Log in



Categories » ‘REBELLION’

This Is How War Begins

November 19th, 2016 by

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

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

 By Charles Eisenstein

“Their stupidity is amusing.”

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

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

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

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

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

“They will never change.”

“Disgusting, twisted human beings.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

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

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

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

November 12th, 2016 by

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

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

By Daily Bell Staff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE ONLY AMERICAN CANADATE

October 21st, 2016 by

OLDDOGS PLEA TO THE SOUTH

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

 REBELS VERSUS TYRANTS A PERPETUAL FIGHT FOR LIBERTY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IN RIGHTFUL LIBERTY

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IN RIGHTFUL LIBERTY

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

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

OLD JACK HINSON AN ACCIDENTAL TERRORIST: SPECIAL REPORT

October 19th, 2016 by

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

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

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

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

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


 OLD JACK HINSON AN ACCIDENTAL TERRORIST

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

By Michael Gaddy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

Mike

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

THE SPECIES IGNORAMUS AMERICANUS

October 18th, 2016 by

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

By Michael Gaddy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

Mike

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

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

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

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

REBELS VERSUS TYRANTS A PERPETUAL FIGHT FOR LIBERTY

October 13th, 2016 by

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

 

By Michael Gaddy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IN RIGHTFUL LIBERTY

Mike

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

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

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

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

October 4th, 2016 by

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

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

OLDDOG

By John W. Whitehead
October 03, 2016

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

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

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

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

The short answer: you can’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WC: 1798

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

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

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

October 3rd, 2016 by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

© 2016 Servando Gonzalez – All Rights Reserved

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

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

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

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

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

Website: www.servandogonzalez.org

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

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

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

October 1st, 2016 by

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

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

By Mike Adams

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming…

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

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

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

The Big One 20 years of work filed in your behalf

September 24th, 2016 by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A much, much better world?  

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

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

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

September 22nd, 2016 by

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

May 23, 2016 · by JohnHenryHill · in Original Articles

My Post:

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

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

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

Original Posting: May 23, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

1.) The Constitution of the United States

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

Article II, Section 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.) The Bill of Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 23, 2016

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

In reply to Ken Johnson.

Ken,                                      May 25, 2016

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

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

In short, you are CORRECT.

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

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

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

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

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

Best wishes!

JHH

Extra Stuff:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMPLETE ARTICLE

Mission not quite accomplished: Obama’s antiterrorism legacy

by Daniel Klaidman and Olivier Knox

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When it comes to terrorism, can Americans do nuance?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

………. END OF ARTICLE ……….

 2 comments

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

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

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

Ken, May 25, 2016

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

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

In short, you are CORRECT.

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

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

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

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

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

Best wishes! JHH

Extra Stuff:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

 

How to Defeat Tyranny: Active Disobedience

September 21st, 2016 by

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

 

by JohnHenryHill

How to Defeat Tyranny: Active Disobedience

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

by John-Henry Hill, M.D.

JohnHenryHill@Yahoo.com

http://JohnHenryHill.Wordpress.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE PROBLEM

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE METHODS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Past rulers also recognized the power behind money, even “fake money” created by the ruler himself as paper currency or coins of otherwise worthless metals. As Boetie stated, “What comment can I make concerning another fine counterfeit that ancient peoples accepted as true money?” Boetie wondered by what magic a piece of paper, a coin of worthless metal or a piece of wood (English “tally stick”) obtain real value? Boetie queried, “They [the people] believed firmly that the great toe of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, performed miracles and cured diseases … In this wise that a foolish people itself invents lies and then believes them.” Does an otherwise worthless object obtain its value simply because the ruler has decreed this paper, metal or wood to be the only form of money acceptable as payment for taxes? By definition, something of “real value” is something upon which people place value because of its utility, something they need and can use in their daily lives. Otherwise, why would any people possessing reason and common sense accept as money objects possessing no real usefulness? Such trinkets are NOT money – they are, at most, convenient tokens for mere promises to pay you something of REAL usefulness at a later date. Can you say “Federal Reserve note”, today’s official U.S. Dollar?

