Categories » ‘Imperial Intervention’
October 10th, 2014 by olddog
By Bruce Fein
If the United States is not an empire, the word has lost all meaning.
No sparrow falls in the forest that does not provoke a national security assessment and response.
At present, we are employing military force in six countries — Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.
In 2011, we reduced Libya to rubble after Muammar Gaddafi did our bidding in abandoning weapons of mass destruction and in paying more than $1 billion to compensate for the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland.
We are assisting Ukraine in its conflict with Russia.
We are deploying predator drones in Niger, Djibouti and the Seychelles.
We are assisting Uganda in its fight with the Lord’s Resistance Army.
We are assisting Nigeria in its conflict with Boko Harem.
We are committed to war against Iran if we decree it has acquired a nuclear capability.
We have tens of thousands of troops stationed in Japan 70 years after the conclusion of World War II.
We have tens of thousands of troops deployed in South Korea more than 60 years after the Korean War ended.
We have tens of thousands of troops in Europe seven decades after the defeat of Hitler and more than two decades after the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
We are committed by treaty to defending approximately 50 nations from attack, including the defense of Japan in the event of a conflict with China over a few uninhabited islands in the East China Sea.
We dot the planet with hundreds of military bases.
We police the oceans with aircraft carriers, submarines and battleships.
We dominate the skies with spy satellites, stealth aircraft, and hundreds of fighters and bombers.
We have outstanding economic sanctions against 20 nations for bad behavior.
We control cyberspace with the ubiquitous collection, retention, and search of electronic communications of friend and foe alike.
We expend $1 trillion annually on national security, a sum more than the collective defense expenditures of the rest of the world.
We honor secrecy more than transparency, a quest for a risk-free existence more than liberty.
We bedeck the presidency with the trappings of a Roman emperor, including a bloated Pretorian Guard and a White House staff approaching 500. Roads are closed and traffic stops whenever the president travels.
In his July 4, 1821, address to Congress, then-Secretary of State John Quincy Adams indicated the difference between then existing empires and the American republic.
The republic spoke of equal rights among nations.
Empires spoke of double standards.
The republic influenced events abroad by example.
Empires dictated to foreign nations by military force or financial manipulation.
The republic knew that chronic embroilment in foreign wars would change the fundamental maxims of her policy from liberty to force.
Empires embraced foreign wars as an earmark of greatness.
The republic glorified liberty.
Empires glorified domination.
In sum, the United States has become a full-fledged empire.
Acknowledging this truth is the first step to curing the disease. Otherwise, self-ruination will be our fate. As Abraham Lincoln presciently lectured: “At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
For more information about Bruce Fein, please visit brucefeinlaw.
September 29th, 2014 by olddog
By Prof. James Petras
Despite vast amounts of imperial data to the contrary, the great majority of writers on imperialism continue to describe and analyze US imperialism strictly in economic terms, as an expansion of “capital accumulation”, “accumulation on a world scale”.
In fact the major and minor US imperial wars have more to do with “capital dis-accumulation”, in the sense that trillion dollar flows have gone out from the US, hundreds of billions of dollars in profits from resource sites have been undermined, markets for exports have been severely weakened and exploitable productive labor has been uprooted. At the same time US imperialist state ‘dis-accumulates capital’, multi-national corporations, especially in the extractive sector are expanding, “accumulating capital” throughout Latin America.
This new configuration of power, the conflicting and complementary nature of 21st century US imperialism, requires that we anchor our analysis in the real, existing behavior of imperial state and extractive capitalist policymakers. The basic premise informing this essay is that there are two increasingly divergent forms of imperialism: military driven intervention, occupation and domination; and economic expansion and exploitation of resources, markets and labor by invitation of the ‘host country’.
We will proceed by examining the choices of imperial strategy, in a historical – comparative framework and the alternatives which were selected or rejected. Through an analysis of the practical decisions taken regarding ‘imperial expansion’ we can obtain insights into the real nature of US imperialism. The study of imperial strategic choices, past and present, state and corporate, requires three levels of analysis: global, national and sectoral.
Global Strategies: US Imperial State and the MNC
US imperial state invested trillions of dollars in military expenditures, hundreds of thousands of military personnel into wars in theMiddle East (Iraq, Yemen, and Syria), North and East Africa (Libya, Somalia), South Asia (Afghanistan) and imposed sanctions on Iran costing the US hundreds of billions in “capital dis-accumulation”.
The US corporate elite, driven out of Iraq, Syria, Libya and elsewhere where US military imperialism was engaged, chose to invest in manufacturing in China and extractive sectors throughout Latin America.
In other words the US imperial state strategists either chose to expand in relatively backward areas (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen) or imposed under-development by destroying or sanctioning lucrative extractive economies (Iraq, Libya, Iran).
In contrast the MNC chose the most dynamic expanding zones where militarist imperialism was least engaged – China and Latin America. In other words “capital did not follow the flag” – it avoided it.
Moreover, the zones where extractive capital was most successful in terms of access, profits and stability were those where their penetration was based on negotiated contracts between sovereign nations and CEO’s – economic imperialism by invitation.
In contrast in the priority areas of expansion chosen by imperial state strategists, entry and domination was by force, leading to the destruction of the means of production and the loss of access to the principle sites of extractive exploitation. US military driven imperialism undermined energy companies’ agreements in Iraq and Libya. Imperial state sanctions in Iran designed to weaken its nuclear and defense capabilities undercut US corporate extractive, public-private contracts with the Iranian state oil corporations. The drop in production and supply in oil in Iraq, Iran and Libya raised energy prices and had a negative impact on the “accumulation of capital on a world scale”.
If imperial state decision-makers had followed the direction of economic rather than military driven policymakers they would have pivoted to Asia and Latin America rather than the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa. They would have channeled funds into economic imperialist strategies, including joint ventures, high and medium tech trade agreements, and expanded exports by the high-end manufacturing sector, instead of financing 700 military bases, destabilization campaigns and costly military exercises.
Twentieth century military imperialism stands in stark contrast to late twentieth century economic imperialism. In the mid 1960’s the US announced a vast new economic program in Latin America – the Alliance for Progress which was designed to finance economic opportunities in Latin America via joint ventures, agrarian reform and investments in the extractive sector. The imperial state’s military policies and interventionist policies were designed to secure US business control over mines, banks, factories and agro-business. US backing for the coups in Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, Uruguay and Peru led to the privatization of key resource sectors and the imposition of the neo-liberal economic model.
US policy in Asia under Nixon was directed first and foremost to opening economic relations with China, expanding trade agreements with Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. The ‘pivot from war’ to free trade led to a boom in US exports as well as imports, in private investments and lucrative profits. Military expenditures declined even as the US engaged in covert operations in Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua and El Salvador.
Imperial intervention combined military and economic expansion with the latter dictating policy priorities and the allocation of resources.
The reversal set in with the US military backing of the jihadist extremists in Afghanistan and the demise of the USSR. The former set the stage for the rise of the Taliban to power and the emergence of the Al Qaeda terrorist organization. The latter led US imperial strategists to pursue wars of conquest with impunity – Yugoslavia and Iraq during the 1990’s.
Easy military conquests and visions of a ‘unipolar’ world dominated by US military supremacy, encouraged and fostered the emergence of a new breed of imperial strategists – the neo-conservative militarists with closer ties to Israel and its military priorities than to the US extractive petrol capitalists in the Middle East.
Military versus Economic Imperialist at the ‘National Level’
In the post-Cold War period, the competition between the two variants of imperialism was played out in all the nation subject to US intervention.
During the first Iraq war the balance between militarists and economic imperialists was in play. The US defeated Iraq but did not shred the state, nor bomb the oil fields. Sanctions were imposed but did not paralyze oil deals. The US did not occupy Iraq; it partioned the north –so-called“Kurdish” Iraq but left the secular state intact. Extractive capital was actively in competition with the militarist neo-conservatives over the future direction of imperial policy.
The launch of the second Iraq war and the invasion of Afghanistan marked a decisive shift toward military imperialism: the US ignored all economic considerations. Iraq’s secular state was destroyed; civil society was pulverized; ethno-religious, tribal and clan warfare was encouraged. US colonial officials ruled by military fiat; top policymakers with links to Israel replaced oil-connected officials. The militarist “war on terror” ideology replaced free market, free trade imperialism. Afghanistan killing fields replaced the China market as the center of US imperial policy. Billions were spent, chasing evasive guerrillas in the mountains of a backward economy while US lost competitive advantages in the most dynamic Asian markets.
Imperial policymakers chose to align with sectarian warlords in Iraq over extractive technocrats. In Afghanistan they chose loyal ex-pat puppets over influential Taliban leaders capable of pacifying the country.
Extractive versus Military Imperialism in Latin America
Latin American neo-liberalism went from boom to bust in the 1990’s. By the early 2000’s crisis enveloped the region. By the turn of the century US backed rulers were being replaced by popular nationalist leaders. US policymakers stuck by their neoliberal clients in decline and failed to adapt to the new rulers who pursued modified socially inclusive extractivism. The US military imperialists longed for a return of the neo-liberal backers of the “war on terrorism”. In contrast, international multinational extractive corporations were realists – and adapted to the new regimes.
On a global scale, at the beginning of the new millennium, two divergent tendencies emerged. US military imperialism expandedthroughout the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and the Caucuses, while Latin American regimes turned in the opposite direction – toward moderate nationalism, and populism with a strong emphasis on poverty reduction via economic development in association with imperial extractive capital
In the face of these divergent and conflicting trends, the major US extractive multi-national corporations chose to adapt to the new political realities in Latin America. While Washington, the imperial state, expressed hostility and dismay toward the new regimes refusal to back the “war on terror” (military imperialism) the major MNCs, robust embrace of economic imperialism, took advantage of the investment opportunities opened by the new regimes’ adoption of a new extractivist model, to pour billions into the mining, energy and agricultural sectors.
The Specificities of Extractive Imperialism in the Era of “Post Neo-Liberalism”
Extractive imperialism in Latin America has several specific characteristics that sharply demark it from earlier forms agro-mineral imperialism.
(1) Extractive capital is not dominated by a single imperial country-like the Spanish in the 18t century, the British in the 19thcentury or the US in the 20th century. Imperial extractive capital is very diverse: Canadian, US, Chinese, Brazilian, Australian, Spanish, Indian and other MNCs are deeply involved.
(2) The imperial states of the diverse MNC do not engage in “gun boat diplomacy” (with the exception of the US). The imperial states provide economic financing and diplomatic support but are not actively involved in subverting Latin American regimes.
(3) The relative weight of US MNCs, in the new imperial extractivism is much less than it was a half century earlier. The rise of diverse extractive MNC and dynamism of China’s commodity market and deep financial pockets have displaced the US, the IMF and WB and established new terms of trade with Latin America.
(4) Probably the most significant aspect of the new imperial extractivism is that its entry and expansion is by invitation. The Latin American regimes and the extractive MNCs negotiate contracts – MNC entry is not unilaterally imposed by an imperial state. Yet the ‘contracts’ may result in unequal returns; they provide substantial revenues and profits to the MNC; they grant large multi –million acre tracts of land for mining or agriculture exploitation; they obligate the national state to dispossess local communities and police/repress the displaced. But they also have allowed the post-neo-liberal state to expand their social spending, to increase their foreign reserves, to eschew relations with the IMF, and to diversify their markets and trading partners.
In regional terms extractive imperialism in Latin America has “accumulated capital” by diverging from the military imperialism practiced by the US in other regions of the world political- economy. Over the past decade and a half, extractive capital has been alliedwith and relyies both on post-neoliberal and neoliberal regimes against petty commodity producers, indigenous communities and other anti-extractive resistance movements. Extractive imperialists do not rely on ‘their’ imperial state to quell resistance- they turn to theirnational political partners.
Extractive imperialism by invitation also diverges from the military imperial state in its view toward regional organizations. US military imperialism placed all its bets on US centered economic integration which Washington could leverage to political, military and economic advantage. Extractive capital, in the great diversity of its ‘national identity’, welcomed Latin American centered integration which did not privilege US markets and investors.
The predominance of economic imperialism, in particular the extractive version, however, needs to be qualified by several caveats.
US military imperialism has been present in several forms. The US backed the military coup in Honduras overthrowing the post neo-liberal Zelaya government; likewise it supported an “institutional coup” in Paraguay.
Secondly, even as MNC corporations poured capital into Bolivian mining and energy sectors, the US imperial state fomented destabilization activity to undermine the MAS government. And was defeated and the agencies and operatives were expelled. The crucial issue in this, as well as other, instances is the unwillingness of the MNC’s to join forces with the military imperialists, via boycotts, trade embargoes or disinvestment. Clearly the stability, profitability and long-term contracts between the Bolivian regime and the extractive MNC counted for more than their ties to the US imperial state.
US military imperialism has expanded its military bases and increased joint military exercises with most Latin American armed forces. Indoctrinated military officials can still become formidable potential allies in any future ‘coup’, if and when the US “pivots” from the Middle East to Latin America.
US military imperialism in its manifest multiple forms, from bankrolling NGO’s engaged in destabilization and street riots in Venezuela, to its political support of financial speculators in Argentina and rightwing parties and personalities in Brazil, has a continuous presence alongside extractive imperialism. The success of the latter and the eclipse of the former are based in part on two contingentcircumstances. The US serial wars in the Middle East divert attention away from Latin America; and the commodity boom fuels the growth of extractive capital. The economic slowdown in China and the decline of commodity prices may weaken the regimes in opposition to US military imperialism.
Paradoxically the weakening of the ties between the post-neo-liberal regimes and extractive imperialism resulting from the decline of commodity prices is strengthening the neo-liberal socio-political forces allied with US military imperialism.
Latin America’s Right Turn: The Co-Habitation of Extractive and Military imperialism?
Throughout Latin America the post-neoliberal regimes which ruled for the better part of a decade and a half face serious challenges – from consequential social opposition at the micro-level and from aggressive political-economic elites at the macro-level. It is worthwhile to survey the prospects for a return to power of neo-liberal regimes allied with military imperialism in several key countries.
Several factors are working in favor of a return to power of political parties and leaders who seek to reverse the independent and inclusive policies of the post neoliberal power bloc.
First the post-neo-liberal regimes development strategy of depending on foreign extractive capital, perpetuated and strengthened the economic basis of imperialism: the ‘colonial style’ trade relation, exporting primary commodities and importing finished goods, allowed the agro-mineral elites to occupy key positions in the politico-social structure. With the decline in commodity prices, some post-neoliberal regimes are experiencing fiscal and balance of payments shortfalls. Inflation and cuts in social expenditures adversely affect the capacity of the post-neo-liberal regimes to retain popular and middle class electoral support.
The divergences between post-neoliberals and economic imperialism are accentuating with return of the neoliberal right. The agro-mineral sectors perceive an opportunity to rid themselves of their power and revenue sharing agreements with the state and to secure even more lucrative arrangements with the advance of the neo-liberal right which promises tax and royalty reductions, deregulation and lower wage and pension payments.
Secondly, the post-neo-liberal regimes’ alliances with the building , construction, and other bourgeois sectors, was accompanied by corruption involving pay-offs, bribes and other illicit financial transactions designed to finance their mass media based electoral campaigns and patronage system which ensured electoral majorities. The neo-liberal right is exploiting these corruption scandals to erode the middle class electoral base of the post -neo-liberal regimes.
Thirdly, the post-neo-liberal regimes increased the quantity of social services, but ignored their quality – provoking widespread discontent with the inadequate public educational, transport, and health services.
Fourthly, inflation is eroding the decade long advance of wage, pension and family allowances. The post-neo-liberal regimes are caught between the pressures to “adjust” –to devalueand impose fiscal ‘austerity’ as proposed by the international bankers and lose mass support, or to engage in deeper structural changes which require among other things, changes in the extractive dependence model and greater public ownership. The crises of the post-neo-liberal regimes is leading to irresolution and opening political space for the neo-liberal right which is allied to military and economic imperialism.
Military imperialism, which was weakened by the popular uprisings at the turn of 20th century is never absent. US military imperialism is first and foremost powerfully entrenched in two major countries: Mexico and Colombia. In both countries neo-liberal regimes bought into the militarization of their societies, including the comprehensive and deep presence of US military-police officials in the structures of the state.
In both states, US military and economic imperialism operates in alliance with paramilitary death squads, even as they proclaimed “a war on drugs”. The ideology of free market imperialism was put into practice with the elimination of trade barriers, widespread privatization of resources and multi-million acre land grants to MNC.
Through its regional clients, US imperialism has a springboard to extend its influence. Mexican style ‘militarized imperialism’ has spread to Central America; Colombia serves as a launch-pad to subvert Venezuela and Ecuador.
Where dissident regimes emerged in regions claimed by militarized imperialism, Honduras and Paraguay, military and civilian coups were engineered. However because of the regional concentration of US military imperialism in the Middle East it relies heavily on local collaborators, political, military and economic elites as vehicles for “regime change”.
Extractive imperialism is under siege from popular movements in many countries in Latin America. In some cases, the political elites have increasingly militarized the contested terrain. Where this is the case, the regimes invite and accept an increased imperial military presence, as advisers, and embrace their militarist ideology, thus fostering a “marriage” between extractive and military imperialism. This is the case in Peru under President Humala and Santos in Colombia.
In Argentina and Brazil, the moderate reformist policies of the Kirchner and Lula/Rousseff regimes are under siege. Faltering export earnings, rising deficits, inflationary pressures have fueled a neo-liberal offensive, which takes a new form: populism at the service of neo-liberal collaboration with military imperialism. Extractive capital has divided -some sectors retain ties with the regime, others, the majority are allied with rising power of the right.
In Brazil, the Right has promoted a former environmentalist (Silva) to front for the hardline neo-liberal financial sector – which has received full support from local and imperial mass media. In Argentina, the imperial state and mass media have backed hedge fund speculators and have launched a full scale economic war, claiming default, in order to damage Buenos Aires’ access to capital markets in order to increase its investments in the extractive sector.
In contrast Bolivia, the extractive model par excellence, has moved successfully to oust and weaken the military arm of imperialism, ending the presence of US military advisers and DEA officials, while deepening and strengthening its ties with diverse extractive MNCs on the one hand, and on the other consolidating support among the trade unions and peasant-Indian movements.
In Ecuador the extractive regime of Correa has diversified the sources of imperial capital from the US to China, and consolidated his power via effective patronage machinery and socio-economic reforms.
The US-Colombian military threat to Venezuela and Ecuador has diminished, peace negotiations with the FARC are advancing and the regime now faces trade union and Indian-peasant opposition with regard to its extractive strategy and corporatist labor reforms.
In both Ecuador and Bolivia, imperial militarism appears to lack the vital strategic military-civilian allies capable of engineering a regime change.
The case of Venezuela highlights the continuing importance of imperial militarism in shaping US policy in Latin America. The pivot to a military policy, was taken by Washington prior to any basic social reforms or economic nationalist measures. The coup of 2001 and lockout of 2002 were backed by the US in response to President Chavez forceful rejection of the “War on Terrorism”. Washington jeopardized its important economic stake, petrol investments, in order to put in place a regime in conforming to its global military strategy.
And for the next decade and a half, the US imperial strategy totally ignored investment, trade and resource opportunities in this wealthy petrol state; it chose to spend hundreds of millions in financing opposition NGO, terrorists, electoral parties, mass media and military officials to effect a regime change. The extractive sector in the US simply became a transmission belt for the agencies of the militarized imperial state. In its place, Russia and China, interested especially extractive sector signed multi-billion dollar contracts with the Venezuelan state: a case of extractive imperialism by invitation – for economic and security reasons.
Apart from the ideological conflict over US militarist expansion, Venezuela’s promotion of Latin American centered regional integration, weakened US leverage and control in the region. In its struggle against Latin American centered regional organizations and to regain its dominance, US imperialism has upgraded its economic profile via the Trans-Pacific Alliance, which includes its most loyal neo-liberal allies – Chile, Peru, Colombia and Mexico. The global eclipse of economic – driven imperial expansion in favor of the military has not totally displaced several key economic advances in strategic countries and sectors in Mexico, Colombia and Peru.
The privatization and denationalization of the biggest and most lucrative public petrol company in Latin America, PEMEX, the Mexican giant, opens up enormous profitable opportunities for US MNC. The rapid appropriation of oil fields by US MNC will enhance and compliment the militarization of Mexico undertaken by the US military-security apparatus.
The Mexican example highlights several features of US imperialism in Latin America.
Imperial militarization does not necessarily preclude economic imperialism if it takes place within an existing stable state structure. Unlike the imperial wars in Iraq and Libya, the military imperialist policies in Mexico advanced via powerful local political clients willing and able to engage in bloody civil wars costing over 100,000 civilian deaths in over a decade. Under the aegus and guidance of US imperial rulers, the US and Mexican military devastated civil society, but safeguarded and expanded the huge mining and manufacturing enclaves open to economic imperialist exploitation. Militarization contributed to weakening the bargaining rights of labor – wages have declined in real terms over the decades and the minimum wage is the lowest in the hemisphere.
Mexico highlights the crucial role that collaborator elites play in imperial capital accumulation. Mexico is an excellent example of ‘imperialism by invitation’ – the political agreements at the top impose ‘acquiescence’ below. The extraordinary levels of corruptionwhich permeates the entire political class, solidifies the longstanding links between Mexican political-business elite, the MNC and the security apparatus of the imperial state. Extractive imperialism is the principal beneficiary of this “triple alliance”.
In the case of Mexico, militarized imperialism laid the groundwork for the expansion of economic imperialism.
A similar process, involving ‘triple alliances’ is operative in Colombia. For the past decade and a half, militarized-imperialism poured over $6 billion in military aid(Plan Colombia) to finance the dispossession, assassination, arrest and torture and of over 4 million Colombians, including the killing of thousands of trade union and social movement leaders.
The scorched earth policy, backed by a substantial US military mission operated through the existing state apparatus and with the active support of the agro-mineral and banking elite ,aided by nearly 40,000 member paramilitary death squads and drug traffickers laid the groundwork for the large scale entry of extractive capital – particularly mining capital.
Military imperialism preceded the long-term, large scale ‘invasion’ by economic imperialism in the form of a free trade agreement and multi-million acre land grants to mining MNC.
This general pattern was repeated in Peru. The ‘war on terror” under Fujimori and the subsequent liberalization of the economy, under three subsequent Presidents, culminated in the massive primarization of the economy under President Humala – who deepened and extended the expansion of imperial extractive capital.
