Categories » ‘U.S. Military’
November 23rd, 2013 by olddog
By Paul Craig Roberts
Federal Reserve and Wall Street Assassinate US Dollar
Since 2006, the US dollar has experienced a one-quarter to one-third drop in value to the Chinese yuan, depending on the choice of base.
Now China is going to let the dollar decline further in value. China also says it is considering undermining the petrodollar by pricing oil futures on the Shanghai Futures Exchange in yuan. This on top of the growing avoidance of the dollar to settle trade imbalances means that the dollar’s role as reserve currency is coming to an end, which means the termination of the US as financial bully and financial imperialist. This blow to the dollar in addition to the blows delivered by jobs off shoring and the uncovered bets in the gambling casino created by financial deregulation means that the US economy as we knew it is coming to an end.
The US economy is already in shambles, with bond and stock markets propped up by massive and historically unprecedented Fed money printing pouring liquidity into financial asset prices. This month at the IMF annual conference, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers said that to achieve full employment in the US economy would require negative real interest rates. Negative real interest rates could only be achieved by eliminating cash, moving to digital money that can only be kept in banks, and penalizing people for saving.
The future is developing precisely as I have been predicting.
As the dollar enters its death throes, the lawless Federal Reserve and the Wall Street criminals will increase their shorting of gold in the paper futures market, thereby driving the remnants of the West’s gold into Asian hands.
PBOC Says No Longer in China’s Interest to Increase Reserves
By Bloomberg News – Nov 20, 2013
The People’s Bank of China said the country does not benefit any more from increases in its foreign-currency holdings, adding to signs policymakers will rein in dollar purchases that limit the yuan’s appreciation.
“It’s no longer in China’s favor to accumulate foreign-exchange reserves,” Yi Gang, a deputy governor at the central bank, said in a speech organized by China Economists 50 Forum at Tsinghua University yesterday. The monetary authority will “basically” end normal intervention in the currency market and broaden the yuan’s daily trading range, Governor Zhou Xiaochuan wrote in an article in a guidebook explaining reforms outlined last week following a Communist Party meeting.
When it finally goes down, over half of this country is going to panic and Martial Law will be in full Force. No electric, gas, travel, food, or anything else to sustain life. The preppers will shoot you as soon as you approach their house, if our hero soldiers have not already done it.
November 2nd, 2013 by olddog
By Mac Slavo
A couple of years ago we opined that the anti-gun establishment had found a loophole for the Second Amendment and that rather than targeting the banning of all firearms, they would instead turn their attention to ammunition.
The government’s most recent efforts to reduce open market availability through taxation, individual purchase restrictions and a massive stockpiling effort by the Department of Homeland Security has forced ammunition prices to nearly triple, while also dwindling supplies of many popular calibers.
But they’re not done yet.
In fact, they may have finally found a way to circumvent U.S.-based domestic production altogether.
The all-out attack on Americans’ gun rights is now being taken to the next level.
The goal is to regulate all forms of ammunition out of existence, and they’re starting with Doe Run, which is the last of America’s domestic lead processing and manufacturing facilities.
Now, the only ore-to-lead producer in America… the largest in the Western world… has been shut down by EPA regulation.
EPA’s regulatory uncertainty and an estimated $100 million to convert [to non-smelter manufacturing] caused the company to finally throw in the towel.
It’s not just ammunition that’s dissapearing. American industry… American jobs…. are being regulated out of existence as well.
Lead’s still going to be manufactured in China, but it’ll be done without any environmental oversight, it’ll be scarce, it’ll be expensive, and we’ll have fragile supply lines.
It’s party of multi-pronged attack on ammunition.
Drying up the market by hoarding billions of rounds
Shutting down the market with background checks, registration, and banning of online sales
Environmental regulation to ban the use and manufacture of lead
And after we can no longer manufacture ammunition domestically we have the UN Arms Trade Treaty to stop the importation of ammunition.
…If you look at the multiple ways they’re trying to remove all ammunition… not just certain guns they believe are dangerous… there’s no question that this is about all-out gun control.
Via David Knight of Infowars.com
Doe Run is scheduled to layoff its workforce and close its doors before the end of the year.
With no more lead being processed in America, we are now completely dependent on our largest creditor, China, to supply the necessary base metals for ammunition production.
This will have the immediate effect of further limiting supplies, while also increasing prices, and we can expect this soon after Doe Run’s closure this December.
Furthermore, in April of this year James Rawles of SurvivalBlog.com detailed new importation restrictions set forth in a Presidential Executive Action following the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, which bans the importation of military surplus items that include magazines, firearms accessories and, of course, foreign ammunition.
Couple this with the implementation of U.N. “authorized” trade restrictions set forth in the new UN Arms Trade Treaty, and you can see where this is headed.
It is not an over-exaggeration to suggest that ammunition supply lines will soon be cut, effectively making it nearly impossible to acquire.
Please Spread The Word And Share This Post
Just what the hell is the army and law enforcement going to do! Throw rocks at the enemy? If there was ever a black market opportunity bigger than this, I have never heard of it. Do you really believe those stupid scumbags in D.C. are going to stop people from acquiring ammo? We will find a source of ammo if we have to import it from another planet! Does it make sense for a government as aggressive as ours is to limit their supply of ammo to the goodwill of a potential enemy. This stupid decision of the idiots running this Nation is dumbfounding. What the hell would we do if we went to war with China. OBUMA, you would not make a pimple on a presidents ass!!!
September 18th, 2013 by olddog
By James Smith
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. – Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
Eisenhower’s warning to the American people over 50 years ago has been largely forgotten by most, but, like most warnings, is heeded too late. The Prophetess Cassandra, cursed by the gods, was ignored when she warned that Troy would soon be invaded.
Recently, documents reviewed in the Federal Business Online website revealed a troubling discovery relating to the incestuous relationship within the Federal Government.
It may have been perceived or even an open secret, but the Department of Defense has been with the Department of Homeland Security to provide them with massive amounts of fully automatic weapons. Weapons that have been banned from the general population for nearly 80 years.
In a solicitation for 370 Colt M4 weapons, 209 of which are fully automatic, the Customs Border Protection (CBP) agency, a part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), requested the following:
90 Colt M4-A1 (For duty)
109 Colt M4-A1 (For training)
160 Colt M4-LE (For Training)
The Colt M4-LE is strictly a semi-automatic weapon used by civilian law enforcement.
From the Colt website:
Throughout the world today, the Colt M4’s reliability, performance, and accuracy provide joint coalition forces with the confidence required to accomplish any mission. Designed specifically for lightweight mobility, speed of target acquisition, and potent firepower capability – the M4 delivers. The M4 can be comfortably carried, yet be instantly available to provide the level of firepower, dependability and accuracy of a 5.56mm rifle. Proven in military combat operations all over the world, it is in a class by itself as a first rate combat weapon system. The Colt M4 Carbine serves as the United States Armed Forces’ weapon of choice and the weapon of the21st century warfighter. The Colt M4 is the ONLY 5.56mm carbine in the world today that is manufactured to meet or exceed the stringent performance specifications (MILSPEC) required for acceptance and use by the U.S. Armed Forces. (emphasis added)
The emphasized portions help point out the problem. The DHS is not engaged in an active war, but rather seems to be stockpiling in advance for a war against the American public. The military hardware being provided to local police departments is a technique known as “Forward Placement”, or “Putting your stuff where you need it, just in case you need it”.
Go to the original site linked above for photos of the documents.
While a “less-than-lethal” grenade launcher seems to be an oxymoron, the Colt website describes the grenade launcher as:
The Colt M203 Grenade Launcher is a lightweight, single-shot, breech-loaded 40mm weapon specifically designed to be attached to the M4 Carbine and the M16A2 and A4 Rifles. It creates a versatile combination weapon system, capable of firing both 5.56mm rifle ammunition as well as the complete range of 40mm high explosive and special purpose ammunitions. A complete self-cocking firing mechanism, including barrel latch, trigger and positive safety lever is included in the receiver, which allows the M203 to be operated as a completely independent weapon even though attached to the Colt M4 Carbine or the Colt M16A4 Rifle. The M203 provides Colt M4 Carbines and Colt M16A2/A4 Rifles with breaching, defilade, and area engagement capabilities, making it an essential tool for every modern army. (emphasis added)
“Less-than-lethal” seems to mean that whomever is firing the grenade won’t be close enough to be hurt by the blast. Many fires, such as at the Branch Davidian compound, were set by using tear gas fired by a grenade launcher.
The questions that everyone should be asking are as follows:
1. Why does a civilian law enforcement agency (CBP) require even more fully automatic weapons?
2. When was the last time fully automatic weapons were required of CPB agents in the line of duty?
3. How long as the DOD been supplying Homeland Security with fully automatic weapons, or any other military-grade weapons?
4. Why aren’t the FBI, US Coast Guard, and US Federal Marshals used in lieu of DHS employees for conducting raids and interdictions?
5. What safeguards do the American People have to protect themselves from a power mad government being led by a mad man?
6. Who is authorizing these hardware purchases, and what are the REAL reasons to be buying hardware without a clear need being presented.
Despite these questions never being asked, are those of us asking these questions and demanding answers being treated like Cassandra? Absolutely!
Mocking, belittlement, and humiliation are the first tools in a tyrant’s toolbox to silence his opponents.
And then comes the military-grade hardware.
Beware the Military-Industrial complex. It may be at your door very soon.
Read more about government munitions purchases here:
This article first appeared at Prepper Podcast Radio Network.
Read other articles by James Smith HERE.
September 17th, 2013 by olddog
By Mr. Paul Craig Roberts
The goon thug psychopaths no longer only brutalize minorities–it is open season on all of us –the latest victim is a petite young white mother of two small children
Police Are More Dangerous To The Public Than Are Criminals
Paul Craig Roberts
The worse threat every American faces comes from his/her own government.
At the federal level the threat is a seventh war (Syria) in 12 years, leading on to the eighth and ninth (Iran and Lebanon) and then on to nuclear war with Russia and China.
The criminal psychopaths in Washington have squandered trillions of dollars on their wars, killing and dispossessing millions of Muslims while millions of American citizens have been dispossessed of their homes and careers. Now the entire social safety net is on the chopping bloc so that Washington can finance more wars.
At the state and local level every American faces brutal, armed psychopaths known as the police. The “law and order” conservatives and the “compassionate” liberals stand silent while police psychopaths brutalize children and grandmothers, murder double amputees in wheel chairs, break into the wrong homes, murder the family dogs, and terrify the occupants, pointing their automatic assault weapons in the faces of small children.
The American police perform no positive function. They pose a much larger threat to citizens than do the criminals who operate without a police badge. Americans would be safer if the police forces were abolished.
The police have been militarized and largely federalized by the Pentagon and the gestapo Homeland Security. The role of the federal government in equipping state and local police with military weapons, including tanks, and training in their use has essentially removed the police from state and local control. No matter how brutal any police officer, it is rare that any suffer more than a few months suspension, usually with full pay, while a report is concocted that clears them of any wrong doing.
In America today, police murder with impunity. All the psychopaths have to say is, “I thought his wallet was a gun,” or “we had to taser the unconscious guy we found lying on the ground, because he wouldn’t obey our commands to get up.”
There are innumerable cases of 240 pound cop psychopaths beating a 115 pound woman black and blue. Or handcuffing and carting off to jail 6 and 7 year old boys for having a dispute on the school playground.
Many Americans take solace in their erroneous belief that this only happens to minorities who they believe deserve it, but psychopaths use their unaccountable power against everyone. The American police are a brutal criminal gang free of civilian control.
Unaccountable power, which the police have, always attracts psychopaths. You are lucky if you only get bullies, but mainly police forces attract people who enjoy hurting people and tyrannizing them. To inflict harm on the public is why psychopaths join police forces.
Calling the police is a risky thing to do. Often it is the person who calls for help or some innocent person who ends up brutalized or murdered by the police. For example, on September 15 CNN reported a case of a young man who wrecked his car and went to a nearby house for help. The woman, made paranoid by the “war on crime,” imagined that she was in danger and called police. When the police arrived, the young man ran up to them, and the police shot him dead.http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/15/justice/north-carolina-police-shooting/
People who say the solution is better police training are unaware of how the police are trained. Police are trained to perceive the public as the enemy and to use maximum force. I have watched local police forces train. Two or three dozen officers will simultaneously empty their high-capacity magazines at the same target, a minimum of 300 bullets fired at one target. The purpose is to completely destroy whatever is on the receiving end of police fire.
US prosecutors seem to be the equal to police in terms of the psychopaths in their ranks. The United States, “the light unto the world,” not only has the highest percentage of its population in prison of every other country in the world, but also has the largest absolute number of people in prison. The US prison population is much larger in absolute numbers that the prison populations of China and India, countries with four times the US population.
Just try to find a prosecutor who gives a hoot about the innocence or guilt of the accused who is in his clutches. All the prosecutor cares about is his conviction rate. The higher his conviction rate, the greater his success even if every person convicted is innocent. The higher his conviction rate, the more likely he can run for public office.
Many prosecutors, such as Rudy Giuliani, target well known people so that they can gain name recognition via the names of their victims.
The American justice (sic) system serves the political ambitions of prosecutors and the murderous lusts of police psychopaths. It serves the profit motives of the privatized prisons who need high occupancy rates for their balance sheets.
But you can bet your life that the American justice (sic) system does not serve justice.
While writing this article, I googled “police brutality,” and google delivered 4,100,000 results. If a person googles “police brutality videos,” he will discover that there are more videos than could be watched in a lifetime. And these are only those acts of police brutality that are witnessed and caught on camera.
It would take thousands of pages just to compile the information available.
The facts seem to support the case that police in the US commit more crimes and acts of violence against the public than do the criminals who do not wear badges. According to the FBI crime Statistics http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/summaryin 2010 there were 1,246,248 violent crimes committed by people without police badges. Keep in mind that the definition of violent crime can be an expansive definition. For example, simply to push someone is considered assault. If two people come to blows in an argument, both have committed assault. However, even with this expansive definition of violent crimes, police assaults are both more numerous and more dangerous, as it is usually a half dozen overweight goon thugs beating and tasering one person.
Reports of police brutality are commonplace, but hardly anything is ever done about them. For example, on September 10, AlterNet reported that Houston, Texas, police routinely beat and murder local citizens. http://www.alternet.org/investigations/cops-are-beating-unarmed-suspect-nearly-every-day-houston?akid=10911.81835.yRJa7d&rd=1&src=newsletter894783&t=9&paging=off
The threat posed to the public by police psychopaths is growing rapidly. Last July 19 the Wall Street Journal reported: “Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment–from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers–American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield. The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the US scene: the warrior cop–armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.”
The Wall Street Journal, being an establishment newspaper, has to put it as nicely as possible. The bald fact is that today’s cop in body armor with assault weapons, grenades, and tanks is not there to make arrests of suspected criminals. He is there in anticipation of protests to beat down the public for exercising constitutional rights.
To suppress public protests is also the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security Police, a federal para-military police force that is a new development for the United States. No one in their right mind could possibly think that the vast militarized police have been created because of “the terrorist threat.” Terrorists are so rare that the FBI has to round up demented people and talk them into a plot so that the “terrorist threat” can be kept alive in the public’s mind.
The American public is too brainwashed to be able to defend itself. Consider the factthat cops seldom face any consequence when they murder citizens. We never hear cops called “citizen killer.” But if a citizen kills some overbearing cop bully, the media go ballistic: “Cop killer, cop killer.” The screaming doesn’t stop until the cop killer is executed.
As long as a brainwashed public continues to accept that cop lives are more precious than their own, citizens will continue to be brutalized and murdered by police psychopaths.
I can remember when the police were different. If there was a fight, the police broke it up. If it was a case of people coming to blows over a dispute, charges were not filed. If it was a clear case of assault, unless it was brutal or done with use of a weapon, the police usually left it up to the victim to file charges.
When I lived in England, the police walked their beats armed only with their billysticks.
When and why did it all go wrong? Among the collection of probable causes are the growth or urban populations, the onslaught of heavy immigration on formerly stable and predictable neighborhoods, the war on drugs, and management consultants called in to improve efficiency who focused police on quantitative results, such as the number of arrests, and away from such traditional goals as keeping the peace and investigating reported crimes.
Each step of the way accountability was removed in order to more easily apprehend criminals and drug dealers. The “war on terror” was another step, resulting in the militarization of the police.
The replacement of jury trials with plea bargains meant that police investigations ceased to be tested in court or even to support the plea, usually a fictitious crime reached by negotiation in order to obtain a guilty plea. Police learned that all prosecutors needed was a charge and that little depended on police investigations. Police work became sloppy. It was easier simply to pick up a suspect who had a record of having committed a similar crime.
As justice receded as the goal, the quality of people drawn into police work changed. Idealistic people found that their motivations were not compatible with the process, while bullies and psychopaths were attracted by largely unaccountable power.
Much of the blame can be attributed to “law and order” conservatives. Years ago when New York liberals began to observe the growing high-handed behavior of police, they called for civilian police review boards. Conservatives, such as National Review’s William F. Buckley, went berserk, claiming that any oversight over the police would hamstring the police and cause crime to explode.
The conservatives could see no threat in the police, only in an effort to hold police accountable. As far as I can tell, this is still the mindset.
What we observed in the police response to the Boston Marathon bombing suggests that the situation is irretrievable. One of the country’s largest cities and its suburbs–100 square miles–was tightly locked down with no one permitted to leave their homes, while 10,000 heavily armed police, essentially combat soldiers armed with tanks, forced their way into people’s homes, ordering them out at gunpoint. The excuse given for this unprecedented gestapo police action was a search for one wounded 19-year old kid.
That such a completely unnecessary and unconstitutional event could occur in Boston without the responsible officials being removed from office indicates that “the land of the free” no longer exists. The American population of the past, suspicious of government and jealous of its liberty, has been replaced by a brainwashed and fearful people, who are increasingly referred to as “the sheeple.”