Finally, among the most useful tools employed by tyrants and governments are propaganda and speeches, the “power of persuasion” through the manipulation of words evoking passion instead of reason within the people. As Boetie observed in 1552, rulers and governments of all types “do not behave very differently: they never undertake an unjust policy, even one of some importance, without prefacing it with some pretty speech concerning public welfare and common good.”

THE SOLUTION

The important question now becomes: How can we escape this voluntary servitude? Or, are we Americans are fond of saying, How can we get government off our backs? In early America our ancestors modeled their society and governments on Christian principles whereby their God, as the creator of all things including man, was the Sovereign and Master of all things, including man. Likewise, man was the sovereign and master of all things he created. Consequently, in America, We the People, as the creators of our local state and federal governments and institutions, were considered the sovereigns and masters of those governments and institutions. As with God, no master or sovereign serves his subjects, else he ceases to be master and sovereign. Until the early 20th century We the People were considered as master and sovereign over our creation: the government. I have attempted to explain how today this relationship has been turned on its head – how the people are now expected to obey every command issued by our supposed servants, the government. Indeed, many Americans today are grateful that the governments seize only 60 percent of their income as taxes and fees! Elections most certainly have made no improvements, despite the promises made every 4 years! – the extortion by government and misery of We the People increase relentlessly. But is a violent revolution really necessary to rid ourselves of the tyranny? If violent action were required, Boetie knew that most men would not participate since they are not men of action; they dislike the time and effort involved and the risk of losing whatever little they possess. In the 20th century the common adage was, “You can’t beat city hall.” Boetie concluded that not only was violent action not required, no action at all is required – only non-action through non-compliance. He wrote, “Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself.” Boetie, unlike most Americans today, recognized the important distinction between a country (the people) and a government (the ruler and the ruling elite).

Boetie implored, “Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.”

CONCLUSIONS

If you do not like what the government does, simply refuse to cooperate. You do not like paying taxes, fees and fines? Then do not pay them! You do not like having to constantly renew this or that license or registration or permit or whatever? Then do not renew them! You do not like paying for parking and traffic tickets? Then ignore them – toss them into the trash! Of course some people might object. “What if EVERYONE did that?” My answers are: 1) Great! Then we would have less government bothering us and stealing our money. 2.) If “everyone did that”, then you would be a fool NOT to do likewise, if it is in your own best interest. I have little hope for the current generations of adults – we are too bound up in our own indulgences, pastimes and apathy; too bound by custom and habit. The motto of adult Americans appears to be: “As it is now, so must it be forever.” My hope lies with those who are too young to have been indoctrinated, distracted or “bought off” by the rulers. Not because they are more courageous than we, but because they will experience such hardship and misery in the coming years that they will not tolerate our rulers and system of government any longer – that they will rebel, not with the sword, but by simple non-cooperation. There is no need for violent revolution; no need even to walk the streets carrying a protest sign. As Boetie concluded centuries ago, they need only resolve to serve no more: to refuse to pay taxes and fees and fines, to refuse to obey so-called “laws” that violate our own powers of reason and common sense. They will cease ALL cooperation with government in any manner; and at once they will be freed.

Now, turn off your computer and go watch the football game on TV!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

Why Governments Want a Central Bank-Issued Digital Currency

September 16th, 2016 by

https://mises.org/blog/why-governments-want-central-bank-issued-digital-currency

9-16-2016-10-27-55-amBy Xiong Yue

On January 20, 2016, People’s Bank of China (PBoC) released an announcement on its website about its digital currency conference. At the conference, the PBoC urged its digital currency team to speed up effort and release its own digital currency quickly. Similarly, Bank of England, Bank of Canada, and some other central banks also expressed similar intentions to or claimed that they had considered issuing their own digital currencies. Since its creation, Bitcoin and other digital currencies have inspired the issuance of many private-issued and denationalized digital currencies. Now, it looks like that the central bank-issued digital currency is also becoming a global trend.

Why do central banks, which already fully control the issuance of currencies, need to bother with its own digital currency?