The economic downturn in some of the post-neo-liberal economies, namely Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela, and the rightward moving political spectrum, has opened a window of opportunity for US economic imperialism to work in tandem with the rising neo-liberal political opposition. The military option, a military coup or US military intervention is not on the horizon for the present time. The central focus of imperial state decision makers regarding regime change is a combination of overt electoral and covert ‘street intervention’: adopting ‘populist’, moralist and technocratic rhetoric to highlight corruption in high offices, inefficiency in the delivery of social services with claims of bureaucratic interference in the operations of the market. Business disinvestment, financial speculation on the currency and negative mass media propaganda has coincided strikes and protests against shortages and lag between wage and price increases.
Despite costly and failed imperial wars in the Middle East, despite a decade of military retreat in Latin America, economic imperialism is advancing via the electoral route; it already has established a formidable array of allies among the political regimes in Mexico, Colombia and Peru and is posed to re-establish neo-liberal allies in Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela.
Imperialism as it has evolved over the past quarter of a century cannot be understood as a ‘unified whole’ in which the two basic components, military and economic are always complimentary. Divergences have been graphically illustrated by the imperial wars in the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa. Convergences are more obvious in Latin America, especially in Mexico, Colombia and Peru, where ‘militarization’ facilitated the expansion of extractive capital.
The theoretical point is that the nature of the political leadership of the imperial state has a high degree of autonomy in shaping the predominance of one or another strand of the imperial expansion. The capacity for imperial capital to expand is highly contingent on the strength and structure of the collaborator state: militarized imperialism that invades and destroys states and the fabric of civil society has led to disinvestment; in contrast economic imperialism by invitation in neo-liberal collaborator states has been at the center of successful imperial expansion.
The ambiguities and contradictions intrinsic to the post-neo-liberal extractivist based development model have both constrainedthe military component of imperialism while expanding opportunities for economic imperial accumulation. Accumulation by invitation, and accumulation by dispossession are simply ‘moments’ in a complex process in which political regime changes intervene and establish the locations and timing for refluxes and influxes of capital.
The rise of new economic imperialist powers like China competing with established imperial powers like the US, has led to alternative markets and sources of financing, which erodes the effectiveness political, military and diplomatic instruments of imperial coercion.
Regional variations in political configurations, imperial priorities and choice of instruments of power, have deeply influenced the nature and structure of imperialism. And as the world historic record seems to argue, military driven empire building in the Middle East has been a disaster while economic driven imperialism shows signs of rapid recovery and successes in Latin America.
Copyright © 2014 Global Research
September 26th, 2014 by olddog
The Veterans Affairs scandal of falsified waiting lists is the latest of a never-ending stream of government ineptitude. Every season brings a new headline of failures: the botched roll-out of Obamacare involved 55 uncoordinated IT vendors; a White House report in February found that barely 3 percent of the $800 billion stimulus plan went to rebuild transportation infrastructure; and a March Washington Post report describes how federal pensions are processed by hand in a deep cave in Pennsylvania.
The reflexive reaction is to demand detailed laws and rules to make sure things don’t go wrong again. But shackling public choices with ironclad rules, ironically, is a main cause of the problems. Dictating correctness in advance supplants the one factor that is indispensable to all successful endeavors—human responsibility. “Nothing that’s good works by itself,” as Thomas Edison put it. “You’ve got to make the damn thing work.”
Responsibility is nowhere in modern government. Who’s responsible for the budget deficits? Nobody: Program budgets are set in legal concrete. Who’s responsible for failing to fix America’s decrepit infrastructure? Nobody. Who’s responsible for not managing civil servants sensibly? You get the idea.
Modern government is organized on “clear law,” the false premise that by making laws detailed enough to take in all possible circumstances, we can avoid human error. And so over the last few decades, law has gotten ever more granular. But all that regulatory detail, like sediment in a harbor, makes it hard to get anywhere. The 1956 Interstate Highway Act was 29 pages and succeeded in getting 41,000 miles of roads built by 1970. The 2012 transportation bill was 584 pages, and years will pass before workers can start fixing many of those same roads. Health-care regulators have devised 140,000 reimbursement categories for Medicare—including 12 categories for bee stings and 21 categories for “spacecraft accidents.” This is the tip of a bureaucratic iceberg—administration consumes 30 percent of health-care costs.
Legal detail skews behavior in ways that are usually counterproductive. Why did VA officials regularly falsify waiting times? Bureaucratic metrics required them to meet waiting time deadlines—or else they would forfeit a portion of their pay. Why didn’t they just do a better job? Compliance was basically impossible: Congress had mandated more VA services but only modestly expanded resources. Undoubtedly, better efficiency could have been squeezed out of available resources, but that would require liberating VA officials from civil-service straitjackets so they could manage other civil servants. Rigid bureaucracy, not the inexcusable dishonesty of VA officials, was the underlying cause of the VA scandal.
“Clear law” turns out to be a myth. Modern law is too dense to be knowable. “It will be of little avail to the people,” James Madison observed, “if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” The quest for “clear law” is futile also because most regulatory language is inherently ambiguous. Dense rulebooks do not avoid disputes—they just divert the dispute to the parsing of legal words instead of arguing over what’s right. Indeed, legal detail often undermines the regulatory goal. “The more exact and detailed a rule, the more likely it is to open up loopholes, to permit by implication conduct that the rule was intended to avoid,” Judge Richard Posner observed.
What’s the alternative? Put humans back in charge. Law should generally be an open framework, mainly principles and goals, leaving room for responsible people to make decisions and be held accountable for results. Law based on principles leaves room for the decision-maker always to act on this question: What’s the right thing to do here?
“The more exact and detailed a rule, the more likely it is to open up loopholes, to permit by implication conduct that the rule was intended to avoid.”
Until recent decades, law based on principles was the structure of most public law. The Constitution is 10 pages long and provides basic precepts—say, the Fourth Amendment prohibition on “unreasonable searches and seizures”—without trying to define every situation. The recent Volcker Rule regulating proprietary trading, by contrast, is 950 pages, and, in the words of one banker, is “incoherent any way you look at it.”
Legal principles have the supreme virtue of activating individual responsibility. Law is still supreme. The goals of law are centralized, but implementation is decentralized. Every successful regulatory program works this way. New airplanes, for example, must be certified as “airworthy” by the FAA. There are no detailed regulations that set forth how many rivets per square foot are required. It’s up to the judgment of FAA officials. This system works pretty well. Which would you trust more, a plane approved by experts at the FAA or a plane that was allowed to fly merely because it satisfied a bunch of rules, many outdated?
Simplifying regulation—replacing thick volumes of rules with guiding principles —has two more virtues as well. First, democracy is effective only when there’s someone to hold accountable. Second, principles are coherent. People generally know what’s expected of them. Doctrines such as “unreasonable risk” or a “nutritious meal” or “industry standards” have practical meaning and can be enforced by reference to social norms. “Standards that capture lay intuitions about right behavior,” Posner notes, “may produce greater legal certainty than a network of precise … non-intuitive rules.”
Potentially, simplifying regulation can appeal to both sides: to liberals because it offers regulators more leeway, and to conservatives because it simplifies government and avoids mindless compliance costs.
Here are three examples of how regulation could be simplified:
Oversight of social services: Today, nursing homes, day-care centers, and similar social-service providers are regulated with a maze of input-oriented regulations. “Food shall be stored not less than 15 cm above the floor”; “there shall be .09 recreational workers per resident”—about a thousand rules in most states for nursing homes.
Australia had a similar regulatory structure. But in the wake of scandalous revelations of poor nursing homes in the late 1980s, it abandoned the thick rule book and replaced it with 31 general principles, for example to provide “a homelike environment” and to honor residents’ “privacy and dignity.” The result was an almost immediate transformation for the better. Nursing-home employees started acting on their instincts of right and wrong, instead of trudging through dreary bureaucratic checklists. Regulators and family members engaged in regular dialogues with nursing homes on how to improve things. Nursing homes became nice.
They abandoned the thick rule book and replaced it with 31 general principles. Nursing home became nice.
Environmental review: Environmental review and other infrastructure approvals can last a decade or longer in America. Even projects with virtually no environmental impact can last years, as project sponsors jump through scores of bureaucratic hoops.
The benefits of streamlining approvals would be enormous: several million new jobs, a greener environmental footprint, and enhanced global competitiveness. Replacing America’s antiquated power grid, for example, would save at least 7 percent of electricity—equivalent to the output of 200 coal-burning power plants.
Today the process is interminable, because any naysayer can complain that some pebble was left unturned—and who knows what will happen in court? Far better to give an environmental official responsibility to decide when important facts have been set forth instead of letting the process spin its wheels for a decade and then end up in court. For other permits—for instance, for land-use regulations, navigable-waters approval, landmarks review, and the like—there should also be a “one-stop shop”—a lead agency with the job of coordinating all regulatory concerns. That’s how other greener countries such as Germany are able to approve new infrastructure projects in a fraction of the time it takes in the United States.
Civil Service: More than 20 million people work for federal, state, and local government. Most of them perform needed services. But the accretion of antiquated and unjustifiable work rules has rendered them practically unmanageable.
Hiring and promotion is largely based on written tests, not demonstrated competence. Promoting an exemplary employee is often impossible. Work rules can prevent supervisors from asking workers to pitch in. In New York City, how to use a new copying machine and who can use it is subject to collective bargaining. Firing an incompetent employee under civil-service bureaucracy is almost impossible.
Any critique of this regulatory jungle is met with sanctimonious remonstrations about workers’ rights and the return of the spoils system. But the only relevant criterion for any regulatory structure should be whether it is in the public interest. By that standard, the current civil-service system is indefensible.
The solution is straightforward. Scrap the system and replace it with principles designed to achieve the original goal of a merit system. Avoiding spoils is not hard: Funnel hiring through an independent agency. Work rules should be replaced by general principles, overseen by a neutral review board. Eliminate the presumption of lifetime service, as recommended by the Partnership for Public Service. Terminating a public employee should trigger a safety net, not years of litigation.
Principles, ironically, are less susceptible to abuse of state power and gamesmanship than precise rules. One of the many paradoxes of “clear law” is that no one can comply with thousands of rules. With principles, a citizen can stand his ground to an unreasonable demand and have a good chance of being supported up the chain of authority.
In the civil service, promoting an exemplary employee is often impossible.
There is still a place for precise rules. Rules are effective in situations where the protocol is more important than context and balance—say, with age limits or effluent discharges. Management expert Brenda Zimmerman makes the distinction between the legal framework for “complicated” activities—such as engineering or rocket launches, where a small error might have disastrous results—and “complex” activities, such as running a health-care system or regulating nursing homes. For “complicated” activities, rules and checklists can impose the discipline to avoid disastrous error. For “complex” activities, general principles are far superior, because they allow people to adapt to many moving parts. The more complex the area of oversight the simpler and more flexible the regulatory framework must be.
But what about human error and venality? Does law based on principles mean we must trust people? Of course not. That’s why accountability is still important. Moreover, for important decisions, a structure can require approval of several people. Nothing can get done sensibly or fairly, however, until we reconstruct government with a legal framework which liberates people to roll up their sleeves and make things happen
September 9th, 2014 by olddog
By Richard Ebeling
Proud to be an American: What Should It Mean?
September 09, 2014
Editorial By Richard Ebeling
America! For more than two hundred years the word has represented hope, opportunity, a second chance and freedom. In America the accident of a man’s birth did not serve as an inescapable weight that dictated a person’s fate or that of his family. The individual owned his own life and was free to shape it as his own mind guided him.
Once a newcomer stepped on American soil he left the political tyrannies and economic barriers of the “old world” behind. A willingness to work hard and to bear the risks of one’s own decisions, the possession of a spirit of enterprise and a little bit of luck were the keys to the doors of success in their “new world” home.
American Spirit of Independence, Innovation and Benevolence
Visitors from Europe traveling to America in the 19th century, Frenchmen like Alexis de Tocqueville and Michel Chevalier, marveled at the energy and adaptability of the ordinary American. An American paid his own way, took responsibility for his actions and showed versatility in the face of change, often switching his occupation, profession, or trade several times during his life and frequently moving about from one part of the country to another.
What’s more, individual Americans demonstrated a generous spirit of benevolence and voluntary effort to assist those who had fallen upon hard times, as well as to deal with a wide variety of common community services in their cities, towns and villages.
Those foreign observers of American life noted that no man bowed to another because of the hereditary accident of birth. Each man viewed himself as good as any other, to be judged on the basis of his talents and abilities as well as his character and conduct as an individual human being.
Even the scar of slavery that blemished the American landscape through more than half of the 19th century stood out as something inherently inconsistent and untrue to the vision and conception of a society of free men laid down by the Founding Fathers. The logic of liberty meant that slavery would eventually have to end, in one way or another, if the claim of freedom for all was not to remain confronted with a cruel hypocrisy to the ideal.
A Land of Free, Self-Made Citizens
What a glorious country this America was. Here was a land of free men who were able to pursue their dreams and fulfill their peaceful desires. They were free men who could put their own labor to work, acquire property, accumulate wealth and fashion their own lives. They associated on the basis of freedom of exchange, and benefited each other by trading their talents through a network of division of labor that was kept in order through the competitive processes of market-guided supply and demand.
In this competitive marketplace, the creative entrepreneurial spirit was set free. Every American was at liberty to try his hand, if he chose, to start his own business and devise innovative ways to offer new and better products to others in the market, through which he hoped to earn his living. No man was bond to the soil upon which he was born or tied to an occupation or profession inherited from his ancestors. Every individual had an opportunity to be the master of his own fate, with the freedom to move where inclination led him and choose the work that seemed most profitable and attractive.
The Turn Toward Collectivism
Then something began to happen in America. The socialist and collectivist ideas that were growing in influence in Europe during the last decades of the 19th century began to spread over to the United States. Two generations of young American scholars went off to study in Europe, particularly in Imperial Germany, in the 1880s, 1890s and early 1900s. They became imbued with socialist and state paternalistic conceptions, especially the interventionist and welfare statist ideas that were being taught at the universities in Bismarck’s Germany.
These scholars came back to the United States enthusiastic about their newly learned ideas, convinced that the “negative” idea of freedom dominant in America – an idea of freedom that argued that government’s role was only to secure each person in his individual right to life, liberty and property – needed to be replaced by a more “positive” notion of freedom.
Government should not merely protect citizens from violence and fraud. It should guarantee their health care and retirement pensions; it should regulate their industry and trade, including their wages and conditions of work. The government needed to secure the members of society from all the uncertainties of life, “from cradle to grave” – a phrase that was first popularized during this time.
These European-trained students and academics soon filled the teaching positions in the colleges and universities around the country; they occupied a growing number of jobs in the federal and state bureaucracies; they became the fashionable and “progressive” forward- looking authors of books and magazine articles; they came to dominate the culture of ideas in America.
The Rationale of Relativist Change
How did they sway an increasing number of Americans? They asked people to look around them and observe the radical changes in technologies and styles of life. They pointed to the rapid shift from the countryside to growing urban areas. And they asked, how could such a transformed and transforming society remain wedded to the ideas of men who had lived so long ago, in the 18th century? How could a great and growing country be tied down to a Constitution written for a bygone era?
The Constitution, these “progressives” argued, had to reflect the changing times – it had to be a “living” and “evolving” document. Progress, for these proselytizers of Prussian paternalism, required a new political elite who would guide and lead the nation into a more collectivist future.
The Fruits of Collectivism in America
The fruits of their work are, now, after well over a century, all around us. At the beginning of the 20th century all levels of government in the United States took in taxes around 8 percent of the people’s wealth and income. Now all levels of government extract in many cases over fifty percent of our earnings, in one way or another.
One hundred years ago, government hardly regulated and controlled any of the personal and commercial affairs of the American citizenry. Now, government’s hand intrudes into every corner of our private, business and social affairs. Indeed, it is hard to find one area of our daily lives that does not pass through the interventionist sieve of state management, oversight, restriction and command.
Perhaps worst of all, too many of our fellow Americans have become accustomed to and, indeed, demanding of government protection or subsidy of their personal and economic affairs. We are increasingly no longer free, self-supporting individuals who solely make our own ways through the peaceful transactions and exchanges of the marketplace.
We have become collective “interest groups” who lobby and pressure those in political office for favors and privileges at the expense of our neighbors. And the political officeholders are only too happy to grant these political gifts to those who supply campaign contributions and votes as the avenue to their own desires for power and control over those whom they claim to serve.
It is sometimes said: “But we are still the freest country in the world. Our wealth and standard of living are the envy of tens of millions all around the globe. We should be proud of what and who we are.”
The Standard for Judging America
Our present greatness in terms of these things, however, is only relative to how much farther other countries have gone down the path of government paternalism and regulation during these past one hundred years.
The benchmark of comparison should not be America in relation to other countries in the contemporary world. The standard by which we should judge our freedom should be how much freer the American people were from the stranglehold of government more than one hundred years ago, before those proselytizers of paternalism began to change the political and cultural character of the United States.
By this standard, today’s American people are extremely unfree in many aspects of their life. Of course, there have been important, valuable and even essential economic, social and cultural improvements for many individuals and groups in American society, who one hundred years ago still suffered from various degrees of racial, social or ethic bigotry and politically enforced discrimination. Many of these wrongs are now gone, or at least far less than in that earlier time.
But the fact remains that over many areas of our personal, social and especially economic activities we have all become increasingly wards of the state. And like the convict who has spent so many years in prison that he is afraid of being released and no longer having his jail keepers to tell him what to do and how to live, we are fearful of even the thought of a life without government caring for us, protecting us, subsidizing us, guiding us and educating us.
Loss of Understanding Liberty
Too many in the older generation in America have lost their understanding of what freedom means and why constitutionally limited government is both necessary and desirable. And the vast majority of the young have never been taught in our government-run schools the ideas, ideals and political institutional foundations upon which this country of ours was created. They have been taught to think that there are no absolute truths or any important insights from long human experience concerning why individual freedom is a valuable and precious thing.
What those earlier German-trained political and cultural relativists set out to do in America at the beginning of the 20th century has been to a great extent accomplished. We are threatened with becoming a people who have no sense of an invariant nature of man and who possess no idea of those values and attitudes in the human character so necessary for preserving freedom and prosperity.
Most especially, there has been lost among too many any understanding or appreciation of the concept of individual rights, without which a free society is not sustainable in the long run. The collectivist mindsets of our time have weakened the most fundamental concept underlying the idea of individual rights:
That the individual has a right to live for himself, guided by his own reasoning and judgment, and that he should not be considered and treated as a physical or financial beast of burden expected to sacrifice his life and its potentials for a tribe, whether it is called “the nation,” the “social class,” the “race,” the “democratic majority,” or “mankind.”
Individual Rights are Changeless in a Changing World
The Founding Fathers were not unaware that “times change.” But in the whirlwind of life they saw that reason and experience could and had demonstrated that there were unchanging qualities to the human condition, grounded in the fundamental political idea of individual rights.
They understood the various mantles that tyranny could take on – including the cloak of false benevolence in the form of compulsory redistribution of wealth. They established a constitutional order that was meant to guard us from the plunder of violent and greedy men, while leaving each of us that wide latitude of personal and economic freedom in which we could find our own meanings for life, and adapt to new circumstances consistent with our conscience and concerns.
This is what made America great. This is what made a country in which individuals could say without embarrassment or conceit that they were “proud to be Americans.”
The task for those of us who have not yet lost that true sense of the meaning of freedom is to dedicate ourselves to restoring and refining that noble American ideal of individual rights and liberty. Let us work together to be the stewards of liberty so that freedom may, once again, rekindle its consistent and bright torch in the America of the 21st century.
Back when men were real men
By Chuck Yeager
Shifty volunteered for the airborne in WWII and served with Easy
Company of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, part of the 101st
Airborne Infantry. If you’ve seen Band of Brothers on HBO or the
History Channel, you know Shifty. His character appears in all 10
episodes, and Shifty himself is interviewed in several of them.
I met Shifty in the Philadelphia airport several years ago. I didn’t
know who he was at the time. I just saw an elderly gentleman having
trouble reading his ticket. I offered to help, assured him that he was
at the right gate, and noticed the “Screaming Eagle,” the symbol of
the 101st Airborne, on his hat.
Making conversation, I asked him if he’d been in the 101st Airborne
or if his son was serving. He said quietly that he had been in the
101st. I thanked him for his service, then asked him when he served,
and how many jumps he made.
Quietly and humbly, he said “Well, I guess I signed up in 1941 or so,
and was in until sometime in 1945 . . .” at which point my heart
At that point, again, very humbly, he said “I made the 5 training
jumps at Toccoa, and then jumped into Normandy . . . do you know
where Normandy is?” At this point my heart stopped.
I told him “yes, I know exactly where Normandy is, and I know what
D-Day was.” At that point he said “I also made a second jump into
Holland, into Arnhem.” I was standing with a genuine war hero …
and then I realized that it was June, just after the anniversary of
I asked Shifty if he was on his way back from France, and he said
“Yes…And it’s real sad because, these days, so few of the guys are
left, and those that are, lots of them can’t make the trip.” My heart
was in my throat and I didn’t know what to say.
I helped Shifty get onto the plane and then realized he was back in
coach while I was in First Class. I sent the flight attendant back to
get him and said that I wanted to switch seats. When Shifty came
forward, I got up out of the seat and told him I wanted him to have
it, that I’d take his in coach.
He said “No, son, you enjoy that seat. Just knowing that there are
still some who remember what we did and who still care is enough to
make an old man very happy.” His eyes were filling up as he said it.
And mine are brimming up now as I write this.
Shifty died on January l7, 2012, after fighting cancer.
There was no parade.
No big event in Staples Center.
No wall-to-wall, back-to-back 24/7 news coverage.
No weeping fans on television.
And that’s not right!
Let’s give Shifty his own memorial service, on line, in our own quiet way.
Please forward this email to everyone you know. Especially to the veterans.
Rest in peace, Shifty.
Chuck Yeager, Maj. General [ret.]
P.S. I think that it is amazing how the “media” chooses our “heroes” these days…
Elvis, Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston & the like.
“SHIFTY” – an incredible American hero.
Please do me a favor and pass this on so that untold thousands can read it.
We owe no less to our REAL heroes.
June 23rd, 2014 by olddog
US changes nuclear strategy to first strike
The US has begun the run up to the Third World War, and Europeans seem to be on board, writes Paul Craig Roberts.
