to annihilate our very way of life and our government, sworn to protect us from all enemies, foreign or domestic, is doing so little to crush the enemy that the enemy is free to come to America and kill Americans. Obama’s policies of appeasement and non-confrontation at any cost, are reaching out to bite us in a very big way, with the prospects of it only getting worse. Do you think twice now before going to the mall or the theater?

Then there are the laws. The America government, at every level, has passed so many laws against every human activity to the point that Americans have become lawbreakers every day of their lives, without knowing it …. that is until they get caught.

The wide-eyed, radical academic environmentalist Bill McKibben wants to give wartime powers to government against climate change, giving government the absolute power to do anything it deemed necessary, including confiscation of property, coercing businesses into supporting the effort, telling businesses what to do, when to do it and whom to hire, along with strict control over the economy. Bill has millions of groupies, academia and the news media on his side. But waging war, at any cost, including the loss of liberty, against a boogieman, backed up by unsettled or bad science, is the epitome of tyranny.

But worse, we have allowed growing secularity and worldly forces to rip out the cultural fabric of our Judeo-Christian heritage by allowing certain minorities rights that are in direct conflict with cultural norms and the natural order.

Our public schools and colleges have become institutions of liberal propaganda and indoctrination. Each generation learns less and less about America’s beginning and foundation of freedom. This is born out by millions of young Americans finding socialist Bernie Sanders a fitting presidential candidate. Then you have millions more Americans eager to put one of the most corrupt individuals in American politics, on the Clinton dynasty throne.

Soon the old ones will die off and their perspective of a free and prosperous America will be lost forever. With no heritage of liberty available from the seniors in our midst and no teachings of freedom in our schools, liberty will surely die.

We can’t imagine why proud, self-reliant, responsible Americans are so angry, frustrated and ready to do harm to someone or something. We can’t imagine why millions of those same Americans are listening to Donald Trump and liking what they hear. Or, can we?

Donald Trump, as flawed as he is, is channeling America’s anger, however imperfect his style and demeanor. For the millions of Americans that are sick and tired of business as usual and the institutional corruption, Donald Trump has given them a voice. But Trump is not a Superman that can leap tall buildings in a single bound. He cannot, with a wave of his extended hand, eradicate poverty, provide everyone with a job and kill our enemies. But most of all he cannot change the mindset of a “gimee!” national mentality that has become accustomed to sucking at the teat of mother government. Unfortunately, that “gimee!” mentality can vote to keep the “milk” flowing and they are in the majority.

But there is more to the problem than just an out-of-control government. We as individuals cannot just abdicate our responsibility to hold government accountable if we want to remain free. We cannot give a pass to our kids when they misbehave or act out. If we don’t set standards for them and demand they meet those standards, they end up derelicts on the street, criminals, or workers and businessmen without a moral compass …. or God forbid, Democrats.

John Scolinos, a famous baseball coach, gave a speech at a coach convention in Nashville, TN back in January of 1996. John stated that: “This is the problem in our homes today, with our marriages, with the way we parent our kid and with our lack of discipline. We don’t teach accountability to our kids, and there is no consequence for failing to meet standards. This is the problem in our schools today. The quality of our education is going downhill fast and teachers have been stripped of the tools they need to be successful, and to educate and discipline our young people.”

If our young people are not brought up with true knowledge, discipline, standards and moral underpinnings, they will be incapable of holding government accountable and will be easily manipulated by or become dependent on government.

We are running out of time. So just how long will self-reliant, independent, responsible Americans, worried about the loss of their freedoms and the collapse of the Republic, put up with:

The government erecting a multitude of new offices, and sending hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

The government has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving its assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For imposing huges taxes on us without our consent to pay for the unconstitutional promises they have made to millions of our citizens for their votes.

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.
We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.

We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

Millions of Americans have not seen this language before, or know the vital importance of its words, because they have no knowledge of how America came into being and the fundamentals of liberty contained in its beginning documents. They are truly freedom ignorant. How can they defend or care about what they don’t know?

The first reaction to tyranny is resistance. The final reaction to tyranny is revolution. We are in the first stages in the reaction to tyranny and we strongly urge Americans to resist wherever they can before the second stage becomes unavoidable? All it takes is a flash point and the whole experiment with freedom could begin to unravel overnight, if it hasn’t already.

But then how can we peacefully stop a tyrannical government and the mob mentality it created, if we don’t have the votes? Short of revolution, there is only open and defiant resistance.

Ladies and gentlemen, the colonials broke with England in revolution for far less than what the American government has heaped upon its citizens in the quest for power, lust, greed and control over the masses. If government continues this abuse and usurpations upon its citizens, eventually they will make “peaceful revolution impossible and make violent revolution inevitable.”

America is about to boil over, especially if Hillary Clinton is elected President. That 86,000,000 minority that is paying for everything, the rich and middle class alike, may just decide to stop paying. Some of the wealthiest among us already have. If that 86,000,000 minority wants to be free from the yoke of liberal servitude they had better start resisting and they better start now because their vote means nothing against the liberal mob.

When the checks don’t show up at the welfare or unemployment office, or there is no food at the local Albertson’s store, we guarantee you there will be riots, mayhem and burnings in the street in every city in America. That leads to insurrection and civil war. In such an event, what is to stop the government from declaring martial law and suspending the constitution and all of the rights it promises? Absolutely nothing! Abraham Lincoln and Congress suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. It’s only a small step to suspend the whole constitution, or to confiscate all your money you have in the bank, or in your retirement accounts.

The fate of America, freedom or tyranny, is in the hands of its people that is if the people have even the slightest concept of what freedom means or place any value on it. We’re not convinced they do because of several generations of Progressive and one-world-government brainwashing.

John Galt where are you when we need you?

Let us know if you LIKED this article. Constructive comments are welcome.

[NOTE: The opinion in this article is the opinion of the author and is not necessarily the opinion of NewsWithViews.com, it’s employees, representatives, or other contributing writers.]

© 2016 Ron Ewart — All Rights Reserved

  Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property issues and author of his weekly column, “In Defense of Rural America”, is the President of the National Association of Rural Landowners, (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org) a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State, an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners. He can be reached for comment at info@narlo.org.

Website: www.narlo.org

E-Mail: info@narlo.org

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

As always Ron hits the nail on the head again, and those who do not prepare will perish in the holocaust to follow. If you love your life, you will lose it is one passage from the bible I have never forgotten, and maybe that time has come for the majority, because they are certainly in love with their life. As for me and my house we will die fighting for the love of freedom, not worldly possessions, or fear.

BUCKEL UP AMERICA!

10 13 11 flagbar

 

How The Globalists Will Attempt To Control Populations Post Collapse

August 18th, 2016 by

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2988-how-the-globalists-will-attempt-to-control-populations-post-collapse

8-18-2016 10-16-49 AM

By Brandon Smith

There is an interesting disconnect with some people when discussing the concept of global centralization. Naturally, the mind reels in horror at the very idea, because many of us know, deep down at our core, that centralization is the root of tyranny.  We know that when absolute power is granted into the hands of an elite few over the lives of the masses, very bad things happen.  No small group of people has ever shown itself trustworthy, rational, empathic or wise enough to handle such a responsibility.  They ALWAYS screw it up, or, they deliberately take advantage of their extreme position of influence to force a particular ideology on everyone else.

This leads to resistance, resistance leads to sociopolitical crackdown and then great numbers of people are imprisoned, enslaved or even murdered.  This leads to even more resistance until one of two possible outcomes emerges — chaos and revolution or complete totalitarianism and micro-managed collectivism.

There is no way around this eventual conflict.  As long as the centralists continue to pursue total power, men and women will gather to fight them and the situation will escalate.  The only conceivable way that this fight could be defused is if the elites stop doing what they do.  If they suddenly become enlightened and realize the error of their ways, then perhaps we could escape the troubles unscathed.  Or, if those same elites all happen to meet an abrupt end and their influence is neutralized, then the world might have a chance to adjust and adapt in a more organic fashion.

Unfortunately, there are people who refuse to believe that a fight is unavoidable.  They desperately want to believe there is another way, and they will engage in an amazing display of mental gymnastics in order to justify this belief.

First, I think it is important to note that I have always argued that the globalists will eventually fail in their pursuit.  I find that some folks out there misinterpret my position when I outline the strategies of globalists and they assume I am presenting global centralization as a “sine qua non.”  I do not argue that the elites will win the fight, I only argue that there is no way to avoid the fight.

Those that want to know my views on why globalist defeat is a certainty can read my article The Reasons Why The Globalists Are Destined To Lose.

The rhetorical question always arises:  “How could the globalists ever hope to secure dominance over the entire world; isn’t that an impossible task?”

I believe according to my knowledge of history and human psychology that it IS an impossible task, but that is NOT going to stop the globalists from trying.

This is what the cynics just don’t seem to grasp; we are dealing with a group of narcissistic psychopaths organized around a cult ideology and with nearly unlimited resources at their fingertips.  These people think they are rising man-gods, like the Egyptian pharaohs of old.  They cannot be persuaded through superior logic or emotional appeal.  They will not be deterred by mass activism or peaceful redress.  They only understand one thing — the force of arms and the usefulness of lies.

Such people are notorious for taking entire civilizations down with them rather than ceding their thrones.  It is foolish to plan a response to them on the assumption that a fight can be avoided.  When I say that the globalists are “destined to lose,” this is predicated on my understanding that a certain percentage of human beings will always have an inherent capacity for resistance to tyranny.  The globalists will be defeated because there is no way to quantify every single threat to their utopian framework.  As long as people continue to fight them, physically and with information, regardless of the personal cost, their weaknesses will be found and they will fall.

This will not be accomplished, however, without considerable sacrifice.

When I talk about “collapse”, I am talking about a process.  Collapse is not an singular event, it is an ongoing series of events.  The U.S. has, for example, been in the middle of a collapse since 2008.  The end of this collapse will come when the final economic bubble propping up our system has burst and the process of rebuilding begins.  The most important questions is, WHO will do the rebuilding?  The globalists with their power agenda, or common people seeking freedom and prosperity?

I have outlined in numerous articles the reality that an ongoing destabilization of large portions of the global economic framework will be used by the elites as leverage to convince the public that greater centralization is necessary, including global economic management through the IMF and BIS, a global currency using the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights as a bridge and global governance through the United Nations or a similar body not yet developed.  This plan is becoming more and more openly discussed by globalists within the mainstream media.  It’s hardly a secret anymore.

Many people will undoubtedly support this centralization out of fear of instability.  That said, many people will also refuse to support it.

Here is how I believe, according to historical precedence and the globalist’s own writings, that they will attempt to assert global centralization post-collapse and enforce compliance.

Resource Management And Distribution

As I point out in many of my articles on the necessity for localism, without ample food, water and shelter self-maintained by groups of like minded citizens, no resistance can be mounted against a centralizing force.  If you cannot supply your own logistics, then you must resort to stealing them from the enemy.  Obviously, it is less risky to supply yourself if possible.

Post-collapse, when rule of law in many places has broken down and resources can no longer be transferred safely from region to region, the name of the game will be control of necessities and the producers of necessities.  This is also used by totalitarians when the danger of unrest is present.  A prime example of this method in action was the Stalinist consolidation of the Soviet Union.

The fact is, successful rebellions in occupied nations tend to grow in rural surroundings.  Cities are often strongholds for totalitarians because they offer more means of surveillance, a more passive population and, once taken over, they are easier to secure and defend.  I call this the “green zone doctrine;” the use of locked down cities as pivot points to launch attacks on rural people.

Stalin used this very model, sending troops from controlled cities to plunder resources from outlying farming communities.  He then stored these supplies for “redistribution;” the people deemed most useful to the regime were fed, the people deemed not useful or potential threats were not fed.  In the end, Stalin killed off many potential rebels simply by denying them food production or food access.

The elites do not need to own every inch of ground in order to launch an effective campaign of martial law.  All they need to do is own key cities through surveillance technology and troop presence, then use these cities as staging grounds to confiscate resources in surrounding areas from people they do not like.  If you think the government would not pursue that kind of tactic in the U.S., I highly suggest you look into Executive Order 13603, signed by Barack Obama in 2012.  This order gives the president authority during a “national emergency” to take any private property or resources if it is deemed “necessary to national defense.”

It should be noted that starvation as a weapon has been extremely useful for the elites in the past.

The Malaysian Model Of Control

If the elites are anything, they are rather predictable.  This is because they have a habit of consistently using strategies that have worked for them before.  In my article When The Elites Wage War On America, This Is How They Will Do It, I examine the writings of Council On Foreign Relations member Max Boot on methods for quelling insurgencies.  In the U.S., insurgency is a given post-collapse.  The only question is whether it will be a large insurgency or a small one.

I do not hold out much hope for most of the rest of the world in terms of generating a useful rebellion.  Most citizens in Europe and Asia are unarmed and untrained.  Any resistance in these regions will be very small and cell structured if it is going to survive.

The methods Max Boot describes tend toward larger threats to the establishment.  Boot mentions specifically the great success by the British in Malaysia from 1948-1960 against highly effective communist guerillas and terrorists.  This success can be attributed to several factors:

1) The British used large-scale concentration camps to separate production centers from rebel influence.  These were massive camps surrounded by barbed wire fences and guard towers, primarily used to house farmers and other workers and their families.  This stopped the guerillas from hiding among the working class and recruiting from them.  This follows the “green zone doctrine” I described above.

2) The British implemented a sophisticated identification system for all Malaysian citizens including fingerprinting.  They then set up numerous checkpoints across the country at which citizens had to produce their paperwork.  Anyone who did not have their papers was held on suspicion of being an insurgent.  The rebels in Malaysia attempted to counter this by forcefully taking over busy buildings and buses, then burning everyone’s IDs.  This would not be a very effective tactic in a digitized world where identification is accomplished through advanced biometrics.

3) Instead of fielding massive lumbering military brigades in a useless effort to cover large stretches of ground, the British used spies and informants to locate rebel strongholds, then sent special forces units in to neutralize them.  Again, they did not need to control every inch of ground; they used military assets wherever the rebels were, then left.  Their goal was not to control a lot of ground, but to kill rebels.  The British used considerable brutality in their efforts, including a mobile gallows that traveled the country, and the public display of rotting corpses to strike fear in the insurgency.

4) The political elites in Britain fought the psychological war by offering promises of peace and prosperity to the Malaysian commoners if they supported the effort against the insurgency.  They did not necessarily need to follow through on these promises, all they needed to do was create a few examples of reward for cooperation, and sell this to the public in a convincing manner.  Once enough of the population was in the hands of the British, the insurgency lost supply resources and also had to worry about informants.

Technology Grid For Tyranny

Malaysia was an example of a competent strategy to uproot insurgents, but there were also many failures and pitfalls.  The elites are trying to mitigate any future unknown quantities when fighting against rebellions through the use of new technologies.

