Log in



Categories » ‘Imperial Intervention’

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

April 7th, 2016 by

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin903.htm

By Chuck Baldwin
April 7, 2016
NewsWithViews.com

Several friends and supporters around the country have recently asked me the question, “Where do we go from here?” These are people who love and fear God, who love their country, who love freedom, who see the burgeoning abridgments of our liberties by an overbearing and ever-intrusive federal government, and who, frankly, see little reason to believe that either political party will do much of anything to change things–regardless of who is elected. And, frankly, I share their frustration.

For the most part, the two major parties are controlled by the same big-government, Police State-loving, war-mongering, power-hungry, egotistical elitist clubmen whose only aim is to satisfy their insatiable appetite for personal gain. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who isn’t willing to lick the boots and kiss the rings of the establishment elite will unleash the wrath of the fire-breathing dragons in both parties–not to mention their toadies in the propaganda media.

Normally, there will be but one anti-establishment candidate capable of upsetting the establishment applecart in a given presidential race. During the last half-century or so, that means men such as Barry Goldwater, George Wallace, John Anderson, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, and Ron Paul. These men are summarily run over by the combined force of the political and media establishments–or in the case of Wallace, shot–thus ensuring that no matter which major party candidate wins, the establishment wins.

This is why no matter which party controls the White House and Congress, the beat goes on for the establishment elite: more and more government growth and spending; more and more intrusions into our personal lives; more and more jobs shipped overseas; more and more illegal immigration; more and more foreign wars; more and more federal usurpation of State sovereignty; more and more power to overbearing federal agencies such as the BLM and EPA; and more and more economic hardship on the middle class.

The problem for the establishment this year is that there is not one, but two anti-establishment candidates in the hunt: one in each party. The combined candidacies of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are making life a veritable hell for the establishment elite. The fact that so many millions of people from both the left and the right are supporting these two men is definite cause for the establishment to be concerned. The anger and frustration of the American people with the establishment are VERY real.

In addition, millions of people have completely given up on the ballot box. The testimonies of computer hackers claiming to have rigged voting machines or to being eyewitnesses to vote fraud, the overt manipulation of party delegates, rules and procedures, and the track record of nothing changing no matter who is elected (as referenced above) have caused millions of people to give up voting altogether. There are more people who believe that voting is a complete waste of time today than at any time in our nation’s history. This does not bode well for our future. Feelings of hopelessness and desperation are usually the things that revolutions are made of.

So, where do we go from here?

Let’s begin here: it is absolutely certain that, while Washington, D.C., is a major part of our problem, it is NOT our solution. As the comic strip character Pogo said, “We have found the enemy, and it is us.” And the “us” in this equation is mostly those who profess to be “Christians” and those who profess to be “Patriots.”

“Christians”

Most Christians are familiar with the Scripture that says “judgment must begin at the house of God.” (I Peter 4:17) The problem with Old Testament Israel was NOT the Canaanites or the Moabites or the Girgashites or the Ammonites or the Midianites, ad infinitum. The problem with Old Testament Israel was Old Testament Israel. God’s people brought judgment upon themselves. So it is today.

Christians love to curse the sins (mostly the sins of the flesh) of actors, entertainers, celebrities, and even one another. But the greater and more predominate sins of the church are totally and completely ignored. And in the pulpit, the most notable sin is the sin of silence.

Christians are content to sit in front of pulpits that are totally silent on the salient issues facing our country. Oh, some may complain about their pastors not speaking out on the issues, but they continue to support these pastors with their attendance and offerings nonetheless. As long as Christians continue to give aid and comfort to these pandering pulpits, NOTHING will change in this country–no matter who is elected to public office.

Beyond that, the church itself is filled with the things that God hates. When naming the particular sins that He hates, God included:

  • Pride
    Lying
    Hands that shed innocent blood
    A heart that devises wicked imaginations
    Feet that are swift to run into mischief
    A false witness that speaks lies
    People that sow discord among brethren (See Proverbs 6:16-19)

I submit that our churches are literally immersed in the sins listed above. Pride, arrogance, stubbornness, rebelliousness, deceit, backbiting, gossip, slander, character assassination, selfish ambition, insubordination, lying, false testimony, discord, discontent, malcontent, and troublemaking fill our churches. People such as these don’t want God’s men in the pulpit to be prophets; they want them to be glorified babysitters: coddling and pampering spoiled spiritual babies.

God said he HATES this kind of stuff. Until these kinds of sins (amounting to nothing more than spiritual idolatry or the idolization of self) are judged in the church, God will continue to give us over to our enemies as surely as He did to Old Testament Israel for their idolatry.

“Patriots”

A sizeable percentage of the professing patriot community today is doing more to cause their own enslavement than they are to prevent it. They create self-fulfilling prophecies and then refuse to take any responsibility for it.

The Internet is awash in half-truths, rumors, hearsay, baseless accusations, and downright lies. In the name of God, so-called prophecy “experts” repeatedly predict divine pronouncements that never come true. And without retraction or apology, they continue to spew forth more and ever-exaggerated predictions. False reports are regurgitated ubiquitously. And even worse, there is an element within the patriot community that has NO desire to be objective and honest; there is no room in their minds for critical thinking. If the truth doesn’t fit their preconceived agenda, they make up a lie that will.

If we are going to make any progress toward the restoration and reclamation of constitutional government in this country, the patriot community must start being honest with itself. Hyperbole, sensationalism, self-aggrandizement, and pandering only serve to accommodate oppression. They do nothing to further the cause of liberty.

Many patriot Internet bloggers and radio talk show hosts seem to pander as much to their audience as politicians in Washington, D.C., do to theirs. Rather than facing issues objectively and honestly, they slant or spin the story to fit what the audience wants to hear. It’s the same thing the SPLC and the politically correct establishment do–only in reverse.

The dark side of government and the media spin stories to fit their agendas. Many patriots do the exact same thing.

Big Government toadies love to lump all patriots (those could include Ron Paul supporters, Donald Trump supporters, pro-life people, conservative Christians, military veterans, people who believe in the Constitution, creationists, Second Amendment advocates, ad infinitum) into one big “anti-government” group. And many self-serving patriots love to lump all policemen, federal agents, and public servants into one big “tyrant” group.

And please remember, many of these so-called “patriots” who are continually promoting their own particular brand of hatred for government are in reality agent provocateurs who are attempting to incite people with strong emotions and weak minds into doing something criminal so as to further categorize all of us as “anti-government extremists.” And far, far too many of us are far, far too easily manipulated.

The problem in the patriot community, as I see it, is the same as it is in the big-government community: a herd mentality. It seems that almost no one is willing to distance him or herself from the crowd. Whatever my peers expect me to be, I will be. Whatever they expect me to do, I will do. Whatever they expect me to say, I will say. This is a problem on both sides of the aisle.

Too many good people in government are not willing to stand against the tide of popular opinion among their peers. Even when they recognize that the popular opinion of their peers is wrong, they sheepishly surrender to it. Many professing patriots do the exact same thing. They are unwilling to stand against the tide of popular opinion among their own peers. Even when they recognize that the popular opinion of their peers is wrong, they sheepishly surrender to it. So, who is worse?

Until we who call ourselves patriots are willing to be honest and objective with ourselves and have the personal courage and integrity to truthfully follow that honesty and objectivity wherever it leads us, and until we stop sheepishly acquiescing to the tide of popular opinion of our peers for the purpose of self-aggrandizement and personal profit, we only contribute to the advancement of our own enslavement.

We also need to become much smarter in the way we present ourselves to our uninformed neighbors and fellow citizens in our local communities. Hot-headed, knee-jerk, overly emotional outbursts and tantrums are NOT helping the cause. In the world of marketing and salesmanship, for example, bad breath and body order are NOT assets. A lot of what goes on in the name of the patriot community is tantamount to bad breath and body order. IT STINKS!

Our Founding Fathers convinced the Body Politic of Colonial America (in great part because of the preaching of the Colonial pastors) as to the legitimacy and righteousness of independence from Great Britain. When those delegates voted for the Declaration of Independence, they acted as duly elected representatives of the Body Politic within the thirteen colonies. They were not a mob leading an insurrection; they were statesmen representing the will of “We the People.” That could not have happened without decades of intelligent and indefatigable reasoning that ultimately convinced enough of the citizenry to support the cause of independence.

Of course, King George and the British Crown regarded our secession from England as treasonous, but that was irrelevant. Our founders were on the right side of the higher law of Nature and Heaven. And it was to the laws of Nature and Nature’s God to which they appealed their cause. So must we.

I recently delivered a lengthy message outlining the principles of Natural Law. I quickly found that those principles are as distasteful to many so-called “patriots” today as the Gospel is to many unrepentant sinners. We will reject the principles that Heaven has enshrined in Natural Law to our own political destruction as surely as men who reject the Gospel message will do to the destruction of their own souls.

The message is entitled “The Right of Revolution As Justified In Natural And Revealed Law.” Find it here.

As with most of America’s founders, Thomas Jefferson thoroughly understood the principles of Natural Law. He and the other founders were disciples of men such as Baron Charles de Montesquieu, Sir William Blackstone, and John Locke. In fact, Jefferson borrowed heavily from John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government” when he penned the Declaration of Independence.

I personally believe Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government” to be the most succinct explanation of Natural Law ever written. Find it here.

I further believe that God will always preserve to Himself a remnant that He will protect, bless, and prosper. That was true when the entire idolatrous nations of Israel and Judah went into captivity and bondage. Even then, God revived a remnant. And amazingly, this revived remnant owed their liberty to a good-hearted, pagan Persian king named Cyrus. The leaders of Israel were so corrupt, God used a Persian king to restore liberty and peace to His remnant. Throughout history, in the worst of times, God always preserved a remnant.

Last Sunday, I delivered a message on this very subject taken from the Book of Ezra. Watch it here.

So, where do we go from here?

  • We need to recognize the importance of America’s patriot pulpit and start supporting it wherever and however we can.
  • We need to recognize the importance of repenting of the sins that God hates within the church and for which He will judge His people.
  • We need to recognize the importance of being honest and objective in the way we analyze and judge the actions of people and stop pandering our opinions to the herd–including OUR herd.
  • We need to recognize the importance of Natural Law: learn these principles and do our best to teach them to as many people as we can–including our local and State representatives.

 

  • We need to stop gullibly buying into the half-truths, wild accusations, innuendos, exaggerations, duplicity, and downright falsehoods that are regurgitated on the Internet, on many talk shows, and in many periodicals–remembering that many of these falsehoods and hysterical overreactions are actually the work of our enemies posing as our friends.
  • We need to recognize the importance of convincing the Body Politic within our states and local communities of the principles of liberty and independence in a reasoned, rational, and righteous manner that well represents the honor and majesty of the principles themselves.
  • We need to recognize that God always preserves a remnant to Himself, and we should seek to be part of that remnant.

© 2016 Chuck Baldwin – All Rights Reserved

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

E-mail: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

Website: ChuckBaldwinLive.com10 13 11 flagbar

 

AMERICAN MATRIX HOW WE LOST OUR CONSTITUTION PART 1 & 2

March 28th, 2016 by

http://newswithviews.com/Barnewall/marilyn205.htm

3-27-2016 1-48-28 PMTHE U.S. CIVIL FLAG

By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
January 13, 2015
NewsWithViews.com Archives http://www.newswithviews.com/Barnewall/marilynA.htm

Do you want your Constitutional Republic back? If so, this article provides you with information that will help you achieve that objective. It won’t come through Constitutional Conventions, Conventions of the States, or memorizing the Constitution and going to court with constitutional arguments in a court system the jurisdiction for which functions under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and Maritime Law.

Your Constitutions (national and state) have been put in hibernation and are brought out like the good silver… only when needed to make an impression or to be used in self defense for crimes committed against the people by those in government who are supposed to serve us.
Some questions for you:

  1. Are you aware that the United States is incorporated? No, this article isn’t about Strawmen or your name being in CAPITAL letters on all legal documents like your birth certificate, driver’s license, Social Security Card, Passport, etc. There is the United States of America and there is the United States of America, Inc. There is a good reason for what happened and it does not involve the bankruptcy of this nation.
  2. Are you aware that the state in which you live is incorporated? All 50 states are incorporated. Read on and I’ll provide you with absolute evidence… not opinion, but evidence.
  3. Are you aware that your county is incorporated?
  4. Are you aware that your city (or township) is incorporated? (Most of us are aware of city incorporations.)
  5. Are you aware that most departments within your city and county are incorporated? Yes, I mean the Sheriff’s Department, the Police Department, the City and County and State Courts (even your State Supreme Court), the Public Library, the Public Works Department, the Department of Education and the County Clerk? Almost every department in your city and county is incorporated. I must admit, this disclosure surprised me more than the others. Even more interesting, most people who staff these departments – including county commissioners, sheriffs, librarians, police chiefs, and other department heads – appear, as I was, unaware of the corporate status of their “departments.”

Here’s a link to my County Sheriff’s office. Notice that it is registered as a “privately held company.” The name listed, Stan Hilkey, was the Sheriff of Mesa County at the time I downloaded the information a couple of months ago. Look your own county Sheriff up on Manta.com and see if your law enforcement is incorporated. My county courts are also incorporated. Are yours? To prove it’s not just a Colorado thing, here’s a link to Alabama’s courts as listed at Manta.com. Look yours up… my bet is that they are also incorporated.

6. Are you aware that corporations are run under the jurisdiction of Statutory Law, not Constitutional or Common Law? Are you aware that Articles of Incorporation based on the policies and regulations in place in all 50 States are governed by the Uniform Commercial Code and/or Maritime Law which are the basis of Statutory Law?

In other words, when wearing their corporate hats (which is whenever it is to their advantage to do so), our federal, state, county, and city governments and the departments contained within them must comply with the policies of the Uniform Commercial Code, not with the Constitution of the United States or your State Constitution. The courts, too, are incorporated. No wonder we see so little Constitutional or Common Law in our courts! No wonder administrative law judges can make the law up as a trial proceeds (or so it appears to those thinking the jurisdiction under which courts function is Constitutional or Common Law)!

This information should answer the questions of many Americans who wander around shaking their heads trying to figure out why our courts are making the insane, unconstitutional decisions that spew out of them like the Devil’s bad breath. The Courts are incorporated and comply with the requirements of Statutory Law based on the policies and procedures dictated by the Uniform Commercial Code or Maritime Law, not the United States Constitution or your State’s Constitution.

People look at their small town police departments being equipped as if they are General Patton in the 1940’s powering his way through Germany and wonder why Humvees and SWAT teams are needed to protect them. Who – or what – are they really protecting?

And it goes beyond our police departments and sheriffs’ offices to our courts and schools and property taxes… and everything else.

You need to know whether what I’m saying is true or false. Go to Manta.com and look up your own state, county and city. Especially look at the departments within your city and county… your fire, sheriff and police departments, your county clerk, the State and County Courts, etc.

Why is this information critical if we are to understand why America is in many cases functioning in a way designed to destroy Her? Why is it “dangerous” information?

The answer is direct and simple: CORPORATIONS (INCLUDING GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS) DO NOT FUNCTION UNDER A CONSTITUTION. THEY FUNCTION UNDER ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO BUSINESS LAWS OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE AND MARITIME LAW, NOT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, CORPORATIONS CAN BE DISSOLVED! THAT IS THE BIGGEST DANGER OF THE PEOPLE BECOMING AWARE OF THIS INFORMATION. THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE THEY HAVE BUILT TO REMOVE OUR ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL AND COMMON LAW IN OUR COURTS CAN, LIKE ANY CORPORATION, BE DISSOLVED. IT IS, PERHAPS, THEIR ACHILLES HEEL – their greatest weakness! We, the People, CAN DISSOLVE THEM!

The corporations cannot be dissolved by the government employees who work for them; they must be dissolved by the people. How? County by county. These corporations were imposed from the top down and the only way to disassemble them is from the bottom up. Carry a petition. Get the required number of signatures and get it on your county ballot next election. The initiative should say something like “No government entity in _____ County shall incorporate or be incorporated. All government agencies, divisions and departments must function under the legal jurisdiction of the Constitution of the State of _____ and be subject to the limits imposed on government by the Constitution of the United States and the State of _______.” I’m not a lawyer and I’m sure you can get a stronger statement from an attorney experienced at writing ballot initiatives.

As I will point out in Part II of this article, liberty is not free and if you want your constitutional rights restored, it will require some long-term planning and changes in the way county costs are defined and financed… but it can be done! If you would rather our cost of liberty and constitutional rights be paid via budgeting and taxation instead of young men and women being unnecessarily killed and maimed in unlawful, unconstitutional wars, you will help dissolve the government corporations that help make such tragedies possible.

I must admit, I am surprised this material has been around as long as it has and none of the many lawyers who have been exposed to it had a light go off in their heads saying “Corporations do not function under Constitutional Law which is why Americans are being abused by their courts — and corporations can be dissolved, SO LET’S DISSOLVE THEM!.”

You can logically assume that if your city/township, county, state, and federal governments are incorporated, they do not function under the aegis (protection) of a Constitution of any kind. They function under the rules and regulations of the Uniform Commercial Code. The law and how we lost the jurisdictional protection of Common and Constitutional law is the topic of Part II of this article.

Do you now understand why your courts and law enforcement officials do not act in accordance with the limits placed on government by the United States Constitution – or, even more important, your State’s Constitution?

In the past month, I’ve been to two meetings about jurisdictional law given by experts on Constitutional law. Both were very good… both speakers were quick to point out the rights God grants each of us and the limits on government guaranteed under the Constitution. Neither realized that the constitutional rights of the people are being badly abused because of the corporate status of federal, state, county, city governments and most of the departments that function under those entities and thus do not answer to Federal and State Constitutions. Neither speaker realized that corporations are under the jurisdiction of Statutory or business law – the Uniform Commercial Code/Maritime Law. It raises a difficult question for constitutional experts: If the various governments, including our courts, function under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code rather than the Constitution, how important is a Constitution that has been hi-jacked?

Before moving on to Part II of this article which will explain the kinds of jurisdictional law being practiced in American courts, I want to provide you what I promised. Evidence.

It’s time to stop speculating about issues, wondering (what a waste of time) if this crisis or that one is a false flag. “They” rely on chaos to keep you off balance because only by keeping you off balance can they take their next unlawful step designed to eliminate the asset singly responsible for preventing socialism or communism in America’s capitalist economy: The middle class. They throw one issue after another at you… from amnesty to police brutality; from shopping center shootings to elementary school shootings to shootings of police officers sitting innocently in their car. They take you from one false flag to another. They throw one war after another at you… or threaten a new war. As the manipulation of gold was used to cause the Great Depression of the early 1900’s, they use the new gold – oil – to manipulate this even Greater Depression.

They can call it a recession all they want, but the only reason people are not standing in food lines as they did in the 1930s is food stamps. They called the job creation programs of the Great Depression the Work(s) Progress Administration (WPA). In the 30s, cities all over the country got new parks and recreation facilities, bridges were built as were schools and highways… the work of the WPA. It provided jobs for the unemployed. For this current Greater Depression it is called “shovel ready jobs.”

When they hire a new government employee, it depletes the tax base rather than adding to it, so new government hires cannot be categorized as “new jobs” produced by the economy. But the Obama Administration needs to look like it is doing SOMETHING right, so they “create” new jobs by funding them via private sector contractor work projects. Then they can be counted as new jobs… just as Franklin Delano Roosevelt did with WPA jobs – but government, not a thriving free marketplace, is paying for these “new jobs.” Regardless of stock market ups and downs, the marketplace is not thriving. It is being manipulated.

I believe the core problem centers on the incorporation of every federal, state, and county and all of the departments within each and the resulting system that had to be built to support itself. Logic tells me that if we get rid of the corporations, we remove their ability to manipulate our courts and all government offices with no personal accountability. I believe if we take action while we still can, we can retrieve our nation from what the international central banking system has thrown in the trash bin of history without first ensuring the corpse is dead.

If I’m correct, this is not only the most important article I’ve ever written for any news publication, it is also one of the most important articles you will ever read. It’s also the most dangerous… for me, at least – and for Paul Walter, the publisher of NewsWithViews.com.

Why is it dangerous? Because it offers a solution to the conundrum (unsolvable puzzle) “they” have created. Over a long period of time (it began in the late 1800s), “they” created the conundrum to give them sufficient time to globally enslave all but the elitists. The same techniques if not the same programs are being used around the world. The objective? Global government composed of oligarchies (an elite class and a labor class – no middle class) worldwide.

Manta.com is a Web site that provides corporate information. It costs a few hundred dollars to be a member of Dunn & Bradstreet – and when I owned my own company, I was a member. I no longer am. So, I use Manta.com because it’s free. Manta provides the names of about 40 million for-profit private companies – including government.

Here is a Manta.com copy of a listing for the State of Colorado.

3-28-2016 10-58-04 AM

If you look at the bottom of the Manta form, you’ll see that Democrat Governor Hickenlooper is referenced as Colorado’s CEO rather than the State’s Governor. Why? Just as corporations do not run on Constitutional law, neither do corporations have Governors. They have Chief Executive Officers. Or, they have Managers… check out California’s Governor, Jerry Brown. Manta.com lists him as California’s “Manager” and California is “A privately held company in Sacramento, CA.”

Here’s more evidence of the incorporation of America’s sovereign states and their cities and counties.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is, like Hickenlooper, listed as that state’s Chief Executive Officer. On the Walker link to Wisconsin’s Washington, D.C. Executive Office (why do Governors need offices in D.C.? – because their state is incorporated there and a corporation needs an office in the location of incorporation), scroll down and look at the Washington, D.C. Executive Office for the State of New York. Wisconsin and New York are on the same page. This particular link tells you that the State of New York is incorporated in the District of Columbia and that Derek Douglas is the Manager of the Washington, D.C. office, not the Governor. I researched Douglas, wondering why he is listed as the Washington, D.C.-based New York Governor’s Office Manager. I found a Press Release from the White House stating that Derek Douglas was an urban affairs special assistant to the President of the United States.

Maryland’s Executive Office D.C. listing shows its State of Incorporation as the District of Columbia. Does it surprise you to learn that Governors have Executive Offices located in the District of Columbia? New York is just one example. Go here to find the D.C. Executive Offices for Pennsylvania, Iowa, Florida, Wisconsin, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Idaho, California, Delaware, and Oregon. This article provides too little space to list all 50, but they are there. Here’s the link for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

I said our cities and counties have been incorporated. Here is the Manta.com listing for the City of Birmingham, Alabama. State of Incorporation is Alabama… the city IS incorporated. Most of us know that cities are incorporated. Most of us did not know that our counties are incorporated and that almost every department and division within our incorporated cities and counties are incorporated, too.

For many years, people have talked about government Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) and have tried to find where the CAFR funds are hidden. Where in the world could “they” be hiding them? The federal, state, county and city corporations would be a good guess. No one knows about them.

Did I mention that each of these entities has two identities? There is, for example, the State of Colorado – and there is the State of Colorado, Inc. There is a County of Denver – and there is a Denver County, Inc., etc. They cannot drop the Constitutional identity because if they do, they lose “We, the People…” who didn’t volunteer to be part of their corporation. Thus, it appears every government, no matter how large or how small, in the country has dual identities, one incorporated and one unincorporated.

Here are some Manta.com links you can use to start doing your own research. When you find your Sheriff’s Department is incorporated, when you find your local Courts are incorporated, you might just want to start carrying a petition to get signatures demanding a vote of the people to dissolve all government corporations within your county and demand that they function under your State Constitution rather than under Statutory Jurisdiction which offers citizens no Constitutional protections from government usurpation of the power of individual citizens. It will surprise only a few to learn in Part II of this article that it all began with the Federal Reserve System.

Or you can contact any of the 374 veterans organizations listed as companies by the Federal Government. Now we know how they could withhold medical benefits from our veterans. We know why no one who participated in withholding the medical services from dying men and women entitled to those services was terminated from government payrolls: They were wearing their corporate hats.

Here are links to some Manta.com veterans’ listings (you usually have to scroll to the bottom of the page to get what you want… not all listings about veterans involve government agencies like the Veterans Administration; Manta lists private companies that deal with veterans, too).

Dunn & Bradstreet is the official organization that registers and keeps track of American business credit ratings. They assign DUNS code numbers so corporate credit ratings can be found by lenders or other creditors when companies apply for credit. Below, you will find the DUNS code number for your state and its largest city.

Below are the Dunn & Bradstreet numbers assigned to some federal government offices. After the federal government listings, every state and its largest population center DUNS data is provided. The DUNS numbers are not the result of my own research — the Manta.com material is data I have been personally researching since last summer. The DUNS numbers have been listed on the Internet since February 2013, but I have been unable to find the person who did all of this work. I will say the Louisiana and Tennessee numbers appear incorrect (all have 9 numbers assigned except these two). As a non Dunn & Bradstreet member, I have no way to go to the D&B site and verify them but hope they will be helpful to you.

3-28-2016 11-01-36 AMThis list creates a lot of interesting questions. For example, why does the U.S. Internal Revenue Service need a DUNs number – unless it is incorporated? Looking at the above list of departments within the U.S. Government, does it give you any insight to how “they” get away with the VA scandal, Fast and Furious guns across the border, Benghazi, the IRS discrimination against conservative groups applying for tax exempt status? Relative to the law, corporations are governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (or the Law of the Seas – sometimes called Maritime Law). They have no obligation to protect anyone’s Constitutional rights when functioning under their corporate hats – and they keep the Constitutional hat available in case they get caught and need to declare their Constitutional rights to certain protections – like Lois Lerner’s use of the Fifth Amendment when she testified before Congress. Perhaps that explains the smirk on her face during that proceeding?

Remember the controversy about Lerner’s appearance before the Senate Committee before which she testified? “She can’t make a statement pronouncing her innocence and then declare her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid answering questions about her possible guilt! That’s against the law!” That’s what every constitutional law expert said… and had she been functioning under the Constitution, they would have been correct.

When she made her statement, she was wearing her corporate hat. When she declared her rights under the Constitution, she was wearing her constitutional hat. It is the best possible example I can give you about why they need to maintain their rights under BOTH the Constitution and the Corporations for which they work. The Constitution gives them protections from personal liability they would not otherwise have.

Here is the Dunn & Bradstreet listing of numbers assigned to cities and states:

3-28-2016 11-03-01 AM3-28-2016 11-03-47 AM3-28-2016 11-04-37 AMPart II of this article will explain how America’s laws morphed from Constitutional to Statutory law. It involves debt (and explains why Congress is so adamantly tied to ever increasing and ongoing debt). [The book: The Coming Battle, published in 1899, documents how the politicians of that period didn’t want the debt to be paid off. They wanted the debt to be rolled over from generation to generation. It continues to this day. It’s a must read.]

