Log in



Categories » ‘TECHNOCRACY’

The Only Adult in the Room Or Stop Being Stupid Part 4

December 17th, 2016 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2016/12/the-only-adult-in-room-or-stop-being.html

12-16-2016-11-04-54-amBy Anna Von Reitz

Have you listened to the arguments and accusations about purported Russian spying and hacking –supposedly to interfere in the US elections?   

I have taught school all my life.  Even as a teenager, I taught Church School.

I’ve taught grade school, middle school and high school students and as a TA in college I have taught adults, too.  One of the things that teaching forces you to do, is to learn. 

Ironically, you can’t teach anyone else anything without learning things yourself. You are just learning different things than your students.

They are learning to spell or to write coherent sentences or unravel the meaning of statistics or discovering the evidence of electrical current or learning the names of stars. 

You are learning how people think and how they react to new information and being tasked to answer questions nobody in your text books bothered to answer.

So, one of the things I have learned and which any decent teacher learns very early on, is to discern when a student is “flibberty-gibbeting”—- trying to escape perdition (or at least a red ink pen) by arguing a non-related non-argument in answer to an actual fact or problem.

The actual fact or problem is that John Podesta’s emails are evidence of filthy crimes and cheating and nastiness beyond belief.

And all Hillary and Obummer want to whine about is how they got caught. 

Oh, it was so unfair that criminals and psychopaths and child molesters were exposed—-oh, those terrible, sneaky Russians!  Those devious Republicans! Oh, my! Oh, my!

(Don’t pay attention to the evils — the hideous, immoral, venal, corruptions–exposed by the leaked emails.)

(Don’t screw together your logic circuits and say— who cares how this filth was discovered or who discovered it?)

What’s important is that the emails are true, that leading members of the Democratic Party are criminals and pedophiles and deserve to be rounded up and prosecuted. 

What they are trying to do now, unsuccessfully, is to argue a technicality in the court of public opinion.

They are trying to say that how they were caught or the identity of those who caught them, is more important than the crimes and acts of immorality they have committed.

And that simply isn’t true.

They are trying to say, without any credible proof, that the Russians were trying to undermine Hillary. 

Looks to me like Hillary undermined herself, by participating in this nastiness as a major player and by hiring John Podesta—-failures of both morality and judgment that she can blame on nobody else in the world.  Not even Bill.

As for the “Democratic Process” which the Democrats constantly invoke, except for now, when it yielded a result they don’t like—- let me remind everyone on the planet that a democracy requires a mandate of 51% of the population and that all this drama is being fomented by less than 30% of the population on average counting both sides, Republican and Democrat.

Let me also remind everyone that this vaunted presidential election is a private corporate election, not intrinsically different, better, or more important than the election of a new CEO to lead Dairy Queen, International.  It has nothing to do with the actual government owed to this country.

When you put all the hype and provably false assumptions aside, there’s nothing here to get excited about.  It’s just Situation Normal for the United States which is a filthy little cesspool on our shores, being mismanaged as it always has been by European powers, and which is no more “American” than a goat is a sheep.

So stop being stupid.  Be glad that someone, somewhere, made the effort to begin draining the swamp, sucking up the septic, and cleaning up the vomit. It had to be done. 

Whether we like it or not, a great deal more of similarly dirty and thankless work has to be done.  The entire governmental structure of the planet needs to be flushed and composted and turned into something worthwhile. Who knows?  Maybe when it is all said and done, we can grow a rose bush? 

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

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

Incrementalism, Regionalism and Revolution

December 15th, 2016 by

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

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

by Kathleen Marquardt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

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

America’s Plunge from Republic to Empire

December 2nd, 2016 by

http://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/americas-plunge-republic-empire/

by Wendy McElroy November 29, 2016

We have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and Empire. If you ask when, the answer is that you cannot make a single stroke between day and night. The precise moment does not matter. There was no painted sign to say, “You now are entering Imperium.” Yet it was a very old road and the voice of history was saying: “Whether you know it or not, the act of crossing may be irreversible.” And now, not far ahead, is a sign that reads: “No U Turns.”

— Garet Garrett

It is difficult to pinpoint the moment at which America crossed from Republic into Empire but guidelines exist for doing so. In his treatise Rise of Empire (1952), the libertarian journalist Garet Garrett declared the “first requisite of Empire” to be “the executive power of government shall be dominant.” Arguably, the power most intimately connected to Empire or imperialism is conducting foreign policy, especially war.

America’s plunge into imperialism is evident in its abandonment of a constitutional clause. Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 11 (the “War Powers Clause”) reads, “[The Congress shall have power …] To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” The form of the declaration is not specified but the need to go through Congress is. The ability to declare war is coupled with other congressional powers over foreign affairs — namely, issuing letters of marque and reprisal as well as defining rules of capture on land and water. Congress is granted exclusive power over what are (or were) key areas of foreign policy.

The purpose was to rein in the executive, the president, by blocking his ability to declare war and otherwise initiate foreign conflicts. Having recently broken away from a monarchy, the Framers were determined to prevent one from arising on American soil. Since a defining power of monarchy was what William Blackstone referred to as “the sole prerogative of making war and peace,” the Constitution repudiated that kingly prerogative. James Madison wrote in a letter to Thomas Jefferson (circa 1798), “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war to the Legislature.”

Even Alexander Hamilton, an advocate of centralized power, found it necessary to reassure the public that ratification of the Constitution would not give the executive the power to declare war. In The Federalist Papers, he explained, “The President is to be Commander in Chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great-Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces … while that of the British King extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which, by the Constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature.” In short, the president would have the authority to conduct war once a declaration had been approved by Congress.

As well as restraining the executive, the War Powers Clause makes war less likely for several reasons. A vote in Congress promotes public debate on the issues surrounding war, including whether there is sufficient cause for a declaration; such debate allows objections and alternatives to be considered. Moreover, an open debate makes false claims less likely to prevail. A vote from hundreds of politicians drawn from the entire nation is more likely to reflect the will of constituents — the people — than the “vote” of one man; a war to benefit a faction of society could be opposed by those who would pay the price. A delay, even one counted in hours, allows for negotiation or other circumstances to change.

Despite the War Powers Clause, World War II was the last war for which Congress issued an official declaration of war. Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the shifting police actions in the Middle East originated through the action of presidents in a fashion akin to those of kings or dictators.

The War Powers Clause has been supplanted by Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 which states, in part, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States.” The clause is interpreted to mean that the executive has a “right” to declare hostilities without involving Congress.

How did the executive wrest the power to create empire away from Congress? In brief: the Korean War.

The Korean War watershed

In 1951, the anti-interventionist Sen. Robert A. Taft contested the constitutionality of the Korean War. He stated, “[In] the case of Korea, where a war was already under way, we had no right to send troops to a nation, with whom we had no treaty, to defend it against attack by another nation, no matter how unprincipled that aggression might be, unless the whole matter was submitted to Congress and a declaration of war or some other direct authority obtained.”

The Korean War (June 25, 1950 – July 27, 1953) is often viewed as a footnote to World War II. In reality, it was a pivot point in American foreign policy. Subsequent wars bear the fingerprints of Korea.

Since America’s early days, presidents have sent troops into combat abroad without a declaration of war. In the 19th century, however, such conflicts were usually limited and minor. The Barbary Wars (1801–1805, 1815) against tribute-seeking pirates in the Mediterranean are an example. Thirty-five Americans died in action; 64 were wounded. By contrast, 54,246 Americans died in Korea, with 103,284 being wounded. The goal of the Barbary Wars was to prevent pirate attacks on American shipping vessels; the Korean War was open-ended and politically motivated. And the Barbary Wars were sanctioned by the passage of at least ten congressional statutes.

The Founding Fathers envisioned circumstances in which a presidential response to aggression would not require congressional approval. A resolution brought before the Constitutional Convention by Madison and Elbridge Gerry reserved the power to initiate war to Congress but “with the reservation that the president need not await authorization from Congress to repel a sudden attack on the United States.” The independence of action was meant to counter a sudden attack and not to conduct a sustained conflict.

Korea did not attack America. Nor did the two nations have a treaty. Nevertheless, Harry Truman was eager to intervene.

Three years before, on March 27, 1947, he had announced the Truman Doctrine by which America pledged to assist any country that resisted communist aggression. In the wake of World War II, the United States and Soviet Union vied for global dominance through a Cold War (circa 1947–1991). The Soviet Union encouraged the spread of communism in order to expand its sphere of influence; the United States pursued containment by extending military and financial aid to “vulnerable” nations. The Truman doctrine had been vigorously resisted in Congress by isolationist Republicans who viewed it as a program for imperialism. Rep. George Bender of Ohio accused Truman of authorizing “a program of military collaboration with all the petty and not so petty dictators.” The president was aware of how difficult it would be to push war in Korea through Congress. And, yet, Korea epitomized the Cold War politics upon which Truman focused.

Why? Prior to World War II, Korea had been a colony of Japan. After Japan fell, America and Russia divided the peninsula at the 38th parallel, with America in the South, Russia in the North. Subsequent negotiations toward unification failed. Then, in June 1950, North Korea invaded the South with the backing of Soviet tanks and equipment.

How did America join the warfare? Congressman Howard Buffett explained,

On June 25, 1950, the U.N. Security Council demanded a cease-fire and called on members to render every assistance to the United Nations in the execution of this resolution. Nothing was said about entering the conflict…. But at 12 o’clock noon, on June 27, President Truman ordered United States air and sea units to give the Korean Government troops cover and support. That order put our military forces into the Korean civil war on the side of the South Koreans. At 10:45 that evening, 11 hours later, the Security Council requested members of the U.N. to supply the Republic of Korea with sufficient military assistance to repel invasion.

The later request was actually a recommendation rather than a demand to live up to UN commitments. The resolution read, “Recommends that the Members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area.” [Emphasis in the original.] In an article entitled “Bush versus I.F. Stone …. and Eisenhower,” John Nichols commented, “Instead of going to Congress and asking for a formal declaration of war, the president [Truman] gamed the system by claiming that U.S. participation in the United Nations required him to send American boys to again die in Asia not five years after World War II had finished.”

Since Truman, it has become common for presidents to draw upon global authority in order to commit American troops to war without Congressional approval.

Conclusion

Prior to World War II, a strong current of noninterventionism influenced American foreign policy. The noninterventionists believed that America fared best when it did not militarily intrude into the affairs of other nations except in strict self-defense. World War II derailed their objections but, when war ended, noninterventionism reemerged within some circles.

The Korean War occasioned a neglected episode of history called “The Great Debate” on the propriety of the Korean War and wider principles, for example, when and by whom a declaration of war should be made. The noninterventionists and the U.S. Constitution lost.

One reason was the presence of a new argument — that nuclear war would require an immediate response from the president, who could not waste time seeking congressional approval. But that alleged need cannot explain why the Korean War was declared through what one historian called “a wink and a smile.” Nor does it justify presidential declarations thereafter when nuclear war was not threatened. Moreover, if nuclear war was ever plausibly threatened, it could be viewed through the lens of Madison’s and Gerry’s resolution. That is, a sudden attack required an exception to the otherwise exclusive right of Congress to declare war. As it was, the mere possibility of such an attack was enough to de facto strip Congress of that right in all subsequent circumstances.

George Friedman, geopolitical forecaster, explained how the transfer of that power affected the American Republic. “If there is a single point where these matters [Republic and Empire] converge, it is in the constitutional requirement that Congress approve wars through a declaration of war and in the abandonment of this requirement since World War II. This is the point where the burdens and interests of the United States as a global empire collide with the principles and rights of the United States as a republic.” Empire won.

This article was originally published in the August 2016 edition of Future of Freedom.

This post was written by: Wendy McElroy

Wendy McElroy is an author for The Future of Freedom Foundation, a fellow of the Independent Institute, and the author of The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival (Prometheus Books, 1998).

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Ms McElroy is no doubt an articulate and intelligent lady, but she is dead wrong on the period when we became an empire, as that happened when we became a Corporation and subsequent events were then enabled with the International Investment Banking Cartel replacing the Republic. What followed was the intellectual deterioration of the common populace, and the acceptance of tyranny in government. The birth of the United Nations would never have occurred except for the Bankers intervention.

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

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

November 29th, 2016 by

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

9-6-2016 8-35-41 PM

By John W. Whitehead

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

Divide and conquer.

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

How do you conquer a nation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Divide and conquer.

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

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

The rightwing will not speak up for the leftwing.

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

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

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

Are you starting to get the picture?

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

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

The government’s oppressive tactics have not changed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WC: 1845

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

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

Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission

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

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

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

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

World Suffers From Trump Shell Shock – Here’s What Will Happen Next

November 21st, 2016 by

http://alt-market.com/articles/3061-world-suffers-from-trump-shell-shock-heres-what-will-happen-next

11-21-2016-8-01-11-am

By Brandon Smith

I’ve been saying this for a long time, and I’ll say it again here — in life there are only two kinds of people:  those who know and those who don’t.  Some might claim there is a third option: those who don’t want to know.  In any case, if you want to be able to foresee geopolitical and social trends, you have to be one of the people who know.

Above all else, in order to know you must be willing to step outside of the confusion and theater of the circus and look at developments from above.  If you are biased and retain too many sacred cows you will never understand how the world works.  You will be too busy trying to reinforce your own fantasies to see anything else.

Beyond this, you must also understand that political and social developments are not random; they are either reactions to deliberate policies of special interests or they are driven by policies of special interests.  Therefore, these developments are predictable and can be calculated (to a point).

I usually refer to these “special interests” as global elites, or globalists, because that is how they often refer to themselves.  The point is, most of the events you see in the political world are engineered events designed to elicit a specific psychological response from you and the people around you.  You are not a human being to these people; you are either an asset to be molded or an obstacle to be disposed of.  This is how our world works.  Period.  And until we fully understand this and accept it, things will never change.

So, to be clear, if you understand the minds of globalists and understand what they want, you can understand the basic direction of the future.

It is this philosophy which has allowed me to consistently and accurately predict geopolitical and economic events that very few other people have been able to predict.  For example, I correctly predicted the Federal Reserve taper of QE, I predicted the inclusion of China in the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights years in advance, I predicted the exact timing of the first Fed rate hike, I predicted the success of the Brexit referendum when most of the world and the liberty movement said it was never going to happen, I predicted that the Saudi 9/11 bill would pass, that Barack Obama would veto it and that congress would override his veto, I predicted that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic candidate and that Donald Trump would be the Republican candidate for president of the U.S. and, for the past five months, I have been predicting that Donald Trump would win the 2016 election.