By Paul Craig Roberts
I wish I had only good news to bring to readers, or even one item of good news. Alas, goodness has ceased to be a feature of US policy and simply cannot be found in any words or deeds emanating from Washington or the capitals of its European vassal states. The Western World has succumbed to evil.
In an article published by Op-Ed News, Eric Zuesse supports my reports of indications that Washington is preparing for a nuclear first strike against Russia.
US war doctrine has been changed. US nuclear weapons are no longer restricted to a retaliatory force, but have been elevated to the role of preemptive nuclear attack. Washington pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia and is developing and deploying an ABM shield. Washington is demonizing Russia and Russia’s President with shameless lies and propaganda, thus preparing the populations of the US and its client states for war with Russia.
Washington has been convinced by neoconservatives that Russian strategic nuclear forces are in run down and unprepared condition and are sitting ducks for attack. This false belief is based on out-of-date information, a decade old, such as the argument presented in “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy” by Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press in the April 2006 issue of Foreign Affairs, a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization of American elites.
Regardless of the condition of Russian nuclear forces, the success of Washington’s first strike and degree of protection provided by Washington’s ABM shield against retaliation, the article I posted by Steven Starr, “The Lethality of Nuclear Weapons,” makes clear that nuclear war has no winners. Everyone dies.
In an article published in the December 2008 issue of Physics Today, three atmospheric scientists point out that even the substantial reduction in nuclear arsenals that the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty hoped to achieve, from 70,000 warheads in 1986 to 1700-2200 warheads by the end of 2012, did not reduce the threat that nuclear war presents to life on earth. The authors conclude that in addition to the direct blast effects of hundreds of millions of human fatalities, “the indirect effects would likely eliminate the majority of the human population.” The stratospheric smoke from firestorms would cause nuclear winter and agricultural collapse. Those who did not perish from blast and radiation would starve to death.
Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev understood this. Unfortunately, no successor US government has. As far as Washington is concerned, death is what happens to others, not to “the exceptional people.” (The SORT agreement apparently failed. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the nine nuclear-armed states still possess a total of 16,300 nuclear weapons.)
It is a fact that Washington has policymakers who think, incorrectly, that nuclear war is winnable and who regard nuclear war as a means of preventing the rise of Russia and China as checks on Washington’s hegemony over the world. The US government, regardless of party in office, is a massive threat to life on earth. European governments, which think of themselves as civilized, are not, because they enable Washington’s pursuit of hegemony. It is this pursuit that threatens life with extinction. The ideology that grants “exceptional, indispensable America” supremacy is an enormous threat to the world.
The destruction of seven countries in whole or in part by the West in the 21st century, with the support of “Western civilization” and the Western media, comprises powerful evidence that the leadership of the Western world is devoid of moral conscience and human compassion. Now that Washington is armed with its false doctrine of “nuclear primacy,” the outlook for humanity is very bleak.
Washington has begun the run up to the Third World War, and Europeans seem to be on board. As recently as November 2012 NATO Secretary General Rasmussen said that NATO does not regard Russia as an enemy. Now that the White House Fool and his European vassals have convinced Russia that the West is an enemy, Rasmussen declared that “we must adapt to the fact that Russia now considers us its adversary” by beefing up Ukraine’s military along with those of Eastern and Central Europe.
Last month, Alexander Vershbow, former US ambassador to Russia, currently NATO Deputy Secretary General, declared Russia to be the enemy and said that the American and European taxpayers need to fork over for the military modernization “not just of Ukraine, but also Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan.”
It is possible to see these calls for more military spending as just the normal functioning of agents for the US military/security complex. Having lost “the war on terror” in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington needs a replacement and has set about resurrecting the Cold War.
This is probably how the armaments industry, its shills, and part of Washington sees it. But the neoconservatives are more ambitious. They are not pursuing merely more profits for the military/security complex. Their goal is Washington’s hegemony over the world, which means reckless actions such as the strategic threat that the Obama regime, with the complicity of its European vassals, has brought to Russia in Ukraine.
Since last autumn, the US government has been lying through its teeth about Ukraine, blaming Russia for the consequences of Washington’s actions, and demonizing Putin. The presstitute media and the European capitals have seconded the lies and propaganda and repeat them endlessly. Consequently, the US public’s attitude toward Russia moved sharply negative.
How do you think Russia and China see this? Russia has witnessed NATO brought to its borders, a violation of the Reagan-Gorbachev understandings. Russia has witnessed the US pull out of the ABM treaty and develop a “star wars” shield. (Whether or not the shield would work is immaterial. The purpose of the shield is to convince the politicians and the public that Americans are safe.) Russia has witnessed Washington change the role of nuclear weapons in its war doctrine from deterrent to preemptive first strike. And now Russia listens to a daily stream of lies from the West and witnesses the slaughter by Washington’s vassal in Kiev of civilians in Russian Ukraine, branded “terrorists” by Washington, by such weapons as white phosphorus with not a peep of protest from the West.
While massive attacks by artillery and air strikes on homes and apartments in Russian Ukraine were conducted, Washington continued with its deception as it did on Tonkin Gulf, Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Assad’s use of chemical weapons, Iranian nukes, etc. It is an amazing fact that the world lives in a false reality created by Washington’s lies.
The movie, The Matrix, is a true depiction of life in the West. The population lives in a false reality created for them by their rulers. A handful of humans have escaped the false existence and are committed to bringing humans back to reality. They rescue Neo, “The One,” who they believe correctly to have the power to free humans from the false reality in which they live. Morpheus, the leader of the rebels, explains to Neo:
“The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.”
I experience this every time I write a column. Protests from those determined not to be unplugged arrive in emails and on those websites that expose their writers to slander by government trolls in comment sections. Don’t believe real reality, they insist, believe the false reality.
The Matrix even encompasses part of the Russian and Chinese population, especially those educated in the West and those susceptible to Western propaganda, but on the whole those populations know the difference between lies and truth. The problem for Washington is that the propaganda that prevails over the Western peoples does not prevail over the Russian and Chinese governments.
How do you think China reacts when Washington declares the South China Sea to be an area of US national interests, allocates 60 percent of its vast fleet to the Pacific, and constructs new US air and naval bases from the Philippines to Vietnam?
Suppose all Washington intends is to keep taxpayer funding alive for the military/security complex which launders some of the taxpayers’ money and returns it as political campaign contributions. Can Russia and China take the risk of viewing Washington’s words and deeds in this limited way?
So far the Russians (and the Chinese) have remained sensible. Lavrov, the Foreign Minister said: “At this stage, we want to give our partners a chance to calm down. We’ll see what happens next. If absolutely baseless accusations against Russia continue, it there are attempts to pressure us with economic leverage, then we may reevaluate the situation.”
If the White House Fool, Washington’s media whores and European vassals convince Russia that war is in the cards, war will be in the cards. As there is no prospect whatsoever of NATO being able to mount a conventional offensive threat against Russia anywhere near the size and power of the German invasion force in 1941 that met with destruction, the war will be nuclear, which will mean the end of all of us.
Keep that firmly in mind as Washington and its media whores continue to beat the drums for war. Keep in mind also that a long history proves beyond all doubt that everything Washington and the presstitute media tells you is a lie serving an undeclared agenda. You cannot rectify the situation by voting Democrat instead of Republican or by voting Republican instead of Democrat.
Thomas Jefferson told us his solution: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
There are few patriots in Washington but many tyrants.
March 30th, 2014 by olddog
By Stephen Lendman
March 30, 2014
Subject: Police State
None in human history compare to America. It's by far the most lawless. It's the world's most egregious civil and human rights abuser.
It's done more harm to more people for longer than any combination of other nations. None match its ruthlessness.
It's genocidal legacy is longstanding. It began in pre-colonial days. Expanding America from sea to shining sea claimed tens of millions of lives.
Mass extermination became policy. Centuries of slaughter reduced America's indigenous population to a tiny fraction of its original numbers.
Ward Churchill's chilling quote bears repeating. He minced no words, saying:
Millions were "hacked apart with axes and swords, burned alive and trampled under horses, hunted as game and fed to dogs, shot, beaten, stabbed, scalped for bounty, hanged on meathooks and thrown over the sides of ships at sea, worked to death as slave laborers, intentionally starved and frozen to death during a multitude of forced marches and internments, and, in an unknown number of instances, deliberately infected with epidemic diseases."
Five centuries of slavery were horrific. Black Africans were captured, branded, chained, force-marched, beaten, encaged, and stripped of their humanity.
Around 100 million were sold like cattle. Millions perished during the Middle Passage.
Imagine packing human beings like cargo. Imagine them under deplorable conditions. Imagine them in coffin-sized spaces.
Imagine practically one atop others in extreme discomfort. Imagine poor ventilation, dysentery, smallpox, ophthalmia, and other epidemic-level diseases.
Imagine dark, filthy, slimy, bloody, vomity conditions below deck. Imagine it filled with human excrement.
Imagine women beaten and raped. Imagine claustrophobia driving some victims insane.
Imagine floggings and clubbings to death. Imagine anyone thought diseased dumped overboard like garbage.
Imagine 50 million or more lost lives. Imagine slave traders calling it a cost of doing business.
Genocidal US policy continues in new forms. Mass murder proceeds efficiently.
Technological advances facilitate it. America's killing machine knows no limits. One genocide follows others.
Countries are ravaged and destroyed. Neither world war should have been waged. Tens of millions died needlessly.
Making the world safe for democracy is a convenient illusion. America tolerates it nowhere.
Achieving unchallenged raw power drives US policy. Mass slaughtering human beings doesn't matter.
Imperial Japan was defeated many months before WW II ended. In February and March 1945, Tokyo was gratuitously firebombed twice.
So were many other Japanese cities. Hundreds of thousands of civilians perished. Millions were left homeless.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two of history's great crimes. Imaging incinerating civilians gratuitously.
Imagine horrific radiation poisoning. Imagine disfigurations and birth defects. Imagine the effects of what happened still being felt.
Imagine no apologies for generations of crimes. Imagine turning North Korea into rubble. Imagine running out of targets to bomb.
Imagine an uneasy armistice persisting. Imagine possible nuclear war erupting. Imagine East Asia caught in the fallout.
Imagine crazed US policymakers bearing full responsibility. Imagine Washington's unparalleled killing machine power.
Imagine ruthlessness writ large. Imagine horrendous suffering beyond human comprehension. Imagine all humanity threatened.
America's post-WW II ravaging repeats with disturbing regularity. Southeast Asia was laid waste. Proxy wars killed millions worldwide.
All US direct, indirect and supported wars have no rules. Laws of war are ignored. Rampaging goes unchecked.
America was complicit in Rwandan massacres. Desert Storm was a well-planned criminal attack.
Essential to life facilities were destroyed. Tens of thousands were gratuitously slaughtered.
Twelve years of genocidal sanctions followed. Children under age five suffered most. Bush II killed millions more.
Afghanistan remains America's longest war. No end in sight looms. The cradle of civilization was destroyed.
Free market plunder replaced it. Inside the bubble is paradise. Outside reflects dystopian hell.
Balkan wars destroyed the former Yugoslavia. They culminated in US-led NATO terror-bombing Serbia/Kosovo.
Thousands of sorties ravaged and destroyed them. Imagine considering schools, churches, hospitals and cultural landmarks strategic targets.
Imagine a gratuitous humanitarian disaster. Imagine it against one nonthreatening country after another.
Libya remains a cauldron of violence. No one is safe anywhere. Obama's war on Syria continues. Iran's turn awaits.
Expect other targeted countries to be attacked. Expect no safe place to hide.
Imagine the supreme crime of aggression. Imagine it ongoing in multiple theaters.
Imagine America's dirty handiwork. Imagine crimes too grim to ignore. Imagine genocide as official policy.
Imagine new victims following earlier ones. Imagine dead bodies piling up. Imagine young boys and girls. Imagine the elderly, infirm and disabled.
Imagine America bearing full responsibility for devastated landscapes. Imagine what desperately needs ending continued.
Imagine humanity threatened. Imagine media scoundrels cheerleading what demands condemnation.
Imagine supporting Israel's killing machine. Imagine billions of annual aid dollars supporting it.
Imagine ongoing subjugating talks called peace ones. Imagine longstanding occupation turning Palestine into a virtual open-air prison.
Imagine being denied all rights. Imagine world leaders turning a blind eye. Imagine dying for many being their only escape.
Imagine what no human being should tolerate being done to another.
Imagine Washington and Israel partnering in each other's crimes. Imagine both nations being lawless warrior states.
Imagine them using weapons causing injuries, disfigurements and other effects never seen before.
Imagine unparalleled barbarism. Imagine crimes against humanity without end. Imagine weapons able to end life on earth. Imagine possibly using them.
Imagine hubris writ large threatening everyone. Imagine overreach risking armageddon.
Washington's Ukrainian agenda reflects its latest imperial adventurism. Protests didn't erupt by chance.
They were well-planned in advance. At issue is weakening and isolating Russia. It's turning Kiev West, not East. It's plundering its resources. It's exploiting its people.
It's incorporating all former Soviet republics and Warsaw pact countries into NATO. It's establishing US bases on Russia's borders.
It's having nuclear-armed missiles targeting its heartland.
Including Ukraine in NATO risks WW III.
America, Israel and key EU partners comprise the real axis of evil. They're out-of-control rogue states.
Former French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau (1841 – 1929) once said "America is the only nation in history which miraculously has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilization."
Oscar Wilde (1854 – 1900) said the same thing. He called patriotism "the virtue of the vicious."
George Bernard Shaw (1856 – 1950) called democracy "a form of government that substitutes elections by the incompetent many for the appointment of the corrupt few."
Perhaps he had America in mind. Obama's rap sheet reflects the worst of its policies. He's in charge until January 2017.
He's got lots more warmaking in mind. He plans hardening America's police state apparatus. He wants dissent silenced.
He wants opposition crushed. He wants freedom destroyed. It hangs by a thread. So does world peace.
Neocon infested Washington wages war on humanity. Obama risks extinguishing it altogether. Stopping him matters most.
Resistance is crucial. It's our only defense. Solidarity unites us. We're all in this together. We're on our own to survive.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at email@example.com.
His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
It’s after reading articles like this that I would give all I own for the ability to write as clearly as Jefferson’s Voice, Stephen Lendman, Brandon Smith, Brandon Turbeville, and so many other great word smiths. Not to make money or fame, but to create a hole in the hearts of many readers and fill it with elucidations they would never forget. Please forgive my uneducated word fumbles as I try to explain the agony of discovering how complicit I have been in the past with this excruciatingly false patriotism that makes us convinced we were doing good by killing and other atrocities to our fellow human beings. Now that I know the real circumstances surrounding Americas’ wars, and how I, and so many others ate it up like feeding a starving man, my shame is an unbearable stench in my mind. What makes it even worse is there are still men I love like brothers should, who would reject me forever without even considering why I have changed, if they read this. Since I am not a silver tongued gymnast, I feel challenged to express my hatred of the people who created an education, and media industry that would turn normal human beings into brutal murders of other humans while glorying in a sense of rightist superiority. The past history of the United States of America is no doubt why there are so few interested in studying history. Once you learn the truth, it’s damn hard to look in a mirror. I pray my brothers will take the time to learn why I can no longer praise my country. All it took was a hand full of genius Bankers, and we became stupid brain washed monsters. At this point in our history, we must redeem our selves by sending these Bankers and their elite lackeys to an agonizing extermination. We must never again let our country become A Nation Beguiled. This is not a denial of responsibility for our atrocities, but an acknowledgement of how we were made to feel justified by being loyal to a piece of cloth. Being free from government tyranny (the Bankers Pawns) means being constantly informed and alert to subversive politicians as they attempt to follow orders from above. Never think for a moment that we are choosing the lesser of two evils, as elections are the most polluted of all their tools. The statist mentality is an admission of being totally uninformed. Only weak minded people need leaders, as the laws of nature are imprinted on an informed mind. Never believe you need a collage degree to know right from wrong. It’s written on your heart. If we continue to believe the lies of the politicians we will be eliminated.
January 18th, 2014 by olddog
by AL Whitney (C) copyright 2013
Permission is granted for redistribution if linked to original and the AntiCorruption Society is acknowledged
“We’ll know our disinformation campaign is complete, when absolutely everything the American people believe is false”.
Wm Casey, Director of the CIA (1981)
Departments of USA INC – including it’s own logo
While most of us recognize that lobbyists for major corporations seem to control Washington, few people know that Washington, D.C. is a corporation itself. The so-called ‘federal government’ is actually the Mother Corporation of a vast network of state and local governments and governmental ‘agencies’ that is actually a CORPORATE franchise system. 
To understand, what our ‘government’ really is, we have to review the history that is not in most history books. Did you know that the original ‘organic’ Constitution of 1787 was hijacked just after the Civil War? 
1871, February 21: Congress Passed an Act to provide a government for the District of Columbia, also known as the Act of 1871.
With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten mile square parcel of land (see, Acts of the Forty-first Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62). 
The act — passed when the country was weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War — was a strategic move by foreign interests (international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the coffers and neck of America.
Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers. Because the bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without serious stipulations, they devised a way to get their foot in the door of the United States.
The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES. The corporation, OWNED by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original Constitution into a dustbin. With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution was defaced — in effect vandalized and sabotaged — when the title was capitalized and the word “for” was changed to “of” in the title.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the constitution of the incorporated UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The country was changed, by stealth, from a Constitutional Republic to a corporation. 
Now we can better understand why the following occurred:
• USA INC granted ‘corporations’ the rights of ‘persons’, in a slurry of lawsuits by corporations shortly after the end of the Civil War.
• USA INC turned control of credit and currency over to the same international bankers by passing the Federal Reserve Act in 1913  and initiated a taxation scheme on the people via the 16th Amendment 
• USA INC turned the US Treasury Department (including all its assets) over to the private Federal Reserve in 1920 (Independent Treasury Act – 1920) 
The Bankruptcy of USA INC – 1930′ s
• USA INC, after being pillaged and bankrupted by the Federal Reserve banking cartel , turned over the entire country – including the people – as collateral on its corporate debt in 1933 and bound the individual states to ‘its’ bankruptcy obligations. 
• USA INC gave its CEO (the President) the authority to call a national emergency (a banking ‘holiday’) and establish Executive Branch ‘agencies’ to manage the state of emergency. The “national emergency” has never been removed and is still in effect.  Hence we have far reaching unconstitutional “Executive Orders”.
• USA INC declared the American people “enemies of the state” to force them to surrender their gold  and use Federal Reserve debt ‘notes’ as currency 
• USA INC issued Birth Certificates and Social Security Numbers whereby making the people registered ‘collateral’ for the payment of the debt owed to the same banking cartel
• USA INC started requiring the American people – as enemies – to get licenses to do business
• USA INC gradually altered the legal system and implemented corporate commercial Admiralty law (aka statutory law) throughout all of the states, counties and municipalities.  Statutes are for THEIR corporations and agencies. They only apply to us if we agree to contract with them. 
Then in the 70′s – 80′s USA INC (passing as a legitimate government) removed the gold standard from the dollar, tricked the states into sending their tax revenues to the District of Criminals (‘revenue sharing’) and even authorized the Department of Defense to wage war on the general population  – which it is now doing! There is an ongoing electro-magnetic radiation attack, it is a US military operation, and it is being inflicted on us all via the wireless communication and surveillance network. [http://smartmetersmurder.com/]
In 1992 the CEO of USA INC ordered the corporate states, counties and municipalities to sell off their public’s assets. 
In 2001 USA INC passed the Patriot Act, which permits unlimited spying on the American population and in 2011 Obama, the CEO of USA INC, signed the National Defense Authorization Act, permitting the arrest, and indefinite detention of ANYONE on US soil for merely displeasing the office of the President.
- Why aren’t the American people told that they are still classified as “enemies of the state” by the so-called federal government? 
- Why haven’t folks heard about the USA INC bankruptcy of ’33 and the severe changes that came thereafter?
- Why aren’t we told our justice system is based on corporate/commercial law and not on justice?
Because all lawyers (including those calling themselves constitutional ‘experts’) have to swear an oath of secrecy and agree to administer the bankruptcy.   And a vast number of our so-called elected representatives are lawyers themselves! Very few lawyers will admit to these facts – that many might not even be aware of!
And here is the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM:
The American people did not and would not have agreed to any of this. They were kept in the dark and today find themselves unwittingly ‘contracting’ with a completely corrupt corporate franchise system, that doesn’t represent their best interests and that they don’t even know is in place. Therefore, the CIA has achieved their goal:
” . . . everything the American people believe is false.”
So, let’s stop calling these bodies and agencies our government. They are not. They are only posing as government. They do not serve us, but are actually private corporations listed on Dunn and Bradstreet by their all caps corporate names. We owe them no loyalty and it is our duty to expose the fact that they are fraudulently receiving public funds and ‘governmental immunity’ while they are actively profiting from and harming us all . . . even if many of their employees are as much in the dark as the rest of the population.
We simply must understand that as dead legal fictions they can only control us by our ‘consent’, and retired Judge Dale did an excellent job explaining how the ‘system’ really works.A MUST READ:
Judge says USA INC is just a corporate franchise network
References and Links
 Democratic-Federal Franchise;http://anticorruptionsociety.com/2010/03/26/
 The Act of 1871: The United States is a corporation http://www.federaljack.com/
 “27 CFR 72.11” U.S. Inc. defines all crime as commercial as a result of the fall of the republic when the South walked out of congress in 1861 and the de jure congress, unable to raise a quorum, was replaced by Lincoln with the de facto corporate Congress; and the de jure district court of the United States was replaced by the de facto corporate UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 “28 USC 3002” (definition of the United States as a Federal corporation never taught in civics class; go to paragraph 15) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00003002—-000-.html)
(15) “United States” means-
(A) a Federal corporation;
 – “Lewis v. United States 680” (Federal Reserve Bank is privately owned: “…we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA (Federal Tort Claims Act), but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.” Lewis v United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982). In other words, the Fed enjoys no United States immunity from law suit because it is a Federal institution in name only. (http://nesara.org/court_summaries/lewis_v_united_states.htm andhttp://www.geocities.