Click here for part —–> 2, OR SCROLL DOWN

© 2015 Marilyn M. Barnewall – All Rights Reserved

 

AMERICAN MATRIX: HOW WE LOST OUR CONSTITUTION
PART 2

http://newswithviews.com/Barnewall/marilyn206.htm

By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
January 16, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

COLORABLE MONEY, COLORABLE LAW, COLORABLE LIBERTY

Before providing you with the following information, I must state that I am not an attorney and have not studied the law. I’m a retired banker who has done a lot of research on this subject.

What we learned in Part I is that federal, state, county and city governments and most of the departments and divisions that are part of them are incorporated. We learned that corporations function under Articles of Incorporation, not a Constitution and that’s how we lost our constitutional rights and courts that support them.

We learned that corporations are governed by business laws having to do with Maritime Law (also called Law of the Seas or Admiralty Law both of which are historically very old) and the Uniform Commercial Code. We learned that Constitutional Law is based on Common Law (which is based on substance and the will of the people — the Will of God, too, many people say). For example, under Common Law we are provided the alternative of not testifying against ourselves; that is not part of Maritime Law.

To understand the damage that has been done to our nation, we need to define the word “colorable” – its meaning, its impact on our currency, our courts, and our constitutional liberties and the limits the Constitution places on government. It is from the meaning of the word “colorable” that the virus of death infecting our nation breeds and keeps breeding… like Ebola, it dissolves every major life-giving organ in its path until death ensues.

COLORABLE MONEY – COLORABLE COURTS

To be “colorable,” is for something to appear to be what it is not. It looks real, you are told by your government that it is real and, in the example of currency, it is used or behaves as if it’s real, but it is not. Take what you are told is a dollar bill from your billfold. It looks like a dollar bill. You can spend it like a dollar bill. But it is not a dollar bill. It is a Federal Reserve Note. It says so, right on the face of it – at the top, above George Washington’s picture.

In the world of banking, what is a note? Answer: It is a loan. It is credit. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, fiat money has no value in and of itself, but it can be exchanged… like Monopoly money. A direct quote from the Minneapolis Fed: …(fiat currency can be exchanged) “for goods and services… because (the people) are confident it will be honored when they buy goods and services.”

Money and currency are not the same. We used to have money in America but when the dollar was no longer backed by gold or silver our “money” became a fiat currency. These things called a “Federal Reserve Note” became colorable currency, something that behaved like money because people could use it to buy groceries, cars, electronics, etc., and also pay for services like health care and life insurance. But it was not money. It was colorable… it just serves as a paper currency. Money is something of substance – like gold or silver. For Common Law to exist, money of substance must exist.

If a (colorable) Federal Reserve Note becomes part of a contract, the contract also becomes colorable. Colorable contracts, in turn, must be adjudicated under a “colorable” jurisdiction (system of justice – our courts). So when the colorable currency called Federal Reserve Notes was created, the government had to create a jurisdiction (court system) to cover colorable contracts. The incorporated governments called this new form of jurisdiction Statutory Law because though it was based on the Uniform Commercial Code which is based on Admiralty Law, “Statutory” is neither. Thus, Statutory Jurisdiction is colorable.

It sounds complicated, but if you think about it for a few minutes, it is really quite simple. Public Law was used in Common Law courts; Public Policy is used in Statutory courts… and that’s what gave bureaucrats control of our courtrooms. That’s what gave them the ability to prosecute members of the public because a regulation passed by a government agency rather than a law passed by Congress or your State Legislature, was violated.

So our courts have changed… how many times in the past years have you heard the term “The Petitioner does not have Standing to file this case… dismissed!” We have been unable to file cases against our government even when clear abuses of power exist. How many juries have been given rules they are told they must follow in determining a verdict, leaving them no choice other than “guilty” or “not guilty” regardless of what the evidence indicates? How many judges have withheld evidence from a jury? It has brought topics like “Nullification” to the forefront of the politically active. Nullification deals with a jury’s right to dismiss from its decision of guilt or innocence the judge’s directions as to what the jury may or may not consider in reaching its decision. Juries are empowered to nullify the judge’s directions if they feel it is justified.

All of this and more has been caused by the change from Common to a colorable form of Maritime Law called Statutory Law… a form of law required when our various governments incorporated — which, in turn, was required when the Federal Reserve System presented us with a “colorable currency.”

What have we Americans been taught by our government-subsidized education about the cause of our Revolutionary War? Mostly we were told about the Boston Tea Party, the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere, and other nice stories.

Many people say the Revolution began because of the Crown’s Declaratory Act which taxed tea, taxed stamps, forced colonists to quarter in their homes members of the English military, etc. No. It began because of the Rothschilds and their central bank system which, in today’s world, has driven us to the brink of another world war.

It’s true that all those things were great irritants, but the real core problem involved central banking – the Bank of England. The colonists were forced by England’s King to use a paper currency issued by the Bank of England which demanded we use it – and we were to cede our colonial banking and monetary systems and pay interest to the Bank of England for using their paper money.

It sounds eerily like the way the Federal Reserve System in America works today, doesn’t it? It is, in fact, quite similar. So we must start with the assumption that what made our ancestors go to war in the 1700s is quite acceptable to Americans today because we have embraced what they were willing to die to prevent: Central banks and a fiat currency.

The Rothschilds were around when America was a colony of Great Britain and the fact that we were founded on the basis of Common Law troubled them. Why? Common Law is based on substance and rejects “colorable money” and “colorable courts.” Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution describes for you what “substance” relative to Common Law means: “Gold and silver,” not a meaningless fiat currency that has nothing backing it. That is a currency with no substance and violates Common Law.

Prior to the forming of the Federal Reserve System, America’s Constitutional Republic required the nation to pay its debts in gold or silver and Rothschild banks did not loan gold or silver. Thus they did not like our newly-formed government which rejected a fiat currency with nothing backing it (what we have today). As described above, the Rothschilds allowed the King of England to borrow paper money from them and got repaid in gold and silver.

Our Constitution declared gold and silver as the official currency of the United States of America and that’s why the Rothschilds financed the War of 1812. They wanted America as part of the United Kingdom so they could expand into the New World their Bank of England scam. They of course lost the War of 1812 and began seeking other ways to further their “we’ll loan you paper and you pay us back in gold and silver” scheme and began working on what we now have as a central banking system, the Federal Reserve, founded on December 23, 1913, 100 years after the War of 1812. And how legitimate is the Federal Reserve Act of 1913? Not very. Read the history.

Our ancestors in North America began to revolt against the Brits but we had Common Law in the Colonies at the time. When the King’s tax collectors made their rounds, however, they imposed Admiralty Law on the people. It enabled them to arrest and quickly try people, denying to what were mostly Englishmen and women the common rights due them as citizens of the Crown. That is what caused the Revolutionary War.

Perhaps the most interesting part of our history is that almost exactly the same thing has happened to us once again. What’s the old saying about what happens if we don’t learn from history? By incorporating federal, state, and county governments (because of the Federal Reserve’s colorable currency), the U.S. Government made it possible to remove the Common Law supported by our U.S. Constitution and implement a prostituted form of Maritime (or Admiralty) Law called Statutory Law. Our ancestors refused to tolerate it and it will be interesting to see if today’s society which seems more motivated by security and comfort than by right and wrong and liberty will accept the Law of the Seas.

To make sure we’re all on the same page, let’s start with some definitions and let them guide you to an understanding of how we got in our current mess. Only if we understand the history behind these massive problems will we be able to solve them.

To explain how the loss of Common Law robbed us of our independence and our Republic and how incorporating federal, state, and county governments made it possible, we need some definitions. You’re about to get a graduate school crash course in business and finance (and a little law):

JURISDICTION:

1. The right of a court to hear a particular case, based on the scope of its authority over the type of case and the parties to the case. 2. Authority or control. 3. The extent of authority or control. 4. The territorial range of authority or control.

While researching the jurisdiction of our courts, I came upon an article that was so well done, so easy for a non-lawyer to understand, I decided to reprint portions of it here. One of the difficult things about writing both Parts I and II of this article is stating things in a way that can be understood by non-bankers and non-lawyers. Since I’m not a lawyer, I particularly appreciated this article and recommend that you read it in its entirety HERE. I am not publishing the entire article below, just those parts that apply to this topic.

The article is a condensed story about a man named Howard Freeman and is based on a seminar Freeman gave in 1990. The article is written in ham and eggs English and is not filled with legal terminology that forces you to look every-other-word up in a legal dictionary. The following definition about Common Law, Equity Law, Admiralty/Maritime Law, Courts of Contract, Colorable Money and Colorable Courts, and the Uniform Commercial Code is taken from that seminar and the article written about it.

The Constitution of the United States mentions three areas of jurisdiction in which the courts may operate:

COMMON LAW

Common Law is based on God’s law. Anytime someone is charged under the Common Law, there must be a damaged party. You are free under the Common Law to do anything you please, as long as you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. You have a right to make a fool of yourself provided you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. The Common Law does not allow for any government action which prevents a man from making a fool of himself. For instance, when you cross over the state lines in most states, you will see a sign which says, ” BUCKLE YOUR SEAT BELTS – IT’S THE LAW. ” This cannot be Common Law, because who would you injure if you did not buckle up? Nobody. This would be compelled performance. But Common Law cannot compel performance. Any violation of Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT, and is punishable.

EQUITY LAW

Equity Law is law which compels performance. It compels you to perform to the exact letter of any contract that you are under. So, if you have compelled performance, there must be a contract somewhere, and you are being compelled to perform under the obligation of the contract. Now this can only be a civil action – not criminal. In Equity Jurisdiction, you cannot be tried criminally, but you can be compelled to perform to the letter of a contract. If you then refuse to perform as directed by the court, you can be charged with contempt of court, which is a criminal action. Are our seatbelt laws Equity Laws? No, they are not, because you cannot be penalized or punished for not keeping to the letter of a contract. (BARNEWALL NOTE: You may have signed an insurance contract agreeing to always wear your seat belts or otherwise obey all traffic laws and, of course, your state requires automobile insurance coverage.)

ADMIRALTY/MARITIME LAW

This is civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance which also has Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of the contract, but this only applies to International Contracts. Now we can see what jurisdiction the seatbelt laws (all traffic codes, etc) are under. Whenever there is a penalty for failure to perform (such as willful failure to file), that is Admiralty/Maritime Law and there must be a valid international contract in force.

However, the courts don’t want to admit that they are operating under Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdictions, so they took the international law or Law Merchant and adopted it into our codes. That is what the Supreme Court decided in the Erie Railroad case (Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, Supreme Court, 1938) – that the decisions will be based on commercial law or business law and that it will have criminal penalties associated with it. Since they were instructed not to call it Admiralty Jurisdiction, they call it Statutory Jurisdiction.

COURTS OF CONTRACT

You must ask how we got into this situation where we can be charged with failure to wear seatbelts and be fined for it. Isn’t the judge sworn to up hold the Constitution? Yes, he is. But you must understand the Constitution, in Article I, § 10, gives us the unlimited right to contract, as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty or property of someone else. Contracts are enforceable, and the Constitution gives two jurisdictions where contracts can be enforced – Equity or Admiralty. But we find them being in Statutory Jurisdiction. This is the embarrassing part for the courts, but we can use this to box the judges into a corner in their own courts.

CONTRACTS MUST BE VOLUNTARY

Under the Common Law, every contract must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties or it is void and unenforceable. This is characteristic: It must be based on substance. For example, contracts used to read, “For one dollar and other valuable considerations, I will paint your house,” etc. That was a valid contract – the dollar was a genuine, silver dollar. Now, suppose you wrote a contract that said, “For one Federal Reserve Note and other considerations, I will paint your house….” And suppose, for example, I painted your house the wrong color. Could you go into a Common Law court and get justice? No, you could not. You see, a Federal Reserve Note is a “colorable” dollar, as it has no substance, and in a Common Law Jurisdiction, that contract would be unenforceable.

COLORABLE MONEY – COLORABLE COURTS

Colorable: That which exists in appearance only, and not in reality; not what it purports to be, hence counterfeit, feigned have the appearance of truth. Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

It is “colorable” Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing because we are using “colorable money.” Colorable Admiralty is now known as Statutory Jurisdiction. Let’s see how we got under this Statutory Jurisdiction.

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

The government set up a “colorable” law system to fit the “colorable” currency. It used to be called the Law Merchant or the Law of Redeemable Instruments, because it dealt with paper which was redeemable in something of substance. But, once Federal Reserve Notes had become unredeemable, there had to be a system of law which was completely “colorable” from start to finish. This system of law was codified as the Uniform Commercial Code, and has been adopted in every state. This is “colorable” law, and it is used in all the courts.

(End of text from Howard Freeman’s seminar.)

Do you see how the Federal Reserve Notes were the basic cause of the problems we now see in our courts, our financial system, our Republic, our Independence as a people? They created a fiat currency backed by nothing. Keep in mind, the word “Note” means “Loan.” It is “colorable currency.”

The Common Law, as embodied in the US Constitution, for the protection and security of persons and property, is Substantive Common Law – [substantive right: a right {as of life, liberty, property, or reputation} held to exist for its own sake and to constitute part of the normal legal order of society] – the intention of the Founding Fathers being the assurance of access to this law by the people.

The most important thing we the people can work to achieve is Constitutional Counties. This system was imposed on us from the top down and must be unwound from the bottom up.

As I said in Part I of this article, corporations can be dissolved – and we need to do that. It’s not difficult to achieve… get enough signatures on a petition to get the initiative on your county ballot and vote the corporations out of existence.

It is, however, more difficult than it sounds. It requires extensive planning because you must remember how we got from a Constitutional Republic to Crony Capitalism. Here’s what I think happened.

The Federal Reserve came into being in 1913. Our money was turned into a fiat currency when President Nixon took us off of the gold standard. The U.S. Government was based on Common Law which made colorable money (money lacking substance – Common Law is based on substance) and that made it impossible for it to continue issuing Federal Reserve Notes. So the federal government incorporated itself which made it possible for them to continue with the issuance of Federal Reserve Notes. It became clear that the states could not accept colorable money from an incorporated federal government unless they, too, were incorporated – and the same thing happened to our counties. To gain access to a colorable currency, an entire system had to be created. How much simpler our lives would be if the Treasury Department had taken over America’s monetary system rather than build this octopus so the Federal Reserve System could be maintained! This attests to the power of the Rothschild central banking system. We might want to keep in mind that one of the primary problems in the Middle East is that Islam does not allow loan usury (interest) and not all of the nations in the Middle East have central banks. Libya didn’t have one – until Muammar Gaddafi was removed from office and killed. Libya now has a central bank. (The Stylebook at the Washington Post spells it “Gaddafi.” The Stylebook at the Associated Press spells it “Gadhafi.”)

Though it is not difficult to dissolve the corporations if it is the will of the people to regain their constitutional rights, a great deal of thought must go into how a county that dissolves its corporations will survive without federal and state dollars. Some of the questions that arise are:

  1. If Common Law is returned to our court system and our governing bodies, it requires a currency that has substance and contracts based on that substance. Fiat currency – Federal Reserve Notes – has no substance. How can those people being paid by the federal, state, or county governments get paid in a currency of substance? How about people receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits? How about veterans receiving retirement and VA benefits? They are being paid in Federal Reserve Notes (as we all are) which, since they are not redeemable in gold or silver, are deemed as having no substance and contracts with no substance are rejected by Common Law. This part of problem resolution is complex – but with good planning it can be done.
  2. Can fiat currency be used at all in a Constitutional County?
  3. Is there a way to reject the colorable Statutory Laws created by federal and state governments and build a bridge between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code, Admiralty/Maritime Law, Equity Law, etc.?

There are many other questions, but to ask and answer them requires a book, not an article. The purpose of this two-part article has been to explain to you what I believe happened and what I believe the solution to be. It will not be easy. Nor will it be free.

Liberty is never free. How much you value it will determine the price you are willing to pay to regain it.

[The book: The Coming Battle, published in 1899, documents how the politicians of that period didn’t want the debt to be paid off. They wanted the debt to be rolled over from generation to generation. It continues to this day. It’s a must read.]

Click here for part —–> 1,

© 2015 Marilyn M. Barnewall – All Rights Reserved

Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.

Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who of American Women, Who’s Who in Finance and Business, and Who’s Who in the World.

Web site: http://marilynwrites.blogspot.com

E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

Marilyn’s Archives  http://www.newswithviews.com/Barnewall/marilynA.htm

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

Long Form Birth Certificate Question Who are you?

March 18th, 2016 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2016/03/long-form-birth-certificate-question.html

3-18-2016 11-26-40 AM

By Judge Anna Von Reitz

There are two certificates– The Certificate of Live Birth and the Birth Certificate (Short Form) —- BOTH are securities and BOTH are bonds.

The difference is that the Certificate of Live Birth shows your given name in Upper and Lower Case and tells the day you were born and where you were born.

The short form shows a “birth date” and a birth place and everything is in all capital letters.

The Certificate of Live Birth belongs to the State of _________ corporation issuing it as an indemnification receipt— that is, an insurance receipt guaranteeing that you shall come to no harm as a result of their use of your given name to profit themselves.

The Birth Certificate on the other hand is issued by the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE which seizes upon your given name against the interests of the state where you were born and uses your given name to create a PERSON — which is not “born” but is “birthed”—- with the “birth” of this PERSON you, the baby, are declared “civilly dead” and your name and estate are deemed “granted” to the British Crown— the banks and the judiciary as chattel property— the “cargo” of a “vessel” in commerce.

This unholy and clandestine “system” results in your enslavement.

And it goes on worldwide wherever the banks and bar associations are tolerated.

The Certificate of Live Birth is proof that a baby was born and given your name on the land of a state of the Union.

The Birth Certificate is proof that your natural political status was changed without your knowledge or consent and that you and your estate were seized upon by the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation in criminal malfeasance and act of war against an innocent non- combatant “vessel” that is owed protected status.

These vile, despicable claims are against all law of the land and human dignity and against all treaties and international laws including all the United Declarations these scum have signed and hidden behind.

The other thing that people need to to grasp is that they themselves are the only source of this supposed “wealth”—- bonds are debts. They are promises to pay. Your work and your labor and even your body has been pledged by these bastards so that they could borrow virtually unlimited credit “in your name”—- and so they have. Just like any identity thief, they have used your name and borrowed assets from others using you, your labor, and your land, your homes, and your business as collateral.

They have claimed that your Mother gave you up knowingly and voluntarily as a baby and left you a “ward” of the “State”. Later when you came of age you did nothing to free yourself of this despicable presumption because of course you were never told anything about this and neither was your Mother— so the vermin “presumed” again that you were incompetent and should remain a “ward” of the STATE even as an adult because no sane man would tolerate the status of a slave and dependent surviving on whatever crumbs the criminals choose to give him as a “beneficiary” of the “PCT”— the Public Charitable Trust which was set up as welfare relief for indigent Negroes displaced from the plantations after the Civil War.

This is your thanks for fighting for the Union and standing by the British Monarch through Two World Wars.

If you are not angry yet, coldly, bitterly, intractably angry with all of it, and highly motivated to put an end to it— you should be. You should in fact be willing to crush all such “presumption” under your outraged feet and ready to see these “governmental services corporations” put out of business — permanently— and replaced by honest vendors of “public services”.

This requires the liquidation of the World Bank, IBRD, FEDERAL RESERVE, IMF, WELLS FARGO, and numerous other major banks which have operated the “governmental services corporations” as store fronts.

The FEDERAL RESERVE is operating THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC and the French-based IMF is operating the insolvent UNITED STATES, INC.

Both are crime syndicates engaged in armed racketeering, unlawful conversion, inland piracy, identity theft, credit fraud, probate fraud and impersonation of public officials.

These criminals have borrowed vast sums of money against you and your public and private assets, used the borrowed money to benefit themselves and their cronies, pushed the “credits cards” as far as they will go, then bowed out and sought bankruptcy protection for themselves—- while leaving you named as the “secondary” responsible for paying back all that money they borrowed and gave away or squandered or reinvested for their own benefit.

You see, they claimed to “represent” you like any flim-flam man. They offered your “registration” as proof. They claimed to own you and neither you nor anyone else was the wiser until the credit cards were maxed out and the bills came due.

That is what happened last March. The UNITED STATES, INC. run by the IMF didn’t pay even the interest on its debts, couldn’t even qualify to continue reorganization under Chapter 11.

So now they are being liquidated by mostly Swiss, Getman, and Chinese creditors who THINK that they are owed most of the land and mineral wealth of the western United States because these loathsome criminals behind these bank-run governmental services corporations— “pledged” you, your private property, and your public property to pay theirs debts without your knowledge or permission.

People think that these “Birth Certificates” are “worth millions”—– yes, millions of DEBT. Your supposed debt. And the people who owe you all the money and assets they received by pledging your labor and good name and credit? Why, they are either bankrupt, running, or nowhere to be found.

The thieves have in recent days tried to gag their accusers and made plans to murder their creditors so that they won’t have to pay back what they owe and so that they can claim the “leftover property” — everything that belongs to the victims — as “abandoned” property, just as they did to the Jews in Germany.

Time to wake up and put these vermin under the bus. Time to call up the Pope and the Pentagon and Secretary Ban Ki-Moon and Queen Elizabeth and all the others responsible for this circumstance and point out that the “derivative insurance” of the banks amounts to huge life insurance policies on the Americans and all the hapless people on this planet.

It is worse than a BAD Grade B Movie where the straying husband quietly takes out a million dollar life insurance policy on his wife, then kills her so he can run away with his mistress to the South Seas.

This is what these sickos think they can get away with, with nobody noticing— not even the other banks and insurance companies on the hook for this.

Everyone and I DO mean everyone needs to wake up and start bitching to the local politicians and documenting their family records and recording affidavits regarding their identities and natural birthright status and complaining to the Highest Heavens about this outrageous, immoral, criminal fraud scheme which has been played upon the whole world.

These vermin need to be tracked down, hunted as the criminals they are, all their assets seized for malicious tort fraud, identity theft, personage, barattry, probate and securities fraud, inland piracy, unlawful conversion, and FRAUD, FRAUD, FRAUD—which vitiates all claims and all contracts and for which there is no statute of limitations.

As for your “Certificate of Live Birth” get and Authenticated copy — authenticated at both the State Secretary of State and the U.S. Secretary of State. Record with the local land recorder’s office to prove you were born on the land and are a living American, not some “PERSON” and then “Return it for value” to these felons in suits— if you can resist the impulse to wad it up and shove it up their asses.

Buy no stories of free gold or vast riches or something for nothing. Take no wooden nickels. Sign nothing without a reservation of all rights. Study, study, study and realize that this “thing” that appears to be your government is NOT your government. It is a corporation — a “governmental services corporation” run by corrupt banks, having no more granted authority than JC PENNY or SEARS to run your life, extract your labor, make false claims against your property, harass you, indebt you, or make demands upon you based on statutory military common law.

Tell the “Members of Congress” that they don’t represent you and never have; tell them that instead, they are nothing but spokesmen and flunkies for a bank run governmental services corporation that is in commercial and administrative default and which needs to do away with Section 17 of the Trafing With The Enemy Act as amended by the Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933 and stop pretending that we — their employers, benefactors, and priority creditors — are “enemies”— or we really will become enemies and start liquidating “government” corporations and laying off millions of “givernment” employees and liquidating the assets of the banks and the bank owners and operators– tell them that millions of people now know the truth. There is no escaping it now.

So they might as well come clean and do the right thing because everyone is tuned in and watching and we will all know what to think and do if they don’t.

Sorry this became such a long explanation but I have all these people wandering around thinking that they can get rich off their birth certificate when all that certificate has ever done for them is allow thieves to charge against their credit and rack up debt against them.

I hope that this explanation has made the situation clear–

See this article and over 100 others on Anna’s website here:www.annavonreitz.com

10 13 11 flagbar

Final Warning A History of the New World Order

March 1st, 2016 by

http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=FinalWarning&C=5.3

Illuminism and the master plan for world domination

By: David Allen Rivera, 1994, source: darivera.com

MHP hypertext version for non-profit educational use only
CFR Influence in Government, Media and Business

The pervasive influence of CFR members over all aspects of society
• CFR Influence in the U.S. Government
• CFR Influence in Education and the Media
• CFR Affiliated Organizations and Corporations
• The Brookings Institution
• The Committee for Economic Development
<< Prev : Table of Contents : Next >>
>> Follow links for timelines and related articles

CFR Influence in the U.S. Government

From 1928-72, nine out of twelve Republican Presidential nominees were CFR members. From 1952-72, CFR members were elected four out of six times. During three separate campaigns, both the Republican and Democratic nominee were, or had been a member. Since World War II, practically every Presidential candidate, with the exception of Johnson, Goldwater, and Reagan, have been members.

In Sen. Barry Goldwater’s 1979 memoir, With No Apologies, he wrote: “When a new President comes on board, there is a great turnover in personnel but no change in policy.” That’s because CFR members have held almost every key position in every Administration, from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Bill Clinton.

During that period, every Secretary of State (with the exception of Cordell Hull, James F. Byrnes, and William Rogers) has been a member. Every Secretary of Defense from the Truman Administration up to the Clinton Administration (with the exception of Melvin Laird) has been a member. Since 1920, most of the Treasury Secretaries have been members; and since the Eisenhower Administration, nearly all of the National Security Advisors have been members.
Curtis Dall wrote in his book, FDR: My Exploited Father-in-Law:

“For a long time I felt that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the USA. But, he didn’t. Most of his thoughts, his political ‘ammunition’ as it were, were carefully manufactured for him in advance by the CFR / One World money group.”

NATO Commanders
The position of Supreme Allied Commander of NATO has usually been held by CFR members, including:

• Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower
• Gen. Matthew B. Ridgeway
• Gen. Alfred M. Groenther
• Gen. Lauris Norstad
• Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer
• Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster
• Gen. Alexander M. Haig, Jr.