Since the problem of police brutality has become so severe all across America, I decided to present you with two of America’s best authors on this subject. Please forward them both to your contacts, or send them the links to this, or the author’s sites. When it happens to you, you will believe America has turned the corner. Bullies and brutes are your protectors. Ask any of the older cops what they think of the young wanna-bee killers. PLEASE SEND THESE LINKS TO YOUR FRIENDS.http://anationbeguiled.com and http://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com
September 17th, 2013 by olddog
By John W. Whitehead
Here’s a recipe for disaster: Take a young man (or woman), raise him on a diet of violence, hype him up on the power of the gun in his holster and the superiority of his uniform, render him woefully ignorant of how to handle a situation without resorting to violence, train him well in military tactics but allow him to be illiterate about the Constitution, and never stress to him that he is to be a peacemaker and a peacekeeper, respectful of and subservient to the taxpayers, who are in fact his masters and employers.
Once you have fully indoctrinated this young man (or woman) on the idea that the police belong to a brotherhood of sorts, with its own honor code and rule of law, then place this person in situations where he will encounter individuals who knowingly or unknowingly challenge his authority, where he may, justifiably or not, feel threatened, and where he will have to decide between firing a weapon or, the more difficult option, adequately investigating a situation in order to better assess the danger and risk posed to himself and others, and then act on it by defusing the tension or de-escalating the violence.
I’m not talking about a situation so obviously fraught with risk that there is no other option but to shoot, although I am hard pressed to consider what that might be outside of the sensationalized Hollywood hostage crisis scenario. I’m talking about the run-of-the mill encounters between police and citizens that occur daily. In an age when police are increasingly militarized, weaponized and protected by the courts, these once-routine encounters are now inherently dangerous for any civilian unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I’m not the only one concerned, either. Indeed, I’ve been contacted by many older cops equally alarmed by the attitudes and behaviors of younger police today, the foot soldiers in the emerging police state. Yet as I point out in my new book, A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, this is what happens when you go from a representative democracy in which all members are subject to the rule of law to a hierarchical one in which there is one set of laws for the rulers and another, far more stringent set, for the ruled.
Hence, it is no longer unusual to hear about an incident in which police shoot unarmed individuals first and ask questions later. This is becoming all too common. For example, on September 14th alone, there were two separate police shootings of unarmed individuals, resulting in death and/or injury to innocent individuals—and those are just the shootings that happened to make national headlines.
The first shooting incident took place in Charlotte, N.C., when three police officers responded to a 911 “breaking and entering” call in which a homeowner reported that a man she didn’t know or recognize had been knocking at her door repeatedly. Upon arriving on scene, the police saw a man matching the caller’s description running towards them. One officer fired a stun gun, after which the second officer opened fire on the unarmed 24-year-old, who died on the scene. Only afterwards did police realize the dead man, a former football player, had been in a car accident and was likely approaching them for help.
Later that same day, in New York’s Times Square, police officers shot into a crowd of tourists, aiming for a 35-year-old man who had been reportedly weaving among cars and loosely gesturing with his hands in his pockets. The cops missed the man, who was unarmed, and shot a 54-year-old woman in the knee and another woman in the buttock. The man was eventually subdued with a Taser.
Just a few weeks earlier, in Florida, 60-year-old Roy Middleton was shot in the leg by police when he wandered out to his Lincoln Town car, which was parked in his mother’s driveway, in search of cigarettes in the wee hours of the morning. A neighbor, seeing Middleton, reported him to 911 as a possible robber. Police, after ordering the unarmed black man out of the car, began firing on Middleton, who likened the experience to a “firing squad. Bullets were flying everywhere.” The car was reportedly riddled with bullets and 17 shell casings were on scene. Defending their actions, the two police officers claim that Middleton, who had a metallic object in his hand, “made a lunging motion” out of the car causing them to “fear for their safety.” That metallic object was a key chain with a flashlight attached.
These are not isolated incidents. Law enforcement officials are increasingly responding to unsubstantiated fears for their safety and perceived challenges to their “authority” by drawing and using their weapons.
For example, Miami-Dade police slammed a 14-year-old boy to the ground, putting him in a chokehold and handcuffing him after he allegedly gave them “dehumanizing stares” and walked away from them, which the officers found unacceptable. According to Miami-Dade Police Detective Alvaro Zabaleta, “His body language was that he was stiffening up and pulling away… When you have somebody resistant to them and pulling away and somebody clenching their fists and flailing their arms, that’s a threat. Of course we have to neutralize the threat.”
Unfortunately, this mindset that any challenge to police authority is a threat that needs to be “neutralized” is a dangerous one that is part of a greater nationwide trend that sets law enforcement officers beyond the reach of the Fourth Amendment. Equally problematic is the trend in the courts that acquits officers involved in such shootings, letting them off with barely a slap to the wrists.
This begs the question: what exactly are we teaching these young officers in the police academy when the slightest thing, whether it be a hand in a pocket, a man running towards them, a flashlight on a keychain, or a dehumanizing stare can ignite a strong enough “fear for their safety” to justify doing whatever is deemed necessary to neutralize the threat, even if it means firing on an unarmed person?
The problem, notes Jerome Skolnick and former New York City police officer/Temple University criminal justice professor James Fyfe in their book Above the Law: Police and the Excessive Use of Force, is that
police work is often viewed by those in the force as an us-versus-them war rather than a chance for community-oriented engagement and problem solving. The authors also point to a lack of accountability as one of the reasons why police violence persists. They acknowledge that, yes, police officers are placed in dangerous situations that at times require immediate responses. But they maintain that that doesn’t excuse using more force than is needed to subdue someone, the lack of professional training that leads to such fear-based responses, or treating citizens as enemy combatants.
As Titania Kumeh reports in Mother Jones, this has been coming on for a long time. Remember back in 1999, when four plainclothes New York police officers shot and killed a 22-year-old unarmed immigrant who was standing in the doorway of his apartment? The cops thought the young man was reaching for his gun—it turned out to be his wallet—and fired 41 shots at him, landing 19 on his body. The cops were acquitted of all charges.
In 2003, an unarmed man, kneeling before four Las Vegas police officers, was shot with an assault rifle because one of the officers “feared” the unarmed man was feigning surrender and about to grab a gun. A jury ruled the shooting excusable.
In 2006, plainclothes police officers, again in New York, fired 50 shots into a car after it reportedly rammed into their unmarked van, killing the 23-year-old driver who had just left his bachelor party and wounding his two friends. Police claimed they had been following the men, suspecting one of them had a gun. Again, the cops were cleared of all charges.
In 2010, in California, police shot and killed a young man who had allegedly committed some sort of traffic violation while riding his bicycle. After an altercation in which the young man resisted police and fled to his mother’s house, police officers pursued him, kicked down his mother’s door and opened fire.
That same year, in Long Beach, California, police responded with heavy firepower to a perceived threat by a man holding a water hose. The 35-year-old man had reportedly been watering his neighbor’s lawn when police, interpreting his “grip” on the water hose to be consistent with that of someone discharging a firearm, opened fire. The father of two was pronounced dead at the scene.
Skip ahead to 2013 and you have the 16-year-old teenager who skipped school only to be shot by police after they mistook him for a fleeing burglar. Not to mention the July 26 shooting of an unarmed black man in Austin “who was pursued and shot in the back of the neck by Austin Police… after failing to properly identify himself and leaving the scene of an unrelated incident.” And don’t forget the 19-year-old Seattle woman who was accidentally shot in the leg by police after she refused to show her hands.
Make no mistake, whereas these shootings of unarmed individuals by what Slate terms “trigger happy” cops used to take place primarily in big cities, that militarized, urban warfare mindset among police has spread to small-town America. No longer is this just a problem for immigrants, or people of color, or lower income communities, or young people who look like hooligans, out for trouble. We’re all in this together, black and white, rich and poor, urban and suburban, guilty and innocent alike. We’re all viewed the same by the powers that be: as potential lawbreakers to be viewed with suspicion and treated like criminals.
Whether you’re talking about police shootings of unarmed individuals, NSA surveillance, drones taking to the skies domestically, SWAT team raids, or roadside strip searches, they’re all part of a totalitarian continuum, mile markers on this common road we’re traveling towards the police state. The sign before us reads “Danger Ahead.” What remains to be seen is whether we can put the brakes on and safely reverse direction before it’s too late to turn back.
Since the problem of police brutality has become so severe all across America, I decided to present you with two of America’s best authors on this subject. Please forward them both to your contacts, or send them the links to this, or the author’s sites. When it happens to you, you will believe America has turned the corner. Bullies and brutes are your protectors. Ask any of the older cops what they think of the young wanna-bee killers. Please send these links to your friends.
http://anationbeguiled.com and http://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com
September 14th, 2013 by olddog
by TheTotalCollapse.com on September 13, 2013
A truly grim Ministry of Defense (MoD) report circulating in the Kremlin today warns that President Putin has “pre-authorized” the newly established Mediterranean Fleet use of atomic weapons to be fired against United States Naval assests in the event that CIA-backed al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria launch a chemical attack against Israel.
Important to note about this MoD report is that Putin had warned the American public this past week about this pending attack on Israel through the publishing by the New York Times of his open letter to these peoples warning:
“No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.”
Equally important to note is that this is the second time Putin has appealed to the American people about their government’s support of brutal Islamic terrorists, the first time coming when in 1999 he warned, also through an open letter to the New York Times:
“I ask you to put aside for a moment the dramatic news reports from the Caucasus and imagine something more placid: ordinary New Yorkers or Washingtonians, asleep in their homes. Then, in a flash, hundreds perish in explosions at the Watergate, or at an apartment complex on Manhattan’s West Side. Thousands are injured, some horribly disfigured. Panic engulfs a neighborhood, then a nation.”
Less than two years later, on 11 September 2001, Putin’s warning came horrifyingly true when these “ordinary New Yorkers and Washingtonians” watched thousands of their fellow American citizens perish due to their regimes failure to listen to anyone other than their lying war mongers.
In fact, and just like in Syria today, the United States completely ignored Putin’s warning and supported the brutal Islamic Chechnya terrorists even granting one of their leaders, Ilyas Akhmadov, asylum and providing him a US-taxpayer supported income.
How the American people even allowed their regime to grant asylum to Akhmadov who was one of the masterminds of the worst terror attack in Russian history that left 334 people dead, 318 of them hostages, including 186 children, in the Beslan School Massacre is beyond understanding.
That is, however, until you understand this MoD report which lists in detail the lies being told to the American people by the Obama regime about Syria and who exactly these Obama regime war mongers are aiding and that are flying the black flag of Al Qaeda, slaughtering “heretics,” burning down churches, and eating the hearts and livers of Syrian government soldiers on YouTube.
Even worse, this MoD report continues, supporters of Obama’s war on Syria, US Secretary of State John Kerry and US Senator John McCain, went before the US Congress last week and testified that the Islamic terrorists in Syria were in the minority of rebels and citied the work of Dr. Elizabeth O’Bagy from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) as the basis for their facts.
However, this report says, both Kerry and McCain failed to tell US lawmakers, and the American people who they represent, that Dr. O’Bagy was, in fact, not a doctor, had been fired from her position at ISW because of her lying about her academic credentials, and even worse, that she was being paid by a Syrian rebel advocacy group standing to make millions should American attack Syria.
And in a complete understanding as to why a recent Gallup Poll found that virtually no one in America trusts their mainstream media organs, and that the fastest growing “newspaper” in America is The Guardian based in Manchester, England, was no major US news outlet that featured “Dr.” O’Bagy on their programmes bothering to tell their viewers the truth about her.
So today, and as the Mediterranean Fleet has now been expanded to 10 warships, this MoD report states, the Moskva guided-missile cruiser, that carries 16 surface-to-surface N-12 cruise missiles, each of which carries a 350-kiloton atomic warhead, is “more than a match” for the US and Western naval forces aligned against them.
As to why Putin would authorize such a strike, thus risking all-out war with the West, this report continues, lies in Russian military doctrine rooted in the mass failures of the Great Patriotic War (World War II) when the then Soviet Union failed to initially confront the Nazis because of Germany’s overwhelming military and technological advantages, but whose failure to confront led to war anyway.
And like the Nazi Germans of last century, Putin has warned the Americans today believe they are “exceptional” too, and about which he stated:
“…I would rather disagree with a case [Obama] made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”
September 13, 2013 © EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked back to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.
· 7 dead, scores injured in Taliban attack on US consulate – Herat, Pajhwok Afghan News
· Car bombs, firing hit U.S. consulate in Afghanistan, killing 5 and wounding 23, Xinhua
· Updated: Three Killed in Suicide Attack on US Consulate in Herat, TOLOnews
· Gunfight follows 2 suicide bombings at a U.S. Consulate in Afghanistan, CBS News
September 10th, 2013 by olddog
By David S. Cloud
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is preparing for a longer bombardment of Syria than it originally had planned, with a heavy barrage of missile strikes followed soon after by more attacks on targets that the opening salvos missed or failed to destroy, officials said.
The planning for intense attacks over a three-day period reflects the growing belief in the White House and the Pentagon that the United States needs more firepower to inflict even minimal damage on Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces, which have been widely dispersed over the last two weeks, the officials said.
Two U.S. officers said the White House asked for an expanded target list in recent days to include many more than the 50 or so targets on the initial list. As a result, Pentagon planners are weighing whether to use Air Force bombers, in addition to five warships now on patrol in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, to launch cruise missiles and air-to-surface missiles from hundreds of miles offshore, well out of range of Syrian air defenses.
Syria is also within range of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Red Sea, which includes one cruiser and three destroyers, all capable of firing cruise missiles.
"There will be several volleys and an assessment after each volley, but all within 72 hours and a clear indication when we are done," said one officer familiar with the planning.
The officers requested anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the campaign.
The stepped-up military planning comes as President Obama and his aides prepared to press their own offensive to seek public support, as well as congressional votes for authorization to use military force to punish Assad's government for alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians last month.
Obama plans to blanket the nation's airwaves in coming days to make his case to a skeptical public. Aides say he will tape interviews Monday with the anchors of CBS, NBC and ABC, the three major broadcast networks, as well as with PBS, CNN and Fox News. He also will address the nation from the Oval Office on Tuesday, the night before the full Senate is expected to vote.
Obama, who has declined to say whether he would order an attack if Congress votes against it, gave a preview of his argument in his weekly radio address Saturday.
"Failing to respond to this outrageous attack would increase the risk that chemical weapons could be used again, that they would fall into the hands of terrorists who might use them against us, and it would send a horrible signal to other nations that there would be no consequences for their use of these weapons," he said.
The administration ran into a new diplomatic roadblock Saturday at the European Union.
Foreign ministers of the EU's 28 member nations, meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania, said that "the international community cannot remain idle" after reports that poison gas was used Aug. 21 against neighborhoods near Damascus held by rebels trying to topple Assad.
But despite the presence of U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry, the EU declined to back a military strike without approval of such intervention by the United Nations. American officials say they see almost no chance of winning a resolution for use of force in the U.N. Security Council because Russia, a permanent member with veto power, is Assad's strongest international backer.
The EU ministers noted that U.N. chemical weapons inspectors were expected to report on their findings in Syria. They also welcomed a decision by French President Francois Hollande, a vocal advocate of a military strike, to wait for the inspectors' report before taking further action.
Obama still favors a limited attack that would not involve sending large numbers of warplanes over Syria to drop bombs, officials said.
But some military officers are doubtful that even a longer air campaign, using cruise missiles fired from offshore, will hurt Assad enough to degrade his forces and to deter future use of chemical weapons. One officer described the planned operation as little more than a multi-day "show of force," not a game-changer in Syria's bitter civil war.
The planned U.S. attack "will not strategically impact the current situation in the war, which the Syrians have well in hand, though fighting could go on for another two years," said another U.S. officer familiar with the latest intelligence estimates.
The Obama administration hopes that by denying Assad the option of resorting to chemical weapons and by providing some additional weapons and training to rebel fighters, it will boost the now remote chances of negotiations that might lead to Assad's exit.
The administration has struggled over the last week with the competing demands of hitting Syria hard enough to undermine Assad's resolve but not hard enough to undermine support by members of Congress who are leery of being drawn into another Middle East war. A smaller contingent has urged Obama to provide more muscular support for the rebels seeking to oust Assad.
Facing such cross-currents, administration officials and top Pentagon officers have veered between describing the planned attack as a limited operation that will not significantly tilt the balance of power in Syria and a punishing attack that will degrade the Syrian military's equipment and forces capable of delivering chemical weapons and deter Assad from using them.
The current planning tries to thread the needle. After the initial round of strikes, the Pentagon will assess the damage inflicted on Syrian forces using satellite imagery and other surveillance systems. The U.S. military then can either hit targets that weren't destroyed or choose new ones to ensure that Assad suffers significant losses, current and former military officers said.
"It's got to lead to something or we're going to be back in the same situation a year from now," said Mark Kimmitt, a retired Army brigadier general and former top Middle East planner who served as a Pentagon and State Department official during the George W. Bush administration. "So we've got to have a larger target set."
Pentagon planners also are offering options to hit Assad again if he or his regional proxies retaliate against the United States or its allies, the two officers said.
Administration officials have signaled that they intend to move ahead with their plans to provide arms to some Syrian rebel factions, a demand by Sen. John McCain of Arizona and other Republicans who have called for aiding the rebels in return for their supporting any resolution to authorize force.
In closed-door briefings with lawmakers last week, the administration said Assad's conventional forces were concentrated around Damascus, the capital, and in the north of Syria. But many installations and pieces of equipment, including rocket launchers, tanks and other hardware, have been moved in the last two weeks to avoid as much as possible the expected U.S. attack.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged during two days of congressional testimony the possibility of follow-up strikes. He said the Syrian military was moving forces, making more difficult the task of striking units and equipment capable of delivering chemical agents.
"At this point our intelligence is keeping up with that movement," Dempsey said. He also noted reports that prisoners and other noncombatants had been moved to potential military targets where the U.S. might strike.
Times staff writer Henry Chu in London contributed to this report.
Obviously, I’m not writing about you few who are reading this, so don’t take offense at the following denigration of our fellow citizens. I have to express my rage to keep from being a total misanthropic anti-social curmudgeon. I keep thinking that somehow all of these gifted authors I present to the public will convince them that what we want and always thought our country is has never been realized.