 – “Grace Commission” (Confirmed that virtually ALL taxes actually go to the Federal Reserve Bank to pay interest on the U.S. debt to the banking families that own the International Monetary Fund (IMF): “With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.” J. Peter Grace, Cover letter, President’s Private Sector Report on Cost Control, January 12, 1984. Peter Grace was considered the Warren Buffet of his time, and the Grace Commission Report received widespread media attention as the gospel of Reagan’s so-called tax system overhaul.) (http://www.freecanadian.net/articles/grace.html orhttp://www.uhuh.com/
 Independent Treasury Act, 41 Stat. at L. 631, CHAP. 214http://www.mindserpent.com
 “Congressman Louis McFadden speech” (indictment of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board of Governor’s for treason by the chairman of the House Banking and Currency committee in 1934. In scathing speeches to Congress, McFadden said: “(The Fed) has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government.” This most knowledgeable man on banking also explained in vivid detail the method for recruiting the Federal Reserve to pay our debts as holder of the gold, and which is at the heart of today’s “tax remedies.”) (http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/mcfadden-frb.html orhttp://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty10.html and
 Who is Running America; http://www.barefootsworld.net/usfraud.html
 – “Senate Report 93-549” (The United States has been under dictatorial control since March 9, 1933. Report of the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, Senate Report 93-549, War and Emergency Powers Acts, November 19, 1973. “Foreward: Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency…These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.”) (http://www.scratchinpost.net/barefootbob/war_ep1.html)
 “Executive Order 6102”: Government’s confiscation of your family’s gold and wealth under threat of 10 years in prison for failure to comply. As the Order specifies U.S. “persons” (eg. JOHN SMITH and JANE DOE), law enforcement was duped into enforcing against the general public a command that only applied to Federal employees and members of the armed forces.) (http://www.presidency
.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=14611 or http://www.the-privateer.com/1933
 “HJR 192” (outlawing of the simple act of “paying with money” as a felony by substituting the lawyer’s parlor trick of “discharging” debts) (http://www.truthsetsusfree.com/HJR192.htm or http://www.nomoredebt.cc/hjr192.html
 James Trafficant (D-OH) speech on floor of Congress of March, 1993 exposing the bankruptcy;
 “U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222.” (U.S. regulations apply only within the U.S. territories and the District of Columbia. “There is a canon of legislative construction which teaches Congress that, unless a contrary intent appears [legislation] is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”)
 The United States Congress actually gave ‘approval’ to the Dept of Defense (and their private corporate contractors) to wage biological warfare on all of us!
The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States].” -SOURCE- Public Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 91, page 334, you will find Public Law 95-79. Public Law 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1882. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 96, page 1882, you will find Public Law 97-375
 Executive Order 12803; http://www.waterindustry.org/12803.htm
 We are the Enemies of the State; http://anticorruptionsociety.com/2011/02/25
 Who is Running America; http://www.barefootsworld.net/usfraud.html
 The Bankruptcy of America – 1933 by Judge Dale: http://anticorruptionsociety
Is our government just another corporation? handout – ready for printing.
January 6th, 2014 by olddog
By Stephen Lendman
Police state lawlessness reflects official US policy. Numerous examples explain. Congress opposes fundamental freedoms.
It terrorizes most people. So do rogue US administrations. Washington is more ruthless today than ever.
Waging war on humanity is much worse. It's ongoing globally. It's reflected in congressional legislation.
Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF – September 2001) approved open-ended permanent wars. They rage out-of-control. They do so at home and abroad.
The FY 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) targets freedom. It prioritizes militarism and permanent wars. It authorizes over $600 billion for global belligerence, mass killing and destruction.
It's a portion of what America spends overall. Around $1.5 trillion or more annually goes for domestic and foreign militarism.
It's authorized when America's only enemies are ones it invents. It's on top of trillions of dollars of Pentagon waste, fraud and grand theft.
In December 2006, George Bush signed FY 2007 NDAA into law. Included were hidden sections 1076 and 333. Media scoundrels ignored them.
They amended the 1807 Insurrection Act and 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. They prohibited using federal and National Guard troops for law enforcement.
They did so except as constitutionally allowed or expressly authorized by Congress in times of insurrection or other national emergency.
Presidents can now claim emergency powers. They can declare martial law unilaterally. They can suspend the Constitution.
They can do it on alleged "national security" grounds. They can deploy federal and/or National Guard troops on US streets.
They can do it to suppress whatever is called disorder. It includes lawful peaceful protests. America's First Amendment permits them.
Congress and Bush acted unconstitutionally. They did numerous times throughout Bush's tenure. Things got worse under Obama.
On May 21, 2009, he addressed national security and civil liberties issues.
He lied saying his "single most important responsibility as president is to keep the American people safe." He's gone all out to harm them.
He falsely claimed Al Qaeda "is actively planning to attack us again (and) this threat will be with us for a long time…"
Uncharged detainees pose no threat whatever to America. Obama maliciously claimed otherwise. He offered no evidence proving it. There is none. Innocent victims rot in prison on his say. Others are at risk.
He said those "who cannot be prosecuted" will be held indefinitely without trial. Indefinitely means potentially forever.
Doing so violates America's 8th Amendment. It prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. It doesn't matter. Core rule of law principles are null and void. Diktat power replaced them.
In December 2011, Obama signed FY 2012 NDAA into law. For the first time in US history, it codified indefinite military detentions.
It authorized US presidents to order America's military to capture, arrest, and indefinitely detain anyone anywhere in the world. US citizens are as vulnerable as others.
Indefinite detentions remain the law of the land. FY 2013 NDAA reaffirmed them. So did FY 2014 NDAA.
Detaining people based on uncorroborated suspicions or none at all remains official US policy.
It has strong bipartisan support. It violates core democratic freedoms. They're vanishing in plain sight. Militarized injustice replaced them.
Presidents have unchecked authority. No one anywhere is safe. Abuse of power replaced rule of law protections. Tyranny is official US policy.
Foreign nationals and US citizens are vulnerable. They can be arrested for any reason or none at all. They can be indefinitely detained in military prisons.
In September 2012, Southern District of New York federal Judge Katherine B. Forrest blocked Obama's indefinite detention law.
She called it "facially unconstitutional: it impermissibly impinges on guaranteed First Amendment rights and lacks sufficient definitional structure and protections to meet the requirements of due process."
"If, following issuance of this permanent injunctive relief, the government detains individuals under theories of 'substantially or directly supporting' associated forces, as set forth in" NDAA's section 1021, "and a contempt action is brought before this court, the government will bear a heavy burden indeed," she added.
Section 1021 states in part:
"Congress affirms that the authority of the president to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b) ) pending disposition under the law of war."
"Covered persons" are defined as:
Anyone "who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."
In July 2013, the New York Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Forrest's ruling. A three-judge panel did so unanimously.
They endorsed uncharged, untried indefinite detentions. Imprisoning US citizens and foreign nationals based on hearsay or nothing at all remains the law of the land.
FY 2014 NDAA reaffirmed what demands prohibiting. On December 26, Obama signed it into law. It went further than earlier. Enhancement of Capacity of the United States Government to Analyze Captured Records is authorized.
Doing so establishes new intelligence collecting. It enhances federal power. Indefinite surveillance is authorized.
The defense secretary is empowered to "establish a center to be known as the 'Conflict Records Research Center.' "
It's tasked with compiling "digital research database (information) including translations, and to facilitate research and analysis of records captured from countries, organizations, and individuals, now or once hostile to the United States."
It'll conduct research and analysis to "increase the understanding of factors related to international relations, counterterrorism, and conventional and unconventional warfare, and ultimately enhance national security."
The defense secretary is authorized to create an information exchange cooperatively with the director of national intelligence (DNI).
Doing so requires involvement of all 16 US intelligence agencies, as well as intelligence related operations.
Focus is on so-called "captured records." They're defined as "a document, audio file, video file, or other material captured during combat operations from countries, organizations, or individuals, now or once hostile to the United States."
They potentially include telecommunications, emails, text messages, web sites visited, medical history, financial records, and related information.
Ordinary information can be maliciously manipulated. It can be held against us. Potentially it becomes incriminating evidence.
It does if prosecutors say so. They're experts at creating indictments out of whole cloth. Truth or fiction doesn't matter.
Freedom is too precious to lose. More than ever it hangs by a thread. Constitutional protections don't help.
Alleged hostility is undefined. It's whatever Washington so designates. It includes nations, organizations and individuals. Anyone for any reason or none at all becomes a potential hostile entity.
FY 2014 NDAA sustains America's war on terror. It continues waging war on humanity. It jeopardizes everyone everywhere. It gives presidents more diktat power.
It further compromises fundamental freedoms. It makes everyone potential enemies. It pronounces guilt by accusation. It turns planet earth into a battleground. It does so unconstitutionally.
On January 29, 1788, James Madison commented in The Federalist No. 46 (The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared).
He said the way to combat federal overreach is by refusing "to cooperate with officers of the Union."
Resisting tyranny is a longstanding US tradition. Jefferson called doing so "obedience to God."
John Locke said when governments fail people their "trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the Power (shall) devolve into the hands of those that gave it"
America's Declaration of Independence affirmed abolishing governments abusing their just powers derived from the consent of the governed.
Civil disobedience more than ever is essential. Henry David Thoreau affirmed "the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.
America today is more unjust than ever in modern times. Arguably it Resistance is a national imperative. The alternative is full-blown tyranny. It's what no one should accept anywhere anytime.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
November 19th, 2013 by olddog
By Stephen Lendman
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a trade deal from hell. It's a stealth corporate coup d'etat.
It's a giveaway to banksters. It's a global neoliberal ripoff. It's a business empowering Trojan horse. It's a freedom and ecosystem destroying nightmare.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) calls it "a secretive, multi-national trade agreement that threatens to extend restrictive intellectual property (IP) laws across the globe and rewrite international rules on its enforcement."
More on TPP below. New York Times editors support it. Two decades ago, they endorsed NAFTA.
On January 1, 1994, its destructive life began. It's anti-labor, anti-environment, anti-consumer and anti-democratic.
Corporate giants love it. Why not? They wrote it. Hundreds of pages of one-size-fits-all rules benefit them.
They override domestic laws. A race to the bottom followed. NAFTA was a disastrous experiment. In November 1993, New York editors headlined "The 'Great Debate' Over NAFTA," saying:
The laboriously constructed agreement to phase out trade barriers among the US, Mexico and Canada, which this page has strongly supported, is likely to have a positive, though small, impact on US living standards and provide a modest boost to the Mexican economy.
Some American jobs would be lost to cheaper Mexican labor, other jobs would be gained because American exports would increase as Mexico's high tariffs gradually disappeared.
Economics aside, Nafta's defeat would suggest that the US had abandoned its historical commitment to free trade and would thus discourage other Latin and South American countries that have moved toward more market-oriented economies in the expectation of freer world trade.
So-called "free trade" is one-sided. It isn't fair. NAFTA proponents promised tens of thousands of newly created US jobs.
Ordinary famers would export their way to wealth. Mexican living standards would rise. Economic opportunities would reduce regional immigration to America.
NAFTA's promises never materialized. Reality proved polar opposite hype. A decade later, about a million US jobs were lost.
America's Mexican trade deficit alone cost around 700,000 jobs by 2010.
Official government data show nearly five million US manufacturing disappeared since 1994.
NAFTA alone wasn't responsible. It reflected broken promises, lost futures, and other trade deals from hell to follow. TPP stands out. It's NAFTA on steroids.
Since 2008, multiple negotiating rounds were held. They continue secretly. Twelve nations are involved.
They include America, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. Others are invited to join.
At issue is agreeing on unrestricted trade in goods, services, rules of origin, trade remedies, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers, government procurement and competition policies, and intellectual property (IP).
It's about eliminating fundamental freedoms. It's circumventing sovereign independent rights. Corporate power brokers want unchallenged control.
They want global rules and standards rewritten. They want supranational powers. They want them overriding national sovereignty. They want investor rights prioritized over public ones.
They already rule the world. Imagine giving them more power. Imagine no way to stop them.
Imagine a duplicitous president. Obama's in lockstep with their wish list. He intends giving them everything they want.
Public Citizen is independent. It's our voice. Its work entails "ensur(ing) that all citizens are represented in the halls of power."
Its Global Trade Watch (GTW) monitors TPP developments. It calls it "a stealthy policy being pressed by corporate America. (It's) a dream of the 1%." It'll:
offshore millions of American jobs,
free the banksters from oversight,
ban Buy America policies needed to create green (and many other) jobs (as well as) rebuild out economy,
decrease access to medicine,
flood the US with unsafe food and products,
and empower corporations to attack our environment and health safeguards.
Hyped benefits are fake. Reality is polar opposite what corporate shysters claim. Everything accruing from TPP benefits them. It does so by undermining what matters most to ordinary people.
Lori Wallach heads GTW. Ben Beachy is research director. Last June, they headlined their New York Times op-ed"Obama's Covert Trade Deal."
He's committed to open government, he claims. His policies reflect otherwise. He's negotiating TPP secretly.
It's "the most significant international commercial agreement since the" World Trade Organization's 1995 creation, said Wallach and Beachy.
Congress has exclusive "terms of trade" authority. Obama systematically refuses repeated congressional requests to release the entire draft agreement being negotiated.
He "denied requests from members to attend (sessions) as observers." He "revers(ed) past practice" snubbing them.
He "rejected demands by outside groups" to release the draft text. George Bush never went that far.
Obama's "wall of secrecy" had one exception. About "600 trade 'advisors,' dominated by representatives of big business," got access to what Congress was denied.
TPP overrides American laws. It requires changing them. Otherwise trade sanctions on US exports can be imposed.
Wall Street loves TPP. It prohibits banning risky financial products. It lets banksters operate any way they want without oversight.
Congress has final say. Both houses will vote on TPP. Ahead of doing so, they'll have access to its full text.
Why later? Why not now? Why not earlier? Why not without enough time for discussion and public debate?
Members won't get enough time to examine TPP carefully. Maintaining secrecy as long as possible prevents public debate.
Obama wants TPP fast-tracked. He wants it approved by yearend. Until March, Ron Kirk was Obama's trade representative.
He was remarkably candid. He said revealing TPP's text would raise enormous opposition. Doing so might make adopting it impossible.
According to Wallach and Beachy:
Whatever one thinks about 'free trade,' (TPP secrecy) represents a huge assault on the principles and practice of democratic governance.
That is untenable in the age of transparency, especially coming from an administration that is otherwise so quick to trumpet its commitment to open government.
On October 30, a newly formed Friends of TPP caucus was formed. Four House co-chairman head it. They include Reps. David Reichert (R. WA), Charles Boustany (R. LA), Ron Kind (D. WI) and Gregory Meeks (D. NY).
They sound like earlier NAFTA supporters. They claim TPP is important for US jobs, exports and economic growth. They lied saying so.
Wallach commented separately. TPP is hugely hugely destructive, she said. It's more than about trade. It's a "corporate Trojan horse." It has 29 chapters. Only five relate to trade.
The others "either handcuff our domestic governments, limit food safety, environmental standards, financial regulation, energy and climate policy, or establish new powers for corporations."
They promote offshoring jobs to low-wage countries. They ban Buy America. Corporations can do whatever they please. Instead of investing domestically, they can use "our tax dollars" to operate abroad.
They can exploit national resources freely. They'll have "rights for min(ed) (commodities), oil, gas" and others "without approval."
TPP includes all sorts of "worrisome issues relating to Internet freedom."
It provides a back door to earlier failed legislation. It resurrects SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and CISPA provisions. It tramples on fundamental freedoms and national sovereignty.
"Think about all the things that would be really hard to get into effect as a corporation in public, a lot of them rejected here and in the other 11 countries, and that is what's bundled in to the TPP," said Wallach.
And every country would be required to change its laws domestically to meet these rules.
The binding provision is each country shall ensure the conformity of domestic laws, regulations and procedures.
Negotiations are secret. Nothing is discussed publicly. Details leaked out. TPP includes hugely unpopular policies. It forces them on member countries.
It overrides domestic laws protecting people and ecosystems. It's predatory capitalism at its worst writ large. Obama fully supports it. Lawmakers hadn't seen it until last year.
They got access to a single chapter. Examining it is severely restricted. Their office is denied a copy. They alone can read it. Their staff is denied permission.
They can't take detailed notes. They can't publicly discuss what's in it. Technical language makes it hard to understand what they read.
Congressional approval is likely. Lobby pressure is intense. "Everything is bought and sold," said Wallach. "Honor is no exception."
The reason there's no deal so far "is because a lot of other countries are standing up to the worst of US corporate demands," Wallach explained.
For how long remains to be seen. If TPP is adopted, public interest no longer will matter. The worst of all possible worlds will replace it. Corporate rights will supersede human ones. A global race to the bottom will intensify.
Signatory countries will be legally bound to support loss of personal freedoms. Sovereign laws won't protect against poisoned food, water and air.
Ecosystems will be destroyed. Millions more jobs will shift from developed to under or less developed nations.
Corporate power will grow more exponentially. Fundamental human and civil rights may erode altogether. Not according to Times editors.
On November 5, they headlined "A Pacific Trade Deal."
A dozen nations want a deal by yearend, they said. They want it to "help all of our economies and strengthen relations between the United States and several important Asian allies."
It bears repeating. TPP is a trade deal from hell. It's a stealth corporate coup d'etat. It's a freedom and ecosystem destroying nightmare. Times editors didn't explain.
They lied to readers. They betrayed them. They repeated their 1993 duplicity. Millions affected understand best.
An October 8 White House press release lied. It called TPP "a comprehensive, next-generation model for addressing both new and traditional trade and investment issues, supporting the creation and retention of jobs and promoting economic development in our countries."
The deepest and broadest possible liberalization of trade and investment will ensure the greatest benefits for countries’ large and small manufacturers, service providers, farmers, and ranchers, as well as workers, innovators, investors, and consumers.
Times editors endorsed what they haven't read. TPP provisions remain secret. Leaked information alone is known.
Times editors willingly accept Obama misinformation as fact. Twenty years ago, they got NAFTA wrong. Here they go again.
They're mindless about secret negotiations. Public concerns don't matter. Corporate interests alone count.
Subverting national sovereignty is OK. So is empowering transnational giants without oversight. They'll be able sue countries for potentially undermining future profits.
Times editors support the worst of corporate excess. Doing so shows which side they're on.
Fundamental freedoms aren't important. Corporate rights drive The Times' agenda. Its editors explained nothing about fast-track authority.
Max Baucus (D. MT) chairs the Senate Finance Committee. He supports fast-tracking. Doing so hands congressional authority to Obama.
Proper hearings are restricted. Debate is limited. Amendments can't be introduced. The Senate can't filibuster. Congress can only vote up or down.
It can happen virtually out of sight and mind. It can happen with scant media coverage. It can happen with none at all. It can become law with practically no public awareness.
Imagine corporate America getting coup d'etat authority with hardly anyone knowing what happened. Imagine the consequences if it does. Imagine today's America becoming worse than ever.
Times editors stressed how Obama wants TPP to be "an example for the rest of the world to follow."
Imagine one more than ever unfit to live in. Imagine a president promising change to believe in promoting it.
Imagine Times editors endorsing what demands condemnation. Imagine not explaining what readers most need to know.
Imagine substituting misinformation for truth and full disclosure. Imagine all the news they call fit to print not fit to read.
A Final Comment
On November 13, Public Citizen headlined "Leaked Documents Reveal Obama Administration Push for Internet Freedom Limits, Terms That Raise Drug Prices in Closed-Door Trade Talks."
"US Demands in Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Text, Published Today by WikiLeaks, Contradict Obama Policy and Public Opinion at Home and Abroad."
TPP's leaked text reveals Obama demands limiting Internet freedom. He wants restricted access to lifesaving medicines.
He wants all TPP signatory countries bound the the same deplorable rules.
He lied claiming TPP reduces health care costs. It has nothing to do with advancing online freedom as he promised. It's polar opposite on both counts.
According to Public Citizen:
It is clear from the text obtained by WikiLeaks that the US government is isolated and has lost this debate.
Our partners don't want to trade away their people's health. Americans don't want these measures either.
Obama's in the pocket of Big Pharma. He's a Wall Street tool. He represents other corporate interests. He spurns popular ones. He lies claiming otherwise. He repeatedly avoids truth and full disclosure.
He lied about Obamacare. It's an abomination. It's a scam. It's a scheme to enrich insurers and other healthcare giants.
TPP is a global scam. It's an assault on fundamental freedoms.
Reports indicate around half the House members strongly oppose it. Others lean that way. According to Lori Wallach:
This could be the end of TPP.
All these other countries are like, 'Wait, you have no trade authority and nothing you've promised us means anything. Why would we give you our best deal?’ Why would you be making concessions to the emperor who has no clothes?
It bears repeating. TPP is a trade bill from hell. It's a stealth corporate coup d' etat. Killing it is essential.
The alternative is losing fundamental freedoms. It's destroying national sovereignty. It's making healthcare less affordable. It's undermining what ordinary people value most.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at email@example.com. His new book is titled How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War. Also visit his blog site atsjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/
Get on the phone and raise hell with your Representatives, and Senators. This is the last call for freedom. Say NO TPP! Say, if you support this bill you will wind up unemployed with us. AND THAT’S A PROMISE!
September 11th, 2013 by olddog
By Paul Craig Roberts
Washington has been at war for 12 years. According to experts such as Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, these wars have cost Americans approximately $6 trillion, enough to keep Social Security and Medicare sound for years. All there is to show for 12 years of war is fat bank balances for the armament industries and a list of destroyed countries with millions of dead and dislocated people who never lifted a hand against the United States.
The cost paid by American troops and taxpayers is extreme. Secretary of Veteran Affairs Erik Shinseki reported in November 2009 that “more veterans have committed suicide since 2001 than we have lost on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.” Many thousands of our troops have suffered amputations and traumatic brain injuries. At the Marine Corps War College Jim Lacey calculated that the annual cost of the Afghan war was $1.5 billion for each al-Qaeda member in Afghanistan. Many US and coalition troops paid with their lives for every one al-Qaeda member killed. On no basis has the war ever made sense.
Washington’s wars have destroyed the favorable image of the United States created over the decades of the cold war. No longer the hope of mankind, the US today is viewed as a threat whose government cannot be trusted.
The wars that have left America’s reputation in tatters are the consequence of 9/11. The neoconservatives who advocate America’s hegemony over the world called for “a new Pearl Harbor” that would allow them to launch wars of conquest. Their plan for conquering the Middle East as their starting point was set out in the neoconservative “Project for the New American Century.” It was stated clearly by Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz and also by many neoconservatives.
The neocon argument boils down to a claim that history has chosen “democratic capitalism” and not Karl Marx as the future. To comply with history’s choice, the US must beef up its military and impose the American Way on the entire world.