Most of the superintendents at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point have been CFR members.
Harry S. Truman Administration
• Dean Acheson (Secretary of State)
• Robert Lovett (Secretary of State and later Secretary of Defense)
• W. Averell Harriman (Marshall Plan Administrator)
• John J. McCloy (High Commissioner to Germany)
• George Kennan (State Department advisor)
• Charles Bohlen (State Department advisor).
Dwight Eisenhower Administration

When CFR member Dwight Eisenhower became President, he appointed six CFR members to his Cabinet, and twelve to positions of ‘Under Secretary’:
• John Foster Dulles (Secretary of State, an in-law to the Rockefellers who was a founding member of the CFR, past Chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)
• Allen Dulles (head of the OSS operation in Switzerland during World War II, who became Director of the CIA and President of the CFR)
• Robert B. Anderson (Secretary of the Treasury)
• Lewis Strauss (Secretary of Commerce)

John F. Kennedy Administration

When CFR member John F. Kennedy became President, 63 of the 82 names on his list of prospective State Department officials were CFR members. John Kenneth Galbraith said: “Those of us who had worked for the Kennedy election were tolerated in the government for that reason and had a say, but foreign policy was still with the Council on Foreign Relations people.” Among the more notable members in his Administration:
• Dean Rusk (Secretary of State)
• C. Douglas Dillon (Secretary of the Treasury)
• Adlai Stevenson (U.N. Ambassador)
• John McCone (CIA Director)
• W. Averell Harriman (Ambassador-at-Large)
• John J. McCloy (Disarmament Administrator)
• Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)
• John Kenneth Galbraith (Ambassador to India)
• Edward R. Murrow (head of the U.S. Information Agency)
• Arthur H. Dean (head of the U.S. Delegation to the Geneva Disarmament Conference)
• Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. (Special White House Assistant and noted historian)
• Thomas K. Finletter (Ambassador to NATO and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development)
• George Ball (Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs)
• McGeorge Bundy (Special Assistant for National Security who went on to head the Ford Foundation)
• Robert McNamara (Secretary of Defense)
• Robert F. Kennedy (Attorney General)
• Paul H. Nitze (Assistant Secretary of Defense)
• Charles E. Bohlen (Assistant Secretary of State)
• Walt W. Rostow (Deputy National Security Advisor)
• Roswell Gilpatrick (Deputy Secretary of Defense)
• Henry Fowler (Under Secretary of State)
• Jerome Wiesner (Special Assistant to the President)
• Angier Duke (Chief of Protocol).
Lyndon B. Johnson Administration
• Roswell Gilpatrick (Deputy Secretary of Defense)
• Walt W. Rostow (Special Assistant to the President)
• Hubert H. Humphrey (Vice-President)
• Dean Rusk (Secretary of State)
• Henry Fowler (Secretary of the Treasury)
• George Ball (Under Secretary of State)
• Robert McNamara(Secretary of Defense)
• Paul H. Nitze (Deputy Secretary of Defense)
• Alexander B. Trowbridge (Secretary of Commerce)
• William McChesney Martin (Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board)
• Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor (Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Board)

Richard M. Nixon Administration
Nixon appointed over 100 CFR members to serve in his Administration, including:
• George Ball (Foreign Policy Consultant to the State Department)
• Dr. Harold Brown (General Advisory Committee of the U.S. Committee of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the senior member of the U.S. delegation for SALT talks with Russia)
• Dr. Arthur Burns (Chairman of the Federal Reserve)
• C. Fred Bergsten (Operations Staff of the National Security Council)
• C. Douglas Dillon (General Advisory Committee of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency)
• Richard N. Cooper (Operations Staff of the National Security Council)
• Gen. Andrew I. Goodpaster (Supreme Allied Commander in Europe)
• John W. Gardner (Board of Directors, National Center for Volunteer Action)
• Elliot L. Richardson (Under Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General; and Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare)
• David Rockefeller (Task Force on International Development)
• Nelson A. Rockefeller (head of the Presidential Mission to Ascertain the Views of Leaders in the Latin America Countries)
• Rodman Rockefeller (Member of the Advisory Council for Minority Enterprise)
• Dean Rusk (General Advisory Committee of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency)
• Gerald Smith (Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency)
• Cyrus Vance (General Advisory Committee of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency)
• Richard Gardner (member of the Commission on International Trade and Investment Policy)
• Sen. Jacob K. Javits (Representative to the 24th Session of the General Assembly of the U.N.)
Henry A. Kissinger (Secretary of State and Harvard professor who was Rockefeller’s personal adviser on foreign affairs openly advocating a “New World Order”)
• Henry Cabot Lodge (Chief Negotiator of the Paris Peace Talks [Vietnam war])
• Douglas MacArthur II (Ambassador to Iran)
• John J. McCloy (Chairman of the General Advisory Committee of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency)
• Paul H. Nitze (senior member of the U.S. delegation for the talks with Russia on SALT)
• John Hay Whitney (member of the Board of Directors for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting)
• George P. Shultz (Secretary of the Treasury)
• William Simon (Secretary of Treasury)
• Stanley R. Resor (Secretary of the Army)
• William E. Colby (Director of the CIA)
• Peter G. Peterson (Secretary of Commerce)
• James Lynn (Housing Secretary)
• Paul McCracken (chief economic aide)
• Charles Yost (U.N. Ambassador)
• Harlan Cleveland (NATO Ambassador)
• Jacob Beam (USSR Ambassador)
• David Kennedy (Secretary of Treasury).
Gerald R. Ford Administration
When CFR member Gerald Ford became President, among some of the other CFR members:
• William Simon (Secretary of Treasury)
• Nelson Rockefeller (Vice-President)

Jimmy Carter Administration

President Carter (who became a CFR member in 1983) appointed over 60 CFR members to serve in his Administration:
• Walter Mondale (Vice-President)
• Zbigniew Brzezinski (National Security Advisor)
• Cyrus R. Vance (Secretary of State)
• W. Michael Blumenthal (Secretary of Treasury)
• Harold Brown (Secretary of Defense)
• Stansfield Turner (Director of the CIA)
• Gen. David Jones (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)
Ronald Reagan Administration
There were 75 CFR and Trilateral Commission members under President Reagan:
• Alexander Haig (Secretary of State)
• George Shultz (Secretary of State)
• Donald Regan (Secretary of Treasury)
• William Casey (CIA Director)
• Malcolm Baldridge (Secretary of Commerce)
• Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick (U.N. Ambassador)
• Frank C. Carlucci (Deputy Secretary of Defense)
• William E. Brock (Special Trade Representative)
George H. W. Bush Administration
During his 1964 campaign for the U.S. Senate in Texas, George Bush said: “If Red China should be admitted to the U.N., then the U.N. is hopeless and we should withdraw.” In 1970, as Ambassador to the U.N., he pushed for Red China to be seated in the General Assembly. When Bush was elected, the CFR member became the first President to publicly mention the “New World Order” and had in his Administration nearly 350 CFR and Trilateral Commission members:
• Brent Scowcroft (National Security Advisor)
• Richard B. Cheney (Secretary of Defense)
• Colin L. Powell (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)
• William Webster (Director of the CIA)
• Richard Thornburgh (Attorney General)
• Nicholas F. Brady (Secretary of Treasury)
• Lawrence S. Eagleburger (Deputy Secretary of State)
• Horace G. Dawson, Jr. (U.S. Information Agency and Director of the Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights)
• Alan Greenspan (Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board)

Bill Clinton Administration
When CFR member Bill Clinton was elected, Newsweek magazine would later refer to him as the “New Age President.” In October, 1993, Richard Harwood, a Washington Post writer, in describing the Clinton Administration, said its CFR membership was “the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States”.
• Albert Gore, Jr. (Vice-President)
• Donna E. Shalala (Secretary of Health and Human Services)
• Laura D. Tyson (Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors)
• Alice M. Rivlin (Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget)
• Madeline K. Albright (U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.)
• Warren Christopher (Secretary of State)
• Clifton R. Wharton, Jr. (Deputy Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation)
• Les Aspin (Secretary of Defense)
• Colin Powell (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff)
• W. Anthony Lake (National Security Advisor)
• George Stephanopoulos (Senior Advisor)
• Samuel R. ‘Sandy’ Berger (Deputy National Security Advisor)
• R. James Woolsey (CIA Director)
• William J. Crowe, Jr. (Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board)
• Lloyd Bentsen (former member, Secretary of Treasury)
• Roger C. Altman (Deputy Secretary of Treasury)
• Henry G. Cisneros (Secretary of Housing and Urban Development)
• Bruce Babbit (Secretary of the Interior)
• Peter Tarnoff (Under Secretary of State for International Security of Affairs)
• Winston Lord (Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs)
• Strobe Talbott (Aid Coordinator to the Commonwealth of Independent States)
• Alan Greenspan (Chairman of the Federal Reserve System)
• Walter Mondale (U.S. Ambassador to Japan)
• Ronald H. Brown (Secretary of Commerce)
• Franklin D. Raines (Economics and International Trade).

George W. Bush Administration
• Richard Cheney (Vice President, former Secretary of Defense under President G.H.W. Bush)
• Colin Powell (Secretary of State, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents Bush and Clinton)
• Condoleeza Rice (National Security Advisor, former member of President Bush’s National Security Council)
• Robert B. Zoellick (U.S. Trade Representative, former Under Secretary of State in the Bush administration)
• Elaine Chao (Secretary of Labor)
• Brent Scowcroft (Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, former National Security Advisor to President Bush)
• Richard Haass (Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at Large)
• Henry Kissinger (Pentagon Defense Policy Board, former Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford)
• Robert Blackwill (U.S. Ambassador to India, former member of President Bush’s National Security Council)
• Stephen Friedman (Sr. White House Economic Advisor)
• Stephen Hadley (Deputy National Security Advisor, former Assistant Secretary of Defense under Cheney)
• Richard Perle (Chairman of Pentagon Defense Policy Board, former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration)
• Paul Wolfowitz (Assistant Secretary of Defense, former Assistant Secretary of State in the Reagan administration and former Under Secretary of Defense in the Bush administration)
• Dov S. Zakheim (Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, former Under Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration)
• I. Lewis Libby (Chief of Staff for the Vice President, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense).
The Christian Science Monitor said that “almost half of the Council members have been invited to assume official government positions or to act as consultants at one time or another.”
(page top)

CFR Influence in Education and the Media
The Council accepts only American citizens, and has a membership of about 3,600, including influential bankers, corporate officers, and leading government officials who have been significantly affecting domestic and foreign policy for the past 30 years. Every [recent] member had been handpicked by David Rockefeller, who heads the inner circle of the CFR.

Some of the CFR directors have been:
• Walter Lippman (1932-37)
• Adlai Stevenson (1958-62)
• Cyrus Vance (1968-76, 1981-87)
• Zbigniew Brzezinski (1972-77)
• Robert O. Anderson (1974-80)
• Paul Volcker (1975-79)
• Theodore M. Hesburgh (1926-85)
• Lane Kirkland (1976-86)
• George H.W. Bush (1977-79)
• Henry Kissinger (1977-81)
• David Rockefeller (1949-85)
• George Shultz (1980-88)
• Alan Greenspan (1982-88)
• Brent Scowcroft (1983-89)
• Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick (1985- )
• Warren M. Christopher (1982-91)
• Richard Cheney (1987-89)

Some of the College Presidents that have been CFR members:
• Michael I. Sovern (Columbia University)
• Frank H. T. Rhodes (Cornell University)
• John Brademus (New York University)
• Alice S. Ilchman (Sarah Lawrence College)
• Theodore M. Hesburgh (Notre Dame University)
• Donald Kennedy (Stanford University)
• Benno J. Schmidt, Jr. (Yale University)
• Hanna Holborn Gray (University of Chicago)
• Stephen Muller (Johns Hopkins University)
• Howard R. Swearer (Brown University)
• Donna E. Shalala (University of Wisconsin)
• John P. Wilson (Washington and Lee University).
Among the members of the media who have been in the CFR:
• William Paley (CBS)
• Dan Rather (CBS)
• Harry Reasoner (CBS)
• Roone Arledge (ABC)
• Bill Moyers (NBC)
• Tom Brokaw (NBC)
• John Chancellor (NBC)
• Marvin Kalb (CBS)
• Irving Levine
• David Brinkley (ABC)
• John Scali
• Barbara Walters (ABC)
• William Buckley (PBS, National Review)
• George Stephanopoulos
• Daniel Schorr (CBS)
• Robert McNeil (PBS)
• Jim Lehrer (PBS)
• Diane Sawyer
• Hodding Carter III

Some of the major newspapers, news services and media groups that have been controlled or influenced by the CFR:
• New York Times (Sulzbergers, James Reston, Max Frankel, Harrison Salisbury)
• Washington Post (Frederick S. Beebe, Katherine Graham, Osborne Elliott)
• Wall Street Journal
• Boston Globe
• Baltimore Sun
• Chicago Sun-Times
• L.A. Times Syndicate
• Houston Post
• Minneapolis Star-Tribune
• Arkansas Gazette
• Des Moines Register and Tribune
• Louisville Courier
• Associated Press
• United Press International
• Reuters News Service
• Gannett Co. (publisher of USA Today and 90 other daily papers plus 40 weeklies; and also owns 15 radio stations, 8 TV stations, and 40,000 billboards).

In 1896, Aldolph Ochs bought the New York Times, with the financial backing of J.P. Morgan (CFR), August Belmont (Rothschild agent), and Jacob Schiff (of Kuhn, Loeb and Co.). It later passed to the control of Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, who was also a CFR member. Eugene Meyer, a CFR member, bought the Washington Post in 1933. [It was later] run by his daughter, Katherine Graham, also a member of the CFR.

Some of the magazines that have been controlled or influenced by the CFR:
• Time, Inc. founded by CFR member Henry Luce and Hedley Donovan, which publishes Time, Fortune, Life, Money, People, Entertainment Weekly, and Sports Illustrated
• Newsweek (owned by the Washington Post, W. Averell Harriman, Roland Harriman, and Lewis W. Douglas)
• Business Week
• U.S. News and World Report
• Saturday Review
• National Review
• Reader’s Digest
• Atlantic Monthly
• McCall’s
• Forbes
• Look
• Harper’s Magazine

Some of the publishers that have been controlled or influenced by the CFR:
• Macmillan
• Random House
• Simon & Schuster
• McGraw-Hill
• Harper Brothers
• Harper & Row
• Yale University Press
• Little Brown & Co.
• Viking Press
• Cowles Publishing.
(page top)

CFR Affiliated Organizations and Corporations
G. Gordon Liddy, former Nixon staffer, who later became a talk show pundit, laughed off the idea of a “New World Order”, saying that there are so many different organizations working toward their own goals of a one-world government, that they cancel each other out. Not the case. You have seen that their tentacles are very far reaching, as far as the government and the media. However, as outlined below, you will see that the CFR has a heavy cross membership with many groups; as well as a cross membership among the directorship of many corporate boards, and this is a good indication that their efforts are concerted.

Some of the organizations and think-tanks that have been controlled or influenced by the CFR:
• Brookings Institute
• RAND Corporation
• American Assembly
• Foreign Policy Association (co-founded by CFR member Raymond Fosdick)
• World Affairs Council
• Business Advisory Council
• Committee for Economic Development
• National Foreign Trade Council
• National Bureau of Economic Research
• National Association of Manufacturers
• National Industrial Conference Board
• Americans for Democratic Action
• Hudson Institute
• Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
• Institute for Defense Analysis
• World Peace Foundation
• United Nations Association
• National Planning Association
• Center for Inter-American Relations
• Free Europe Committee
• Atlantic Council of the U.S. (founded in 1961 by CFR member Christian Herter)
• Council for Latin America
• National Committee on U.S.-China Relations
• African-American Institute
• Middle East Institute

Some of the many companies that have been controlled or influenced by the CFR:
• Morgan, Stanley
• Kuhn, Loeb
• Lehman Brothers
• Bank of America
• Chase Manhattan Bank
• J. P. Morgan and Co.
• First National City Bank
• Brown Brothers, Harriman and Co.
• Bank of New York
• CitiBank/Citicorp
• Chemical Bank
• Bankers Trust of New York
• Manufacturers Hanover
• Morgan Guaranty
• Merrill Lynch
• Equitable Life
• New York Life
• Metropolitan Life
• Mutual of New York
• Prudential Insurance
• Phillips Petroleum
• Chevron
• Exxon
• Mobil
• Atlantic-Richfield (Arco)
• Texaco
• IBM
• Xerox Corporation
• AT&T
• General Electric
• ITT Corporation
• Dow Chemical
• E. I. du Pont
• BMW of North America
• Mitsubishi
• Toyota Motor Corporation
• General Motors
• Ford Motor Company
• Chrysler
• U.S. Steel
• Proctor and Gamble
• Johnson and Johnson
• Estee Lauder
• Avon Products
• R. J. R. Nabisco
• R. H. Macy
• Federated Department Stores
• Gimbel Brothers
• J. C. Penney Company
• Sears, Roebuck and Company
• May Department Stores
• Allied Stores
• American Express
• PepsiCo
• Coca Cola
• Pfizer
• Bristol-Myers Squibb
• Hilton Hotels
• American Airlines

In September, 1922, when the CFR began publishing its quarterly magazine, Foreign Affairs, the editorial stated that its purpose was “to guide American opinion.” By 1924, it had “established itself as the most authoritative American review dealing with international relations.” This highly influential magazine has been the leading publication of its kind, and has a circulation of over 75,000. Reading this publication can be highly informative as to the views of its members. For instance, the Spring, 1991 issue, called for a U.N. standing army, consisting of military personnel from all the member nations, directly under the control of the U.N. Security Council.

A major source of their funding (since 1953), stems from providing a “corporate service” to over 100 companies for a minimum fee of $1,000, that furnishes subscribers with inside information on what is going on politically and financially, both internationally and domestically; by providing free consultation, use of their extensive library, a subscription to Foreign Affairs, and by holding seminars on reports and research done for the Executive branch. They also publish books and pamphlets, and have regular dinner meetings to allow speakers and members to present positions, award study fellowships to scholars, promote regional meetings and stage round-table discussion meetings.

Since the Council on Foreign Relations has been able to infiltrate our government, it is no wonder that our country has been traveling on the course that it has. The moral, educational and financial decline of this nation has been no accident. It has been due to a carefully contrived plot on behalf of these conspirators, who will be satisfied with nothing less than a one-world government. And it is coming to that. As each year goes by, the momentum is picking up, and it is becoming increasingly clear, what road our government is taking. The proponents of one-world government are becoming less secretive, as evidenced by George Bush’s talk of a “New World Order.” The reason for that is that they feel it is too late for their plans to be stopped. They have become so entrenched in our government, our financial structure, and our commerce, that they probably do control this country, if not the world. In light of this, it seems that it will be only a matter of time before their plans are fully implemented.
(page top)

The Brookings Institution
The Brookings Institution was established by St. Louis tycoon and philanthropist, Robert Somers Brookings (1850-1932). At the age of 21, Brookings had become a partner in Cupples and Marston (a manufacturer of woodenware and cordage), which, ten years later, under his leadership, expanded and flourished. In 1896, at the age of 46, he retired to devote his duties towards higher education, and became President of Washington University’s Board of Trustees, which, through the next twenty years, turned into a major university.

He was one of the original Trustees of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and a consultant to the Commission on Economy and Efficiency during the Taft Administration. In 1917, he was appointed to President Wilson’s War Industries Board which had the responsibility of receiving and distributing the supplies needed by the military, later becoming Chairman of its Price Fixing Committee responsible for negotiating prices for all goods purchased by the Allied governments, which gave him a key role in the Wilson Administration.

At the age of 70, he took over the leadership of the Institute for Government Research (IGR), founded by lawyer and economist Frederick A. Cleveland in 1916, and raised $750,000 from 92 corporations and a dozen private citizens to get it moving. Their first project was to push for legislation creating a federal budget, which was successful. The first U.S. Budget Director, under President Harding, was Charles G. Dawes, who relied heavily on the IGR’s staff. The Institute was also involved in civil service reform legislation in the 1920’s. Among their members: Supreme Court Chief Justice William Howard Taft (who was Chief Justice from 1921-30, after his Presidential term), Herbert Hoover (President, 1929-32), and Elihu Root.

Brookings decided that economics was the biggest issue, and not the administrative aspects that the Institute was covering, so in June, 1922, with a $1,650,000 grant from the Carnegie Corporation, he established the Institute of Economics to represent the interests of the labor unions and the general public. In 1924, he established the Robert S. Brookings School of Economics and Government (an outgrowth of Washington University in St. Louis), to allow doctoral students to spend time in Washington, D.C. to work on the staffs of the IGR and the Institute of Economics.

In 1927, he merged all three organizations to form the Brookings Institution, whose purpose was to train future government officials. He put $6 million, and 36 years of his life, into the nonpartisan, nonprofit center, which analyze government problems, and issue statistical reports. They produce an annual report, Setting National Priorities, which analyzes the President’s budget.

Their headquarters is an eight story building, eight blocks from the White House, at 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW. They have a staff of about 250, including about 45 senior fellows and 19 research associates. Salaries go as high a $40,000 a year.
After serving close to ten years in the State Department, Leo Pasvolsky returned to the Brookings Institution in 1946, along with six other members of the State Department. With the financial backing of the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Mellon Trust, Pasvolsky initiated an International Studies Group which developed the basis for the Marshall Plan to aid the European war recovery efforts.

In 1951, the Chicago Tribune said that the Brookings Institution had created an “elaborate program of training and indoctrination in global thinking,” and that most of its scholars wind up as policy makers in the State Department. Truman was the first President to turn to them for help. In 1941, he named Brookings Vice President Edwin Nouse as the first Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors. Kennedy and Johnson appointed many of their members to key posts. Carter’s foreign policy became a resting place for the many of the group’s recommendations.

President Johnson said that the purpose of his ‘Great Society’ legislation was to “try to take all of the money that we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the ‘haves’ and give it to the ‘have-nots’ that need it so much.” Ralph Epperson, author of The Unseen Hand, one of the best books about the Master Conspiracy, said that Johnson was a “closet Communist.”
Another well-known researcher, John Coleman, said that the Brookings Institution had developed and drafted the Great Society programs which were

“in every detail, simply lifted from Fabian Socialist papers drawn up in England. In some instances, Brookings did not even bother to change the titles of the Fabian Society papers. Once such instance was using ‘Great Society,’ which was taken directly from a Fabian Socialist paper from the same title.”

After Socialist leader Eugene Debs died in 1926, Socialist Norman Thomas, who graduated from and was ordained by the Union Theological Seminary, became the leader of the Socialist Party, running for President six times. Thomas was happy with Johnson’s vision and said: “I ought to rejoice and I do. I rub my eyes in amazement and surprise. His war on poverty is a Socialistic approach…”

Republicans regard the Brookings Institution as the “Democratic government-in-exile,” yet, Nixon appointed Herbert Stein, a Brookings scholar, to be Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. The Nixon Administration, who at one time had considered bombing the Brookings Institution in order to allow the FBI to seize their documents, had considered the idea of a “Brookings Institution for Republicans” to offset the liberalism of Brookings. They thought of calling it the Institute for an Informed America, or the Silent Majority Institute. E. Howard Hunt, of Watergate fame, was to be its first Director, but he wanted to turn it into a center for covert political activity.

The role of the “conservative Brookings” was taken by an existing research center called the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, which was founded in 1943 by Louis H. Brown (Chairman of the Board at Johns-Manville Corporation), to promote free enterprise ideas. During the early sixties, they shortened their name to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and later received a lot of financial support during the Nixon and Ford Administrations, when the organization became a pool from which they drew their advisors. When Carter was elected, the AEI became a haven for many Republican officials, including President Gerald Ford, and William E. Simon, the Secretary of Treasury.

The Committee for Economic Development
In 1941, Paul Gray Hoffman, President of the Studebaker Company and a Trustee of the University of Chicago, along with Robert Maynard Hutchins and William Benton, the University’s President and Vice President, organized the American Policy Commission to apply the work of the University’s scholars and economists to government policy. They later merged with an organization established in 1939 by Fortune magazine called the Fortune Round Table.

Starting out as a group of business, labor, agricultural, and religious leaders, they soon evolved into an Establishment organization, with such members as: Ralph McCabe (head of Scott Paper Co.), Henry Luce (Editor-in-Chief and co-founder of Time, Life, and Fortune magazines), Ralph Flanders (a Boston banker), Marshall Field (Chicago newspaper publisher), Clarence Francis (head of General Foods), Ray Rubicam (an advertising representative), and Beardsley Ruml (treasurer of Macy’s Department Store in New York City, former Dean of Social Sciences at the University of Chicago, and Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, whose idea it was to deduct taxes from your paycheck).

At the beginning of World War II, Hoffman and Benton approached Jesse Jones, the Secretary of Commerce, with an idea for an ‘American Policy Commission’ to “analyze, criticize, and challenge the thinking and policies of business, labor, agriculture, and government,” which Jones accepted and began to organize with their help. On September 3, 1942, the Committee for Economic Development (CED) was incorporated in Washington, D.C. (2000 L Street NW, Suite 700) to:
“…foster, promote, conduct, encourage, and finance scientific research, education, training, and publication in the broad field of economics in order that industry and commerce may be in a position, in the postwar period, to make their full contribution to high and secure standards of living for people in all walks of life through maximum employment and high productivity in our domestic economy; to promote and carry out these objects, purposes, and principles in a free society without regard to, and independently of the special interests of any group in the body politic, either political, social, or economic.”

Basically, their work centered around how to prepare the U.S. economy for a smooth transition from a wartime to a peacetime environment without the occurrence of a major depression or recession. A 1944 CED Report, International Trade and Domestic Employment, by Duke University Professor Calvin B. Hoover, helped push the United States into the International Monetary Fund, which was laid out at the Bretton Woods Conference in June, 1944, by chief negotiators Harry Dexter White (of the CFR) and John Maynard Keynes (of the Fabian Society); and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), which both became part of the United Nations. It also helped motivate Establishment backing for what later emerged as the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. About three years later, their report on An American Program of European Economic Cooperation was eventually developed into the strategy for European recovery that became part of the Marshall Plan. In fact, Hoffman, who became the first CED Chairman, later headed the Federal agency that administered the Marshall Plan.

After the War, while Hoover was on leave from Duke University, he worked with Hoffman to develop what eventually became known as the Marshall Plan. The group’s later work laid the groundwork for regional government in the United States.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

This old man does not deserve to speak above the intellect of the men quoted below.


“Before a standing army can rule; the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”
~Noah Webster


“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
of their own conscience.”
— C. S. Lewis
(1898-1963), British novelist
Source: “God in the Dock” (1948)


CRUDEN v. NEALE 2N.C. (1796) 2 SE 70 “Every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent”


“The duty of a Patriot is to protect his country from its government.”  Thomas Paine


“No earthly government has jurisdiction over your God Given Rights.”
HENCE, – NO GOD – NO RIGHTS!

10 13 11 flagbar

We Are Heading Into Anarchy: Official Says, “EU Will Completely Break Down In 10 Days” Plus two more Articles

February 26th, 2016 by

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-25/we-are-heading-anarchy-official-says-eu-will-completely-break-down-10-days

Submitted by Tyler Durden

Norwegian PM Erna Solberg doesn’t want to have to skirt her country’s responsibilities under the Geneva Convention and she doesn’t want to trample over human rights either, but she will if she has to.