Human nature prevents most people from recognizing the evil around us, and most have become so brain washed from modern media that they are incapable of believing the truth when directly confronted by it. This proves that self preservation can be diluted by desire, and the majority of our citizens desires to feel good about everything in life, so they can feel happy and have a feeling of self worth. Contrary to what they desire, human nature is depraved from birth, and the evidence is so overwhelming they can not face it. I admit it is difficult to stare reality in the face, but if we do not confront it, then we must admit to living a lie.
So let me ask you readers, what do you think it would take for all this available knowledge to penetrate their closed minds and enrage them at the atrocities being committed world wide by our own government?
How can intelligent people keep ignoring something as devastating as a tornado bearing down on them? How can they be so G.D. stupid? Not being able to recognize the destruction headed our way, is akin to standing between the rails and watching a train approach. America, you better wake the hell up! Together we can build a Nation to be really proud of, and all we need to get started is the courage to eliminate the current tyrants.
September 6th, 2013 by olddog
By Melissa Melton
Can you love your country without loving your government?
The Star Spangled Banner, America’s national anthem, refers to our country as, “the land of the free and the home of the brave”. Both claims were called into question a long time ago.
The anniversary of September 11 will soon be upon us again, and as a nation, we find ourselves embroiled in continuous turmoil, ramping up the elusive War on Terror that sprang from the events that shook the country that day back in 2001. In the years since, Americans have stood by and witnessed a continual erosion of their freedoms — from the Patriot Act’s attack on our Fourth Amendment, to the militarization of our police in an ever expanding police state, to the nationwide expansion of so-called ‘free-speech zones’ under George W. Bush, to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which can disappear and indefinitely detain American citizens suspected of terrorism without charge or public trial, to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) massive expansion that includes unseen no-fly lists and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) irradiating and molesting people and their children at airports, to the revelations that the National Security Administration (NSA) is collecting data on every single American citizen — and all in the supposed name of our safety.
Our government has gone so far as to deem 100 miles inland from any U.S. border to be a Constitution-free zone, with dozens of internal DHS checkpoints dotting the scenery. Papers, please?
Founding father Benjamin Franklin warned us about trading our freedom for the pretense of security. We did not listen.
As September 11th approaches once again a dozen years later, where do we as Americans find ourselves now?
We’re on the brink of potential World War III, with a Nobel Peace Prize winning president waiting until the week of September 9th to have Congress debate whether or not we should preemptively attack another sovereign nation in the Middle East on what can only be considered dubious evidence at best (and nonexistent evidence at worst). Even three-time presidential advisor Pat Buchanan has gone on record to say it looks like the Assad regime’s suspected chemical weapons attack, what Obama referred to as his ‘red line’ on Syrian intervention, reeks of a false flag operation.
According to a recent Drudge Report poll, a whopping 91.5% of 685,280 people at the time of writing this article say NO to giving Obama the authority to conduct military operations (read: dropping bombs) in Syria — not that this has mattered with regard to any of the other military operations Obama already conducts in the Middle East, including the expansion of drone strikes throughout the region well beyond those of his predecessor Bush Jr. or the boots he put on the ground in Libya in 2011. Evidence to the contrary aside, Obama has already made it clear that he plans to strike Syria.
The whole situation reeks of the WMD lie (or the 935 lies) that got us into the Iraq war after 9/11 and everybody knows it. In this week’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey couldn’t even give Senator Bob Corker (R—Tenn.) a valid answer when asked what the U.S. is seeking in Syria; he simply responded, “I can’t answer that, what we’re seeking.”
Where is the logic in “Syria bombed Syria so we must also bomb Syria?“
Obviously this logically bankrupt plan has nothing to do with the safety of Syrians; on August 31, the president would not have said, “Our military has positioned assets in the region. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now. And I’m prepared to give that order.”
If this were about protecting Syrians from more chemical weapons attacks, Obama would have declared an emergency session with Congress to discuss taking action right away instead of waiting another nine days that could give ample time for more weapons attacks to be carried out. Obviously this new proxy ploy for military action is about empire building and resource grabbing, and amounts to the same strategy that was used in Libya (which now lies in chaos and ruin), Egypt (which continues to erupt in violent chaos), Afghanistan (mired in continual chaos as we continue our drone strike campaign there) and Iraq (falling into total chaos) just to name a few. So much for our brand of democracy. The Drudge Report poll reflects that fact that the vast majority of Americans are wise to this game and are opposed to it.
In the meantime, Team America World Police continues to meddle in Syrian affairs on other fronts to effect the regime change it is so desperate for; writing from Syria, Franklin Lamb discusses how U.S.-led economic sanctions are skyrocketing the price of basic food staples in an effort to turn Syrians against Assad:
“Meanwhile, the ever-rising cost of living for Syria’s population, due in large measure to the US-led economic sanctions, continues to devastate many families here. Those sanctions are designed by the US Treasury Department’s Office of Financial Assets Control (OFAC), and they intentionally target Syria’s civilian population in an effort to get the population to break with its government, thereby facilitating the US goal of regime change in Syria and Iran…
Before the onset of the conflict now raging in Syria, the price of eggs was 125 lira (about 25 cents) for 24 in a carton. Prior to the most recent crisis, the price was 500 lira (one us dollar) for two dozen eggs, and this morning in Damascus it is 700 lira.”
How much more proof do we need that our government isn’t out for peace here? This writer sincerely hopes the people of Syria realize that what our government is doing to them does not represent the people of America.
Home of the Enslaved
If Orwellian free speech zones, a $2 billion NSA spy hub in the desert, and bombing countries because they bomb themselves are not bad enough, now the U.S. government is about to arm the TSA. These wannabe agents only get two weeks of training as it is; now they are going to be given weapons? Really?? Are they going to get an extra week of training with them?
Americans already live under a screaming cacophony of alphabet agencies that are armed to the teeth and ready to eat out our substance. As of this time last year, there were 73; even the U.S. Department of Education is armed.
Slowly Americans have grown accustomed to watching their three-year-olds and grandmothers get their private parts fondled at airports and other transportation hubs all across this nation just so we can have the luxury of travel. We are all guilty until proven innocent when we fly. Don’t like it? Well, you can join the so-called “Trusted Traveler” program for the cost of feeding a little of your biometric data into a government database (“Papers please” doesn’t even begin to cover it). The TSA has moved well beyond airports to train stations, buses and major sporting events. TSA VIPR teams are free to roam the nation’s roadways. Perhaps it was even fitting that TSA felt people up and inspected their bags just so they could attend President Obama’s 2nd inauguration.
Don’t forget, the TSA has yet to catch an actual terrorist. Kinda makes it seem like there really aren’t that many terrorists at our airports if twelve years go by without a single one being caught there.
Obviously all of this security theater has done little to actually keep us safe in reality, as witnessed at April’s Boston Marathon bombing where Homeland Security just so happened to be at the finish line running a drill at the time of the attack and yet they still were not able to stop it or keep anyone safe from it.
Is it unreasonable or simply a rhetorical joke to ask whether or not this TSA expansion will ever end? Where will they show up next, shopping malls? Grocery stores? Our front porches?
The argument that if you are not doing anything wrong, then it’s okay to have your privacy brazenly violated over and over again will only hold water until this breach of privacy invades your personal comfort zone… everyone has a limit.
Will It Ever End?
The War on Terror is nebulous at best. Ultimately, it is not ever meant to end. The goal is to keep us in a permanent war economy, something military leaders and industrialists have been openly advocating since World War II. As author Brian Easlea noted, “The survival of capitalism in the United States demanded increased arms expenditure and that in turn necessitated the manufacture of a major enemy”. Guess the cold war was no longer doing it for them.
Case in point; in the hours following the announcement that Obama was considering military action in Syria last week, stocks at leading military defense contractors like Lockheed Martin shot through the roof. Raytheon stock hit an all-time high. The military industrial complex writing is all over the profitable Syrian wall.
While many believe we are on the brink of another world war, too many Americans appear complicit to sit on their couches and tune out in front of their television sets, favoring helplessness and apathy to speaking up for themselves and what’s right; while TV ‘programming’ technology advances before their eyes, the real world outside the box has gotten infinitely worse. At a recent protest against Syria intervention in Austin, Texas — a city that is home to a population of well over a million people, metro area included — only a handful of people bothered to show up. Where was everybody? Another football game? The mall?
It is time to realize the War on Terror is here to stay. Everyone has lost something to it; this military industrial complex machine and its corporatist lies have robbed the whole world and will continue to rape, pillage and plunder. There are no winners here, not even the profiteers who fill their pockets with blood-drenched Federal Reserve notes. No, there are no winners; only vast degrees of perpetual losing.
Another 9/11 anniversary will pass over a world that has lost enough to endless war. Get off your backside and understand that what you are giving up will never be regained. FREEDOM IS NOT FREE!!!!!!!
Melissa Melton is a co-founder of TruthstreamMedia.com. She is an experienced researcher, graphic artist and investigative journalist with a passion for liberty and a dedication to truth. Her aim is to expose the New World Order for what it is — a prison for the human soul from which we must break free.
August 9th, 2013 by olddog
By: Lawrence Sellin PhD
Not long after I left Afghanistan in September 2010, a young Lieutenant and a graduate of the US Military Academy at West Point wrote to me concerned that the Army has yet to grasp all of the elements of leadership needed for the challenges of the 21st century. She wrote:
“I think that there are serious problems with the culture of Army leadership: close-mindedness, careerism, an aversion to innovation or creativity born of the fallacy that everything can fit into a step-by-step procedure, and a task-oriented mindset that creates an atmosphere of anti-intellectualism…and not only those who can think, but those who possess the moral courage to stand up for the hard truths that their bosses are unwilling to accept. I think this is going to be especially important as we transition away from Iraq and Afghanistan and attempt to prepare for unknown future conflicts.”
It has always seemed odd to me that the US military spends billions of dollars on service academies, war colleges, graduate programs and other forms of education in order to train people to think, but then places them inside a bureaucracy that prevents them from doing so.
The step-by-step procedures and task orientation methods like the
Military Decision Making Process can create a mindless group mentality that inhibits discussion and stifles innovation. Although intelligent people may be embedded within such a system, all can be dragged downstream by the same aimless bureaucratic current.
The systemic misuse of PowerPoint as an intellectual crutch and the
Pavlovian briefing culture are now endemic in the military bureaucracy and function as substitutes for honest thinking and logical analysis. Both provide little, if any, authentic situational awareness, but offer the illusion of understanding and progress.
During my 2010 tenure at ISAF Joint Command (IJC) in Afghanistan, the twice daily Commanders Update Assessments were not much more than the recitation of new numbers on old slides to which little attention was paid by the audience. Most of the comments made by the senior officers were about the delivery rather than the meaning of the data or information presented.
Bureaucracies are both self-perpetuating and self-absorbed. They change course with the agility of an oil tanker and can crush smaller vessels in their path. Although oppressive and inefficient in peacetime, bureaucracies in a war setting can be hazardous for the common soldiers who are providing the sweat and shedding the blood.
IJC is now undergoing a transition from a version 2.1 to a version 3.0 structure. This will actually increase the size of the bureaucracy at a time when the opposite is needed.
Many of the military organizations and processes already functioning in Afghanistan are complicated and convoluted. There are numerous stove-piped and redundant programs operating in parallel, which provide little more than a collection of simultaneous arguments. The information being generated and shared is far greater than any organization can absorb, let alone analyze and understand. It confuses the volume of information with the quality of information. Such organizations ooze inefficiency and limit effectiveness.
In a situation where a selective application of counterinsurgency doctrine can easily balloon into nation building, adding bodies becomes a solution to every problem and there is a temptation to simply do more of everything rather than executing a few critical tasks effectively.
There can be, quite literally, “too much going on.” With so many people doing so much with so little organizational comprehension, motion becomes the equivalent of progress and a smooth process can be mistaken for an effective process. More information is not necessarily better information and knowledge is no substitute for wisdom.
Last autumn the US government announced that after eight years and $27 billion, the results of the Afghan Army and Police training program were so bad that it was declared a failure. If the effectiveness of the training was ever questioned internally, it had no obvious effect.
It was a program on automatic pilot, where everyone was being reassured that everything was going according to plan and “progress was being made.” Despite the fact that symptoms of failure were already appearing in the press years earlier, no one in the chain of command spoke up and hence, no one should be surprised. The pressure to conform is enormous.
One wonders how much American, Coalition, and Afghan blood was shed while the program was heading toward failure and how much more will be shed before the Afghan security forces are ready to defend their country.
According to a recent report of the Special Inspector General for
Afghanistan Reconstruction, more than eight years into the war, the
U.S. government has spent billions of dollars on the “build” component of the “clear, hold, and build” counterinsurgency strategy, but no one knows what that money has bought and there remains no clear way to track the spending.
The ugly truth is that often mistakes will only be detected, if ever, long after the senior officers responsible for the fiascos have been promoted and have moved on. There is little incentive for doing better as long as the money keeps flowing, fresh troops keep arriving, and there is little demand for genuine accountability.
Many reach high rank in the military through a combination of political acumen, a finely-tuned sense of risk aversion, and a laissez-faire attitude toward demonstrable progress, where the appearance, rather than the substance of success, is a satisfactory outcome. The longer you are in a system, the more the bureaucracy can shape your thinking and behavior. You become a stakeholder both in terms of maintaining the status quo and protecting your own career aspirations.
As one moves up the bureaucratic ladder, the tendency to give and accept happy talk increases. Negative views can only be expressed as whispers in private conversations. Public criticism is suicide and, contrary to popular belief, changing the system from within is at best serendipity or at worst urban myth. In a system highly resistant to change, innovation can be a risky proposition.
There are quiet and unpublicized acts of courage in the ranks, which sadly, often lead to frustration, admonition, and early departure. A cynic might conclude that many of the best in the military are weeded out when they are ultimately confronted by a definitive choice between principle and politics, between innovation and playing it safe, between embracing command responsibility or finding scapegoats among subordinates when operations fail and soldiers die.
The time is long overdue to take a serious, comprehensive look at the manner in which wars like those in Afghanistan and Iraq are conducted. No program is sacred. Only the lives of our soldiers are.
It is never the wrong time to do the right thing.
In the end, it is less about absolute troop levels than how an agreed upon strategy is being executed. More precisely, is there a realistic probability that the expected results will fulfill that strategy within a reasonable time frame?
That includes the manner in which counterinsurgency theory is applied.
They don’t call it the “long war” for nothing. In the context of a protracted conflict, soldiers’ lives and scarce resources should not be used merely as experimental materials to confirm a hypothesis.
Counterinsurgency is a strategy based on control, which is complicated, difficult and troop intensive. Like insurgency, counterterrorism is based on disruption and can provide an appropriate transition in support of a prudent withdrawal strategy. In fact, special operations may be the single most important factor driving the Taliban toward the bargaining table.
As Afghan expert Steve Coll wrote, the US still faces the same challenges that eventually defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan:
“Partly they just ran out of time, as often happens in expeditionary wars. Their other problems included their inability to control the insurgents’ sanctuary in Pakistan; their inability to stop infiltration across the Pakistan-Afghan border; their inability to build Afghan political unity, even at the local level; their inability to develop a successful reconciliation strategy to divide the Islamist insurgents they faced; and their inability to create successful international diplomacy to reinforce a stable Afghanistan and region.”
Solving those issues effectively could take a very long time. We simply cannot afford not to learn from our past mistakes in Iraq and
Our approach to warfighting is in dire need of a surge in simplicity, critical thinking, focus, and cost-effectiveness. If we are to be successful now and in future conflicts, it will require more individuals willing to ask tough questions, tell the unvarnished truth, and lead from the front.
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve. He is a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq.
July 24th, 2013 by olddog
By Mac Slavo
For those politicians in Washington and their supporters who think engaging the Syrian army with a “kinetic action” akin to Libya’s “no fly zones” is all it will take to oust the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, consider the latest assessment from America’s top commanding officer.
On Thursday Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told a Senate committee that the Obama administration is considering the use of military force in Syria …
Gen. Dempsey warned “the decision to use force is … no less than an act of war,” adding that the U.S. “must anticipate and be prepared for the unintended consequences of our action. … Deeper involvement is hard to avoid.”
Before going over the options, Dempsey reiterated his non-committal stance: "The decision over whether to introduce military force is a political one that our Nation entrusts to its civilian leaders. I also understand that you deserve my best military advice on how military force could be used in order to decide whether it should be used.”
Translation: We’re looking at another long-term quagmire similar to Afghanistan and Iraq, or worse.
This will not be merely sorties being flown over Syria. It will involve large-scale troop movements. We know this as evidenced by the statements of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and that’s why we’re not the only ones putting boots on the ground. Last week Russia staged massive full combat readiness exercises involving some 160,000 troops, naval ships, fighter planes and strategic bombers in preparation for the possibility of a U.S. led attack on Syria, and just a few weeks ago it was announced that the Syrians have been armed with weapons never before seen in the Middle East.
Russian President Vladimir Putin may have sat on the sidelines while the United States took control of other Mid East nations over the last decade, but all indications suggest he won’t be sitting idly by should the United States go to war in Syria.
It would not be an overreaction to suggest that a military engagement in Syria could engulf the U.S. and Russia in World War III, something that numerous analysts and contrarian thinkers have suggested would be the end result of our current global economic and political tensions.
World War III will occur in the next five years. That means the Middle East will blow up. New regimes there will be less Western-friendly. The West has also figured out it can’t contain China, which is rising rapidly and will have more military and naval power in Southeast Asia. The only way for the West to contain China is to control the oil tap in the Middle East. - Dr. Marc Faber via SGT Report [January 12, 2012]
When our supposed global economic recovery is revealed to be nothing but smoke and mirrors, and tens of millions more Americans lose their jobs and the ability to put food on their tables, and they subsequently take to the streets to loot what they can, there will be few options left. One such option that democidal governments have always kept in their back pockets is to start a war and divert attention away from the real problems facing their countries to manufactured enemies. It’s a tried and tested technique that has been used by conquerors and psychopaths for centuries, and they’re prepared to use it again when the situation calls for it.