The green zone doctrine could only be successful today with the use of biometric surveillance.  Restriction of movement could be accomplished, but only in cities with extensive surveillance grids.  The insurgents of a post-collapse future would be hard pressed to infiltrate or exfiltrate from a green zone with currently available facial recognition, gait and walk recognition, retina and thumbprint scanning, etc.  Facial recognition has even gone into the realm of thermal imaging; cameras can use the unique heat signature from blood vessels within the human face to identify a person from a relative distance.  Make-up and prosthetics would not counter this.  Thermal masking would be the only solution.

Beyond that, an insurgency would have to be technologically savvy. Cyber warfare would have to be integral to their methodology.  This is not something any other rebellion in history has had to deal with.

An Uneducated And Bumbling Insurgency

The globalist’s strategy to trigger economic and social chaos, then lock down certain regions and offer centralization as a solution to the population, is far easier to accomplish when the opposition they face lacks insight, patience, planning and initiative.

The British were partially successful in Malaysia because the guerillas were ignorant of public perception. While they were effective and ruthless fighters, their viciousness resulted in lack of public support.  Though wide public support is not needed for victory, it certainly helps.

Multiple revolutions against Stalin’s power, some of them very large, were put down because of poor planning.  Rebels massed sizable forces in tight areas, such as a single mountain or mountain ranges.  Stalin simply dropped poisonous gasses on insurgents that had put all their eggs in one basket and forgot to stockpile gas masks.  It is vital to recognize that in a post-collapse world governments and elites may no longer be subject to public scrutiny, and are thus free to act as maliciously as they want.  All contingencies have to be considered.

Rebels in the Soviet Union also had a bad habit of ignoring logistics.  Many were armed with mismatched rifles and a rainbow selection of ammunition instead of arming all their men with the same rifle and the same ammo for redundancy.  Rebellions have been lost in the past merely because the fighters armed with too wide an array of weapons ran out of enough ammo to feed any of them.

Insurgents have also historically suffered from an inability to strike the leadership centers of the empires they fought.  Primarily because they did not know who the real leadership was.  Only in our modern era do we have the information available to identify the elites and their organizations.  Globalists are often very vocal today in media about who they are and what they want.  This is why the elites seek to make the next insurgency the LAST insurgency.  Never before have they been so vulnerable.

I believe the globalists will use their standard strategy of disinformation and division first to acquire centralization, but eventually they will turn to a Stalin/Malaysian model for control on the ground.  I will have to save the specific counter-strategies to these tactics for another article.  Some of them I probably cannot legally discuss at all.  The most important thing to remember, though, is that the globalists’ job is harder than our job.  They have to control people, property, resources, and mass psychology.  They have thousands of variables to take into account, and thousands of situations that could go wrong.

All we have to worry about is our own local organization, our own moral compass, our own survival and removing the top globalists from the picture.

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

Technocracy And The Rise Of The Police State

August 10th, 2016 by

https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2016/08/09/technocracy-rise-police-state/

8-10-2016 10-54-58 AM

Written By: John W. Whitehead August 9, 2016

Technocracy is a totalitarian system of economic tyranny, run by scientists and engineers, that is being implemented world wide. The most ‘efficient’ means of societal control is not legislative process, it is authoritarian control. This article clearly depicts the radical transformation of law enforcement. ⁃ TN Editor

Any police officer who shoots to kill is playing with fire.

In that split second of deciding whether to shoot and where to aim, that officer has appointed himself judge, jury and executioner over a fellow citizen. And when an officer fires a killing shot at a fellow citizen not once or twice but three and four and five times, he is no longer a guardian of the people but is acting as a paid assassin. In so doing, he has short-circuited a legal system that was long ago established to protect against such abuses by government agents.

These are hard words, I know, but hard times call for straight talking.

We’ve been dancing around the issue of police shootings for too long now, but we’re about to crash headlong into some harsh realities if we don’t do something to ward off disaster.

You’d better get ready.

It’s easy to get outraged when police wrongfully shoot children, old people and unarmed citizens watering their lawns or tending to autistic patients. It’s harder to rouse the public’s ire when the people getting shot and killed by police are suspected of criminal activities or armed with guns and knives. Yet both scenarios should be equally reprehensible to anyone who values human life, due process and the rule of law.

For instance, Paul O’Neal was shot in the back and killed by police as he fled after allegedly sideswiping a police car during a chase. The 18-year-old was suspected of stealing a car.

Korryn Gaines was shot and killed—and her 5-year-old son was shot—by police after Gaines resisted arrest for a traffic warrant and allegedly threatened to shoot police. Police first shot at Gaines and then opened fire when she reportedly shot back at them.

Loreal Tsingine was shot and killed by a police officerafter she approached him holding a small pair of medical scissors. The 27-year-old Native American woman was suspected of shoplifting.

None of these individuals will ever have the chance to stand trial, be found guilty or serve a sentence for their alleged crimes because a police officer—in a split second—had already tried them, found them guilty and sentenced them to death.

In every one of these scenarios, police could have resorted to less lethal tactics.

They could have attempted to de-escalate and defuse the situation.

They could have acted with reason and calculation instead of reacting with a killer instinct.

That police instead chose to fatally resolve these encounters by using their guns on fellow citizens speaks volumes about what is wrong with policing in America today, where police officers are being dressed in the trappings of war, drilled in the deadly art of combat, and trained to look upon “every individual they interact with as an armed threat and every situation as a deadly force encounter in the making.”

Contrast those three fatal police shootings with a police intervention that took place in my hometown of Charlottesville, Virginia.

On. Aug. 1, 2016, police responded to a call about a possible abduction of a 17-year-old girl. When they confronted the 46-year-old “suspect,” he reportedly “threw a trash can at them and then charged them with a knife.” When he shouted at them to “shoot me,” they evaded him. When they refused to fire their guns, he stabbed himself in the chest. The officers then tasered the man in order to subdue him.

So what’s the difference between the first three scenarios and the last, apart from the lack of overly aggressive policing or trigger-happy officers?

Ultimately, it comes down to training and accountability.

It’s the difference between police officers who rank their personal safety above everyone else’s and police officers who understand that their jobs are to serve and protect. It’s the difference between police trained to shoot to kill and police trained to resolve situations peacefully. Most of all, it’s the difference between police who believe the law is on their side and police who know that they will be held to account for their actions under the same law as everyone else.

Unfortunately, more and more police are being trained to view themselves as distinct from the citizenry, to view their authority as superior to the citizenry, and to view their lives as more precious than those of their citizen counterparts. Instead of being taught to see themselves as mediators and peacemakers whose lethal weapons are to be used as a last resort, they are being drilled into acting like gunmen with killer instincts who shoot to kill rather than merely incapacitate.

We’re approaching a breaking point.

This policing crisis is far more immediate and concerning than the government’s so-called war on terror or drugs.

So why isn’t more being done to address it?

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, there’s too much money at stake, for one, and too much power.

Those responsible for this policing crisis are none other than the police unions that are helping police officers evade accountability for wrongdoing; the police academies that are teaching police officers that their lives are more valuable than the lives of those they serve; a corporate military sector that is making a killing by selling military-grade weapons, equipment, technology and tactical training to domestic police agencies; a political establishment that is dependent on campaign support and funding from the powerful police unions; and a police state that is transforming police officers into extensions of the military in order to extend its reach and power.

This is no longer a debate over good cops and bad cops.

It’s a tug-of-war between the constitutional republic America’s founders intended and the police state we are fast becoming.

As former Seattle police chief Norm Stamper recognizes, “Policing is broken. Tragically, it has been broken from the very beginning of the institution. It has evolved as a paramilitary, bureaucratic, organizational arrangement that distances police officers from the communities they’ve been sworn to protect and serve. When we have shooting after shooting after shooting that most people would define as at least questionable, it’s time to look, not just at a few bad apples, but the barrel. And I’m convinced that it is the barrel that is rotted.

So how do we fix what’s broken, stop the senseless shootings and bring about lasting reform?

For starters, stop with the scare tactics. In much the same way that American citizens are being cocooned in a climate of fear—fear of terrorism, fear of extremism, fear of each other—by a government that knows exactly which buttons to push in order to gain the public’s cooperation and compliance, police officers are also being indoctrinated with the psychology of fear.

“That isn’t the word used in law enforcement circles, of course,” explains law professor Seth Stoughton. “Vigilant, attentive, cautious, alert, or observant are the terms that appear most often in police publications. But make no mistake, officers don’t learn to be vigilant, attentive, cautious, alert, and observant just because it’s fun. They do so because they are afraid. Fear is ubiquitous in law enforcement… officers are constantly barraged with the message that that they should be afraid, that their survival depends on it.”

Writing for the Harvard Law Review, Stoughton continues:

From their earliest days in the academy, would-be officers are told that their prime objective, the proverbial “first rule of law enforcement,” is to go home at the end of every shift. But they are taught that they live in an intensely hostile world. A world that is, quite literally, gunning for them. As early as the first day of the police academy, the dangers officers face are depicted in graphic and heart-wrenching recordings that capture a fallen officer’s last moments. Death, they are told, is constantly a single, small misstep away.

Despite the propaganda being peddled by the government and police unions, police today experience less on-the-job fatalities than they ever have historically.

Second, level the playing field. Police are no more or less special than you or me. Their lives are no more valuable than any other citizen’s. Whether or not they wield a gun, police officers are public servants like all other government officials, which means that they work for us. They answer to us. We are their employers. While police are entitled to every protection afforded under the law, the same as any other citizen, they should not be afforded any special privileges. Most Americans, oblivious about their own rights, aren’t even aware that police officers have their own Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights, which protects police officers from being subjected to the kinds of debilitating indignities heaped upon the average citizen and grants police officers accused of a crime with special due process rights and privileges not afforded to the average citizen.

Third, require that police officers be trained in non-lethal tactics. According to the New York Times, a survey of 281 police agencies found that the average young officer received 58 hours of firearms training and 49 hours of defensive tactical training, but only eight hours of de-escalation training. In fact, “The training regimens at nearly all of the nation’s police academies continue to emphasize military-style exercises, including significant hours spent practicing drill, formation and saluting.” If police officers are taking classes in how to shoot, maim and kill, shouldn’t they also be required to take part in annual seminars teaching de-escalation techniques and educating them about how to respect their fellow citizens’ constitutional rights, especially under the First and Fourth Amendments?

Congressional legislation has been introduced to require that police officers be trained in non-lethal force, go through crisis intervention training to help them deal with the mentally ill, and use the lowest level of force possible when responding to a threat. Unfortunately, the police unions are powerful and the politicians are greedy, and it remains unlikely that any such legislation will be adopted in a major election year.

Fourth, ditch the quasi-military obsession. Police forces were never intended to be standing armies. Yet with police agencies dressing like the military in camouflage and armor, training with the military, using military weapons, riding around in armored vehicles, recruiting military veterans, and even boasting military titles, one would be hard pressed to distinguish between the two. Still, it’s our job to make sure that we can distinguish between the two, and that means keeping the police in their place as civilians—non-military citizens—who are entrusted with protecting our rights.

Fifth, demilitarize. There are many examples ofcountries where police are not armed and dangerous, and they are no worse off for it. Indeed, their crime rates are low and their police officers are trained to view every citizen as precious. For all of the talk among politicians about gun violence and the need to enact legislation to make it more difficult for Americans to acquire weapons, little is being done to demilitarize and de-weaponize police. Indeed, President Obama is actuallyreconsidering his limited ban on the flow of military gear to police. The problem is not that police are in any greater danger than before. Rather, by dressing as warriors, they are acting like warriors and increasing the danger inherent in every police encounter.

Sixth, do away with the police warrior mindset in favor of a guardian approach. As Stoughton explains, “Counterintuitively, the warrior mentality … makes policing less safe for both officers and civilians.” It also creates avoidable violence by insisting on deference and compliance and “increases the risk that other officers face in other encounters.” The guardian approach, however, “prioritizes service over crimefighting… it instructs officers that their interactions with community members must be more than legally justified, they must also be empowering, fair, respectful, and considerate. The guardian mindset emphasizes communication over commands, cooperation over compliance, and legitimacy over authority. And in the use-of-force context, the Guardian emphasizes patience and restraint over control, stability over action.”

Seventh, stop making taxpayers pay for police abuses. Some communities are trying to require police to carry their own professional liability insurance. The logic is that if police had to pay out of pocket for their own wrongdoing, they might be more cautious and less inclined to shoot first and ask questions later.

Eighth, stop relying on technology to fix what’s wrong with the country. The body cameras haven’t stopped the police shootings, and they won’t as long the cameras can be turned on and off at will while the footage remains inaccessible to the public. One North Carolina police department is even testing out a pilot machine learning system that “learns to spot risk factors for unprofessional conduct” and then recommend that officer for early intervention. It sounds a lot like a pre-crime program, only aimed at police officers, which sends up its own warning signals.

Ninth, take a deep breath because change takes time.As Stoughton warns, “Earning public trust will take decades and require rethinking how officers are trained as well as the legal and administrative standards used to review police violence. It will require changing the very culture of policing by reaffirming that policing must be done with a community, not to a community.”

Tenth, stop being busybodies and snitches.Overcriminalization has partially fueled the drive to “police” everything from kids walking to the playground alone and backyard chicken coops to front yard vegetable gardens. But let’s start taking some responsibility for our own communities and stop turning every minor incident into a reason to call the police.

Finally, support due process for everyone, not just the people in your circle. Remember that you no longer have to be poor, black or guilty to be treated like a criminal in America. All that is required is that you belong to the suspect class—a.k.a. the citizenry—of the American police state. As a de facto member of this so-called criminal class, every U.S. citizen is now guilty until proven innocent.

You could be the next person who gets shot by a police officer for moving the wrong way during a traffic stop, running the wrong way in the vicinity of a police officer, or defending yourself against a home invasion when thepolice show up at the wrong address in the middle of the night. People have been wrongfully shot and killed for these exact reasons.

So stop judging and start holding your government officials accountable to ensuring that every American is granted due process of law, which means that no one can be deprived of “life, liberty or property” by a government official without certain fair and legal procedures being followed.

There can be no justice in America when Americans are being killed, detained and robbed at gunpoint by government officials on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing.

Unfortunately, Americans have been so propagandized, politicized and polarized that many feel compelled to choose sides between defending the police at all costs or painting them as dangerously out-of-control. Nothing is ever that black and white, but there are a few things that we can be sure of: America is not a battlefield. American citizens are not enemy combatants. And police officers—no matter how courageous—are not soldiers.

Therein lies the problem: we’ve allowed the government to create an alternate reality in which freedom is secondary to security, and the rights of the citizenry are less important than the authority of the government. This way lies madness.

The longer we wait to burst the bubble on this false chimera, the harder it will be to return to a time when police were public servants and freedom actually meant something, and the greater the risks to both police officers and the rest of the citizenry.

Something must be done and soon.