“It is a force majeure proposals which we will have in the event that it all breaks down,” Solberg said, in an interview with Berlingske, describing new measures she believes Norway may have to take if Sweden buckles under the weight of the refugee influx which saw some 163,000 asylum seekers inundate the country last year.

Solberg is effectively prepared to turn everyone away and go into lockdown mode should everything fall apart completely, causing Europe to descend into some kind of lawless, Hobbesian, free-for-all.

If that sounds far-fetched or hyperbolic consider that on Thursday, EU migration commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos warned that the bloc has just 10 days to implement a plan that will bring about “tangible and clear results on the ground” or else “the whole system will completely break down.”

2-26-2016 10-24-43 AM

Avramopoulos also cautioned that a humanitarian crisis in Greece and in the Balkans is “very near.” Moves by countries to adopt ad hoc, state-specific measures to stem the flow are exacerbating the problem, the commissioner contends.
“We cannot continue to deal through unilateral, bilateral or trilateral actions; the first negative effects and impacts are already visible,” he said. “We have a shared responsibility –- all of us -– towards our neighbouring states, both EU and non-EU, but also towards those desperate people.”

By “the negative effects,” of unilateral actions, Avramopoulos is likely referring to the bottlenecks that are leaving thousands stranded in the Balkans. The chokepoints are being pressured by a series of border fences that have been erected over the past six months and the problem is exacerbated by stepped up border checks. In short: we’re witnessing the death of the bloc’s beloved Schengen.

“Seven European states have already reinstated border controls within the cherished but creaking Schengen free-travel zone, putting huge strain on Greece, which can no longer wave the tide of arrivals from Turkey onward through the Balkans,” Reuters writes. Earlier today, Athens recalled its Austrian ambassador. “Greece will not accept unilateral actions. Greece can also carry out unilateral actions,” migration minister, Yannis Mouzalas told reporters on Thursday. “Greece will not accept becoming Europe’s Lebanon, a warehouse of souls, even if this were to be done with major [EU] funding.”

On March 7, officials will attend a summit with Turkey where buy in from Ankara is critical if there’s to be meaningful reduction in the flow of asylum seekers to Western Europe. Leaked documents recently showed President Erdogan is essentially attempting to blackmail Europe. “We can open the doors to Greece and Bulgaria at any time. We can put them on busses,” he was quoted as saying, during a conversation with European Commissioner Jean Claude Juncker and President of the European Council Donald Tusk on 16th November 2015 during the G20 Summit in Antalya.

In addition to the seven states that have already reinstated border checks, more countries have promised to follow suit unless Erdogan and Tsipras can figure out a way to make progress in defending the bloc’s external border.

Officials fear the onset of spring will embolden still more migrants to make the journey as warmer weather will thaw the Balkan route. On Wednesday, Hungarian PM Viktor Orban called for a referendum on the propsed quota system that Brusells hoped would help distribute and place refugees. It’s only a matter of time before other countries conduct similar plebiscites.
Perhaps Jean Asselborn, Luxembourg’s foreign minister put it best: “The outlook is gloomy … We have no policy any more. We are heading into anarchy.”
Looks like Erna Solberg was right after all.

Jim Rogers Warns Governments Plan Is To Destroy The People Who Save”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-24/jim-rogers-warns-governments-plan-destroy-people-who-save

Submitted by Tyler Durden

“Everybody should be worried.. and be prepared,” warns legendary investor Jim Rogers, as he sees the market “facing a bigger collapse than in 2008,” and the central banks will be unable to kick the can much longer. “This is the first time in recorded history where you have Central Banks & governments setting out to destroy the people who save & invest,” Rogers exclaims and “the markets are telling us that something is wrong – we’re getting close.”
“The central bankers haven’t given up yet… they think they are smarter than you and me and the market… they’re not!”
Full interview with FutureMoneyTrends below…

Detailed breakdown
• 1:20 Is this Market Crash Different?

• 5:00 Cashless Society – it gives ‘them’ more control, it is bad for you and me. There is now way to exit from this.

• 7:20 Crash will be Bigger – eventually the market is going to say “enough is enough”

• 8:40 Gold – going much higher, may be opportunity to buy more lower first

• 10:10 2016 Election, Donald Trump

• 11:20 Where Jim is Investing – Short US equities, Short Junk bonds, Shorting Europe into rally

• 12:30 China’s Economy

• 17:30 One investment over five years, sugar or rice or Russian Ruble

Somebody Propped the Markets Up Again Yesterday

By Phoenix Capital Research

At this point the manipulations are getting ridiculous.

“Someone” decided to step in a prop up stocks yesterday. How do we know it was a market prop and not real investors?
There were several “tells.”
They were:

1) The jump in stocks was based on a sudden move in one of the key asset classes the PPT are using to prop up the markets (they are: Oil, the VIX and Yen).

2) The price action was sudden and vertical: neither are the hallmarks of actual buyers.

3) The trading session differed dramatically from recent other sessions.
Regarding #1, as everyone knows, the majority of market action today is controlled by trading algorithms.

These trading algorithms operate based on correlations between asset classes. Currently two of the biggest correlations are Oil (a direct correlation, meaning when Oil rallies, algorithms buy stocks) and the VIX (an inverse correlation meaning when the VIX falls, algorithms buy stocks).

Yesterday, Oil staged a MASSIVE 5% intraday price move on the fact inventories rose less than expected. Yes, a 5% price move based on a single secondary data point (inventories are near record highs).

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Will someone please tell me why, after all the innocent people we have slaughtered in unnecessary wars, can we not demand our military; TO ROUND UP ALL OF THESE MONSTER BANKERS AND HANG THEIR ASSES OVER A BONFIRE AND ROAST THEM TO ASHES? The agony they have cost humanity is incalculable!

10 13 11 flagbar

And Now For The 100 Trillion Dollar Bankster Climate Swindle…

February 24th, 2016 by

https://www.corbettreport.com/and-now-for-the-100-trillion-dollar-bankster-climate-swindle/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CorbettReportRSS+%28The+Corbett+Report%29

2-24-2016 12-18-15 PMby James Corbett
TheInternationalForecaster.com
February 23, 2016

Quick: what’s the first thing you remember about the climate conference in Paris last December?
The weather astrologers’ absurd resolution to control the amount of temperature rise the world will experience over the next century?

Politicians grandstanding on the freshly-dead victims of their latest false flag to proclaim that their global warming nonsense was a “powerful rebuke” to their proxy terror army in Syria?
The predictable (but no less retch-inducing) hypocrisy of the jetset glitterati descending on Paris in their private jets and limousine fleets to dine on banquet lunches from Micheline-starred chefs before lecturing humanity on how we’ll all have to tighten our belts for the new climate austerity?

Of course that’s what you remember. Because that’s what you’re expected to remember. As long as you never peek under the hood, never lift the lid to check what’s inside the COP21 documents, they’re perfectly happy for the usual drivel about saving the planet to be printed in the mainstream press. They’re perfectly happy for the progressive press to print the usual nonsense lamenting the fact that there isn’t a strong enough global government to save us from the weather demons. They’re even happy for the dissenters to debunk the flawed science and point out the hypocrisies and lambaste the silly political statements because all of these things miss the heart of the issue.

The heart of the issue (for those who need it elaborated) is this: the future of $90 trillion of energy infrastructure investments and the $1 trillion green bond market and the multi-trillion dollar carbon trading market and the $391 billion (and growing) climate finance industry hangs in the balance.

Of course it does. What else explains the convergence of interest in the organizations, structures and mechanisms for global governance that the magical global thermostat narrative affords?
It’s why Enron and Goldman Sachs pioneered the emissions trading swindles (that–surprise, surprise!–are a complete and total fraud from top to bottom).

2-24-2016 12-17-44 PMIt’s why General Electric, DuPont, Johnson & Johnson, Pepsi, Siemens, AIG and a host of other Fortune 500/CFR companies joined BP, ConocoPhillips, GM and a host of other oiligarch companies as founding members of the US Climate Action Partnership whose “Blueprint for Legislative Action” became the backbone of the Wall Street-backed Waxman-Markey bill of 2009.

It’s why the Rockefellers and Rothschilds are at the forefront of the climate hysteria.
It’s why over 400 global institutional investors worth over $25 trillion have decided to cash in on the bonanza with their “Investment Platform for Climate Actions.”

Heck, it’s why EDF, Engie, Air France, Renault, BNP Paribas and a host of other oiligarch companies footed 20% of the bill for the Paris conference itself (and why the French government bent over backwards to point out their “green” credentials).
Take just one structural element of the climate swindle: the Green Climate Fund. Never heard of it? Hardly surprising. It’s just the facility through which the UN is expected to be clearing $100 billion in climate funding per year by the end of the decade. That’s right: $100 billion per year. Every year.

The Fund was established at the 2010 edition of the UN Climate Conference (COP16) in Mexico in order “to support concrete mitigation actions by developing countries that are implemented in a transparent way,” which is UN Newspeak for “create a bottomless trough of pork for corrupt kleptocrats, bureaucrats, kakistocrats and tyrants to siphon off before funneling some loose change into some makework projects.” And it brags that it represents “a new and equitable form of global governance to respond to the global challenge of climate change” which you hardly need the globalist decoder to figure out. The Fund is headquartered in the Songdo Business District of Incheon, South Korea, because the Korean Secretary-General of the UN and the Korean President of the World Bank probably just threw darts at a map (since, as we all know, blatant political nepotism never happens at those institutions).

2-24-2016 12-17-25 PMEven the Fund’s biggest supporters are criticizing the “transparent way” it is handling its first disbursement. The Fund claims it consulted indigenous communities before approving $6.2 million for a Peruvian wetlands resilience programme, but there is no verification that this ever took place. Worse, details of the projects it has decided to fund so far have not been publicly released, only proposal documents (and in two cases, only a summary).

But for those who still believe this money is being handled by angels with nothing but the best interests of humanity in mind, note this passage from the Nature article on the Fund’s shadiness:
“For some, another contentious issue is that the GCF is flowing its money mainly through international organizations, such as multilateral or private banks such as the World Bank and Deutsche Bank — rather than sending it directly to institutions in developing countries where the projects are taking place.”

For some? You mean, for people with their head screwed on straight?
Oh, and the kicker? The Fund’s Executive Director just happens to be an ex-Citibank investment banker. Who woulda thunk it?
Yes, the global climate swindle is well under way, brought to you by the same trustworthy folks in the banking industry and in the Fortune 500 / CFR / globalist jetset who have been steering us into the happy economic, political and environmental conditions that we enjoy today…
…oh, wait…

2-24-2016 12-17-08 PM…but it’s a different kind of green

If there’s any bright spot in all of this it’s that so far the Fund has only managed to raise just over $10 billion in pledges from the developed countries. And even that is an inflated number which includes the $3 billion which Obama made a big show of pledging in 2014 but so far hasn’t actually delivered. It’s a long way to go to get to that $100 billion/year mark they’re hoping to reach by 2020.

Don’t feel too sorry for the globalists, though. Their game is a war of attrition, and as long as people continue to buy into the narrative that all of this money is going to help the poor and downtrodden (by way of the UN and the World Bank and their corporate crony Wall Street financial institutions) then it’s only a matter of time before this thin edge of climate cronyism turns into the full wedge of global kleptocracy.

10 13 11 flagbar

Reader’s Report on Dire Situation in Southern Illinois

February 23rd, 2016 by

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/02/08/readers-report-on-dire-situation-in-southern-illinois/

By Fred

Dear Mr. Roberts, I check out your website at least twice each week. It is always most informative. Thank you. Where I live down here in far-southern Illinois the unemployment rate is upwards of sixty to eighty percent. Most individuals and families rely on food stamps or some combination of government aid.

No doubt if these were taken away you would have riots in the streets. Surroundings towns are mostly destitute, with very little local commerce to speak of other than the occasional corporate franchise store ( mini-WallMarts). Seventy five years ago and with ten times the population this region was thriving economically, flourishing mostly on local river traffic and small family farming, with the varied supporting commerce that was dependent on and as an outgrowth of these two basic economic activities. The very same rich and abundant natural resources that existed then exist today but now everything is mostly under the control of outside corporate interests that extract most of the wealth from the region.

Today nearly every town is only a shadow of its former self and nearly all farms are large corporate enterprises that employ very few locals. I, for one, have to drive miles just to visit a good grocery store when my own town has blocks of abandoned store fronts and a deteriorating infrastructure. You have to wonder what is happening to our country when most rural regions today seem to be turning into third-world backwaters devoid of any life and real meaning. It seems all of our nation’s wealth is now concentrating in a few wealthy regions and everywhere else is merely becoming sacrifice zones for ”extraction” and ”mining” to support the investor elites.

 

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Dear Fred, You should take a tour around America so you would not feel alone. This has been the Banking Cartels modus operandi for many years, and rural America has been confiscated by them to herd the people into government supported stack and pack cities so every one becomes dependent on the government hand outs which will disappear when they are finished redesigning America. This was only possible because the people were side tracked by the good life and never learned that politicians were not put in office by the people, they are appointed by the Bankers, “bought and paid for traitors“.

The next time you come close to a politician, knock his teeth out. Americans have become so controlled that only a massive educated populace will have the understanding to make demands for our return to a republic. In reality, if we do not produce a hundred million educated Americans who are willing to defy the powerful International Investment Banking Cartel, we will become a Nation of slaves. It is past time forAmericans to wake up to the truth, learn it, and revise their commentary to fight it with all their might. This means educate the sheep non stop until they are as outraged as we all should be.

We need to get this information out to a hundred million people ASAP. Why would an entire Nation accept a Corporation for a government? There is only one way for things to change for the better, and that is for a hundred million people to read this: You Know Something is Wrong When…..: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause (Paperback) by Judge Anna Maria Riezinger & James Clinton Belcher

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

10 13 11 flagbar

The Architect of Destruction

January 11th, 2016 by

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/scott/130301

Maureen Scott is an ardent American patriot who was born in Pittsburgh, PA , and retired to Richmond , VA , in 2000. Free from the nine-to-five grind of writing for employers and clients, she began writing political commentary to please herself and express her convictions.

The accomplishment of which she is most proud is her volunteer work at an Army base where she looked into the eyes and hearts of the service members who protect our country.

Our Pledge of Allegiance, a military band playing the National Anthem, and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, inspire her passion and views. Her life is guided by a firm belief that truth is the most important virtue, and that God knows what He is doing with her.

ABSOLUTELY NO ONE, could have described this President more accurately. This is a brief biography that articulates the man, his life and his goals perfectly!
The Architect of Destruction
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2EU1H4kQUlg/Ucw9gRSI7lI/AAAAAAAAZ7s/PxXJO5DdaBU/s400/obama-mad.jpg

By Maureen Scott
Barack Obama appears to be a tormented man filled with resentment, anger, and disdain for anyone of an opinion or view other than his. He acts in the most hateful, spiteful, malevolent, vindictive ways in order to manipulate and maintain power and control over others. Perhaps, because, as a child, he grew up harboring an abiding bitterness toward the U.S. That was instilled in him by his family and mentors…it seems to have never left him.

It is not the color of his skin that is a problem in America.

Rather it is the blackness that fills his soul and the hollowness in his heart where there should be abiding pride and love for this country.

Think: Have we ever heard Obama speak lovingly of the U.S. Or its people, with deep appreciation and genuine respect for our history, our customs, our sufferings and our blessings?

Has he ever revealed that, like most patriotic Americans, he gets “goose bumps” when a band plays “The Star Spangled Banner,” (no he gets goose bumps when he hears the ”Muslim call to prayer” (his words) or sheds a tear when he hears a beautiful rendition of ” America the Beautiful?”

Does his heart burst with pride when millions of American flags wave on a National holiday – or someone plays “taps” on a trumpet?

Has he ever shared the admiration of the military, as we as lovers of those who keep us free, feel when soldiers march by?

It is doubtful because Obama did not grow up sharing our experiences or our values.

He did not sit at the knee of a Grandfather or Uncle who showed us his medals and told us about the bravery of his fellow troops as they tramped through foreign lands to keep us free.

He didn’t have grandparents who told stories of suffering and then coming to America, penniless, and the opportunities they had for building a business and life for their children.

Away from this country as a young child, Obama didn’t delight in being part of America and its greatness. He wasn’t singing our patriotic songs in kindergarten, or standing on the roadside for a holiday parade and eating a hot dog, or lighting sparklers around a campfire on July 4th as fireworks exploded over head, or placing flags on the grave sites of fallen and beloved American heroes.

Rather he was separated from all of these experiences and doesn’t really understand us and what it means to be an American. He is void of the basic emotions that most feel regarding this country and insensitive to the instinctive pride we have in our national heritage. His opinions were formed by those who either envied us or wanted him to devalue the United States and the traditions and patriotism that unites us.

He has never given a speech that is filled with calm, reassuring, complimentary, heartfelt statements about all the people in the U.S.

Or one that inspires us to be better and grateful and proud that in a short time our country became a leader, and a protector of many.

Quite the contrary, his speeches always degenerate into mocking, ridiculing tirades as he faults our achievements as well as any critics or opposition for the sake of a laugh, or to bolster his ego.

He uses his Office to threaten and create fear while demeaning and degrading any American who opposes his policies and actions.

A secure leader, who has noble self-esteem and not false confidence, refrains from showing such dread of critics and displaying a cocky, haughty attitude.

Mostly, his time seems to be spent causing dissension, unrest, and anxiety among the people of America, rather than uniting us (even though he was presented to us as the “Great Uniter”).

He creates chaos for the sake of keeping people separated, envious, aggrieved and ready to argue. Under his leadership Americans have been kept on edge, rather than in a state of comfort and security.

He incites people to be aggressive toward, and disrespectful of, those of differing opinions. And through such behavior, Obama has lowered the standards for self-control and mature restraint to the level of street-fighting gangs, when he should be raising the bar for people to strive toward becoming more considerate, tolerant, self-disciplined, self-sustaining, and self-assured.

Not a day goes by that he is not attempting to defy our laws, remove our rights, over-ride established procedures, install controversial appointees, enact divisive mandates, and assert a dictatorial form of government.

– Never has there been a leader of this great land who used such tactics to harm and hurt the people and this country.

– Never have we had a President who spoke with a caustic, evil tongue against the citizenry rather than present himself as a soothing, calming and trustworthy force.

– Never, in this country, have we experienced how much stress one man can cause a nation of people – on a daily basis!

Obama has promoted the degeneration of peace, civility, and quality of cooperation between us. He thrives on tearing us down, rather than building us up. He is the Architect of the decline of America, and the epitome of a Demagogue.
© Maureen Scott

 

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Let’s all give this lady fifty atta-gals, because as much as I disrespect this wanna-be tyrant I could never bring him down to the level she has. I just do not have the commend of English she does. The best I could do is call him a despicable son of a bitch, coward and traitor.
OLDDOG IS BACK TO WORK!
After two days of swapping cold-packs on my face every twenty minutes on and twenty minutes off from 6am till 10pm, the swelling has gone down to where my eyes returned to view, and discovering that the salve I am using on the stitches was running down into my eyes and causing the blurred vision, I am now trying to catch up on article reading and archiving. I sure hope this experience helps restore my peripheral vision because it’s been a real pain in the FACE??? It’s good to be back to work!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

NRA SECOND AMENDMENT AND WE THE PEOPLE

December 21st, 2015 by

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin279.htm

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
December 21, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

Fair Weather Friends

As a member of the National Rifle Association, I regularly receive its magazine, The American Rifleman. In the December 2015 issue appears an editorial by Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s Executive Vice President, entitled “Obama, Hillary Embrace Gun Confiscation”. Although this observation of present political facts should hardly surprise anyone, it rightly vexes Mr. LaPierre, because of the dark history of “gun control” in Britain and especially in Australia—where confiscation went forward (according to him) “[t]o assuage an insane notion of collective guilt to impose a national gun ban”, and “will never end until the last firearm is removed from private hands”.

Now, most astute observers understand that, although the systematic disarming of Britons and Australians by their own rogue public officials over the years “will never end until the last firearm is removed from private hands”, it never has had anything, and today has nothing, to do with psychobabble about “collective guilt”, or even some “insane notion”, but instead was and is the product of a coldly calculated policy contrived by political elitists who were, and remain, intent upon creating in those benighted nations the conditions necessary for the imposition and perpetuation of police states.

These events have been, in no small measure, “models” or “test beds” for the same tactics to be employed against the United States, for the same ultimate purpose. So I wonder whether Mr. LaPierre really imagines that, as leading political elitists in this country, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton espouse confiscation of Americans’ firearms simply because they supposedly suffer from “collective guilt”, or are the victims of “insane notion[s]”.

After all, America’s rogue public officials have generally proven themselves to be ruthless political racketeers whose every exercise of real or imaginary power demonstrates that a police state in this country appeals to them far more than what the Second Amendment calls “a free State”. Arguably, these miscreants might be found guilty of numerous crimes, or perhaps even be diagnosed as “insane” in some sense—all too many political figures in high offices in the Western World today being at least subject to suspicion as narcissistic psychopaths. Yet there is method in what might be deemed their madness with respect to “gun control”. And it is their method which must be opposed, whether they are cunning criminals who deserve condign punishment, or merely pitiable wretches who suffer from some mental disease or defect.

Which brings me to my dissatisfaction with Mr. LaPierre’s editorial. He frets that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton “would alter the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court with the goal of overturning the landmark decisions that have recognized the sanctity of the Second Amendment in guaranteeing our right to keep and bear arms.” (Here, he refers to the Court’s recent Heller and MacDonald decisions.) But if those decisions had ruled against the construction of the Second Amendment which Mr. LaPierre favors (as, by merely one vote among the Justices, they almost did), would he now be so enthusiastic about preserving them? Or would he, precisely in the fashion of Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton (and many others of their political coloration), be in favor of “alter[ing] the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court with the goal of overturning th[os]e * * * decisions”? The answer to that question is obvious.

Unfortunately, Mr. LaPierre seems to embrace the fallacy known as “judicial supremacy”: the notion that the Constitution means whatever some decision of the Supreme Court says that it means. In practice, this reduces to the perverse conclusion that the Constitution must be taken to mean whatever the fifth fool who creates a majority among the Justices happens to believe at the time, no matter how obviously wrong that belief may be. So America is controlled by “a government of men”, all too fallible and corruptible, not “a government of laws” the meanings of which are capable of objective determination.

The truth is, however, that a decision of the Supreme Court does not determine whether the Constitution means this or that. Rather, the Constitution determines whether a decision of the Supreme Court in favor of this or that is correct or incorrect. We know that this must be the true rule of constitutional construction, because—by their own admissions in cases such as Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828-830 & note 1 (1991)—the Justices have been wrong about the Constitution in the past, time and again, and therefore can and surely will be wrong in the future. Today they may hand down decisions such as Heller and MacDonald, which equivocally limit certain aspects of “gun control”; and tomorrow they may concoct some hideous decisions reversing Heller and MacDonald in favor of “gun control”. So as an institution the Court is a weak reed on which to lean if the goal is to enforce the Constitution, as opposed to some Justices’ idiosyncratic—perhaps idiotic—musings about the Constitution.

To his credit, Mr. LaPierre does realize that “judicial supremacy” poses a practical political problem: namely, who are the Justices to be? The Supreme Court is not a permanent group of wise men and women who unerringly issue opinions in perfect conformity with the Constitution as Mr. LaPierre understands (or perhaps misunderstands) it. The Court’s composition changes over time. So the only way to ensure that his interpretation of the Second Amendment prevails is continually to “pack” the Court with new Justices in sympathy with that interpretation. But to “pack” the Court requires control of the White House and the Senate, the joint efforts of which determine the Court’s composition. So Mr. LaPierre calls upon the NRA’s members to “organize as never before and stand united in voting to save the Second Amendment in November 2016”.

The problem is that America cannot rely on elected politicians to enforce the Constitution (even if the elections are actually honest). After all, since the 1930s who has enacted the various “gun-control” statutes which Mr. LaPierre hopes the Supreme Court will eventually strike down as “infringe[ments]” of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, if not Members of Congress in league with various Presidents? If these people could have been, or their successors could now be, trusted to defend what Mr. LaPierre calls “the sanctity of the Second Amendment”, why would anyone be concerned with the present or the future composition of the Supreme Court? There would be no issues of “gun control” to come before the Court. And if these people cannot be trusted with the defense of the Second Amendment today or tomorrow—just as History proves that their predecessors could not be trusted in yesteryears—then how can they be trusted to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court who will defend that Amendment any more rigorously than they themselves have failed to defend it?

The undeniable political fact is that Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court are unstable and untrustworthy institutions which need to be closely supervised and controlled at all times, especially between elections. The very existence of the Constitution—replete with “checks and balances” as it is—proves as much. Moreover, the existence of the Second Amendment—or any other provision of the Constitution—by itself guarantees nothing.

The Constitution is not self-interpreting and self-executing. Its “checks and balances” must be understood, and then put into operation—religiously, rigorously, even ruthlessly. And for that purpose WE THE PEOPLE cannot rely solely upon their ostensible “representatives” in any branch of government. For those “representatives”—whether through ignorance, indolence, insouciance, self-interest, or criminal inclinations—may turn out to be the sources of the problem. To defend the Constitution, WE THE PEOPLE must depend upon themselves. They are the authors of the Constitution. As its authors, they are its final interpreters. And to ensure that their interpretations are taken seriously by public officials, they must be its ultimate enforcers. But how are WE THE PEOPLE to accomplish this task?

To answer this question requires no more than to read the Constitution. The only stable and trustworthy establishments the Constitution incorporates within its federal system are “the Militia of the several States”. They are stable and trustworthy because they are always composed of the sovereigns themselves, WE THE PEOPLE, not merely some ever-mutating gaggle of possibly incompetent or disloyal “representatives”. If THE PEOPLE themselves cannot be trusted to exercise their own sovereignty in their own interest, who can be? Certainly no one else in what the Second Amendment calls “a free State”—that is, a polity based upon popular self-government. In the final analysis, in “a free State” THE PEOPLE can depend upon no one other than themselves to maintain their freedom.

That is why the Second Amendment itself declares that “well regulated Militia” are “necessary to the security of a free State”. Not the Supreme Court—not Congress—not the President—not the NRA and all of its efforts in lobbying, litigation, electioneering, and public education—not isolated individuals trying to exercise the so-called “individual right to keep and bear arms”—not even those private groups which ignorantly style themselves “militia”. No, not any one of these alone, or any combination of a few of them, or even all of them together, but instead “well regulated Militia” defined (as Virginia’s Declaration of Rights so accurately defined them in 1776) as “composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”. Not just some of “the people”—but “the body of the people”—“trained to arms” so as to secure the Power of the Sword in the hands of the sovereigns themselves.