People can either attribute these series of successful predictions to pure “luck,” or they can consider the possibility that I know what I am talking about.  I’ll leave that to them.

The real issue, though, is not that my predictions were correct.  What is more important is WHY they were correct.  To begin with, I am often correct because it is a fact that globalists influence events.  Globalists are human (at least partially); thus, they are predictable, making events predictable.  If you can see from the perspective of a globalist, you will know what they want and what they are likely to do to get it.

In a world without globalists I would have a hard time successfully predicting anything.

I never make a cold prediction without a concrete rationale for why I hold that view.  I always break down the reasons and evidence that bring sense to them.  Some analysts might be content to simply flip a coin and make a call without explanation; I am not.

As far as the Trump election win is concerned, this is what I said in June of this year:

“In light of the Brexit I’m going to have to call it here and now and predict that the most likely scenario for elections will be a Trump presidency.  Trump has consistently warned of a recession during his campaign and with the Brexit dragging markets lower over the next few months, he will probably be proven “prophetic.”

… Even if Trump is a legitimate anti-establishment conservative, his entry into the Oval Office will seal the deal on the economic collapse, and will serve the globalists well.  The international banks need only pull the plug on any remaining life support to the existing market system and allow it to fully implode, all while blaming Trump and his conservative supporters.

The mainstream media has been consistently comparing Trump supporters to Brexit supporters, and Trump himself has hitched his political wagon to the Brexit. This fits perfectly with the globalist narrative that populists and conservatives are killing the global economy and placing everyone at risk.”

All of my predictions are rooted in a particular premise; that the global elites have been, since 2008 at least, deliberately setting the stage for an evolving international financial crisis greater than any other seen in modern history.  This crisis is a means to an end.  Globalists use one strategy above all others to achieve their goals — the Hegelian Dialectic; problem, reaction, solution.

As I have documented for years, the elites openly call for the ultimate eradication of national sovereignty and the formation of a single world economy, a single world currency and, eventually, a single world government.  In order to make this omelet, they intend to break a few eggs (and collapse a few economies).  By blaming “national sovereignty” (and the people that defend it) for this crisis, they hope to convince the masses that the only practical solution is total centralization.  You can read my in-depth analysis and evidence of this in my article “The Economic End Game Explained.

I also specifically predicted the Brexit and the Trump win based on another premise; that the elites are allowing conservative movements to take political power in certain regions, only to remove stimulus support from the global economy afterward.  That is to say, I successfully predicted the Brexit and the Trump win because I understand and accept the reality that conservatives and liberty activists are not “winning;” we are being set up as scapegoats for a financial crash that the globalists already created.

Again, people can either say I am lucky, or that there is something to my position, but the fact of the matter is I have been right and I will probably continue to be right.  This brings us to what will happen going into 2017.

The election of Donald Trump signals a sea change in not only global politics, but more importantly, global economic stability and social developments.  As frenetic and insane as 2016 has been, 2017 will be drastically more chaotic.  Some of these changes will be obvious, some of them will once again only be visible to a handful of people in the world.  Lets start first with my happier predictions…

The Death Of The Mainstream Media

This is an easy one.  The mainstream media, with its insane regressive-progressives and elitist bias, misrepresented the “Alt-Right,” the Trump campaign and anti-social justice movements during the entirety of the election process.  Not only this, but through Wikileaks the leftist media was made naked as numerous journalists and outlets were exposed; colluding directly with the DNC and the Hillary campaign to first bushwhack Bernie Sanders and then rig debates and polling numbers to show Clinton in a farcically superior position to Trump.

The mainstream media is now seen by the majority of Americans on the left and right as a lumbering rotting propaganda corpse that needs to be decapitated before it spreads its disease to anyone else.  I predict MSM outlet readership and viewership (with the exception of FOX News) will collapse even further than it already has and that many outlets will be forced to consolidate until they fade out of existence.

As I have said for years, the mainstream media is dead, they just don’t know it yet.  Well, after this election, everyone knows.  The alternative media will take the place of the mainstream media.  We will be adopting their viewership and growing explosively over the next year while they shrivel.

They decided that their job was not to report the facts, but to manipulate public opinion.  They are liars and a disgrace to true journalism.  Good riddance.

That said, some people will argue that my position that the elites wanted a Trump presidency is not tenable exactly because the liberal media worked so hard to rig public opinion against Trump.  I will explain in my next article why these people are missing the bigger picture.

The Crippling Of Social Justice Warriors

The SJW cult is not dead, but it has been crippled.  It is now a drooling bedridden quadriplegic eating its meals through a straw; a malfunctioning shell of a movement destined to be put out of its misery.

When I think of social justice warriors I think of the Island of Misfit Toys; nobody wants these people.  They are a detriment to everything they touch, including the Democratic party.  It was the zealotry of SJWs that caused conservatives to rally in anger around Trump.  It was they that awakened the sleeping giant.

One reason I was so certain Clinton had set herself up for a loss was her insistence that the Democrats openly adopt these hell spawn and their ideology.  By embracing politically correct rhetoric and accusing all opposition of being “deplorable” racists, sexists and homophobes, Clinton doomed her campaign from the very beginning.  Anyone with any sense could see the massive tide against SJWs growing on the internet.  In fact, I propose that the globalists, using the advanced web analytics at their disposal, saw it even before the rest of us did.

SJWs are a tiny minority in American society.  Their only strategy has been to use Alinsky tactics to make their movement appear much larger than it really is.  Through mutual aid and elitist supporters in popular media, SJWs presented a fabricated consensus.  They made it seem as though they were the majority view and, thus, the “superior” view.

One fantastic result of the 2016 election has been the realization by conservatives that they are not isolated on the fringes of society.  In fact, in America at least, we are a considerable force to be reckoned with.  There is an old story of a Roman Senator 2,000 years ago who suggested the idea of forcing slaves to wear armbands to make them easily identifiable.  Another senator admonished the notion, stating “No, if they realize how many of them there really are, they may revolt.”

This is what Election 2016 did for conservatives — we have seen that millions of us have arm bands, and we are now in revolt.

I rarely comment on race issues because I don’t really see race as very relevant in most cases; but it has been the tactic of social justice cultists to constantly and brutally target straight white males as the monsters of history and therefore responsible for the ills and failures of every minority group from today to eternity.  At this point I think it is safe to say that we will NO LONGER sit idly by as whipping boys for sad, deluded people clamoring for victim group status.

The End Of Mainstream Polling

I was also confident in my prediction of a Trump win based on my knowledge of inconsistencies in modern polling methods.  The fact of the matter is, polling suffers from the same lack of objectivity that any other “science” can at times suffer from — the results will always be vulnerable to influence from the observer.  If the observer wants a particular outcome for the numbers, they will consciously or unconsciously rig their method to produce the desired result.

I saw this happen time and time again during the Brexit polls leading up to the referendum, and, as I stated many times before the U.S. election, the campaign polls seemed to be behaving the same way.  This is how you get media sources like Reuters claiming a 90 percent chance of a win by Hillary Clinton just before the election.  When pollsters weight their polls with far more democrats than republicans and when they poll the same groups repeatedly they are not going to get varied or honest data.

In the end, polls become propaganda tools rather than litmus tests.  The mainstream has tried desperately to explain why their polls were so utterly wrong, but it is too late for them.  After the Brexit and the U.S. election, no one is going to trust these numbers again.

Liberty Groups Will Get Some Breathing Room (For A Little While)

The steady drum beat of government antagonism for “patriot groups” is probably going to subside for a short time.  I happen to know that many militia groups and preparedness networks are breathing a heavy sigh of relief today after eight years of a hostile Obama presidency, the IRS sniping at liberty organizations and individual activists based purely on political zealotry, the DHS profiling liberty activists as terrorists and the SPLC frothing at the mouth like rabid animals looking to use their ties to the feds as a means to sink their teeth into any conservatives with the guts to refuse participation in the mainstream narrative.

With conservatives launching into 2017 with complete control of government and a Trump mandate, it would seem that liberty groups have “won the fight” and have nothing to worry about.

That said, don’t get too comfortable, folks, because now we are going to discuss my negative predictions going into next year…

The Final Stage Of Economic Collapse

Economic collapse is a process, not a singular event; stock markets play only a minor part in this process.  Most Americans’ only relation to the economy is through the daily rise and fall of the Dow Jones.  If they see the Dow in the green, they go on with their day.  If they see the Dow in the red, they stop and question what is happening.  The election of Donald Trump has surprised many with a sudden rise, rather than fall, in stock markets.  But, as I told my readers before the election, it would be wise to wait a couple of weeks before trying to analyze these markets because that is how long it will take just to absorb the election results.

I predict first that central banks around the globe will further cut stimulus measures and that the Fed is now guaranteed to raise interest rates, probably in December before Trump even enters the White House.  I also believe that the process of initiating a market crisis will take approximately six months to become widely visible to the public.  As a consequence of the Fed pulling the plug on markets, I predict Trump and the Fed will enter into open hostilities against each other, which will erode international faith in the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency.

By extension, Trump’s presence in the White House will exacerbate already-existing tensions with Saudi Arabia.  The Saudi 9/11 bill is just the beginning.  As a result, I believe Saudi Arabia will dump the U.S. dollar as the petro-currency, influencing numerous other OPEC nations to do the same.  I believe this will happen by early 2018.

In my view, for now, oil prices will be the best indicator for where stocks are headed in the next few months.

This is not something many Trump supporters want to hear.  The response in the liberty movement to my prediction that the elites would allow Trump into office was rather predictable as well.  In my article ‘Why The U.S. Election Has The Entire World Confused’ I stated:

“I have not taken this position just to be contrary. If I think about it honestly, my position is truly a losing position. If I am mistaken and Clinton wins on the 8th then I’ll probably never hear the end of it, but that’s a risk that has to be taken, because what I see here is a move on the chess board that others are not considering. If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong.

That said, if I am right, then I still lose, because Trump supporters and half the liberty movement will be so enraptured that they will probably ignore the greater issue — that Trump is the candidate the elites wanted all along.”

This seems to be the reaction from about half the liberty movement so far; a general blind faith and bias, clinging to the idea that the election (just like the Brexit) was a victory, and that conservatives had just won the culture war and defeated the globalists.  It’s funny how it wasn’t much of a controversy when everyone thought I was wrong about Trump winning in the first place.

There are two primary arguments that come up with these people. First, that my view on the influence of the elites is “unrealistic” and that the elites would have to be “omnipotent” in order to succeed in directing the outcome of these events so effectively.  I will address this argument in detail in my next article on the Trump presidency and what the consequences will be for us all if Trump turns out not to be a constitutionalist.

The second argument they present is that the elites “will never succeed” in blaming Trump and conservatives for an economic crisis that was decades in the making.  To the people that embrace this argument I say — I understand mass psychology far better than you do.

The reality is, half of America is ALREADY primed to blame Trump for everything that happens over the next four years (if we even make it that long).  Possession is nine-tenths of the law in the minds of many.  Beyond that, every meme in the global media and on the left is promoting the idea that Trump is an apocalypse in the making.  Even Germany’s ‘Der Spiegal’ published its after-election magazine with a cover depicting Trump’s head as a giant comet hurtling towards the Earth.  Don’t tell me that Trump cannot be blamed for an economic crisis.  Only a complete idiot would suggest that he is anything other than the perfect scapegoat.

At bottom, it does not matter whether people believe the above predictions or not.  I have hundreds of emails from readers who called me a “tinfoil hatter” in the past and are now apologizing.  So, if you plan to react in a knee-jerk fashion to the notion that Trump and conservatives are being set up by the elites for a final financial flagellation, be sure to write two letters — one for today saying I’ve lost touch, and the other for tomorrow when you find out I was right once again.

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

 You can contact Brandon Smith at:

brandon@alt-market.com

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

This Is How War Begins

November 19th, 2016 by

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

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

 By Charles Eisenstein

“Their stupidity is amusing.”

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

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

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

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

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

“They will never change.”

“Disgusting, twisted human beings.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

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

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

SECOND VERSE SAME AS THE FIRST

November 17th, 2016 by

http://www.rebelmadman.com/?p=581

 

By Michael Gaddy

“The value of history is, indeed, not scientific but moral: by liberalizing the mind, by deepening the sympathies, by fortifying the will, it enables us to control, not society, but ourselves — a much more important thing; it prepares us to live more humanely in the present and to meet rather than to foretell the future.” ~ Carl Becker, 1873-1945 (All emphasis is the author’s throughout)

If a person or a political entities goal is to create a strong centralized government which operates basically as an oligarchy, it will become necessary to disguise those intentions. The best disguise for an oligarchy is to clothe that form of government with the costume of a democracy. But, in order to have the masses actually believe they are involved in their own governance, any comprehensive study of history must be perverted or abandoned altogether.

For any government to transform from a government operating with the consent of the governed to a tyrannical and oppressive government directed and controlled by the powerful few, two elements must be created and developed within the governed populace. These elements, though different in composition, must be complimentary in nature.

First of all, a tyrannical government needs a totally compliant majority within the masses who, no matter what atrocities the government commits, will be rationalized away much as a battered wife defends and denies the acts of an abusive spouse. The oppressive government can take a majority of what these people earn and give it to others who refuse to work; shoot unarmed mothers in the face; shoot 14-year-old sons in the back; incinerate young children and adults in their church and lie about it; provide explosives to so-called terrorists which were subsequently used to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993: withhold evidence in the investigation of an assassinated president, a civil rights leader, two presidential candidates; evidence in the case of TWA-800; withhold evidence in the OKC bombing; constantly monitor all forms of communication involving its citizens without the whisper of probable cause and other various assortments of violations of our Constitution and Bill of Rights while the country’s borders are wide open, offering unfettered access to our families by the relatives of those whose countries we have invaded immorally and unconstitutionally, killing hundreds of thousands in the process.

While the above indictments of our government’s tyrannical actions barely scratch the surface of what has taken place in the past few decades, the paradoxical actions of the masses defies all logic. A majority will question domestic actions of their government which destroys the concept of consent of the governed, yet overwhelmingly support that same government when it lies for justification to go to war. Somehow a government that steals your money destroys your God-given rights and refuses to protect the states from invasion must be totally supported when it prevaricates about the reasons for putting our sons, daughters, mothers and fathers in harm’s way when they illegally and immorally occupy the country of others and kill any who resist. Government’s very existence requires those who blindly follow the dictates of that government to be perceived and celebrated as heroes to the ignorant but compliant masses.