In other words, as Claes Ryn wrote, the American neoconservatives are the “new Jacobins,” a reference to the French Revolution of 1789 that intended to overthrow aristocratic Europe and replace it with “Liberty, equality, fraternity,” but instead gave Europe a quarter century of war, death, and destruction.
Ideologies are dangerous, because they are immune to facts. Now that the United States is no longer governed by the US Constitution, but by a crazed ideology that has given rise to a domestic police state more complete than that of Communist East Germany and to a warfare state that attacks sovereign countries based on nothing but manufactured lies, we are left with the irony that Russia and China are viewed as constraints on Washington’s ability to inflict evil, death, and destruction on the world.
The two pariah states of the 20th century have become the hope of mankind in the 21st century!
As Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick prove in their book, The Untold History of the United States, the American government has never deserved its white hat reputation. Washington has been very successful in dressing up its crimes in moralistic language and hiding them in secrecy. It is only decades after events that the truth comes out.
For example, on August 19, 1953, the democratically elected government of Iran was overthrown by a coup instigated by the US government. Sixty years after the event declassified CIA documents detail how the secret CIA operation overthrew a democratic government and imposed Washington’s puppet on the people of Iran.
The declassified documents could not have spelled it out any clearer: “The military coup that overthrew Mossadeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government.”http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/19/politics/cia-iran-1953-coup
In the 21st century Washington is attempting to repeat its 1953 feat of overthrowing the Iranian government, this time using the faux “green revolution” financed by Washington.
When that fails, Washington will rely on military action.
If 60 years is the time that must pass before Washington’s crimes can be acknowledged, the US government will admit the truth about September 11, 2001 on September 11, 2061. In 2013, on this 12th anniversary of 9/11, we only have 48 years to go before Washington admits the truth. Alas, the members of the 9/11 truth movement will not still be alive to receive their vindication.
But just as it has been known for decades that Washington overthrew Mossadeq,
we already know that the official story of 9/11 is hogwash.
No evidence exists that supports the government’s 9/11 story. The 9/11 Commission was a political gathering run by a neoconservative White House operative. The Commission members sat and listened to the government’s story and wrote it down. No investigation of any kind was made. One member of the Commission resigned, saying that the fix was in. After the report was published, both co-chairmen of the Commission and the legal counsel wrote books disassociating themselves from the report. The 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail,” they wrote.
NIST’s account of the structural failure of the twin towers is a computer simulation based on assumptions chosen to produce the result. NIST refuses to release its make-believe explanation for expert scrutiny. The reason is obvious. NIST’s explanation of the structural failure of the towers cannot survive scrutiny.
There are many 9/11 Truth organizations whose members are high-rise architects,
structural engineers, physicists, chemists and nano-chemists, military and civilian airline pilots, firemen and first responders, former prominent government officials, and 9/11 families. The evidence they have amassed overwhelms the feeble official account.
It has been proven conclusively that World Trade Center Building 7 fell at free fall which can only be achieved by controlled demolition that removes all resistance below to debris falling from above so that no time is lost in overcoming resistance from intact structures. NIST has acknowledged this fact, but has not changed its story.
In other words, still in America today official denial takes precedence over science and
known undisputed facts.
On this 12th anniversary of a false flag event, it is unnecessary for me to report the voluminous evidence that conclusively proves that the official story is a lie. You can read it for yourself. It is available online. You can read what the architects and engineers have to say. You can read the scientists’ reports. You can hear from the first responders who were in the WTC towers. You can read the pilots who say that the maneuvers associated with the airliner that allegedly hit the Pentagon are beyond their skills and most certainly were not performed by inexperienced pilots.
You can read David Griffin’s many books. You can watch the film produced by Richard Gage and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth. You can read the 9/11 Toronto Report, International Hearings on 9/11. http://www.amazon.com/9-11-Toronto-Report/dp/1478369205/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376960447&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Toronto+Report You can read this book: http://www.international.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9319:hijacking-americas-mind-on-911-counterfeiting-evidence&catid=66:oped&Itemid=151
Actually, you do not need any of the expert evidence to know that the US government’s story is false. As I have previously pointed out, had a few young Saudi Arabians, the alleged 9/11 hijackers, been capable of outwitting, without support from any government and intelligence service, not only the CIA and FBI, but all sixteen US intelligence services, the intelligence services of Washington’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad, the National Security Council, NORAD, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Traffic Control, and defeat Airport Security four times in one hour on the same morning, the White House, Congress, and the media would have been demanding an investigation of how the National Security State could so totally fail.
Instead, the President of the United States and every government office fiercely resisted any investigation. It was only after a year of demands and rising pressure from the 9/11 families that the 9/11 Commission was created to bury the issue.
No one in government was held accountable for the astonishing failure. The national security state was defeated by a few rag tag Muslims with box cutters and a sick old man dying from renal failure while holed up in a cave in Afghanistan, and no heads rolled.
The total absence from the government for demands for an investigation of an event that is the greatest embarrassment to a “superpower” in world history is a complete give-away that 9/11was a false flag event. The government did not want any investigation, because the government’s cover story cannot stand investigation.
The government could rely on the mega-media corporations in whose hands the corrupt Clinton regime concentrated the US media. By supporting rather than investigating the government’s cover story, the media left the majority of Americans, who are sensitive to peer pressure, without any support for their doubts. Effectively, the American Ministry of Propaganda validated the government’s false story.
Common everyday experiences of Americans refute the government’s story. Consider, for example, self-cleaning ovens. How many American homes have them? Thirty million? More? Do you have one?
Do you know what temperature self-cleaning ovens reach? The self-cleaning cycle runs for several hours at 900 degrees Fahrenheit or 482 degrees Celsius. Does your self-cleaning oven melt at 482 degrees Celsius. No, it doesn’t. Does the very thin, one-eighth inch steel soften and your oven collapse? No, it doesn’t.
Keep that in mind while you read this: According to tests performed by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), only 2% of the WTC steel tested by NIST reached temperatures as high as 250 degrees Celsius, about half the temperature reached by your self-cleaning oven. Do you believe that such low temperatures on such small areas of the WTC towers caused the massive, thick, steel columns in the towers to soften and permit the collapse of the buildings? If you do, please explain why your self-cleaning oven doesn’t weaken and collapse.
In Section E.5 of the Executive Summary in this NIST reporthttp://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101019 it says: “A method was developed using microscopic observations of paint cracking to determine whether steel members had experienced temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C. More than 170 areas were examined . . . Only three locations had a positive result indicating that the steel and paint may have reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C.” Analysis of steel “microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degrees C for any significant time.”
In section 3.6 of the NIST report http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101019NIST states: “NIST believes that this collection of steel from the WTC towers is adequate for purposes of the investigation.”
How did these truths get out? My explanation is that the NIST scientists, resentful of the threat to their jobs and future employment opportunities and chaffing under the order to produce a false report, revealed the coerced deception by including information that their political masters did not understand. By stating unequivocally the actual temperatures, NIST’s scientists put the lie to the coerced report.
The melting point of steel is around 1,500 degrees C. or 2,600 degrees F. Steel can lose strength at lower temperatures, but the NIST scientists reported that only a small part of the steel was even subjected to moderate temperatures less than those obtained by the self-cleaning oven in your home.
If you need to think about this a bit more, obtain a copy of The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes. Have a look at the streetcar in photo 108. The caption reads: “The Hiroshima fireball instantly raised surface temperatures within a mile of the hypocenter well above 1,000 degrees F.” Is the streetcar a melted lump of steel? No, it is structurally intact, although blackened with burnt paint.
Washington would have you believe that steel that survived intact the atomic bomb would melt from low temperature, short lived, isolated office fires. What do you think of a government that believes that you are that stupid?
Who would support a government that lies every time it opens its mouth?
The three WTC buildings that were destroyed were massive heat sinks. I doubt that
the limited, short-lived, low temperature fires in the buildings even warmed the massive steel structures to the touch.
Moreover, not a single steel column melted or deformed from softening. The columns
were severed at specific lengths by extremely high temperature charges placed on the columns.
On this 12th anniversary of 9/11, ask yourself if you really want to believe that temperatures half those reached by your self-cleaning oven caused three massive steel structures to crumble into dust.
Then ask yourself why your government thinks you are so totally stupid as to believe such a fairy tale as your government has told you about 9/11.
July 13th, 2013 by olddog
By Stephen Lendman
Public anger in Egypt, Turkey, Palestine, Brazil, Chile, across Europe, in America against Wall Street, and elsewhere is real. It's visceral. It's deep-seated. It's growing. It reflects what media scoundrels won't explain.
Democracy's more illusion than real. People get the best kind money can buy. Manipulated elections control things. Systemic rule is hardline. Progressive change is verboten.
Monied interests have final say. Corporate giants rule the world. Exploiting nations, markets and people for profit matters most.
Governments conspire with business to facilitate it. Popular needs more than ever go begging. People increasingly are on their own to sink or swim.
Wealth, power, and privilege are hugely disproportionate. Wars on humanity rage. Freedom's on the chopping block for elimination. Rule of law principles don't matter.
Might makes right. Police state tactics assure it. They're vicious. Things go from bad to worse. Humanity and planet earth are up for grabs.
Independent thought is verboten. Controlling the message is prioritized.
Most nations aren't fit places to live in. Hardline governments keep things that way. Popular uprisings reflect discontent too intense to contain.
Public anger rages against systemic injustice. It's exploitive. It's predatory. It's uncaring. It's merciless. It's untenable.
Immanuel Wallerstein envisions disruptive change. It's happening in real time. It's coming incrementally. Something different lies ahead. It could be better or worse.
We're "in the midst of a structural transition from a fading capitalist world economy to" something new. That's "the real battle of the next 20 – 40 years," Wallerstein believes.
How things play out matter. Future prospects depend on it. Rage against the system is needed. People power works. Change comes from the bottom up.
Breaking free isn't easy. Sustained commitment is needed. Struggles are long term. Triumphs depend on keeping them. Waned energy is self-defeating.
Powerful forces want things that way. Media scoundrels march in lockstep. They support entrenched interests. They aid and abet state crimes. They support corporate exploitation.
They turn truth on its head. They substitute fiction for fact. They manipulate people to back what demands condemnation.
They glorify wars in the name of peace. They believe human and civil rights don't matter. They're suppressed for our own good, they say.
They champion might over right. They endorse neoliberal harshness. It's polar opposite fairness, equity and justice.
A 19th-century proverb is ignored at our own peril, saying:
Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money.
Egypt's uprising is ground zero. It reflects the heart of today's storm. Don't expect media scoundrels to explain. Tragedy's unfolding in real time. Generals unseated a sitting government.
Coup d'etat authority rules. A coup is a coup is a coup. It's illegitimate. New York Times articles, commentaries and editorials don't explain.
They endorse neoliberal harshness. They support technocratic rule. They call Beblawi's prime ministerial appointment "a signal that the military-led transitional government intends to move forward with economic reforms and restructuring, including reductions in the country's vast public subsidies."
They ignore greater harm coming. They're mindless of extreme public pain. They're dismissive of coup d'etat authority.
A July 10 editorial never once mentioned the word. It's fundamental. It explains illegitimate rule.
Times editors fear potential civil war. Egypt's military treads on thin ice. It's transition plan leaves much to be desired.
There's much "to be alarmed about," they said. "Experts say it repeats many mistakes of the last transition."
Ousting a sitting government matters most. Doing so puts a lie to democratic rule. Times editors don't explain.
"Egypt needs to move from military control to an elected civilian government," they said.
Egyptians chose one. Now it's gone. Morsi and other Freedom and Justice Party officials are under house arrest. Junta power rules.
Democracy's a convenient fiction. Nothing ahead suggests positive change. Times editors ignored what's most important. So did columnist Thomas Friedman.
His writing reflects some of the worst hack journalism. It won him three Pulitzer Prizes. His books are best-sellers. He's featured on corporate TV.
He supports imperial aggression. He's no big thinker. He's disingenuous. He's shallow and it shows.
Journalism Professor Robert Jensen explained. He tells America's privileged class what it wants to hear, he said.
He does it with "pithy-though-empty anecdotes, padded with glib turns and phrases."
He's the perfect oracle for a management-focused, advertising-saturated, dumbed-down, imperial culture that doesn't want to come to terms with the systemic and structural reasons for its decline.
He avoids speaking truth to power. He ducks afflicting the comfortable. He "never goes very far beyond parroting the powerful and comforting the comfortable."
Many others like him do the same thing. They show up often on Times pages.
On July 9, Friedman headlined "Egypt at the Edge," saying:
Avoiding civil war is still possible. He left unexplained why, perhaps it's likely. He ignored longstanding grievances. He never once mentioned the word "coup."
He focused on Ramadan's holy month instead, saying:
One can only hope that the traditional time for getting family and friends together will provide a moment for all the actors in Egypt to reflect on how badly they’ve behaved – all sides – and opt for the only sensible pathway forward: national reconciliation.
In the wake of violent turmoil, it is no longer who rules Egypt that it is at stake. It is Egypt that is at stake. This is an existential crisis.
Friedman and others like him avoid explaining what's most important. Democracy in Egypt's a four-letter word. It's a convenient fiction.
Junta power rules. Generals make policy. Politicians serve at their pleasure. America has final say. Egypt's capital isn't Cairo. It's Washington. It's been that way for decades.
People power didn't oust Mubarak. Strings were pulled in America. Morsi's fate was similar. Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is right.
Longstanding grievances are real. Conditions now perhaps are worse than ever. Ousting Morsi was strategic. At issue is "pre-empt(ing) a popular revolution from taking place."
In 2011, removing Mubarak changed nothing. Things went from bad to worse. This time won't be different.
Appointed Prime Minister Hazem el-Beblawi explained. So-called economic reforms assure greater public pain. Popular concerns will remain unaddressed.
"We must create a clear understanding for the public that the level of subsidies in Egypt is unsustainable, and the situation is critical," said Beblawi.
Subsidies have exceeded reasonable limits, and take more than 25 percent of the budget.
People must understand that they must accept some of the consequences: the canceling of subsidies requires sacrifices from the public and therefore necessitates their acceptance.
Widespread poverty, unemployment, and extreme deprivation turned Egypt into a tinder box. Doing so makes "popular revolution" possible.
Illegitimately changing of the guard aggravates things. At best, it may delay one. It won't prevent it.
According to Friedman, "there is only one way for Egypt to avoid the abyss: the military, the only authority in Egypt today, has to make clear that (ousting) the Muslim Brotherhood (reflects) 'reset.' "
It's "for the purpose of starting over and getting the transition to democracy right this time."
(T)he job of Egypt's friends now is not to cut off aid and censure, but to help it gradually but steadily find that moderate path.
Jensen's right about Friedman. He tells America's privileged class what it wants to hear. He avoids painful truths. He's well-paid to do so. Readers are best served by avoiding him.
Conditions in Egypt remain tense. Extreme violence could erupt any time. Public anger isn't assuaged. Growing numbers of Egyptians deplore America. They do so for good reason.
One protester perhaps spoke for others. He has "a problem with American politics that tries to interfere with the way we want to live and that is not right," he said.
Proliferating anti-Obama posters are visible. Anti-American sentiment is strong. According to Pew Research, 80% of Egyptians expressed negative attitudes toward Washington. Just 16% are positive.
About 75% deplore Obama. Visceral disapproval reflects his handling of foreign affairs. Regional sentiment is similar. America and Israel are widely despised.
Ousting Morsi intensifies negativity. Expect nothing positive ahead to change things. Belt-tightening assures greater public rage. Popular revolution may follow. It may transcend borders for vitally needed change.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org. His new book is titled How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com
February 25th, 2013 by olddog
By Anthony Wile
"Fiscal trouble ahead for most future retirees." Or so the Washington Post tells us in a recent column explaining why future retirees (Baby Boomers) are headed for considerable trouble. Grim reading, actually.
For the first time since the New Deal, a majority of Americans are headed toward a retirement in which they will be financially worse off than their parents, jeopardizing a long era of improved living standards for the nation's elderly, according to a growing consensus of new research.
This is worth commenting on because it only illustrates a larger point we've made a number of times: The system is broken and if you listen to mainstream financial advice you're going to end up homeless on a soup line hoping for dinner.
What is pernicious about articles like this one, in my humble view, is that they purport to be telling the truth but don't provide either context or historical accuracy. Here's more from the Post article:
The Great Recession and the weak recovery darkened the retirement picture for significant numbers of Americans. And the full extent of the damage is only now being grasped by experts and policymakers. There was already mounting concern for the long-term security of the country's rapidly graying population. Then the downturn destroyed 40 percent of Americans' personal wealth, while creating a long period of high unemployment and an environment in which savings accounts pay almost no interest. Although the surging stock market is approaching record highs, most of these gains are flowing to well-off Americans who already are in relatively good shape for retirement.
Liberal and conservative economists worry that the decline in retirement prospects marks a historic shift in a country that previously has fostered generations of improvement in the lives of the elderly. It is likely to have far-reaching implications, as an increasing number of retirees may be forced to double up with younger relatives or turn to social-service programs for support. "This is the first time that Americans are going to be relatively worse off than their parents or grandparents in old age," said Teresa Ghilarducci, director of the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis at the New School for Social Research.
Advocates for older Americans are calling on the federal government to bolster Social Security benefits or to create a new layer of retirement help for future retirees. Others want employers and the government to do more to encourage retirement savings and to discourage workers from using the money for non-retirement purposes.
But those calls have been overwhelmed by concern about the nation's fast-growing long-term debt, which has left many policy-makers focused on ways to trim Social Security and other retirement benefits rather than increase them. The economic downturn exacerbated long-term factors that were already eroding the financial standing of aging Americans: an inexorable rise in health-care costs, growing debt among older Americans and a shift in responsibility from employers to workers to plan for retirement.
The article never explains the "Great Recession" but merely asserts it – like a fact of life. We are supposed to accept that these things occur without searching for the cause. But those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it.
There were, of course, those who understood quite clearly what was about to happen. They did their best to warn us but the powers-that-be (and general population) remained complacent. Late in 2007, things took a turn for the worse. The economy began to crash and by 2008 the devastation had spread to the rest of the world and the "sovereign" debt crisis had begun to afflict Europe.
In Greece, Spain, Portugal – most of Southern and Eastern Europe – retirements have been reduced or have evaporated entirely as a result of the "Great Recession." In the US, tens of millions lost 50 percent of their life savings or more in the ongoing crashes of 2007 and 2008. And today, tens of millions more don't have anything else to lose.
While once children could have supported their aged parents, the current crisis has reduced the employment prospects for young people in much of Europe to nearly nil. None of this was expected by those involved but a lot of it was predicted by those who understood monetary history and were aware of its goals.
One can argue, of course, that this was part of a larger Money Power strategy to create a fiat dollar – and shove the world toward a single currency. If so, then the rest of the West's (especially the US's) monetary history makes a lot of sense. Sovereign overspending was utilized to generate the justification for a deal with Japan. Japan would buy US treasuries and US consumers would purchase Japanese products.
This elevated some Japanese companies to world class status and also made Japan a more consumerist and Westernized society. The same sort of thing happened in China in the later 1990s and 2000s. Africa is apparently next on the list to be consolidated. In each instance, a case is made for the transformative effects of capitalism but unfortunately, it is not capitalism that is being created but a kind corporatist mercantilism.
The Washington Post article seems to yearn for the past, when government programs were seen as helpful and effective. Here's the important graf:
The precarious situation comes after a long period of change that improved life for the nation's seniors starting with the enactment of Social Security in 1935. By the 1960s, retirees also benefitted from universal health insurance through Medicare and Medicaid, sharp increases in Social Security benefits and new protections enacted by the federal government for workers who received traditional pensions, which for decades were a standard employee benefit. The changes rescued millions of retirees from poverty, while lifting millions of others to prosperous retirements symbolized by vacation cruises, recreational vehicles and second homes. But now problems for future retirees seem to be closing in from all sides.
You see? This is a sentiment that is beyond simplistic. It is dangerous. The more that people put their trust – and financial health – into the proverbial hands of the state, the more apt they are to end up without the security they've counted on. We can see this today. It is not a hypothesis but a reality.
Historically speaking, modern corporatist states are not run for citizens' benefit. The concern that is expressed, the dialogue that is being presented every day, are merely distractions. Think of how many billions of words have been written about Western retirements, how to save for the future and how to invest in a profitable way. Despite all that has been talked about, written and otherwise presented, the current system is wrecked and people's prospects are getting worse not better.
Lately, I've noticed an uptick in people's positive emotional response to the markets and the economy. But the same misinformation and economic manipulation that occurred before is occurring now. Central banks have dumped tens of trillions into the larger marketplace and when that money begins to circulate rates will have to be raised and recoveries, such as they are, will be cut short. The dollar reserve system itself must be seen as in a kind of terminal decline as well. Sorry, folks.
Let price inflation move up even a little, and the carrying costs of US debt will likely become insupportable. These trends simply aren't being explained on a regular basis. Instead, we get alarmed articles about how a US "savings deficit" has to yield to targeted, government oriented financial programs. Alternatively, we get widely publicized policy battles about deficit reduction and continued and expanded "austerity." But neither government programs nor austerity will help salvage the larger economy, in my opinion.
Here's the good news, though: You don't have to worry about it.
There are practical steps you can take to help yourself. Some of them you'll find right within the pages of this website, TheDailyBell.com. Don't wait for government. Don't keep hoping that bureaucratic "wonkery" will come to the rescue. Recognize you have to do it yourself.
There are, of course, certain kinds of equity opportunities that you can invest in – if you can find a trusted advisor. And there are – or should be – steps you can take to move some of your holdings offshore and into precious metals or even real estate. There are plenty of other positive steps you can take on your own and within your community to ensure your and your family's safety.
We are still being taught to look toward government for the solution to our private retirement dilemmas and general prosperity. The last century should have taught us that this is a chimera – what we like to call a dominant social theme – that government and public spending are a substitute for individual responsibility.
Unfortunately, no matter how many articles are written, or how much is broadcast, reality doesn't change. The person responsible for you is … you. And if you are to have a good and hopefully prosperous life, you will have to take action to make it so.