If in the last several decades the NRA, and Americans in general, had payed due attention to all twenty-seven words in the Second Amendment—and particularly the first thirteen, not just the last fourteen on which the NRA dotes—patriots would not have to worry about the legalistic clap-trap some majority of Justices of the Supreme Court might spew out in favor of “gun control”. For there would be no “gun control” as we know it today. If the Militia existed as the Constitution requires that they exist, Mr. LaPierre would have no occasion to rail against such “gun-control” fanatics as one Fred Hiatt, of The Washington Post, whom Mr. LaPierre quotes as calling for a “cultural shift” which will lead to “[a] gun-free society’”. Of course, Mr. Hiatt does not actually propose “[a] gun-free society” in the fullest sense of those words. No, indeed. In the society he advocates, regular armed forces and para-militarized police departments and other “law-enforcement agencies”—all of them equivalent to large or small “standing armies”—would have guns, and plenty of them.

And out of the barrels of those guns these “standing armies” would impose, under the guise of “martial law” or other “emergency powers”, the policies that Mr. Hiatt and his co-thinkers want to see directed against common Americans—Americans who, because they were thoroughly disarmed, would be unable to mount any defense against those policies, not matter how tyrannical they might be. To be sure, Mr. Hiatt himself may be simply another muddled “liberal”, incapable of coherent thinking along constitutional lines, rather than a self-conscious totalitarian. But the “gun-free society” he advocates would, of necessity, be nothing less than the opposite of what the Second Amendment calls “a free State”: namely, “a[n un]free State”. (Perhaps for him, too, as well as for the vast majority of his countrymen.)

Mr. LaPierre no doubt understands, and rightly fears, this outcome. But, in opposing it, he fails to bring to bear against it the full armamentarium the Constitution provides. The last fourteen words of the Second Amendment are not enough. The first thirteen are, as they themselves attest, “necessary”. WE THE PEOPLE must exercise “the right * * * to keep and bear Arms”, without “infringe[ment]”, through “well regulated Militia”—and not just to resist “martial law”, “emergency powers”, and other manifestations of usurpation and tyranny; but also to do everything else that “well regulated Militia” could do, and would do, and must do today that would have nothing to do with resisting usurpation and tyranny, but everything to do with providing “the security of a free State” from other, perhaps more immediate, dangers.

I have written extensively about this subject in many of my columns for NewsWithViews, and in books such as The Sword and Sovereignty, Thirteen Words, Three Rights, and By Tyranny Out of Necessity: The Bastardy of “Martial Law”. Yet tireless repetition of this message appears to be obligatory upon me in particular, as vanishingly few people seem to be paying any attention—not so much to me, but to the Constitution. As an NRA firearms instructor, I am well aware from my training that no amount of repetition of the NRA’s three basic rules of firearms safety—to wit, “always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction”, “always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot”, and “always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use it”—can ever be excessive. How much more so for the most important teaching of the Constitution: to wit, that “[a] well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”? Can any number of reiterations of this precept be too many? More importantly, can its implementation be left in abeyance?

The question I put to Mr. LaPierre, to the NRA in general, and to all of the rest of the self-styled advocates of the Second Amendment is: “When do you intend to take this admonition seriously?” When it is too late?
No one can doubt that the herd of “gun-control” fanatics stampeding throughout this country today poses a clear and present danger to “a free State”. But no less—and perhaps more—dangerous are the supposed champions of the Second Amendment for whom only its last fourteen words have any significance. The “gun-control” fanatics at least understand what is at stake. Their constant attacks on so-called “assault” firearms, “high-capacity” magazines, and the most effective types of ammunition prove that they want to make revitalization of the Militia impossible, under any circumstances, by denying Americans the ability to possess the very equipment which is peculiarly apt for Militia service.

The counter-arguments from defenders of the Second Amendment that this equipment may be useful for individuals’ self-defense against common criminals, or even against real domestic “terrorists”, although true in principle is largely beside the point in practice. For this equipment is not uniquely useful for those purposes, and in many instances would not be useful at all (as most individuals are unlikely to be out and about in society on a daily basis with AR-15 rifles slung on their shoulders.)

The real constitutional argument against contemporary “gun control” lies in the first thirteen words of the Second Amendment. Namely, that every American eligible for the Militia—which includes every able-bodied adult man and woman (other than conscientious objectors)—has a right, and more importantly a duty, to possess whatever firearms can serve any purpose in the Militia, under any circumstances in which the Militia might be called forth. Constitutional “gun control” requires the possession of firearms of every description by every American eligible for the Militia. (Not that every American would necessarily possess every type of firearm; but that no American would be denied a right to possess any type of firearm.) Every self-styled advocate of the Second Amendment who denies this, or who simply evades the matter entirely, turns other Americans away from the constitutional solution to “gun control”, and thereby actually aid and abets the proponents of “gun control”. It may be that these people are motivated by good, if misguided, intentions. But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, all of them misguided. And this country is too far down that road already to tolerate further misdirection.

© 2015 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserved

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.
He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us
He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com
His latest book is: “How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary” … and Constitutional “Homeland Security,” Volume One, The Nation in Arms…
He can be reached at his new address:
52 Stonegate Court
Front Royal, VA 22630.
E-Mail: Not available

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

“Kill The Infidels!”

December 18th, 2015 by

https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/188216-2015-12-17-kill-the-infidels.htm?From=News

OLDDOGS COMMENTS
Shamefully, most readers will not recognize that this article is far and away the most powerful sermon since Jesus walked the earth. If the majority of Christians were as theologically astute as Chuck, the world would be a far better place than it ever has been. The real essence of Christianity has never been elucidated as clearly as what you are about to read.

PAY ATTENTION!

By Chuck Baldwin

Adult choirs, children’s programs, teen choirs, orchestras, bands, Sunday School lessons, pageants, and sermons will all laud the birth of the Prince of Peace. They will hear messages about love and peace and brotherhood. They will raise their hands in “worship,” smile and laugh, shout “Amen,” and get warm and fuzzy feelings all over as they celebrate the day that the Prince of Peace was born.

No doubt, pastors all over America will quote Luke 2:13, 14. “And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”
But as soon as the Christmas celebration passes, their vocalizations of peace and goodwill will be buried amidst a cacophony of hatred for their fellow man: specifically, for their fellowmen who call themselves Muslims. We might hear “Kill the infidels!” from the mouths of certain Islamic jihadists, but that same cry is heard by God from the hearts of, perhaps, millions of America’s Christians.

Currently, Donald Trump is riding a wave of bigotry and hatred against the Muslim people to a potential Republican nomination for President. I have no idea whether Trump hates Muslims or not, but there is no doubt that millions of Christians and “conservatives” have been whipped into a frenzy of anti-Muslim hatred by FOX News, pastors, and thousands of conservative Internet bloggers, writers, journalists, and radio talk show hosts. Trump’s anti-Muslim campaign rhetoric has harnessed that hatred into frontrunner status in the GOP presidential race. And Ted Cruz has done the same thing, which has vaulted him to the current runner-up position.

In the following video, we see Cruz walking out on a group of persecuted Middle Eastern Christians where he had been invited to speak. This meeting was all about showing solidarity for persecuted Christians. There is no way Cruz could not have understood the group he was speaking to. The meeting was not a political event. It was simply an event to demonstrate support for persecuted Christians–regardless of who was doing the persecuting.

But it didn’t take Ted Cruz long to turn his speech into a political stunt. He quickly became an apologist for Israel, which brought boos from the audience. What most of America’s Christians do not understand is that the government of Israel has committed more than its fair share of persecution against Christians. When Cruz heard the boos, he accused members of his audience of being consumed with hate and then said, “If you will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then I will not stand with you,” and stormed off the stage.

Really, Ted? These were Christians who are being persecuted by Muslims and Jews. They were looking to a fellow Christian to encourage their hearts. Instead, you brazenly took the side of their persecutors.
Mr. Cruz, are you standing with Israel when it stoned Stephen to death in Acts 7? Are you standing with Israel when it beheaded James in Acts 12? Are you standing with Israel when it crucified the Lord Jesus Christ? If you would stand with Israel when it persecutes Christians today, then I guess you are.

See the video here:

Sen. Ted Cruz Booed Off Stage

Every day, my email inbox fills up with anti-Muslim hatred–and much of it from professing Christians. These are the same ones that will celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace next week.
As justification for their bigotry and hatred, Christians love to quote passages from the Koran that speak of jihad against “infidels.” But, it never ceases to amaze me that these same Christians seem to have never read the Jewish Talmud–or even the writings of many Christian leaders from years gone by.

For example, here are some excerpts from the Talmud:

“Since God already gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Mt. Sinai we no longer pay attention to heavenly voices. God must submit to the decisions of a majority vote of the rabbis.” (BT Bava Metzia 59b)
“All gentile women without exception are: ‘Niddah, Shifchah, Goyyah and Zonah’ (menstrual filth, slaves, heathens and prostitutes).” (BT Sanhedrin 81b – 82a)

“The best of the gentiles: kill him; the best of snakes: smash its skull; the best of women: is filled with witchcraft.” (BT Kiddushin 66c)

“Regarding bloodshed the following distinction applies: If a non-Jew killed another non-Jew, or a non-Jew killed a Jew, the killer is liable for execution; if a Jew killed a non-Jew, he is exempt from punishment.” (BT Sanhedrin 57a)
“Jews may use lies (‘subterfuges’) to circumvent a gentile.” (BT Baba Kamma 113a)

“On Passover Eve they hanged Jesus of Nazareth. And the herald went out before him for 40 days and proclaimed, Jesus of Nazareth is going to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited and led Israel astray. Whoever knows of an argument that may be proposed in his favor should come and present that argument on his behalf. But the judges did not find an argument in his favor, so they hanged him on Passover Eve…Did Jesus of Nazareth deserve that a search be made for an argument in his favor? Surely he incited others to idol worship.” (BT Sanhedrin 43a)

Celebrated ancient religion historian Peter Schafer, who is now the director of the Jewish Museum of Berlin, wrote this commentary on the Babylonian Talmud (BT) Grittin 57a, “…Jesus shares his place in the Netherworld (hell) with Titus and Balaam, the notorious arch enemies of the Jewish people. Whereas Titus is punished for the destruction of the Temple by being burned to ashes, reassembled, and burned over and over again, and whereas Balaam is castigated by sitting in hot semen, Jesus’ fate consists of sitting forever in boiling excrement.” (Peter Schäfer, “Jesus in the Talmud,” Princeton University Press, p. 13)

Amazingly, I don’t hear Christians screaming the accusation that “there is no such thing as a peaceful Jew,” based on the writings of the Talmud and its apologists. Yet, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently promised that Talmudic law is the official law of Israel.

Report: Netanyahu Promises Talmud Will Be Israeli Law

Make no mistake about it: the Talmud, NOT the Torah, is the Bible of the Zionists. The “Oral Law” of the Pharisees who crucified Christ formed the basis for the Talmud. This was exactly what Jesus was referring to when he scolded the Pharisees for placing their “traditions” ahead of the Law of Moses (the Torah). I propose that the Talmud is FAR WORSE than the Koran; and I believe I can prove it.

The Pharisees hated the Lord Jesus then, and their spiritual descendants, the Zionists, still hate Him today. Yet, there is not a peep from the Christian community at large about the threat posed to Christian America from Zionists.
But in reality, Zionists have done more to expunge America’s Christian heritage than perhaps any other single force. Islamic jihadists don’t even come close. For the most part, Zionists control America’s television news networks, America’s major newspapers, the Federal Reserve and most of America’s major banking interests–as well as America’s entertainment and educational institutions–and even our legal institutions. An argument can also be made that the extraordinary wealth of the Zionists has exerted a significant influence over America’s political institutions.

Yet, there is nary a peep from today’s Christians regarding the attack against America’s Christian heritage from Zionists. Neither is there any mention of Israel’s attack against the U.S.S. Liberty, which took the lives of dozens of American sailors and Marines. It’s as if it never happened. Imagine if that attack had come from a Muslim country.
I invite you to watch this video (caution, bad language is used) of an atheist Jew (yes, a sizeable percentage of Jews are atheists) who goes berserk with rage against a Christian man on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley. Had this man been a Muslim, this video would have gone viral as “proof” of how all Muslims hate Christians. But since the man is a Jew, you are probably seeing this video for the first time:

Jew Confronts “Dirty Goyim” Christian Man On University Campus

Does this young Jewish man represent all Jews? Of course not. No more than Islamist militants represent all Muslims.
In addition, Christians should do some careful research regarding what some of their own institutions have done and what some of their own renowned leaders have said. What follows is a summary of one Christian researcher, with my comments in brackets:

For over 300 years during the Dark Ages, between 10,000-100,000 [some say 1 million, but that is probably an exaggeration] people were savagely tortured and killed–and thousands more persecuted–by the Roman Catholic Church. But the Roman Catholic Church is not alone.

The Lutheran towns of Lubeck, Bremen, Hamburg, Luneburg, Stralsund, Rostock and Wismar all voted to hang Anabaptists and flog and banish Catholics and Zwinglians from their homelands.
Martin Luther said of Roman Catholic leaders, “If I had all the Franciscan friars in one house, I would set fire to it . . . To the fire with them!”

Luther taught that dissenters (those who disagreed with him) should be banished and said that “The peasants (involved in the Peasants’ War) would not listen; they would not let anyone tell them anything; their ears must be unbuttoned with bullets, till their heads jump off their shoulders. … On the obstinate, hardened, blinded peasants, let no one have mercy, but let everyone, as he is able, hew, stab, slay, lay about him as though among mad dogs, . . . . so that peace and safety may be maintained….” Note that he was speaking of German peasants.

Luther was even more vicious toward Jews. He said, “First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honour of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians….”

[Would anyone dare suggest that there is no such thing as a peace-loving Lutheran because of the words of Martin Luther?]
A man was arrested for writing on one of John Calvin’s tracts the words, “all rubbish,” and was put on the rack twice a day for a month. He was beheaded on July 26, 1547.

The Spanish Reformer Servetus had dared to criticize Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion and Calvin declared: “If he comes here and I have any authority, I will never let him leave the place alive.”

Servetus, an anti-Trinitarian, had disagreed with Calvin via correspondence and when he visited Geneva on August 13, 1553, he went to hear Calvin preach. Calvin saw him in church and had him arrested. Calvin drew up forty charges against him including Servetus’ opposition to infant baptism and his attack upon the preaching of Calvin. On August 20, 1553, Calvin wrote: “I hope that Servetus will be condemned to death” and in October the Geneva Council ordered that he be burned alive the next day.

“Heretics” were hanged then burned in Zurich, Basil, and Geneva for disagreeing with Calvin’s teachings. During the first five years of Calvin’s rule in the small town of Geneva, 13 people were hanged, 10 were decapitated, and 35 were burned to death. A citizen could go to prison for smiling during a baptismal service or sleeping during a church service. [I know a LOT of Christians who would be in jail right now, if that were still the case.]

[Would anyone dare suggest that there is no such thing as a peace-loving Presbyterian because of John Calvin’s statements?]

In England, Henry VIII was head of the Church of England (that Henry formed after his break from Rome) and doctrinal disagreements now became high treason to be punished by disembowelment while still alive, hanging, and quartering. In the end, even failing to denounce anyone else who criticized these things became treason.

Those who left England and Europe to find religious freedom were guilty of imposing their own convictions upon others, even non-believers! Virginia had established the Anglican Church (Church of England) and forbade Quakers and Baptists to assemble, and to “rub salt into open sores,” Virginia citizens were forced to pay the salaries of Anglican preachers.
The Puritans demanded freedom for themselves in England but in America they greatly restricted freedom of religion. They tried to outdo what they had endured. In Massachusetts and Virginia, Baptists and Quakers were often whipped, jailed, and had property confiscated. [By the way, these atrocities were the impetus for the First Amendment to our U.S. Constitution.]

[Would anyone dare suggest that there is no such thing as a peace-loving Episcopalian because of the actions of some Puritans?] [End of summary]

The incredible phenomenon of professing Christians torturing, jailing, and killing their fellow Christians is almost unknown by most Americans; but we all know how Muslims kill Muslims and non-Muslims and we are horrified as they behead their enemies. All right, we should be horrified and repulsed at such barbarity, but remember, professing Christians did the same and worse to their “enemies”, i.e., those who disagreed with them.
Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and Protestants all have a history of killing in the name of God. No group has a monopoly on hatred.

Furthermore, if one wants to start comparing savagery in the modern world, Islamic jihadists do not hold a candle to Mexican drug gangs. The numbers of people beheaded by Mexican drug gangs FAR EXCEEDS those by Islamic militants.

See this report:

The Street Gangs More Vicious Than ISIS

Donald Trump is absolutely correct when he points out the problem of an unsecured U.S. border. But why doesn’t he go on a mission to root out the Mexican drug gangs from America? There are FAR MORE of them in the United States than Islamic jihadists. FAR MORE. (Plus, he should mention that if the federal government stopped giving handouts to illegals, the flow of illegals into America would soon dry up.)

For one thing, one cannot capitalize politically upon religious bigotry when addressing Mexican drug gangs. For another thing, the motive of the gangs has nothing to do with religion: it is pure greed from (mostly) the sale of illegal drugs. And speaking of greed, NOTHING COMPARES to the international bankers in New York City and the politicians in Washington, D.C. NOTHING! In truth, those miscreants in Washington, D.C., and New York City pose a far greater risk to our liberties than Muslim terrorists or Mexican gangs. FAR GREATER!

I have documented several times in this column the fact that the Islamic terror groups ISIS, al Nusra, etc., were created by the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel. Anyone could find this evidence with only a few hours research. For the most part, ISIS is comprised of Sunni Muslims from Saudi Arabia (America’s great “ally”). In addition, Israel is the number one purchaser of smuggled oil from ISIS. Turkey is the middleman, but Israel is far-and-away the primary purchaser. Do the research yourself, folks.

In truth, Sunni and Shia Muslims have been fighting each other for hundreds of years. And until the United States decided to inject itself directly into the conflict, it was almost exclusively a Muslim vs. Muslim issue. It was America’s wars of intervention that brought the Muslim conflict home to the United States.

It was the military force of the United States that replaced secular Muslim governments in Iran and Iraq with radical religious ones. And it is the United States (via ISIS) that is currently attempting to do the same thing in Syria.
President Assad has the support of most Christians in Syria. That is a FACT. So, how can Assad be this great monster and enemy of Christians when the Christian people that live there support him, fight for him, and pray for him?
I have Christians in America now writing me defending their hatred of Muslims by using verses of Scripture (taken out of context, of course). They are not even timid about their hatred. So, what’s the difference between a religious Muslim who hates America and a religious Christian who hates Iran and Syria?

Do Christians not remember the story of Jonah? The prophet Jonah was sent by God to the Assyrian capital of Nineveh. Jonah refused to go because he hated the Assyrians. Remember, the Assyrians had ruthlessly pillaged and plundered Israel. No doubt, Jonah had lost friends and loved ones to these atrocities. Yet, God sent him to Nineveh in order to give the Assyrians an opportunity to repent. After a submarine ride in a great fish, Jonah went to Nineveh and preached. And it was in Nineveh (located in what is now Iraq) where the greatest spiritual revival in human history took place. As a result, God spared the Assyrians from divine judgment for over 100 years.

If the story of Jonah teaches anything, it teaches God’s great love for ALL people and the responsibility of God’s men to rid hatred from their hearts and to be willing to take the message of God’s love to even those we consider our enemies.
I remind readers that ISIS no more represents a majority of the Muslim people than Bibi and his fellow Zionists represent a majority of the Jewish people or Barack Obama and the neocons represent a majority of the Christian people. These wicked leaders are manipulating the masses by fueling the flames of hatred and bigotry in our hearts to further their own selfish nefarious purposes.

I urge folks to watch this video of an elderly Muslim lady courageously scolding a truckload of ISIS fighters face-to-face. She told them in the name of Allah to STOP the violence they were perpetrating.

See the video here:
MUST WATCH : Wise Old Lady Stands Up Against ISIS!

Plus, if Christians want a verse of Scripture to condone hatred, the ONLY verse of Scripture I can find that places God’s hatred against individuals and not actions is Psalm 11:5. (Please spare me the other verses you want to send me. I’ve read them, and they are all talking about a person’s actions, NOT personal or religious bigotry.) “The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.” (KJV)
I am personally convinced this verse speaks of God’s divine retribution against the souls of the damned in everlasting judgment. However, if one wants to interpret that verse to the here-and-now, they need to be careful. Note God’s hatred for those “that love violence.”

I submit that many Christians have themselves become lovers of violence. Who are the ones that are singing John McCain’s chorus of “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”? Christians. Who are the ones that vehemently rejected Ron Paul’s message of peace and goodwill in 2012? Christians. Who are the ones who enthusiastically support the neocon wars of aggression in the Middle East? Christians.

In truth, U.S. taxpayers have funded the killings of over 1.5 million people in the Middle East, the vast majority of whom are innocent civilians. How would we react if alien warplanes and drones killed hundreds of thousands–and even millions–of our mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, neighbors and friends here in America? Come on, think!
This report is not the only one where the truth about the casualties the U.S. has inflicted in the Middle East has been told–and what the neocon-controlled U.S. media will never tell us:

US Kills 1.5 Million In ‘War On Terror’ – Then Lies About ’30 Civilian Casualties’ In Russian Airstrikes

Again, do the research for yourself.

One West Point graduate and former U.S. Army officer is even more condemning in reporting the number of U.S. war victims. Joachim Hagopian claims that U.S. wars have killed over 30 million people since the end of World War II.

See his report here:

It’s Time To Stop “Supporting Our Troops”: Thirty Million People Killed By U.S. Since The End Of World War II

If even a fraction of his claim is accurate, that is a lot of blood on the hands of U.S. taxpayers. Remember that the next time you want to single out Muslims for God’s hatred upon those that “love violence.”

Donald Trump says he wants to close mosques, and Christians cheer. Really? The responsibility of the President is to faithfully execute the laws of the United States and to preserve, protect and defend the Supreme Law of the land: the U.S. Constitution. Freedom of religion is sacrosanct in our Constitution and no religious test regarding constitutional liberties can be allowed. We either have freedom of religion, speech, assembly, etc., for all, or we have it for none. Plus, it is a very small step from the government closing mosques to closing synagogues and churches, folks.

False religion is a curse from God upon the Church for abandoning truth. Therefore, the answer to America’s Muslim problem lies with the CHURCH, not unconstitutional discrimination by government against religion. Faith cannot be exported at the point of a gun. Christians, of all people, should understand that. Christian missionaries are evangelizing Muslim people in the very heart of Muslim countries today. I know a few of them personally. In fact, Christianity is growing faster in Middle Eastern countries than in the United States.

Christians need to remember that our federal government has ALREADY categorized Christian people as being “extremists,” “radicals,” “fringe,” etc. Do Christians really want to open the door for our federal government to start selectively outlawing religion? Talk about handing the hangman the rope; that’s it.
Instead of singling out people of one religion, Trump should have focused on his original idea of securing our borders from all illegal immigration and, as President, on faithfully enforcing the immigration laws already on the books–or even asking Congress to further restrict ALL immigration until as such time as we can get a secure handle on our immigration problem. But singling out ONE religion for selective discrimination is a GIANT step in the proverbial slippery slope into oppression–and truly violates everything the First Amendment stands for.

And please don’t write me with the hackneyed hyperbole that Islam is not a religion, but only a political entity. Tell me modern American Christianity is NOT political! Get real! 501c3 churches operate DIRECTLY under the political government of the United States. By their very charters, they are government organizations.

If Christians truly believe they are justified in hating and discriminating against Muslims, why don’t they stop beating around the bush and start actually doing something about it? Why don’t they follow the dictates of the hatred of their hearts and round up every Muslim in the United States, imprison them, and then execute them? In their hearts, that’s what they WANT to do. And didn’t Jesus say something about hatred in the heart being the same as murder? So, get on with it, brethren.

Oh! And Merry Christmas! Let’s all go to church this Sunday and celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace. You know, the One whom God the Father sent to Bethlehem because of His great love for the whole world.
P.S. Given the current propensity of the U.S. government to declare American citizens as “extremists” and such, I invite readers to order James Jaeger’s brand new film, “Midnight Ride: When Rogue Politicians Call For Martial Law.”

Distinguished patriot luminaries such as Pat Buchanan, Larry Pratt, Ron Paul, G. Edward Griffin, Sheriff Richard Mack, Stewart Rhodes, Edwin Vieira, Jr., and several others are featured in this film. I am honored to also be featured.
I invite readers to go to my website and order the DVD of this brand new film. And please tell your friends. Order “Midnight Ride” here:

Midnight Ride: When Rogue Politicians Call For Martial Law

© Chuck Baldwin

THANKS CHUCK!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

Beware The Media Industrial Complex

December 4th, 2015 by

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/12/beware-the-media-industrial-complex.html?utm_source=Activist+Post+Subscribers&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=f034b7162c-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_b0c7fb76bd-f034b7162c-387807993

12-4-2015 8-12-03 AM

By Chris Veritas

In conversations with various people, I have often brought up the fact that the Media seems to have no memory of the past, is entirely uniform when it comes to urging war, and patently ignores a plethora of glaring issues. The issues it does catch sight of, it seems incapable of penetrating, remaining at the surface of things, and therefore keeping discourse at the most superficial level. When questioned about these tendencies of Media, the responses I’ve received range from “well, that’s just the way they maintain ratings”, to “but my paper or network has the better ideology”. Americans appear satisfied to accept what occurs to them as given, and like Pangloss to reply, indeed, this is “the best of all possible worlds”.

I beg to differ.

Here are a few troubling questions that I feel greatly undermine the idea that Mainstream Media is credible:

 

1: Why is it that when it comes to war, the same news sources that criticize the president constantly, suddenly all seem to lionize his cause? Shouldn’t the opposite be true? Shouldn’t there be at least some dissent among the Mainstream sources? Isn’t this a little suspicious, if the press is free and independent?

2: How can it be that not only the press, but the entire nation has forgotten that the first case made to the American people concerning war with Syria was sold as being in order to depose Assad? Clearly ISIS existed at that point, so why were they not the target? When exactly did they become the world’s Super Enemy? Apparently this happened a few months after the Media campaign to attack Syria by other means failed.