Then, of course, there is the second element that guarantees a despotic government continued support and blind allegiance to its agenda. This is the enforcement arm of that government which usually takes the form of a standing army— something our founders feared more than foreign invaders and the police at all levels. When a government steps outside its legal mandates it must possess the ability to rule by force instead of consent. Laws formulated to destroy rather than protect the Natural Law and concomitant restrictions on those who govern requires the threat of violence and coercion while Natural/Common Law is accepted by most and does not require the standing armies and militarized police forces of today.

To gain broad acceptance among the historically ignorant, members of the enforcement arm of the government must be viewed as “heroes” for their dedication to protecting the freedoms of the masses. The fact the very opposite is occurring; the government is being protected by this enforcement arm and not the people’s rights is lost on the idolaters of unrestrained power, willing dupes and the historically challenged.

Would there ever have been an America if folks like Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Hancock, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and others would have decided to “support the troops” instead of demanding their God-given rights from a government acting not at all unlike the one we have now? Would they have supported the forces and called them heroes that shot down a child and several others at what we refer to as the Boston Massacre because the enforcers were “just doing their jobs” or would we justify the killings because the government’s enforcers thought the mob was armed and didn’t show their hands on command?

A study of history reveals that somehow the government of the few is able to “rally the masses” to their agenda as they go about mass murder, private property destruction and genocide against those with the audacity to challenge their actions. Statements throughout history reveal a basic theme of demonization of many who just want to be left alone or as the Declaration of Independence states “assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them.” I can assure you the enforcement arm of our present government will be unleashed on any individual or group that attempts to assume “their separate and equal station” just as they have on many occasions in our country’s history.

Let’s look at the similarity of the words of those deployed against those who just wanted to be left alone to determine their own destiny instead of kowtowing to tyrannical rule. Of course, all of the government’s assets, including a bought and paid for media must be employed to demonize those who would resist the will of the government aggressor.

From our Second War for Independence, known to the great unwashed as the Civil War:

“Extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the [Southern] people.” (This continues to this day.)

“To the petulant and persistent secessionists, why death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better . . . . Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people will cripple their military resources” 

“Government of the United States” has the “right” to “take their lives, their homes, their lands, their everything . . . . We will take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property . . .” (can you see here the possible origins of thought of those who now populate and wear the uniform of the BLM, Oregon State Police, FBI, and USFS?)

“…the war will soon assume a turn to extermination not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the people . . . . There is a class of people, men, women, and children, who must be killed…” Union General William Tecumseh Sherman

Sherman’s wife Ellen wrote of her wish for a war “of extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like the Swine into the sea.”

Then this same philosophy was turned on the American Indian who stood in the way of “progress.” Well, in reality, not progress so much as lining the pockets of the controllers of the oligarchy. Time spent studying the book “Hear that Lonesome Whistle Blow” by Dee Brown will illuminate your path to the history in that regard.

“It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux. They are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts, and by no means as people with whom treaties or compromise can be made.”  ~ Union General John Pope, 1862

“We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to the extermination, men, women, and children” ~ Union General William Tecumseh Sherman

“The more Indians we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed next year,” Union General Sherman to Union General Sheridan.

Now, let us look at our government’s current villain de jour: Muslim extremists.

 “You go wherever in the world the terrorists are and you kill them, you do your best to exterminate them, and then you leave, and you leave behind smoking ruins and crying widows.” ~ Lt. Colonel Peters on FOX News

How Shermanesque of the good Colonel? Would he object to those he seeks to exterminate having the same thoughts about him and his family? Are these “terrorists” he speaks of his personal enemies or just the current enemy of the government he blindly supports? Perhaps he believes taking away all our freedoms at home would prevent future attacks perpetrated against us “because we are free.”

“We need to kill them. We need to kill them, the radical Muslim terrorists hell-bent on killing us. You’re in danger. I’m in danger. We’re at war and this is not going to stop.” ~FOX News’ Jeanine Pirro

Well, I’m no theologian, but I suspect Jesus would tell that god-fearing, red-blooded American Sniper, ‘well done, my good and faithful servant, for dispatching another godless jihadist to the lake of fire.’ But then again, I’m no theologian.” FOX News’ Todd Starnes

Does anyone see a pattern here? How very convenient is historical amnesia or just historical ignorance when it comes to supporting the enforcement arm of our tyrannical and oppressive government as it goes about its daily task of robbing the people, destroying their rights and property and by threat, coercion, or willful ignorance demanding allegiance thereto?

Would Colonel Peters, Ms. Pirro or Mr. Starnes dare comment on the fact our government has provided billions of our tax dollars to these “Muslim terrorists” and “godless jihadists” for decades and continues to do so even now? We could begin with the 500 million provided to these forces back in 1978 by the CIA, the funding for ISIS and al Qaeda, or the fact we supported these very same forces in Kosovo. Has FOX News forgotten their own reporter spoke with Senator John McCain on his support for arming ISIS in 2013? Have they forgotten McCain’s proud moment displaying his picture made with these “terrorists” (Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Muhammad Noor) on his “secret trip” to visit and support them (ISIS) on Memorial Day in 2013?

11-17-2016-9-34-04-am

Ignorance of history and moral decay is destroying our country. How convenient is it to forget that our country provided funding to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao? How many millions of innocent lives are these three responsible for? Did our dollars contribute in any way to their wanton acts of genocide? Did our dollars buy the guns or the bullets?

This continued ignorance and blind patriotism directed toward the enforcement arm of our tyrannical government serves only to accelerate our loss of Liberty and eventual enslavement: spiritual, mental, economical and physical.

It might be time to look backward in order to better understand moving forward.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

Mike

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

Big Government and little people

November 13th, 2016 by

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

By Olddog

 Will you believers in Democracy ever get it through your head that we are not a Democracy, or even a Republic? The Banking Cartel took care of that when they suckered us into becoming a Corporation, with them as the Major Stockholders; so they own you and everything you think you own.

They could care less if you are unhappy with the status quo that is slowly disintegrating freedom of everything, and they fully intend to milk this country for every last penny, while you piss and moan.

If you should get out of hand and make demands they will kill or incarcerate you faster that a speeding bullet. They don’t have any compassion for us and could care less if we don’t like it.

You folks that think Trump is a shinning knight who will stop the demo-rats dead in their tracks just because the electors did as they were told, have forgotten your history.

Tyranny is guaranteed as long as the Cartel has control of the currencies governments need to function, and politician’s lust after.

REMEMBER THIS? Give me control of a Nations Currency and I care not who makes their laws. {Mayer Amschel Rothschild}

That’s the way it has been from the get go, and until every person in America knows what is going on, and is infuriated enough to act, that’s the way it will remain. Why do you insist on believing a lie when even the totally ignorant at least know that SOMETHING, IS WRONG!

Now I do not pretend to know everything, but my natural instinct led me to do some research, and the evidence is exactly what is happening. You do not have to be a book worm scholar to add two and two.

What is really hard to accept is, there are many who know what happened and yet they still participate in the system that is destroying them. I mean some very smart people, not your average citizen stuck in front of their electronic brain destruction machine.

There is only one way out of this shit hole system, and that is a universal understanding of the problem. If you don’t believe me, look around the globe and see the same thing happening everywhere. Governments world wide are tyrants, and the sheep keep their heads down where the grass grows, while the wolves sneak up on them.

Does it not seem stupid to try and change a wolf into a pussy cat?

They are the scum of the earth, and have no concern for us, or anyone else, so why listen to their lies?

Trump will be no different as soon as he has a sit down with his bosses and they inform him that his family only exists as long as he obeys their instructions! Not to mention how easily they got rid of the Kennedy’s, and a host of other trouble makers.

Their objective is to bankrupt every country on earth and graciously offer us a new universal monetary system, and by then most of us will be toast, as civil war breaks out in every Nation and there is nowhere safe to hide. That is what you are going to get from your hero politicians, just what you deserve; in their mind!

So while you keep looking for a world wide cure that does not inconvenience you, they are twenty steps ahead.

Me a Pragmatist? (a philosophical view that a theory or concept should be evaluated in terms of how it works and its consequences as the standard for action and thought.) Not hardly, because I’m not that smart, but you don’t have to be that smart to know when someone has stuck it where the sun don’t shine.

Quit trying to resuscitate a dead horse, and get busy learning the history of governments and banking. And I do not mean your friendly and ignorant local bankers. International investment bankers are a horse of a different color, and they don’t ride worth a crap.

I forgive all you numb-sculls who think I should be reported to homeland in-security, just so you can stay comfortably ignorant.

God Bless the Helpless,

Olddog

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

POSITIVISM AND INTELLECTUAL COWARDICE: AMERICA’S KRYPTONITE

October 29th, 2016 by

 http://www.rebelmadman.com/?p=566

By Michael Gaddy

“As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose–that it may violate property instead of protecting it–then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder.”  ~Frederic Bastiat

Positivism is the legal philosophy that laws need not pass any type of muster such as adherence to a constitution, justice, fairness or the laws of humanity, sometimes better known as Natural rights, to be binding and enforceable on the citizens of the affected country. The belief that law is whatever the legislature proposes, the executive signs and the judicial approves, or in other words, law is whatever the government says it is, has been the precursor to the most tyrannical and heinous regimes in history. Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Mao’s China and Kampuchea under Pol Pot are prime examples. It is not mere coincidence that positivist regimes eventually involve mass execution of the innocents at the hands of those in charge of the government.

Bastiat wrote the quote that began this article something over 160 years ago; so how was he able to see with such clarity the type of oppressive government we have in America today? How did he know that “…everyone will want to participate in making the law…?” How does the government get those who are the most adversely affected by its policies to “participate” in the creation of laws that basically enslave them while destroying their Natural rights?

The history of the past 60 or so years in our country alone illustrates how easy it is for the government to entice everyone to participate in making laws and regulations that are the very basis of the destruction of their individual liberties. All that is required is either an emotional or a financial attachment to the actions of that governing body.

A great example of financial attachment to government is the wonderfully failed Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. This odious piece of progressive, socialistic legislation has had to be revamped (read bailed out) over 20 times since its inception. Yet, if one were to judge from the political ads on TV, even the so-called “conservative” Republicans support overwhelmingly the continuance of an obviously failed concept. Republicans and Democrats are more than willing to financially obligate our posterity to this program because they believe they should be able to recover their investment made over many years, even though they had no choice in the matter. Had these same people lost their money in real estate or the stock market, to whom would they look for satisfaction? Tyrannical government perpetuates itself with the mistaken belief that it “guarantees” a return on monies seized by force and coercion from the masses.

Obviously, an openly despotic government that continues unabated in its destruction of our personal liberty, watches our every move, reads our emails and texts, sends our loved ones to die and be maimed in unprovoked wars, places us and our posterity in smothering debt and dictates how much water goes into our toilets is acceptable as long as we believe it owes us some money; money that will be stolen from our grandchildren, plus operating expenses of course.

While the financial aspect of wanting to be involved with and even support out of control government is understandable, possibly the most virulent form of support comes through the emotional channels. First of all is the polarization of factions within our country. The government is continually promoting hate and distrust among various groups. These can be political, race-based, religious based polarization or perhaps even heritage based differences. There is hardly anyone alive who would not embrace an unconstitutional act or law by our government if it was thought that act or law would be used against those we emotionally oppose.

(In theory) Republicans would gladly support any act or law that would depose our current president while any Democrat would have been equally as happy if the act or law had gotten rid of Bush. Blacks would gladly support legislation that would help them get even with the white oppressor and whites would be equally content to bring down those who believe they are owed a living because their ancestors of 150 years ago were slaves.

Author Andrew Napolitano accurately describes Positivism thusly:

“No matter how ill-advised, unnatural, or immoral; how unlawful, unconstitutional, or hateful; how biased, self-serving, or fraudulent; under Positivism, the majority that lawfully controls the government lawfully gets its way.”

The one emotion the government cherishes and uses more than others is FEAR! They keep the populace on edge with threats of terrorism from groups that our tax dollars have created and financed. We are engaged in a never-ending war on terror, yet how many are even aware that the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom, recently stated the following: “[B]y any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”

Now, of course, we face the threat of deadly viruses known as Ebola or Zika. Every news broadcast cites more and more the need for alarm and government mandated vaccinations. Does it concern anyone that the U.S. Department of Health holds a patent on an Ebola Virus? Here, take a look for yourself. Does it bother anyone that the Rockefeller Foundation owns the patent on the Zika virus? Seeing as how patents routinely cover inventions, what does this say about the US Department of Health, the Ebola virus and the Rockefeller Foundation and the Zika virus?

Now, for Intellectual Cowardice and how that plays into the mix: What is the definition of Intellectual Cowardice and how does that relate to how people rationalize their support of unconstitutional, tyrannical government?  Intellectual cowards are most often champions of Positivism which is simply Progressivism or Neoconservatism with lipstick. Seeing as how their religion is based on the principles of whatever the government says is gospel, their only arguments must be grounded in emotions rather than intellect.

When challenged on those beliefs with ideas, possibilities based on history, verifiable facts or our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Positivist/Progressive must resort to emotional responses since their position is completely devoid of intellect. We have all encountered their patented responses. Ad hominem attacks are their weapon of choice. Anytime facts and evidence cannot be countered with intellect, the Positivist/Progressive seeks to destroy facts with emotionally based name calling. The most common are, conspiracy nut, racist, homophobe, Neoconfederate and the ever popular, anarchist. Once those magical words are uttered, the discussion is over in the mind of the Positivist/Progressive/Neocon.

We can succumb to the siren song of comfortable living espoused by the Positivist/Progressives until such time as our government, like all governments before it, becomes completely despotic. Positivist/Progressives/Neocons live quite comfortably supporting laws that take from others and destroy liberty until such time the government they support realizes the absolute need for concentration camps, firing squads, forced mass inoculations, and large ovens.