The police state wants the us vs. them dichotomy. It wants us to turn each other in, distrust each other and be at each other’s throats, while it continues amassing power. It wants police officers who act like the military, and citizens who cower in fear. It wants a suspect society. It wants us to play by its rules instead of holding it accountable to the rule of law.

The best way to beat the police state: don’t play by their rules.

Make them play by ours instead.

Related Articles That You Might Like

Dangerous Dalek: China’s Riot Control Robot …

US Seeks To Redefine Terrorism Rules To Include An…

The Radical Polarization of Law Enforcement

Listening Devices On Public Buses In Maryland Reco…

When Facial Recognition Tools Are Available To Eve…

Military Micro-Drone To Change Face Of Warfare, Su…

Strong Cities Network – aka Global Police Fo…

Kuwait To Begin DNA Testing And Tagging All Touris…

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

 

THE BATTERED STATE SYNDROME

August 9th, 2016 by

http://www.rebelmadman.com/?p=497

3-27-2016 1-48-28 PM

Olddog says, this is Mike’s Masterpiece

By Michael Gaddy

Any semi-conscious individual with a modicum of intelligence would advise anyone caught up in an abusive relationship of any kind to sever all ties to the opprobrious partner. Yet, almost to a person, these same people would readily inform you that secession by a state is unlawful and should be met with the appropriate force and violence to prohibit such an irresponsible act on the part of a state and its sovereign people, regardless of the proclaimed reasons for the separation.

One of the most critical subjects which our founders faced both in the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 and the subsequent state ratification conventions was where did sovereignty reside, was it with the people, the states or the newly proposed government? In the vernacular of today, who would be the boss of whom?

It is of significant import that one view the wording of the Treaty of Paris when discussing this topic. In Article 1, the United States was acknowledged to be 13 “free, sovereign and independent states.”

But, where does the “ultimate sovereignty” sit in residence? Is it with the federal government, the state governments or with the people? Most of the colonists understood the belief in Great Britain, prevalent since 1640, that the ultimate sovereignty resided in Parliament. This concept is confirmed in the words of Sir William Blackstone in his description of Parliament, “the place where that absolute despotic power which in all governments reside somewhere, is intrusted by the constitutions of these kingdoms. The power and jurisdiction of Parliament” was so “transcendent and absolute that it cannot be confined… True it is that what Parliament doth, no authority upon Earth can undo.” Using this same paradigm, the majority of people in this country today, especially cops and judges, believe that our central government has the ultimate sovereignty, that nothing can undo its will and often point to Article VI Section II of our Constitution (Supremacy Clause) as the basis for confirmation of their beliefs. But to believe thusly is to completely dismiss a crucial element in why the colonists fought an eight-year war in order to gain their independence from such a Parliament.

We also have those who believe that true sovereignty, in some cases ultimate sovereignty, lies with the states.  To believe that ultimate sovereignty lies with either the central or state governments is to discount the very concept and purpose of our Declaration of Independence.

Our basic organic document, The Declaration of Independence, is a document of secession, the proof of which can be found in its words and phrases. “dissolve the political bands, … assume among the powers of the earth, declare the causes which impel them to the separation … it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and institute new government … it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government and to provide new Guards for their future security … that all political connection between them is and ought to be totally dissolved.” 

To refuse to accept the Declaration of Independence as an article of secession is to call attention to one’s own ignorance. The demanded separation contained in our Declaration is a complete refutation of any government being the ultimate sovereign over the people.

Our founders, including those on both sides of the Federalist/Antifederalist divide, wrote and spoke often of the ultimate sovereignty of the individual. James Wilson of Pennsylvania was a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 as well as a delegate to the Ratification Convention of his state. It was during that ratification debate James Wilson stated the following as to the forms of government that might be created.

“The United States may adopt any one of four different systems. They may become consolidated into one [National] government, in which the separate existence of the states shall be entirely absorbed. They may reject any plan of union or association and act as separate and unconnected states. They may form two or more confederacies. They may unite in one federal republic. Which of these systems ought to have been formed by the Convention? To support, with vigor, a single government over the whole extent of the United States would demand a system of the most unqualified and the most unremitted despotism.” (All emphasis mine)

Patrick Henry also addressed the issue of a consolidated government during the Virginia Ratification Convention when on June 5, 1788, Henry rose to speak and said this about the new proposed government.

“Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: And cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?”

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both stated the actual meaning of the Constitution was to be found in the debates at the various state ratification conventions. Reading through these debates one will find the descriptions and meanings of the proposed constitution are very well stated by those who advocated for ratification and were “selling” the constitution (Federalists) to those who had questions (Anti-federalists) or those who opposed ratification outright. The Federalists were most clear; the government would not be a national government, the powers “delegated” to the government would be few and limited; the states would at the very least have an equal say in the actions of the government. I list below just a sampling of what form of government was promised to the states and to the people.

“It is the opinion of the greatest writers, that a very extensive country cannot be governed on democratical principles, on any other plan than a confederation of a number of small republics, possessing all the powers of internal government but united in the management of their foreign and general concerns. It would not be difficult to prove, that anything short of despotism could not bind so great a country under one government; and under whatever plan you might, at first setting out, establish, it would issue in a despotism.” ~ George Bryan of Pennsylvania

In this one simple paragraph, George Bryan describes not only what was happening at the time of the ratification conventions but also perfectly describes how unconstitutional and tyrannical our government has become since its creation. Mr. Bryan mentions first “a very extensive country.” Please remember that at that time our “country” only contained the 13 original colonies. Then there is the mention of “democratical principles’ which is a reference to a democratic form of government which if you asked the common person on the street what form of government we have today, the majority would answer “a democracy.” If 13 colonies or states would be too large for a democracy, what makes anyone believe a democracy would work for 50 states? (57 if you believe our current chief magistrate)

Mr. Bryan then spoke to the proposition that all smaller parts of this confederacy (the states) would possess all the powers of “internal government.” Is that true today? Absolutely not! Bryan then states “nothing short of despotism” would issue from the implementation of any other form of government other than what the people were guaranteed would be created with the ratification of the constitution.

“Any law … of the United States, for securing to Congress more than a concurrent right with each state is usurpation and void.” ~ Theophilus Parsons, Massachusetts, 1788

“Any law,” says Mr. Parsons, is void if passed by Congress and does not provide a “concurrent right” to the states. I would begin to cite for you the hundreds of laws that should be void and unenforceable, but time and logistics of such a listing prohibit such.

“If the gentleman will attend, he will see this is a government for confederated states; that, consequently, it can not meddle where no power is given.” ~ Archibald Maclaine, North Carolina, 1788

Mr. Mcclaine states very clearly that the government cannot meddle where no power is given. Again, time and space do not permit an accurate listing of all of the laws passed by Congress that “meddle” where no such power was ever delegated by the states and the people to the central government. Of, course any such list would include the Affordable Care Act and the many variations of the Patriot Act.

“The State governments can put a veto, at any time, on the general government, by ceasing to continue the executive power.” ~ William Richardson Davie, North Carolina, 1788

Is what Mr. Davie so clearly stated in 1788 true today? If, not our government has been perverted, stolen and used to enslave us all. Are we any more subjects than were our founders in 1775 and who declared their grievances and separation in our most famous of founding documents?

John Adams predicted what would occur should the tenets and principles of what the people of their respective states were promised if these principles were violated and usurped by the central government.

“It is not even said in our Constitution that the People shall be guarranteed in a Free Republican Government. The Word is So loose and indeffinite that Successive Predominant Factions will put Glosses and Constructions upon it as different as light and darkness, and if ever there should be a Civil War which Heaven forbid, the conquering General in all his Tryumphs may establish a Military Despotism and yet call it a constitutional Republic as Napoleon has already Set him the Example. The only Effect of it that I could ever See, is to deceive the People: and this practice my heart abhors, my head disapproves, and my Tongue and my Pen have ever avoided.” (Spelling and capitalization in the original)

John Adams was most knowledgeable of history and he correctly predicted usurpations on the part of the government which included the assumption of powers the states and the people were guaranteed would never occur would eventually lead to a “civil war.” Adams also predicted a triumph in such a “civil war” by military forces of the central government would lead to a military despotism such as that of Napoleon. He also correctly predicted that such a government would continue to call itself a “constitutional republic.” This is precisely why the Pledge of Allegiance, written by an avowed socialist, is embraced by those who support a continuation of the Napoleonic constitutional republic mentioned by John Adams.

The type and form of government promised to the people and the states in their ratification conventions ceased to exist well before the election of Abraham Lincoln and the assumption of power by the so-called Radical Republicans. The election of Lincoln simply brought all of the simmering resentments to a full boil in 1860. With the assumption of power by the Lincolnites, the government promised 72 years prior to the people and the states had ceased to exist.

The people from Virginia who ratified the Constitution by a very slim margin in 1788, were still very suspicious of the intentions of those who would be assuming the mantle of power and possible future usurpations of the powers of the individual states by an overreaching central government. To this end, they placed the following in their ratification agreement.

“Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will …” 

Here, in plain and simple words is established the authority of the states and the people to withdraw from a government of their own creation “whensoever that government shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” The wording also clearly indicates the people of the states are the ones to determine when that injury and oppression has occurred; not the Congress of that government, the executive of that government or the judicial element of that government.

The original ratification documents were presented and discussed during the first Convention of Secession in Virginia in which the people of Virginia, acting the same as those who had ratified the Constitution in 1788, at first voted to remain in the Union. It was the actions of Abraham Lincoln and his radical republicans who forced the acts of secession on Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Missouri.

The states who seceded, did so in an effort to recapture and retain the form of government promised to them 72 years prior. Yet, Lincoln chose to deal with a constitutional issue, not with the courts, mediation or reconciliation, but through the use of force and coercion, both of which comprise the very essence of tyranny.

The only path left to those who wish to oppose the overreach of government enforced tyranny is first nullification, as well outlined in Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolution, and should that fail, a full and complete withdrawal from the forces of tyranny: Secession.

Regardless of who is elected in November, the tyranny and oppression will continue to increase. Such is the natural course of history, for the form of government promised at the ratification conventions totally ceased to exist under the fusillade of bullets, bayonets, and cannons, delivered courtesy of Abraham Lincoln to the people of at least 12 states who only wanted the form of government their ancestors had been promised in 1787-1788.

Delaware Senator James Bayard III stated on the floor of the US Senate in 1861,

” … to warn gentlemen that the system of government adopted in 1787 is inconsistent with the prosecution of war for the subjection of the South: and yet you cannot execute the laws as you claim to do within the Confederate States without their entire conquest and subjugation. You must, if successful, convert, and it has been threatened by many leading papers, and at least one leading member of the administration, that you will convert this government into a single government, and absolve all the state lines. In answer to such a purpose, and as an all-sufficient objection to it, I give you the general truth enunciated by Mr. Wilson, that a government of that kind, to exist over the extent of the this country must be a system of the most unqualified and unremitting despotism.”

The government employees, media shills and useful idiots in academia and the common street idiot, all of whom would guarantee the right of an individual to escape an abusive relationship, would deny the same to the states and its citizens. The government that was promised to our ancestors has long since ceased to exist—-Nullification and Secession are our only options.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Given the power and ability to do so, I would corral every born in America person in groups and not let them leave their chairs until they totally understood the significance of Mike’s words, whether they crapped on them selves or starved to death matters not to me. They could die in their chair or become a real American ready to die a horrible death before allowing this damnable government to continue.

GIVE ME FREEDOM OR GIVE ME DEATH IS THE

MOST HONORABLE STATEMENT EVER MADE.

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM


MORE GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS WITH GUNS THAN U.S. MARINES

August 4th, 2016 by

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin920.htm

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
Writing for FreeBeacon.com, Elizabeth Harrington summarized a comprehensive report by a taxpayer watchdog group that chronicles the exponential increase in the militarization of police agencies in the United States during the past several years.

Harrington writes, “There are now more non-military government employees who carry guns than there are U.S. Marines, according to a new report.

“Open the Books, a taxpayer watchdog group, released a study Wednesday [June 22, 2016] that finds domestic government agencies continue to grow their stockpiles of military-style weapons, as Democrats sat on the House floor calling for more restrictions on what guns American citizens can buy.

“The ‘Militarization of America’ report found civilian agencies spent $1.48 billion on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment between 2006 and 2014. Examples include IRS agents with AR-15s, and EPA bureaucrats wearing camouflage.

“‘Regulatory enforcement within administrative agencies now carries the might of military-style equipment and weapons,’ Open the Books said. ‘For example, the Food and Drug Administration includes 183 armed “special agents,” a 50 percent increase over the ten years from 1998-2008. At Health and Human Services (HHS), “Special Office of Inspector General Agents” are now trained with sophisticated weaponry by the same contractors who train our military special forces troops.’

“Open the Books found there are now over 200,000 non-military federal officers with arrest and firearm authority, surpassing the 182,100 personnel who are actively serving in the U.S. Marine Corps.

“The IRS spent nearly $11 million on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment for its 2,316 special agents. The tax collecting agency has billed taxpayers for pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns, semi-automatic Smith & Wesson M&P15s, and Heckler & Koch H&K 416 rifles, which can be loaded with 30-round magazines.

“The EPA spent $3.1 million on guns, ammo, and equipment, including drones, night vision, ‘camouflage and other deceptive equipment,’ and body armor.”

Harrington continues, “Open the Books appealed to both liberals like Bernie Sanders–who has called for demilitarizing local police departments–and conservatives in its report.

“‘Conservatives argue that it is hypocritical for political leaders to undermine the Second Amendment while simultaneously equipping non-military agencies with hollow-point bullets and military style equipment,’ Open the Books said. ‘One could argue the federal government itself has become a gun show that never adjourns with dozens of agencies continually shopping for new firearms.’”

See the report: There Are Now More Bureaucrats With Guns Than U.S. Marines

Most Americans would be shocked if they knew how many millions of rounds of ammunition their local and State police agencies are amassing. And don’t let anybody tell you all of this ammunition is for “practice.” We are talking about hollow-point pistol rounds and military rifle rounds such as 5.56 and .308 calibers. I would take an educated guess (based on my conversations with both ammunition and arms suppliers and police officers themselves) that your local police agencies have enough ammunition stockpiled to kill the entire population of your community four or five times. But these numbers pale in comparison to the numbers of guns and ammunition being amassed by federal agencies–including agencies that nowhere come close to being categorized as “police” agencies, such as those mentioned in the above report.

To realize that the alphabet agencies of the federal government have more armed agents (assigned to domestic duties) than our premier combat branch of the U.S. military (the U.S. Marines), whose job is to engage America’s enemies in direct combat, is a staggering thought. Tell me again exactly who it is that our federal government deems to be the enemy. And they wonder why more and more Americans are arming themselves?

Couple the militarization of our domestic police (and non-police) agencies with the increased call from many in Washington, D.C., to strip the American people of their right to keep and bear arms–especially their right to keep and bear semi-automatic rifles–and one can understand why so many of the American people are “on edge” and have lost all trust in their federal government.