Well, this question is both interesting and important. To answer it, we need first to understand some basics, the Digital Currency 101:

Unlike Internet banking and third-party payment services using traditional electronic payment tools to facilitate fiat money transmission, digital currencies represent a new class of technology. They are developed out of a number of brand new and groundbreaking technologies — they are not tools to transmit money; they are arguably money themselves. Among them, one particular kind utilizes modern cryptography, earning its name crypto-currency. Bitcoin is an example of this kind of digital currency. After its creation, the idea inspired and led to many similar systems. Some commercial banks and central banks also work on their own digital currencies. Depending on their issuers, we can divide all digital currencies into three categories:

  1. Digital Currencies Issued by Non-Financial Institutions

In November, 2008, someone under the alias of Satoshi Nakamoto invented a new technology called Blockchain and for the first time introduced the concept of a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, also known as Bitcoin.1 On January 3, 2009, the code was released. Due to its peer-to-peer and electronic nature, digital currencies can be transferred directly between two individuals without a centralized clearance house. Thus, it is a fast, low-cost, and nationality-neutral payment system. 

  1. Commercial Banks-issued Digital Currency

Some large international financial institutions, attracted by digital currency for its low cost, high speed, and security, are also trying to utilize its underlying technology, known as Blockchain, as the basis to build their own proprietary digital currencies. Banks involved in such areas include UBS, Deutsche Bank, Santander, and BNY Mellon, some of the most prestigious banks worldwide. Their digital currencies are similar to the aforementioned ones, only they have different issuers. Especially worth noting is most financial institutions’ digital currencies are designed to meet their need for fast settlement, rather than to challenge the financial status quo by replacing the central bank-issued fiat money.

  1. Central Bank-issued Digital Currency

Some central banks, such as PBoC and Bank of England, after having done some research on digital currency, also plan to issue their own central bank-issued digital currencies (CBDCs). Technologically, CBDC is similar to the aforementioned two, but due to its pedigree, it might have greater economic implications and this is exactly the outcome that PBoC intend by introducing CBDC.

There are at least three implications of CBDC, i.e., three reasons for CBDC to governments.

To Create a Cashless Society

Governments hate cash. This is to a great degree the reason that the governments want the central banks to issue their own digital currencies.

For government, although cash is the original form of its fiat money, it has some obvious shortcomings. When compared funds stored in financial institutions, cash is less controlled by the government. Once cash leaves the banks, it becomes hard to trace. The government can’t know the location of each bank note, who owns it, or even if it still exists. This made cash easy to be used for drug dealing, smuggling, tax evasion, money laundering, and even funding terrorist activities. Meanwhile, cash owned by individuals can also be the target of burglars and robbers.

What’s more important is that cash can undermine the effectiveness of the government’s negative interest policy. When the negative interest rates dropped to a unbearable level, savers would abandon the convenience and security of depositing money in banks — they may withdraw their money and store it at home in cash. This makes it hard to implement the negative interest rate policy.

This is the very reason why the European Central Bank decided to stop issuing the 500-euro note while Lawrence Summers, the former US Treasury Secretary, advocated abolishing the 100-dollar note — prior to it, the US already stopped issuing the 500-dollar note and larger ones in 1945.

However, as long as the public still have the ability to withdraw cash from banks, no matter how the government restricts the use of cash, there will still be a large amount of cash outside the government-controlled finance system. This is not something that the government wants to see. But, in a society where central bank-issued digital cash is fully adopted, CBDC can replace traditional form of money and achieve the central bank’s goal of removing cash. Once that comes true, the government can monitor its citizen’s personal financials down to every single transaction and invalidate ones that are deemed to be illegal. It also makes it impossible for people to withdraw cash and store it at home in response to negative interest rates. This will only serve to worsen the financial exploitation. Just as Joseph T. Salerno pointed out in his article “Why Government Hates Cash:

Now the reason given by our rulers for suppressing cash is to keep society safe from terrorists, tax evaders, money launderers, drug cartels, and other villains real or imagined. The actual aim of the flood of laws restricting or even prohibiting the use of cash is to force the public to make payments through the financial system. This enables governments to expand their ability to spy on and keep track of their citizens’ most private financial dealings, in order to milk their citizens of every last dollar of tax payments that they claim are due.