The threats posed by Syria have not only been manufactured, but are being actively fueled by this administration in an effort to sway the sentiment of the American people.
President Bush had weapons of mass destruction. The strategy worked so well that President Obama, less than a decade later, is using the exact same excuse for our need to involve hundreds of thousands of American lives in another mid east country – one that we had a hand in destabilizing from the get-go.
In his book and documentary, strategic relocation specialist Joel Skousen warns of the coming war involving Russia, China and the United States.
What we’re seeing now are the open stages of that war. It may still be “cold,” but you can be assured that the people in charge, along with their partners in the multi-billion dollar military industrial complex and financing cartels, are not only willing to start a war, they’re very much planning on this very outcome.
World War III has already begun, and those in power intend to send us, our children and our grandchildren to do their bidding.
WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
General Smedley Butler (1935)
At the time of his death in 1940 General Butler was the highest decorated Marine in U.S. History
You can read Mac Slavo's many articles on his site SHTFplan.com where this article first appeared.
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 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 at sjlendman.blogspot.com
July 2nd, 2013 by olddog
By Dave Hodges
How many of you believe that this country is plunging head first into a state of revolution? How many of you believe that a plannedcurrency collapse coupled with the implementation of a brutal martial law and gun confiscation will be the trigger events which will incite the coming revolution?
Many of us in the alternative media believe that this is the likely scenario that will very soon turn this country into the most dangerous planet on the face of the earth. It might behoove us to look a little closer at the nature of revolution in order to predict where all of this is likely headed. In the present political climate, I see no way to stem the tide of unthinkable brutality and violence which seems imminent. It is in this mindset that I set about to research the topic of revolution and this series of articles reflects the results of the research. And as a result of past and common patterns of revolution, it appears as if a clear picture is beginning to emerge.
Four Levels of Warfare
Most military strategists identify four levels of conflict; (1) nuclear war is the trump card of all conflict; (2) conventional warfare; (3) guerrilla warfare; and, (4) terrorism.
It is safe to say that if our country does indeed descend into revolution, nuclear war will not come into play, for if it did, there would be nothing to rule over in the aftermath.
The United States has witnessed civil war of a conventional nature In the 1860′s as two mighty armies of that era locked horns in what proved to be the conflict in which America suffered her greatest loss of life. In the Civil War, both sides had equivalent weaponry and as a result employed conventional tactics. However, given the disparity of technology and resources between the people the globalist controlledforces of the government, a conventional war would prove to be a disaster for the rebel forces. If key elements of the military were to break away and support the people, perhaps a conventional war would unfold. However, it is not likely that the upcoming civil war will be conventional as it is not probable that the military will bifurcate and turn in on itself. The likely mode of the revolutionary war conflict facing the people of the United States is that it will consist of either guerrilla warfare or terrorism.
Guerrilla Warfare Or Terrorism?
Terrorism is the least preferred option by any insurgent group. With terrorism, there is absolutely no hope of final victory because territory is never occupied. For that reason, nobody aspires to engage in terrorism if they have a viable alternative and the American people do have a choice given how well armed we are. However, terrorism arising out a defeated guerrilla force is a distinct possibility as it would represent American guerrilla’s fallback position should they be defeated. Subsequently, does the MIAC Report which labeled Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Second Amendment Supporters, Ron Paul Supporters, Veterans and now Christians as domestic terrorists, make a little more sense as to why DHS made these bold proclamations? DHS understands has demonstrated their understanding of these facts and has prepared for what I just wrote about in the previous paragraph.
The Veterans Administration estimates that there are approximately 21.5 million veterans living in the United States. We also live in a country with over 300 million privately owned guns. These combined factors point clearly to a guerrilla war being the preferred and necessary mode of combat which will likely be visited upon the this country.
What Is Guerrilla Warfare?
Guerrilla warfare, for most of human history, is not new. Tribal war, which traditionally pits one guerrilla force against another, is the oldest form of warfare. The new “conventional” form of warfare, which pits guerrillas against “conventional” forces, is more recent as it arose in Mesopotamia 5,000 years ago.
The good news for future American freedom fighters is that guerrilla war has been getting more successful since 1945, but unfortunately guerrilla fighters still lose most of the time. An analysis of past conflicts featuring guerrilla war, reveals that only 25% of guerrilla forces, out of 443 such conflicts since 1775, were successful. The government prevailed almost 64% of the time with the remainder of the conflicts ended in a stalemate. Conversely, since the end of WWII, the percentage of success for guerrilla forces has indeed gone up to 39.6%. Yet that still means that government forces have continued to prevail 51% of the time. When the American people engage in a guerrilla war in the upcoming years, the people have less than a 40% chance of success.
Length of Guerrilla Wars
Guerrilla wars are rarely short and as a result do not favor the American culture and our collective psyche of instant gratification. When Americans flip the switch on the wall, we expect the light to come on. Will Americans set aside their entitlements as well as their entrenched soft lifestyle and rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.
The Vietnamese culture with an external locus of control predominating the people where the group is more important than the individual is the perfect mindset for guerrilla fighters. This could prove to be the American rebels biggest challenge because guerrilla warfare is not something that one does like driving over a speed bump. It is a way of life, a very hard way of life filled with misery, extreme sacrifice and unspeakable losses.
For my money, the best guerrilla fighters in the modern era were the Viet Cong in which Vietnamese people were involved in some form of guerrilla war from 1942-1975. After the Americans invaded Vietnam, the forces in the north had a saying, “born in the north, to die in the south.” There were nearly two generations of Vietnamese people in which war was an unavoidable part of life. What General Westmoreland and LBJ failed to recognize was that in order to defeat and totally subdue the Vietnamese people, the Americans would have had to have engaged in unspeakable genocide because despite the fact that the US won every single battle of the war, the Vietnamese rebels were never going to give up. Do we Americans have that same tenacity to persevere like the Vietnamese?
Prior to WWII, guerrilla wars lasted an average of seven years. Following WWII, guerrilla conflicts lasted an average of 10 years. Will Americans embrace the tenets and sacrifices of guerrilla war and can it ever become a way of life? I believe that conditions would have to be unspeakably horrendous for America to embrace a conflict under theseconditions. I think that things would have to be so bad, so completely genocidal, that fighting and dying would be the only viable alternativefor America in order to embrace guerrilla warfare as a way of life. What I am saying here is that we are a very soft people.
How Close Are We to the Inevitable Conflict?
Successful guerrilla leaders such as Lawrence of Arabia, Mao, Castro and Giap all concur that there are three phases of any guerrilla war. However, before the phases can unfold there are two preconditions which must be met.
The first condition which is a prerequisite for guerrilla war, is based upon the fact that there has to be a decisive battle for the belief systems of the people as a whole. The globalists have invested billions of dollars in order to dominate the mainstream media. On the other side is the alternative media. Both sides are vying for control of the belief systems of the country.
There are two very distinct ideologies playing out today in the court of public opinion. On one hand, the future rebels are adept at exposing the loss of national sovereignty and civil liberties every chance they get. Conversely, the globalist dominated media is spending billions of dollars to convince the masses that there is no such thing as a conspiracy theory and despite some governmental incompetence, the government loves and protects its people. And the globalists are being somewhat effective. Have you ever noticed that when you are describing a globalist inspired conspiracy such as what happened at Benghazi, and no matter how well documented your position is, that your audience frequently responds with “you must be one of theseconspiracy theorists.” Our facts are rarely attacked because they are accurate, but the idea of the existence of any kind of conspiracy is what is challenged. This kind of programming coming from the media is brilliant and effective. Who is winning this war of words? The jury is still out, but the unmistakable conclusion is that the ideological battle lines for the upcoming conflict have clearly been drawn.
The globalists sell the sheep on the notion that we have to control you to protect you (from a threat of our creation), and the other side is saying “we will take our chances, give us freedom.”
The second precondition which must be met prior to descending into guerrilla war consists of both sides engaging in an arms race. In response to the Obama administration’s threat of seizing our guns for the false flag events of the Aurora Batman massacre and Sandy Hook, Americans went on a gun-buying frenzy which continues to this day. DHS has engaged in their own arms buildup as they have purchased 2.2 billion rounds of ammunition to go with 2700 new armored personnel carriers and that is not all. The federal government has invested in 30,000 drones, super soldier robots and intelligence gathering techniques which are mind-blowing. As an aside, Snowden’s public revelation related to the extent of the NSA’s illegal surveillance activities contained nothing that most of us in the alternative media did not already know. It is my belief that Ed Snowden knows a lot more than has been reported related to the reasons underlying the spying and the media is refusing to report on it.
In summary, the American people and their government have engaged in an arms race very similar in nature to two rival countries preparing to go to war.
The preconditions for armed conflict and the likelihood that the conflict will be guerrilla is very likely. In Part Two of this series, an analysis of the commonalities between past guerrilla conflicts (e.g. Giap, Mao, Castro, etc.) will be offered. Emerging from the discussion in the next part in this series is the discovery of the fact that there three overlapping phases to guerrilla war and it will be a shocking surprise to all of us as to how far along this country is in relation to these three phases. All that is needed is the right trigger event and that will be discussed in the next part as well.
As for me, I believe America will be torn apart by the division already existing, as there is no doubt in my mind that the liberal scumbags are the enemy of a free society, and my biggest concern is, I am now too old to be a part of a guerrilla fighting unit. I have not the strength, or stamina to be anything more than in the way of better men. BUT, not until I am in the ground will I stop supporting them. They will always have what ever I can give them, and I can give them plenty of support. I consider any man or woman who supports this government, an enemy of America. Check this out!
July 2, 2013
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
A few friends sent me a disturbing, shocking, gut-wrenching video yesterday.
It's amateur footage of police officers from a LA metro-area unit shooting, and killing, a man's dog. While they were arresting him. For the crime of… recording them.
Apparently the cops were in the neighborhood to make an arrest. Several people were outside watching. And one man who was out walking his dog started filming with his cell phone camera.
About 2 minutes later, the man notices the police walking towards him, no doubt to harass him for the heinous act of recording them. So he puts his dog in the car, meets the police halfway on the sidewalk, and assumes the "I surrender" pose.
The dog starts barking and actually squirms out of the car and ran over to the man, jumping on one of the officers. Another drew his sidearm. And in one of the most cold-blooded acts I've ever seen, he shot the dog. Four times.
Trust me, I recommend that you not watch this video. It turns the stomach.
Not to be outdone by the West Coast, government agents in the State of Virginia recently assaulted a 20-year old girl, guns blazing, because she was exiting a local supermarket with cookie dough, ice cream, and a box of bottled water.
The cops assumed that she had purchased alcohol; apparently they can't tell the difference between La Croix pure sparkling water and a case of Bud Light… and even still, they felt it was necessary to brandish firearms against this criminal terrorist.
It's truly mind boggling that this is what passes for professional police force in the Land of the Free.
Average, every day people get taken down and threatened with deadly force for committing egregious acts like… photographing the police. Or buying bottled water.
Meanwhile, the real criminals (i.e. the politicians, central bankers, and puppet masters) continue waging destruction and plunder on a largely unsuspecting population.
It may be premature to draw too many parallels to Hitler's Schutzstaffel force. But to see this culture of fear, submission, and intimidation continue to flourish within the Land of the Free, one can't help but wonder…
Senior Editor, SovereignMan.com
June 29th, 2013 by olddog
Paul Craig Roberts
“V For Vendetta,” a film that portrays evil in a futuristic England as a proxy for the evil that exists today in America, ends with the defeat of evil. But this is a movie in which the hero has super powers. If you have not seen this film, you should watch it. It might wake you up and give you courage. The excerpts below show that, at least among some filmmakers, the desire for liberty still exists.
Whether the desire for liberty exists in America remains to be seen. If Americans can overcome their gullibility, their lifelong brainwashing, their propensity to believe every lie that “their” government tells them, and if Americans can escape the Matrix in which they live, they can reestablish the morality, justice, peace, freedom, and liberty that “their” government has taken from them. It is not impossible for Americans to again stand with uplifted heads. They only have to recognize that “their” government is the enemy of truth, justice, human rights and life itself.
Can mere ordinary Americans triumph over the evil that is “their” government without the aid of a superhero? If ideas are strong enough and Americans can comprehend them, good can prevail over the evil that is concentrated in Washington. What stands between the American people and their comprehension of evil is their gullibility.
If good fails in its battle with Washington’s evil, our future is a boot stamping on the human face forever.
If you, an American, living in superpower America lack the courage to stand up to the evil that is “your” government, perhaps the courage of Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and tiny Ecuador will give you heart.
A US senator from New Jersey, Robert Menendez, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told the Ecuadoran government that he would block the import of vegetables and flowers from Ecuador if Ecuador gives asylum to Edward Snowden. The cost to Ecuador would be one billion dollars in lost revenues.
Menendez’s statement–”Our government will not reward countries for bad behavior”–is ironic. It equates bad behavior with protecting a truth-teller and good behavior with betraying a truth-teller. Menendez’s statement is also a lie. The US government only rewards bad behavior. The US government consistently rewards those who conspire against the elected governments of their own countries, setting them up as dictators when Washington overthrows the elected governments.
Menendez’s threat did not work, but the senator did succeed in delivering yet another humiliating blow to Washington’s prestige. The Ecuadoran President, Rafael Correa, beat Menendez to the punch and cancelled the trade pact with the US on the grounds that the pact was a threat to the sovereignty of Ecuador and to moral principles and was being used by Washington to blackmail Ecuador. “Ecuador doesn’t accept pressure or threats from anyone,” added Communications Secretary Fernando Alvarado who then offered Washington foreign aid to provide human rights training to combat torture, illegal executions and attacks on peoples’ privacy.
Washington, exposed with its hand in the cookie jar devouring the privacy of the entire world and prevented by its hubris from acknowledging its illegal behavior and apologizing, has so mishandled the Snowden affair that Washington has done far more damage to itself than occurred from Snowden’s revelations. Washington has proven conclusively that it has no respect for anyone’s human rights, that it has no respect for any country’s sovereignty, that it has no respect for any moral principles, especially those it most often mouths, and that it relies on coercion and violence alone. The rest of the world now knows who its enemy is.
Washington’s presstitutes, by helping Washington demonize Snowden, Glenn Greenwald, Manning, Assange, and Ecuador, have demonstrated to the world that the US media is devoid of integrity and that nothing it reports can be believed. The US print and TV media and NPR comprise a ministry of propaganda for Washington’s immoral agendas.
On June 24, the Stasi State’s favorite whore, the Washington Post, denounced three times democratically-elected Rafael Correa as “the autocratic leader of tiny, impoverished Ecuador,” without realizing that the editorial not only demonstrated the Washington Post’s lack of any ethics whatsoever but also showed the entire world that if “tiny, impoverished Ecuador” can stand up to Washington’s threats, so can the rest of the world.
President Correa replied that the Washington Post “managed to focus attention on Snowden and on the ‘wicked’ countries that support him, making us forget the terrible things against the US people and the whole world that he denounced.” Correa added that Washington’s “world order isn’t only unjust, it’s immoral.”
The reason Washington hates Correa has nothing to do with Snowden. That Ecuador is considering asylum for Snowden is just an excuse. Correa is hated, because in the second year of his first term he repudiated the $3 billion dollar foreign debt that corrupt and despotic prior regimes had been paid to contract with international finance. Correa’s default threat forced the international financial gangsters to write down the debt by 60 percent.
Washington also hates Correa because he has been successful in reducing the high rates of poverty in Ecuador, thus building public support that makes if difficult for Washington to overthrow him from within.
Yet another reason Washington hates Correa is because he took steps against the multinational oil companies’ exploitation of Ecuador’s oil resources and limited the amount of offshore deposits in the country’s banks in order to block Washington’s ability to destabilize Ecuador’s financial system.
Washington also hates Correa for refusing to renew Washington’s lease of the air base in Manta.
Essentially, Correa has fought to take control of Ecuador’s government, media and national resources out of Washington’s hands and the hands of the small rich elite allied with Washington. It is a David vs. Goliath story.
In other words, Correa, like Venezuela’s Chevez, is the rare foreign leader who represents the interests of his own country instead of Washington’s interest.
Washington uses the various corrupt NGOs and the puppet government in Colombia as weapons against Correa and the Ecuadoran government. Many believe that it is only a matter of time before Washington succeeds in assassinating Correa.
American patriots, who feel that they should be on “their” government’s side regardless of the facts, would do well to remember what true patriotism is. For Americans, patriotism has always meant allegiance to the Constitution, not to the government. The oath is to defend the Constitution against enemies domestic and foreign. The Bush and Obama regimes have proven themselves to be the Constitution’s worst enemies. It is not possible for a true patriot to support a government that destroys the Constitution. The United States is the Constitution. Our country is not the Obama regime, the Bush regime, or some other administration. Our country is the Constitution. The Constitution is our country.
Beyond obligations to one’s own country, all humans have a responsibility to human life itself. Washington’s puppet states, such as the NATO countries, Japan, and Colombia, by providing cover and support for Washington’s aggression are enabling Washington to drive the world into World War III.
The temptation of Washington’s money easily overwhelms weak characters such as Tony Blair and David Cameron. But the governments of NATO countries and other accommodating states are not only selling out their own peoples by supporting Washington’s wars of aggression, they are selling out humanity. Washington’s hubris and arrogance grow as Washington bumps off country after country. Sooner or later Russia and China, will realize that they themselves are targets and will draw firmer lines. Arrogance will prevent Washington from acknowledging the lines, and the final war will be launched.
Washington’s hegemonic impulse is driving the world to destruction. The peoples of the world should realize this and force their governments to stop enabling Washington’s aggression.
June 23rd, 2013 by olddog
For those who have the intelligence, and courage to read this essay, I commend you, and ask you once again to take an active participation in educating our woefully cognitive dissonant citizens by sending this article to everyone you know. Then, get your house in order, and prepare for the worst, for it is surely coming soon. If I were a rich man, I would be offering a bounty.
THOUGHT MUST PRECEDE ACTION
PART 1, 2, AND 3
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
Recently, Mr. J.B. Williams published a commentary on NewsWithViews entitled “Can Obama Be Impeached?” Normally, I would not interject myself into matters other commentators address; but, in this case, Mr. Williams saw fit to refer to me by name, which prompts this response.