Understanding and acknowledging the Providence of God notwithstanding, the ONLY thing standing between us and abject tyranny is a massively armed citizenry. America is the last nation in the free world that instilled the right to keep and bear arms not only in its Constitution but also in the very heart and soul of its citizens. Should the American citizenry ever cease to be an armed citizenry (and I mean armed with semi-automatic rifles with high-capacity magazines), the entire free world would collapse into the Dark Ages.

I’m saying it straight out: the only reason that Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, etc., have the modicum of freedom that they do is because the American citizenry is an armed citizenry. It is NOT the U.S. armed forces that are keeping this country and the rest of Western Civilization free; it is the armed citizenry of America that is protecting whatever vestiges of liberty Western Civilization has left. Disarm the American people and the entire free world falls into the abyss of tyranny and oppression–maybe for a thousand years.

Listen to Daniel Webster: “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”

When Webster talked about holding onto the Constitution, he was including the Second Amendment to the Constitution. And Daniel Webster was not alone in his veneration for the Second Amendment. To a man, America’s Founding Fathers equated the preservation of liberty with the freedom to keep and bear arms.

Listen to our founders:

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787)

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” (James Madison, “Federalist No. 46”, January 29, 1788)

“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.” June 14, 1788)

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” (Noah Webster, “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” October 10, 1787)

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.” (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

“The great object is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able might have a gun.” (Patrick Henry, Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot 3:380–95, 400–402, June 14, 1788)

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.” (Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775)

“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 29, January 9, 1788)

What could be plainer? Our Founding Fathers did not engrave the right to keep and bear arms in our Constitution for the purpose of hunting or target shooting or even simply as a deterrent to domestic criminals (as necessary as those things are). No. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to keep the American people FREE, including if our own government was the enemy trying to enslave us.

For the most part, utopian globalists have successfully disarmed the citizens of Western Civilization. All over the “free world” only governments are armed; citizens have been stripped of their right to keep and bear arms. Even the people of Switzerland are extremely regulated in this regard.

Again, I’ll say it plainly: if citizens are not able to freely keep and bear semi-automatic rifles, they are effectively DISARMED.

The semi-automatic rifle is to us what the Roman sword was to the people in Jesus’ day. It is the preeminent self-defense tool. It is no coincidence that Jesus commanded His disciples to buy a Roman sword, even if they had to sell their clothes to do so. (Luke 22:36) And by the way, it was against the law for Jews to own a Roman sword at that time. That’s right: when Jesus told His disciples to buy a sword, He was telling them to break the law. Tell this to your pastor and see what he says. His response will give you a little hint as to 1) his honest understanding of scriptures and 2) his honest commitment to liberty.

I submit that we would not even be having a discussion of this issue if the pastors of America were doing their jobs from the pulpit. Instead of trying to mimic Joel Osteen and Rick Warren, they should be following the example of America’s patriot pastors and equipping their people with the Biblical Natural Law principles they need to protect and defend their homes, communities, and country. And that requires teaching them the God-ordained duty of self-defense.

When Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein tried to make it illegal to possess semi-automatic rifles back in 2013, the vast majority of America’s pastors either said absolutely NOTHING or they actually told their churches, “If the government outlaws your guns, Romans 13 tells us to turn them in.” NO! Romans 13 teaches NO SUCH THING.

When I realized the dearth of pastoral leadership regarding the Christian duty to keep and bear arms, my attorney son and I wrote a book to teach believers (and anyone else) the scriptural truth regarding their responsibility of self-defense. The book is called “To Keep Or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns.” We show from the scriptures–all of them, including Romans 13–that self-defense is much more than a constitutional right: it is a God-ordained DUTY. We show that to surrender our means of self-defense (and that especially includes the semi-automatic rifle) is to DENY the Christian faith.

If readers have not been taught this truth and are in any way uncertain or confused about it, I strongly urge you to get the book. And if you have a pastor or Sunday School teacher that doesn’t understand and courageously teach this truth, buy a copy for them.

To order “To Keep Or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns,” click here.

 

Thankfully, Obama and Feinstein failed to outlaw our semi-automatic rifles back in 2013 (no thanks to most of America’s pastors), but you can rest assured if Hillary Clinton is elected the confiscation of our semi-automatic rifles will be NUMBER ONE on the agenda. And even if she isn’t elected, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are standing in the wings to compromise away every liberty we have–including the right to keep and bear arms.

So, while federal agencies in Washington, D.C., are being increasingly militarized, the American people are being told they need to surrender their means of self-defense. It is no hyperbole to say that the fate of the civilized world rests with the American people–not with the U.S. armed forces, but with a free and resolute armed citizenry.

© 2016 Chuck Baldwin – All Rights Reserved

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 9 grandchildren. Chuck and his family reside in the Flathead Valley of Montana. See Chuck’s complete bio here.

E-mail: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

Website: ChuckBaldwinLive.com

THE AMERICAN ARMY

AMERICA‘S HUNTERS —Pretty Amazing!

8-4-2016 7-45-11 AM

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion: 
There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin …Allow me to restate that number: 600,000!

8-4-2016 7-46-55 AMOver the last several months, Wisconsin’s hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.

8-4-2016 7-47-26 AM(That’s more men under arms than in Iran . More than France and Germany combined. )

8-4-2016 7-48-32 AMThese men, deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms,

and NO ONE WAS KILLED.

8-4-2016 7-49-18 AM8-4-2016 7-50-05 AM

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan’s 700,000 hunters, ALL OF WHOM HAVE RETURNED HOME SAFELY.

Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.

And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states.
It’s millions more.

The point? 

America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower!

Hunting… it’s not just a way to fill the freezer.

It’s a matter of national security.

8-4-2016 7-50-44 AMThat’s why all of our enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.

That is anytime and every time America considers gun control. Our enemies want guns out of our hands.

Overall it’s true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters 
don’t possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain…

What army of 2 million would want to face 30 million, 40 million, or 50 million armed citizens???

For the sake of our freedom, don’t ever allow gun control or confiscation of guns.

(IF YOU AGREE, AS I DO, PASS this ON, I FEEL GOOD THAT I HAVE AN ARMY OF MILLIONS WHO WOULD PROTECT OUR LAND, AND I SURE DON’T WANT any of our GOVERNMENTS TAKING CONTROL OF, OR  POSSESSION OF OUR FIREARMS.)

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

It is undeniable that many of our so called citizens want us disarmed, and to them, one and all, I say they are the most stupid cowards in the entire world! Only a fool would trust any government, let alone a corporate government to protect us. Is it not now apparent that the government has a NATO FORCE IN AMERICA? AND THEY HAVE NO LOYALTY TO US. How is it possible that our neighbors believe what the media and education industry is teaching and claiming?

STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES!

NEVER FORGET!

OUR COLD DEAD HANDS!

10 13 11 flagbar

 

 

EVERYTHING IS RIGGED:

August 3rd, 2016 by

http://www.naturalnews.com/054857_rigged_elections_fake_media_fairy_tales.html#

8-3-2016 9-58-37 AM

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

NaturalNews) After witnessing how Reuters just blatantly cooked the presidential election polls this week to favor Clinton and how the mainstream media is so terrifyingly biased in favor of Clinton that the very foundation of democracy is now in crisis, it’s time to tell you something that perhaps a lot more people are finally ready to hear:

EVERYTHING IS RIGGED.

Every institution in America is sold out, corrupted and politically rigged to favor Big Government and Big Business. “America is a lost country,” explains Paul Craig Roberts. “The total corruption of every public and the private institution is complete. Nothing remains but tyranny. And lies. Endless lies.”

CNN, Reuters and the Associated Press are all now shameless promoters of every big lie across every sector of society, from vaccines and GMOs to elections and politics. The federal government itself is incapable of doing anything other than lying, and it has totally corrupted the entire realm of science by pulling the strings of funding via the National Institutes of Health and the NSF.

The FDA is entirely corrupt, as is the USDA. Both function now as little more than marketing propaganda pushers for Big Pharma and Big Biotech. Similarly, Google, Facebook and Twitter are all rigged, too, censoring the voices they don’t want anyone to hear while highlighting the establishment lies they wish to promote.

Here’s what “rigged” really means… the tools of tyranny

8-2-2016 5-58-57 PM

When I say “everything is rigged,” what does that mean, exactly?

• All “official sources” are ordered to constantly lie about everything, weaving illusions to push a chosen narrative rooted in fiction (from “there are no Islamic terrorists” to “carbon dioxide is poison to the planet”).

• All voices of reason and sanity are silenced. Only the most insane, irrational voices are allowed to be magnified through any media (including social media). This is also true across the sciences, where real science has been all but snuffed out by political agendas (biosludge, GMOs, glyphosate, mercury in dentistry, etc.).

• All facts are obliterated by propaganda. Facts have no place in any debate, and those who invoke facts are shamed and silenced (or even fired from their jobs, expelled from their schools or bullied into a state of suicide on social media). Anyone who invokes facts on things like the actual statistics of police shootings is told they are “part of the problem” because they have the “wrong attitude” about social justice.

• Every branch of government is weaponized against the people and used as an assault tool against political enemies who threaten the status quo. (IRS, FDA, FTC, DEA, EPA, USDA, etc.)

• All science is distorted into absurd, politically-motivated conclusions about everything the government wants to use to control the masses: Vaccines, climate change, GMOs, fluoride, flu shots, chemical agriculture, carbon dioxide and so on.

• Every branch of medicine is hijacked by globalist agendas to make sure medicine never makes anyone healthier, more alert or more cognitively capable of thinking for themselves.

• Every “news item” that’s reported from any official source is deliberately distorted to the point of insanity, turning many facts on their heads while attacking anyone who might offer something truly constructive to the world. (Such as reporting that Clinton was “cleared” by the FBI when, in fact, she was indicted by the very facts the FBI presented!)

• All voices of truth are silenced, then replaced by meaningless, distracting babble (Kardashians) or meaningless, tribal sports competitions (the Rio Olympics). The point is to dumb down the entire population to the point of cultural lunacy.

• Any true reports that contradict any official narrative are immediately censored. For example, radio host Michael Savage just got blocked by Facebook for posting a true story about an illegal alien who committed murder in America.

• Emotions are used as weapons to manipulate the masses. For example, when the mom of a Benghazi victim shares her grief with the world, she is ridiculed and shamed. But when a radical Muslim father who’s trying to bring Sharia Law to America attacks Trump by expressing his loss of his soldier son, the media turns him into an instant celebrity, praising his “courageous voice” for daring to speak out. The media hypocrisy is enough to make you vomit…

What exactly is rigged?

  • The entire mainstream media
    • Google search engine and Google News
    • Facebook and Twitter
    • The DNC and the RNC (both 100% rigged by globalists)
    • Every federal agency (EPA, FDA, etc.)
    • The entire justice system (makes a total farce of real justice)
    • Interest rates and the value of the money supply (central banksters)
    • Academia (all public universities)
    • EPA’s “safe” limits on pesticides (all rigged by Big Biotech)
    • Food and food labeling (all run by corrupt food companies)
    • Public education (rigged into Common Core anti-knowledge idiocy)
    • Banking and finance (all controlled by globalists)
    • Government economics figures and statistics
    • Medicine and pharmaceuticals (rigged to maximize profits)
    • Big Science (totally rigged by government agenda pushers)
    • The music industry (most top singers can’t sing at all)
    • Weapons manufacturers and war corporations
    • The illegal drug trade (it’s run by the government)
    • Political elections (all 100% rigged at the federal level)
    • Political polls (now rigged by Reuters, too)
    • The health insurance industry (rigged by Obamacare)
    • College admissions (legally discriminates against Whites and Asians)
    • 9/11 and domestic terrorism (all rigged “official stories”)
    • Oil and energy industries
    • The rule of law (rigged in favor of the rich and powerful)
    • Infectious disease and the CDC (a constant stream of lies)
    • Hollywood (all run by globalists)
    • Climate change science (all a grand science hoax)
    • Press release services (they only allow official narratives)
    • History (what you are taught is mostly a lie)
    • Government grants (only given out to those who further the agenda)
    • Government bids (only awarded to those who kick back funds to corrupt officials)
    • Consciousness and free will (we are all taught consciousness doesn’t exist)
    • Ethnobotany (medicinal and spiritual use of healing plants)
    • Life on other plants (the obvious truth is kept from us all)
    • The origin of the universe (the official narrative is a laughable fairy tale) As a fantastic example of how everything is rigged, consider these paragraphs from this Breitbart.com news story published today:

    Over the weekend and for the past few days since Khan spoke alongside his wife Ghazala Khan about their son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq in 2004, media-wide reporters, editors, producers, and anchors have tried to lay criticism on Trump over the matter. They thought they had a good one, a specific line of attack that pitted Trump against the military—and supposedly showed him as a big meanie racist in the process.

    But, as Breitbart News showed on Monday midday, that clearly was not the case. Khizr Khan has all sorts of financial, legal, and political connections to the Clintons through his old law firm, the mega-D.C. firm Hogan Lovells LLP. That firm did Hillary Clinton’s taxes for years, starting when Khan still worked there involved in, according to his own website, matters “firm wide”—back in 2004. It also has represented, for years, the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States. Saudi Arabia, of course, is a Clinton Foundation donor which—along with the mega-bundlers of thousands upon thousands in political donations to both of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2016—plays right into the “Clinton Cash” narrative.

America‘s transformation into Communist China is nearly complete

If you’re pondering where all this is headed, look no further than Communist China, where all independent news has been outlawed by the state. Political prisoners across China have their organs harvested to enrich black market organ traders, and nearly one out of every three urban citizens is a secret spy who snitches on friends for the totalitarian communist government.

Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of Communist Chinese totalitarianism. She’s such a perfect fit for their disastrous model of human rights abuses, government corruption and systemic criminality that I’m surprised she doesn’t live in Beijing. If Clinton gets elected, America is gone forever, replaced by a criminal regime of totalitarians who violate the RICO Act as a matter of policy.

If this entire rigged system of biased media, Facebook censorship, Google search result manipulations and twisted science ends up putting America’s most terrifying political criminal into the White House, it’s lights out for the American we once knew. Almost immediately, the nation fractures into near Civil War, with calls for secession growing unstoppable as state after state seeks to escape the political wrath of an insane regime of D.C. criminals and tyrants. 

We now live in two Americas: Half the country is tired of everything being rigged, and the other half can’t wait to be exploited by yet another crooked leftist LIAR who rigs everything

America is now essentially two nations. On one hand, we have the pro-Trump America, filled with people who are tired of being cheated, censored, punished, stolen from and lied to about everything under the sun. Donald Trump supporters are people who realize everything is rigged… and they’re demanding an end to the corruption and criminality of the fascist system under which we all suffer today.