What can I say when I cannot convince my children, or my wife, that every dollar you can spare must go into silver. Either bars and coins or coins only depending on the amount of your funds. Gold is a good place for savvy investors but the average blue collar worker with three or four hundred thousand saved and invested, is at a disadvantage over how and when to buy and sell. Also, every middle class investor has been brain washed into looking for return on investment. In good times that is the way to go, but this is a time for preserving your assets, not increasing them. The powers that be, are manipulating both metals as much as they can, but silver has always been the commodity that carried through to the end. Gold, by its very nature is more attractive to the powers that be, and will continue to fluctuate violently before the bankers lose control of it. Silver by contrast is the poor investor’s salvation, as it has always been the most stable in the long run of any commodity. Don’t take my word for it, as there are hundreds of knowledgeable advisers on the net. Sort them out according to common sense and put your money in silver before you lose it all. Paper investments are going to be toilet paper investments before this is over.
Right now, anyone who has stocked up on ammunition is making a killing, but the days of buying it cheap and in quantity are long gone. Ditto for most other necessities of life. Those who have waited have lost the chance to survive and prosper. If you take any of this advise to heart, make this your highest concern, If you don’t have it, you don’t own it. Take possession of your silver and protect it with your life. Stay away from paper instruments. They are paper dollars in disguise.
February 10th, 2013 by olddog
With Anthony Wile
The Daily Bell is pleased to present this exclusive interview with Edwin Vieira, Jr.
Introduction: Dr. Vieira 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 over 36 years he has been a practicing attorney, specializing in cases that raise issues of constitutional law. He has presented numerous cases of import before the Supreme Court and written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals. His latest scholarly work is The Sword and Sovereignty (2012). Previous works include Constitutional "Homeland Security" (2007), a proposal to begin the revitalization of the constitutional Militia of the several states; Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2d rev. ed. 2002), a comprehensive study of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective; and How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary (2004), an analysis of the problems of irresponsible "judicial supremacy" and how to deal with them. With well known libertarian trader Victor Sperandeo, he is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novelCRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered "crash" of the Federal Reserve System, and the political revolution it causes.
Daily Bell: Thanks for sitting down with us again. Let's jump right in with a discussion of your new book, The Sword and Sovereignty. Give us a synopsis, please. Where can people buy it?
Edwin Vieira: The Sword and Sovereignty is available at Amazon.com. It is a study of the actual constitutional "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" in the Second Amendment in its inextricable relation to "the Militia of the several States," as opposed to the historically inaccurate and legally indefensible so-called "individual right to keep and bear arms" on which almost all contemporary advocates of the Second Amendment fixate. I describe "the individual right to keep and bear arms" as legally indefensible because fundamentally it is a right in name only, inasmuch as it lacks an effective remedy if an highly organized and armed tyranny sets out to suppress it, whereas the true "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" exercised in the context of "well regulated Militia" is the Constitution's own preferred remedy against usurpation and tyranny in their every aspect. Even though the Second Amendment is very much the subject of contemporary political debate, I seem to be one of the very few commentators saying as much − which, in these days of rampant legal and political confusion, misinformation and disinformation, is probably very convincing evidence that I am correct.
In any event, The Sword and Sovereignty breaks down into four parts: First, an analysis of the correct manner of interpreting the Constitution. Second, an application of the rules of constitutional interpretation to the question of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" in relation to "the Militia of the several States," elucidating the basic principles of the Militia through a thoroughgoing analysis of the pre-constitutional Militia statutes of the Colonies and independent States. Third, an application of the principles of the Militia, and especially of the duty (as well as the right) of all eligible Americans to be armed, to present-day problems of what is called "homeland security." And fourth, a warning that, should these principles not be applied in the very near future − immediately, if not sooner, as I like to put it − America will slip under the control of a national para-militarized police-state apparatus (which anyone with even the least insight should recognize is taking place at an ever-accelerating pace even as he reads these words). The book is heavily freighted with footnotes and endnotes identifying primary sources, so no one has to take my poor word alone for its premises and conclusions.
Daily Bell: What's the response been?
Edwin Vieira: The Sword and Sovereignty was first made available in mid-December of 2012. It had to be put out on a CD in PDF format because there was insufficient interest shown among potential readers to justify producing a quality hardbound printed version (although that may become an option in the future). In light of the popularity of the subject matter of the book − the Second Amendment and related constitutional issues − that depth of disinterest really surprised me. But now, with all of the brouhaha over new, draconian "gun-control" legislation in the States as well as in Congress, the very slow sale of, and dearth of commentary about, the CD is more than surprising. It is shocking, even appalling. Especially so when more and more commentators, bloggers, and others on the Internet are recognizing, and correctly so, that the ultimate purpose of the Second Amendment is not to protect hunters or target shooters, or even to enable individuals to protect themselves against common criminals but instead to enable common Americans to resist the political crimes of usurpation and tyranny. Which, I believe, the historical record proves beyond peradventure cannot be accomplished through the exercise of an "individual right to keep and bear arms," but rather demands collective action through "the Militia of the several States."
Daily Bell: What was the most interesting thing you discovered while researching the book?
Edwin Vieira: The extent and depth of the evidence for the construction of the Second Amendment and the Militia Clauses of the original Constitution, whichThe Sword and Sovereignty lays out. Over the years, I have studied many aspects of pre-constitutional legal history; but as to no other matter is the historical record as complete, consistent and compelling as it is with respect to the Militia. The evidence supports the conclusions in the book beyond a reasonable doubt, which is far more than can be said about such matters taken as "legal gospel" today as the reach of the Supreme Court's power of "judicial review" or of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.
Daily Bell: What are some of the fundamental conclusions?
Edwin Vieira: There are far too many to compile here. The five most consequential for the average man's understanding of the present-day issue of "gun control" are that: (i) The maintenance of freedom depends inextricably upon the American people's collective participation in "well regulated Militia," not upon individual action; (ii) "A well regulated Militia" is composed of nearly all of the eligible adult residents in a State, who are required by law to serve; (iii) Every member of such a Militia (other than conscientious objectors) must be armed with one or more firearms, ammunition and accoutrements suitable for Militia service, all of which must always be maintained in his personal possession; (iv) Because two of the most important responsibilities of the Militia are to repel invasions by foreign countries and to put down domestic usurpation and tyranny by rogue public officials, every armed member of the Militia must be equipped with a firearm suitable for those specific purposes − which means a firearm equivalent to, if not better than, the firearms contemporary regular armed forces bear: that is, not just a semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifle in 5.56 x 45 (.223) or 7.62 x 39 caliber, but a fully automatic or burst-fire rifle, preferable in a caliber more effective than the latter calibers, such as 6.5 x 38 Grendel (which can be made to work reliably on an AR-15 or M-16 platform); and (v) because "the Militia of the several States" are State governmental institutions, no contemporary form of "gun control" can be applied to them or their members by either Congress or the States' legislatures. Rather, it is the duty of Congress and the States' legislatures to see that all members of the Militia are properly armed, not to any degree disarmed. That is, as to the Militia and their members (which includes essentially all adult Americans), all forms of contemporary "gun control," including those of the Feinstein and Cuomo patterns (to name two of the more infamous poster-children for "gun control"), are absolutely unconstitutional.
Daily Bell: From your perspective, a free people is an armed people?
Edwin Vieira: It has nothing whatsoever to do with my personal "perspective," or my "opinion," or my "view." The Constitution tells us, in no uncertain terms, that a "well regulated Militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State." This is a declaration of law and historical fact − as well as an admonition − set out in the supreme law of the land, and therefore from a strictly legal perspective to be accepted and acted upon. It is also a first principle or axiom of American political philosophy. Had I a different "perspective," "opinion," or "view," I should to that extent be an opponent of the Constitution. And if I were in a position to attempt to impose that different, anti-constitutional "perspective," "opinion," or "view" on the American people by enacting legislation and enforcing it against them through the threats and assaults of jack-booted, uniformed, para-militarized thugs, then I should be, as well, a traitor (in the strict sense in which the Constitution defines "Treason" in Article III, Section 3, Clause 1).
Daily Bell: How can people with guns hold off the tanks (or "non-lethal" weapons) of a repressive government?
Edwin Vieira: This is a complex question because it incorporates so many implicit, unexamined and likely false assumptions. It probably is true that, even though many in overall number, individuals acting only in isolation, without coordination or even a common plan, cannot hold off rogue armed forces or even police agencies that are armed only with small arms, let alone tanks and other heavy weaponry. But the desired goal is not necessarily to win an all-out, once-and-for-all nationwide firefight but instead to deter usurpation and tyranny at their onset and grind their perpetrators down even if they are initially successful.
If Militia exist which could effectively resist aspiring usurpers and tyrants to any degree for any length of time, the usurpers and tyrants will be compelled to think twice about attempting to repress the people. Indeed, under such circumstances, the regular armed forces and police may themselves fracture: some supporting the rogue regime, others supporting the people. And, in the long run, the armed forces and police that remain on the side of the usurpers and tyrants may prove unable to suppress the people, their supposedly superior weaponry notwithstanding.
Look at Afghanistan. In more than ten years, the armed forces of the United States and their puppet "coalition partners" have been unable to defeat a rag-tag people's army of cave-dwellers and primitive tribesmen armed with weaponry less effective than was used in World War I (no tanks, no planes, no heavy artillery, no poison gas and so on), in a land-locked country which receives no significant outside assistance.
Now, there are some 300 million people in the United States. Assume that 150 million are adults and that of these some 50 million, spread throughout a landmass than spans North America, would actively sympathize with and even personally participate in a resistance-movement. And remember that of these 50 million, most are already fairly well armed. The difficulty of suppressing this level of opposition, particularly when the resistance-fighters could directly attack the logistical support of the usurpers' and tyrants' puppet forces, would make Afghanistan look like a cakewalk.
Daily Bell: Do people need to form their own militias?
Edwin Vieira: If you mean do individuals need to form private militia, on their own, then the constitutional answer is an unequivocal NO. The constitutional Militia, "the Militia of the several States" incorporated in the original Constitution and the "well regulated Militia" to which the Second Amendment refers, are State governmental institutions or establishments. This is what imbues them with legal − indeed, constitutional − authority, which no private militia can possibly claim. Think about it: If the people on the south side of Main Street in Smalltown USA form their own private militia, and the people on the north side of Main Street form theirs, which one of them, perforce of its mere existence, can claim even a semblance of legal authority over the other, or over anyone else for that matter? Or are both of them − and any other armed groups that happen to coalesce in that area − of equal legal authority, so that no generally applicable system of law can be applied in that territory? In which case, one might conclude, there can be no legal authority there at all, just a multiplicity of Freikorps settling their inevitable differences by main force. Not a very pretty picture.
Daily Bell: What's your take on the current gun control controversy?
Edwin Vieira: The present controversy − at least as it is being mis-argued in the media, both mainstream and alternative − can basically be characterized as two huge gas-bags colliding head-on, but with no real harm possibly done by or to either because neither articulates the issue actually at stake.
If the problem is viewed from the constitutionally true perspective of the Militia, then "gun control" of the familiar contemporary variety must be seen as legally impossible and politically perverse. Any form of "gun control" is illegitimate, on its face, if its intent or effect is to any degree to disarm the Militia because the Second Amendment declares that "[a] well regulated Militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State," any attack upon which is precluded (and therefore unreasonable) as a matter of law. And the original Constitution incorporates the Militia as integral components of its federal structure, with which neither the General Government nor the States may dispense. That is the end of the matter. Any other supposed merits or demerits of a particular "gun-control" proposal are simply irrelevant. If it undermines the Militia − as all contemporary "gun-control" schemes do, and are objectively intended to do − then such a scheme is out of bounds, absolutely and irretrievably. Period.
On the other hand, if the problem is viewed from the constitutionally false perspective of "the individual right to keep and bear arms," then "gun control" becomes a matter of what can be deemed "reasonable" in relation to something other than the maintenance of the Militia and "the security of a free State." Something, perhaps, with highly emotional appeal, such as guaranteeing the supposed "safety" of children from irresponsible, criminal, or insane individuals who somehow get their hands on guns. If "gun control" is aimed only at curtailing some vague "individual right" entirely separate from the Militia and the maintenance of "a free State" (which is inextricably tied to the Militia, not to any "individual right"), then why is it not perfectly "reasonable" to prohibit the possession of some sorts − indeed, many or even most sorts − of firearms, by some or even many sorts of putatively "dangerous" people, as long as individuals not within the prohibited classes are left with a few firearms with which arguably they can defend themselves as individuals against adventitious attacks by common criminals?
Why, the Feinsteins and Cuomos of this benighted country may ask with some semblance of cogency, does anyone "need" a supposedly dangerous semi-automatic rifle if he is not a member of an official institution with the responsibility to repel invasions (such as the Army) − which, according to the dogma of "the individual right to keep and bear arms," most individuals are not? Conversely, if one is a member of such an institution − as most adult Americans are (or should be) with respect to the Militia − then the question the Feinsteins and the Cuomos pose lacks not simply cogency but even logic and legitimacy. It becomes a question which might be asked appropriately in North Korea but never here in America.
Daily Bell: What's the most critical problem facing America right now? Previously you claimed it was authoritarianism and a growing police state.
Edwin Vieira: Claimed?! I have "claimed" nothing. As a political and legal scientist, I have observed and reported on my observations, which is an entirely different matter. Moreover, anyone who cannot and does not make the selfsame observations needs to have his political eyes examined.
America's national para-military police state is not simply "growing"; it hasgrown to fantastic proportions. Why else do you imagine that I am devoting the last years of my life to promoting the revitalization of the Militia? Nostalgia for the by-gone Colonial era? When the Executive Department of the General Government declares, as it has today, that nameless, faceless bureaucrats can order the assassinations of Americans, anywhere in the world, on the basis of the mere suspicion that the targets are somehow allied with "terrorists" or other "enemies," and no other department of the General Government or the States at any level of the federal system challenges that declaration, then America has degenerated into a politically putrescent state beyond mere "authoritarianism." This condition constitutes a species of legal nihilism with which, heretofore, only monsters such as Caligula and Hitler were associated. For if one's life can be stripped from him under such circumstances, what other rights does he retain? None, as all rights inevitably depend upon the right to life itself. And if such an individual − indeed, everyAmerican − retains no rights, because the theory of "official assassinations" embraces essentially anyone and everyone who might be denounced from within the bowels of the bureaucracy as an "enemy combatant," then what limits exist to rogue public officials' powers? None. This is totalitarianism with a vengeance.
Daily Bell: We mentioned directed history the last time we spoke, and you indicated that in your view a "paper-money oligarchy" was at least one group organizing this kind of history. These are basically banking families and their enablers based in Britain and Europe with military and intelligence arms (along with other such families) in Israel and the US. Why are they busy in Africa creating wars? Is it because their credit scheme is in the final stages of Ponzi self-destruction, as you indicated? Has that advanced in the past two years?
Edwin Vieira: What I might describe as "intermediate Ponzi banking pyramids," based upon national or regional central banks − namely, the Federal Reserve System and the European Central Bank − are shaking themselves to pieces, as all such Ponzi schemes eventually must. As a result, "the paper-money oligarchy" will now try to salvage the basic system by elevating it to a global level with some sort of world central bank, perhaps based upon the IMF. This may prove difficult if not impossible to accomplish if the Chinese, for example, cannot be cajoled or coerced into joining or at least acquiescing in such an operation. At present, that does not seem likely. The Chinese appear to be staking out a position based upon competition with, rather than complicity in, any new global paper-money-and-credit scam run by the "Western" elites. So those elites are taking defensive measures to shore up their position, based upon their realization that the purpose of all paper-money-and-credit schemes is not simply to manipulate paper "obligations," "claims," and misnamed "assets," but instead to redistribute real wealth from the unsuspecting members of society at large to the manipulators and their cronies and clients.
Ultimately, real wealth consists of human labor and natural resources. Africa is awash in critical natural resources; and the potential for enserfing its native populations as docile workers under puppet "governments" controlled by the "Western" elites makes those resources even more valuable. So the military conflicts in Africa now being billed as parts of "the war on terrorism" are actually parts of a "war of terrorism" intended to destabilize the region, introduce "Western" neo-colonialism and thus preempt the Chinese from obtaining an economic or political foothold in the area.
Daily Bell: We spoke about dominant social themes and how they are used by this power elite. What have you noticed about their fear-based promotions? Are they more powerful than ever or are they losing their power to convince?
Edwin Vieira: A little of both. We observe with the present orchestrated hysteria over "gun control" − all of which is based upon promoting irrational fear of and loathing for firearms amongst the general populace − that, although many Americans are being swayed by the elitists' propaganda and agitation, perhaps even more Americans are not: The more the elitists scream for radical "gun control," the more common Americans listen to the real subliminal message in these rants, and the more firearms and ammunition they amass.
On the other side, though, the elitists have successfully imparted a subtle twist to their propaganda and agitation: At first, "the party line" was simply that Americans must fear "terrorists" from abroad, and therefore must surrender some of their freedoms to a nascent national para-military police-state apparatus. To this was soon added the supposed necessity for Americans to fear "domestic terrorists" (such as their fellow countrymen who support the Constitution, advocate the restoration of sound money and possess firearms), coupled with the necessity for Americans to surrender even more of their freedoms to a burgeoning police state. Most recently, the theme has shifted to the utterly discordant note that Americans must fear their own "government" most of all but can do nothing about its ever-more-abusive inroads into their remaining freedoms because, with all of the political, economic, and military power at its disposal, "the government" cannot be effectively opposed, no matter what excesses it may commit.
This at least has the advantage of bringing the discussion into concordance with the true meaning of words, inasmuch as the very first definition of "terrorism" in Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (the standard reference for American English) as well as in The Oxford English Dictionary(the standard reference for English generally) is none other than "governmentby intimidation." But it also points up the psychotic nature of the "national debate" being foisted upon us: namely, that (at least according to the elitists and their touts) Americans' only defense against "terrorism" is to acquiesce in the worst sort of "terrorism." If this is not the best argument for revitalizing "the Militia of the several States," immediately if not sooner, then what is?
Daily Bell: What is a nation? Are they necessary?
Edwin Vieira: These are typical of open-ended questions the complete answers to which would require volumes. Suffice it to say here that nations must have been sufficient, if not absolutely necessary, for some historical purposes of general significance, or they would never have arisen let alone assumed such importance throughout the world. Today, if they did not already exist, they should be created for the specific purpose of opposing globalism.
True, throughout history many nations have been guilty of all sorts of crimes and other wrongdoing. But because of the multiplicity of nations, various "alliances" and "balances of power" among them have tended to deter, defend against, or mitigate many of the worst potentials and consequences of nationalistic hubris, aggression, imperialism and kindred disorders. Under a globalist regime, conversely, such "alliances" and "balances of power" will, by hypothesis, be impossible. For that reason, a globalist regime will usher in the possibility − and, I should suspect from the plans and pronouncements of contemporary globalists themselves, the likelihood − of the most horrific tyranny from which mankind has ever suffered.
There being no other effective defensive measures that can be interposed against globalism in time to interfere with its proponents' schedule, nations and national sovereignty are necessary. That is especially true with respect to Americans, in particular. For our Declaration of Independence announced that Americans have "assume[d] among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them." The last time I looked, the Declaration of Independence had not been rescinded.
Daily Bell: Is it possible the Colonial period was merely a prelude to globalism? In other words, that nations had to be created before globalism could occur? Too paranoid?
Edwin Vieira: I should think such a conclusion would go far beyond paranoia. Do you mean to suggest that globalism is a consciously elaborated project, going back literally centuries, in which one intermediate stage has been the creation of independent nations for the very purpose of destroying those nations at some indeterminate time in the future? If so, who are this project's original architects? And how have they recruited followers true to the cause over the centuries? What is the evidence for such speculations? Are we to give credence and credit to (say) the musings of such as Francis Bacon, who proposed the establishment of "an universal republic" several hundred years ago?
To be sure, the contemporary globalist movement can attempt to take advantage of the existence of nations, which provides possibly ready-made building-blocks for the construction of some globalist edifice − as, for instance, by incorporation of individual nations into a multi-national organization such as the United Nations which can serve as a predecessor to the final globalist structure. This, however, is as likely to be historical happenstance − nations are available for such use, so why not use them − as it is to be the result of some long-range plan the origins of which are obscured in the mists of time.
Nations, moreover, are obviously two-edged swords in this duel for political power between themselves and the globalists. True enough, nations could conceivably be finagled into becoming stepping-stones to globalism, by coopting them in international organizations, then transmogrifying those organizations into supra-national organizations, then simply eliminating the nations as independent sovereignties, then wiping out international borders and their political, economic, and legal significance entirely − especially if traitorous political leaders could be coopted, bribed, blackmailed, or otherwise convinced or coerced to connive or cooperate with the globalist steering-committee. But the various nations' peoples, and even some of their political leaders, also might balk at being dragooned into a globalist regime that reduces them to pawns on the elitists' political chessboard; and they might then assert national sovereignty − and the legal, political, economic and especially military power that goes with it − in forcible opposition to globalism.
Daily Bell: The power elite uses false flags to promote global control. Is one of their goals gun control?
Edwin Vieira: Always. As Mao Tse-tung correctly observed. "[p]olitical power grows out of the barrel of a gun." The Second Amendment makes the same point but with a special political and ethical gloss: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In America, the guns are supposed to reside in We the People's hands, in order that "a free State" − not "a police state" − may be maintained. So, for Americans in particular to be brought under the globalists' control − a boot stamping on a human face forever, as Orwell described the situation in his novel 1984 − they must first be disarmed, as other peoples subjected to oppression throughout history have been disarmed.
"False flags" − in the sense of shocking events, sometimes manufactured, sometime perhaps spontaneous − have become the preferred vehicles today for stampeding the populace into "gun control" of one variety or another. It is almost as if the political actors were working off the same dog-eared B-movie script in scene after scene. Which, thankfully, is why these "false flags" are becoming increasingly less credible, and the American people increasingly less credulous.
Daily Bell: Was Barack Obama re-elected legitimately or was there a lot of voter fraud?
Edwin Vieira: Doubtlessly voter fraud was pervasive in the last election, as it has been in many others, to the disgrace of this country. More to the point, however, is whether Barack Obama was even constitutionally eligible to stand for election or re-election in the first place. Did his putative father's British citizenship (as a resident of Kenya) disqualify Obama as a matter of law, even if in fact he was born within the United States? Did he become an Indonesian citizen when he was relocated there as a child; and, if so, did he as an adult ever reassert his supposed American birth-citizenship when he returned to the United States? As an adult in the United States did he seek educational benefits on the basis that he was a foreign student?
Why are these and related questions not being asked, let alone answered, either in Congress or in the courts? How is it that you and I must submit to a comprehensive background check before we can purchase a single firearm, but this fellow, whose origins, peregrinations and other personal details are purposefully being sequestered from public scrutiny at very great expense in attorneys' fees, can have his finger on the proverbial "nuclear trigger" and thereby threaten the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and no one in public office seems to be concerned?