Steal the Spotlight from Bitcoin and Other Private-issued Digital Currencies

The current monetary system is unfair, riddled with flaws and built on shaky ground. Economists of the Austrian school, among others, have gone to great efforts to explain this. The birth of private digital currencies presented an opportunity to make a difference by reforming money and the financial systems. The governments, however, are inevitably threatened. They envy the attention that digital currencies have received. But most governments were reluctant to declare digital currencies as illegal since that would contradict their perceived stance of being supportive of technological innovation.

Thus, although there is no unified stance among different governments with respect to digital currencies, the difference among them is merely a matter of degrees — there is not a single government that has wholeheartedly embraced digital currencies. Those egomaniacs want to divert the public attention away from digital currencies by creating ones they can control themselves.

The outcome is that the government’s stances are often in conflict with their own: On the one hand, they try to restrict the development of digital currencies, on the other, they also actively study and develop their own digital currencies modeled on Bitcoin. Take China, for example. On December 5, 2013, the central bank stated, “In order to protect the public’s right to property and ensure RMB’s legal status as a legal tender and reduce anti-money laundering law, and maintain financial stability.” The PBoC worked with the Ministry of Industry and Information, China Banking Regulation Commission, China Securities Regulation Commission, and China Insurance Regulation Commission, and released a notice:

Although Bitcoin is often called “Money,” given it is not issued by any monetary authorities, they don’t have the status as a legal lender, thus is not a true currency. Judging by its nature, Bitcoin is a virtual good. It doesn’t have the same legal standing as currencies, and shouldn’t be allowed to be in circulation in the market like real currencies.

No financial institutions and payment institutions should use Bitcoins to price their products and services. They shouldn’t buy or sell Bitcoin or seek to insure any Bitcoin-related services or Bitcoin itself. They should not provide their clients with Bitcoin-related services, directly or indirectly.

But this doesn’t mean that the PBoC considers digital currency as completely worthless; on the contrary, at their 2016 digital currency conference, they admitted that: “…. We had established a dedicated research team starting in 2014, and it believes that “… exploring the central bank issuing digital currency has positive and real implications and fundamental historical meanings.”

Replacing the genuine by releasing a copycat — this is certainly not the first time that a government has done such a thing. 

To Achieve a More Accurate Monetary Policy

Central bankers — a bunch of social engineers — have every confidence that they can regulate and control the economy by manipulating monetary policies. Every time their efforts fail, however, they try to scapegoat the market. For example, they would increase monetary supply as a way to give stimulus; however, the money meant to stimulate the real economy was often funneled into the financial market and used for purposes that contradict its original one by the “greedy” businessmen. In comparison, digital currencies can afford them better control of monetary policy. This is more than sending “money from the helicopter” to people’s wallets; given that these digital currencies are programmable; the government can even control exactly how to spend this new money using scripts.

For example, if the government plans to subsidize certain farms, say some corn farms, to support this sector of agriculture, they can directly add a certain amount of money to the wallets of some farms, for instance 100 million dollars and program this money to be sent to certain fertilizer merchants at a certain time, and that each can only spend maximum of 10 million dollars per year, and in this way, they can make sure that the farmers won’t squander the windfalls, and that this money won’t flow to other sectors, for instance, the stock market or real estate market.

Even though this kind of monetary policy is bound to fail, from the perspective of government officials, CBDC provides them a better tool. For them, with the help of the CBDC, they can plan and manage the economy better.

Conclusion

Although sharing some similar traits with Bitcoin and other free digital currencies, CBDC is in essence the opposite of what Bitcoin represents with the following three implications. (1) With central banks being the issuers of new digital currencies, the government may achieve its goal of building a cash-less society, and, for the general public, the financial exploitation they are subject to are likely to worsen. (2) CBDC will steal the spotlight of Bitcoin and therefore help governments to repress the digital currency revolution. (3) CBDC may be used as a tool for a more accurate monetary policy (although such effort is bound to fail in the long run). Confronting this upcoming huge threat, lovers of liberty should stay vigilant and work on countermeasures early.