Hillary Clinton supporters are people who are too busy chasing political rainbows to realize everything is rigged. They still believe the lies and the propaganda (the “hope and change” that never came, but is still promised by empty politicians). They’re living in fairy tale delusional worlds that have been woven into their gullible minds by the skillful social engineers of the radical left. These people still think the government cares about them… or that CNN only reports truthful news. They can’t wait to see another globalist in the White House because they are pathetic, weak-minded empty shells of non-consciousness who are wholly incapable of thinking for themselves.

These two camps of Americans can no longer coexist. They have almost nothing in common when it comes to knowledge, wisdom, ethics, morals or philosophy. One camp believes in the rule of law (Trump); the other camp believes that people in power should be above the law (Clinton). One camp believes in states’ rights and individual liberty (Trump) while the other camp believes in the consolidation of totalitarian power in the hands of a centralized, domineering government (Clinton). One camp believes in a level playing field, free market competition and rewarding innovation and hard work (Trump), while the other camp believes in free handouts, government “equality” mandates, and the ludicrous idea that “there should be no winners or losers in society.” (Clinton)

In other to try to win this election, the Clinton camp has already rigged EVERYTHING from the very start, including the coronation of Hillary, the scheduling of televised debates to minimize their viewership, the surrender of Bernie Sanders to the DNC machine, the mass organization of illegal voting schemes to make sure illegal aliens vote in November, and so much more. No doubt they’re also working extremely hard to rig the black box voting machines all across the country.

If you’re tired of everything being rigged, this November vote against the rigged system by voting for Donald Trump. This is truly your last chance to save America from being overthrown by a totalitarian regime of criminals who will crush every last iota of freedom and liberty in America.

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

 

ARE GUN MANUFACTURERS INVOLVED IN DISARMING AMERICANS?

July 29th, 2016 by

EXCLUSIVE EXPOSED ORLANDO SHOOTING USED TO STRENGTHEN SANDY HOOK LAWSUIT

http://www.thegovernmentrag.com/orlando-shooting-directly-tied-to-sandy-hook.html#.V5s6SKJ75G8

ARE GUN MANUFACTURERS INVOLVED IN DISARMING AMERICANS?

7-29-2016 10-07-10 AMPhoto: schmoesknow

 By Stephanie Sledge | The Government Rag

 There are two more plots that go hand-in-hand brewing against the American People when it comes to more suppression and total tyranny on firearm freedoms. Plot one is the Firearm Risk Protection Act 2015 and the other is the pending Sandy Hook lawsuit against various gun manufacturers to attempt to hold them criminally responsible for murders by which their products are used. But, are the gun manufacturing owners involved in the plot? Hillary Clinton secretly met with several alleged Orlando Night Club shooting victims recently and several families have agreed to join the Sandy Hook lawsuit.  Lawyers representing some of the Orlando victims have already had preliminary talks with those representing the Sandy Hook families.

WHAT EXACTLY IS THE SANDY HOOK LAWSUIT ABOUT?

TIMELINE – In January 2015, three years after the alleged mass murder at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, family members of some of the alleged dead victims filed a wrongful death suit against Remington Arms Company (the maker of the Bushmaster), the distributor (Camfour Holding, LLC), and Riverside Sales (the now-defunct East Windsor gun store).

The wrongful death suit argues Remington Arms as well as the other defendants “unscrupulously marketed and promoted the assaultive qualities and military uses of AR-15s to civilian purchasers.”

In December of 2015, all defendants asked Judge Bellis to throw out the lawsuit on the claim of ‘immunity’ under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). According to the Act,

“To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms

or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. <<NOTE: Oct. 26, 2005 –  [S. 397]>>

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ92/html/PLAW-109publ92.htm

A Brief History – Adam Lanza allegedly gunned-down 6 adults and 20 children using a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle (model XM15-E2S) at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012. Adam was also reportedly to have killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, with a .22 rifle prior to going to the elementary school that morning. It was also reported Nancy Lanza had purchased the AR-15 legally prior to the shooting from Riverside Sales.

The family members claim the AR-15 military style rifle should not have been made available to the public citing it is a military style weapon and is not suitable for civilian usage. The families also claim the gun maker and sellers knew civilians are considered unfit to operate the assault rifle and yet they continue to sell it to civilians while disregarding the dangers and threats the weapon poses.

Following the shooting, a campaign to ban military style high-powered weapons and accessories from the civilian populous has emerged again and the gun advocates have been on a deceptive marketing campaign to disarm America begging for more rules, regulations, codes, and laws to restrict the sale of these guns to just police or military. Remington, the primary defendant in the case filed to have the lawsuit dismissed. The Plaintiffs then ask the judge to not seal the gun maker’s records. Remington has argued to the judge the dangers of their company releasing trade secrets to the public due to this lawsuit.

According to Hartford Courant,

“Remington Arms, the principal defendant, has asked Bridgeport Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis to keep records it views as proprietary from being made public. The company’s court filing said that for competitive reasons, it does not want the public or its competitors to see the records. The company has also asked the judge to dismiss the suit.

Bellis previously ruled that the process of “discovery” would go forward even as she considered whether to dismiss the lawsuit against the manufacturer of the AR-15 rifle used in the slayings. The discovery process allows the plaintiffs’ lawyers to demand internal documents that could provide insight into how the gunmaker markets the AR-15 and to depose company executives. Lawyers said those depositions began earlier this month.

In unusually harsh language for a legal filing, the plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote: “The Remington Defendants ask the Court to order the plaintiffs to keep their secrets, in the name of preserving Remington’s competitive advantage among sellers of AR-15s. For plaintiffs, such conditions are repugnant.”

They also go on to say,

“Remington did not become the country’s leading seller of military weaponry to civilians by accident. It ascended to that position through its calculated marketing and pursuit of profit above all else. Plaintiffs lost family members, including children, in the service of that bottom line. Now Remington wants them to do more to protect its profitability. Plaintiffs will of course abide by whatever order the Court enters, but they will not by agreement help in a cover up of Remington’s marketing strategies or profit margins.”

Connecticut Superior Court Judge, Barbara Bellisa ruled the lawsuit could go forward; trial has been set for April 2018.  

WHAT IS THE H.R. 1369 (113th): FIREARM RISK PROTECTION ACT OF 2015?

The Insurance banksters would like to have total control over American’s weapons including prohibiting the sale or purchase of a firearm without the purchaser first obtaining qualified liability insurance policy. This could become an economic hardship for many families and owners of weapons during a planned economic collapse. Individuals will be classified as criminals and face legal sanctions and punishments if they do not or cannot comply.

The Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2015 was introduced on May 21, 2015 by N.Y’s 12th Congressional District Democrat, Carolyn Maloney. The Act is just another bowl of ‘word salad’ which appears to be a deceptive way to disarm more Americans while demanding gun owners to carry liability insurance on their weapons. Any person who fails to comply can be criminalized and face fines up to $10000. Of course, the Act would exempt any federal, state, or local agencies from having to comply with obtaining liability insurance on the sale and transfer of every weapon. So, it is clear the banksters want their cut in owning your firearm and penalizing you if you do not comply. In addition, the banksters, their criminal mafia insurance monopolies, and of course the government would have yet another way to access your name and location of your weapons at any time as their newly created database grows. Waiting to be implemented, it could cost thousands of gun owners their weapons and freedoms if they cannot afford to purchase or maintain the insurance. However, the government, its representatives, and the agencies on a federal, state, and local level can get off scott-free with having an uninsured weapon.

Summary: The Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2015 Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to: (1) prohibit the purchase or sale of a firearm unless the purchaser presents proof to the seller and the seller verifies that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy, and (2) require any person who purchases a firearm on or after this Act’s effective date to be covered by such a policy. Exempts the purchase or sale of a firearm for use by a federal, state, or local agency. Defines “qualified liability insurance policy” to mean a policy that: (1) provides liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser, and (2) is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to provide the coverage by the state in which the purchaser resides.

Maloney makes these remarks in the House of Representatives on May 21, 2015:

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Firearm Risk Protection Act, innovative legislation to promote safe gun ownership. Too often, our communities are left looking for answers after horrific tragedies inflicted with dangerous firearms. A requirement to carry liability insurance is a market-based solution that would hold gun owners responsible for the risk their firearms present, and create incentives for responsible gun safety practices. The Firearm Risk Protection Act would harness the power of insurance markets to allow professional actuaries to determine the risk presented by each gun and gun owner. Just as with car insurance, higher-risk owners of firearms would face higher premiums, while responsible owners could qualify for reduced rates. As gun violence continues to inflict scars on American families and our communities, Congress should look for new ways to promote gun safety and prevent future tragedies. I hope my colleagues will join me to support this forward-thinking legislation.”

7-29-2016 10-10-43 AMEXPOSED: ZIONIST CAROLYN B. MALONEY

A brief peek into Maloney’s history says a lot about who she is really interested in pleasing. I can guarantee, it is not the People, it is financial interests and the Jewish Agenda to Disarm America: Communism’s Secret Back Door. She has deep background ties to the banksters and wants to criminalize speech, eliminate guns, and enslave the American people. She is a snake slithering in the grass waiting to dupe and bite the People using manipulative and dirty tactics including participating in ways to market deceptive campaigns against the Civilian populous to make money off disarming the nation and promoting economic hardships, criminal sanctions, and plotting to help make the insurance companies money off the Second Amendment.

“Today, all across New York, all across the country, Americans are sitting in and standing up because we are tired of watching as each day 89 people die from gun violence,” said Congresswoman Maloney.‎ “We are tired of being told that the solution to gun violence is more guns. We are tired of massacres like Orlando and Sandy Hook. And we are tired of tweets and prayers that do nothing to stop the bloodshed. Today, we are here to continue the movement that began on the House floor last week. We are sitting in to demand action. It is time for a vote to keep guns away from dangerous terror suspects, a vote to require background checks on all gun sales, a vote to stop gun trafficking, a vote to lift the ban on gun violence research, a vote on common sense. It’s time for gun violence to end.”

“Just one week after the historic sit-in on the House floor, today leaders in Congress will hold yet another historic event to urge our elected officials in the U.S. House of Representatives to hold a vote on bipartisan legislation that protects the rights of law-abiding Americans, keeps guns out of the wrong hands, and saves lives,” said former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Co-Founder of the gun violence prevention organization Americans for Responsible Solutions. “I want to thank Congresswoman Maloney for helping lead the fight against our nation’s gun violence crisis. Speaking is difficult for me. But I haven’t been silenced. And neither should the American people. Their Representatives must vote to make our communities safer.” 

 

SLITHERING SNAKES IN THE GRASS:

HILLARY, GIFFORDS, AND MALONEY

7-29-2016 10-12-17 AM

For a full list of how Maloney represents the People, go to this page. Some highlighted Bills/Resolutions Carolyn Maloney supports/sponsors/co-sponsors, etc are:

GUN CONTROL AGENDA

H.Res.753 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) – Expressing support for the designation of June 2, 2016, as “National Gun Violence Awareness Day” and June 2016 as “National Gun Violence Awareness Month”.

H.R.2917 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) – End Purchase of Firearms by Dangerous Individuals Act of 2015

H.R.2916 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) – Fire Sale Loophole Closing Act

H.R.2612 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) – To authorize the appropriation of funds to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for conducting or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence prevention.

H.R.2546 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) – Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2015

H.R.3375 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) – To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to extend the period during which a firearms licensee is required to wait for a response from the national instant criminal background check…

H.R. 4603 – Hates Crime Prevention Act – To prevent a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission, from obtaining a firearm.

H.R. 1217: Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act – This bill is a comprehensive, bipartisan proposal to close the gaps and loopholes in the Brady Bill, including requiring background checks for all gun sales. In addition, this bill would establish the National Commission on Mass Violence, to examine mass shootings and other incidents to determine their root causes and risk factors.

 JEWISH HOLOCAUST AGENDA

H.Res.810 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the life and work of Elie Wiesel in promoting human rights, peace, and Holocaust remembrance.

H.Res.729 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) Expressing support for the expeditious consideration and finalization of a new, robust, and long-term Memorandum of Understanding on military assistance to Israel between the United States Government..

H.Con.Res.129 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) Expressing support for the goal of ensuring that all Holocaust victims live with dignity, comfort, and security in their remaining years, and urging the Federal Republic of Germany to continue to…

H.R.2545 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) Simon Wiesenthal Holocaust Education Assistance Act

ABORTION AND OTHER AGENDA:

H.Res.769 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) Terminating a Select Investigative Panel of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Federal funding and support for abortion providers;

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-resolution/461/committees

H.R.5373 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) LGBT Data Inclusion Act

HOW DOES H.R. 1369 (113th): FIREARM RISK PROTECTION ACT OF 2015 TIE INTO THE SANDY HOOK LAWSUIT AGAINST THE GUN MANUFACTURERS? 

There are a lot of questions to be asked and as everyone is diverted by the most current false-flag details or even ‘wooing’ the next in line on Facebook, the snakes slither in the grass to turn Civilian’s choice of weapons purchases into a tightly regulated ‘pay-up’ or do the time to keep and possess them. 

The families of the Sandy Hook lawsuit argue the rifle allegedly used by shooter, Adam Lanza, should not have been entrusted to the general public… 

“Shouldn’t have been entrusted to the general public because it is a military-style assault weapon that is unsuited for civilian use.”

 “They say the gun companies knew—or should have known—about the high risks posed by the weapon, including the ability for a shooter to use it to inflict maximum casualties and serious injury.”

Now, in the ‘discovery phase’ this lawsuit is the first of its kind to challenge the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) after its enactment. According to the so-called experts on the fake news network, (CNN),

“This is precedent setting in the sense that, after PLCAA, this is the first case against a firearms manufacturer under a negligence theory that looks like it might make it to trial,” said Georgia State University law professor Timothy Lytton, who studies gun industry litigation.”

7-29-2016 10-14-05 AM

The attorney, Joshua Koskoff, representing the families of nine people who allegedly died in the attack said, “It was Remington’s choice to entrust the most notorious American killing machine to the public.” ( in 2014, for example, there were approximately 275 people killed with a rifle of any kind – hardly a killing machine).

He also denied claims that the lawsuit amounted to an attempt to ban assault weapons.

7-29-2016 10-15-24 AM

HERE IS HILLARY CLINTON & THE GUN HATING GANG?

Hillary and the gun-hating gang are right where we would expect them to be following the recent alleged mass murder at the Orlando Pulse Night Club – right at the front gate…

Following the recent alleged but yet completely shady shooting in Orlando, Hillary Clinton promptly met privately with family and friends of the alleged victims of the Pulse Night Club shooting. ‘Shady- meaning there are unanswered questions, signs of crisis actors and false reporting from the mainstream media. The details reported by the ‘Fake New Networks,  (FOX, CNN, ABC, NBC, ETC) about the shooting itself is suspect and should be classified by the general populous as another suspicious shooting with gun-control as it’s primary marketing strategy. Just like the Tucson shooting, the Sandy Hook shooting, the Navy Yard shooting, the San Bernardino shooting, the Aurora Theatre shooting, and numerous others we have endured during the Obama Administration. 