If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair” ~C.S. Lewis

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

If you continue to support a corporation for a central government, you can be guaranteed a miserable, totally controlled life as our incompetence has allowed a monster corporation to mature into a world wide totalitarian killer. You are directly responsible for your future and it totally depends on your knowledge. Turn off the TV, and do your own research instead of your incomprehensible addiction to entertainment. Anna von Reitz  START HERE: Waking Up 101 Revisited MUST READ!!! Or the basics http://anationbeguiled.com/?p=13141

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

Cancel your voter registration ASAP

October 17th, 2016 by

. . . FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!

https://anticorruptionsociety.com/2016/10/15/cancel-your-voter-registration-asap/#more-11231

10-17-2016-10-54-21-am

By AL Whitney © copyround 2016
Permission is granted for redistribution if linked to original and AntiCorruption Society is acknowledged.

What we are now witnessing in the media is the Presidential Dog and Pony Show of 2016 designed to get Americans convinced that their lives will improve if only ‘their’ guy would get elected.

For many years American voters have gone to the polls, selected what they thought was the lesser of two evils, pulled the lever in the voting booth and hoped for a change.

In spite of what Clinton, Bush, and Obama promised in their election campaigns, the only changes we have gotten over the past twenty years were for the worse. More jobs have been lost, more rules/restrictions have been implemented and we now find ourselves living in a surveillance state whereby the only real terrorists are illegal immigrants and our own police. Did you know that after 9/11 Israeli loyalists paid for law enforcement personnel to travel to Israel and learn how to treat the general public as terrorists?

Here are seven reasons why voting in American is a waste of time:

1.) Presidents are CEO’s of the federal corporation who are “selected” by the Bilderburgers – they are not “elected” by the people. They are puppets for the international bankers and they must implement anti-American globalization policies (like GATT and NAFTA) on their behalf.

2.) The other so-called representatives people supposedly vote for have to promise favors to raise enough money for their election campaigns. This system is accurately referred to as “pay to play politics”. Consequently nearly all those seeking office are compromised from the get-go.

3.) Once elected, the so-called government representatives work for the interests of the city, county, state or federal corporations. They are obligated to function within their corporate charters, which allow them to set up huge rainy day funds called CAFRs. They do not work for the people and merely use the general public as a source of revenue for their own goals.

4.) Our political system is rigged to prevent third party candidates from winning. It is designed to keep the Hatfields (Republicans) and the McCoys (Democrats) doing battle as a distraction while the banksters continue to loot the country.

From the Banker’s Manifesto of 1892.

“History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism.

“The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.

“By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished.”

5.) The voting process itself was seized by the people’s enemies quite awhile ago. Most voting machines can be electronically hacked. And, according to the author of VoteScam, James Collier (see: Voting is a Scam) the media reports the winners based on the wishes of insiders and there is no real way for the public to verify the results of any election.

6.) Congress has no real power. The so-called “agency network” (450+) and their attorneys run the country during a national emergency. The people do not elect the heads of these so-called agencies. They are all political appointees and none of them work for the people. Our country has been in a prolonged state of “national emergency” since 1933.  See: Senate Report 93-549

7.) Lawyers run the country, not the elected representatives. As Yale law professor Fred Rodell exposed back in 1939 in his book Woe Unto You, Lawyers!

“It is the lawyers who run our civilization for us – our governments, our business, our private lives. Most legislators are lawyers; they make our laws. Most presidents, governors, commissioners, along with their advisers and brain-trusters are lawyers; they administer our laws. All the judges are      lawyers; they interpret and enforce our laws. There is no separation of powers where the lawyers are concerned. There is only a concentration of all government power – in the lawyers. As the schoolboy put it, ours is “a government of lawyers, not of men.””

Why you need to cancel your voter registration

It is not enough to merely stop wasting time in a voting booth. There are presumptions built into being a registered voter.

Initially when you registered to vote, it is presumed that you believed in our form of government (a Democracy) and wanted to participate.

When you vote, it is presumed you still believe in our form of government (a Democracy) and still want to participate.

The Secretary of State for each state keeps a list of registered voters. Thus, they know how many people in their state approve of our form of government (a Democracy) and still wish to participate.

When you registered to vote, you volunteered to define yourself as a US Citizen, as only “US citizens” are eligible to vote. However, when you volunteer to be a “US citizen” you are actually defining your political character. According to the “Federalism” doctrine that CEO Bill Clinton brought into our world by signing Executive Order 13132 in 1999:

Section 2

(d) The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the       Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to          define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives.

Defining your political character as a US Citizen creates the presumption that all of the rules, restrictions, regulations and UCC codes of the commercial corporate government – no matter how inane – apply to you.

Some claim we obligate ourselves to the current commercial legal system with our Social Security number, however getting a Social Security Card is required by employers before they are willing to hire us. We are coerced into complying.

Others say we obligate ourselves to the current commercial legal system by using Federal Reserve Notes. But, since we have no alternative currency with which we can pay our utility bills, we comply out of necessity.

However, there is no coercion nor necessity involved with voter registration. It represents a purely voluntary choice to define your political character as a US Citizen.

If you are a registered voter you have nothing to gain by maintaining that status and a lot to lose.

Canceling your voter registration

So, how do we cancel our voter registration and kill the presumptions it represents?

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 “allows the removal of a registrant’s name from the list of eligible voters, provided the information is confirmed in writing by the registrant.” It is not difficult to locate the appropriate government office to notify, as the United States Election Assistance Commission has compiled a directory identifying the entities to contact for each state.

This is the process I would use:

Step 1

Locate the appropriate entity to notify by clicking on the Election Assistance Commission’s Election Directory for Cancellation Notices.

Here are the cancellation ‘rules’ in the Ohio Revised Code:

3503.21 Occurrences resulting in cancellation of registration.

The filing by a registered elector of a written request with a board of elections, on a form prescribed by the secretary of state and signed by the elector, that the registration be canceled. The filing of such a request does not prohibit an otherwise qualified elector from reregistering to vote at any time.

If you don’t have access to a computer, just call the office of the Secretary of State in your state. They will be able to tell you what is needed.

Step 2

Do an online search for a cancellation form for the location on the list that applies to you. If you cannot find the form, contact the entity listed in the directory and request one.

Example of voter registration cancellation notice for Ohio

Step 3

Fill out the form, sign it and make a copy for your records.

NOTE: On the cancellation form for LA County, there was a non-citizen box to check. On the Ohio form there was not. So as I live in Ohio, I wrote the following above my name:

“This cancellation represents a declaration of my non US citizen political status.”

Step 4

Mail it in.

To nullify the only truly voluntary action we take to obligate ourselves to the commercial entity currently called ‘government’ – is a very important first step towards regaining our unalienable rights.

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

Higher Education or Education for Hire Corporatization and the Threat to Democratic Thinking

October 10th, 2016 by

http://www.academicmatters.ca/2010/04/higher-education-or-education-for-hire-corporatization-and-the-threat-to-democratic-thinking/

10-10-2016-8-25-20-am

By: Joel Westheimer  

Teaching critical thinking is the university’s democratic mission, argues the University of Ottawa’s Joel Westheimer, and today’s universities are failing to deliver. Universities need to reverse the trend that has them focusing on workforce preparation and the commercialization of knowledge and resurrect higher education’s public purpose.

Ten years ago, I was fired, which is not in and of itself interesting. After all, many people lose their jobs every day, especially in times of economic turbulence. For better or worse, however, most endure such indignity in privacy. The New York Times, under the headline “New York University Denied Tenure to Union Backer,” reported that the U.S. government’s National Labor Relations Board “charge[d] New York University with illegally denying tenure to a professor who had testified in favor of allowing graduate students to unionize.” The Chronicle of Higher Educationheadline read “A Promising Professor Backs a Union Drive and Is Rejected for Tenure.” Smaller papers and magazines made similar observations. I was more concerned at the time with wanting my job back than with thinking about the broader implications (the cacophony of negative publicity heaped on NYU offered a sense of just deserts to be sure). But thrust into the public position as I was did raise one particular concern for my scholarly interests in democratic education. Nearly every news story cast my lot as an isolated incident of vengeful retribution by a few university administrators rather than as a case of something much larger than one professor (me) or one university (NYU).

For the past 10 years I have been happily employed by the University of Ottawa and I am pleased to report that my children have not gone hungry. But whether others view my earlier dismissal as scandalous or justified, I find the following irrefutable: the forces that set the process in motion and enabled it to continue are an inevitable byproduct of dramatic changes the academy has been facing in the past several decades. These changes have little to do with  individual university employees and much to do with changes in the structures and workings of the academy itself – not only NYU, but also private and public universities across the United States and Canada. Universities now model themselves after corporations seeking to maximize profit, growth, and marketability. As a result, the democratic mission of the university as a public good has all but vanished. And many of the (never fully realized) ideals of academic life – academic freedom (in my case, freedom of political expression), intellectual independence, collective projects, and pursuit of the common good – have been circumscribed or taken off the table altogether on a growing number of college and university campuses across North America.

The effects of corporatization on the integrity of university research – especially in the sciences – has been well-documented elsewhere. Readers of Academic Matters are likely  familiar with the many cases of scientific compromise resulting from private commercial sponsorship of research by pharmaceutical and tobacco companies. Indeed, faculty throughout North America are already deluged with requests or demands to produce research that is “patentable” or “commercially viable.” Sometimes these entreaties are couched in gentler (some might argue more insidious) terms such as “knowledge mobilization” or “knowledge use.” What I want to focus on here, however, are implications that are less well explored but equally dangerous: the ways the academy’s shift towards a business model of education delivery impedes our collective ability to preserve and promote a democratic way of life. As in so many other arenas in our society today where democratic interests are pitted against economic ones, democracy seems to be losing.

Three developments stemming from the pursuit of a corporate model of education pose  threats not only to the historic ideal of a liberal democratic education but also to the future of democratic thinking itself. They are the elimination of critical thinking and a culture of criticism; the weakening of intellectual independence and democratic faculty governance; and the promotion of a meritocracy myth that drives the work of graduate students, junior and senior faculty alike. The first two erode democratic thinking by curbing the habits of mind and heart that enable democracy to flourish – what John Dewey called the “associated experience[s]” essential to democratic life. The last – the meritocracy myth – attacks the heart of these associated experiences by diminishing the power of the community to nurture collective meaning and worth.

The impact of the corporate campus on critical thinking

Within the unique university context, the most crucial of all human rights…are meaningless unless they entail the right to raise deeply disturbing questions and provocative challenges to the cherished beliefs of society at large and of the university itself…It is this human right to radical, critical teaching and research with which the University has a duty above all to be concerned; for there is no one else, no other institution and no other office, in our modern liberal democracy, which is the custodian of this most precious and vulnerable right of the liberated human spirit.

This excerpt from the mission statement of the University of Toronto might be hailed as a shining example of the centrality of university campuses in promoting and preserving critical thinking as the engine of progress in any democratic society. Except for one thing: institutional leaders at the university whose faculty drafted these words do not believe them and do not abide by them. The University of Toronto is the site of two of the most notoriously blatant violations of these principles in the past decade: the well-publicized cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy, involving the university’s unwillingness to stand up to corporate funders and protect academic freedom and the integrity of critical inquiry.

Unfortunately, the Olivieri and Healy cases do not stand alone. Scores of examples of scientific and social scientific research essential to public welfare are undermined by private influence. In fact, more than 52 per cent of funding for clinical medical research is now from corporate sources. The trend is easiest to spot and most publicly alarming in the medical sciences, since lives are at stake. But there is cause for concern as well in the humanities and social sciences, where publication of inconvenient truths can be discouraged by university higher-ups.

The harm to the reputation of the university as a reliable source of (especially “scientific”) information untainted by private conflicts of interest has been documented extensively. But the ways these changes affect the campus life of faculty and students has been considered far less. As universities turn to business models– becoming certification factories rather then institutions of higher learning – democratic educational ideals are fast becoming  obsolete. Consequently, professors find it more difficult in their teaching to foster critical thinking as a necessary underpinning of democratic participation. The “shopping mall” university where students seek the cheapest and fastest means for obtaining the basic skills and certification they need is becoming a familiar metaphor and model for university administrators, students, and parents. Courses not directly related to job-training look more and more like useless dust to be eliminated. Meetings among faculty about which program of courses might yield the most robust understanding of a field of study and of the debates and struggles that field entails are rapidly being replaced by brainstorming sessions about how to narrow the curriculum to fit into, for example, two weekends in order to incentivize matriculation and increase student enrollment.

The weakening of intellectual independence and democratic faculty governance

The state of affairs I describe above pertains mostly to the emaciated pedagogical potential of the newly corporatized university. But ultimately, what faculty—and especially junior faculty—are being asked to give up is their own intellectual independence. The creeping corporate climate of some university departments and schools can easily lead to the substitution of bureaucratic allegiance, in the form of “budget alignment” or “optimization” in the new parlance, for scholarly inquiry as the cornerstone of academic life. In some cases, the effect on the intellectual life of a department might be plain to see. In some schools and faculties, elected department chairs—who traditionally served terms of a few years and then eagerly returned to their intellectual pursuits within the department—have been replaced by chairs appointed by university higher-ups with no or at best perfunctory input from department faculty. Some stay in these positions for a decade or more with ever-diminishing interest in or focus on scholarly inquiry. In the Social Text article, “Tenure Denied,” (where I described more fully my experiences at NYU), I told of a colleague at a mid-western university whose department chair suggested to the faculty that research questions that the department wanted investigated should be agreed on by a committee (of senior faculty and administrators) and posted on a Web site—and that faculty should align their research with one of those questions. Requiring research to be streamlined according to central criteria (doubtless related to funding opportunities) makes perfect sense if one treats an academic department as a profit center. But it turns scholarly life into something less than we all hope it to be.

At times, the mere fact that departmental faculty are pursuing an active, diverse and uncontrolled set of research agendas may be perceived negatively by school administrators. While such departments continue to recruit promising scholars on the basis of their research production, the departmental leadership is caught in a bind. They need such scholars for the department’s reputation and grant-getting ability, but once there, these scholars may pose some threat to the order of business within the department (and to the security of the chair who has likely already traded the kind of professional security earned from scholarly inquiry and production for the kind won by allegiance and loyalty to university higher-ups).

Appointed chairs can slowly and steadily shift faculty focus from scholarly pursuits that advance a field to those that advance the chair, a possibility especially troubling to junior faculty seeking tenure. Much as external pressures on the corporate university constrain and refocus academic research, so too do internal incentives on the departmental level. As in much of university politics, junior faculty are the most vulnerable. Faculty governance in departments that have remade themselves along corporate culture lines can become little more than a parody of pseudo-democratic (or simply non-democratic) governance, in which faculty simply (and always) endorse administrative positions. Faculty managers’ and department chairs’ only convictions are those that do not ruffle administrative feathers of those higher up. And the chill that blankets departments in which power has been centralized results in the further entrenchment of anti-democratic tendencies.