Tyler Xiong Yue is a Master’s degree student studying under Jesús Huerta de Soto, and is a translator of many Mises Institute essays and books into Chinese.


Someone Dumped 70 Tons Of Paper Gold At 8:30 a.m.

http://investmentresearchdynamics.com/someone-dumped-70-tons-of-paper-gold-at-830-a-m/

At 8:30 a.m. this morning, 10 minutes after the Comex gold pit opens, over 70 tons of gold was dropped into the entire Comex trading system.  If this happened on the NYSE, one of the ECN’s (usually BATS) would have mysteriously “broke” and trading would have been halted – before the damaging effects of the systemic paper overload hit the market.

9-16-2016-10-26-38-am

From 8:30 to 9:30 a.m. EST, a total of 6,289,900 ozs of paper gold, or 196.5 tons was unloaded on the Comex.   To put this in perspective, the Comex is reporting 2.37 million ounces of gold in its registered account (the gold that can be delivered).  That amount of paper gold that would unloaded was 2.7x the amount of gold available to be delivered.   It represents 58% of the entire amount of gold reported to be in Comex vaults.

It’s hard to find any specific news trigger that would have motivated anyone to sell one ounce of gold, let alone nearly 3x the amount of physical gold available to be delivered.

Perhaps the worst economic news reported was retail sales, which dropped .3% in August vs. the expectation of no change.  This is the 4th month in a row retail sales have dropped on monthly sequential basis.  Retail sales have declined 6 out of 8 months this year.

There’s probably nothing to see in that chart above – just like the allegations of Hillary’s poor health…

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

DEATH TO THE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT

BANKING CARTEL!

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

MULTICULTURALISM DISMANTLING WESTERN CULTURE HILLARY AND MERKEL

September 8th, 2016 by

http://newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty1169.htm

By Frosty Wooldridge
September 8, 2016
NewsWithViews.com

Seeding America with Muslim Violence

“Since the days of Charles Martel and Charlemagne, some great victories have been won by the West, but the war is never over. All these historical events can easily be overlooked because of the wording of the standard history books, which blur when they should clarify. These Western books offer scattered anecdotes about “Saracens,” “Moors,” and “Barbary pirates,” but almost never a coherent picture. That is because everywhere in the modern world we see the problem of “political correctness,” but especially in academic situations. Every piece of paper that appears in public must emphasize “multiculturalism” at all costs, in spite of the fact that the expansion of one culture must lead to the shrinking of another.” Peter Goodchild, historian, (Source: Link)

Time Magazine wrote a gushing report on Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel as a woman of compassion and vision when she offered Germany as a refugee camp for 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 (million) African refugees in 2015-2016.

I wrote a letter to Time: “Angela Merkel’s lack of wisdom, foresight and understanding of Islam’s historical trajectory provides the most violent religion on Earth a petri dish with which to expand in every nook and cranny of German society. History shows from the time of Mohammed to Charlemagne that Muslims never quit their prime directive: “Convert or kill all non-believers.” That Islamic death-cult welcomes endless forms of violence to conquer every country it settles. No European, Canadian, American or Australian society will survive Islam’s onslaught—without bloody conflict.”

Goodchild continued, “The people who have that Western legacy, however, are disappearing from much of Europe and North America. Instead, we have “multiculturalism,” which really means the dismantling of “culture,” the decline of the West. In our schools, young people are now taught to be ashamed of their legacy, and any courses in the social sciences are perverted to show the “guilt” of those who spent thousands of years developing all that can truly be called “civilization.” Whether our leaders can be persuaded not to continue dragging us in such a direction is an enormous question.”

As the rapes, violence toward females, bombings, shootings, stabbings and intimidation escalate in Europe—Merkel invites more barbarians from Africa and the Middle East to invade her countrymen. Never mind the Charlie Hebdo massacre, Nice, France; Paris, France; Sweden’s rape and riot conflagration; Holland’s breakdown; Brussels, Belgium bombings, United Kingdom’s throat slitting on London’s streets and thousands of individual acts of Muslim violence toward Europeans. Merkel invites more of the same. So do Sweden, Norway, Italy and Spain.

Few leaders take a stand for their countries. Except Poland and now Austria!