3: When did it become okay to terrorize the viewing audience, weaving dubious tales of extremists hiding under every bush, meanwhile replaying distressing footage over and over again (like the falling of the towers), until the public is thoroughly brutalized. How many times did we need to see the towers fall? 1,000? 10,000? How disrespectful to the dead, and to the living.

4: When exactly did the trail of bodies following the Clintons not become news anymore?

Questions, questions, questions. And these are just the tip of the iceberg.

With a bit of research it becomes apparent that the entire Media apparatus is beholden to a handful of enormously powerful Corporations, which teach the public that this, of course, is a good thing. Corporations ought to be as large as possible they say, because: Capitalism! If the prevailing ideology makes them insanely powerful, and “accidentally” coincides with 99% of Americans being poor and in debt, well, at least we’re not Communists!

And that is what you call a false dialectic.

These entities, therefore, through their Media medium, construct opinion, polarize politics, shred the past like Winston in 1984, and obscure the present with the dope of hypnotic flicker rates, tantalizing tag lines, and the literal dope of drugs like Prozac and Ritalin, à la Brave New World.

But what would a legitimate media look like, you might ask?

1: A legitimate media would harp incessantly on our nation’s constant violation of international law when waging war, and the hypocrisy of claiming to defend Democracy while violating it.

2: A legitimate media would remember that the Fed promised before its inception to scientifically prevent booms and busts, inflation, depressions, and crashes. Rather than analyze its promises and policies, what we get is stale superficial commentary, which completely overlooks history and current reality. No one apparently can criticize the printing of endless paper money, the mountains of debt our economy runs on, or the international banks (of which the Fed is one), which strip countries bare of resources (see: North America), and gamble trillions on derivatives while forcing austerity onto entire nations. And all the economists can say is: “wow, look at those fourth quarter gains.”

3: A legitimate media would run Trump and Hillary straight into the Gulf, and refuse to ratify the side show spectacle of our so-called presidential electoral proceedings.

Amidst the glossy blues and reds of our dynamic digital cable displays (which seem to progress faster than the state of politics), planes are disappearing and we’re chasing pings, North Korea is hacking Sony in a fit of pique, Bill O’Reilly is killing great men faster than you can say “obstreperous,” while talking heads yell talking points on split screens to a divided audience.

Is this “just the way things are,” or are we being gamed?

To many it is becoming clear that the Media is now an organized apologetics machine, and is no longer a source for information, as it pours forth the dialectics of the Anglo-American establishment. Big Money, which owns Big Media, supersizes the insignificant; barricades inconvenient facts; sells politics like Big Macs; tempts cravenly the debt-ridden with overpriced expendables; is tre cool with hyping vacuous celebrities, one-note politicians and golden doors, all at one time and with great gusto.

And we become dumber and dumber as we absorb it all: fake news, fake money, fake culture, and fake representative Government. (Ah, America in 2015. Each day is better than the next.)

Former president Eisenhower once famously said, “Beware the military industrial complex,” and we should have listened to him. But now the objectives of Big Military, Big Media/ Business/ Entertainment, and Big White House all seamlessly merge and overlap. One could be excused for wondering if we’re living in a thinly disguised tyranny, when the light of truth seems so strictly verboten.

You can read more from Chris Veritas at his site Some Cry Wolf

12-21-2014 7-40-05 AM

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 

In Mali and Rest of Africa the U S Military Fights a Hidden War

November 26th, 2015 by

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/20/in-mali-and-rest-of-africa-the-u-s-military-fights-a-hidden-war/

11-26-2015 10-48-26 AM

By Nick Turse

THE GENERAL LEADING the U.S. military’s hidden war in Africa says the continent is now home to nearly 50 terrorist organizations and “illicit groups” that threaten U.S. interests. And today, gunmen reportedly yelling “Allahu Akbar” stormed the Radisson Blu hotel in Mali’s capital and seized several dozen hostages. U.S. special operations forces are “currently assisting hostage recovery efforts,” a Pentagon spokesperson said, and U.S. personnel have “helped move civilians to secured locations, as Malian forces clear the hotel of hostile gunmen.”

In Mali, groups like Ansar Dine and the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa have long posed a threat. Major terrorist groups in Africa include al Shabaab, Boko Haram and al Qaeda in the Islamic Magreb (AQIM). In the wake of the Paris attacks by ISIS, attention has been drawn to ISIS affiliates in Egypt and Libya, too. But what are the dozens of other groups in Africa that the Pentagon is fighting with more special operations forces, more outposts, and more missions than ever? For the most part, the Pentagon won’t say.

Brigadier General Donald Bolduc, chief of U.S. Special Operations Command Africa, made a little-noticed comment earlier this month about these terror groups. After describing ISIS as a transnational and transregional threat, he went on to tell the audience of the Defense One Summit, “Although ISIS is a concern, so is al Shabaab, so is the Lord’s Resistance Army in Central Africa and the 43 other illicit groups that operate in the area … Boko Haram, AQIM, and other small groups in that area.”

Bolduc mentioned only a handful of terror groups by name, so I asked for clarification from the Department of Defense, Africa Command (AFRICOM), and Special Operations Command Africa (SOCAFRICA). None offered any names, let alone a complete accounting. SOCAFRICA did not respond to multiple queries by The Intercept. AFRICOM spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Anthony Falvo would only state, “I have nothing further for you.”

While the State Department maintains a list of foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs), including 10 operating in Africa (ISIS, Boko Haram, Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, al Shabaab, AQIM, Ansaru, Ansar al-Din, Ansar al-Shari’a in Tunisia, as well as Libya’s Ansar al-Shari’a in Benghazi and Ansar al-Shari’a in Darnah), it “does not provide the DoD any legal or policy approval,” according to Lt. Col. Michelle Baldanza, a Defense Department spokesperson.

“The DoD does not maintain a separate or similar list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations for the government,” she said in an email to The Intercept. “In general, not all groups of armed individuals on the African continent that potentially present a threat to U.S. interests would be subject to FTO. DoD works closely with the Intel Community, Inter-Agency, and the [National Security Council] to continuously monitor threats to U.S. interests; and when required, identifies, tracks, and presents options to mitigate threats to U.S. persons overseas.”

This isn’t the first time the Defense Department has been unable or unwilling to name the groups it’s fighting. In 2013, The Intercept’s Cora Currier, then writing for ProPublica, asked for a full list of America’s war-on-terror enemies and was told by a Pentagon spokesman that public disclosure of the names could increase the prestige and recruitment prowess of the groups and do “serious damage to national security.” Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School who served as a legal counsel during the George W. Bush administration, told Currier that the Pentagon’s rationale was weak and there was a “very important interest in the public knowing who the government is fighting against in its name.”

The secret of whom the U.S. military is fighting extends to Africa. Since 9/11, U.S. military efforts on the continent have grown in every conceivable way, from funding and manpower to missions and outposts, while at the same time the number of transnational terror groups has increased in linear fashion, according to the military. The reasons for this are murky. Is it a spillover from events in the Middle East and Central Asia? Are U.S. operations helping to spawn and spread terror groups? Is the Pentagon inflating the terror threat for its own gain? Is the rise of these terrorist organizations due to myriad local factors? Or more likely, is it a combination of these and other reasons? The task of answering these questions is made more difficult when no one in the military is willing to name more than a handful of the transnational terror groups that are classified as America’s enemies.

Before 9/11, Africa seemed to be free of transnational terror threats, according to the U.S. government.
In 2000, for example, a report prepared under the auspices of the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute examined the “African security environment.” While noting the existence of “internal separatist or rebel movements” in “weak states,” as well as militias and “warlord armies,” it made no mention of Islamic extremism or major transnational terror threats.

In early 2002, a senior Pentagon official speaking on background told reporters that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan might drive “terrorists” out of that nation and into Africa. “Terrorists associated with al Qaeda and indigenous terrorist groups have been and continue to be present in this region,” he said. “These terrorists will, of course, threaten U.S. personnel and facilities.”

Pressed about genuine transnational threats, the official drew attention to Somali militants, specifically several hundred members of al Itihaad al Islamiya—a forerunner of al Shabaab — but admitted that even the most extreme members “really have not engaged in acts of terrorism outside Somalia.” Questioned about ties between Osama bin Laden’s core al Qaeda group and African militants, the official offered tenuous links, like bin Laden’s “salute” to Somali fighters who killed U.S. troops during the infamous 1993 Black Hawk Down incident.

The U.S. nonetheless deployed military personnel to Africa in 2002, while the State Department launched a big-budget counterterrorism program, known as the Pan Sahel Initiative, to enhance the capabilities of the militaries of Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger. In 2005, that program expanded to include Algeria, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, and Tunisia and was renamed the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership.

In the years that followed, the U.S. increased its efforts. In 2014, for example, the U.S. carried out 674 military missions across the continent — an average of nearly two per day and an increase of about 300 percent since U.S. Africa Command was launched in 2008. The U.S. also took part in a number of multinational military interventions, including a coalition war in Libya, assistance to French and African forces fighting militants in Central African Republic and Mali, and the training and funding of African proxies to do battle against extremist groups like al Shabaab and Boko Haram.

The U.S. has also carried out a shadow war of special ops raids, drone strikes and other attacks, as well as an expanding number of training missions by elite forces. U.S. special operations teams are now deployed to 23 African countries “seven days a week, 24/7,” according to Bolduc. “The most effective thing that we do is about 1,400 SOF operators and supporters integrated with our partner nation, integrated with our allies and other coalition partners in a way that allows us to take advantage of each other’s capabilities,” he said.

The U.S. military has also set up a network of bases — although it is loath to refer to them in such terms. A recent report by The Intercept, relying on classified documents leaked by a whistleblower, detailed an archipelago of outposts integral to a secret drone assassination program that was based at the premier U.S. facility on the African continent, Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti. That base alone has expanded since 2002 from 88 acres to nearly 600 acres, with more than $600 million allocated or awarded for projects and $1.2 billion in construction and improvements planned for the future.

A continent relatively free of transnational terror threats in 2001 is — after almost 14 years of U.S. military efforts — now rife with them, in the Pentagon’s view. Bolduc said the African continent is “as lethal and dangerous an environment as anywhere else in the world,” and specifically invoked ISIS, which he called “a transnational threat, a transregional threat, as are all threats that we deal with in Africa.” But the Pentagon would not specify whether the threat levels are stable, increasing, or decreasing. “I can’t get into any details regarding threats or future operations,” Lt. Col. Baldanza stated. “I can say that we will continue to work with our African partners to enable them in their counter-terrorism efforts as they further grow security and stability in the region.”

In the end, Bolduc tempered expectations that his troops might be able to transform the region in any significant way. “The military can only get you so far,” he told the Defense One Summit audience. “So if I’m asked to build a counter-violent extremist organization capability in a particular country, I can do that … but if there’s not … a valid institution to plug it into, then we are there for a long time.”

Top photo: Republic of Mali and United States Special Operations Forces troops stand in formation next to each other during the opening ceremony of the Flintlock 10 Exercise held May 3, 2010 in Bamako, Mali.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

Global Banks Carve Up the World Ahead of COP21 Paris

November 18th, 2015 by

http://www.pakalertpress.com/global-banks-carve-up-the-world-ahead-of-cop21-paris/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+pakalert+%28Pak+Alert+Press%2

11-18-2015 10-38-50 AM

Posted by truther

As individuals and Nations alike wait in anticipation for COP21 less than a month from now, described as the United Nations’ “legally binding and universal” update to the ever-deleterious Agenda 21, banksters at the supranational level have shown little hesitation in offering their seemingly sage opinions on how their usurious reserves will be put to use in enacting this “Global Sustainable New Deal.”

From veterans of monetary Technocracy like the IMF and World Bank to the “New Kids on the Trading Bloc” represented by the BRICS and AIIB, monetary institutions around the world are poised to receive their slice of the sustainable pie – at the expense of what little freedom and financial security the individual still retains.

Leading the charge on the Western front is none other than the Bank for International Settlements, the “central bank of central banks” as identified by Georgetown Professor Carroll Quigley in his magnum opus Tragedy and Hope. Echoing the credo of “sustainable developers” at the UN and World Bank, the BIS has seen fit to reinforce the meme that the problem of climate change cannot be tackled without complete digital serfdom in the form of an electronic, biometric global I.D.

Euphemistically entitled the “Identification for Development” (or ID4D) program by the World Bank, it represents their “unique” interpretation of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals; a reading that’s as draconian as it is creative. The UN, World Bank, and BIS are calling for nothing short of a completely pervasive global surveillance grid to be implemented by no later than 2030, all under the auspices of “saving the planet.”

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Without doubt, the most successful project the Banking Cartel has used against America is the slow process of building political correctness in the minds of the people. Such as, it is no longer possible to converse socially about government atrocities, or anything political for that matter. It is now the lowest form of behavior to even mention anything political in a group of people. Power over the people such as this can only be attributed to their stupidity. If this country does not immediately start raising hell with every member of local, State, and Federal governments, and each other, we are going to be eliminated permanently. Everyone must decide NOW if they want to be surviving slaves or dead heroes, because it would be nearly impossible to rebuild a new Republic at this point.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

Thermonuclear missile launch near Los Angeles is final sign of World War III on the precipice… US, China and Russia all escalating covert attacks in run up to global war

November 9th, 2015 by

http://www.naturalnews.com/051884_Trident_missile_launch_covert_war_with_China_first_strike_on_America.html

11-9-2015 9-59-47 AM

By Mike Adams,

(NaturalNews) “A mysterious bright light in the sky has sent Californians into panic,” reports the BBC. “Videos posted online show a bright flare rising high, before a wide, bright blue flash emerges in a cone shape. Many videos continue to track the light for several minutes.”

Last night, Californians immediately leapt to social media to propose their theories of the phenomenon, ranging from a nuclear missile attack to meteors. “Law agencies and news media in San Diego were flooded with calls about 6 p.m. from people reporting everything from a flare to a comet to a nuclear bomb in the western sky,” reports the San Diego Union Tribune.

Just a day earlier, the FAA had issued flight restrictions for the Los Angeles International Airport, denying aircraft access to one of the most frequent approach paths for international and domestic travel.
The official explanation is a lie
The “official” explanation of this event — and remember that “official” explanations are almost always cover stories — is that the U.S. Navy launched a test missile just because they “routinely” test missiles.

“Media in California confirmed that the light came from an unarmed Trident missile fired from the USS Kentucky navy submarine,” reports the BBC. While they call the missile “unarmed,” they fail to mention that the Trident missile normally carries a thermonuclear warhead. There’s also no way for the media to know whether this missile was really unarmed or not, as the sole source on that question is the U.S. Navy itself.

Apparently the media thinks the public is so incredibly stupid that they’ll believe the U.S. Navy has nowhere else to launch a test missile other than right next to Los Angeles. Somehow we’re supposed to believe the entire Pacific Ocean won’t work for such a test launch, so they have to launch it adjacent to the airport and thereby inconvenience commercial aviation traffic for an entire week.

Obviously, the official cover story is pure bunk. So what’s the real story behind this? It all has to do with China and the covert war that’s already underway between China, the US and Russia.
China’s military submarines are a huge threat to U.S. national security
To get up to speed on what’s really happening, read this report from the Congressional Research Service (PDF) found at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf

Authored by Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs, and just released on Sep. 21, 2015, the report is entitled, “China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities.”

The report states:

China is building a modern and regionally powerful navy with a limited but growing capability for conducting operations beyond China’s near-seas region. Observers of Chinese and U.S. military forces view China’s improving naval capabilities as posing a potential challenge in the Western Pacific to the U.S. Navy’s ability to achieve and maintain control of blue-water ocean areas in wartime — the first such challenge the U.S. Navy has faced since the end of the Cold War.

China’s naval modernization effort encompasses a broad array of platform and weapon acquisition programs, including anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), submarines, surface ships, aircraft, and supporting C4ISR (command and control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) systems.

The most important section of this report, in my assessment, is this description of China’s ship-killing ballistic missiles:

China is fielding an ASBM, referred to as the DF-21D, that is a theater-range ballistic missile equipped with a maneuverable reentry vehicle (MaRV) designed to hit moving ships at sea. DOD states that China continues to field an ASBM based on a variant of the CSS-5 (DF-21) MRBM that it began deploying in 2010. This missile provides the PLA the capability to attack aircraft carriers in the western Pacific. The CSS-5 Mod 5 has a range exceeding 1,500 km [about 810 nm] and is armed with a maneuverable warhead.

China, in other words, has weapons capable of destroying U.S. aircraft carriers, destroyers and other ships. The 1,500 km range is key because it allows a very wide operational range.

Just recently in August, the Chinese and Russians held their largest naval joint exercise in history as a way to “counter U.S. influence in Asia.” As reported by Collapse.news:

The Russian and Chinese navies are set to hold their largest joint exercises ever, featuring scores of warships, hundreds of troops and an amphibious landing, in what appears to be a deepening of ties meant to counter a rising U.S. military presence in Asia.

In September, Chinese warships were spotted operating near the coast of Alaska. This was reported across the mainstream media, including in the Wall Street Journal in an article entitled, “Five Chinese Navy Ships Are Operating in Bering Sea off Alaska.”

Fox News also covered the same story: “5 Chinese warships spotted off Alaska coast during President Obama’s visit.”

In response to that territorial provocation, the U.S. Navy sent the USS Lassen destroyer to within 12 nautical miles of China’s newly-constructed military bases in the Spratly Islands.

China’s communist government openly condemned the act as a provocation of war. From the Straits Times:

China claims most of the South China Sea and on Oct 9 its Foreign Ministry warned that Beijing would “never allow any country to violate China’s territorial waters and airspace in the Spratly Islands, in the name of protecting freedom of navigation and overflight.”
Secret space weapon attacks on China’s industrial infrastructure
This is all on top of the Pentagon’s secret space weapon attacks on China’s industrial infrastructure.

As I wrote on August 17 of this year, Natural News was informed by mainland Chinese dissidents that they believe the string of mysterious industrial explosions such as the massive Tianjin explosion was caused by kinetic strikes from orbital platform weapons operated by the United States.

China then retaliated by covertly destroying a U.S. weapons depot in Tokyo, using old-school sabotage techniques. Two additional industrial explosions in China soon followed.
Taiwan surrenders to China with insane “One China” admission by President Ma
China’s war of aggression is also in high gear on the geopolitical side, with China pressuring Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou to publicly state yesterday that Taiwan is now part of China!

A massive cultural backlash in Taiwan is now surging, as most of the country’s citizens do not want to be part of communist China. Taiwan’s DPP party is rapidly rising to prominence on the platform of Taiwan as a sovereign nation, but China remains in an aggressive military stance, always threatening Taiwan with an armed invasion if Taiwan attempts to “secede” from China. (Taiwan’s GMT party, which is a “pro-China” party, has been plagued by an endless stream of scandals and corruption.)

From Channel News Asia: “Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou emphasised the island must continue to uphold the 1992 Consensus with China’s Communist Party in order to promote cross-strait relations and development, as he marked the 22nd anniversary of the historic talks between Taipei and Beijing in Singapore.”

Taiwan is a critical strategic island for U.S. influence over the Pacific naval theater of operations. Taiwan’s airports and military basis provide key strategic locations for staging U.S. aircraft and even bombers if conflict breaks out with China.

As you ponder all this, keep in mind that Taiwan’s media giants have all been infiltrated and taken over by communist China. The Taiwan media is now China’s state-run media. Only small, independent websites can be trusted to report the truth.
The Trident missile launch near Los Angeles was a warning shot against China in a last-ditch effort to prevent all-out war
The upshot of all this is that the U.S. and China have been engaged in a covert war for quite some time, and that covert war has escalated month by month, even as the official state-run news organizations of both nations have denied any war is happening at all.

Last night’s test launch of the Trident missile over Orange County was staged near a high population area for a tactical reason: To have as many witnesses (and videos) as possible, sending a very visible warning message to China that says, “We can destroy you if you don’t back off.”

The Trident missile, built by Lockheed Martin, is a thermonuclear missile system (Fleet Ballistic Missile) with a range of at least 4,000 nautical miles. See the Trident missile page on the U.S. Navy website. Just one Trident missile launched from somewhere in the Pacific Ocean could devastate China with a nuclear strike on Beijing.

11-9-2015 10-00-58 AM

The U.S. Navy’s “showcasing” of the Trident missile near Los Angeles is a $31 million billboard that tells China, “Don’t f–k with us.”

Nobody in the mainstream media is report this; probably because, with a few exceptions, they are mostly clueless, brain-dead propagandists who know nothing about international geopolitics and the real state of conflict in our world. Also, they are ordered what to write by the U.S. government regime in exactly the same way China’s “journalists” are ordered what to write by the Chinese regime.

Right now, the United States and China are in an undeclared state of war. China stands ready to strike the USA with nuclear warheads or high altitude EMP weapons that would destroy the U.S. power grid and cause 90% casualties across the unprepared population. Legendary American journalist Ted Koppel has even written a book about this entitled Lights Out: A Cyberattack, A Nation Unprepared, Surviving the Aftermath.
China and Russia preparing massive first strike against America
Many people believe that China and Russia are working together to prepare for a massive first strike against the United States that would cripple its defenses and economy. Following that first strike, a land invasion would commence using Russian troops.

Supporting this theory, Russian submarines have been spotted near undersea internet cables in an obvious effort to document their whereabouts so that the cables can be instantly severed, unleashing a devastating blow to the U.S. economy, Wall Street and even military communications. “Russian submarines and spy ships are aggressively operating near the vital undersea cables that carry almost all global Internet communications, raising concerns among some American military and intelligence officials that the Russians might be planning to attack those lines in times of conflict,” reports WND.com. ” In times of tension or conflict, the ultimate Russian hack on the United States could involve severing the fiber-optic cables at some of their hardest-to-access locations to halt the instant communications on which the West’s governments, economies and citizens have grown dependent.”

At the same time a new Russian “drone sub” has been created that can strike U.S. coastal cities and harbors with nuclear weapons. Writing on NationalSecurity.news, Jon Dougherty states, “According to officials, the developmental unmanned underwater vehicle, or UUV, when it is deployed, will be outfitted with megaton-class nuclear warheads that can destroy key ports used by U.S. nuclear-armed and powered submarines like Kings Bay, Georgia, and Puget Sound in Washington state.”
The ultimate pre-emptive strike on America: EMP attack, cyber attack, currency wars and bandwidth blackouts
If you put the pieces of the puzzle together, what’s really shaping up here is a massive, multi-layered pre-emptive strike against America, an empire seen by the rest of the world as an insane bully that meddles with everything on the international stage. This first strike, combining the forces and expertise of both China and Russia, may consist of:

• High-altitude EMP detonation over North America, destroying regional power grids.
• A devastating currency war initiated by China announcing its own gold-backed currency while dumping U.S. Treasury debt on the open market.
• A Russian-led severing of undersea fiber optic cables.
• Russian-launched nuclear missiles targeting U.S. coastal cities.
• China-led assault on U.S. Navy warships using anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs).
• A cyber warfare attack on key U.S. infrastructure, including water delivery systems, nuclear power plants and the power grid.

As all this is going on, the Obama administration — a treasonous regime of criminals who have seized control of the U.S. government in an effort to destroy America from within — has been firing all the top military commanders who know how to survive such an assault. Instead of America’s military focusing on how to win wars, troops are now subjected to sensitivity training and the politically correct push for female troops on the front lines.

This is not fiction. Even the U.S. White House is now openly preparing for a massive EMP attack launched by China.

Dave Hodges also reports in this article about World War III:

Congress has now heard testimony that the United States is not ready for World War III while Russia is chomping at the bit to “get it on”. Further Congress has learned that Obama has been once again been badly outmaneuvered by Putin, the master chess player… the Chinese and the Russians are going to kick America’s rear end in the upcoming war.

Very disturbingly, there is a growing awareness, among Congress, that the United States cannot win World War III. There was only discussion, in these congressional meetings, as to whether, or not, the U.S. could prevail in World War III, not win the conflict.

To stay up to speed on all these events and how you might survive them, I strongly urge you to pay attention to the following websites:

TalkNetwork.com – the new talk radio network where I will be discussing this Trident missile launch during tomorrow’s show. It airs at 11am Pacific / 2pm Eastern.

NationalSecurity.news
Bugout.news
AlternativeNews.com
Space.news
Cyberwar.news
Collapse.news
Treason.news
FETCH.news
stevequayle.com
allnewspipeline.com
thecommonsenseshow.com

Listen to my 4-part broadcast series on this entire story:

PART ONE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfn7_HkrTik
PART TWO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f9f9cG5Tuk
PART THREE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwEkOBVCCWY
PART FOUR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLMEFX1Qx9A
Sources for this article include:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-3475…
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/201…
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf
http://www.collapse.news/2015-08-24-largest-…
http://www.wsj.com/articles/pentagon-watches…
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/02/5…
http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/us-…
http://www.naturalnews.com/050816_Tianjin_ex…
http://www.naturalnews.com/050899_munitions_…
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapaci…
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/tr…
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.as…
http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/russian-subs-stal…
http://www.nationalsecurity.news/2015-09-10-…
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2015/11/05…
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2015/11/08…

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

The South China Sea Syndrome Another Nail In Americas Coffin

October 14th, 2015 by

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2015/10/13/the-south

-china-sea-syndrome-another-nail-in-americas-coffin/?utm_source

=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-south-china-sea-

syndrome-another-nail-in-americas-coffin

10-14-2015 10-01-49 AM

By Dave Hodges

Sixteen days ago, President Obama and Chinese President Xi sounded as if they were moving forward in a positive manner. The only real point of contention when the two world leaders met at the White House was Taiwan. Oh, on paper, it appears that China’s dispute is with Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines.  Look at the map below and make a note of what Island lies just north of the disputed area. It is Taiwan. This conflict is also about China buidling a defensive perimeter in the South China Sea and using it as a defensive perimeter, in a manner similar to what the Japanese did nearly three quarters of a century ago.

The New and Emboldened China

China is increasingly aggressive, almost to the point of forming a quasi-naval blockade in and around the disputed territories which are a point of disagreement between China, her neighbors and the United States. It is critical to keep in mind that every dispute in the region, for China, begins and ends with Taiwan and Taiwan lies just north of the disputed area. These unfolding events in the South China Sea is also about the unfolding of the new Chinese hegemony, or, the establishment of the most recent flavor of the New World Order.