Mr. Williams’ contention is “that [Barack] Obama can only be removed from [the] office [of President of the United States] via impeachment”. Mr. Williams concedes that this position is controversial. But then he opines that “[w]ho is right in the debate [about whether Mr. Obama can be impeached] is much less important than reaching an actionable position of agreement. The endless debate on the subject only leaves all concerned citizens paralyzed by confusion and lack of coherent direction in how to solve the crisis.” Confronted by this rather amazing assertion, one is compelled to ask whether “concerned citizens” should ever agree to do what is (or at least may very well be) wrong simply because they experience difficulty in determining what is right? Can what is wrong become right because of some arbitrary agreement induced by sloth? Would not determining what is right terminate “endless debate” and remove the present “confusion and lack of coherent direction in how to solve the crisis”? But these questions answer themselves.
1. The first step in determining what is right in this case is to define the problem accurately. Mr. Williams says that he “agree[s] with the claim that Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro) gained access to the Office of President via massive fraud, including identity fraud, campaign finance fraud, just for starters”. That, however, is not really “the claim” at issue here. The actual charge is that, although Mr. Obama may have succeeded in gaining physical access to the office-space a legitimate President of the United States occupies in the White House, he never acquired legal access to “the Office of President”, because, not being “a natural born Citizen”, he was never constitutionally eligible, and is not now eligible, for that “Office”. For Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution declares (in pertinent part) that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President”. If words have any meaning, a “Person” whom the supreme law of the land declares not to be “eligible to the Office of President” can never “gain access to” that “Office” in the sense of legally holding it or asserting any claim to it. The question then becomes, can an individual who is not legally in that “Office” at all, because he is and always has been ineligible for it, be removed by impeachment and conviction from his non-existent position? (I shall leave aside whether Mr. Obama is actually not “a natural born Citizen”. If he were, he could and should establish that fact, which for some unfathomable reason he has so far refused to substantiate in any satisfactory manner. In the absence of proof on that score from the party in the best position to provide such proof, for the purposes of this commentary I shall assume to be valid the assertion that Mr. Obama is not “a natural born Citizen”.)
2. In support of his position, Mr. Williams marshals some quotations from James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Joseph Story. These, however, are quite beside the point, because each of them assumes that the party subject to impeachment is in fact and law actually the President or some other officer of the United States. Not one of them addresses the situation in which some individual, although wholly “[in]eligible to the Office of President”, nonetheless pretends to hold that “Office”.
3. Analysis must begin (and, as will become apparent, also end) with the actual pertinent words of the Constitution material to impeachment and related matters:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 4. No Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President * * * .
Article II, Section 1, Clause 7. Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Article II, Section 4. The President * * * shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. In Case of the Removal of the President from Office * * * the Same shall devolve on the Vice President * * * .
Plainly enough, the last three of these provisions refer tolegal “removal” from a status (“the Office of President”), not physical removal from a place, and therefore apply only to an individual who as a matter of law is actually in that “Office” as “the President”, having first satisfied all of the constitutional prerequisites for that status. These provisions do not say (as they might have said, if Mr. Williams’ position were correct) that “an individual who claims to be the President”, or “an individual whom many people believe to bethe President”, “shall be removed from Office”—for the self-evident reason that an individual who is not legitimately inthat (or any other) “Office” at the relevant time cannot be removed from it, no matter what his claims or the beliefs of others may be.
An individual who is not “a natural born Citizen”, and therefore is constitutionally ineligible in principle for “the Office of President”, can never assume the status of “President” legally. The most obvious and consequential practical reason is that such an individual cannot possibly take the necessary “Oath or Affirmation” which is a prerequisite to his “enter[ing] on the Execution of [the] Office [of President]”, because he knows that, being ineligible for that “Office”, he cannot possibly “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”. First, his imposture as “President” itself constitutes an affront to the Constitution—that is, his “tak[ing] the * * * Oath or Affirmation” is in and of itself a violation of the “Oath or Affirmation”. Second, not being eligible for “the Office of President”, he cannot ever legally fulfill the duty of the President, set out in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. Were he legally capable of fulfilling that duty, and desirous of doing so, his very first step would have to be to turn himself in or order his own arrest as an imposter, thus refuting his own prior claim to be “President”.
One might describe this situation as involving “the principle of constitutional noncontradiction”. Both logically and legally the Constitution cannot demand as the condition sine qua non of eligibility for “the Office of President” that an individual be “a natural born Citizen”, on the one hand, but then, on the other hand, license an individual who is not “a natural born Citizen” to “enter on the Execution of [that] Office”. Similarly, both logically and legally the Constitution cannot deny “the Office of President” to an individual who is not “a natural born Citizen”, on the one hand, but then, on the other hand, require that such an individual who merely pretends to be the President must be “removed * * * on Impeachment” from an “Office” he could never possibly hold. Conversely, both logically and legally the Constitution cannot provide for “remov[al] from Office on Impeachment” of an individual who, being ineligible for that “Office” in the first place because he is not “a natural born Citizen”, never entered or could have entered it—for if that individual must be “removed from Office on Impeachment”, he must in some sense be legitimately in that “Office”, which would mean that his putative ineligibility was not an ineligibility at all, but instead a mere irrelevance.
To reduce this matter to “Dick and Jane” terms, assume that Mr. Williams postures as “the President of the United States”. He leases a large mansion, which he names “the White House”, and in which he sets aside a room he calls “the Oval Office”. From there, he issues executive orders, national-security directives, and other Diktats in the name of “the President”. He surrounds himself with a large Praetorian Guard of deluded myrmidons which he calls his “SS” (after the “Secret Service”). These jack-booted thugs then go about the country harassing people who challenge Mr. Williams’ eligibility to be “the President”. For reasons that are not clear, actual public officials in the General Government and in some of the States in significant numbers choose to obey Mr. Williams’ edicts and to treat him as “the President”. And great masses of “true believers” among the general public lend their fanatical support to Mr. Williams, too. Under these conditions, is Mr. Williams “the President”? Obviously not. How can this situation be corrected? Can Mr. Williams be impeached? Must Mr. Williams be impeached before any other remedy, such as arrest and trial, can be had? Well, no one in his right mind—including, I submit, Mr. Williams himself—would contend with a straight face that Mr. Williams was even capable of being impeached, let alone that he had to be impeached in order to suppress his imposture. What is the difference, then, between the real Mr. Obama (as we are assuming him to bearguendo) and the hypothesized Mr. Williams? That Mr. Obama twice stood for election to an office for which he was constitutionally ineligible? That Mr. Obama received large numbers of votes that had no legal effect, because they were cast for an ineligible candidate? That Mr. Obama twice took an “Oath or Affirmation” of “Office” that he was legally incapable, not merely of fulfilling, but even of taking in the first place? That Mr. Obama now physically resides in the real “White House”? Each of these distinctions between Mr. Obama’s case and Mr. Williams’ simply renders Mr. Obama’s position worse than Mr. Williams’, because the number of counts of fraud in the imposture are multiplied by several orders of magnitude.
Therefore, contrary to Mr. Williams’ conclusion, impeachment is not “the proper remedy to the crisis known as Obama”.
Nonetheless, it is barely possible that, although Mr. Williams is wrong in principle, he may be partially right in practice, in the same way a stopped clock accidentally tells the correct time twice a day. After all, if a bill of impeachment were introduced in the House of Representatives, Mr. Obama’s counsel would have only two choices: (i) to concede that impeachment is a proper remedy for the charge levied against Mr. Obama, while denying that Mr. Obama is in fact not “a natural born Citizen”—in which event that issue would be left wide open to a complete investigation in the House; or (ii) to deny that impeachment is a proper remedy precisely because Mr. Obama’s accusers claim him to be other than “a natural born Citizen”, while hoping that in no other forum could or would that at least tacit admission of his possible ineligibility be used against him. In addition, the intensive legislative debate, and perhaps extensive hearings, that would surely follow in the wake of whichever of these pleas Mr. Obama’s counsel launched would likely generate a tsunami of public interest in the matter. And who can say on what shore that wave would finally break?
THOUGHT MUST PRECEDE ACTION
PART 2 of 3
In any event, even if Mr. Williams is not completely wrong to assert that “Obama can only be removed from office via impeachment”, it would still be advisable to inquire as to whether any other remedy may be available.
4. Criminal prosecution would appear to be the obvious first choice. For example, Title 18, United States Code, Section 912 provides that “[w]hoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer * * * acting under the authority of the United States * * * , and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than three years, or both”. Mr. Williams, however, asserts that “before any occupant of the Oval Office can be charged with or prosecuted for crimes, they [sic] must first be removed from office via impeachment, so that the business of the people can continue while the individual is being prosecuted for criminal activities”. In support of this contention, he cites a memorandum prepared by lawyers in the Department of Justice, of all people! As an outspoken critic of the General Government—and rightly so—Mr. Williams should have been more discerning. For the Constitution makes it plain as day that no such requirement exists.
The only provision in the Constitution for any immunity with respect to violations of criminal law for any public official while that official remains in office appears in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1: “The Senators and Representatives [in Congress] * * * shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same”. So, Members of Congress may be subjected to “Arrest”—and presumably thereafter tried, convicted, and imprisoned or otherwise punished—on charges of “Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace”, even “during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses”, and even while they are on the very floor of the House or of the Senate, engaged in their official business. Inasmuch as the category “Felony” includes a multitude of crimes, and inasmuch as it is not inconceivable (particularly today) that every Member of Congress might be implicated in some “Felony” or other at the same time, therefore the Constitution allows for the “Arrest” of any Member, and even the entire Membership, of Congress—with no concern whatsoever (in Mr. Williams’ words) that “the business of the people can continue while the[se] individual[s are] being prosecuted for criminal activities”. And this notwithstanding that the Constitution in Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 provides a means equivalent to impeachment, conviction, and removal from office which is applicable to Members of Congress: to wit, that “[e]ach House may * * * , with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member”. Thus, a Member of Congress whose criminal misbehavior comes to light may first be expelled and then subjected to “Arrest”. But he also may first be subjected to “Arrest”, and only thereafter expelled.
In Article II and Article III, the Constitution extends to the President and to the Judiciary not even the limited immunity it grants to Members of Congress, that “[t]hey shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest”. So, on the strength of this silence and the legal principle inclusio unius exclusio alterius, no immunity from “Arrest” (and thereafter from subsequent indictment, prosecution, trial, conviction, and punishment) for any sort of criminal misbehavior exists for a rogue President or any rogue judge.
Inasmuch as Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution requires that “[t]he Senators and Representatives [in Congress] * * * , and all executive and judicial Officers * * * of the United States * * * , shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”, and inasmuch as the Constitution creates only a limited immunity from “Arrest” for Members of Congress and no immunity whatsoever for the President or for any judge, therefore Congress can enact no statute, the President can promulgate no policy (through executive orders or otherwise), and the Judiciary can hand down no opinion that creates, enforces, rules in favor of, recognizes, or otherwise treats as even arguably legitimate any more extensive immunity.
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution does provide that “[j]udgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law”. This, however, is not because “Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment” of some rogue “Officer” of the United States must only follow his “Impeachment”. The Constitution confines the allowable penalties for “Impeachment” “to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” in order to preclude Congress from legislating additional punishments, as had theretofore been allowed in “the method of parliamentary impeachment: wherein such penalties, short of death, are inflicted as to the wisdom of the house of peers shall seem proper; consisting usually of banishment, imprisonment, fines, or perpetual disability”. William Blackstone,Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Robert Bell, American Edition, 4 Volumes & Appendix, 1771-1773), Volume 4, at 121. In addition, by appending the qualification that “the Party convicted [upon Impeachment] shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law”, the Constitution deprives that “Party” of the ability to evade criminal liability by interposing a plea of double jeopardy. See U.S. Const. amend. V.
Although no legal reason exists why the criminal prosecution of a rogue “Officer” of the General Government cannot precede his impeachment, conviction, and removal from that “Office”, the practical political problem remains that, if not so removed, the offender might remain in “Office”, perhaps claiming a right to administer it from prison. Impeachment obviates that potential embarrassment. (Of course, the circumstances might be sufficiently serious to requireimmediate action with whatever embarrassments that might entail, rather than accept the consequences of abiding the time-consuming process of impeachment.) Impeachment also deals with the situation in which no actual crime has been perpetrated, but removal from “Office”is nonetheless warranted, because the individual has committed some “high * * * Misdemeanor” of a political nature. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 4. For example, under pre-constitutional English law, “[T]HE first and principal” “high misdemeanor[ ]” was “themal-administration of such high officers, as are in public trust and employment”, of which Blackstone set out a long list, including “preferring the interests of a foreign potentate to those of our own” and “disobedience to any act of parliament, where no particular penalty is assigned” (both of which seem to be endemic in the General Government today). See Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume 4, at 122-125. Interestingly, although Mr. Williams quite properly quotes Joseph Story as to these types of impeachable “political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests”, he does not draw what should be the obvious conclusion.
5. A civil action in the nature of the old common-law writ ofquo warranto (“by what authority”) could also supply a remedy preferable to impeachment for what Mr. Williams denotes as “the crisis known as Obama”. The applicable statute is found in the Code of the District of Columbia, Division II, Title 16, Chapter 35, Subchapter I, Sections 16-3501 through 16-3503, the first section of which provides in pertinent part that “[a] quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises * * * a public office of the United States, civil or military”. By its own terms, this law does not require for its invocation a prior successful impeachment of the “person who * * * usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises * * * a public office of the United States”. Indeed, if that “person” is truly “usurp[ing], intrud[ing] into, or unlawfully hold[ing] or exercis[ing]” such an office, impeachment is supererogatory, because it is logically and legally impossible. It would appear, then, that the existence of this law by itself disproves Mr. Williams’ assertion that “Obama can only be removed from office via impeachment”.
6. So the question remains: Now what? What remedy can Americans hope someone in authority will invoke in order to vindicate their constitutional right to have “a natural born Citizen”—and no one else—in “the Office of President”?
With his usual keen sense for the vicissitudes of practical politics, Mr. Williams observes that “nobody wants to touch this matter with a ten foot pole, because the constitutional crisis created by Obama and the Democrat Party are of monumental proportions. The constitutional line of succession to the Oval Office will not hold in this case as every individual in that line of succession was one way or another, involved and complicit i[n] the most egregious fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.” The mere “constitutional line of succession to the Oval Office”, however, is not the half of it.
(a) Consider the remedy of impeachment. This depends entirely upon Congress. But Congress has already had two separate opportunities, each required by the selfsame statute, in which to address the issue of Mr. Obama’s ineligibility for “the Office of President”—and both times refused, to a man and woman, to take any action whatsoever. As I explained in detail in my NewsWithViews commentary entitled “In the Shadow of Nemesis” (8 December 2008), when Congress convened in 2008 to count the votes for President that had been cast in the Electoral College, only one Representative and one Senator needed to object to a single Elector’s vote for Mr. Obama on the ground of his possible ineligibility for “the Office of President” in order to compel some kind of immediate Congressional inquiry into the matter. Nevertheless, not one Member of Congress did so—even though each one of them could have interposed as many objections as there were Electors’ votes to be tallied. The same result obtained in 2012. Worse yet, many Members of Congress participated in that process in both 2008 and 2012 in the very same deaf, dumb, craven, and feckless manner.
THOUGHT MUST PRECEDE ACTION
PART 3 of 3
If the entirety of Congress would do nothing to investigate Mr. Obama’s ineligibility in 2008 and 2012—which would have solved the problem at the outset, one way or the other—what percentage in the House will now support his impeachment, and what percentage in the Senate will support his conviction? In the light of this history, does zeropercent seem too pessimistic a prognostication to be plausible?
Moreover, would such cowardly Congressmen dare, at this late date, to wrench open the lid on that Pandora’s Box? Who can possibly estimate how much damage has been done to the body politic by suffering this septic sore to fester for so long? Or how much damage will have to be endured in the future once the infected tissue is finally lanced and the pus drained away? If Mr. Obama is in fact not eligible for “the Office of President” because he is not “a natural born Citizen”, then all of his actions in that pretended status have been null and void ab initio, and now will need to be set aside, with whatever complex, costly, and perhaps calamitous consequences must inevitably follow. For such a disaster, every Member of Congress from 2008 to today would be personally responsible, because each and every one of them has been complicitous in preventing an investigation of Mr. Obama’s reputed ineligibility. Qui potest et debet vetare tacens iubet.
(b) Consider the remedy of a criminal prosecution. Unless Congress were to appoint a special prosecutor, which is as unlikely as impeachment for the same reasons, any criminal investigation would be conducted by Mr. Obama’s own cronies in the Department of Justice. Inasmuch as Attorney General Eric Holder has experienced no crisis of conscience to deter him from supplying absurd legalistic apologies for Mr. Obama’s on-going program of “official assassinations”, he should hardly be expected to shrink from defending Mr. Obama’s eligibility to commit those acts.
(c) Consider the remedy of quo warranto. The statute cited above requires either that the Attorney General of the United States institute a proceeding “on his own motion or on the relation of a third person”, or that if the Attorney General refuses to institute a proceeding the United States District Court for the District of Columbia grant leave for “the interested person” to prosecute a civil action in the name of the United States. Obviously, the present Attorney General will no more institute a proceeding in quo warranto than he will investigate a criminal charge against Mr. Obama. And, having stifled every inquiry by all sorts of plaintiffs into Mr. Obama’s ineligibility to date, the Judiciary can hardly be depended upon to take the initiative—along with the inevitable political heat—now, after immense and possibly irreparable injury has been done to this country, to a large extent because of the Judiciary’s own prior poltroonish defaults.
(d) Consider the remedy of honest public officials’ unwillingness to cooperate with Mr. Obama on the ground of his arguable ineligibility for “the Office of President”. Mr. Obama may reside in pharaonic pomp behind the All-Seeing Eye in the Great Pyramid of Chaos in the Disgrace of Columbia—but he can accomplish nothing whatsoever without the prosaic day-to-day cooperation (or collusion, if you will) of tens of thousands of underlings in the General Government’s civil bureaucracy and Armed Forces. Is it possible to conceive of a tacit rebellion in these ranks, if not inspired by the pangs of conscience then driven by the goad of self-interest—a rebellion which would manifest itself in those underlings’ continued performance of their mundane duties, but their refusal to participate in any constitutionally questionable activity (to use the phrase familiar to any union member, “working to rule”)?