Under these conditions, the university starts to look less like a place of free exchange of ideas and more like a Hobbesian Leviathan, a place that boasts, as former SUNY New Paltz president Roger Bowen warns, “a settled, conforming, obedient citizenry—not dissenters who challenge convention.” In these departments, junior faculty either conform or withdraw from departmental life after being tenured. The bottom line is raised to the top. Research that promotes the financial and hierarchical health of the administration is rewarded while independent scholarly thought is punished. Institutions of higher education become ones of education for hire. Undue administrative influence over research agendas, appointed department chairs and the further erosion of democratic governance, and the hiring of part-time and clinical faculty with no time for scholarly inquiry and little job security are all threats to both critical inquiry and university democracy.

Before moving on to my final point, I want to point out that these conditions are created not only by university administration but also by a complicit faculty who would rather not sacrifice research time to engage in something as time-consuming as democratic governance. In other words, a repressive hierarchy is not required for non-democratic decision-making to flourish. Were university administrators to honour democratic faculty governance fully, would faculty step up to the plate? Under a corporate model of governance, appointed department chairs may stay in their positions for a decade or more. A democratic model, however, would require those deeply engaged in scholarship and research to be willing (or required) to take on leadership positions in administration, in addition to their roles as teacher and scholar. Countering an increasingly hierarchical and corporatized model of university governance requires commitments of time and energy that many faculty now shun but that a just workplace requires.

The corporate benefits of the meritocracy myth

One final characteristic of the newly corporatized campus I want to address is the complicity of the professorial (and graduate student) culture. The pervasive culture of increasing individualism results in a story we tell ourselves that goes something like this: “We work in a merit-based system.  If I do my job correctly — if I’m a good graduate student or a good professor and I’m smart and I do my work well — I will be rewarded with a plum teaching assignment, and I will be part of the academic elite and get a job.” This is an unfortunate state of affairs for two reasons. The first is economic and concerns the entrenched system of academic labour. The simple reality is that for the majority of disciplines, the claim that the system is merit-based is just not true. There are vastly more qualified, hardworking individuals than there are tenure-track and tenured academic positions for them to fill. At a certain level of proficiency, it becomes the luck of the draw.

But the second cost of an emphasis on individualism in the form of the meritocracy myth might be more insidious. Faculty focused only on individualized measures of professional success miss out on the collective action that has an extensive history in democratic societies and that has sustained and driven countless scholars, artists, scientists, and activists: working together towards a common end. Merit-based rewards encourages faculty to work behind office doors, estranged from colleagues. As Marc Bousquet points out in his book, How the University Works, believing in the fantasy of merit results in a great loss to everyone, including those dubbed meritorious.

The corporate university, on the other hand, advances and benefits from the illusion that each of us will attain rock-star status in the academy. Some readers might recall the episode of the television show West Wing when fictional President Jeb Bartlett explains why Americans seem to vote against their own interests by protecting a tax system that benefits only the super rich. “It doesn’t matter if most voters don’t benefit,” he explains, “They all believe that someday they will. That’s the problem with the American dream. It makes everyone concerned for the day they’re going to be rich.” And so it goes for the star system in the academy. The more graduate students and professors believe that their hopes for professional satisfaction lies in superstar recognition for their individual work rather than in collective meaning-making and action, the easier it is for democratic life in the university to be compromised.

Conclusion

The language of individual entrepreneurship has become all-pervasive across many sectors of society.  It has, therefore, become increasingly difficult for faculty, administrators, students, and public officials even to talk about the public role of universities in a democratic society. This was not always the case. Universities in Canada, as elsewhere, were founded on ideals of knowledge and service in the public interest. Universities had a noble mission – if not always fulfilled – to create knowledge and foster learning that would serve the public good and contribute to the social welfare. Academic workers at all levels and of all kinds need to fight to regain this central mission. What is the role of the university in fostering civic leadership, civic engagement, and social cohesion? How can education re-invigorate democratic participation? How can colleges and universities strengthen our communities and our connections to one another?

I sometimes ask my education students to consider how schools in a democratic society should differ from those in a totalitarian nation. It seems plausible that a good lesson in chemistry or a foreign language might seem equally at home in many parts of the world. Every nation wants its educational institutions to prepare students for active participation in the workforce. So what would be different about teaching and learning in a Canadian classroom than in a classroom in a country governed by a one-ruling-party dictatorship? Most of us would like to believe that schools in a democratic nation would foster the skills and dispositions needed to participate fully in democratic life; namely, the ability to think critically and carefully about social policies, cultural assumptions and, especially, relations of power. Many schoolteachers and university professors, however, are concerned that students are learning more about how to please authority and secure a job than how to develop democratic convictions and stand up for them.

There are many powerful ways to teach young adults to think critically about social policy issues, participate in authentic debate over matters of importance, and understand that people of good will can have different opinions. Indeed democratic progress depends on these differences. If universities hope to strengthen democratic society, they must resist focusing  curriculum and research on skills-training, workforce preparation, and the commercialization of knowledge to the benefit of private industry. They must instead participate in the rebuilding of a public purpose for education. How to do so is a matter of professorial imagination.

Joel Westheimer holds the University Research Chair in Democracy and Education and is a Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Ottawa.

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

Dear Vladimir: It’s Not Us!

October 7th, 2016 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2016/10/dear-vladimir-its-not-us.html

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

We are going to say some things that you, Mr. President, are already aware of. We say them because the American People are tragically unaware of these facts and they need to know:

American foreign trade and foreign policy have been controlled by Britain for 227 years.

This is one of the results of the original states contracting for “essential government services” from the United States, which is a British-controlled corporation headquartered in the foreign international enclave known as the District of Columbia.

Most Americans have never read the Definitive Treaty of Peace, Paris, 1783, which shows that King George remained the “prince” and “Arch-Treasurer” of the “United States”. Most Americans have never read the actual Constitution and grasped the fact that this agreement gave Britain control of American Trade and Foreign Policy.

We can now see why we have been kept at nearly constant war for most of our history: Britain has used us as its Bully Boy to cause trouble and engage in war for profit throughout the rest of the world, just as it is trying to do now in the Middle East.

As a spider at the center of its web, Britain pulls the strings and through its agencies—the United States and British Crown– wrecks havoc calculated to fill its coffers with no risk and no exposure to itself. 

While directing a US foreign policy that is plainly self-destructive and insane from the American standpoint, Queen Elizabeth pretends to have clean hands and so does the Lord Mayor of London— but the historical documents and the facts are the facts.

All the trouble we are having in the Mideast is caused by Britain, not America.

And it always has been.

The Americans want free access to the Persian Gulf, unmolested by anyone, for the purposes of Free Trade.  And that is the only legitimate interest America has in the Middle East.

We trust that the EU is competent to solve its own gas and oil supply problems with no assistance from us. 

They could embrace and use free energy technology to solve a great many dependency problems.  They could use LNG and ship in supplies and develop storage capacities like Japan and China.  They could direct their re-investment capital to their already existing oil development projects in the North Sea.

Instead, British Intelligence is working to influence the outcome of US elections and trying to start WWIII.  Their recent exposure of CIA false flag activities is especially ironic, since British Intelligence controls the CIA and mandates all its actions. 

If you dig deep enough, it is always Britain at the bottom of the dog pile, causing war and destruction for the entire rest of the world. 

They have never been willing to live on their own talents and resources and have chosen to be parasites instead.  They have built their successive empires on fraud and human enslavement and legal chicanery.  They have never given up feudalism.  They have never given up colonialism. 

Most recently, they have moved their financial operations to China, with the result that 800 loyal Chinese Generals have been purged, and Russia and the “United States” are being pitted against each other at every turn while China sits smug and brags about all the gold it suddenly has. 

And nobody questions this?   

Britain disrespects the Constitutional agreements it has with the Americans on one hand, and on the other, abuses American trust.  They have used us as the front-men for British aggression and self-interest for generations,. They have deliberately confused their own puppet, the United States, with America and the American People, so as to blame us for their treachery and wrong-doing.   

Let everyone always remember that the “United States” is not America.

Let us also plainly state before God and everyone, that Britain and its corporate shadow government doing business as the “United States” is a problem for the entire world, including the Americans.

This time, if anyone goes to war, let’s make sure we get the real culprits and address the actual problem once and for all, instead of stupidly bashing each other for their benefit.

Rumors are circulating of a “tactical nuclear exchange” between the British-controlled United States and Russia.  Let us observe that there is no such thing as a tactical nuclear exchange and that if such a thing happened, it would rapidly spread to global destruction–and that destruction would be the result of British meddling, guile, and greed. 

Instead of targeting the hapless Americans whose worst sin is gullibility, please focus your fire power on Britain?  And ask your Chinese allies about their new Best Friends? 

If the Earth is to be destroyed in a firestorm of nuclear bombs unleashed because of the endless dishonesty and greed of British commercial interests, at least let’s all have the satisfaction of taking the actual perpetrators down with us? 

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

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Dear President Putin,

If you are goaded into nuking the free States of America, please make sure the first one get’s OBUMA! The State Nationals are not your enemy, they are just ignorant of their real status and have been brain washed all their life. Patriotic lies have been a powerful tool to involve us in one war after another, while the Banking Cartel laughs their ass off counting their profits.        

10 13 11 flagbar

How The ‘Deplorables’ Can Save America

September 29th, 2016 by

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3023-how-the-deplorables-can-save-america

By Brandon Smith

In my last article, “The Deplorables – Who We Are And What We Want,” I examined the basic philosophies that define what I call the liberty movement; the same group of Americans that Hillary Clinton admonishes as part of her “basket of deplorables.”

It is important to recognize that only foolish progressives actually take Clinton’s claims at face value. Clinton seeks to characterize a large subset of conservatives as narrow minded when she mentions the “deplorables.” But, it is how she defines “narrow minded” that is the crux of the thing.

When people like her talk about “racists,” they are referring to conservatives who want a secure southern border. When they talk about “Islamaphobes,” they are referring to people who want to stop Islamic refugees from being bused into the country without being vetted or philosophically and morally acclimated to our way of life. When they talk about sexists, they are usually referring to all males in general, because remember, social justice warriors (SJWs) claim that we are “subconsciously sexist,” even if we think we are fair to women. When they talk about homophobes, they are referring to Christian bakers who do not want to participate in services for gay weddings despite the fact that they should be perfectly free to refuse association with anyone at any time for any reason.

What Clinton and social justice lunatics are really referring to when they use these attacks are those people who want to be free to think and do as they see fit as long as they are not violating the constitutional rights of others. No one in Hillary’s basket is actually narrow minded, but she and her cronies pigeonhole them as narrow minded anyway.

Clinton is not actually worried about real racists, or real sexists or real homophobes. What she and the establishment are worried about are true conservatives, because our principles are not built on hate; they are built on reason and truth. It’s easy to defeat a movement driven by hate; it’s next to impossible to defeat a movement driven by truth.

It is absolutely essential for liberty activists to understand that the goal of the establishment will be to redefine the core of our movement. If they can repaint us as hateful, then we can be beaten. If they can fool us into acting against our principles in the name of winning by any means, then once again, we can be beaten. If we are able to retain our principles and repel the propaganda, then we will NEVER be beaten. Even the greatest war machines on Earth can be crushed by the force of a principled rebellion.

As my readers know well, I do not hold much optimism for America in the short term. Our economic status is dismal. In my article, “Brexit Aftermath – Here’s What Happens Next,” I warned that global markets would be experiencing a slow grinding decline into the U.S. elections. This is now occurring. It is my belief that international financiers and central banks will pull stimulus support from the global economy just before or just after the elections. I believe that the establishment will attempt to blame conservative movements for the fiscal crisis they created.

By extension, and as I have been predicting for many months, I believe that Donald Trump will be allowed into the White House. Whether Trump is aware of this dynamic or not, I do not know. The point is, our fight is just beginning, and it has nothing to do with a Trump presidency.

The U.S. cannot be saved from financial crisis; instability is a mathematical certainty. It is how we respond to this instability that will determine our success or failure. Here is what we “deplorables” must accomplish in the next decade if we are to rebuild America and defeat globalism.

Put An End To Economic Harmonization

Economic harmonization is nothing more than a globalist phrase meaning the socialist redistribution of wealth. Globalists and progressives will assert that capitalism is the cause of all our ailments. They will say it leads to an unfair allocation of wealth into the coffers of a select few through the “natural” evolution of corporate power. In reality, most socialist nations work side by side with corporations, and even the existence of the legal corporate model is owed to government interference in free markets. That is to say, there is nothing natural about corporations.

It was western governments that fabricated special legal protections for corporations including corporate personhood and limited liability. Without government protection, corporations could not exist at their current level of dominance. Therefore, bigger government and more government intervention in free markets will likely only serve to secure even greater empires for the corporate elite.

These empires can only be dismantled by removing government as a factor in free markets, and allowing true competition in business to return instead of corporate favoritism. As a part of this shift, the middle class must be allowed to thrive through innovation and production. Taxation designed to redistribute wealth only seems to harm burgeoning entrepreneurs and stifles their ability to use good ideas to compete with larger businesses and their superior capital.

Economic harmonization will eventually result in equality — it will make everyone equally poor. Only a handful of elites will ever be able to pursue economic success within this kind of framework.

The End Of Forced Multiculturalism

We’re tired of Cloward-Piven strategies used by cultural Marxists to undermine western principles and heritage. The bottom line is, some cultures are completely incompatible and they should not be roommates. Are we racist for holding this view? No, we’re just being practical. One look at the scheisse-storm hitting Europe right now and only an idiot or a Leftist with an agenda would argue that mass immigration of contrary cultures is a good idea.

Uncontrolled migrations of peoples from socialist nations into nations that desire free markets will only make the effort towards free markets impossible. Illegal immigration by people who only want taxpayer funded entitlements and that import their socialist ideals as they invade is counter to the health of a liberty-based model.

Harshly theocratic cultures also will not be able to integrate into a society that respects individual freedom. Social justice groups assume that religious freedom requires us to remain apathetic in the face of unchecked theocratic immigration (as long as it is anything other than Christian).  But, potential immigrants and illegal immigrants do not have legal rights under the U.S. Constitution. Religious freedom has nothing to do with immigration.