While in Orlando, Hillary uses the perfect mix of ‘word-salad’ to bring together people who are vulnerable and buy into the lies of ‘terrorism’ while labeling everything a ‘hate’ crime. As Hillary and the Gang continue to find more ways to disarm the nation, Gabrielle Giffords implements her ‘victim marketing scam’ aka Americans for Responsible Solutions anti-second amendment organization. Giffords, Maloney, Clinton are part of a malicious deception to disarm Americans coincident with the deliberate destruction and looting of the American financal system and collapse now in progress, not coincidently caused  by same people funding this anti-American agenda.. 

Most Americans go throughout their day totally unaware of what really is happening around them. Most people are told through the fake news networks and Hollywood deception media the way the weather will be, the way the economy is going, what clothes to wear, what shoes to purchase, and what is happening around the world. The majority of Americans do not have a single clue as to the real matrix we live in. A real life version of the Truman Show. I like to refer to the nation as being ‘duped’ from the real pleasures of truth and freedom.

With all the recent shootings, there has been fuel poured on the already burning fire to incite a war between the blacks and the whites, the blacks and the police, the whites and the police, a total divide. Rumors surface after each alleged shooting and chatter starts among social media on their opinions as to what is really happening. This is great news considering Hillary Clinton has been promoting the racial divide in the nation and has been targeting the black women using the St. Louis Ferguson shooting planned event. It seems very peculiar when there is another shooting, Hillary, Giffords, and Maloney are on the trail…

Hillary’s presidential campaign route is right in alignment with all the recent shooting. Another reason for their BULLHORNS to be screaming and preaching VICTIMS, VICTIMS, VICTIMS… MORE GUN CONTROL… WE HAVE MORE VICTIMS….

 

REMINGTON & BUSHMASTER ARE THE GUN MANUFACTURER OWNERS ACTUALLY SELLING US THE GUNS TO SHOOT OURSELVES WITH?

REMINGTON and BUSHMASTER have been specifically named in the Sandy Hook lawsuit. Clearly, without question, the primary agenda for the lawsuit is to challenge the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Remington and Bushmaster are owned by Freedom Group (FG), which has a parent company called Cerberus Capital Management. Other companies FG owns are:

Advanced Armament Corp

Barnes Bullets

Dakota Arms

DPMS Panther Arms

H&R Firearms

Marlin

Para USA

Parker Gunmakers

TAPCO

There are some specific shady actions that Cerberus Capital Management displayed directly following the Sandy Hook shooting.

 

WHY SHOULD WE TRUST THE GUN COMPANIES WHEN THEY ARE NOT STANDING AGAINST THE GUN HATERS?

As most people already know, following the Sandy Hook shooting, gun sales were on the rise due to Americans being threatened by the gun-control advocates to ban the civilian population of military-style high powered rifles, extended magazines, and other accessories.

What exactly gives the gun haters right to claim, “the gun maker and sellers knew civilians are considered unfit to operate the assault rifle” … Unfit? Really..?

Definition: Oxford Dictionary – UNFIT– (Of a person) not having the requisite qualities or skills to undertake something competently:

REMINGTON ARMS – is the manufacturer of the Bushmaster. Freedom Group (FG) is the owner of Remington Arms and is a subsidiary of the private equity firm known as Cerberus Capital Management. L.P, Est. 1992.  They are well known for their takeover of struggling Chrysler, who was eventually rescued by the taxpayer. Zionist Stephen Feinberg is the co-founder & CEO.

In just a few days following the Sandy Hook shooting, Cerberus Capital Management made a stunning move to announce the sale of Freedom Group. As most Americans were distracted by the Hollywood movie of the Sandy Hook shooting playing out on the fake-media stage, Cerberus Capital Management’s executives, who own America’s largest gun company, was making arrangements to sell off Freedom Group after receiving a harsh phone call from the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, or CalSTRS, which has $750 million invested in the private equity firm. After just a few short hours of contemplating, Cerberus announced it was putting Freedom Group up for sale. How could this decision be made so soon after an event that brought gun sales and gun control to the forefront of every conversation in America.

Instead of taking the heat and fighting back (considering they know their products are not the reason for murder by guns) Cerberus took the coward way out and gave notice to the nation it wanted to remove itself from the heated gun debate uproar and announced it would  sell Freedom Group, which made the weapon Adam Lanza allegedly used in the massacre.

According to PR NewsWire, Cerberus released the following statement publicly following the shooting at Newtown.

“We were shocked and deeply saddened by the events that took place at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT on December 14, 2012.  We cannot comprehend the losses suffered by the families and friends of those killed by the unthinkable crimes committed that day.  No words or actions can lessen the enormity of this event or make a dent in the pain that was inflicted on so many.”

“It is apparent that the Sandy Hook tragedy was a watershed event that has raised the national debate on gun control to an unprecedented level.  The debate essentially focuses on the balance between public safety and the scope of the Constitutional rights under the Second Amendment.  As a Firm, we are investors, not statesmen or policy makers.  Our role is to make investments on behalf of our clients who are comprised of the pension plans of firemen, teachers, policemen and other municipal workers and unions, endowments, and other institutions and individuals.  It is not our role to take positions, or attempt to shape or influence the gun control policy debate.  That is the job of our federal and state legislators.

There are, however, actions that we as a firm can take.  Accordingly, we have determined to immediately engage in a formal process to sell our investment in Freedom Group.  We will retain a financial advisor to design and execute a process to sell our interests in Freedom Group, and we will then return that capital to our investors.  We believe that this decision allows us to meet our obligations to the investors whose interests we are entrusted to protect without being drawn into the national debate that is more properly pursued by those with the formal charter and public responsibility to do so.”

However, they did take a position in the fierce gun control policy debate. Cerberus claims in their press release, “Our role is to make investments on behalf of our clients who are comprised of the pension plans of firemen, teachers, policemen and other municipal workers and unions, endowments, and other institutions and individuals.” This alone should make the reader question everything considering these false-flag shootings revolve around special medical ops which use crisis actors, firemen, police officers, teachers, municipal workers, local Masonic orders, etc. Do you see where this is going? However, as Cerberus is hiding under the table, knowing they are going to profit on both sides of the false-flag, Remington’s profits soared 52+ percent following the Newtown shooting as a direct result of this event as well as the national gun debate.

The surge in profits to Freedom Group came at the right time as Remington was preparing to replace 7.5+ million rifle triggers in a major recall resulting from a class action lawsuit. Interesting…

Plus, let’s not forget about the amount of money many states make from the sales of guns with licensing fees and permits and such. Wow, is this what Obama meant by we are a nation investing in the service industry?

Regardless, more than two-years after Cerberus made the announcement to sell Freedom Group after the phone call from the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS), they exited their investments in the gun manufacturer anyway. Then months later, CalSTRS made national headlines by “voting at its annual board meeting to divest the $193.1 billion pension fund from manufacturers of firearms that are illegal for sale in the state of California, according to Forbes.

Is could me safe to say hypothetically if a person wanted to make some money on the next false-flag… they might want to invest in the players… 🙂

7-29-2016 10-17-38 AM7-29-2016 10-18-23 AM

SUMMARY

There is quite a bit of information to digest when it comes to the Sandy Hook lawsuit, the Orlando shooting alleged victims families joining the lawsuit, the manufacturer’s response to the Sandy Hook shooting, and the introduction of the Firearms Risk Protection Act. Studying them all closely as well as the gun haters agenda, it is quite clear the Second Amendment is up for sale. The Firearms Risk Protection Act alone will profit billions to insurance companies making it mandatory gun owners have liability insurance on their weapons. Depending on ‘your risk assessment, you may either be considered a ‘low risk’ individual and pay lower rates or a ‘high risk’ person and pay higher rates. What they do not specify is how they determine what risk you are. I suppose all the tracking and databases are tied together now so who knows what lies ahead for American gun owners.

Mental health agenda is also tied into the gun control debates. Following the Sandy Hook shooting, the push for DNA testing and studies for the ongoing search for the ‘evil gene’ is underway. Obama is demanding the CDC receive millions of dollars in funding to study gun-violence and Hillary Clinton vows to keep the guns out of the hands of who she believes are dangerous individuals.

Cicero and countless others have reminded us “A nation can survive it fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.” Mahoney, Clinton, and Giffords wear the face of do-gooders, concerned women exercising the natural feminime desire to make things safe, but, in fact, they are liars. They “rot the soul of a nation” while working “secretely and unknown in the night” to undermine the pillars of the Constitution, tirelessly seeking and exploiting  weak spots wherein to insert their treason. These women and many other men and women are not Americans , nor are they nationalist, rather they are globalist, Talmudists, serving a self fulfiling prophecy. The stateless one world government, a new world order and  new religion of tyranny – dictated by the same kinds of personalities which destroyed the old world order. These chosen-ones fantasize about  a new paradise of pyschopaths, bringing order out of chaos, but we expect in the end, once again, they will remain miserable, having nothing left to destroy but themselves. 

10 13 11 flagbar

 

THE REAL AMERICANS! WHO ARE THEY, AND WHAT DO THEY BELIEVE?

July 27th, 2016 by

Note! Revisions have been made so please start from the beginning.

 By Olddog

 To be a real American, one must understand the history of the different kinds of governments, and insist on lawful protections for the people and their assets. That sentence is the epitome of freedom from tyranny, because history has documented how tyrannical most governments have been to their constituents.

Unless the children are raised up with this knowledge being the focus of their attention, sooner or later they will fall pray to demented desires and lean toward democracy because they want to make the world to suit them.

This is called human nature, and the correct teaching of Christian scripture authenticates all humans are born with a depraved nature, and must seek God for redemption. This ideology was prevalent in the beginning of America, but was denigrated by depraved Pastors UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT, and the ever present desire to be in charge of ones depraved mind. Also, many parents were too lazy to study scripture and allowed these depraved Pastors to “bend their minds” so to speak.

This entire problem human beings have with getting along with one another is directly due to their depraved desire to make their own rules, do their own thing, and be in charge, and the results is always chaos. An understanding of this principal early in life would give each competent person more reason to study the history of tyrannical governance.

Any intelligent person can and should study real history so as to know what human traits to follow and avoid, because those who have the compulsion to lead are usually depraved.

Not all men/women are tyrants, but most will struggle with, and find the ability to get people to obey His/Her dictates until they are holding power over the people. Hence, unbreakable provision must be in place before any government comes to power. This is available in plain English in the Bible, and is the not a hindrance to government, or the unbeliever.

I have never heard of a Church forcing people to attend as the depraved know full well they must have a system of division to play one group over another. So, how can a group of doctrinally ignorant people choose a pastor?

THEY CANNOT! Therefore raising up a child in a godly home and school is of upmost importance. Homo sapiens must be converted before they can live in peace and obedience.

I do not write this with the confidence I am a born-again Christian, but from the knowledge gained from a compulsive life of studying the train-wreck of demented human-beings that were never educated on the history of man-kind.  How can one avoid tyranny if they know not what it is and looks like?

Surreptitious men and women prowl the world looking for followers, knowing full well the power of their gymnastic word-smithing, and these liars abound everywhere, and the only protection from their linguistic narcotics is knowledge of the past.

I believe coupled with the events this generation has personally witnessed; what I have claimed above should be easy to accept. Even if Christianity is no longer acceptable to the majority of this country and generation, something must convince them to avoid being ignorant of the past failures of the Church, the government, and the morals of the people.

Being convinced that only moral people can lead a group of people if freedom is to prevail, I will now itemize some absolutes that history has authenticated must be followed.

As stated above only intelligent and informed people are    equipped to be leaders and that should apply to those

who vote. One cannot escape the necessity of having learned from past history that a democracy equalizes everyone regardless of their knowledge and negates the votes of the learned person. The results are catastrophic! The person who wants to vote their self some benefit they have not the skill or intelligence to acquire on their own is a burden to everyone else, denigrates freedom, and is detrimental to the Nation. Supporting the poor is the obligation of the Christian community and those who have more than they need.

A performance bond should be required by all who occupy government offices, from the President on down. The people must demand total compliance to the Constitution by their elected representatives and all government employees, and anyone with reasonable evidence of fraud or coercion may bring charges before the courts.

As the need for more and more communication between other Nations has increased from the out of control world commerce the Bankers forced on us, an import export equalization must be designed and adhered to, and only bonded people  with prior international commerce experience should be allowed to represent the States.

The people’s militias must be reinstated by the states with no control by the National Government and after a period of time if it becomes a necessity a National army-Navy may be formed with permission of all the States, but never allowed to exercise operations falling under the state Militias’ obligations. Only foreign wars are the obligation of the National armed forces and it is the equal by population obligation of the States to finance an Army-Navy.

From past experience it is foolish for the States to surrender any authority to a National government, and must establish said national government with State governors, leaving the obligation of state operations to the deputy Governor. The remaining 49 Governors will be the legislators as no more than that should be needed to comply and protect the Constitution for the States of America.

Public education facilities should be funded and maintained by State Governments but have no authority over the Teachers, curriculum, or administration and every community should have a school staffed by teachers who have attended and excelled in constitutional law. The number of Government supplied buildings for education must conform to each neighborhood population requirements. An agreed on number of students per buildings should be established by a County/City Government and controlled by County/City Commissioners. All physical maintenance needs should be by the private sector. School supplies are the responsibility of the parents and when necessary by the County.

All possible means of eliminating control over the people by powerful organizations, both private, Corporate, and Government must be applied in the States Constitutions.

Presidential Eligibility SHALL BE LIMITED to those who have been a State Governor for a minimum of one term, and then a Senator of at least one full term, and appointed by the Body of Governors with a majority vote of 70% of the Governors. No such person may occupy the office of President for more than one four year term unless a 100% vote by the Governors is accomplished.

Voters are appointed by their county commissioner and must receive a 100% vote. This privilege is limited to those who have proven by writing at least ten letters to the Commissioners that they fully understand the Constitution and all of the citizen’s rights. No citizen may be refused voter status who has accomplished proof of his/her constitutional comprehension, and has remained an honest person. This may not seem fair to those who have not the intellect or education to compose a convincing letter, but all diligence must be kept if the system is to work. This is no place for lesser intellects to make demands, but care must be taken less tyrants arise in the commissioners. A group of one hundred voters may change the commissioners vote to protect the denied person.

NOTE:

This is going to be an on going project and all readers are welcome to participate with suggestions by email. I will publish your name with each suggestion or withhold it per your choice. Time prevents me from committing to the full and complete document, and it is your country and future to help protect also, besides no one person has the intelligence and experience to be a lone author of this project.

olddog@anationbeguiled.com

 

Part 2

NOTE: AS OF       I HAVE RECEIVED NO SUGGESTIONS FROM MY RECEIPIENTS OR BROWSING READERS. WHERE ARE YOU, AMERICANS?