In principle, this is not a possibility so implausible as to be dismissed out of hand, because (as pointed out above) “all executive * * * Officers * * * of the United States * * * shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support th[e] Constitution”—and therefore they should always consult the Constitution before they render blind obedience to anyone, especially an individual who claims to be “the President”, but whose arguable ineligibility for that “Office” has become a matter of national, and even international, notoriety. In practice, though, could any important, let alone large, segment of the contemporary bureaucracy be expected to take this legally scrupulous tack? Unfortunately, no. For here, Mr. Williams is brutally insightful: “The list of usurpations and administration crimes would require an encyclopedia to fully chronicle at this late stage. Recent breaking news of massive violations of American[s’] constitutional rights by nearly every federal agency which Obama has turned against the people of the United States eliminates any possibility that these events are just independent agency coincidences.” That is, the complicity of the bureaucracy is well-nigh complete. And although a few prominent “whistleblowers” can expose the pervasiveness of the rot, they will surely prove insufficient to overcome it.
No more is relief likely to be had at the hands of high-level personages in the Armed Forces. Except when it comes to convening a drumhead court-martial in order to convict an officer with the courage to question Mr. Obama’s eligibility—such as Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin—these people are proving to be “rubber lions” indeed. None of them seems to be capable of discerning the danger, not just to this country but to themselves personally as well, of their remaining under the command of an individual impersonating “the President”—namely, that if such an individual will violate the Constitution with respect to both his eligibility for that “Office” and the veracity of the “Oath or Affirmation” required of him as “the President”, what grotesquely unconstitutional orders will he hand down in his pretended capacity of “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States” in order to maintain his power when he finds himself backed into a corner? This self-inflicted blindness is incredible, because the officer corps’ own self-interest, and even self-preservation, is at stake—inasmuch as Mr. Obama as the Armed Forces’ putative “Commander in Chief” might himself “pull the nuclear trigger”, or order them to pull it, with what devastating consequences can easily be imagined. Moreover, the officer corps’ own self-respect is at stake—inasmuch as Mr. Obama claims as “the President” a license to assassinate people anywhere in the world without any judicial process, and to call upon the Armed Forces to assist him in these homicidal ventures. See my NewsWithViews commentaries entitled “Where Is the Outrage?” (9 April 2012) and “Death Squads” (14 December 2010). Although no one should ever desire an actual revolt within the officer corps—for the simple reason that “government by junta” or even by the threat of a junta orgolpe is utterly incompatible with a free society—one or two well publicized resignations by outspoken officers in high positions would go far towards making “Duty, Honor, Country” more than a mere slogan. Apparently, however, this is too much to expect, if it is not too much to ask.
Inasmuch as Mr. Obama’s policy of “official assassinations” evokes a direct parallel to no less than Adolf Hitler, every thinking American who imagines that the Armed Forces will come to this country’s rescue would do well to peruse, for example, John W. Wheeler-Bennett, The Nemesis of Power: The German Army in Politics 1918-1945 (London, England: Macmillan and Company Limited, 1964). This book sets out some crucial historical lessons that confirm the wisdom of America’s Founding Fathers’ profound distrust of all “standing armies”—namely, that in the long run no country can rely upon professional “standing armies” to preserve its freedom from usurpers and tyrants; but that such establishments can be expected to aid and abet, or at least to countenance, and certainly not to challenge, a central government’s steady accretion, concentration, and ultimately abuse of power.
(e) Consider the remedy of “interposition”, under which rubric the States can reassert the sovereignty they have reserved pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. If any situations can justify “interposition”, the usurpation of “the Office of President” by an individual constitutionally ineligible for that “Office” must surely appear near the very top of the list. Nonetheless, the States’ Governors, the States’ legislators, and the States’ judges have done nothing, except to remain silent themselves or to suppress others’ inquiries into the matter.
(f) If all of the foregoing were not depressing enough, Americans find themselves inundated, especially on the Internet, with the strident warnings of lay preachers, divines, and assorted prophets and gurus that this country is fast losing, or even has already irretrievably lost, the decisive spiritual battles to the Demonic Forces of Darkness. Perhaps, then, the necessary remedy is a national exorcism!
(g) Patriotic Americans should remember, though, that it is always darkest before the dawn; that God helps those who help themselves; and that (in the words of Algernon Sidney) “[h]e that has virtue and power to save a people, can never want a right of doing it”—and, one must presume, will always be capable of fashioning some remedy to effectuate that right. What Mr. Williams calls “the crisis known as Obama” goes far beyond a lone individual in the Disgrace of Columbia. And it will not be overcome by the relatively few other individuals in Congress, in the Judiciary, in the General Government’s bureaucracy, in the States’ governments, or in the high commands of the Armed Forces—even if most of them were not consciously complicitous in the crisis or otherwise hopelessly compromised or confused. Instead, America must start what will prove to be an Herculean cleansing of her political stables “from the bottom up”, with her own people wielding the shovels. Not necessarily all of her people. Not necessarily even a majority of her people at first. Rather, America must identify, mobilize, organize, and put into the field those whom the Declaration of Independence denoted “the good People”. The people who desired the Colonies “to be Free and Independent States”, even in the face of resistance from domestic “loyalists” who were willing to support “the present King of Great Britain” in his “history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States”.
The people whom its Preamble identified as having “ordain[ed] and established this Constitution”. And, today, the people who recognize the impossibility of resolving the underlying political, social, and cultural corruptions which have spawned “the crisis known as Obama” through any means less comprehensive than the people’s own direct involvement.
And just what sort of “involvement” is that? I could offer a suggestion—although it would actually not be my own original suggestion, but instead the imperative the Constitution sets out in its most important thirteen words. Rather than supply Mr. Williams with my answer and risk being taken to task by him once again, though, I shall encourage him to search out these words for himself (perhaps in my forthcoming book, Thirteen Words), and report his findings back to the readers of NewsWithViews. When he does, I shall be among the first to agree with him that “[i]t’s time for the debate to end and action to begin”.
© 2013 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserved
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.
He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volumePieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective.www.piecesofeight.us
He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes.www.crashmaker.com
His latest book is: "How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary" … and Constitutional "Homeland Security," Volume One, The Nation in Arms…
He can be reached at his new address:
52 Stonegate Court
Front Royal, VA 22630.
E-Mail: Not available
June 10th, 2013 by olddog
By Mac Slavo
Something is wrong. Very, very wrong.
Our economy is, as it has been for many years, on the brink of collapse. They may not have announced it officially just yet, but recent data suggest that we are most certainly in another recession (we may never have actually gotten out of the first one). While official statistics indicate there is very mild economic growth, the fact is that the growth is coming from monetary expansion driven by the Fed. As more money is slammed into the system prices rise, forcing consumers to pay more for everything from food to stocks. This, in the eyes of the government is growth. In reality, however55% of America’s wealth has been vaporized in the last five years, a quarter of American households are on food stamps, and consumers are tapped out.
In the middle east, things are heating up, with Russia having deployed their Pacific Fleet to the region, and the US putting boots on the ground in Syria as recently as this week.
On the political front, we have the President of the United States, his administration and his subordinates at domestic intelligence agencies, the IRS, the Pentagon and the Justice Department embroiled in scandals and activities that have even their most ardent supporters questioning what is really going on behind closed doors.
Yes, something is wrong. But no one is talking – at least not in an official capacity.
Thus, we are left to connect the dots ourselves with the help of various sources made available through alternative media.
We certainly can’t expect government officials to openly admit that some very bad things have happened, are happening and will likely happen in the future. But there are those inside the halls of our most hallowed and respected institutions that risk their lives to get information out so that we can be prepared for what may well be coming down the pike.
We can downplay anonymous sources and pretend like this is all made up, or, we can simply look around and see what’s going on in the world and put two-and-two together.
A report filed in December of 2012 from a source operating inside of the Department of Homeland Security noted that there would be a massive hit to precious metals around the Spring of 2013. This drop in prices was to be a prime indicator that events would start accelerating. That slide in precious metals prices has happened – to the tune of over 25% in just a few months.
Now, with revelations that the Obama administration has been snooping on journalists, as well as millions of Americans, the same DHS source has revealed that his department has been actively preparing plans to deal with the coming calamity that can be described as nothing short of the ultimate global doomsday scenario.
With our national leadership involved in criminal behavior bordering on treason, there is a real possibility that a crisis, or crises, will be needed to take the focus off of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and all of those involved in an agenda that has militarized our domestic police force, supplanted our most fundamental laws, and impoverished our fellow citizens.
Government officials are some of the dirtiest people on this planet – often concerned with only money, power and their personal advancement. So, it’s not too much of a stretch of the imagination to suggest that some of them will do whatever it takes maintain their positions.
The following report from the Northeast Intelligence Network is frightening, because it involves you, your family, and and everything you hold dear.
They are getting ready for some serious sh%t to hit the fan. You should be doing the same.
“If anyone thinks that what’s going on right now with all of this surveillance of American citizens is to fight some sort of foreign enemy, they’re delusional. If people think that this ‘scandal’ can’t get any worse, it will, hour by hour, day by day. This has the ability to bring down our national leadership, the administration and other senior elected officials working in collusion with this administration, both Republican and Democrats. People within the NSA, the Department of Justice, and others, they know who they are, need to come forth with the documentation of ‘policy and practice’ in their possession, disclose what they know, fight what’s going on, and just do their job. I have never seen anything like this, ever. The present administration is going after leakers, media sources, anyone and everyone who is even suspected of ‘betrayal.” That’s what they call it, ‘betrayal.’ Can you believe the size of their cahones? This administration considers anyone telling the truth about Benghazi, the IRS, hell, you name the issue, ‘betrayal,’” he said.
“We know all this already,” I stated. He looked at me, giving me a look like I’ve never seen, and actually pushed his finger into my chest. “You don’t know jack,” he said, “this is bigger than you can imagine, bigger than anyone can imagine.This administration is collecting names of sources, whistle blowers and their families, names of media sources and everybody they talk to and have talked to, and they already have a huge list. If you’re not working for MSNBC or CNN, you’re probably on that list. If you are a website owner with a brisk readership and a conservative bent, you’re on that list. It’s a political dissident list, not an enemy threat list,” he stated.
“What’s that exactly mean, being on that list, that is,” I asked, trying to make sense of it all.
“It means that there will be censorship under the color of authority of anyone in the U.S. who is attempting to expose what’s going on in our name. It’s about controlling any damning information from reaching epidemic proportions. It’s damage control to the extreme. It’s about the upcoming censorship of the internet in the name of national security. The plans are already in place.These latest reports about “spying eyes” have turned this administration and others connected to it into something very, very dangerous. They feel cornered and threatened, and I’m hearing about some plans they have to shut down the flow of information that is implicating them of wrongdoing. Time is short,” he stated.
“How are they going to do this? How is it even possible?” I asked.
“First, they intend to use the Justice Department to silence journalists like in the Rosen case, but they won’t stop there. They will use a host of national security policies, laws, letters, whatever to take out the bigger threats,” he stated.
Next, they will use some sort of excuse, an external threat, and I believe it will be a combination of the economic collapse and a Mid-East war that will begin in Syria to throttle the information that is accessible on the Internet. And you know what? People will believe it!”
Based on what I’ve seen, most of which I should not have seen, the DHS is co-ordinating efforts with other federal agencies to begin to threaten American citizens with incarceration for non-compliance. You know the old talk of color coded lists? Well, this is what they will be using. People exposing the truth about Benghazi, killing the U.S. Dollar, even those questioning Obama’s legal status and eligibility to be President are the current targets. And they’ve had five long years to get to this point. The ugly truth is that these policies and practices did not start under Obama, but long before. This is about the killing of our Constitutional Republic. The murder of our country and the stripping of our rights. While many have been preoccupied with one issue, few have seen the bigger issue. This is the ‘end game,’ for all the marbles,” he stated.
More to come
“Please,” pleaded my source, “get this information out while you can. Tell people what I’m saying, that we don’t have much time, that after the latest exposure of spying, Obama, Jarrett, Axelrod, and others, including members of Congress, have put their plans into high gear.
This is about the Marxist takeover of America. This is about our country being able to survive another July 4th holiday. This is about a world war about to break out that will kill millions of people, all because of the agenda of this administration.”
“They are very dangerous and will do anything and everything to stop the onslaught of negative information that’s being reported by the main stream media. But only about one quarter of the real information is being reported. The other three quarters will be the game changer. But first, tell people what I’ve said. Let them know that more will follow but get this information out right now while the internet is still relatively free. Do it today.”
My source provided additional information, but I am abiding by his wish to get this much out. I am writing now to let people know that we are in for seriously dangerous times ahead. Deadly times. War, and censorship under the color of authority and under the pretext of of national security. It’s about to get a lot uglier. Stay tuned.
Original report at Northeast Intelligence Network via Steve Quayle
We and others have been warning about the surveillance state for years. Look at today’s headlines. It’s now 100% confirmed. Up until this week most Americans didn’t believe it was possible.
We have also warned that the government had turned their security and policing apparatus not against foreign threats, but domestic ones. It should now be clear thatyou are the target.
Likewise, we and others have warned of the real possibility that this ends with a war that will change the very landscape of this planet. There should be no doubt that the chess pieces have already been positioned.
This IS coming. Maybe not tomorrow. Maybe not next month. But in our lifetimes we will see this manifest right before our eyes.
It’s been done throughout history. Government sponsored democide has taken the lives of hundreds of millions of people. For some it’s just a means to an end; nothing more than a statistic.
What makes you, I or our families any different than those who they came for before?
March 16th, 2013 by olddog
(Before It's News)
By Victoria Baer
Ok, all….time to be very aware and stand guard!!!
INTEL BRIEFING – 3/11/13
For dissemination throughout the Frontiersmen and to our friends
RE: Federal action against patriot groups in US
Today at 10AM there was a very large meeting at the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS) headquarters in Clarksburg, WV. The meeting was held in an auditorium and included everyone – from agents to the secretaries. The meeting was organized by the Director of the Biometric Identification Management Agency (BIMA), Colonel Bolo (ret.).
Bolo summarized the purchase of 24 new armored vehicles (each costing $400k) and the recent appearance of 20 mobile headquarters that are now present at the facility. The mobile units are semi-trailers with attached generators in the front; are of a shiny, mirrored-silver finish; and have no identifiable markings on them at all. There are 20 of them parked (visibly in front) at 1000 Cluster Hollow Rd, Clarksburg, WV as of today. Additionally, there are 24 armored cars (the same ones we have seen with DHS markings) parked in a different lot on this property, but they too may be visible.
The Colonel went into great detail on a list of patriot/constitutional groups. According to witnesses, this is a list that may be identical or very close to the one put out by the SPLC but had over 1000 groups on it. He explained that although groups may take advantage of the 2nd Amendment debate to garner followers now, at the heart of all these organizations is a racist core; one that poses a threat and will need to be dealt with soon. This is when he tied the armored cars and mobile command trailers to ‘the mission’.
The armored cars (those at the facility and nationwide) are to effect high-risk warrants on the ringleaders of the listed various groups with command centers being placed as necessary. The DHS and FBI are planning to move at one time against the listed groups; with SWAT teams being utilized against the more threatening ones.
The colonel explained that all these groups have been successfully infiltrated and the leaders identified. He also explained that this is part of the new Internal Security Force that the president has been alluding to. In answering a question from an attendee regarding the mass purchase of ammo, he also stated that the buildup of arms and ammo was specifically for this ‘mission’.
The witness has told me that after the meeting, everyone they seen were against this. People were complaining, shaking their head in disbelief, and asking what the heck going on. According to them, NOBODY (including federal agents present) planned on going along with this and many even talked about how this will ignite a war.
The report I received can be verified through any personal contacts you may have at this center or connected to the agencies mentioned. You may also visibly inspect the lot for these trailers by driving to the location in Clarksburg. The witness was extremely bothered by the meeting and has said ‘it is coming and a hell of a lot sooner than people think’.
I used to think that mass roundups would never happen – but with this new information, I can clearly see that this is exactly what is going to happen (at least to a certain number of militia/patriot groups). And inevitably, any action this crazy will result in a reaction by others. The specter of Civil War in this country is a real and present danger folks – prepare.
NOTE: I did ask a whole bunch of additional questions which hopefully will be answered soon.
*Thanks given to the Indiana Sentinels and the Frontiersmen for the information*
I should not have to tell you what will happen if this materializes, or what will happen if the people do not respond like their expected to, but I’m going to anyway. Let’s assume none of the patriot groups respond. If that happens, you can expect the government to implement a false flag attack on the military or a government center; possibly the White House! They have planned this to the ninth degree, and martial law will be put in place regardless of the response or lack of it. They have no intention of letting this fissile once they start it. I advise everyone no matter which side of this you support, to be ready for blackouts, transportation interruptions, no food or gas anywhere for the people.
Part of their plan is to turn the people against the patriots, and there is no better way to do that than make them scared, and uncomfortable.
It should go without saying that a large portion of our country is either ignorant of what has been building between patriots and government, or just stupidly unwilling to believe any of it. Probably millions will be flabbergasted that Americans would do the things they are going to be accused of by the mainstream media, and many of them will defend their beloved country that they believe is perfect in every way. So, count on the dull and ignorant being useless in this engagement, due to their false patriotism. In my opinion, these people do not deserve to live among us, as there is no excuse for being ignorant enough to defend the government. Most of their opinions are directly attributed to their concern for their personal safety, and will refuse to acknowledge the atrocities of the federal government. This is not going to be just a physical war between two sides, it is going to be mostly propaganda to further divide the people, so those of you who have not kept up with the issues involved will have to become informed during a blackout of truthful information, all of which the feds are perfectly aware of and responsible for. Our heroic defenders of freedom are going to need your support, and that will cause you to fear for your own safety, because any refusal on your part is going to be hard for our men to understand. Remember, they have done their job of becoming informed at a high cost to them and their families, and won’t have much sympathy for your ignorance. Yes, there may be some ferocious killers among the patriots, and it is your responsibility to protect your family, so you better get informed before it’s too late. Those who cannot physical defend their freedom will be expected to protect the patriots, and they won’t take kindly to being treated like thieves, troublemakers, tyrants, and invaders. These are the men who have committed their lives to protect your country, so make sure you treat them like they deserve. They have done the work, sacrificed the time and money, left their families behind, and are risking everything for the future of freedom in America. A warm, loving, appreciative welcome, when they need your help is going to be your part of the war. Those who prefer safety over freedom deserve neither. What will you do when you have to decide between tyranny, and freedom? Get your shit together folks, this could happen tonight. As for me and my house, we will die defending our God given Constitutional freedom from oppressive governance. How about you?