For example, fundamentalist Islamic culture does not mix with the traditional Western ideals of liberty and free market participation. Period.

Leftists are willfully blind to the distinction. Globalists understand the problem full well and they intend to exploit it. Their goal is to import counter-ideologies en masse in order to annihilate the last vestiges of the West.

Why? Because this is about eliminating the final obstacle to total globalization. They seek to wash out conservative and classical liberal thinking to make way for a collectivist system that outlaws sovereign philosophies as “barbaric.” It is not exactly an “ethnic cleansing;” more like an ideological cleansing of true conservativism.

We aren’t going to allow that.

This is why many in the liberty movement do in fact support a ban on all immigration into Western nations until the damage done by the multicultural cabal can be mitigated. Some may argue for a limited ban on the immigration of certain groups (including Muslims) and this is an issue where the “deplorables” diverge.

I personally don’t know how such a selective ban could be enforced without an insanely large, intrusive and expensive immigration bureaucracy designed to investigate and weed out millions of people not allowed under such a law. A simpler solution would be to freeze ALL immigration for a period of time (perhaps 10 years or more).

This would eliminate the need for the U.S. Citizenship And Immigration Services (USCIS). The $3.2 billion allocated to that entity could be spent better securing U.S. borders.

Frankly, there is nothing wrong with denying citizenship to immigrants for a period of time. The extreme left acts as if open immigration into our country is some kind of human right. It’s not.

A Less Inclusive Republican Party

It is perfectly healthy to be discriminating against ideologies and people that are destructive to inherent freedoms. I remember after Barack Obama took office for a second term that the common argument by Democratic and Republican elites alike was that it was “time for the Republican Party to be more inclusive” if they ever wanted to win the White House again.  What that really means in translation is, it was time for the Republican Party to move completely away from conservative values and be more like the Left.

In reality, the Republican Party needs to stop accommodating socialist and globalist ideals and be more selective in who its friends are, and who its leaders are. Either that, or the party needs to go the way of smallpox and die so that more honest political organizations can take its place.

The Eradication Of Language Policing

We “deplorables” have seen political correctness and social justice fear mongering turn our society into a simpering cesspool of terrified effeminate spineless men, deluded miserable vitriolic women who think they are men, and the rest of us who are supposed to walk on eggshells whenever the PC police are around while being sure to use the “proper pronouns.” I think not.

I think instead, the deplorables are going to say whatever the hell we feel like saying. Why should we concern ourselves with the irrational feelings of others? Why should we censor ourselves just to satisfy the ignorant notion that language shapes environment? Language is irrelevant to our internal monologue. Changing the language is not going to change our souls. Thus, controlling it is pointless and only serves to oppress the public.

We’re not going to refer to anyone by a gender other than what their genetics dictate. We don’t care if you wear make-up and a wig and a tampon. If you were born with a Y chromosome, then you are a man. Your personal freedoms do not include the right to force others to recognize you as a woman, a “trans,” a diva, a porpoise, etc. Your feelings do not matter. We are no longer going to participate in your gender role-play fantasies.

Some of us may at times play with race related jokes and have fun at the expense of other groups. We might argue that women actually don’t make very good Ghostbusters or that movies pontificating about slavery are becoming extraordinarily boring. We will probably refer to illegal immigrants as illegal immigrants and stare at beautiful women like we have x-ray vision.

Understand, there is nothing you can do to stop us, so you might as well spend your time doing something more constructive, like dropping out of gender studies and enrolling in a real college course.

No More Recognition Of Victim Group Status

For decades now it has become trendy for anyone besides white heterosexual males to blame all their failures on white heterosexual males. With all the gnashing of teeth over “white male privilege,” we might forget that the only groups with privileges under the law are victim groups. So much government preference is being given to these groups that almost everyone is now clamoring to categorize themselves as a victim in some sense.

The “transgender” movement is the culmination of this insanity; primarily because there is no such thing as a transgender person except the extremely rare occasion when someone is born with both male and female genitalia. Gender is biological, it is not fluid. You cannot argue with nature about your gender. Laws that govern gender issues should follow biological standards, not hollow psychological standards.

Today, anyone can simply say they are a victim group by virtue of what amounts to a mental illness. It is time to stop treating this mental illness as a civil rights issue. In turn, it is also time to stop government from designating privileges to groups based on arbitrary victimhood. Everyone today has equal rights under the law. Everything else should be based on merit. If you fail, then it is your own fault. To foster the notion in our society that the evil white man is to blame for all the inadequacies of every loser in the world is to do more harm to those losers than good. Instead, let them take responsibility for their failings so that they might actually strive to do better.

Limited Government

There are only a few reasonable purposes behind government — to defend the inborn liberties of the populace, to repel foreign invaders and to secure a sound monetary framework. That’s about it. But while we deplorables see these as limited powers and responsibilities, socialists and globalists see these as excuses for an infinitely expanding government behemoth.

For example, you can build a functioning military based on the militia model, in which every able-bodied citizen rises to the defense of their community and nation in the event of attack. This would be a cost-effective and less intrusive model.

Or, you can build a massive standing army with hundreds of bases around the world and a police state here at home, all funded by an unsustainable fiat money and debt system. This would be the big government model, which socialists argue is what government should do to fulfill its role.

Government can also be used to force private associations in the name of protecting the “rights” of others. A Christian taxpayer might be forced to fund entities they oppose, like Planned Parenthood (which receives around $500 million in tax dollars per year). This is the problem with open-ended nanny government; the individual freedom to associate is violated in the name of protecting the victim status of others.

This comes from a “fluid interpretation” of the Constitution and the role of government that allows expansion to be rationalized. To put an end to this would require we “deplorables” to assert a literal and limited interpretation.

True Free Markets

The establishment has spent the better part of the past 30 years trying to convince the world that globalism is a natural extension of the free market. It’s not. The fact is, globalism is a system thrust upon the people, not an organic evolution of economics.

True free market philosophy would dictate that if a model is destroying the wealth standards of a society, that society would naturally abandon it. If a model is elevating corporations, which are a product of government charter and are artificially supported by taxpayer dollars, then this is not conducive to real competition. If a model is allowing those same government chartered corporations to export jobs while destroying any chance for smaller competitors to fill the void through unfair taxation and other laws, then this creates economic instability. Without government intervention, globalism would not exist, because no society with a free market would naturally seek to destroy itself.

The “deplorables” want the end of all welfare, including corporate welfare and the concept of the “too big to fail” company. We want the end of government intervention in business and special favors for corporate elites. We also want the end of central banking and fiat debt based currency. It’s funny, but the mainstream media constantly accuses us of seeking an unfair world, but we are actually the only group of people working for a level playing field.

This concept terrifies progressives and corporate elites alike because without a socialist welfare system and special treatment for victim groups and companies, all success would then rely on merit. This means, they would have to work harder than most, or be smarter than most or be more naturally gifted than most in order to be more prosperous than most. Take a look at the millennials permeating the halls of universities today — those that espouse socialist ideals –and you will find yourself struggling to identify a single person with exceptional merit or work ethic.

Take a look at all the banks and corporate monstrosities that should have collapsed eight years ago due to terrible business practices. Under a free market, they would be failures, and rightly so.

As mentioned in my first article on the “deplorables,” these changes– which represent a redress of grievances over decades of American corruption –will not take place without years of struggle and sacrifice. Again, this is not about a Trump presidency or any other future election. This is about action on the part of regular men and women, average conservatives, everyday. This is about self sufficiency, localized economies, the return of individual producers, the refusal to comply with social justice-based laws and legislation, the return of community-based security rather than reliance on state and federal security, local efforts for border security, the punishment of criminal financial institutions, etc.; all of which will probably come at the cost of a fight with the establishment.

While you are welcome to vote for whatever candidate you please, remember that central leadership is not the solution. Self leadership is the solution. We do not need a hero on a white horse. The future is in OUR hands. Only by the efforts of millions of liberty champions in large and small ways can America return to prosperity, and to freedom.

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

 You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

You have just read the work of one of the most intelligent authors ever to put his thoughts on paper, or the electronic equivalent. Please understand that diversity is the death of freedom of thought, as well as action, and those who demand people should be able to do and believe any and everything they please simple do not care about their fellow human beings. They are totally self-centered and have no respect for anyone or thing they don’t support. They call this the only way to be fair to everyone, when anyone with half a brain knows better than to allow children to practice this foolish philosophy, why would one allow adults to do it? This putrid excuse of consideration only justifies tyranny.

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

Me and Walter Cronkite

September 20th, 2016 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2016/09/me-and-walter-cronkite.html

12-21-2015 3-19-06 PM

By Anna Von Reitz,

We got a real television (not the hopelessly grainy eyeball model) when I was four years old.  This black and white picture was also grainy, but you could see the faces clearly.  One of the first faces I became familiar with as a toddler and young child was Walter Cronkite

While other four year-olds were watching Huckleberry Hound and Mighty Mouse with religious devotion, I watched Walter. Every night.  Without fail.  I’d put on my Dale Evans cowgirl hat and red leather cowboy boots and mount my hobby horse sitting in front of the television and watch with morbid fascination.

I remember the Nixon v. Kennedy Debates and there aren’t too many people my age who have a clear recollection of that.

Like many Americans, I loved Walter. He had such a comforting voice and his dark, serious, but often gently amused eyes seemed to be looking straight into mine on many important occasions.

Of course, I trusted Walter.  Who didn’t?  So it came as a terrible shock to learn that he was lying to me!  Yes, Walter Cronkite was lying about all sorts of things and when I first discovered that, well, it was worse than learning the truth about Santa Claus.  Much worse.

It was worse because Santa was just a fictional character. Walter Cronkite was real. 

And he was lying about what happened to President Kennedy. 

Any fool, even a seven year-old, knew what happened in Dallas that day in November,1963.  Anyone who saw the television footage of the assassination knew what direction the bullet was coming from and nobody needed the Warren Commission to tell us any more lies about it.

We didn’t need the scapegoat, Lee Harvey Oswald.  We didn’t need Jack Ruby doing his final mafia hit. 

LBJ and his cronies killed JFK to make way for the war profiteering of Vietnam, the seduction of the States with “federal block grants”, to spool up the reign of the oil industry, and keep the central banks happy.

And there was Walter Cronkite, speaking in his calm, deliberate, serious, caring way, lying through his teeth about what was perfectly obvious to the naked eye. I was confused.  Heart-broken.  Severely disillusioned.  I was seven and one of my heroes was revealed to be a fraud.

So when 911 happened, the first words out of my mouth were, “Where is this Techni-Color Hollywood – quality newsfeed coming from?”

If 911 wasn’t a set-up, we’d be seeing jiggling shots taken by astonished tourists from three blocks away, grainy security camera footage from banks and hotels up and down the street—–but no, we saw 911 happen from every possible angle, in high definition color.  It was a set-up.  It was obviously a set-up.  Just like the Kennedy murder.

And just like the Kennedy murder, Bush assigned a “Blue Ribbon Committee” to white wash it and come up with fanciful excuses for it, and because the American People have trusted what they thought of as “their government” instead of their foreign vendors, they choked it down.  They were confused. They were patriotic.  They didn’t know what to think.

Well, I am telling you what the evidence shows.

The private, mostly foreign-owned governmental services corporation run by G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney murdered 3,000 innocent people from around the world with malice aforethought.  Their pals collected billions of dollars of insurance money instead of having to pay for the demolition of asbestos polluted office buildings.  Tons of gold bullion were stolen to pay for quasi-military black ops, mostly in support of the oil industry in the Mideast and the whole crappola war and take over in Iraq.  And hundreds of millions of records proving that the “government” corporation defrauded Americans were destroyed.

So you see, I knew 911 was a fraud and a false-flag and a set up from the first moments of news coverage I saw, and I didn’t need any scientific evidence, no thermite residue, no architectural and engineering analysis.  All I needed was the memory of Walter Cronkite shining me on about the Kennedy murder, and the fact that the 911 event was covered from all angles by professional movie crews.

I already told you all about why I stopped watching television news altogether (except for the weather report) in 1989 but let’s repeat.  I did a little experiment and kept track of how many stories had to do with sex and how many had to do with death and how many had to do with sex and death, both.  And I concluded that the actual useful news accounted for only about 5% of what was presented as “news” every night —- mostly the weather report. 

So my advice to everyone is — don’t believe a word the talking heads say and don’t be surprised or disappointed when Tom Brokaw admits that he doesn’t know a thing about the news stories he is parroting.  Journalism in this country died with the gag-orders imposed by the federal government corporation during World War II and ever since, with very, very rare exceptions that always result in lost careers—we have lived with a government controlled news media that is essentially just a giant propaganda machine designed to scare us and sell stuff to us by turns.

Turn the knob, push the button—- “Off!” — and start looking with your own eyes and listening with your own ears. It’s the only way you are ever going to know what is going on.

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

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

American’s where is your natural instinct? You should not have to be told that your early education was a surreptitious preparation for loving your enemies in Government, and hating all others. You should not have to be told that wars are insane, and no one ever wins a war, They are just the result of your indoctrination when you volunteer to be killed protecting something that never existed. You are like the man who killed his best friend for telling him his wife had been a whore for as long as he could remember, and had proof. He simply could not stop loving her because of all the years he had been with her had made him feel good about his self. Patriotism is a fool’s excuse for his ignorance. History will tell you there has never been a good government anywhere; ever! Turn off that stupid box and read!!!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

A hidden world growing beyond control

September 17th, 2016 by

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/1

 

Part 1

The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.

9-17-2016-10-00-07-am

These are some of the findings of a two-year investigation by The Washington Post that discovered what amounts to an alternative geography of the United States, a Top Secret America hidden from public view and lacking in thorough oversight. After nine years of unprecedented spending and growth, the result is that the system put in place to keep the United States safe is so massive that its effectiveness is impossible to determine.

The investigation’s other findings include:

* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.

* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

* In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings – about 17 million square feet of space.

* Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.

* Analysts who make sense of documents and conversations obtained by foreign and domestic spying share their judgment by publishing 50,000 intelligence reports each year – a volume so large that many are routinely ignored.