In part one I laid out a partial outline for a Government for the States of America whereby the people’s State Governors were voted as president, under the assumption that they, being competent and experienced executives in State governance, would continue in a more National position. However much was not addressed on why and how this system would be more controllable by the people.

The first thing that came to mind was having someone experienced and approved by his pears in governing the State he belonged to with a higher desire to govern on a National level without showing favoritism to his State of origin. It makes sense to vote the best of the best to a higher office, and who else besides his peers would know his capabilities? Let them decide who is or would be the best President.

I also have concerns about keeping the uninformed from voting, as history proves that they will always vote for the biggest giver of favors and benefits. The objective is to maintain control over other people trying to force democracy into the system.

I have since revised my position on the Congressional level of government by keeping the forty nine former governors as the Senate, and populating the congress with ex State Deputy governors. Here again, keeping the best of the best in power, and as small as possible. SO WHO OR WHAT BODY IS REALLY KEEPING EVERYONE HONEST?

 With that problem in mind I suggest that the traditional acceptance of the President being the stud duck of the Nation is fallible with full support of past atrocities. 

Therefore, I suggest that the number one person in the hierarchy of government should be a professional in Common and International law and the traditional President should be more of a International Secretary of State, and overseer of the legislators.

The stud duck of the Nation should be more of what we presently perceive as an Attorney General as his /her specialty should be in Common Law for the peoples protection, and International Law for International Commerce and Nation to Nation obligations.

His/Her obligations should be to keep erroneous laws from arising from the legislature and States, plus International Relations/obligations. The hero worship of just one leader is more appropriate in comic books.  

If all this seems chaotic, consider that the Supreme Common Law Court and the Supreme International law Court would have little to do other than indict and try the more complicated cases. NO MORE REVISSIONIST INTERPETATIONS OF THE LAW. SINCE ALL ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES WERE IN AGGREMANT ON DEFENITIONS BEFORE TAKING OFFICE. Then, we could be confident that our understanding of our Constitution and their understanding was one and the same.

The following is an outline of this system of governance.

At the top is the people’s court of appeal who are unpaid 1000 members of each fifty States and designated as (The Peoples Court of appeal), and voted in office by the people of their States who are holders of State certifications of born in America by parents with born in America certificates. They alone hold the power over American jurisprudence. So if a 90% majority of fifty thousand learned citizens decide what the rest of us are subjected to, there is little chance of tyranny reigning. This assembly of learned citizens have the obligation of providing proof of education and jurisprudence knowledge and a life time history of a passion for freedom from tyranny, and may be expelled only by a majority vote of the entire Nation of qualified voters. A qualified voter must be acknowledged as a legitimate citizen and produce evidence of it, and have obtained the age of between 21 years and 65 years. We as a Nation shall not be subject to the whims of our children.

The Attorney General is at the top of the elected paid offices and subject only to the people’s court of appeal. It is his obligation to override lower courts and political organizations, such as Congress, the Senate, and Supreme Court decisions. He faces the wrath of the People’s Court of appeal only, and is paid the highest salary of any office. Hint $500.000 per year.

The number two office is a Senator, who shall be obligated to evaluate the brain farts of Congress as to being compatible with the Constitution for the united States of America, and submitting to the Attorney General their decision. Each Senator and only one per State shall be compensated according to their State governance decisions. They each have a four year term of office, with no re-election possible.

The next lower Office is that of the People’s Congress and they are responsible to the people of their State for their understanding of what the States Majority requires from the Senate. They have a four year term in office and may not be re-elected, which requires an educational system in each State that meets the Standards of ten principals’ of freedom from tyranny which is written from the true history of America. Each subject they are presenting to the Senate must come from the majority of the State citizens as a request for consideration. This allows for a buffer between the ignorance of the people and the reliability of the Congress-men/women. No Congress-person may submit a consideration of the Senate of they’re own design, as the people must be served first and only. Their ideas must be approved by their constitution before falling under the dominion of the people. SO! WHO IS THE REAL MAJORITY?

Next is the supreme Court, and they consist of Common Law and Admiralty law educated and authenticated specialists in both fields of law, and are required to decide and determine the compatibility of laws passed by Congress and the senate as to their compatibility with the Constitution FOR the united States of America. When their decisions are ignored they may indict and try those who supported such laws that they alone agreed were not compatible with the Constitution. They are not only decision makers of the law but punishers also, and are voted into office by the majority of legal citizens of each State. This is the method used to get the people educated and responsible for the control of their government. Short of paying people to be educated and involved in governance methodology, this is the only logical method I can imagine.

As you can plainly see, I am convinced that homo sapiens are not necessarily compatible with being governed as the individual in us all cries out for recognition. The desire to choose ones path in life is strong and not always well thought out. Many get lost in their pursuit of happiness, and one thing is undeniable; they all want to live free from tyranny. I also understand this proposed system of governance appears or maybe borders on forced servitude, but if your children refuse to do their fair share of the work in the family, do you let them slide and force more labor on those who will? If you want to be free remember this, freedom is not free!

One must come to terms with the truth of human nature!

Which the rest of us rely on.

 As I stated in the beginning of this project, I expected feedback and suggestions from my readers. None did!

 Reply to: olddog@anationbeguiled.com

10 13 11 flagbar

THE REAL AMERICANS!

July 21st, 2016 by

 WHAT DO THEY BELIEVE?

By Olddog

 To be a real American, one must understand the history of the different kinds of governments, and insist on lawful protections for the people and their assets. That sentence is the epitome of freedom from tyranny, because history has documented how tyrannical most governments have been to their constituents.

Unless the children are raised up with this knowledge being the focus of their attention, sooner or later they will fall pray to demented desires and lean toward democracy because they want to make the world to suit them.

This is called human nature, and the correct teaching of Christian scripture authenticates all humans are born with a depraved nature, and must seek God for redemption. This ideology was prevalent in the beginning of America, but was denigrated by depraved Pastors, and the ever present desire to be in charge of ones depraved mind. Also, many parents were too lazy to study scripture and allowed these depraved Pastors to “bend their minds” so to speak.

This entire problem human beings have with getting along with one another is directly due to their depraved desire to make their own rules, do their own thing, and be in charge!

Any intelligent person can and should study real history so as to know what human traits to follow and avoid, because those who have the compulsion to lead are usually depraved.

Not all men/women are tyrants, but most will struggle with, and find the ability to get people to obey His/Her dictates until they are holding power over the people. Hence, unbreakable provision must be in place before any government comes to power. This is available in plain English in the Bible, and is the not a hindrance to government, or the unbeliever.

I have never heard of a Church forcing people to attend as the depraved know full well they must have a system of division to play one group over another. So, how can a group of doctrinally ignorant people choose a pastor?

THEY CANNOT! Therefore raising up a child in a godly home and school is of upmost importance. Homo sapiens must be converted before they can live in peace.

I do not write this with the confidence I am a born-again Christian, but from the knowledge gained from a compulsive life of studying the train-wreck of demented human-beings that were never educated on the history of man-kind.  How can one avoid tyranny if they know not what it is and looks like?

Surreptitious men and women prowl the world looking for followers, knowing full well the power of their gymnastic word-smithing, and these liars abound everywhere, and the only protection from their linguistic narcotics is knowledge of the past.

I believe coupled with the events this generation has personally witnessed; what I have claimed above should be easy to accept. Even if Christianity is no longer acceptable to the majority of this country and generation, something must convince them to avoid being ignorant of the past failures of the Church, the government, and the morals of the people.

Being convinced that only moral people can lead a group of people if freedom is to prevail, I will now itemize some absolutes that history has authenticated must be followed.


(1)As stated above only intelligent and informed people are    equipped to be leaders and that should apply to those who vote. One cannot escape the necessity of having learned from past history that a democracy equalizes everyone regardless of their knowledge and negates the votes of the learned person. The results are catastrophic! The person who wants to vote their self some benefit they have not the skill or intelligence to acquire on their own is a burden to everyone else, denigrates freedom, and has no value to the Nation. Supporting the poor is the obligation of the Christian community and those who have more than they need.

(2)A performance bond should be forced on all who occupy government offices, from the President on down. The people must demand total compliance to the Constitution by their elected representatives and all government employees.

(3)As the need for more and more communication between other Nations has increased from the out of control world commerce the Bankers forced on us, an import export equalization must be designed and adhered to, and only bonded people  with prior international commerce experience should be allowed to represent the States.

(4)The people’s militias must be reinstated by the states with no control by the National Government and after a period of time if it becomes a necessity a National army-Navy may be formed with permission of all the States, but never allowed to exercise operations falling under the state Militias’ obligations. Only foreign wars are the obligation of the National armed forces and it is the equal by population, obligation of the States to finance an Army-Navy

(5)From past experience it is foolish for the States to surrender any authority to a National government, and must establish said national government with State governors, leaving the obligation of state operations to the deputy Governor.

(6) Public education facilities should be funded and maintained by State Governments but have no authority over the Teachers or administration and every community should have a school staffed by teachers who have attended and excelled in constitutional law. The number of Government supplied buildings for education must conform to each neighborhood population requirements. An agreed on number of students per buildings should be established by a County Government and controlled by County Commissioners. All physical maintenance needs should be by the private sector. School supplies are the responsibility of the parents and when necessary by the County.

(7)All possible means of eliminating control over the people by powerful organizations, both private, Corporate, and Government must be applied in the States Constitutions.

NOTE:

This is going to be an on going project and all readers are welcome to participate with suggestions by email. I will publish your name with each suggestion or withhold it per your choice. Time prevents me from committing to the full and complete document, and it is your country and future to help protect also, besides no one person has the intelligence and experience to be a lone author of this project.

olddog@anationbeguiled.com

10 13 11 flagbar

There Will Be No Second American Revolution: The Futility of an Armed Revolt

July 19th, 2016 by

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

 

By John W. Whitehead
July 18, 2016

“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.”—James Madison

America is a ticking time bomb.

All that remains to be seen is who—or what—will set fire to the fuse.

We are poised at what seems to be the pinnacle of a manufactured breakdown, with police shooting unarmed citizens, snipers shooting police, global and domestic violence rising, and a political showdown between two presidential candidates equally matched in unpopularity.

The preparations for the Republican and Democratic national conventions taking place in Cleveland and Philadelphia—augmented by a $50 million federal security grant for each city—provide a foretaste of how the government plans to deal with any individual or group that steps out of line: they will be censored, silenced, spied on, caged, intimidated, interrogated, investigated, recorded, tracked, labeled, held at gunpoint, detained, restrained, arrested, tried and found guilty.

For instance, anticipating civil unrest and mass demonstrations in connection with the Republican Party convention, Cleveland officials set up makeshift prisons, extra courtrooms to handle protesters, and shut down a local university in order to house 1,700 riot police and their weapons. The city’s courts are preparing to process up to 1,000 people a day. Additionally, the FBI has also been conducting “interviews” with activists in advance of the conventions to discourage them from engaging in protests.

Make no mistake, the government is ready for a civil uprising.

Indeed, the government has been preparing for this moment for years.

A 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 to identify, monitor and label right-wing and left-wing activists and military veterans as extremists (a.k.a. terrorists) have manifested into full-fledged pre-crime surveillance programs. Almost a decade later, after locking down the nation and spending billions to fight terrorism, the DHS has concluded that the greater threat is not ISIS but domestic right-wing extremism.

Meanwhile, the government has been amassing an arsenal of military weapons for use domestically and equipping and training their “troops” for war. Even government agencies with largely administrative functions such as the Food and Drug Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Smithsonian have been acquiring body armor, riot helmets and shields, cannon launchers and police firearms and ammunition. In fact, there are now at least 120,000 armed federal agents carrying such weapons who possess the power to arrest.

Rounding out this profit-driven campaign to turn American citizens into enemy combatants (and America into a battlefield) is a technology sector that is colluding with the government to create a Big Brother that is all-knowing, all-seeing and inescapable. It’s not just the drones, fusion centers, license plate readers, stingray devices and the NSA that you have to worry about. You’re also being tracked by the black boxes in your cars, your cell phone, smart devices in your home, grocery loyalty cards, social media accounts, credit cards, streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon, and e-book reader accounts.

All of this has taken place right under our noses, funded with our taxpayer dollars and carried out in broad daylight without so much as a general outcry from the citizenry.

It’s astounding how convenient we’ve made it for the government to lock down the nation.

We’ve even allowed ourselves to be acclimated to the occasional lockdown of government buildings, Jade Helm military drills in small towns so that special operations forces can get “realistic military training” in “hostile” territory, and  Live Active Shooter Drill training exercises, carried out at schools, in shopping malls, and on public transit, which can and do fool law enforcement officials, students, teachers and bystanders into thinking it’s a real crisis.

The events of recent years—the invasive surveillance, the extremism reports, the civil unrest, the protests, the shootings, the bombings, the military exercises and active shooter drills, the color-coded alerts and threat assessments, the fusion centers, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, the distribution of military equipment and weapons to local police forces, the government databases containing the names of dissidents and potential troublemakers—have all conjoined to create an environment in which “we the people” are more distrustful and fearful of each other and more reliant on the government to keep us safe.

Of course, that’s the point.

The powers-that-be want us to feel vulnerable.

They want us to fear each other and trust the government’s hired gunmen to keep us safe from terrorists, extremists, jihadists, psychopaths, etc.

Most of all, the powers-that-be want us to feel powerless to protect ourselves and reliant on and grateful for the dubious protection provided by the American police state.

Their strategy is working.

The tree of liberty is dying.

There will be no second American Revolution.

There is no place in our nation for the kind of armed revolution our forefathers mounted against a tyrannical Great Britain. Such an act would be futile and tragic. We are no longer dealing with a distant, imperial king but with a tyrant of our own making: a militarized, technologized, heavily-financed bureaucratic machine that operates beyond the reach of the law.

The message being sent to the citizenry is clear: there will be no revolution, armed or otherwise.

Anyone who believes that they can wage—and win—an armed revolt against the American police state has not been paying attention. Those who wage violence against the government and their fellow citizens are playing right into the government’s hands. Violence cannot and will not be the answer to what ails America.

Whether instigated by the government or the citizenry, violence will only lead to more violence. It does not matter how much firepower you have. The government has more firepower.

It does not matter how long you think you can hold out by relying on survivalist skills, guerilla tactics and sheer grit. The government has the resources to outwait, out-starve, outman, outgun and generally overpower you.

This government of wolves will not be overtaken by force.

Unfortunately, we waited too long to wake up to the government’s schemes.

We did not anticipate that “we the people” would become the enemy. For years, the government has been warning against the dangers of domestic terrorism, erecting surveillance systems to monitor its own citizens, creating classification systems to label any viewpoints that challenge the status quo as extremist, and training law enforcement agencies to equate anyone possessing anti-government views as a domestic terrorist.

What the government failed to explain was that the domestic terrorists would be of the government’s own making, whether intentional or not.