A Brief History of the Conflict Between China and Taiwan

For those who don’t understand why China and Taiwan are at odds, it goes back to 1948, when Chinese communist forces, led by Mao Zedong, ousted the Chinese government under Chiang Kai Shek. The original Chinese regime fled to the Island of Formosa, now called Taiwan. Mainland China has always viewed Taiwan as a rogue state that actually belongs to the communist Chinese. Taiwan has emerged as America’s seventh most significant trading partner. An economically health Taiwan is essential to what is left of the U.S. economy. Ignoring the long-term significance of Taiwan in the South China Sea controversy is like ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

An Uneasy Peace

On September 25th, when Chinese President XI exited the White House, it appeared the two super powers had reached an uneasy, yet mutually agreed upon set of policies regarding Chinese military activities in and around the disputed territories. Below is an excerpt of President Obama’s summation of the meeting between the two Presidents.

10-14-2015 10-03-56 AM

“…We did have candid discussions on the East and South China Seas, and I reiterated the right of all countries to freedom of navigation and overflight and to unimpeded commerce.  As such, I indicated that the United States will continue to sail, fly and operate anywhere that international law allows.  I conveyed to President Xi our significant concerns over land reclamation, construction and the militarization of disputed areas, which makes it harder for countries in the region to resolve disagreements peacefully.  And I encouraged a resolution between claimants in these areas.  We are not a claimant; we just want to make sure that the rules of the road are upheld.

I reiterated my strong commitment, as well, to our One-China policy based on the Three Joint Communiqués and the Taiwan Relations Act…

The Surface Nature of the Dispute

10-14-2015 10-05-46 AM

China’s rapidly growing perimeter which will protect Chinese invasion forces when they attack Taiwan.

10-14-2015 10-07-02 AM

Vietnam, Malaysia and most of all, the Philippines are impacted by aggressive Chinese action in the region in which the Chinese are constructing militarized islands which are serving as an impediment to free trade. The areas of Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam could provide the Chinese war machine with virtually unlimited supplies of oil, rubber and other raw materials needed to maintain a sustainable Chinese war effort if China is able to dominate the region.

An Uneasy Peace Was Disrupted In Two Weeks

Obama and Xi Jinping’s apparent agreement has gone up in smoke- The Chinese have escalated their military activities in the region. This represents a 180 degree turn around from what had been apparently decided upon in the leaders’ meeting on September 25, 2015.

10-14-2015 10-08-19 AM

The Navy briefs the media, the public and its Asian allies on America’s intent to challenge the territorial waters of the artificially created Chinese Islands which threatens the freedom of the seas in the region.

What Went Wrong?

On September 25, 2015, Obama appeared to have the situation well in hand. However, China has not limited their aggressive military actions in that part of the world, they have increased their hostile actions.  What went wrong? What went wrong is that Obama got punched in the mouth by Vladimir Putin and Obama did nothing about it. Only a couple of days removed from the Chinese-American accords related to the South China Sea, Russia launched military operations against ISIS inside of Syria. Obama is still searching for the right words to respond to Putin’s aggression.

The Chinese are now emboldened and obviously see Obama as the weak sister that he is and have subsequently increased their aggression in the South China Sea. On the surface, and with the announcement that Obama is sending a fleet to the South China Sea as a show of force, it appears that the world has yet another flash point that could start World War III. However, I think the Chinese are going to mock this Presidential paper tiger and ignore this fleet while they continue to militarize these artificially constructed Islands.

Is Obama Being Presidential?

Is Obama merely trying to fulfill his role as the President, but he has been outmaneuvered by botht the Chinese and the Russians at the same time. Or, is he, as I have alleged several times, playing his role in contributing to the demise of America by merely appearing to be indecisive and weak?

If Obama had done anything to improve America since his initial election, I might not be able to aasert that he is a traitor. As an American citizen, short of giving you an Obama phone, has this President done anything that has improved your life? Middle class? Christians? Constitutionalists? Veterans? I could go on, but you get the idea. Obama is appearing to be somewhat Presidential, but every move is a day late and a dollar short.

Obama, in an attempt to look Presidential, is emulating FDR’s World War II 8 Point Plan strategy in the South China Sea. It is doomed to failure and will only invite an attack upon American forces by China as did the 8 Point Plant prior to World War II.

History Repeats Itself

It was called the 8 Point Plan, or the McCollum memo and in the memo was the path to the beginning of World War II. It strongly appears that the Obama administration is following the first 5 steps of the 8 Point Plan which resulted in the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor.

The McCollum memo contained an eight-part plan to counter rising Japanese power over East Asia:

  1. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore.
  2. Make an arrangement with the Netherlands for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies
  3. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek
  4. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore
  5. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient

Less than one year, later an encircled Japanese government attacked Pearl Harbor in order to keep American naval forces away from their aggressive intentions toward their Asian neighbors. The Japanese then began to invade and occupy several Pacific Islands (e.g. Guam, Wake, and the Philippines). This was Japan’s creation of a defensive perimeter so they could continue to invade British and Dutch held territories in Asia which were resource rich with raw materials needed by the Japanese war machine.

An increasing number of historians believe that FDR was trying to provoke an attack upon the United States so that the US could enter the war and defeat Germany before they could develop nuclear weapons. FDR thought that provoking Japan was America’s ticket into the war and a Japanese “sneak attack” would wake up the war fever of a slumbering America that wanted to stay out of WW II.

Obama, like FDR before him is ratcheting up tensions as he has pledged military aid to the area and is sailing his ships into a potential war zone as did FDR before him. Obama has pledged support for America’s Asian allies. Obama is clearly intent on militarizing the area. Obama wants to and needs to start WW III with China. The motivations for his actions are described in the following paragraphs. If Obama is loyal President, he is merely incompetent if he thinks this strategy can work. More than likely, he is carrying out his role as a Manchurian Candidate and is leading America to the doorstep of destruction. It is becoming clear to me that the latter is true and Obama is taking his marching orders from the Bank of International Settlements and not the Federal Reserve. The BIS wants war, a war of political and economic unification. The Federal Reserve merely wants to preserve the Petrodollar.

What Has Brought the World to This Point?

10-14-2015 10-10-08 AM

The BRICS have attacked the sacred Federal Reserve by undermining the Petrodollar.

When Iran began to sell oil for gold to China, Russia and India, this was a de facto declaration of war. The US has staggering debt and without the backing of its currency by the Petrodollar, in which every nation must purchase dollars to buy oil, the dollar would hyper-inflate overnight. The BRICS as they are called are led by China and Russia and they moving the world away from the Petrodollar. Subsequently, it is only a matter of time until the bottom falls out of the US economy. The Federal Reserve wanted to invade Syria and Iran and put a stop to the undermining of the Petrodollar just as they did in Iraq in Gulf War I. However, for the past three years, Russia has checkmated Obama and the Federal Reserve and as a result Iran has grown stronger and the BRICS are destroying the US economy. For the Federal Reserve to survive they now have to go to war against the BRICS. Since they have been ousted in Syria, China seems the best place to start World War III.

China Has Goals Too

The Chinese word for crisis is translated as opportunity. The coming conflict in the South China Sea would allow China, with a victory, to expand its defensive perimeter, just like Japan did 70 years ago. It would also allow them to posture to take back Taiwan which lies north of the tension filled area.

This scenario will be further explored in a series of future articles. We might not be at war by Christmas, but then again, we might. It is not a matter of if World War III is going to happen, it is a matter of when.

In summary, Obama is allowing our forces to be drawn into every hotspot in the world. As a result, this President, who reduced troop strength to pre-World War II levels, has set the United States up for military failure. All of a suddent, what Doug Hagmann and Steve Quayle have been saying for the past few years is taking on new and clear meaning.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 

Has America Been Set Up As History’s Ultimate Bumbling Villain?

October 8th, 2015 by

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/1732-has-america-been-set-

up-as-historys-ultimate-bumbling-villain

10-8-2015 2-32-09 PM

By Brandon Smith

The high priests of academic and “official” history love a good villain for two reasons:  First, because good official villains make the struggles and accomplishments of good official heroes even more awe-inspiring.  And, second, because nothing teaches (or propagandizes) the masses more thoroughly than the social or political lessons inherent in the documented rise and fall of the world’s most despicable inhabitants.  We get shivers of fear and excitement when we discuss the evils and the follies of ancient monsters like Nero, Attila the Hun, Caligula, etc, or more modern monsters, like Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Goebbels, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and so on.  We take solace in the idea that “we are nothing like them”, and our nation has “moved beyond” such animalistic behavior.  
But even more fascinating popcorn-style history is found not in the destruction of tyrants, but the destruction of empires.  

When an entire culture steps off the edge of the abyss into the realm of societal psychosis, the world often changes forever and in ways that, at least on the surface, seem to bring humanity a little closer together.  The fall of Rome led to the eventual rise of a dominant Catholic theocracy and the rulership of royal blood lineage that lasted for centuries in Europe.  The flames of World War I and the destabilization of the Kaiser’s Germany led to the formation of the League Of Nations; a first attempt at a global governing authority designed to “maintain world peace”.  World War II and the fall of the Third Reich resulted in considerable horrors, which the establishment of the United Nations was supposedly meant to prevent from ever occurring again.  The decline of the British Empire saw the implosion of cultural colonialism, and the rise of corporate colonialism, which centralized immense power into the hands of the banking class as the new official oligarchs of our modern era.  The collapse of the Berlin Wall and the abandonment of the Soviet Union was lauded by then U.S. President George Bush as the beginnings of a “New World Order” – an ideological concept which heralds the final deterioration of the idea of economic and political sovereignty as a mainstay of human civilization.  

When examining the approved version of historical conflict, one gets the overwhelming impression that the villains of our past, through their hubris, their greed, and their insanity, seem to inspire a sudden surge of unification as their ashes are cleared from the air.  One might even come to believe that the “natural progression” of conflict is leading us towards a future in which the only solution is the dissolution of all boundaries and the adoption of a one world narrative.  Wouldn’t it be glorious if the deaths of these malevolent tyrants and societies finally inspired the birth of a single human system in which no conflict is possible because we are all on the same side?

Perhaps it would be glorious, if you have adopted the childish notions of history common to the mainstream.  For those who have not, the story, and the ultimate solutions to the ills of mankind, become a little more complicated…

America‘s Villainous Mustache 

Mainstream history tends to follow the motions of a play or film, in that archetypes and symbolic figures are consistently created in order to satisfy the natural flow of a particular fiction.  The bad guy wears a mustache (not always, but it is strange and disturbing to see how often this archetype materializes in the mainstream world view.  Just look at Hitler, Stalin, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, etc.  We love mustached villains).  His criminal successes make him imposing and frightening.  He acts without conscience, or, he wrongly believes his terrible actions are justified in the name of the “greater good”.  His inevitable mistakes make his final failure ironic and satisfying in the face of the iconic hero, who defeats the enemy while the citizenry stands back and watches in awe and wonder as helpless spectators.  

The villain is indeed evil, and deserves to be dethroned, but the assumption many people make is that the other side is diametrically good.  This is not always the case…

America is used to playing the role of the hero in the epic tale of modern Earth.  Our nation began with an act of defiance and victory so unexpected and so poetic, it cemented our cultural identity as freedom fighters for centuries to come.  Over time, our government, turning progressively corrupt, has exploited this cultural identity in order to lure Americans into committing atrocities in the name of our traditional sense of “heroism”.  We have, in fact, become the very antagonists we thought we were fighting against (there’s the delicious irony needed to round out our fairytale). 

Our government’s actions surrounding Syria, for instance, have made America appear not just bloodthirsty, but also ridiculous.  The Obama Administration has taken us to the brink of World War III and left us there to stare out over the chasm.  The slightest breeze could send us plummeting.  All to generate military support for Al-Qaeda, the same organization designated by the establishment as our mortal enemy.

In the meantime, our economic system now survives solely on the whims of the Federal Reserve, a private central bank that answers to NO ONE, and writes fiscal policy without oversight.  The government is not only seeking to trigger world war, it also wants to pay for that war with money we do not have, riding debts we cannot pay, to foreign creditors we will piss off in the process of unleashing our unfunded laser guided hell.      

Never has the U.S. been slathered in so much absurdity all at once.  Now, we wear the mustache…

Most of us in the Liberty Movement would agree that our country is being poisoned from within, and that our government for many decades has become an enemy of all free peoples.  But there is a very important question that we seem to have overlooked:

If America has been written as the villain, then who is meant to be the hero?

Putin Is Not Your Buddy

Lets step back from the global stage for a moment and examine the situation from a different perspective.  What if the U.S. is not just a product of corruption for corruption’s sake?  What if our new identity as the next historical evil-doer is part of a greater script, and America’s fall from grace is meant to be used to foment the success of fantastic (but fake) protagonists in an engineered fight for a “better and more centralized world”?  

How many of us in the Liberty Movement cheered the diplomatic and strategic prowess of Vladimir Putin, for example, in the days leading to Obama’s “red line” attack on Syria?  We cheered because his position was correct, and his demeanor made our government look homicidal by comparison.  We cheered his letter to TIME Magazine because we are tired of being the only people pointing out the vicious parasite our political body has become, and it was exciting to be vindicated by an outside source.  We cheered his protection of Edward Snowden, a truly courageous whistle blower that exposed the terrifying Orwellian nature of the NSA.  We watch video reports from Russia Today (RT) because they give a far more accurate accounting of the facts in the U.S. than all American media entities combined.  It is easy for us to get caught up in the idea that since the West has become the bad guy, the East must now be the good guy.

The problem is, we are being played yet again.

Putin has long called for the end of the dollar’s world reserve status and the creation of a new “global structure” and a “global currency” revolving around the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/at-g20-kremlin-to-pitch-new-currency/375364.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/davos/4376315/Russian-prime-minister-Vladimir-Putin-calls-for-end-of-dollar-stranglehold.html

Is it just coincidence that Putin wants the same centralized global economy and global governance that the IMF and multiple banking elites have been calling for for years?  The same elites who created the debt crisis and currency crisis we now face in America?  Is it just coincidence that Eastern economic and political dominance over issues like Syria perfectly benefits the IMF plan for an financial shift to the BRICS nations and away from the U.S. greenback?  The same plan promoted by many American financial moguls?    

Russia is a model for despotic socialized society posing as “civilized society”, and yet, our government has made America so ugly that Russia looks noble by comparison.  Putin is placed on the cover of TIME magazine everywhere in the world except the U.S., and the Washington Times responds by stating that such behavior is a sign of “America’s downward spiral in the global community”, as if we are about to be shunned from the world at large:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-realist/2013/sep/18/time-puts-vladimir-putin-its-front-cover-everywher/

While RT produces fantastic journalistic pieces that are critical of American government, rarely if ever do they turn a discerning eye to Russia, and this is not just oversight.

Look carefully at the narrative that is being constructed here.  Putin is NOT our buddy.  He represents exactly what our own government now represents; globalism and naked centralized government aggression against the individual.  However, as mainstream history is being written, the story will be told that it was nations like Russia and China, and organizations like the IMF, that tried to hold back the tide of catastrophe while America, the last empire, steamrolled into thick-skulled oblivion surfing on a shockwave of fiat money and brute military vanity.  

The Washington Aristocracy Is Scum, But Don’t Let That Fool You…

Most people with an extensive Liberty Movement education are well aware that false paradigms are used in politics by establishment elites in order to control social discussion and to divide the population against each other.  The Left/Right debate has been and always will be a farce, being that the leadership on both sides of the aisle have identical goals when it comes to the most important aspects of the American structure.  The elites of the Democratic and Republican parties, regardless of rhetoric, will BOTH strive for greater government power, less individual liberty, the erasure of economic sovereignty and free markets, and a dependent and enslaved public.  On these pursuits, they completely agree.

In one week, our faux leadership is to decide once AGAIN on the possibility of a debt ceiling increase that will bring us ever closer to a debt and currency avalanche event.  During past debates, much fanfare is given to the supposed conflict between the interests of the Democrats and the GOP, up until the last moment when the GOP caves in completely and allows the debt ceiling to be vaulted.  Will the same happen again in this case?  It depends on how quickly the establishment wants to bring entire roof down on our heads.

A freeze of the debt ceiling would eventually mean default on our Treasury Bonds, since our government must take on exponential debt in order to receive the benefits of the Federal Reserve’s printing press, as well as pay off our foreign creditors.

A government shutdown could slow the growth of some liabilities, but it does not account for the liabilities already in circulation, thus, we can still default.  Not to mention, our debt and currency standing could easily come into question, resulting in a bond dump or loss of reserve status.

The only option that does not result in a fast moving firestorm through our financial system is a debt ceiling increase, and how much longer can we get away with kicking the can down the road?  In any case, America is about to change for the worse, and the decision on when this is to happen was made a long time ago.  The Washington aristocracy is blatantly guilty in the instigation of our current dilemma, and my theory is, they want you to know they are the culprit, as long as you continue believing they are the ONLY culprit.  They want you to forget all about the IMF, the corporate elites, and Vladimir Putin’s involvement in the larger plan.  They want you to cheer when international banks and what’s left of the G20 rescue us after years of fiscal disaster and institute centralized global economic governance.  They want to be the only authors of this story, and what author doesn’t want to see himself placed in the role of the champion? 

Just as there are false political paradigms, there are also false international paradigms.  The Liberty Movement is the wild card; an unknown quantity.  We aren’t fighting for one side or the other – we are fighting for particular principles and beliefs.  The establishment’s best strategy is to co-opt our momentum by convincing us to focus on alternative opposition, or place our trust in fabricated advocates.  No matter how epically monstrous our government becomes, and no matter how satisfying their ultimate demise will be, our battle does not end with them.  It only begins with them.

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

Alt-Market is an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for mutual aid and defense.  Join Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the system and build something better.

To contribute to the growth of the Safe Haven Project, and to help us help others in relocating, or to support the creation of barter networks across the country, visit our donate page here:

http://www.alt-market.com/donate

Silver and Gold are on their way back to historic highs, and now is the time to buy.  LetLibertyCPM.com help you decide how to best protect your savings and insulate you from an ever destabilizing dollar.

Do you need long term food storage but want the best quality as well?  The good people at Nuvona Premium Foods are offering discounts on their Non-GMO food storage for Alt-Market readers only!  Take advantage of this incredible deal while it lasts!

http://myfoodstoragekit.com/index2.html

Do you have enough Non-GMO seeds in case of economic collapse?  Seeds are the OTHER alternative currency, and if you aren’t stocked, then you aren’t prepared.  To buy top quality non-GMO seeds at a special 10% discount, visit Humble Seed, and use the code Alt10

10 13 11 flagbar

 

The Real Reasons Why The Fed Will Hike Interest Rates

September 16th, 2015 by

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2695-the-real-reasons-why-the-fed-will-hike-interest-rates

9-16-2015 1-17-23 PM

By Brandon Smith

For the past several months, the chorus of voices crying out over the prospect of a Federal Reserve interest rate hike have all been saying essentially the same thing – either they can’t do it, or they simply won’t do it. This is the same attitude the chorus projected during the initial prospects of a QE taper. Given the trends and evidence at hand I personally will have to take the same position on the rate hike as I did with the taper – they can do it, and they probably will do it before the year is over.

I suppose we may know more after the conclusion of the Fed meeting set for the 16th and 17th of this month. August retail sales data and industrial production numbers have come in, and they are not impressive even with the artificial goosing such stats generally receive. However, I do not expect that they will have any bearing whatsoever on the interest rate theater. The Fed’s decision has already been made, probably months in advance.

The overall market consensus seems to be one of outright bewilderment, so much so that markets have reentered the madness of “bad news is good news” as stocks explode on any negative data that might suggest the Fed will delay. The so-called experts cannot grasp why the Fed would even entertain the notion of a rate hike at this stage in the game. Hilariously, it is Paul Krugman who is saying what I have been saying for the past year when he states:

“I really find it quite mysterious that the Fed is eager to raise rates given that, they’re going to be wrong one way or the other, we just don’t know which way. But the costs of being wrong in one direction are so much higher than the costs of being the other.”

Yes, why does the Fed seem so eager? Every quarter since the bailouts began no one has been asking for interest rates to increase. No one. Only recently has the Bank for International Settlements warned of market turmoil due to the long term saturation of markets caused by low interest policies, yet it was the BIS that had been championing low rates and easy money foryears. The IMF has warned that a U.S. rate increase at this time would cause a market crisis, yet the IMF has also been admonishing low rate policies, policies that they had also been originally supporting for years.

Confused yet? The investment world certainly seems to be. In fact, the overall market attitude towards a rate hike appears to be a heightened sense of terror, and I believe this has been amply reflected in global stock behavior over the past three months in particular. With thousands of points positive and negative spanned in only a couple of trading sessions, stock market indexes around the world are beginning to behave like seizure victims, jerking and convulsing erratically.

This has, of course, all been blamed on China’s supposed economic “contagion.” But you can read why that is utter nonsense in my article “Economic crisis goes mainstream – What happens next?”

The bottom line is, the Federal Reserve has been the primary driver of the massive financial bubbles now in place in most of the world’s markets, and much of this was accomplished through ZIRP (zero interest rate policy). Hopefully many of the readers here can recall the tens of trillions of dollars of overnight lending by the Fed to international banks and corporations that was exposed during the initial TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program – aka bailout) audit. You know, the trillions in lending that mainstream naysayers claimed was “not” contributing to the overall debt picture of the U.S. Well, reality has shown that ZIRP and overnight lending has indeed directly and indirectly created debt bubbles in numerous areas.

The most vital of areas at this time is perhaps the debts accrued by major banks and companies that have relied on overnight loans to facilitate massive stock buybacks. It has been these buybacks that have artificially supported stocks for years, and whenever ZIRP was not enough, the Fed stepped in with yet another QE program to give particular indicators a boost. The main purpose of this strategy was to ensure that markets would NOT reflect the real underlying instability of our economic system. The Fed has been pumping up banks and markets not only in the U.S., but across the globe.  Why?  We’ll get to that, but keep in mind that it takes time and careful strategy to wear down a population and condition them to accept far lower living standards as the “new normal” (and it takes a sudden crisis event to convince a population to be happy with such low standards given the frightening alternative).

Even with near zero interest, companies have still had to utilize a high percentage of profits in order to continue the stock buyback scam. We have finally arrived at a crossroads in which these companies will be forced to either stop buybacks altogether, or await another even more comprehensive stimulus infusion from the Fed. A rate increase of .25 percent might seem insignificant, until you realize that banks and companies have been cycling tens of trillions of dollars in ZIRP through their coffers and equities. At that level, a minor increase in borrowing costs swiftly accumulates into untenable debts. A rate increase will kill all overnight borrowing, it will kill stock buybacks, and thus, it will kill the fantasy that is today’s stock market.

This is why so many analysts simply cannot fathom why the Fed would raise rates, and why many people fully expect the introduction of QE4. But we need to ask some fundamental questions here…

Again, as Krugman ponders (or doesn’t ponder, since I believe he is an elitist insider with full knowledge of what is about to happen), why does the Fed seem so eager to raise rates if the obvious result will be a drawn out market crash? Is it possible, just maybe, that the Fed does not want to prop up markets anymore? Is it possible that the Fed’s job is to destroy the American economy and the dollar, rather than protecting either? Is it possible that the Fed is just a useful tool, an institutionally glorified suicide bomber meant to explode itself in the most populated area it can find to cause maximum damage for effect? Wouldn’t this dynamic go a long way in explaining why the Fed has taken every single action it has taken since its underhanded inception in 1913?

Will the Fed raise rates this week? I still think the Fed may “surprise” with a delay until December in order to give one more short term boost to the markets, but as I read the mainstream economic press I find the newest trend indicates I could be wrong. The trend I am speaking of has only launched in the past couple of days in the mainstream media, as outlets such as the Financial Times and CNN are now publishing arguments which claim a Fed rate hike is a “good thing”.  While it may be a “good thing” in the long run as it is vital for everything that is over-inflated in our economy to fall away and leave that which is real behind, a return to true free markets without ZIRP manipulation is NOT what the mainstream media is promoting.

The mainstream pro-rate hike arguments are in most cases predicated on completely fabricated notions of economic recovery. CNN states:

“At a time when the U.S. economy is chugging along at over 2% growth and the unemployment rate reflects almost full employment, there’s not much of a case for the Fed’s key interest rate to remain at historic lows…”

As I outlined in my series written at the beginning of this year titled “One last look at the real economy before it implodes,” any growth in gross domestic product (GDP) is a farce driven primarily by government debt spending and inflation in particular necessities rather than recovery in the core economy and on main street. And, unemployment numbers are the biggest statistical con-game of all, with more than 93 million Americans not counted on the Labor Department’s rolls as unemployed because they no longer qualify for benefits.

For a couple of months, some of the mainstream has pulled its head out of its posterior and actually begun asking the questions alternative analysts have been asking for years about the potential risks of returning market volatility and “recession” (which is really an ongoing program of hyperstagflationary collapse) in the wake of a world without steady and open fiat stimulus.  Yet, suddenly this week certain MSM establishment mouthpieces are claiming “mission accomplished” in the battle for fiscal recovery and cheerleading for a rate hike?

What this tells me is that the narrative is being shifted and a rate hike is indeed on the way, perhaps even this week.

It is important to note that this stampede over the edge of the cliff is not only being triggered by the Federal Reserve. Most central banks and China’s PBOC in particular is definitely part of the bigger problem, but only because China is working alongside international bankers to further their goal of total economic interdependence and centralization. China’s avid pursuit of SDR (special drawing rights) inclusion and its close relationship to the IMF and the BIS must be taken into account if one is to understand why the current fiscal crisis is developing the way it is.

China has recently announced it will be opening its onshore currency markets to foreign central banks, which essentially guarantees the inclusion of the yuan into the IMF’s SDR global currency basket by the middle of next year. The IMF’s decision to delay China’s inclusion until 2016 was clearly a calculated effort to make sure that they did not receive any blame for the market meltdown they know is coming; a meltdown that will accelerate to even more dangerous proportions as central banks begin to move away from the dollar as the world reserve and petro-currency.

In preparation for the global shift away from the dollar, China has begun dumping dollar denominated assets at historic levels while Chinese companies have begun reducing the amount of dollars they borrow for international transactions. Is this selloff designed to liquidate assets in order to support China’s ailing markets? No, not really.

China has been planning a decoupling from the U.S. dollar since at least 2005 when it introduced yuan denominated “Panda Bonds”, which at the time the media laughed at as some kind of novelty. In only ten years, China has slowly but surely spread yuan denominated instruments around the world in order to make China an alternative economic engine to the U.S.  China, working with the BIS and IMF, have set the dollar up for an extreme devaluation and the U.S. Treasury has been set up for inevitable bankruptcy; and guess who will ride to our rescue when all seems lost?  That’s right – the IMF and the BIS.