Daily Bell: What was your feeling regarding Ron Paul's campaign? Were you surprised at the way it ended?
Edwin Vieira: I was hardly surprised at the manner in which the Republican Party big-shots systematically stabbed Ron Paul in the back. I was disappointed, though, that after such shoddy treatment Dr. Paul did not bolt from the Republican Party and run for the Presidency on a "fusion ticket" composed of the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party and other splinter-parties that might have created the foundation for a true second party in this country, as well as consigned the Republican Party to the dustbin of history once and for all. Such a "fusion ticket" might not have won the 2012 election, just as the original Republican Party did not win the first Presidential election it contested in 1856. But, once formed, "the fusion ticket" could have become a formidable force in 2016 and thereafter. Now, the necessary work has to be begun all over again.
Daily Bell: Will there be a successful states' rights movement − or even secession?
Edwin Vieira: I believe that "secession" − the assertion by a State of a right to remove herself from the Constitution's federal system on her own recognizance − is unconstitutional. I have a long series of articles on this subject posted in my archive at Newswithviews.com. And even if such a form of "secession" were not unconstitutional, or some other arguably legal form of "secession" were tried, the exercise would be futile at the present time because no State is prepared to deal with the primary consequences of "secession." How, for example, could a State successfully "secede" economically if she remained tied to the Federal Reserve System's phony regime of paper currency and unlimited bank credit? Obviously, as a precondition to "secession" a State would have to adopt an alternative currency entirely independent of the Federal Reserve and the United States Treasury Department. Has that been done anywhere? No.
Moreover, how could a State expect to "secede" politically if rogue agents of the General Government could enter her territory at will and attempt to enforce that government's statutes, regulations and executive orders on her citizens? Obviously, as a precondition to "secession" a State would have to revitalize her Militia, in order to be able to interpose against such assaults on her own sovereignty and on her people's lives, liberties, and property. But has that been done anywhere? Again, no. So in the absence of these necessary preliminary steps (and many others, too), talk of "secession" is plainly little more than the expulsion of hot air.
The assertion of the States' special constitutional status within the federal system − what is often described as "States' rights" − is another matter, though. Many opportunities for asserting the States' special status now exist. The problem, of course, is that the General Government's courts are ready, willing and able to attempt to nullify these assertions of federalism by invoking an overly expansive misconstruction of the Constitution's "supremacy clause" (Article VI, Clause 2). So if the States are serious about protecting and promoting their rights and the rights of their people, at some point in the near future they will have to reject the notion that the General Government's courts, or any department of that government, or all of them acting in unison, are the final arbiters of what the Constitution means. Indeed, this should be obvious. The General Government is merely the agent of the people, not the people's master. The people are the principal. On what theory of agency is the principal required to accept the agent's unilateral, self-serving and possibly corrupt determination of what the agent's powers are, thereby effectively subordinating the principal to the agent? To be sure, this is the twisted formula usurpers and tyrants invariably employ in drawing all powers to themselves, at the expense of the people. But to contend that it is a principle, precept, or permissible interpretation of the Constitution is at best a nice piece of effrontery to which no American should give credence, if not a rotten piece of political treachery, which every American should condemn and oppose.
Daily Bell: You were a bit doubtful of the Internet's effect last time we spoke, saying it was full of misinformation. What's your take on that now?
Edwin Vieira: As far as I can tell, that particular problem has become worse. Today, the Internet is inundated not only with misinformation posted by the ignorant and the insouciant but also with carefully crafted disinformation posted by professional trolls and agents provocateurs. That does not mean that useful information is not to be found but only that one must use a very great deal of discernment in uncovering it, particularly if the subject is politically "controversial" (that is, runs against the grain of the elitists' party line). The great value of the Internet remains, however, that unlike books, which are costly and time-consuming to print and then may not be immediately accessible to the people who need to read them, the Internet allows for the almost instant posting and retrieval of information. So I remain cautiouslyoptimistic.
Daily Bell: What's going on with Afghanistan? It doesn't appear that the war is going well for the elites.
Edwin Vieira: Except, of course, with respect to the reintroduction of the cultivation of and trade in opiates, which seems to be a smashing success. As I pointed out earlier in this interview, however, the quagmire in Afghanistan does give the lie to the elitists' claim that rebellious peoples will always be helpless in the face of the modern technology, which contemporary armed forces can deploy against them.
Daily Bell: Any news on the martial law front as regards the US? Does Obama have it in mind? Would law enforcement cooperate?
Edwin Vieira: I doubt that Obama, personally, has anything in mind with respect to "martial law" (or any other subject you might mention). His handlers, however, doubtlessly are considering the invocation of some variety of "martial law" if the banking and financial systems collapse, with subsequent economic stringencies, social dislocations and civil unrest and disobedience spreading throughout America. And they are not reluctant to have their mouthpieces suggest in various fora the possibility or even likelihood of "martial law," doubtlessly in order to condition common Americans into acquiescing in its inevitability. A chapter in The Sword and Sovereignty deals in great detail with the question of "martial law" in all of its ramifications. The bottom line is that the type of "martial law" commonly presented as a political possibility in America is actually a constitutional impossibility, and would be a practical impossibility were "the Militia of the several States" revitalized.
Would "law enforcement" cooperate in the imposition of such unconstitutional "martial law"? Surely some would, simply to continue to receive their paychecks. And the extent of "police brutality" throughout this country, documented in often terrifying videos on the Internet, evidences the existence of all too many "law enforcement officers" who are ready, willing and able to oppress their countrymen with almost lunatic outbursts of violence that result in unpunished official homicides (or, as the vernacular has it, "death by cop"). "Martial law" would provide these psychopaths with the opportunity to vent their animalistic rage on a very wide scale. Here, too, as The Sword and Sovereignty explains, the solution to the problem would be revitalization of the Militia.
Daily Bell: What do you think of Chief Justice Roberts's decision regardingObamacare?
Edwin Vieira: Very little that is fit to print. It is an abomination, if I may be allowed a juxtaposition of letters in order to make a play on words. Roberts held that the so-called "individual mandate" in "Obamacare" − the supposed requirement for Americans to purchase health insurance which they do not want, or be penalized for their refusals − could not be sustained under the Constitution's Commerce Clause or its Necessary and Proper Clause. Fine. That means that no substantive constitutional power exists that can rationalize that provision in "Obamacare." But then he opined that, notwithstanding the absence of any such substantive power, "the individual mandate" can be enforced as a "tax." What is the result of this aberrant reasoning? Namely, that Congress may, through the imposition of a "tax," coerce Americans into behaving in any manner whatsoever, even though it admittedly enjoys no particular power to require such behavior. Furthermore, as we know, taxes are often enforced not only by the confiscation of money or other property but also by imprisonment. So the bottom line is that Congress can provide for the imprisonment of any and every American who refuses to obey any Congressional command to behave in a certain manner, even though Congress has no independent power whatsoever to require such behavior!
Obviously, this is far worse than the constitutionally crackpot notion that Congress can "regulate commerce" by coercing Americans to engage in "commerce" against their wills; for at least some forms of personal behavior do not constitute "commerce" (or even, to use the judiciary's gibberish, "affect commerce") by anyone's definition, and therefore could never be subject to such a ludicrous misconstruction of Congressional power. Roberts's "tax" theory, in contrast, embraces every conceivable form of behavior known to man, all of which can be compelled by the imposition of some "tax," and in the final analysis by imprisonment. Thus, appealing to just one clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1), Roberts has concocted a rationalization for a complete totalitarian state! Even Alexander Hamilton, the most consistent and candid centralizer among the Founding Fathers, would have repudiated this theory in no uncertain terms. Even Stalin, I suspect, would have been surprised (albeit pleasantly) to discover that the power to tax, by itself alone, could be so employed. If this is not a perfect illustration of the utter imbecility of "judicial supremacy" − the notion that decisions of the Supreme Court control the meaning of the Constitution − nothing could be.
Daily Bell: Is the central banking system beginning to fail? Will it self-destruct? Is a global currency going to be established in the near future? Will it feature a commodity like gold?
Edwin Vieira: Yes, the present central banking system is in the process of catastrophic failure. And this is a matter of self-destruction because the problem derives from the inherent unworkability of fiat currency and fractional reserves, not simply from the incompetence of the particular individuals appointed to manage the system from time to time. Which is why the Money Power intends to introduce a new currency in the near future, just as in America the Money Power supplanted State bank notes with National Bank Notes in the 1860s, folded the National Banking System into the Federal Reserve System in 1913, then reneged on redemption of Federal Reserve Notes in gold in 1933 (domestically) and 1971 (internationally).
The formula has always been the same: As the paper-money and bank-credit scam implodes at a lower level, give the scheme a new lease on life by translating it to a higher level. But, in each case, the translation has required the promise − albeit one made to be broken − that the new currency will somehow be more stable than the one it replaces. So in a world increasingly disenchanted with and suspicious of irredeemable paper currencies, expect the new global currency to have some sort of gold veneer applied to it, so as to inspire unwarranted confidence amongst those uneducated in the long-term twists and turns of monetary and banking fraud.
I doubt, however, that the new scheme will allow for actual redemption of the new paper currency in gold for individuals (as did the Federal Reserve System prior to 1933) or even for central banks (as did the Federal Reserve System between 1933 and 1971), for the very last thing the Money Power wants is for individuals to recognize that gold itself is money, that paper currency is not really money at all but only an oft-repudiated promise by the bankers to pay gold and that the only true monetary security for any individual demands that he should always enjoy the legal right and should always exercise the physical ability to hold his own gold in his own hands whenever he so desires. Nonetheless, the integration of gold into the new system will gull many proponents of sound money into supporting the scheme. "See," they will crow, "the bankers have been forced to return to a 'gold standard'. We have won!" And that approbation will enable the bankers to impose upon the entire world another century or so of monetary manipulations, redistributions of wealth, Ponzi pyramids and associated financial frauds and other chicanery. Every time I hear some purported champion of sound money call for returning the Federal Reserve System to a "gold standard," or for adopting a supra-national paper currency linked to a "gold standard," I wonder how it is that one hundred years of sorry experience with the Federal Reserve System has taught these people absolutely nothing.
Daily Bell: What can one do on an individual level to combat the elite matrix that has been built around is?
Edwin Vieira: For starters, never passively accept that people in "authority" actually have the "authority" they claim. Never take at face value anything people in "authority" may say. Always investigate the nature of their "authority," verify or falsify the purported bases for their "authority" and try to predict the likely untoward consequences of their exercises of "authority." Hold all of their assertions and applications of "authority" up against the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and carefully gauge whatever disparities become apparent − and there will be many of them, you can be sure.
Daily Bell: Finally, are you more or less worried because of Obama's re-election?
Edwin Vieira: I can supply no really satisfying answer to that question. On the one hand, that Obama received a majority of the votes could evidence a profound and dangerous split in the electorate between (i) the remnants of the population that still embrace semi-traditional American political values and (ii) an emergent, aggressive "social-democratic" bloc (that is, Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism with a temporary human face). On the other hand, that Obama was running against Romney tends to dilute that concern because an approximately fifty-fifty split between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee can be interpreted to signify no more than that the electorate was basically indifferent to the candidates, insufficiently aware of the issues, inclined to vote more in line with evanescent media "spin" than with permanent ideological convictions and above all, inured to the political status quo.
Yet one's hopes cannot be overly sanguine when one considers the likelihood (indeed, arguably the certainty) of a major national economic catastrophe breaking out within the next two or three years, and the already demonstrated propensity of Obama's handlers to cause him to employ extra-legal devices, from sweeping executive orders to "official assassinations," as a matter of course in "crisis" situations. Moreover, that Obama cannot seek re-election and therefore personally has nothing more to gain or lose politically, can only exacerbate the situation.
As the Chinese are wont to say, the next few years will be "interesting times," indeed.
Daily Bell: Congratulations on your new book. Thanks!
DAILY BELL AFTERTHOUGHTS
We've been doing this for 20 years or more and never have we run into this level of constitutional literacy – an understanding of REAL history married to growing anger as this remarkable litany of responses progresses.
Fortunately, we believe we have the kind of audience that shall appreciate what we'd characterize as a kind of tour de force.
Like someone launching a huge ship, we can do no more than hang back open-mouthed as Dr. Vierra takes to the sea with waves breaking timidly around him. This is a surprising spectacle. He makes the ramblings of supposed "constitutional scholars" such as Barack Obama look like the disconnected babble of infants.
Journalism is like yesterday's newspapers, useful only unto the day. It is forgotten by tomorrow, as we all shall be. But perhaps Dr. Vierra shall not be forgotten. He is REALLY bearing witness to America's decent into fascism and horror.
What is going on in the US will not end well – or not for many – for the perpetrators are motivated by humankind's worst characteristics: both greed and fear. They are greedy for the spoils of power but scared their actions shall be revealed.
And, of course, what we call the Internet Reformation is recording every aspect of their behavior.
Dr. Vierra and a few others like him are its scribes.
This bloody globalist episode will pass one day and a New Time will arrive. People will turn to Dr. Vierra among others to understand what went wrong and how and why.
We have listened to Dr. Vierra and thus have the melancholy privilege of knowing in advance.
Finally, a reputable web site has picked up on the one man in America who is worth listening to, and I for one have his new book and find it compelling beyond expression. I have not finished it, and have been waiting on someone with more credibility, and volume of readers to get the ball rolling. News With Views has done a remarkable job of supplying Vieira’s work, and now, no doubt, many more will follow suit. If the reader is sick of my bellyaching, and confused from having so many subjects thrown at them, this one PDF book will put you straight on all that is required to restore America to a land worth investing your future in. Dr. Vieira’s book is to America what the Bible is to Christian’s, and all people everywhere who love liberty.
Long live the
Militia of the several States
READ THE BOOK!
The Sword and Sovereignty is available at Amazon.com.
January 4th, 2013 by olddog
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and/or of nature’s God(s) entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
The federal government headquartered in Washington, DC, having promised to the several states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” hath reneged on this vow. Several religions are banned, (1) multiple channels of the press eradicated, (2) and protest rights have been trampled upon. (3)
That federal government, having promised, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” hath infringed on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. (4) In this manner, that federal government not only infringes on the regulations set forth by the second constitutional amendment, it secures that its militia feels little need to be regulated by the other amendments.
That federal government, having promised, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,” hath, unwarranted, infringed on the security of our papers. (5)
That federal government, having promised, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” hath compelled those suspected of crimes to bear witness against themselves (6) (7). It hath deprived the citizens of these several states of lives, liberty, and property without the due process of law. (8) (9) It hath taken private property for public use without just compensation. (10)
That federal government, having promised, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence,” hath denied the right to trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed in matters concerning income taxation. (11)
That federal government, having promised, “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law,” hath denied this due process. (12)
That federal government, having promised, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” hath imposed excessive fines (13) and cruel and unusual punishments. (14)
We, therefore, the representatives of [insert your state here], in general congress, assembled, appealing to the rule of natural law for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by authority of the good people of [insert your state here], solemnly publish and declare, that [insert your state here] of right ought to be a free and independent state; that it is absolved from all allegiance to the federal government in Washington, DC, and that all political connection between them and the federal government in Washington, DC, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as a free and independent state, it has the full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.
I pray that it does not need be said, this document needs to be forwarded to your State Representatives for them to complete, sign, and present to the Federal Government, as the Constitution is a contract with the States and not with the general population of America. The results will surely convince you that a revolution is our only choice, and State Secession the outcome.
December 12th, 2012 by olddog
by Staff Report
Catcher in the Rye dropped from US school curriculum … Schools in America are to drop classic books such as Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird and JD Salinger's Catcher in the Rye from their curriculum in favor of 'informational texts'. American literature classics are to be replaced by insulation manuals and plant inventories in US classrooms by 2014. A new school curriculum which will affect 46 out of 50 states will make it compulsory for at least 70 per cent of books studied to be non-fiction, in an effort to ready pupils for the workplace. – RT
Dominant Social Theme: Telling stories is so "last year."
Free-Market Analysis: Fahrenheit 451 and other books about censorship got it wrong. The powers-that-be don't want to ban books, they want to ban STORIES.
This is the inescapable conclusion for those of us who believe in directed history. Over the past decade of covering the world for various proprietary blogs, it's become clear to us that most human events are manipulated by a small, sociopathic elite that controls central banking around the world.
Whether such control existed in previous millennia we are not in a position to say. But it would be our perspective – avoiding a discussion of past civilizations – that the overt control of Money Power has been growing, not diminishing, of late.
Of course, perhaps these things go in cycles. In that case it is our misfortune to live at the very apex of one such cycle and our good fortune to see – thanks to the Internet Reformation – that it is ending.
How do we know it is ending? Because the top elites are increasingly turning to the bluntest weapons in their fight to maintain power. Economic depression, military conflict and authoritarian democracy are all modern tools of repression and control. The idea is to create world government and nothing is to stop that progression.
By far the most ubiquitous method of control and persuasion is what we call the dominant social theme. This is usually a scarcity-based meme disseminated by the power elite via its controlled think tanks, media and universities and then acted on via its globalist facilities and political methodologies.
Scarcity–based memes are STORIES aimed at the middle class and designed to frighten people into giving up wealth and power to specially designed internationalist institutions. Food, water and energy scarcity along with overpopulation and various military and terrorist "threats" are the favorite tools of the top elites. None of the disseminated tales are true.
But it doesn't matter whether they are true or not. The propagation and saturation of these stories – fables – are most important to the narrative that the elites want to establish.
The chief narrative is that of the "small world." The world is to be seen as inevitably becoming "one." It is an ineluctable ascension to be desired and nurtured. It is, of course, for this reason that all talk of previous high civilizations is squelched. Whether they existed or not is not debatable, as the debate will never be held.
There is only one civilization. It was launched 5,000 years ago and world government will be its crowning glory.
This is the story. This is the narrative. There cannot be any other. And it is not enough for the elites to control the CONVERSATION. Now, apparently, they want to control the story line, as well.
Of course, one could argue that with books like Catcher in the Rye they control the story line anyway. But apparently, informal control was not enough. Now the control is to be formalized. If stories are to be written, they will be written by approved authors. If they are to be read, it will be within a predetermined cordon sanitaire.
There are to be no other gods but the god of the single story – the ONE … the single, all-encompassing plotline leading inevitably towards a gaily decorated single world with one ruling, elite authority. After which, from what we can tell, genocide will begin in earnest. Here's more from the RT article:
Books such as JD Salinger's Catcher in the Rye and Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird will be replaced by "informational texts" approved by the Common Core State Standards.
Suggested non-fiction texts include Recommended Levels of Insulation by the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the Invasive Plant Inventory, by California's Invasive Plant Council.
The new educational standards have the backing of the influential National Governors' Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, and are being part-funded by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation …
Supporters of the directive argue that it will help pupils to develop the ability to write concisely and factually, which will be more useful in the workplace than a knowledge of Shakespeare.
Poor Bill Gates! A man who once dreamt of controlling his own US$100 billion fortune, he was attacked by the US government over a putative monopoly and then stripped of control of his resources and even his professional aspirations by a banking elite that will not tolerate any other monetary control but its own.
This is the reason its button man, Warren Buffett has been going from wealthy individual to wealthy individual like a honey bee, seeking to sip the sweet nectar of their vast good fortune by suggesting full scale donations to charities he controls. It is not an eleemosynary exercise but one of confiscation.
The top elite controls trillions but mere billionaires are not to be allowed. They must "give back" to the community. You see, in the brave new world of the Elite Narrative, a mere billionaire is nothing but the lowliest peon, someone to be efficiently reduced to penury. He or she is not to leave funds to family but instead to worthy charities and reputable causes.
This is what Bill Gates now confronts. After building one of the most successful companies in the world he now finds himself denuded of his fortune while his name is attached to the blackest kind of medical engineering via vaccinations and now – if this article is correct – the initiation of purposeful illiteracy.
It is ever thus these days. Cross the top elites and they will efficiently strip you of your resources and then blacken your name by association. They do this by manipulating the sociopolitical and economic narrative. This is why storytellers are in such demand and why the ability to tell a convincing story is a ticket to wealth, fame and power in the modern day.
It is why such tales are ever more strictly controlled, as well. Copyright and other legal engineering is brought to bear to ensure that the narratives produced and disseminated are the approved ones.
It is for this reason what we call the Internet Reformation has been such a setback to the power elite. The carefully crafted universe that has descended on the world like a gigantic bubble has been pricked. As it has collapsed, truth has leaked in.
We try to purvey some of that truth every day and so do others. We would even argue a critical mass has been reached and there is nothing much the elites can do to control the narrative anymore. They are trying, too, of course. But as happened with the Gutenberg press, once the truth emerges it tends to sweep the field.
It must be a waking nightmare for the top elites. Much of the progress of the past century has been undone. Memes have been exposed. Promotions have been capsized.
Terror and intimidation are going to have to be substituted for mind control and promotional suasion.
And, of course, censorship, too. The narratives of modern civilization are now seen as too powerful to be left in the hands of amateurs.
It's kind of pitiful, actually. It has no chance of working. Tale telling is as powerful a drive as sex or hunger. It cannot be controlled by regulation or a change in curriculum.
Conclusion: It is a testimony to their desperation and a further affirmation of the power of the Internet Reformation.
Let the reader beware! There will be no let up in media manipulation, and without the people participating in the internet reformation, the elite will use government to control what you can learn, and what they are doing to us. Get involved, and forward the Daily Bell and other news sources to your friends and family.
December 2nd, 2012 by olddog
"Since a politician never believes what he says, he is quite surprised to be taken at his word." – Charles De Gaulle
In my home country, the United States, we are watching the German and EU austerity demands destroy economies, social structures and entire nations all to protect the leading banking elites and their profits. In 2013 the false meme of austerity is also coming to the United States. Leading GOP politicians are now announcing plans to break their No Tax pledges just as we warned they would. After all, the word and honor of all but a very few senators and house members means nothing once election season ends.
Of course, common sense tells us that all governments need to spend and borrow less but they never will. After all, the long running recession/depression of the West means less tax revenue to governments because the taxable income of individual citizens is down dramatically.
The austerity meme is the false crisis solution being propagandized by the power elite in order to build public support for benefit cuts and wealth confiscation. This fake austerity solution sounds reasonable but it isn't because governments will continue to spend and borrow. They plan to make up the difference by cutting government services and programs and increasing taxes to draconian confiscatory levels.