An alternative geography

Since Sept. 11, 2001, the top-secret world created to respond to the terrorist attacks has grown into an unwieldy enterprise spread over 10,000 U.S. locations. Launch Photo Gallery »

These are not academic issues; lack of focus, not lack of resources, was at the heart of the Fort Hood shooting that left 13 dead, as well as the Christmas Day bomb attempt thwarted not by the thousands of analysts employed to find lone terrorists but by an alert airline passenger who saw smoke coming from his seatmate.

They are also issues that greatly concern some of the people in charge of the nation’s security.

“There has been so much growth since 9/11 that getting your arms around that – not just for the

In the Department of Defense, where more than two-thirds of the intelligence programs reside, only a handful of senior officials – called Super Users – have the ability to even know about all the department’s activities. But as two of the Super Users indicated in interviews, there is simply no way they can keep up with the nation’s most sensitive work.

“I’m not going to live long enough to be briefed on everything” was how one Super User put it. The other recounted that for his initial briefing, he was escorted into a tiny, dark room, seated at a small table and told he couldn’t take notes. Program after program began flashing on a screen, he said, until he yelled ”Stop!” in frustration.

“I wasn’t remembering any of it,” he said.

Underscoring the seriousness of these issues are the conclusions of retired Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who was asked last year to review the method for tracking the Defense Department’s most sensitive programs. Vines, who once commanded 145,000 troops in Iraq and is familiar with complex problems, was stunned by what he discovered.

“I’m not aware of any agency with the authority, responsibility or a process in place to coordinate all these interagency and commercial activities,” he said in an interview. “The complexity of this system defies description.”

The result, he added, is that it’s impossible to tell whether the country is safer because of all this spending and all these activities. “Because it lacks a synchronizing process, it inevitably results in message dissonance, reduced effectiveness and waste,” Vines said. “We consequently can’t effectively assess whether it is making us more safe.”

The Post’s investigation is based on government documents and contracts, job descriptions, property records, corporate and social networking Web sites, additional records, and hundreds of interviews with intelligence, military and corporate officials and former officials. Most requested anonymity either because they are prohibited from speaking publicly or because, they said, they feared retaliation at work for describing their concerns.

The Post’s online database of government organizations and private companies was built entirely on public records. The investigation focused on top-secret work because the amount classified at the secret level is too large to accurately track.

Today’s article describes the government’s role in this expanding enterprise. Tuesday’s article describes the government’s dependence on private contractors. Wednesday’s is a portrait of one Top Secret America community. On the Web, an extensive, searchable database built by The Post about Top Secret America is available at washingtonpost.com/topsecretamerica.

Defense Secretary Gates, in his interview with The Post, said that he does not believe the system has become too big to manage but that getting precise data is sometimes difficult. Singling out the growth of intelligence units in the Defense Department, he said he intends to review those programs for waste. “Nine years after 9/11, it makes a lot of sense to sort of take a look at this and say, ‘Okay, we’ve built tremendous capability, but do we have more than we need?’ ” he said.

CIA Director Leon Panetta, who was also interviewed by The Post last week, said he’s begun mapping out a five-year plan for his agency because the levels of spending since 9/11 are not sustainable. “Particularly with these deficits, we’re going to hit the wall. I want to be prepared for that,” he said. “Frankly, I think everyone in intelligence ought to be doing that.”

In an interview before he resigned as the director of national intelligence in May, retired Adm. Dennis C. Blair said he did not believe there was overlap and redundancy in the intelligence world. “Much of what appears to be redundancy is, in fact, providing tailored intelligence for many different customers,” he said.

Blair also expressed confidence that subordinates told him what he needed to know. “I have visibility on all the important intelligence programs across the community, and there are processes in place to ensure the different intelligence capabilities are working together where they need to,” he said.

Weeks later, as he sat in the corner of a ballroom at the Willard Hotel waiting to give a speech, he mused about The Post’s findings. “After 9/11, when we decided to attack violent extremism, we did as we so often do in this country,” he said. “The attitude was, if it’s worth doing, it’s probably worth overdoing.”

Part 2

Outside a gated subdivision of mansions in McLean, a line of cars idles every weekday morning as a new day in Top Secret America gets underway. The drivers wait patiently to turn left, then crawl up a hill and around a bend to a destination that is not on any public map and not announced by any street sign.

Liberty Crossing tries hard to hide from view. But in the winter, leafless trees can’t conceal a mountain of cement and windows the size of five Wal-Mart stores stacked on top of one another rising behind a grassy berm. One step too close without the right badge, and men in black jump out of nowhere, guns at the ready.

Past the armed guards and the hydraulic steel barriers, at least 1,700 federal employees and 1,200 private contractors work at Liberty Crossing, the nickname for the two headquarters of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and its National Counterterrorism Center. The two share a police force, a canine unit and thousands of parking spaces.

Liberty Crossing is at the center of the collection of U.S. government agencies and corporate contractors that mushroomed after the 2001 attacks. But it is not nearly the biggest, the most costly or even the most secretive part of the 9/11 enterprise.

In an Arlington County office building, the lobby directory doesn’t include the Air Force’s mysteriously named XOIWS unit, but there’s a big “Welcome!” sign in the hallway greeting visitors who know to step off the elevator on the third floor. In Elkridge, Md., a clandestine program hides in a tall concrete structure fitted with false windows to look like a normal office building. In Arnold, Mo., the location is across the street from a Target and a Home Depot. In St. Petersburg, Fla., it’s in a modest brick bungalow in a run-down business park.

9-17-2016-10-02-53-am

Each day at the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean, workers review at least 5,000 pieces of terrorist-related data from intelligence agencies and keep an eye on world events. (Photo by: Melina Mara / The Washington Post)

Every day across the United States, 854,000 civil servants, military personnel and private contractors with top-secret security clearances are scanned into offices protected by electromagnetic locks, retinal cameras and fortified walls that eavesdropping equipment cannot penetrate.

This is not exactly President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex,” which emerged with the Cold War and centered on building nuclear weapons to deter the Soviet Union. This is a national security enterprise with a more amorphous mission: defeating transnational violent extremists.

Much of the information about this mission is classified. That is the reason it is so difficult to gauge the success and identify the problems of Top Secret America, including whether money is being spent wisely. The U.S. intelligence budget is vast, publicly announced last year as $75 billion, 21/2 times the size it was on Sept. 10, 2001. But the figure doesn’t include many military activities or domestic counterterrorism programs.

At least 20 percent of the government organizations that exist to fend off terrorist threats were established or refashioned in the wake of 9/11. Many that existed before the attacks grew to historic proportions as the Bush administration and Congress gave agencies more money than they were capable of responsibly spending.

The Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, for example, has gone from 7,500 employees in 2002 to 16,500 today. The budget of the National Security Agency, which conducts electronic eavesdropping, doubled. Thirty-five FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces became 106. It was phenomenal growth that began almost as soon as the Sept. 11 attacks ended.

Nine days after the attacks, Congress committed $40 billion beyond what was in the federal budget to fortify domestic defenses and to launch a global offensive against al-Qaeda. It followed that up with an additional $36.5 billion in 2002 and $44 billion in 2003. That was only a beginning.

With the quick infusion of money, military and intelligence agencies multiplied. Twenty-four organizations were created by the end of 2001, including the Office of Homeland Security and the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Task Force. In 2002, 37 more were created to track weapons of mass destruction, collect threat tips and coordinate the new focus on counterterrorism. That was followed the next year by 36 new organizations; and 26 after that; and 31 more; and 32 more; and 20 or more each in 2007, 2008 and 2009.

In all, at least 263 organizations have been created or reorganized as a response to 9/11. Each has required more people, and those people have required more administrative and logistic support: phone operators, secretaries, librarians, architects, carpenters, construction workers, air-conditioning mechanics and, because of where they work, even janitors with top-secret clearances.

With so many more employees, units and organizations, the lines of responsibility began to blur. To remedy this, at the recommendation of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, the George W. Bush administration and Congress decided to create an agency in 2004 with overarching responsibilities called the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to bring the colossal effort under control.

Part 3

While that was the idea, Washington has its own ways.

The first problem was that the law passed by Congress did not give the director clear legal or budgetary authority over intelligence matters, which meant he wouldn’t have power over the individual agencies he was supposed to control.

The second problem: Even before the first director, Ambassador John D. Negroponte, was on the job, the turf battles began. The Defense Department shifted billions of dollars out of one budget and into another so that the ODNI could not touch it, according to two senior officials who watched the process. The CIA reclassified some of its most sensitive information at a higher level so the National Counterterrorism Center staff, part of the ODNI, would not be allowed to see it, said former intelligence officers involved.

And then came a problem that continues to this day, which has to do with the ODNI’s rapid expansion.

When it opened in the spring of 2005, Negroponte’s office was all of 11 people stuffed into a secure vault with closet-size rooms a block from the White House. A year later, the budding agency moved to two floors of another building. In April 2008, it moved into its huge permanent home, Liberty Crossing.

Today, many officials who work in the intelligence agencies say they remain unclear about what the ODNI is in charge of. To be sure, the ODNI has made some progress, especially in intelligence-sharing, information technology and budget reform. The DNI and his managers hold interagency meetings every day to promote collaboration. The last director, Blair, doggedly pursued such nitty-gritty issues as procurement reform, compatible computer networks, tradecraft standards and collegiality.

But improvements have been overtaken by volume at the ODNI, as the increased flow of intelligence data overwhelms the system’s ability to analyze and use it. Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications. The NSA sorts a fraction of those into 70 separate databases. The same problem bedevils every other intelligence agency, none of which have enough analysts and translators for all this work.

The practical effect of this unwieldiness is visible, on a much smaller scale, in the office of Michael Leiter, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Leiter spends much of his day flipping among four computer monitors lined up on his desk. Six hard drives sit at his feet. The data flow is enormous, with dozens of databases feeding separate computer networks that cannot interact with one another.

There is a long explanation for why these databases are still not connected, and it amounts to this: It’s too hard, and some agency heads don’t really want to give up the systems they have. But there’s some progress: “All my e-mail on one computer now,” Leiter says. “That’s a big deal.”

Part 4

To get another view of how sprawling Top Secret America has become, just head west on the toll road toward Dulles International Airport.

As a Michaels craft store and a Books-A-Million give way to the military intelligence giants Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, find the off-ramp and turn left. Those two shimmering-blue five-story ice cubes belong to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which analyzes images and mapping data of the Earth’s geography. A small sign obscured by a boxwood hedge says so.

Across the street, in the chocolate-brown blocks, is Carahsoft, an intelligence agency contractor specializing in mapping, speech analysis and data harvesting. Nearby is the government’s Underground Facility Analysis Center. It identifies overseas underground command centers associated with weapons of mass destruction and terrorist groups, and advises the military on how to destroy them.

Clusters of top-secret work exist throughout the country, but the Washington region is the capital of Top Secret America.

About half of the post-9/11 enterprise is anchored in an arc stretching from Leesburg south to Quantico, back north through Washington and curving northeast to Linthicum, just north of the Baltimore-Washington International Marshall Airport. Many buildings sit within off-limits government compounds or military bases.
Others occupy business parks or are intermingled with neighborhoods, schools and shopping centers and go unnoticed by most people who live or play nearby.

Many of the newest buildings are not just utilitarian offices but also edifices “on the order of the pyramids,” in the words of one senior military intelligence officer.

Not far from the Dulles Toll Road, the CIA has expanded into two buildings that will increase the agency’s office space by one-third. To the south, Springfield is becoming home to the new $1.8 billion National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency headquarters, which will be the fourth-largest federal building in the area and home to 8,500 employees. Economic stimulus money is paying hundreds of millions of dollars for this kind of federal construction across the region.

9-17-2016-10-04-16-amConstruction for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency in Springfield (Photo by: Michael S. Williamson / The Washington Post)

It’s not only the number of buildings that suggests the size and cost of this expansion, it’s also what is inside: banks of television monitors. “Escort-required” badges. X-ray machines and lockers to store cellphones and pagers. Keypad door locks that open special rooms encased in metal or permanent dry wall, impenetrable to eavesdropping tools and protected by alarms and a security force capable of responding within 15 minutes. Every one of these buildings has at least one of these rooms, known as a SCIF, for sensitive compartmented information facility. Some are as small as a closet; others are four times the size of a football field.

SCIF size has become a measure of status in Top Secret America, or at least in the Washington region of it. “In D.C., everyone talks SCIF, SCIF, SCIF,” said Bruce Paquin, who moved to Florida from the Washington region several years ago to start a SCIF construction business. “They’ve got the penis envy thing going. You can’t be a big boy unless you’re a three-letter agency and you have a big SCIF.”

SCIFs are not the only must-have items people pay attention to. Command centers, internal television networks, video walls, armored SUVs and personal security guards have also become the bling of national security.

“You can’t find a four-star general without a security detail,” said one three-star general now posted in Washington after years abroad. “Fear has caused everyone to have stuff. Then comes, ‘If he has one, then I have to have one.’ It’s become a status symbol.”

Part 5

Among the most important people inside the SCIFs are the low-paid employees carrying their lunches to work to save money. They are the analysts, the 20- and 30-year-olds making $41,000 to $65,000 a year, whose job is at the core of everything Top Secret America tries to do.

At its best, analysis melds cultural understanding with snippets of conversations, coded dialogue, anonymous tips, even scraps of trash, turning them into clues that lead to individuals and groups trying to harm the United States.

Their work is greatly enhanced by computers that sort through and categorize data. But in the end, analysis requires human judgment, and half the analysts are relatively inexperienced, having been hired in the past several years, said a senior ODNI official. Contract analysts are often straight out of college and trained at corporate headquarters.

When hired, a typical analyst knows very little about the priority countries – Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan – and is not fluent in their languages. Still, the number of intelligence reports they produce on these key countries is overwhelming, say current and former intelligence officials who try to cull them every day. The ODNI doesn’t know exactly how many reports are issued each year, but in the process of trying to find out, the chief of analysis discovered 60 classified analytic Web sites still in operation that were supposed to have been closed down for lack of usefulness. “Like a zombie, it keeps on living” is how one official describes the sites.

The problem with many intelligence reports, say officers who read them, is that they simply re-slice the same facts already in circulation. “It’s the soccer ball syndrome. Something happens, and they want to rush to cover it,” said Richard H. Immerman, who was the ODNI’s assistant deputy director of national intelligence for analytic integrity and standards until early 2009. “I saw tremendous overlap.”

Even the analysts at the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which is supposed to be where the most sensitive, most difficult-to-obtain nuggets of information are fused together, get low marks from intelligence officials for not producing reports that are original, or at least better than the reports already written by the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency or Defense Intelligence Agency.