Will the Fed’s rate hike make U.S. bonds more desirable? Probably not.  After a short term initial boost U.S. debt instruments will return to the path of de-dollarization. In the end, I believe the Fed rate hike will encourage more selling by the largest bond holders who will seek to make as much profit as possible until the bottom begins to fall out of the dollar. As China continues to sell off their treasury and dollar holdings, there will come a time when other global investors will feel forced to sell as well to avoid being the last idiot holding the bag when extreme devaluation takes place.

The Fed rate hike is a kind of openly engineered trigger event; one which will likely occur before the end of the year. The major globalist players within the BIS and IMF are separating themselves from this trigger as much as possible today, while warning of a coming crisis they helped to create.

The Fed seems to be a sacrificial appendage at this point, a martyr for the cause of globalization and centralization. Bringing down the U.S. and the dollar, or at least greatly diminishing the U.S. to third world status, has the potential to greatly benefit the Fabian socialists at the top of the pyramid. Such a crisis makes the idea of centralization and global economic administration a more enticing concept.

With a complex and disaster-prone system of interdependence causing social strife and chaos, why not just simplify everything with a global currency and perhaps even global governance? The elites will squeeze the collapse for all it’s worth if they can, and a Fed rate hike may be exactly what they need to begin the final descent.

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

10 13 11 flagbar

 

The Long Road From 9/11: A Rumination On The Relentless Neocon Campaign Of Fear And Lies

September 15th, 2015 by

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/the-long-road-from-911-a-rumination

-on-the-relentless-neocon-campaign-of-fear-and-lies/

By Justin Raimondo 

I heard it before I saw it: the horror in the voice of a TV anchor on the morning of September 11, 2001. As my father shook me awake – “Wake up, look at this!” – I shot straight up in my bed and beheld the scene unfolding on the television screen: a plane plowing straight into a skyscraper and coming out the other side, sheering off the top like Death wielding a scythe.

I had arrived in New York a few hours earlier on a plane from California, on the first leg of a trip to Serbia. I was slated to travel with a delegation of writers who had been invited to that recently-bombed country by the government of President Vojislav Kostunica, the liberal nationalist successor to the malevolent Slobodan Milosevic. As virtually the only visible opposition to Bill Clinton’s “humanitarian” crusade to establish the state of Kosovo – today the heroin and human trafficking capital of Europe – Antiwar.com was well known in Serbia, and I was looking forward to visiting the crime scene. But as I watched the drama of 9/11 unfold, I knew I wouldn’t be going anywhere.

As news of the attack on the Pentagon was broadcast by a clearly panicked newscaster a shock of pure fear ran up and down my spine. I recalled that the Indian Point nuclear power plant wasn’t all that far away: my father had worked there at some point in his career. I imagined that it probably wasn’t all that closely guarded – and the hair on my neck stood straight up.

Day One of the Long War was dawning.

In the days and months to come, a pall fell over the nation as the smoke emanating from the isle of Manhattan spread out and seemed to cover the whole country. People forget the atmosphere of those dark days: the war hysteria welling up in a collective spasm of fearful vituperation, seeking the closest target. Since Osama bin Laden and the hijackers weren’t available, this hate campaign was directed at anyone who dared question the narrative of a blameless and simon-pure America ambushed by demons.

To reference America’s longstanding occupation of great portions of the Middle East, and our government’s support for bloodthirsty tyrants, from Riyadh to Tel Aviv, was considered close to treason. The writer Susan Sontag was pilloried for registering the mildest dissent: led by the Bush administration’s intellectual bully-boy-in-chief, the writer Andrew Sullivan, a campaign was unleashed against anyone who opposed the neoconservative project of “draining the swamp” of the Middle East. Sullivan, you’ll recall, even went after some obscure poet whose poem he claimed had blasphemed the memory of 9/11 – a misreading he later acknowledged, but only after the damage had been done and the heretic had been defamed.

When the mysterious anthrax attacks showed up in the US mails, Sullivan fantasized that Iraq was behind it and demanded that we use nuclear weapons to attack Saddam Hussein. And around the same time the Bush administration began tying Iraq to 9/11, falsely implying that the Iraqis had been in league with Osama bin Laden and the hijackers: the march to war was on, and anyone who opposed it was fair game for the witch-hunters. “You’re either with us,”declaimed President Bush, “or you’re with the terrorists.”

It was open season on anyone who questioned the war plans of the administration and the Thought Police did not neglect us here at Antiwar.com: in the weeks and months after 9/11 we received hundreds of death threats. Sullivan and the crazed Stephen Schwartz tried to link us to Ismail Royer, arrested on charges of violating the Neutrality Act. Schwartz’s publisher, David Horowitz, ran a series of articles attacking myself and Antiwar.com as being little short of Al Qaeda supporters: one piece memorablyfantasized that a second 9/11 would see me put up against a wall and shot. Around the same time the FBI started an investigation of myself, our webmaster Eric Garris, and Antiwar.com based on the supposition that we are “agents of a foreign power.”

Fast forward to September, 2015: Dick Cheney is addressing the American Enterprise Institute, railing against the historic deal with Iran that short-circuited a war the former Vice President and his neoconservative supporters had been demanding since the days of the Bush administration. Cheney, whose office was the epicenter of a cabal that lied us into war in Iraq, broadcasting “intelligence” that turned out to be entirely fabricated, was up there predicting that an Iranian nuclear attack on the United States would be the fruit of the Iran deal. It was a deja-vu moment: the same lies, the same fearmongering, the same scam, the same audience of assembled neocons cheering him on  – the difference being that the target is now Tehran instead of Baghdad.

Yet something else was different: the country was no longer in the throes of the post-9/11 syndrome. The Long War – still ongoing after all these years – had exhausted the country, and the lies that led to the invasion and conquest of Iraq had been exposed. The consequences of that disastrous war were spilling out into the headlines even as Cheney spoke: ISIS, the mutant offspring of Al Qaeda, was overrunning the Middle East, and chaos was enveloping the whole region. The architects of the neoconservative project had been discredited, and driven from office if not from public life. From the height of his power during the Bush years, when wags spoke of the “Cheney administration,” the former Vice President had been reduced to the least popular politician in the country, a Darth Vader-like figure often mocked on late nightcomedy shows.

Most importantly, the dissenters were no longer underground. The reign of terror presided over by the neocons had receded, and the opposition had emerged from the catacombs years ago, living to fight another day – with a significant degree of success. Instead of fearfully lying low, anti-interventionists of every political stripe had unfurled their banners and launched a counterattack. And one of them arose in the midst of Cheney’s speech – a young woman affiliated with the antiwar group Code Pink named Michaela Anang – and, unfurling a banner, demanded to know “Why is anyone listening to him?”

Security immediately surrounded her and escorted her out of the building as she shouted “Stop the warmongering!” – but before they dragged her out someone in the audience grabbed her banner and tried to pull it out of her hands. She resisted and a tug of war ensued. The man gripped the cloth banner and yanked at it while Michaela stood there steadfastly resisting him, seemingly without exerting much effort, until he finally gave up and collapsed in a heap, falling back in his chair.

The defeated man is no random person: his name is Patrick Clawson and he’s the research director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), aspin-off of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the premier lobbying powerhouse that acts as Israel’s agent in Washington. Like many neocons, Clawson is a former Trotskyistwho decided giving up class war for the War Party was a clever career move. He was a key player in the propaganda barrage that preceded the Iraq war and afervent supporter of Ahmed Chalabi and his fellow “heroes in error.” And as a loyal shill for the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Clawson has been a fanatical advocate of war with Iran. At a 2012 WINEP conference on “How to Build US-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout,” Clawson responded to a question from the audience on what the US should do if the negotiations with Iran failed:

“Crisis initiation is really tough. It’s very hard for me to see how the United States President can get us to war with Iran.

“The traditional way America gets to war is what would be best for US interests. Some people might think that Mister Roosevelt wanted to get us into World War II. You might recall that we had to wait for Pearl Harbor. Some people might think that Mister Wilson wanted to get us into World War I. You may recall that we had to wait for the Lusitania episode. Some people might think that Mister Johnson wanted to send troops into Viet Nam. You may recall that we had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode. We didn’t go to war with Spain until the Maine exploded. May I point out that Mister Lincoln did not feel he could call out the federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing that the South Carolinians said would cause an attack.

“So, if, in fact, the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war… We could step up the pressure… We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We could get nastier at that.”

Nasty enough to create another Gulf of Tonkin fraud– a false flag incident that would serve as justification for an attack on Iran? While Clawson hurriedly and somewhat unconvincingly said “I’m not advocating that,” he clearly was advocating exactly that – and perhaps suggesting that his Israeli sponsors might be up to the job.

Yes, “crisis initiation is really tough,” but where there’s a will there’s a way. Except it’s getting harder for Clawson and his fellow neocons to pull this off: people are on to their game. As if to underscore the neocons’ lack of political heft, Clawson couldn’t even pull that protest banner out of the hands of a woman half his size: he just collapsed, humiliated, as he fell into his seat rubbing his injured hand.

Furthermore, Michaela Anang’s message – “Why is anybody listening to this man?” – is getting out there, because the truth is that hardly anybody is listening to Cheney. The supreme irony is that even as Cheney spoke the remaining on-the-fence Senators were announcing their support for the Iran deal, giving the administration a veto-proof majority.

Not that this stopped the neocons: indeed, they accelerated their efforts, supposedly aimed at stopping the deal, with a move by the misnamed “Freedom Caucus” in the GOP congressional ranks to delay the Iran deal vote. The Republican leadership had been planning such a vote but this was nixed by the Freedom Caucusers, who came up with a complicated three-part plan, involving three separate votes. The first would be on a resolution declaring that the President and his State Department have not revealed the full text of the Iran deal, and that because they are hiding the “secret” “side agreements,” the deal is illegitimate. The second would be on a bill forbidding the lifting of sanctions. The third would be a vote on a resolution approving the deal, with the GOP majority poised to vote it down.

The first phase of this three-parter is the crucial one: as Max Fisher points out over at Vox, this would give the Republicans an ongoing issue with which to infatuate talk radio habitués and the GOP base. And, as per usual with this crowd, their contention has nothing to do with reality. The “secret side agreement” is the IAEA’s arrangements with Iran, which the US is not a party to, involving purely technical details. The IAEA has a similar “secret” agreement with the US, and indeed all parties to the Nonproliferation Treaty, and it is “secret” for the simple reason that countries with nuclear programs – especially the United States, for one – don’t want to advertise the details to the world.

Members of Congress who haven’t always gone along with the War Party’s agenda, and yet don’t want to incur their wrath, are using this pretext as a cover for their complete capitulation to the neocons’ anti-Iran jihad. Rep. Justin Amash pretends to fall for the “secret side deal” canard, but his rationalization is transparently false, as one can see by carefullyreading Amash’s argument:

“The Review Act requires the president to submit to Congress the text of any nuclear deal reached with Iran. Submission of the nuclear deal triggers a period of review for Congress to analyze the agreement – a period during which the president is prohibited from taking any actions to lift statutory sanctions.

“The precise language of the Review Act recognizes that a comprehensive nuclear deal includes many separate components, and that for members of Congress to accurately assess the merits of the agreement, Congress must have access to all portions of the agreement. Thus, the Review Act carefully defines ‘agreement’ to include ‘annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements.’

“We now know that there are at least two side agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that are integral to the nuclear deal but nevertheless will not be shared with Congress.”

The IAEA’s agreement with Iran is secret, including from the United States. As the international arbiter enforcing the terms of the Nonproliferation Treaty, the IAEA isn’t an American sock puppet: it is a neutral observer and its agreements with member states regarding the details of inspections and other technical matters are confidential. The administration can’t hand over documents to which it has no access.

Yes, the Review Act states that documents dealing with agreements made “between Iran and any other parties” must be made public by the administration, and yet Congress has no authority over the IAEA – unless Amash is arguing that congressional authority has to be extended to Vienna in order for the Iran deal to pass “constitutional” muster.

Hiding behind the skirts of the Constitution – or what they interpret as the intent of the Constitution – is a typical maneuver practiced by the Rand Paul wing of the ostensibly “libertarian” movement in order to explain away their total capitulation to the War Party. Amash’s non-explanation is reminiscent of Rand Paul’s supremely stupid legislation demanding that Congress issue a formal declaration of war against ISIS – as if clothing an invasion of yet another Middle Eastern country in “constitutional” clothing would somehow make it more palatable to libertarians.

Amash goes on and on, trying to put his vote in a “constitutional” framework, but ultimately winds up borrowing a line from none other than Donald Trump, declaring:

“Finally, even if we set aside the constitutional defects and related consequences discussed above, it is unconscionable that the Obama administration would negotiate a final agreement that does not secure the release of the three American hostages held in Iran – Saeed Abedini, Amir Hekmati, and Jason Rezaian – or information on the whereabouts of a former FBI agent abducted in Iran, Robert Levinson. The nuclear deal provides Iran access to billions of dollars in unfrozen assets and the almost immediate removal of major U.S. and international economic sanctions on Iran’s financial and energy sectors, followed by the termination of most nuclear-related sanctions on Iran in just a few years. If Iran is unwilling to return American hostages to their families as part of this agreement, then we cannot trust that Iran will act in good faith as sanctions are lifted.”

What this tells us is that Amash never did have an “open mind,” as he claims, regarding the Iran deal, because any serious student of the US-Iran negotiations, or diplomacy in general, knows that when it comes to bridging the gap between longtime adversaries only narrowing the framework of any agreement will lead to a successful conclusion. The release of the three people being held in Iran has nothing whatsoever to do with making sure Iran doesn’t develop nuclear weapons, and it is simply silly (in a Trumpish sort of way) to assert that failure to release them shows “we cannot trust that Iran will act in good faith as sanctions are lifted.” If Amash and his phony “Freedom Caucus” buddies are going to demand this, then why not include a demand that the Iranians free all their political prisoners, institute complete religious freedom, and give every oppressed Iranian a pony?

Amash is tired of fighting his own party: he recently survived a tough primary fight in the course of which his neocon-funded opponent accused him of being “Al Qaeda’s best friend.” And in spite of his pretensions, Amash is no Ron Paul – he doesn’t want to be the only Republican congressman to buck the neoconservative tide on this issue. If he thinks the neocons will let up on him because of his opposition to the Iran deal he had better think again, but I emphasize his pitiful capitulation in order to make a larger point.

The continuation of the neocon campaign against the Iran deal in spite of the fact that the deal will go through anyway has a purpose, one which includes cementing neoconservative control of the GOP. The Republican party is, today, an agent of a foreign power; it is the party of Benjamin Netanyahu. This was formalized when House Speaker John Boehnerinvited Bibi to undermine the Iran agreement in a speech to Congress, an invitation extended behind the President’s back. Not since the heyday of the cold war, when the Communist Party USA functioned openly as Moscow’s instrument, has an American political party bended its knee so brazenly to an overseas master. The battle over the Iran deal has effectively eliminated whatever reluctance some GOPers had to becoming Bibi’s congressional handmaidens. If the Iran deal confirms that Congress is no longer “Israeli-occupied territory,” as Pat Buchanan once put it, then its Republican component is now the political arm of the IDF.

Patrick Clawson and his crowd have lost the tug-of-war with the pro-American faction of the foreign policy establishment: that’s the significance of the Iran deal, and its importance should not be underestimated. This is a tipping point, a real sea-change – but the neocons never give up, and they never give an inch. We underestimate them at our peril.

It’s now fourteen years after 9/11, and the War Party’s momentum has been slowed, albeit not entirely halted. But this is no time for complacency. What they are counting on is their staying power within the GOP, and their many connections in the Democratic party – including their influence over Hillary Clinton, whose recent speech on the Iran deal was framed in terms of her total allegiance to Israel. She pledged a ramped-up US military presence in the immediate vicinity of Iran, perhaps giving Clawson new hope that another Gulf of Tonkin is in the works. He lost the tug-of-war with that protester, but don’t think he and his comrades will stop trying to pull the country their way.

A “Thank you!” Note: I want to thank all of our many readers who gave to the fundraising campaign this time around. Yes, we finally made it – and it’s all because of our faithful readers and supporters, who have stood by us through thick and thin. We here at Antiwar.com are working day and night to give you the best coverage of US foreign policy – and its horrific consequences – on the Internet. We report the news and we offer opinion: the first a guide to what is going on – what is really going on – and the second a guide to what we ought to do about it. We educate so you can be active in the worldwide movement for a more peaceful world. We aren’t just making the case for a noninterventionist foreign policy is abstract terms: we are educating the public in order to make peace a reality. Your tax-deductible donations make that possible. So thank you, again: I am personally dedicated to earning your support every time I sit down at my computer and start another column.

This is a syndicated repost courtesy of Antiwar.com Original. To view original, click here.

10 13 11 flagbar

 

The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives.

August 8th, 2015 by

http://www.trueactivist.com/the-real-reason-america-used-nuclear-

weapons-against-japan-it-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/

8-8-2015 10-01-18 AM

By Washington’s Blog / globalresearch.ca

 

Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives.

But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise.

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:

The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike

Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380):

In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude….

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

General Douglas MacArthur agreed (pg. 65, 70-71):

MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed …. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.

Moreover (pg. 512):

The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.

Similarly, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500):

I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.

Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said:

I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted.

***

In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn’t have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb.

War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.

He also noted (pg. 144-145, 324):

It definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn’t get any imports and they couldn’t export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in.

General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force “hawk,” stated publicly shortly before the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan:

The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

The Vice Chairman of the U.S. Bombing Survey Paul Nitze wrote (pg. 36-37, 44-45):

[I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.

***

Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary.

Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias wrote:

Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.

Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.

I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds.

Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.

Brigadier General Carter Clarke – the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors – said (pg. 359):

When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.

Many other high-level military officers concurred. For example:

The commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. Also, the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz was reported to have said in a press conference on September 22, 1945, that “The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia’s entry into the war.” In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.” It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower’s assessment was “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.” Eisenhower also stated that it wasn’t necessary for Truman to “succumb” to [the tiny handful of people putting pressure on the president to drop atom bombs on Japan.]

British officers were of the same mind. For example, General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, said to Prime Minister Churchill that “when Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.”

On hearing that the atomic test was successful, Ismay’s private reaction was one of “revulsion.”

Why Were Bombs Dropped on Populated Cities Without Military Value?

Even military officers who favored use of nuclear weapons mainly favored using them on unpopulated areas or Japanese military targets … not cities.

For example, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss proposed to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal that a non-lethal demonstration of atomic weapons would be enough to convince the Japanese to surrender … and the Navy Secretary agreed (pg. 145, 325):

I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate… My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood… I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest… would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will… Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation

It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world…

General George Marshall agreed:

Contemporary documents show that Marshall felt “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave–telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers….”

As the document concerning Marshall’s views suggests, the question of whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified turns … on whether the bombs had to be used against a largely civilian target rather than a strictly military target—which, in fact, was the explicit choice since although there were Japanese troops in the cities, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was deemed militarily vital by U.S. planners. (This is one of the reasons neither had been heavily bombed up to this point in the war.) Moreover, targeting [at Hiroshima and Nagasaki] was aimed explicitly on non-military facilities surrounded by workers’ homes.

Historians Agree that the Bomb Wasn’t Needed

Historians agree that nuclear weapons did not need to be used to stop the war or save lives.

As historian Doug Long notes:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission historian J. Samuel Walker has studied the history of research on the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan. In his conclusion he writes, “The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisors knew it.” (J. Samuel Walker, The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update, Diplomatic History, Winter 1990, pg. 110).

Politicians Agreed

Many high-level politicians agreed. For example, Herbert Hoover said (pg. 142):

The Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945…up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; …if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs.

Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew noted (pg. 29-32):

In the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.

If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer.

Why Then Were Atom Bombs Dropped on Japan?

If dropping nuclear bombs was unnecessary to end the war or to save lives, why was the decision to drop them made? Especially over the objections of so many top military and political figures?

One theory is that scientists like to play with their toys:

On September 9, 1945, Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet, was publicly quoted extensively as stating that the atomic bomb was used because the scientists had a “toy and they wanted to try it out . . . .” He further stated, “The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment . . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it.”

However, most of the Manhattan Project scientists who developed the atom bomb were opposed to using it on Japan.

Albert Einstein – an important catalyst for the development of the atom bomb (but not directly connected with the Manhattan Project) – said differently:

“A great majority of scientists were opposed to the sudden employment of the atom bomb.” In Einstein’s judgment, the dropping of the bomb was a political – diplomatic decision rather than a military or scientific decision.

Indeed, some of the Manhattan Project scientists wrote directly to the secretary of defense in 1945 to try to dissuade him from dropping the bomb:

We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear bombs for an early, unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable. If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.

Political and Social Problems, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 76, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 323-333).

The scientists questioned the ability of destroying Japanese cities with atomic bombs to bring surrender when destroying Japanese cities with conventional bombs had not done so, and – like some of the military officers quoted above – recommended a demonstration of the atomic bomb for Japan in an unpopulated area.

The Real Explanation?

History.com notes:

In the years since the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, a number of historians have suggested that the weapons had a two-pronged objective …. It has been suggested that the second objective was to demonstrate the new weapon of mass destruction to the Soviet Union. By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War.

New Scientist reported in 2005:

The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.

Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.

“He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species,” says Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, US. “It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity.”

***

[The conventional explanation of using the bombs to end the war and save lives] is disputed by Kuznick and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, US.

***

New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.

According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden.

John Pilger points out:

The US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was “fearful” that the US air force would have Japan so “bombed out” that the new weapon would not be able “to show its strength”. He later admitted that “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb”. His foreign policy colleagues were eager “to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip”. General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: “There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis.” The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the “overwhelming success” of “the experiment”.

We’ll give the last word to University of Maryland professor of political economy – and former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State – Gar Alperovitz:

Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945. Moreover, this essential judgment was expressed by the vast majority of top American military leaders in all three services in the years after the war ended: Army, Navy and Army Air Force. Nor was this the judgment of “liberals,” as is sometimes thought today. In fact, leading conservatives were far more outspoken in challenging the decision as unjustified and immoral than American liberals in the years following World War II.

***

Instead [of allowing other options to end the war, such as letting the Soviets attack Japan with ground forces], the United States rushed to use two atomic bombs at almost exactly the time that an August 8 Soviet attack had originally been scheduled: Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. The timing itself has obviously raised questions among many historians. The available evidence, though not conclusive, strongly suggests that the atomic bombs may well have been used in part because American leaders “preferred”—as Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Martin Sherwin has put it—to end the war with the bombs rather than the Soviet attack. Impressing the Soviets during the early diplomatic sparring that ultimately became the Cold War also appears likely to have been a significant factor.

***

The most illuminating perspective, however, comes from top World War II American military leaders. The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that … most Americans haven’t paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.

***

Shortly before his death General George C. Marshall quietly defended the decision, but for the most part he is on record as repeatedly saying that it was not a military decision, but rather a political one.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

With what has been learned about the power of the International Banking Cartel, who in their right mind would doubt they controlled the Political Powers who committed this unspeakable scourge on humanity? Only when people world wide understand how and why humanity has been beguiled will they rise up and demand these monsters be burned at the stake. They are the purest form of evil, and deserve unspeakable deaths. Likewise, the Popes who have participated in the destruction of Christianity should surely be acknowledged as the Bankers assistants. Enlighten yourself and ACCEPT  THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY!
10 13 11 flagbar

Seattle Councilman Proposes Ridiculous Firearm and Ammo Tax

July 11th, 2015 by

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/07/seattle-councilman-proposes-ridiculous.html

By Joshua Krause

Seattle sure is turning into a real progressive utopia isn’t it? Between enacting a $15 minimum wage and letting little girls receive birth control without their parent’s consent, they seem to be selling themselves to the progressive agenda, lock, stock and barrel. Of course, it won’t end with those measures. It never does. Recently, Seattle City Council President Tim Burgess proposed a piece of legislation that would tax gun and ammunition sales, and force gun owners to report any firearm that is lost or stolen.

As egregious as this measure sounds, ordinarily it wouldn’t be out of place. After all, governments routinely tax all manner of products and services, and force their onerous regulations on just about everyone. What sets this measure apart from most bills though, is the reason why they’re doing it. “Gun violence is very expensive,” Burgess said, noting that the direct medical costs of treating 253 gunshot victims at Seattle’s Harborview Medical Center last year surpassed $17 million, with taxpayers covering more than $12 million of that. “It’s time for the gun industry to help defray those costs and this is a very reasonable way to do it.” The tax, imposed on gun sellers, would be $25 on each firearm sold in the city and five cents on each round of ammunition. Sales of antique firearms and some other sales could see relief from the tax while individuals selling no more than one gun per quarter would be exempted.

Not reporting a lost or stolen gun to police would be enforced as a civil infraction carrying a fine of up to $500. Zach Silk, campaign manager with the Washington Alliance for Gun Safety, hailed the proposals. “We often attach taxes to things that cause harm to our communities and we know that guns are causing harm,” he said. So let me get this straight. Burgess wants to tax violence, am I right? Does that make any sense? Even it weren’t an utterly nonsensical thing to do, does it make sense to tax honest gun owners for the activities of criminals? (I know he says that this is a tax on gun dealers, but obviously the costs will be passed on to their customers). Think about it. There were over 16 million gun applications in 2012. That means at least several million Americans buy a firearm every year. However, there were only 16,121 homicide deaths in 2013, of which 11,208 involved a firearm. Seattle is apparently responsible for a couple hundred of those, but its safe to say that just like everywhere else in this country, the vast majority of firearms that are bought and sold are never used to inflict any kind of physical harm.

So, basically, they’re forcing honest, law-abiding gun owners to pay the damages inflicted by criminals, and they’re going to fine people who’ve had their property stolen. Typical progressives. Make everyone collectively pay for the mistakes and malice of the few. Whatever happened to just punishing criminals? Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple, where this article first appeared. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshua’s reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger.

This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

It is, and always has been the policy of governments, to charge the people for everything they want and need to do. So why be surprised at this idiotic law? Our real problem in America is the lack of backbone in the people who consistently bend over and take it up the ole wazoo, and smile in the process, thinking this is going to make it unaffordable to have and use a gun. Along with the whackos who want other things up their wazoo, and a marriage license to support it, I don’t believe America has a snowballs chance in hell of ever enjoying the freedom we were promised a little over two hundred years ago. All it takes for governments to become tyrannical is for the people to bend over and take it, instead of standing up and demanding their GOD GIVEN rights. In short, Seattle should refuse to pay the tax. When the bones heads in the tax department see the drop in sales tax revenue, they just might understand the loss of income is not worth the trouble. Remember this always! They can’t do squat without money to waste. Think of ways to get what you need or want without making a recorded sale!

7-10-2015 8-58-19 AM

10 13 11 flagbar


SEO Powered By SEOPressor