Equal Opportunity For Once
While the top echelons of government bureaucrats just like the privileged big business corporate elites will be exempt except for minor personal tax increases, the burden will as always fall on the poor and middle classes.
The only good news is throughout the West many low- and middle-level government employees and bureaucrats will finally get a bitter taste of what they have been dishing out to those of us in the productive private sector for decades. There are few new jobs available in the private sector and private industry will seldom hire ex-government employees, for obvious reasons.
This means those on the government dole, whether working, on welfare programs or in unions, will do anything to keep their checks coming. Therefore, as part of the "necessary" austerity measures their generous healthcare and retirement plans can be cut, as well as salaries, as most of these wards of the state will still vote for the big government parties. They have no other alternatives. Thus, their core constituency status will remain while they now take their turn being screwed.
Simply watch what is happening to benefits, healthcare and retirement benefits in Greece, Italy and Spain and you'll see the future in the United States.
Many in the US will find themselves increasingly "means tested" out of their promised and guaranteed Social Security benefits and forced back into permanent life-long contributions.
Austerity is just another word for nothing left to lose to the government. It will end when your wealth, benefits and assets are gone. This false meme will be replaced with another once all of the available wealth, income and gold can be taken and your promised benefits cut to whatever degree possible short of generating violence and revolution.
Therefore, any supposed credibility in the success of politically enforced austerity is just another excuse to get more of your hard earned dollars. Like democracy, global warming and Keynesian economics, this is just another scam meme to con you out of personal wealth and liberties.
November 30th, 2012 by olddog
United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303
Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:
(Quote) "Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11… Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner's report that will lead to our demise.
It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 – Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and
Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.
The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers.
With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund.
Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part:
"The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States."
Gold and silver were such a powerful money during the founding of the united states of America, that the founding fathers declared that only gold or silver coins can be "money" in America. Since gold and silver coinage were heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions, they were stored inbanks and a claim check was issued as a money substitute. People traded their coupons as money, or "currency." Currency is not money, but a money substitute. Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in gold or silver money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises, and are not "money." A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the federal United States government, not "money?'
The federal United States government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been authorized by the Constitution for the united states of America to issue currency of any kind, but only lawful money, -gold and silver coin. It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money and paper money substitute. One cannot get rich by accumulating money
substitutes, one can only get deeper into debt. We the People no longer have any "money." Most Americans have not been paid any "money" for a very long time, perhaps not in their entire life. Now do you comprehend why you feel broke? Now, do you understand why you are "bankrupt," along with the rest of the country?
Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are unsigned checks written on a closed account. FRNs are an inflatable paper system designed to create debt through inflation (devaluation of currency). when ever there is an increase of the supply of a money substitute in the economy without a corresponding increase in the gold and silver backing, inflation occurs.
Inflation is an invisible form of taxation that irresponsible governments inflict on their citizens. The Federal Reserve Bank who controls the supply and movement of FRNs has everybody fooled. They have access to an unlimited supply of FRNs, paying only for the printing costs of what they need. FRNs are nothing more than promissory notes for U.S. Treasury securities
(T-Bills) – a promise to pay the debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.
There is a fundamental difference between "paying" and "discharging" a debt. To pay a debt, you must pay with value or substance (i.e. gold, silver, barter or a commodity). With FRNs, you can only discharge a debt. You cannot pay a debt with a debt currency system. You cannot service a debt with a currency that has no backing in value or substance. No contract in
Common law is valid unless it involves an exchange of "good & valuable consideration." Un-payable debt transfers power and control to the sovereign power structure that has no interest in money, law, equity or justice because they have so much wealth already.
Their lust is for power and control. Since the inception of central banking, they have controlled the fates of nations.
The Federal Reserve System is based on the Canon law and the principles of sovereignty protected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, the international bankers used a "Canon Law Trust" as their model, adding stock and naming it a "Joint Stock Trust." The U.S. Congress had passed a law making it illegal for any legal "person" to duplicate a "Joint Stock Trust" in 1873. The Federal Reserve Act was legislated post-facto (to 1870), although post-facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution. [1:9:3]
The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the federal United States government. The Federal Reserve is a maritime lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal United States operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender or underwriter bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific
performance in paying the interest, or premiums are the same.
Assets of the debtor can also be hypothecated (to pledge something as a security without taking possession of it.) as security by the lender or underwriter. The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever paying the principle.
Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) "Hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a
"beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.
In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit "money substitute" it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn't have any assets, they assigned the private property of their "economic slaves", the U.S. citizens as collateral against the un-payable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.
Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master
This has been going on for over eighty years without the "informed knowledge" of the American people, without a voice protesting loud enough. Now it's easy to grasp why America is fundamentally bankrupt.
Why don't more people own their properties outright?
Why are 90% of Americans mortgaged to the hilt and have little or no assets after all debts and liabilities have been paid?
Why does it feel like you are working harder and harder and getting less and less?
We are reaping what has been sown, and the results of our harvest is a painful bankruptcy, and a foreclosure on American property, precious liberties, and a way of life. Few of our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. have dared to tell the truth. The federal United States is bankrupt. Our children will inherit this un-payable debt, and the tyranny to enforce paying it.
America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit and its reputation for courage, vision and human rights. This is an undeclared economic war, bankruptcy, and economic slavery of the most corrupt order! Wake up America! Take back your Country."
Are you connecting the dots now, fellow patriots? Now you should understand why your house deed identifies you as a tenet. Now, you should understand why your so called elected representatives don’t give a flip what you think or say. Now you should understand who controls the elections and everything else in this land of slaves. Land of the free, and the home of the brave, MY ASS! I would bet there is not one in fifty thousand of you willing to get even. Support the three percent, as they are your only hope of regaining your freedom. Support the alternative media, we are your only source of truth. OR, you can kiss ass with the local tyrants in law enforcement. That is, until they are ordered to round you up and transport you to a detention center. SEE, http://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/800-concentration-camps-in-the-usa/
November 29th, 2012 by olddog
Incrementalism has proved depressingly effective as a tool for getting most people to quietly surrender their rights piecemeal. For gradually habituating them to an ever-diminishing circle of liberty. When the circle finally closes and their rights no longer exist at all, they hardly notice – because by that time, most of their rights have already been taken.
The final surrender is met with a shrug rather than a scream of outrage.
Think how Americans have been habituated to arbitrary search and seizure. Something like the TSA would simply not have been tolerated if it came out of the blue sky circa 1980. And no, the terrr attacks ofnineleven did not “change everything.” Getting people to accept “sobriety checkpoints” beginning around 1980 changed everything. Accept that – and something like Gate Rape is inevitable.
The same process works just as well when it comes to dismantling due process – and removing limits on what the government may not do to us. We didn’t get to legal strip searches for jaywalking or littering in one fell swoop. Nor rendition, torture as policy – and presidential kill lists. It is a matter of getting them – getting us – to tolerate “A” so that “B” will be accepted in turn.
This is how the citizens of the United States will be disarmed.
No sudden, mass ban or attempt at confiscation – because that would probably lead to open violence on a large scale and they – people like Dear Leader Obama and his Vyshinsky, AG Eric Holder, know this.
So, instead, they will first pass “reasonable” restrictions.
They will target not guns – just dangerous guns. So easy to demagogue anything with, say, a high-capacity magazine. Or which looks “military.” Think how the ground has already been ceded by mainstream “gun rights” groups like the NRA – which invariably talk about “sportsmen” and “hunting.” Who needs an AR-15 (or Sig 220) to hunt?
Open carry will be next. How many millions of Clovers would support a ban?
Next, they’ll lobby for a new law (or just issue a fatwa) that makes it much harder to get a CC permit. Such as at a judge’s discretion. And only if you have a “legitimate” purpose. Self-defense will not be considered a legitimate purpose.
But the big one – tied to Obamacare – will be the transformation of gun ownership into a public health issue.
The assault on smoking (and lately, soft drinks) should have alerted people – but as with “sobriety checkpoints,” most people readily supported the imposition of massive taxes on smokers because, after all, it is unhealthy to smoke. And of course, they didn’t smoke. So their rights were not on the table (foolish them). They – most people – never see that an attack on anyone’s rights is an attack on their rights.They are easily gulled by their moralistic fetishes – their disapproval of some concrete thing other people do which they don’t like. Not seeing that if the government can ban (or control or regulate) this than it certainly can ban, control or regulate that. The particulars don’t matter. The principle is everything.
Thus, smoking has been anathematized – and rendered exorbitantly expensive to partake of. Not an outright ban – not yet. But ever closer, every year.
And guns? It will be argued it is unhealthy to have a gun in the house. There will be talk of all the suicides and domestic violence (red herrings, these – but exceptionally effective tools of emotional manipulation).
Inevitably, the children will come into play.
It will be argued that anyone who possesses a gun must also possess insurance. Just as car owners are required to buy insurance; just as we are soon to be forced to buy health insurance. The same arguments will be used – because they’ve already been accepted. Thus, just as it is not illegal to have a car – so long as you buy insurance for it – it will not be illegal (yet) to own a gun. So long as you are “properly insured.”
That will be the first step.
The second step ought to be obvious. Legal gun ownership will rendered increasingly unaffordable.
As with collectivized car and health insurance, the insurance you will be forced to buy in order to keep a gun will be based on the costs imposed by the collective. It will not matter that you handle your gun safely. Because others have not, you will be made to pay.
People can afford to buy a $500 rifle or pistol. How many will be able to afford paying $500 a year to lawfully keep that rifle or pistol? How many will be able to afford keeping more than one rifle or pistol? Can you see where this is headed? Is it not brilliant in its subtlety?
Insurance costs have already proved their effectiveness at limiting the number of vehicles the average person can afford to keep. I’ve written before about the effect mandatory insurance has had on hobbyists. It used to be easy (and legal) to keep a “parts car” or “project car” because other than the costs of buying it and fixing it up, there were no other costs. So long as you didn’t put it on the road, you didn’t have to insure it. In numerous areas around the country, you must now keep valid tags – and insurance – on every single vehicle, even those kept in a garage or in your back yard. If not, the vehicle is subject to confiscation.
Exactly the same tactics will be deployed against firearms. And it will be impossible to fight – because the fight over the principle was lost long ago. How will anyone argue against mandatory gun insurance when they have already accepted mandatory car insurance and now mandatory health insurance?
In a very short time, the government will have effectively disarmed most people without ever having had to push for an outright ban. The small handful of people who still possess arms will only be able to possess a few types and be very limited in what they can (legally) do with them.
Dealing with them will easy. Because there will be so few.
And because they will have already conceded the point anyhow.
Throw it in the Woods?
November 28th, 2012 by olddog
By: Michael Ivanovitch
President, MSI Global
When, towards the end of World War II, the British economist John Maynard Keynes led his country’s delegation to negotiate in Bretton Woods the IMF’s charter (articles of agreement), he argued that the stability of the international monetary system and world economy required that surplus and deficit countries should be held equally responsible to balance their trade accounts.
Keynes feared that America, relatively unscathed after nearly five years of brutal conflict, would be flooding Europe with its exports, creating a shortage of dollars and obstructing the recovery of a starving and war-ravaged continent.
As it turned out, Keynes’s worries about the possibility that America would selfishly pursue mercantilist policies were misplaced. Washington quickly moved to help Europe get back on its feet with a $13 billion Marshall Plan (formally known as the European Recovery Program) and kept its markets open for European goods and services.
During the three years of the Marshall Plan, the economies of 17 European countries benefiting from its assistance grew between 15 percent and 20 percent, and, largely as a result of growing imports from Europe, the U.S. trade balance recorded its first postwar trade deficit of $2.3 billion (0.2 percent of GDP) in 1971.
The US Remains Engine of World Economy
The U.S. is still the largest buyer of goods and services produced around the world. In the first nine months of this year, America’s trade deficit with China, Japan and Germany accounted for nearly two-thirds of its $559 billion trade gap.
Keynes must be turning in his grave: Even with a feeble 2.3 percent GDP growth, America is the engine of world economy, while the second, third and fourth-largest world economies are living off their trade surpluses with the U.S. and the rest of the world.
Those wondering about what went wrong with the world economy should look no further. With their huge trade surpluses, ranging from $86 billion (Japan) to $217 billion (Germany), these three countries – one-fourth of world GDP – are making no net contribution to global economic growth. Worse: they are, in fact, a drag on world economy.
And there is no end to this. Almost by design, Japan and Germany are export-led economies. Neither country wants to abandon this growth strategy by generating more demand and output from their domestic spending. China apparently wants to get off the export bandwagon, but it will take some time to significantly change the composition of its economic growth.
Japan’s Structurally Weak Domestic Demand
In terms of Keynes’s argument for symmetry in trade adjustment obligations of deficit and surplus countries, Japan has been – and still is – the most difficult case. Over the last 10 years, for example, about one-half of Japan’s economic growth came from its trade surpluses. During that period, exports – 8 percent of GDP – grew at an average annual rate of 6 percent, while household consumption – 60 percent of GDP – edged up only 0.9 percent.
These numbers clearly show that it is almost impossible to grow on the basis of domestic demand if its largest component is in virtual stagnation. And Tokyo is not doing much to change that. Ever since the “bubble economy” burst in the early 1990s, a succession of Japanese governments chose to finance public sector investments – about 4 percent of GDP – by building the proverbial “bridges and highways to nowhere” instead of stimulating household consumption. No wonder the economy largely stagnated over the last 20 years with an average annual growth of less than 1 percent.
(Read More: What Will Save the Japanese Economy?)
Admittedly, it is difficult to stimulate private consumption in an economy with declining and rapidly aging population. A study, published last January by Japan's National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, forecasts that the country's population will shrink by one-third over the next 50 years as a result of an alarmingly low birthrate of 1.39 per woman of childbearing age. The study also shows that, at this point, it looks like a mission impossible to even slow down the population decline, because Japan would have to raise its birthrate to 2.1 per woman.
It is obvious that to stabilize the economy Japan would have to address, with a great sense of urgency, the problem of its worsening demography. Only a steadily rising trend in net family formation and birthrates would underpin private consumption and residential investment (63 percent of GDP) to gradually wean the economy off its excessive dependence on export sales.
But that, unfortunately, does not seem likely anytime soon. Barring more dangerous developments in Sino-Japanese relations, Japan’s sinking exports to China (down 14 percent in the year to September) will just be dumped somewhere else.
China’s Slowly Changing Growth Patterns
China will probably do better than Japan in changing the current structure of its economy. With an apparent determination to anchor economic growth around household consumption and investments, Beijing wants to minimize trade frictions with the U.S. and Europe as it becomes one of the key players in world commerce and finance.
These changes will take time, though. One has to remember that most of China’s manufacturing sector was set up to serve exports, based on low wages and a favorable tax treatment of joint ventures with foreign companies.
Still, some important changes are happening already. Rapidly escalating wage and non-wage labor costs are making China increasingly expensive as a manufacturing export base. Some European companies are even repatriating their manufacturing from China due to the shortage – and rapidly rising costs – of skilled labor.
China’s current growth patterns are also likely to change as the planned reduction of large income inequalities and a more extensive welfare system – two of China’s new leader’s top priorities – are likely to stimulate household consumption (a relatively small 35 percent of GDP) since families would have to save less for education, healthcare and retirement.
(Read More: Why China’s New Conservative Leaders Will Be Reformists)
And while these structural changes are taking hold, China’s trading partners could sell more of their products and services by insisting on better access to Chinese markets. Beijing will have to yield because its own companies are seeking to establish trading and manufacturing positions in various countries around the world.
Obama’s Wrong Number in Europe
While China’s large trade surpluses are a relatively recent problem, Germany’s systematically export-led economy has been a destabilizing factor for Europe and the rest of the world since the early 1970s.
(Read More: Why the US-China Trade Spat Is Just Political Posturing)
President Obama learned all about it when he was trying to rev up the U.S. economy during his election campaign. Apparently thinking that he solved former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s old riddle – “Who do I call if I want to call Europe” – Obama hit the wall when he rang up that number in Berlin to ask for less austerity and more economic stimulus to protect one-fifth of American exports to the E.U.
Not only did the German Chancellor Merkel refuse to oblige, but she also haughtily dismissed American entreaties by saying that “it made no sense to be adding new debt to old debt.” And all that from a lady Obama decorated with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest civilian honor, in June 2011.
But Obama was right to ask Germany to buy more from its trading partners, because Germany had plenty of room to stimulate the economy and stop living off the rest of the world. With a virtually balanced budget, record trade surpluses (6 percent of GDP), stable and low inflation, and borrowing costs of its public sector at a record-low 1.3 percent, Germany should temper its austerity mantra and buy more goods and services from some of the hard-pressed and heavily indebted euro zone countries.
Germany, of course, won’t do that. A low unemployment rate, and a relatively placid social scene, will again allow Germany to ride out the euro zone recession on the back of exports.
Don’t Hold Your Breath for the G20
What can be done about the fact that 25 percent of the world economy makes no net contribution to global economic growth and acts as a drag on the economies of its trading partners? The answer is: not much, if anything.
The irony is that the world has a forum to deal with such problems. The G20 – a group of the world’s 20 leading economies, representing 90 percent of global GDP and two-thirds of the world population – has been set up to promote economic growth through better coordination of economic policies. In other words, through policies designed to reduce destabilizing trade imbalances in the world economy.
The need to implement better coordination of macroeconomic policies was one of the key decisions of the G20 meeting in the Mexican resort of Los Cabos last June. And what happened?
The G20 sherpas (representatives of the heads of state and government) had nothing to say about that when they met in late October to monitor the implementation of their bosses’ decisions, because there were no coordinated policy measures to support the weakening world economy undermined by excessively unbalanced trade flows.
The sherpas nevertheless congratulated themselves on the “good work” and passed the baton to Russians who will take on the G20 presidency next January.
But expect no more to be done in the imperial splendor of Saint-Petersburg’s Constantin Palace in September 2013 than the repeat of empty talk – at great taxpayers’ expense – of previous meetings.
That will suit Beijing, Tokyo and Berlin just fine. As in the past, they know they can bet on one thing and win: Driven by an extraordinarily loose monetary policy, the U.S. economy will continue to be their main export market for the foreseeable future.
Michael Ivanovitch is president of MSI Global, a New York-based economic research company. He also served as a senior economist at the OECD in Paris, international economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and taught economics at Columbia
© 2012 CNBC.com
November 26th, 2012 by olddog
As Published at the Daily Bell
Capitalism means human individual freedom, especially in the sphere of striving to become prosperous. To defend the system is a challenge because of its ties to individualism, even ethical egoism. For centuries the ethical and moral guidelines people have been urged to live by have been some kind of communitarianism, such as altruism, utilitarianism, socialism, communism, etc. The individualism associated with capitalism had been thought as atomistic, seeing people as isolated from and indeed hostile toward one another.
Socialism is the political economic order that sees human beings as part of a larger entity, society, to which they are all beholden and which they must serve not of their own free will but as a matter of coerced duty.
The common sense appeal of communal systems as guiding human action comes from the historical need for collective conduct in the face of threats from groups that would overpower those who are vulnerable. (F. A. Hayekmakes this point well in his works.) Once it turned out that individuals who unite of their free will provide better protection to the group, individualism began to gain support. It is better suited to human life, with individuals being the source of solutions to most problems.
In time individualism surpassed other schools of ethical thought, especially once it became evident that voluntarily choosing to be part of a group − tribe, clan, nation − ensured greater loyalty than is possible via coercive unisons.
It also became evident that all the talk about the need to unite and sacrifice for the group has served largely to secure power for a few over the rest. Thus individualism became more civilized, less primitive. As public choice theory suggests, efforts to serve the public interest usually come to no more than serving the interest of influential, powerful people at the expense of others.
Protesting about having to serve the public or community is difficult because the alternative, of serving oneself, the individual, seems to be arbitrary and self-indulgent. But today a sophisticated ethical (as opposed to psychological) egoism, such as what we find in David L. Norton's Personal Destinies, A Philosophy of Ethical Individualism(Princeton UP, 1976), can overcome all known objections to individualism. (See, also, Tibor Machan's Classical Individualism [Routledge, 1998].) This, however, hasn't reached popular consciousness. Iinstead, most people are schizophrenic and preach collectivism while practicing individualism.
The individualism or egoism forged most fully by Norton, as well as by Ayn Rand in her book, The Virtue ofSelfishness, A New Concept of Egoism (1967), and others, stresses an Aristotelian idea of the human individual, not a Hobbesian one (which is found mostly in economics). An implication of this is that virtues such as generosity, kindness, gregariousness, etc., are entirely compatible with seeking to flourish as the human individual one is and self-interest is understood by reference to what is proper for a rational animal, not a beast driven to seek power over others.
This development, though not yet widely acknowledged, puts an end to the charge that egoism or individualism, as a central element of free market capitalism, must be a crass, anti-social viewpoint and must generate a social climate of mutual hostility and alienation.
When it comes to competition in the free market, for example, the model isn't the boxing ring, as widely assumed in caricatures of capitalism, but the marathon race! Thus, for instance, friendship would easily be seen as fully compatible with individualism, indeed, implicit in it. (See also the work of the philosopher Neera Badhwar for this.)
The dignity of the human individual is far more elevated than that of the human social animal as seen in socialism and other collectivist political regimes. The hallmark of this social-political outlook is that individuals come together voluntarily and aren't herded into communities by rulers or dictators.
Based on a lecture given at the Summer Leadership Academy, in Bercel, Hungary, Summer 2012. Tibor Machan is the R. C. Hoiles Professor of Business Ethics & Free Enterprise at the Argyros School of Business & Economics, Chapman University, Orange, CA 92866.
I admit that the words (Human Dignity) caught my eye while searching for today’s post because that is the most desired attribute of a society, as there is no real human dignity in any form of human relationships that impose generosity as a matter of responsibility. I either give freely, or not at all, and have no shame from judging who is worthy, and who is not. I have had too many men working for me in my life not to opine who earned their wage and who did not. I maintain that it is the prerogative of the employer to set the level of compensation, and the responsibility of the worker to accept or reject it. Once accepted, I expect the worker to get the job done right, as fast as possible without burning himself out, or risking injury. After all, IT’S MY MONEY! All other forms of communitarianism are for the dull and ignorant who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, and have no self-respect.
Whenever I have worked for another man, I gave him more than he paid me as a matter of principal. Those people who have never performed manual labor in their life always seem to be the first to impose responsibility on others. Have you ever known a politician with a callus on his hands?