“Muslims are even cruel to one another,” said Goodchild. “Especially to their women. Female genital mutilation is customary. “Honor killing” is common: every year, according to Robert Fisk and others, over twenty thousand women worldwide die at the hands of their own families, and the majority of these women are Muslim. Yet the term “honor killing” is horrendously inaccurate. Most people in the modern West do not regard it as “honorable” for a man to torture and murder a female member of his family on the basis of some slight act of disobedience, often imaginary.”

Notice at no time does Tony Blair of the United Kingdom allow his family or children to be in contact with the 2.5 million Muslims he invited into that country. Same with Merkel in Germany! And, France’s Hollande! The rich elites never allow their hands to be soiled in the commoners’ problems with multiculturalism.

Exit from Europe to America: Hillary Clinton expects to invite 100,000 Syrian refugees to as high as 1,000,000 (million) African-Middle Eastern refugees into America to create a similar climate of civil conflict within the United States. Such immigrants carry scant education, intellectual horsepower or any ability to contribute to American society. Expect them to end up on welfare paid for by you, the American taxpayer. Expect disruption of your communities, schools and local governments.

Muslims cannot and do not assimilate into Western societies. They create chaos, mayhem and sociological-cultural destruction. It’s the nature of Islam, moderate or radical, no difference.

Not only will Hillary Clinton flood America with Muslims, she will enjoy a mandate to present amnesty to 20 to as high as 30 million illegal migrants from all over the world. (Source: Ann Coulter, Adios America: The Left’s Plan to Turn America into a Third World Hellhole.)

“Immigrants devoted to their own cultures and religions are not influenced by the secular politically correct façade that dominates academia, news-media, entertainment, education, religious and political thinking today,” said James Walsh, former Associate General Counsel of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service. “They claim the right not to assimilate, and the day is coming when the question will be how can the United States regulate the defiantly unassimilated cultures, religions and mores of foreign lands? Such immigrants say their traditions trump the U.S. legal system. Balkanization of the United States has begun.”

If Hillary Clinton gains the White House, you, your family, and your community will see Muslims entering every aspect of American life. They will disrupt your schools, your city councils and your churches. Muslims will live off your welfare dollars in order to devour your community as their numbers grow. You can expect riots, rapes and mayhem weekly. Expect endless Orlando’s; San Bernardino’s; Boston Marathon’s; Fort Hood’s; Detroit’s, 9/11’s and Chattanooga’s in your future.

Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel: twin sisters in the destruction of America and Europe.

© 2016 Frosty Wooldridge – All Rights Reserved

 Frosty Wooldridge possesses a unique view of the world, cultures and families in that he has bicycled around the globe 100,000 miles, on six continents and six times across the United States in the past 30 years. His published books include: “HANDBOOK FOR TOURING BICYCLISTS”; “STRIKE THREE! TAKE YOUR BASE”; “IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION: DEADLY CONSEQUENCES”; “MOTORCYCLE ADVENTURE TO ALASKA: INTO THE WIND—A TEEN NOVEL”; “BICYCLING AROUND THE WORLD: TIRE TRACKS FOR YOUR IMAGINATION”; “AN EXTREME ENCOUNTER: ANTARCTICA.” His next book: “TILTING THE STATUE OF LIBERTY INTO A SWAMP.” He lives in Denver, Colorado.

His latest book. ‘IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION—DEADLY CONSEQUENCES.’

Website: www.FrostyWooldridge.com

E:Mail: frostyw@juno.com

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

From the very beginning of recorded history, homo-sapiens have formed clans and ideology different from each other and now the most incomprehensible idiots ever born are insisting multiculturalism will bring everyone together as one big happy family and the dissenters are the scum of the earth. How in the hell did any human being ever become this stupid? Separation of the races is the only possible way for peace and harmony to exist, but that does not mean any race has the right to consider their self superior or demonize any other race. Common sense should tell people not to crap in their own bed.  It is hard enough for each race to co-exist, so why make it any more complicated? Can you idiots not see this is an intentional maneuver to break down our society? It has never worked and WILL NEVER work.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

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



SEO Powered By SEOPressor