When Maj. Gen. John M. Custer was the director of intelligence at U.S. Central Command, he grew angry at how little helpful information came out of the NCTC. In 2007, he visited its director at the time, retired Vice Adm. John Scott Redd, to tell him so. “I told him that after 4 1/2 years, this organization had never produced one shred of information that helped me prosecute three wars!” he said loudly, leaning over the table during an interview.

Two years later, Custer, now head of the Army’s intelligence school at Fort Huachuca, Ariz., still gets red-faced recalling that day, which reminds him of his frustration with Washington’s bureaucracy. “Who has the mission of reducing redundancy and ensuring everybody doesn’t gravitate to the lowest-hanging fruit?” he said. “Who orchestrates what is produced so that everybody doesn’t produce the same thing?”

He’s hardly the only one irritated. In a secure office in Washington, a senior intelligence officer was dealing with his own frustration. Seated at his computer, he began scrolling through some of the classified information he is expected to read every day: CIA World Intelligence Review, WIRe-CIA, Spot Intelligence Report, Daily Intelligence Summary, Weekly Intelligence Forecast, Weekly Warning Forecast, IC Terrorist Threat Assessments, NCTC Terrorism Dispatch, NCTC Spotlight . . .

It’s too much, he complained. The inbox on his desk was full, too. He threw up his arms, picked up a thick, glossy intelligence report and waved it around, yelling.

“Jesus! Why does it take so long to produce?”

“Why does it have to be so bulky?”

“Why isn’t it online?”

The overload of hourly, daily, weekly, monthly and annual reports is actually counterproductive, say people who receive them. Some policymakers and senior officials don’t dare delve into the backup clogging their computers. They rely instead on personal briefers, and those briefers usually rely on their own agency’s analysis, re-creating the very problem identified as a main cause of the failure to thwart the attacks: a lack of information-sharing.

9-17-2016-10-06-19-am

A new Defense Department office complex goes up in Alexandria. (Photo by: Michael S. Williamson / The Washington Post)

The ODNI’s analysis office knows this is a problem. Yet its solution was another publication, this one a daily online newspaper, Intelligence Today. Every day, a staff of 22 culls more than two dozen agencies’ reports and 63 Web sites, selects the best information and packages it by originality, topic and region.

Analysis is not the only area where serious overlap appears to be gumming up the national security machinery and blurring the lines of responsibility.

Within the Defense Department alone, 18 commands and agencies conduct information operations, which aspire to manage foreign audiences’ perceptions of U.S. policy and military activities overseas.

And all the major intelligence agencies and at least two major military commands claim a major role in cyber-warfare, the newest and least-defined frontier.

“Frankly, it hasn’t been brought together in a unified approach,” CIA Director Panetta said of the many agencies now involved in cyber-warfare.

“Cyber is tremendously difficult” to coordinate, said Benjamin A. Powell, who served as general counsel for three directors of national intelligence until he left the government last year. “Sometimes there was an unfortunate attitude of bring your knives, your guns, your fists and be fully prepared to defend your turf.” Why? “Because it’s funded, it’s hot and it’s sexy.”

Part 6

Last fall, U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly opened fire at Fort Hood, Tex., killing 13 people and wounding 30. In the days after the shootings, information emerged about Hasan’s increasingly strange behavior at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where he had trained as a psychiatrist and warned commanders that they should allow Muslims to leave the Army or risk “adverse events.” He had also exchanged e-mails with a well-known radical cleric in Yemen being monitored by U.S. intelligence.

 

Anti-Deception Technologies

From avatars and lasers to thermal cameras and fidget meters, this multimedia gallery takes a look at some of the latest technologies being developed by the government and private companies to thwart terrorists. Launch Gallery »

But none of this reached the one organization charged with handling counterintelligence investigations within the Army. Just 25 miles up the road from Walter Reed, the Army’s 902nd Military Intelligence Group had been doing little to search the ranks for potential threats. Instead, the 902’s commander had decided to turn the unit’s attention to assessing general terrorist affiliations in the United States, even though the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI’s 106 Joint Terrorism Task Forces were already doing this work in great depth.

The 902nd, working on a program the commander named RITA, for Radical Islamic Threat to the Army, had quietly been gathering information on Hezbollah, Iranian Republican Guard and al-Qaeda student organizations in the United States. The assessment “didn’t tell us anything we didn’t know already,” said the Army’s senior counterintelligence officer at the Pentagon.

Secrecy and lack of coordination have allowed organizations, such as the 902nd in this case, to work on issues others were already tackling rather than take on the much more challenging job of trying to identify potential jihadist sympathizers within the Army itself.

Beyond redundancy, secrecy within the intelligence world hampers effectiveness in other ways, say defense and intelligence officers. For the Defense Department, the root of this problem goes back to an ultra-secret group of programs for which access is extremely limited and monitored by specially trained security officers.
These are called Special Access Programs – or SAPs – and the Pentagon’s list of code names for them runs 300 pages. The intelligence community has hundreds more of its own, and those hundreds have thousands of sub-programs with their own limits on the number of people authorized to know anything about them. All this means that very few people have a complete sense of what’s going on.

“There’s only one entity in the entire universe that has visibility on all SAPs – that’s God,” said James R. Clapper, undersecretary of defense for intelligence and the Obama administration’s nominee to be the next director of national intelligence.

Such secrecy can undermine the normal chain of command when senior officials use it to cut out rivals or when subordinates are ordered to keep secrets from their commanders.

One military officer involved in one such program said he was ordered to sign a document prohibiting him from disclosing it to his four-star commander, with whom he worked closely every day, because the commander was not authorized to know about it. Another senior defense official recalls the day he tried to find out about a program in his budget, only to be rebuffed by a peer. “What do you mean you can’t tell me? I pay for the program,” he recalled saying in a heated exchange.

Another senior intelligence official with wide access to many programs said that secrecy is sometimes used to protect ineffective projects. “I think the secretary of defense ought to direct a look at every single thing to see if it still has value,” he said. “The DNI ought to do something similar.”

The ODNI hasn’t done that yet. The best it can do at the moment is maintain a database of the names of the most sensitive programs in the intelligence community. But the database does not include many important and relevant Pentagon projects.

Part 7

Because so much is classified, illustrations of what goes on every day in Top Secret America can be hard to ferret out. But every so often, examples emerge. A recent one shows the post-9/11 system at its best and its worst.

Last fall, after eight years of growth and hirings, the enterprise was at full throttle when word emerged that something was seriously amiss inside Yemen. In response, President Obama signed an order sending dozens of secret commandos to that country to target and kill the leaders of an al-Qaeda affiliate.

In Yemen, the commandos set up a joint operations center packed with hard drives, forensic kits and communications gear. They exchanged thousands of intercepts, agent reports, photographic evidence and real-time video surveillance with dozens of top-secret organizations in the United States.

That was the system as it was intended. But when the information reached the National Counterterrorism Center in Washington for analysis, it arrived buried within the 5,000 pieces of general terrorist-related data that are reviewed each day. Analysts had to switch from database to database, from hard drive to hard drive, from screen to screen, just to locate what might be interesting to study further.

As military operations in Yemen intensified and the chatter about a possible terrorist strike increased, the intelligence agencies ramped up their effort. The flood of information into the NCTC became a torrent.

Somewhere in that deluge was even more vital data. Partial names of someone in Yemen. A reference to a Nigerian radical who had gone to Yemen. A report of a father in Nigeria worried about a son who had become interested in radical teachings and had disappeared inside Yemen.

These were all clues to what would happen when a Nigerian named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab left Yemen and eventually boarded a plane in Amsterdam bound for Detroit. But nobody put them together because, as officials would testify later, the system had gotten so big that the lines of responsibility had become hopelessly blurred.

“There are so many people involved here,” NCTC Director Leiter told Congress.

“Everyone had the dots to connect,” DNI Blair explained to the lawmakers. “But I hadn’t made it clear exactly who had primary responsibility.”

And so Abdulmutallab was able to step aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253. As it descended toward Detroit, he allegedly tried to ignite explosives hidden in his underwear. It wasn’t the very expensive, very large 9/11 enterprise that prevented disaster. It was a passenger who saw what he was doing and tackled him. “We didn’t follow up and prioritize the stream of intelligence,” White House counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan explained afterward. “Because no one intelligence entity, or team or task force was assigned responsibility for doing that follow-up investigation.”

Blair acknowledged the problem. His solution: Create yet another team to run down every important lead. But he also told Congress he needed more money and more analysts to prevent another mistake.

More is often the solution proposed by the leaders of the 9/11 enterprise. After the Christmas Day bombing attempt, Leiter also pleaded for more – more analysts to join the 300 or so he already had.

The Department of Homeland Security asked for more air marshals, more body scanners and more analysts, too, even though it can’t find nearly enough qualified people to fill its intelligence unit now. Obama has said he will not freeze spending on national security, making it likely that those requests will be funded.

More building, more expansion of offices continues across the country. A $1.7 billion NSA data-processing center will be under construction soon near Salt Lake City. In Tampa, the U.S. Central Command’s new 270,000-square-foot intelligence office will be matched next year by an equally large headquarters building, and then, the year after that, by a 51,000-square-foot office just for its special operations section.

Just north of Charlottesville, the new Joint-Use Intelligence Analysis Facility will consolidate 1,000 defense intelligence analysts on a secure campus.

Meanwhile, five miles southeast of the White House, the DHS has broken ground for its new headquarters, to be shared with the Coast Guard. DHS, in existence for only seven years, already has its own Special Access Programs, its own research arm, its own command center, its own fleet of armored cars and its own 230,000-person workforce, the third-largest after the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.

Soon, on the grounds of the former St. Elizabeths mental hospital in Anacostia, a $3.4 billion showcase of security will rise from the crumbling brick wards. The new headquarters will be the largest government complex built since the Pentagon, a major landmark in the alternative geography of Top Secret America and four times as big as Liberty Crossing.

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Ladies and gentlemen there is nothing on earth that government can’t fuck up, when their secret objective is to bankrupt every thing in America and the rest of the world, so the new world order is justified. At least in their minds, this is being obedient to their masters, The Investment Banking Cartel. What stupid s.o.b. will be advising his/her boss that I am a threat to National security, just so he/she can take home more money than they’re worth? Welcome to hell on earth!

10 13 11 flagbar

 

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

Sex To Become Obsolete As A Way Of Procreating

September 15th, 2016 by

https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2016/06/17/sex-become-obsolete-way-procreating/

 9-15-2016-8-48-18-am

Written By: Aurora Macrae-Crerar June 17, 2016

TN Note: Huxley’s 1932 book Brave New World wrote of fully engineered test-tube babies who were created for their particular stations of society, work and education. The time for public ethical debate is now, because scientists are moving full-speed ahead without public input. It is important to recognize that almost all of this kind of research is being conducted with some form of taxpayer funding. The Technocrat-minded scientist invents because he can.

Stanford law professor and bioethicist Hank Greely predicts that in the future most people in developed countries won’t have sex to make babies. Instead they’ll choose to control their child’s genetics by making embryos in a lab.

On KQED’s Forum program, Michael Krasny spoke with Greely about his new book, The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction. Greely highlights the ethical and legal questions that might arise in the future’s reproductive paradigm.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Krasny: There are a lot of new advances, technology and so forth. We reached the point where you get some sperm donor and a little piece of skin and you’re in business because of stem cells.

Greely: My book argues that two different biomedical innovations coming from different directions and not really propelled by reproduction are going to combine here. One is whole-genome sequencing, and the other is what I call easy PGD, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, [that] is, getting rid of egg harvest … which is unpleasant, dangerous and really expensive.

This ties in with in vitro fertilization also being not as onerous as it has been in the past.

What I think is going to happen, we’ll be able to take some skin cells from anyone and turn them into any cell type. Make these into eggs or sperm and that is going to make IVF much easier, cheaper and less dangerous.

You [can] decide, “Well, I want these traits,” and it becomes a selective process.

Yes, I think we will see an increased and broad use of embryo selection. I would be careful to set the time frame at 20-40 years. I think we’ll actually see a world where most babies born to people with good health coverage will be conceived in the lab. People will make about a hundred embryos, each will have its whole genome tested, and the parents will be [asked … “Tell] us what you want to know and then tell us what embryo you want.”

This could bring down health care costs, and it is also good for same-sex couples, isn’t it?

Well, yes and maybe. I think it should bring down health care costs, and, in fact, one of the advantages to it is that it would be so beneficial for public health care costs that I think it would be provided for free. If it costs say, $10,000 to start a baby this way, 100 babies is a million dollars. If you avoid the birth of one baby with a serious genetic disease, you’ve saved $3 [million to] $5 million. The same-sex issue, I think that’s going to work, but that’s another jump. That would be taking a skin cell … from a woman and turning it into a sperm. I think [it’s] probable, but that hasn’t been done yet.

This is not the end of sex — because recreational sex will always be with us — it’s the end of sex as a way of procreating.

I think it will not be the complete end. I think people will still get pregnant the old-fashioned way, right, sometimes for religious reasons, sometimes for philosophical reasons, sometimes for romantic reasons, sometimes because they are teenagers and the back seat of the car is there.

A lot of people talk about playing God, but before we get into that, there’s the rubric of consumer eugenics. And there is a eugenics fear when we start talking about selection.

There certainly is. Eugenics is a slippery word; it means many things to different people. To some, it’s state-enforced reproductive control. To some … what we had was state-enforced sterilization. To some, it’s any kind of reproductive choices, but those are different things. For me, I think the coercion is much more important than the issues of selection. The concern about the state or the insurance company or someone else, forcing you to pick particular babies, worries me a lot more than having parents make choices, though that raises its own set of questions.

What do you see as the biggest question here?

I worry about the dilemma of Republican legislators in very conservative states. They want to spend as little money as possible on Medicaid. I could imagine a state saying, “We’re not going to pay for this via Medicaid,” which would mean that the roughly 40-50 percent of babies born in that state who are paid for by Medicaid wouldn’t get to go through this, and although they are not “superbabies,” adding another 10-20 percent health advantage to the babies of the rich over the babies of the poor is a bad thing.

Listen to the full interview here. Greely shares his thoughts on cost, socioeconomics, gene editing and the ethics of designer babies.

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

 

 

 


Pages: Prev 1 2
SEO Powered By SEOPressor