And remember, I did not write the article above, I just delivered it! Check it out your self!
February 17th, 2013 by olddog
Brandon Smith, Contributor
Throughout history, citizen disarmament generally leads to one of two inevitable outcomes: Government tyranny and genocide, or, revolution and civil war. Anti-gun statists would, of course, argue that countries like the UK and Australia have not suffered such a result. My response would be – just give them time. You may believe that gun control efforts are part and parcel of a totalitarian agenda (as they usually are), or, you may believe that gun registration and confiscation are a natural extension of the government’s concern for our “safety and well-being”. Either way, the temptation of power that comes after a populace is made defenseless is almost always too great for any political entity to dismiss. One way or another, for one reason or another, they WILL take advantage of the fact that the people have no leverage to determine their own cultural future beyond a twisted system of law and governance which is, in the end, easily corrupted.
The unawake and the unaware among us will also argue that revolution or extreme dissent against the establishment is not practical or necessary, because the government “is made of regular people like us, who can be elected or removed at any time”.
This is the way a Republic is supposed to function, yes. However, the system we have today has strayed far from the methods of a Free Republic and towards the machinations of a single party system. Our government does NOT represent the common American anymore. It has become a centralized and Sovietized monstrosity. A seething hydra with two poisonous heads; one Democrat in name, one Republican in name. Both heads feed the same bottomless stomach; the predatory and cannibalistic pit of socialized oligarchy.
On the Republican side, we are offered Neo-Con sharks like George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, who argue for “conservative” policies such as limited government interference and reduced spending, all while introducing legislation which does the exact opposite. The recent passage of the “Safe Act” in New York with extensive Republican support proves that Republicans cannot be counted on to defend true conservative values.
The Democrats get candidates like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, who claim to be anti-war and against government abuse of civil liberties, and yet, these same “progressive and compassionate” politicians now froth at the mouth like rabid dogs sinking their teeth into the flesh of the citizenry, expanding on every tyrannical initiative the Republicans began, and are bombing more civilian targets in more foreign countries than anyone with a conscience should be able to bear.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; the government is not our buddy. It is not our ally or friend. It is not a “part of us”. It is now a separate and dangerous entity. A parasite feeding off the masses. It has become a clear threat to the freedoms of average Americans. It is time for the public to grow up, snap out of its childish delusions, and accept that there is no solace or justice to be found anymore in Washington D.C.
Once we understand this fact, a question then arises – What do we do about it? If we cannot redress our grievances through the election process because both parties favor the same authoritarian direction, and if our street protests are utterly ignored by the mainstream media and the establishment, and if civil suits do nothing but drag on for years with little to no benefit, then what is left for us? Is the way of the gun the only answer left for the American people at this crossroads?
I cannot deny that we are very close to such a conclusion. Anyone who does deny it is living in a candy coated fantasy land. However, there are still certain options that have not been exhausted, and we should utilize them if for no other reason than to maintain the moral high ground while the power elite continue to expose their own despotic innards.
State And County Nullification
The assertion of local authority in opposition to federal tyranny is already being applied across the country. Multiple states, counties, and municipalities are issuing declarations of defiance and passing legislation which nullifies any future federal incursions against 2nd Amendment protections. For instance, the Gilberton Borough Council in PA in conjunction with Police Chief Mark Kessler has recently adopted a resolution defending all 2nd Amendment rights within their municipal borders up to and including the denial of operations by federal officers:
Approximately 283 county Sheriffs and multiple police officers have taken a hard stand, stating that they will either not aid federal enforcement officials with gun control related activities, or, that they will not allow such activities within their county, period:
This trend of dissent amongst law enforcement officials debunks the nihilistic view promoted by disinformation agents that “no one in law enforcement will have the guts to stand up to the government no matter how sour it turns”. It has also shaken the Obama Administration enough that the White House is struggling to counter it by wining and dining police unions and sheriffs departments in order to form their own “coalition of the willing”. Obama seems to believe that holding press conferences using children or police as background props will somehow earn him political capital in the battle for gun rights, but I have my doubts:
Multiple states have legislation on the table to nullify as well, and it would seem that the violent push by the establishment to extinguish the 2nd Amendment has actually sharply rekindled the public’s interest in States Rights and the 10th Amendment.
This does not mean, though, that we should rely on nullification alone. While the gun grabbers are stumbling into severe resistance at the national level, some representatives are attempting to supplant gun rights at the state level, including New York, California, Washington State, and Missouri. The goal here is obvious; counter states rights arguments by using anti-gun legislators to impose federal controls through the back door of state legislation.
They will claim that if we support states rights, then we have to abide by the decisions of regions like New York when they ban and confiscate firearms. It’s sad how gun grabbers lose track of reality. Neither federal authority, nor state authority, supplants the legal barriers of the Constitution itself, meaning, no federal or local authority has the right or power to remove our freedom of speech, our freedom of assembly, our freedom of privacy, OR our freedom to own firearms (including firearms of military utility). The Constitution and the Bill of Rights supersede all other legal and political entities (including treaties, as ruled by the Supreme Court). At least, that’s what the Founding Fathers intended when they established this nation. The point is, a state is well within its rights to defy the Federal Government if it is enacting unconstitutional abuses, and the people are well within their rights to defy a state when it does the same.
There is actually a fantastic economic opportunity to be had by states and counties that nullify gun control legislation. Many gun manufacturers and retail businesses are facing financial oblivion if the establishment has its way, and moving operations outside the U.S. is not necessarily practical for most of them (gun manufacturing is one of the last business models we still do better than the rest of the world). Municipalities could offer safe haven to these businesses, allowing them to continue producing firearms and high capacity magazines, fulfill expanding public demand, and create a surging cash flow into their area while at the same time giving the federal government the finger.
This strategy does not come without dangers, though. Many states and counties are addicted to federal funding, and some would go bankrupt without it. The obvious first response by the feds to protesting local governments will be to cut off the river of cash and starve them into subservience.
This brand if internal financial warfare can be countered by local governments by nullifying a few other unconstitutional regulations, including those issued by the EPA and the BLM. States and counties could easily disable federal land development restrictions and begin using resource development as a means to generate supplemental income. North Dakota is essentially doing this right now in the Bakken Oil Fields, becoming one of the few states in America that is actually creating legitimate high paying jobs (instead of part time wage slave jobs), and growing more prosperous every year.
This tactic is not limited to state governments either. Counties also have the ability, with the right officials involved, to regain control of their economic destinies anytime they want. All it takes is the courage to rock the establishment boat.
Refuse All Registration Schemes
National firearms registration and gun databases are almost always followed by full gun confiscation. The process is usually done in a standardized manner: First demand extensive registration and cataloging of gun owners. Second, ban more effective styles of weaponry, including semi-automatics and high capacity rifles (Let the sport hunters keep their bolt actions for a time, and lure them onto your side with the promise that they will get to keep their .270 or their 30-06). Then take all semi-auto handguns. Then, ban high powered magnum style bolt actions by labeling them “sniper rifles”. Then demand that the gun owners that still remain allow official “inspections” of their home by law enforcement to ensure that they are “storing their weapons properly”. Then, force them to move those weapons to a designated “warehouse or range”, locked away for any use other than recreational shooting. Then, when the public is thoroughly disconnected from their original right to bear arms, take everything that’s left.
Keep in mind that the federal government and certain state governments are acting as if they would like to skip ALL of the preliminary steps and go straight to full confiscation. I am not discounting that possibility. But, they may feign certain concessions in the near term in order to get the one thing they really want – full registration.
Registration must be the line in the sand for every single gun owner in this country, whether they own several semi-automatics, or one pump action shotgun. Once you give in to being registered, fingerprinted, photographed, and tracked wherever you decide to live like a convicted sexual predator, you have shown that you have no will or spirit. You have shown that you will submit to anything.
After a full registration has been enacted, every gun (and maybe every bullet) will be tracked. If confiscation is utilized, they know exactly what you have and what you should not have, and exactly where you are. Criminals will still acquire weapons illegally, as they always have. The only people who will suffer are law abiding citizens. It’s a recipe for dictatorship and nothing more.
Gun Barter Networks
The retail firearms and ammo markets are Sahara dry right now, and will probably remain that way in the foreseeable future. Anything that is available for purchase is usually twice the price it was last year. Extremely high demand is removing retail from the picture before any legislation is even passed. Enter barter…
Cash will remain a bargaining tool for as long as the dollar remains the world reserve currency and holds at least some semblance of value (this will end sooner than most people think). That said, as gun items become scarce, the allure of cash may be supplanted. The signs of this are already evident.
Gun owners are now looking more to trade firearms and accessories for OTHER firearms and accessories, because they know that once they sell an item, they may never see it again, and the usefulness of cash is fleeting. Gun Barter is not only a way for firearms enthusiasts to get what they need, it is also a way for them to move around any future gun sale restrictions that may arise. Private gun sales are legal in some states, but do not count on this to last. Barter leaves no paper trail, and thus, no traceable evidence of transaction. For those who fear this idea as “legally questionable”, all I can do is remind them that an unconstitutional law is no law at all. If it does not adhere to the guidelines of our founding principles, our founding documents, and our natural rights, then it is just a bunch of meaningless words on a meaningless piece of paper signed by a meaningless political puppet.
3D Printing And Home Manufacturing
3D Printing is now available to the public and for those with the money, I recommend they invest quickly. Unless the establishment wants to make the possession of these printers illegal, as well as shut down the internet, there will be no way to stop data streamers from supplying the software needed to make molds for every conceivable gun part, including high capacity mags. This technology has been effectively promoted by the Wiki Weapons Project:
According to current ATF law, the home manufacture of gun parts is not technically illegal, as long as they are not being produced for sale. But in a state or county where federal gun laws have been nullified, what the ATF says is irrelevant.
Home manufacturing of gun parts and ammo would be a highly lucrative business in such safe haven areas. And, the ability to build one’s own self defense platform is a vital skill in a sparse market environment. The ultimate freedom is being able to supply your own needs without having to ask for materials or permission from others. It should be the goal of every pro-gun activist to reach this independence.
Force The Establishment To Show Its True Colors
While some in the general public may be incensed by the trampling of our freedoms by government, many (including myself) would view direct action and aimless French Revolution-style violence as distasteful and disastrous. The moral high ground is all that any dissenting movement has. It will be hard enough to keep this ground with the constant demonization of liberty minded people that is being espoused by propaganda peddlers like the SPLC and numerous media outlets. We do not need to help them do their jobs.
Now, to be clear, I have NO illusions that the above strategies will defuse a confrontation between those who value freedom, and those who desire power. The hope is that enough people within our population will refuse to comply, and that this will make any future despotism impossible to construct. However, it is far more likely that these acts of defiance will elicit a brutal response from the government. And in a way, that is exactly what we want…
The Founding Fathers went through steps very similar to those I listed above and more to counter the tightening grip of the British Empire during the first American Revolution. The idea is simple:
Peacefully deny the corrupt system’s authority over your life by supplying your own needs and your own security, rather than lashing out blindly. Force them to show their true colors. Expose their dishonor and maliciousness. Make them come after you like the predators they are, and then, once they can no longer play the role of the “defending hero” in the eyes of the public, use your right to self defense to send them a message they won’t forget.
Skeptics will claim that physical defense is useless against a technologically advanced enemy. They will claim that we need a "majority" we do not have in order to prevail. These are usually people who have never fought for anything in their lives. They do not understand that the “odds” are unimportant. They mean nothing. No revolution for good ever begins with "majority support". Each is fought by a minority of strong willed and aware individuals. When all other methods of protest have been dismantled, the system leaves us with only two options: stand and fight, or kneel and beg for mercy. All you need to know is what YOU would do when faced with that choice.
There is no other culture on earth that has the capacity, like Americans currently do, to defeat centralists, defend individual liberty, and end the pursuit of total global power in this lifetime. We are the first and last line. If freedom is undone here, it is undone everywhere for generations to come. This is our responsibility. This is our providence. There can be no complacency. There can be no compromise. There can be no fear. It ends on this ground. One way, or another…
You can contact Brandon Smith at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Alt-Market is an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for mutual aid and defense. Join Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the system and build something better. To contribute to the growth of the Safe Haven Project, and to help us help others in relocating, or to support the creation of barter networks across the country, visit our donate page here: http://www.alt-market.com/donate
What else can be said to convince you it is time to meet up with like minded patriots with common sense and make a plan to defend your self from the out of control and tyrannical government we are obligated to live under. Never forget this is our America, this is our home, our Nation, and our freedom, which we will never surrender. Keep a cool head and do nothing foolish. This is a case of letting them start it, not us! But never forget that what we refuse to surrender is worth all the gold in the world. The freedom to defy a tyrannical government must never be lost. And our putrid neighbors, who refuse to defend liberty, are no different from the government, because if they will not defend liberty they will have already defended tyranny. Patriots, it is far better to die on your feet defending liberty than to live on your knees pleading for bread and mercy. Have you ever heard of a merciful tyrant? Please give Alt-Market whatever support you can afford.
February 17th, 2013 by olddog
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle – Sun Tzu, The Art of War
America is facing two wars, both instigated by a foreign nation with foreign interests; wars to be fought here on American soil with Tyranny and Liberty in the balance.
At this very moment Americans are secretly being herded, manipulated, divided and gulled into a civil war; A weakening, disarming, demoralizing, devastating, but still dispensable civil war. Then, without relief, the second, and most brutal, war will begin; a war to determine the future of the worldfor generations to come.
The Civil War will be a false flag event, staged to disarm Americans followed by an attack of multi-national troops – destroying the final resistance and instituting a new system of government; a world government with the former America as a territory.
To understand how this is possible it necessary to open your mind and look around.
The United States Government has been captured and is not the government authorized by the Constitution for the United States of America, but rather a usurper occupational government that is de facto.
Black’s Law Dictionary, first edition, defines de facto:
In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which exists actually and must be accepted for all practical purposes, but which is illegal or illegitimate.
Black’s Law Dictionary, first edition, defines usurper:
One who assumes the right of government by force, contrary to and in violation of the constitution of the country.
A Constitutional government has limited authority to intervene in the operation of the states and would have almost no authority to intervene in the lives of citizens of the states. A Constitutional government cannot exceed its authority as defined in the Supreme law of the land but, using only the 4th and 10th amendment as a check, it’s abundantly clear, the United States federal government has exceeded its authority, is rogue, and thus illegitimate, illegal and void.
If asked how to cope with a great host of the enemy … I should say: "Begin by seizing something which your opponent holds dear; then he will be amenable to your will." Sun Tzu, The Art of War
The de facto United States Federal Government (USG) is actually a country unto itself, a nation located within the area defined as the District of Columbia and territories held in the name of the United States, but not incorporated in the Union of States called the United States of America (America) [A].
Article 1, section 8, paragraph 17 of the Constitution for the united States of America contains a loophole exposing the Constitution and America to a pathogen, an invading foreign body; a quiet deceit – a Trojan Horse in the heart of America [A].
In the United States today we have in effect two governments. … We have the duly constituted Government. … Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution – Congressman Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking Committee [C]
It is in the District of Columbia where usurpers began to create a separate nation, a legislative democracy, legislated by the same Congress legislating the Constitutional government of the Union of States. By careful use of the name United States, distinctly differing from United States of America, but deceitfully used as a synonym for the latter, a parasite has perched on the heart of our Republic.
After years of deceit and treachery, the United States has become a foreign master, a tyranny with third party interests and third party goals, pretending to represent the Republic of the United States of America.
This act [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. … When the President signs this act the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust investigation, will be legalized. – Charles A. Lindbergh Sr speaking to Congress after the Federal Reserve was passed, December 22, 1913 [C]
If the United States is a foreign legislative democracy, who are its leaders, are they not the duly elected members of Congress and Senate and the White House? No – in fact, it’s been a long time since the United States of America has had leaders not in service to foreign masters. The last time was before Woodrow Wilson was conveniently placed in office and before the private banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve was given charge of American money and credit.
The truth is, the USG is an agent of the top five (or so) International mega-banks including the private Federal Reserve. The bankers are proxies of power and action for a hidden elite, a small group of hereditarily wealthy families that have for hundreds, if not thousands of years, controlled and influenced the world. Names such as Rockefeller in America and Rothschild in the United Kingdom are among those that control the USG.
All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. – Sun Tzu, The Art of War
It is the country of the United States, with foreign interests and control, which seeks to instigate and benefit from a war; a war between the United States and America. A war they plan to start AFTER inciting a civil war.
It is time to recognize and acknowledge the deceit, only then can you ‘know the enemy‘.
Deceit quite deliberately leads to confusion and confusion leads to disarray and self defeat. Americans are being pitted against Americans to disarm America – before the war starts with the United States. It’s time to be clear: Americans, the citizens of the 50 states, are being deceived, by a cunning and ruthless foreign nation, into choosing either tyranny and enslavement by tacit unconditional surrender (disarming) or face a baited civil war and final war against an undeclared enemy (International bankers occupying and controlling the United States, a separate and hostile nation embedded in the heart of America.)
We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest – James P. Warburg, testimony to US Senate hearings concerning United Nations and its organizations, February 17, 1950
Why is America slated for destruction? Dr. John Coleman writing in Conspirators' Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300, explains the goal and the reason Americans must be disarmed. According to Coleman the elite, the mega-bank masters of the United States desire a
A One World Government and one-unit monetary system, under permanent non-elected hereditary oligarchists who self-select from among their numbers in the form of a feudal system as it was in the Middle Ages. In this One World entity, population will be limited by restrictions on the number of children per family, diseases, wars, famines, until 1 billion people who are useful to the ruling class, in areas which will be strictly and clearly defined, remain as the total world population.