By waging endless wars abroad, by bringing the instruments of war home, by transforming police into extensions of the military, by turning a free society into a suspect society, by treating American citizens like enemy combatants, by discouraging and criminalizing a free exchange of ideas, by making violence its calling card through SWAT team raids and militarized police, by fomenting division and strife among the citizenry, by acclimating the citizenry to the sights and sounds of war, and by generally making peaceful revolution all but impossible, the government has engineered an environment in which domestic violence has become inevitable.

What we are now experiencing is a civil war, devised and instigated in part by the U.S. government.

The outcome for this particular conflict is already foregone: the police state wins.

The objective: compliance and control.

The strategy: destabilize the economy through endless wars, escalate racial tensions, polarize the populace, heighten tensions through a show of force, intensify the use of violence, and then, when all hell breaks loose, clamp down on the nation for the good of the people and the security of the nation.

So where does that leave us?

Despite the fact that communities across the country are, for all intents and purposes, being held hostage by a government that is armed to the teeth and more than willing to use force in order to “maintain order,” most Americans seem relatively unconcerned. Worse, we have become so fragmented as a nation, so hostile to those with whom we might disagree, so distrustful of those who are different from us, that we are easily divided and conquered.

We have been desensitized to violence, acclimated to a military presence in our communities and persuaded that there is nothing we can do to alter the seemingly hopeless trajectory of the nation. In this way, the floundering economy, the blowback arising from military occupations abroad, police shootings, the nation’s deteriorating infrastructure and all of the other mounting concerns have become non-issues to a populace that is easily entertained, distracted, manipulated and controlled.

The sight of police clad in body armor and gas masks, wielding semiautomatic rifles and escorting an armored vehicle through a crowded street, a scene likened to “a military patrol through a hostile city,” no longer causes alarm among the general populace.

We are fast becoming an anemic, weak, pathetically diluted offspring of our revolutionary forebears incapable of mounting a national uprising against a tyrannical regime.

If there is to be any hope of reclaiming our government and restoring our freedoms, it will require a different kind of coup: nonviolent, strategic and grassroots, starting locally and trickling upwards. Such revolutions are slow and painstaking. They are political, in part, but not through any established parties or politicians.

Most of all, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, for any chance of success, such a revolution will require more than a change of politics: it will require a change of heart among the American people, a reawakening of the American spirit, and a citizenry that cares more about their freedoms than their fantasy games.

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

Who’s your conspiracy theorist now?? Obuma just gave the green light to the UN to use force against Americans in America

July 18th, 2016 by

Who’s your conspiracy theorist now??….Obama just gave the green light to the UN to use force against Americans in America

7-18-2016 10-39-53 AM7-18-2016 10-40-37 AM

 

We are now an officially occupied nation.  The attached executive order was signed July 1, 2016.  In collusion with every member of congress, President Obama has forfeited our sovereignty, and commenced the occupation of America by foreign troops issued from the United Nations.

On July 1, 2016 Obama signed an executive order that would allow the UN the right to use force here in America.  This order specifically omits any mention of any restriction of use of force on American citizens.  But the question remains…..Why is the UN on our land, in our communities and why is our military aligned with them?  For what purpose?

For months the reports of convoys on our highways and of train cars loaded with UN and US military equipment have been numerous.  These convoys have traversed the country and have alerted a large portion of the country to the potential for a government coup, effectively taking us down.  Internet trolls and astroturfer’s paid by companies, by  politicians, the government, military contractors and the military itself,  stalk the net with the usual “conspiracy theorist” tags and labels in an effort to derail the conversation and to encourage readers to disregard what was in front of them.  Those reporting were “delusional”, “paranoid”, “tin foil hat” people….and they didn’t see what they said they saw.  Never mind the photos and videos…..they didn’t really see that.  Get it?

Simultaneously, the staged false flag events such as Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon, the Pulse Club, to name a few, have occurred in direct correlation to the ongoing attempts to strike down the 2nd Amendment.  Its far easier to overthrow and enslave a country if no one has the means to fight back.

Once Homeland Security was established, all of our law enforcement agencies were brought under their control.  Then it was declared that anyone who mentioned the Constitution, their rights, or who voted for 3rd party candidates were to be viewed as suspect.  Fusion centers were set up across the country to spy on people locally and the massive data collection center was built in Utah that records everything we do.  Millions of us are on terror watch lists of all kinds.  We are the enemy our own government fears most.

Until we turn in our guns, forfeit our sovereignty and set fire to our Constitution, the staged false flag massacres will continue. In other words, give up America! You have been bought, sold, and traded.  And foreign troops are now stationed around the country with the intent of warring with us lest we should be so foolish as to think we are still a free, sovereign nation.

Please read the attached executive order.  Not one congress person has objected to or even mentioned this.  If you think voting in November will change one iota of what is happening right before your eyes, think again.  Vote all you want, the flight plan doesn’t change!


Whitehouse.gov:

UNITED STATES POLICY ON PRE- AND POST-STRIKE MEASURES TO ADDRESS CIVILIAN CASUALTIES IN U.S. OPERATIONS INVOLVING THE USE OF FORCE

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. United States policy on civilian casualties resulting from U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict or in the exercise of the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense is based on our national interests, our values, and our legal obligations. As a Nation, we are steadfastly committed to complying with our obligations under the law of armed conflict, including those that address the protection of civilians, such as the fundamental principles of necessity, humanity, distinction, and proportionality.

The protection of civilians is fundamentally consistent with the effective, efficient, and decisive use of force in pursuit of U.S. national interests. Minimizing civilian casualties can further mission objectives; help maintain the support of partner governments and vulnerable populations, especially in the conduct of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations; and enhance the legitimacy and sustainability of U.S. operations critical to our national security. As a matter of policy, the United States therefore routinely imposes certain heightened policy standards that are more protective than the requirements of the law of armed conflict that relate to the protection of civilians.

Civilian casualties are a tragic and at times unavoidable consequence of the use of force in situations of armed conflict or in the exercise of a state’s inherent right of self-defense. The U.S. Government shall maintain and promote best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, take appropriate steps when such casualties occur, and draw lessons from our operations to further enhance the protection of civilians.

Sec. 2. Policy. In furtherance of U.S. Government efforts to protect civilians in U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict or in the exercise of the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense, and with a view toward enhancing such efforts, relevant departments and agencies (agencies) shall continue to take certain measures in present and future operations.

(a) In particular, relevant agencies shall, consistent with mission objectives and applicable law, including the law of armed conflict:

(i) train personnel, commensurate with their responsibilities, on compliance with legal obligations and policy guidance that address the protection of civilians and on implementation of best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, including through exercises, pre-deployment training, and simulations of complex operational environments that include civilians;

(ii) develop, acquire, and field intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems that, by enabling more accurate battlespace awareness, contribute to the protection of civilians;

(iii) develop, acquire, and field weapon systems and other technological capabilities that further enable the discriminate use of force in different operational contexts;

(iv) take feasible precautions in conducting attacks to reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, such as providing warnings to the civilian population (unless the circumstances do not permit), adjusting the timing of attacks, taking steps to ensure military objectives and civilians are clearly distinguished, and taking other measures appropriate to the circumstances; and

(v) conduct assessments that assist in the reduction of civilian casualties by identifying risks to civilians and evaluating efforts to reduce risks to civilians.

(b) In addition to the responsibilities above, relevant agencies shall also, as appropriate and consistent with mission objectives and applicable law, including the law of armed conflict:

(i) review or investigate incidents involving civilian casualties, including by considering relevant and credible information from all available sources, such as other agencies, partner governments, and nongovernmental organizations, and take measures to mitigate the likelihood of future incidents of civilian casualties;

(ii) acknowledge U.S. Government responsibility for civilian casualties and offer condolences, including ex gratia payments, to civilians who are injured or to the families of civilians who are killed;

(iii) engage with foreign partners to share and learn best practices for reducing the likelihood of and responding to civilian casualties, including through appropriate training and assistance; and

(iv) maintain channels for engagement with the International Committee of the Red Cross and other nongovernmental organizations that operate in conflict zones and encourage such organizations to assist in efforts to distinguish between military objectives and civilians, including by appropriately marking protected facilities, vehicles, and personnel, and by providing updated information on the locations of such facilities and personnel.

Sec. 3. Report on Strikes Undertaken by the U.S. Government Against Terrorist Targets Outside Areas of Active Hostilities.

 (a) The Director of National Intelligence (DNI), or such other official as the President may designate, shall obtain from relevant agencies information about the number of strikes undertaken by the U.S. Government against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, as well as assessments of combatant and non-combatant deaths resulting from those strikes, and publicly release an unclassified summary of such information no later than May 1, 2017. By May 1 of each subsequent year, as consistent with the need to protect sources and methods, the DNI shall publicly release a report with the same information for the preceding calendar year.

(b) The annual report shall also include information obtained from relevant agencies regarding the general sources of information and methodology used to conduct these assessments and, as feasible and appropriate, shall address the general reasons for discrepancies between post-strike assessments from the U.S. Government and credible reporting from nongovernmental organizations regarding non-combatant deaths resulting from strikes undertaken by the U.S. Government against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities.

(c) In preparing a report under this section, the DNI shall review relevant and credible post-strike all-source reporting, including such information from nongovernmental sources, for the purpose of ensuring that this reporting is available to and considered by relevant agencies in their assessment of deaths.

(d) The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs may, as appropriate, request that the head of any relevant agency conduct additional reviews related to the intelligence assessments of deaths from strikes against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities.

Sec. 4. Periodic Consultation. In furtherance of the policies and practices set forth in this order, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, through the National Security Council staff, will convene agencies with relevant defense, counterterrorism, intelligence, legal, civilian protection, and technology expertise to consult on civilian casualty trends, consider potential improvements to U.S. Government civilian casualty mitigation efforts, and, as appropriate, report to the Deputies and Principals Committees, consistent with Presidential Policy Directive 1 or its successor. Specific incidents will not be considered in this context, and will continue to be examined within relevant chains of command.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) The policies and practices set forth above are not intended to alter, and shall be implemented consistent with, the authority and responsibility of commanders and other U.S. personnel to execute their mission as directed by the President or other appropriate authorities, which necessarily includes the inherent right of self-defense and the maintenance of good order and discipline among U.S. personnel. No part of this order modifies the chain of command of the U.S. Armed Forces or the authority of U.S. commanders.

(b) No part of this order modifies priorities in the collection of intelligence or the development, acquisition, or fielding of weapon systems and other technological capabilities.

(c) No part of this order shall prejudice or supplant established procedures pertaining to administrative or criminal investigative or judicial processes in the context of the military justice system or other applicable law and regulation.

(d) The policies set forth in this order are consistent with existing U.S. obligations under international law and are not intended to create new international legal obligations; nor shall anything in this order be construed to derogate from obligations under applicable law, including the law of armed conflict.

(e) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

 

BATHROOM BERRY SPEAKS TO BUILDERBURGERS

July 11th, 2016 by

BATHROOM BERRY SPEAKS TO BUILDERBURGERS

 WATCH THIS 19 SECONDS VIDEO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfRtbIQ1kTw&feature=youtu.be

And you guys thought I was a Looney Ole Man

THIS SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO HANG HIM

OR BETTER YET

DRAG HIM OVER A GRAVEL ROAD BEHIND A PICKUP TRUCK

PLUS

Obama and the most successful national subversion in world history

2-25-2016 1-18-50 PM

by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/obama-and-the-most-successful-national-subversion-in-world-history?f=must_reads

America is coming apart – not just the United States, the sovereign nation, but our Constitution, our culture, our traditions, all of what “America” has come to mean.

It is not by accident.

What we are witnessing is the product of eight years of Barack Obama and his divisive rhetoric and destructive policies.

Obama’s “transformation” is a euphemism for the crippling and humbling of a great nation he considers racist, oppressive, venal and dysfunctional.

He warned us.

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” – Barack Obama, October 30, 2008.

But Michelle Obama said it best.

“We are going to have to change our conversation; we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history; we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation.” – Michelle Obama, May 14, 2008.

And that different place as a nation is fragmentation and collapse.

It is not a conspiracy.

There is, in fact, a deliberate, coordinated and ongoing effort to subvert the United States as a capitalist, Judeo-Christian based republic and replace it with alien political ideologies and cultures incompatible to personal liberty.

None of what is happening is “home-grown.”

There is an alliance between the global political left and radical Islam, two totalitarian philosophies that cannot dominate the world without first destroying capitalist, Judeo-Christian-based democracy, the United States being both the foremost proponent and primary target.

Just as Islamists attempt to  impose  their religion on the world in a totalitarian fashion requiring unwavering obedience, so do radical leftists strive to create an omnipotent socialist state that will control every aspect of daily life and will enforce a universal brand of “social justice” on all mankind.

I will not mince words.

The Democrat Party now represents, at least philosophically if not operationally, the American subsidiary of that alliance.

The Republican Party is dominated by globalists, obsessed with the acquisition of personal power and profit, and uninterested and willingly impotent in defending the rights, liberties and well-being of American citizens. The GOP leadership has solidified its choice to no longer represent what had been its constituency, but to adopt the identity of junior partners in the ruling class.

To summarize, the crises we are currently experiencing are the direct consequence of the policies pursued by Barack Obama, a coffeehouse communist and Islamic groupie, who leads a lawless cabal of fellow-travelers, financed by domestic anti-American and foreign sources, supported by professional agitators, facilitated by a supine Republican political opposition and cheered-on by a predominately left-wing media.

Societal division and social unrest are tactics used to destabilize and demoralize, to further fundamentally transform the country, which has already been undermined economically, educationally and culturally from within.

It has always been the dilemma of social revolutionaries, whether communist or Islamic, that as long as individuals embraced liberty and had the belief that his or her Divine spark of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation recognized as the necessary prerequisite for totalitarianism.

Political correctness is part of that effort. Its aim is to narrow the range of thought in order to make independent thinking literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express those thoughts. It is accomplished through the systematic destruction of words and phrases as “micro-aggressions” or simply making statements that are patently untrue.

For example, despite exhaustive efforts by the Mainstream Media to paint Black Lives Matter (BLM) as a movement dedicated to “racial equality” or “social justice” and engaging in “peaceful protests;” it is, in reality, a violent, racist, and dangerous domestic terror group funded by rich white men (links to Ben and Jerry’s Foundation and George Soros) devoted to destabilizing American socio-cultural infrastructure, legitimized by Obama with a presidential invitation to the White House, and endorsed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood front group and the unindicted co-conspirator in the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for providing support to the terrorist group Hamas.

That is a pattern of connected dots, which our hopelessly corrupt political-media establishment, as acts of self-preservation and complicity-avoidance, tries tirelessly to disconnect.

Most of the social chaos and extremism we are currently witnessing in our country is the product of a well-funded and well-organized anti-American, predominately foreign, radical Islamo-leftist agenda – and an administration that enables rather than opposes the aims of our enemies.

It is time for patriots to take America back.

10 13 11 flagbar


SEO Powered By SEOPressor