There will be no middle class, only rulers and the servants. All laws will be uniform under a legal system of world courts practicing the same unified code of laws, backed up by a One World Government police force and a One World unified military to enforce laws in all former countries where no national boundaries shall exist. The system will be on the basis of a welfare state; those who are obedient and subservient to the One World Government will be rewarded with the means to live; those who are rebellious will simple be starved to death or be declared outlaws, thus a target for anyone who wishes to kill them. Privately owned firearms or weapons of any kind will be prohibited.[emphasis added][B]
A civil war, to be instigated by the USG, is necessary to quickly involve and downsize armed populations and destroy police units that might, in the end, still be loyal to America. A civil war is necessary because American active military troops might be unwilling to attack and kill Americans, except, if necessary to "restore peace" (a deception). A civil war is necessary to demoralize and turn Americans against any further violence that will be required to preserve the right to self defense and inevitably the right to life.
The move to disarm Americans is a false flag campaign and it includes elements of staged attempts to get some people to voluntarily turn in their weapons, while others will be cast as terrorists, outlaws, renegades, enemies of the state; hunted, jailed or murdered.
The move to disarm Americans is necessary so mega-bankers, and their elite masters, can move on to the next stage of their megalomaniacal dream of world government, a world government based on feudalism. A world government of elites and slaves – and in between nothing, except a tear for what could have been.
Although crime is currently at a 50-year low in America, yet gun ownership and sales are at all-time highs, crime and violence will rapidly rise after "gun-control" measures are implemented and Americans willingly disarm. For examples of rising crime rates under gun-control conditions look at Chicago or Mexico.
The abbreviated list below names a just a few reasons why being and staying armed, now, is more important than anytime in American history since the revolutionary war.
The USG has recently announced the dollar’s value will be “killed”.
Federal agencies are arming themselves with billions of rounds of HOLLOW POINT ammunition for use in a war they will create against American Citizens .
The USG is creating unnecessary agencies to act against American Citizens; agencies such as The Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, and the Transportation Safety Agency; agencies created to subdue American Citizens. Structurally these unnecessary agencies are similar to agencies created by Nazi Germany during the early growth period of Nazi fascism and subsequent tyranny. For example, the Nazi RSHA, equivalent to DHS, was the parent agency of the SS, the Gestapo and a whole menu of police state bureaus – organized to maintain ironclad control in support of Nazi authoritarianism. DHS appears to be the parent agency to a growing number of sub agencies such as the TSA. .
The global mega-banks have control of the American military. The American military is a mercenary force working toward the goals of a foreign usurper which include creating a world government, while ending nation states. The military is being used to destroy nation states around the world and will later be used against American Citizens. Without weapons, Americans cannot hope to present even the threat of repelling an attack by the usurper controlled American military.
The USG is currently conducting military drills simulating assaults on American cities, see the military "training" operations in St. Louis, Miami, Houston and other cities. This is unprecedented and signals the USG is practicing for a time when they will be back to these cities with non-simulated assaults . Unprecedented USG military training, in apparent total disregard for the Posse Comitatus Act, has been noted around the country. Foreign troops have been reported training in various locations including documented evidence of Russian troops training in Colorado and others reportedly seen in North Carolina and Texas. [F]
The USG, using a totally controlled television media, created a false hysteria around shootings at the Aurora theatre and Sandy Hook elementary schools. These events were not properly investigated and many aspects surrounding the events appear to be completely staged. Therefore, until they are privately investigated, it has to be assumed these too were FALSE FLAG, staged events, similar to the Dunblane primary school shooting in Scotland, used to disarm citizens of the United Kingdom, and the Port Arthur massacre used to disarm Australians. Both Dunblane and Port Arthur have similarities consistent with the shootings reported at Sandy Hook. 
The global mega-banks and the USG have evolved the condition where more than 50% of Americans are beholden to government for basic survival needs; welfare, job contracts, subsidies, food stamps etc. Fifty percent of the people dependent at the same time government will be forced to devalue the dollar to continue servicing its debt. As debt continues to rise, and more government borrowing is required to service the debt, inflation will destroy the currency and the value of the entire financial system denominated in dollars will collapse, making support of those on government assistance impossible. This situation will lead to sharply rising crime; crime that would be less damaging if Americans are armed.
Further dollar-related news, the Chinese and other nations are maneuvering to replace the Federal Reserve Note (FRN) as the world’s reserve currency. The plan will be to begin using gold and silver for purchases of petroleum. The so-called petro-dollar (FRN) retains its value primarily because it’s the only currency accepted for purchases of petroleum in the major oil producing countries. United States world power is maintained in large part by a monopoly in the petro-dollar. The value of the dollar will drastically change with the loss of this monopoly since dollars, purchased to exchange for oil, will not be available to invest in United States treasury notes.
Devalued dollars will purchase less food, while mega-banks manipulate food prices with financial market products tied to food resources. Commodities market derivatives, Exchanged Traded Funds (ETF) and commodity index funds associated with raw food materials are financial products that can artificially manipulate food prices and production leading to shortages and rising prices. Additionally, the USG has reduced the amount of corn that can be grown for food as corn earmarked for conversion into ethanol products is diverted from the food market. Finally persistent drought and higher prices for imported foods, as the dollar is devalued, will lead to generally rising food prices and shortages leading to rising crime. 
The USG has engineered the mass migration of American industry to China, resulting in a falling standard of living (in America) which will decline more sharply as the dollar is devalued. At that time rising prices will lead to massive unemployment, resulting in rising crime; crime that would be partially offset if Americans were armed.
The global mega banks have looted and relocated American wealth (manufacturing, patents, gold, silver and other physical or intellectual things of value) to China and other foreign locations; American gold and silver has been stolen. Precious metals looting is why the private banking cartel, called Federal Reserve, refuses an audit of America’s precious metals reserves.
The global mega banks have engineered and sold fraudulent financial instruments that will cause hundreds of trillions of dollars of counter party obligations during conditions resulting from a dollar devaluation. These obligations will become the obligation of the American Citizen via secret and deceitful contracts hypothecating all American assets as collateral for USG debt. Americans will be aware that mega-bank obligations, assumed firstly by the de-facto government and then transferred by agreement to Citizens, are fraud, but without weapons it will not be possible to rightfully stop the confiscation of property. American property will be dispensed to global mega-bankers and their operatives including the Communist Chinese. The Chinese will bring military forces to protect their property against disarmed Americans.
The USG Department of Justice and the President of the United States are operating a lawless fascism, unrestricted by the supreme law of the land (Constitution), the USG will ‘authorize’, by executive orders and illegal statutes such as the NDAA, use of attack drones to kill Americans without warrants or any due process.
The global mega-banks acting through their agents of the USG, have implemented a eugenics program to surreptitiously reduce American population. The system uses a long-term approach and acts through a process of genetically modified foods, chemically poisoned public water supplies and a medical system of treating only symptoms of disease with harmful, addictive and poisonous pharmaceuticals.
This list is just the beginning, but it does highlight a few important points. When the dollar is devalued (not if), the American way of life will instantly change. Rising prices, food, medicine and fuel shortages will cause crime and violence to rise. A falling dollar value means imports slow or stop all together. As the dollar falls in value (while prices in key sectors rise), the economy will begin to slow, leading to higher employment. Unemployment and rising prices, especially for food, will cause higher crime rates. Being armed during this period of time is critical if you are to protect and keep what resources you may have accumulated.
As the dollar is devalued, those on government assistance will need more money to buy the same goods – causing civil unrest among those depending on government funds for subsistence. At that time all American governments will be seen as a failure and their collapse will be forth coming. As traditional governments (states and some federal services) begin to fail, the USG will become embolden to continue the goal of destroying the American system of states and sovereign nation status. Troops, US and foreign, will begin to collect people suffering from economic collapse and financial ruin, placing them in ready-to-go FEMA camps situated around the country. The pretense will be to feed and care for people, but the truth will much different. The USG will require hungry, cold, sick and homeless people to turn in their guns and accept authoritarian rules before entering the camps. While in camps, it will become apparent to the occupants the USG is going bankrupt. Devalued dollars, taxpayers unable to pay, foreign nations demanding payments on loans will all be used as reasons why the expected support, food, medicine and care will dwindle. Life in the camps will become violent, leading to mass murder, starvation and forced labor.
At this point the outlook is grim. Americans seemed to have the choice of accepting tyranny now, disarming and preparing for the coming collapse of the dollar, still leading to camps, mass murder, and the end of America. Or Americans can stand now, in a contrived civil war, and fight to keep their only means of self defense, knowing at the end of this bloody, tiring and demoralizing conflict, the traitorous former government of the United States will be waiting with troops both foreign and domestic to continue the assault until Americans defeat and rout the foreign United States or accept the tyranny after defeat.
I think these two choices are valid, but only after a certain point in time. For now, Americans have a slim third possibility. We are still armed. We are still well fed and the dollar will still buy meals, medicines, and munitions; we still have power.
In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity – Sun Tzu, The Art of War
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. – US Constitution
The Militia is the real department of homeland security. The militia existed before the Constitution, and continues to this day. Able bodied men 18 to 45+ are already enrolled (if not yet notified) in the militia of their residing state, and each state has the responsibility to organize and make ready the men in their charge. Individual states have laws regarding age categories and the organization of the militia. State laws, and the Militia Act of 1792, require men to equip themselves with necessary combat supplies and firearms. The militia is vital part of the tools given to Americans to defend against enemies both foreign and domestic.
Thomas Paine said “it is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” and the militia, created before the American Revolution and used during the Revolution, is what a patriot must learn about, rebuild, and organize again to protect his country from its government and foreign enemies (the United States).
What distinguishes the militia from the private agency armies and the military of the United States?
The authority for militia is any threat to public safety.
Those active in militia are usually not bound for a fixed term of service, or paid for it.
Those active in militia cannot expect arms, supplies, or officers to be provided to them.
No one has the authority to order militia to surrender, disarm, or disband. [emphasis added] [D]
Each state has a militia, from there each county and local region have units and sub-divisions. Investigate your state’s militia, actively enroll and get the ball rolling. These are tools we have now and they cannot be taken away. It is important to understand the militia is not a privately organized small group of men roaming around in the backwoods. The militia is a state level and state organized (including counties) public army, operating without pay and having no allegiances other than to the Constitution, and with final authority in matters involving preservation of the American system.
So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak. – Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Get aggressive. The current system of American money is unconstitutional and also a fraud and scam and is used by the enemy to fund operations against Americans. It is possible to take some measures that will proactively cause the dollar to be less important, while taking away the power of the criminal banks existing as parasites on a stream of stolen wealth called interest payments.
The mega-banks can be punished while moving toward a lawful monetary system. For example, if 1 million people would buy 100 ounces or more of silver now, 100 million ounces of silver worth approximately $3 billion at the current value of the dollar, the house of cards surrounding the price fixing of silver would begin to fall apart. One million people is not that many, but if only 60,000 people took a portion of their soon-to-be devalued paper dollar savings and turned it into silver now, it would have the same effect. $50,000 worth of silver at say $31/oz is, rounding off, about 1600 ounces of silver. So if 60,000 people with savings of $50,000 or more bought 1600 ounces of silver, the banking cartels criminal death grip on the American monetary system would begin to change. At that point those buying silver would have an asset that will not devalue as the dollar’s value cracks and collapses.
As the banking system begins to feel the pressure of the silver price increase, caused by just 60,000 people (around the attendance of a NFL game) buying 1600 ounces of silver, those having silver could start spending it into the market. Rising silver prices will cause dollar devaluation and silver could be used to barter items instead of using devaluing dollars.
Remember, silver will not lose its purchasing power as the dollar devalues and the paper currency’s purchasing power approaches zero. The chain reaction of this action would bring about a cleansing as corrupt-to-the-core financial institutions began to crumble; their participation in decades of silver and gold price fraud and manipulation finally costing the banks instead of suckered investors. For my thoughts on rising silver prices and metals price suppression seehttp://www.activistpost.com/2011/04/50-
Staying proactive, contact your state legislators — I visited mine in person — get them up to speed on what's happening to their state and America. Download and print documents about states that are writing legislation to protect the second amendment. Remind your legislators you can vote with your feet and move! If you have to move (like people in NY, MD, NJ, CA and IL) then do it. There are states that will resist and that’s where you will be among like-minded, and armed, resisters in great numbers.
Contact your local sheriff — I did — explain the situation and remind him that he’s the highest Constitutional law authority in the county. He has signed an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the State and the United States Constitution and he has the power (and obligation) to keep so-called federal officials and agents out of the county. Buy your sheriff a copy of Richard Mack’s book, The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope and buy a few copies to pass out of Alex Jones’ videos such as Police State 4 and End Game.
Alert: yet another weapon has been re-discovered, built into the system, and available to be used now in the fight against the rogue USG. Jury Nullification is a concept dating back to the Magna Carta and has been used in the America many times when the legal system became corrupt and illegal laws were used to punish citizens. Fully informed jurists can declare the law illegal :
The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy. – Chief Justice John Jay, U.S. Supreme Court Georgia v Brailsford (3 Dallas 1, 1794)
The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law. – U.S. v Dougherty 473 F.2d 1113 at 1130 (1972) [E]
Thomas Jefferson stated : "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." It is possible, then, to turn back unconstitutional law using your right to declare the law illegal.
Illegal Laws are NOT LEGAL and you are responsible and obligated to ignore them and arrest and prosecute anyone, uniformed or not, that tries to enforce illegal, unconstitutional law.
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. [16 Am. Jur. 2d, Section 177; later 2d, Section 256]
So, when States like Maryland or New York enact laws that infringe on the right to "keep and bear arms" – you are responsible to NOT obey; furthermore, because these laws are void, anyone attempting to enforce the laws is a criminal and should be prosecuted.
The meaning of void from Black’s Law Dictionary is : “Null; ineffectual; nugatory; having no legal force or binding effect; unable, in law, to support the purpose for which it was intended.”
Also be sure to use the remaining purchasing power of your dollars wisely, because soon they will be worth far less. Buy land, food, guns, ammo, silver, solar panels, education, etc.
Learn a martial art — coming situations may require confrontation and being prepared is the best policy.
Get together with your neighbors and help them prepare and make a neighborhood plan.
The instigators are preparing to take charge of all states, all property, implements, food, farms, equipment, arms and claim the right of disposition of all people. (executive orders are already in place)
So here’s the bottom line: being armed is the only threat against tyranny you have. Gun owners are the militia against the tyranny gathering at the gate. Regardless of your own interest, feelings or opinions about guns, the truth is: guns are a force field, a repelling barrier, an equalizer, a final last resort chance to remain free, alive and in charge of your own destiny.
Remember, the instigators MUST have your permission to destroy this nation of states. You must provide the spark that lights the fire of their revolution. We have reached a singularity in time and history. This is a beginning and an end; for if free will is real, and if good can and should prevail, then now is the time to come together and take the Moral High Ground.
Morally Americans must not use their arms until their is no other choice. We must not be baited into the false idea that being disarmed is American. When America is disarmed, America is gone, not just physically, but philosophically. Since 1776, Americans have experienced liberty and self-determination like no other nation in recorded history. But this freedom and self-determination has been predicated on the ability to defend against those that would enslave and determine our lives. The American experience has always tacitly depended on guns at the door.
Abraham Lincoln said:
Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. 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. – Lincoln’s Lyceum Address, January 27,1838
Again, Lincoln said, “All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years”. What were Lincoln’s assumptions when he made that statement? The assumption was Americans were ARMED and could not be attacked by FOREIGN enemies and fall because there were guns at every door.
Americans are being attacked now by a foreign enemy. A foreign occupying force has usurped our Federal Government and is now trying to destroy America from WITHIN.
Lincoln said: “If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher.”
To win this battle, and it is indeed a great historic battle – an age old battle between good and evil -Americans cannot “die by suicide”. We must remain armed and remain informed. WE must support those that have the courage and understanding to remain armed and ready to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
But we must take the Moral High Ground, which means we will not be baited and instigated into a battle amongst ourselves. This is truly the OLDEST manipulation in the world. The Moral High Ground means we shoot last.
The Moral High Ground demands we do NOT SURRENDER our arms. And, in order to keep the Moral High Ground, we stand up now and DECLARE to our leaders, statewide and in the Congress of the usurper Federal Government: we are Constitutionally the Sovereign and the government is a LIMITED representative of the people and WE the PEOPLE will not give up our right to self defense.
When we have stated that we DO NOT CONSENT to being disarmed and we have stood silent without firing on ourselves. Then, if it must be, with the MORAL HIGH GROUND, we can stand and fight united AGAINST the foreign usurper enemy.
Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live… at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take… OUR FREEDOM! - Mel Gibson as William Wallace, Braveheart.
What kind of man, after reading this article, would lay it down and forget about it?
Dear readers, you must throw away your fantasies, accept what is right in front of your eyes and heed the instructions above, or you will soon be bending over kissing you ass goodbye. Those of you who know and believe you have just read the truth must get involved in educating your fellow Americans until there is a real informed and infuriated citizenry in every State. Do not loose your temper at the dull and ignorant, they have been spoon fed intellectual excrement their entire life and are addicted to it. Just keep up the pressure and continue teaching. There will always be cowardly backstabbers, so watch your back! Many brave hearts will be needed in the near future, men whose knees will not bend now or ever!
* quotes from “The Art of War” :http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html
[A] "The Two United States and the Law"http://supremelaw.org/library/freeman.html
[B] Source taken from : http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/
[C] Gary Allen, “None Dare Call It Conspiracy”,Buccaneer Books, New York, 1971,pg 59,58 ISBN:0899666612
[D] Militia : http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm
[E] Jury Nullification : https://fija.org/
[F] Massive Military Training in Many States:http://www.thegovernmentrag
 Port Arthur False Flaghttp://www.biblebelievers.org.au/palies1.htm; Sandy Hook False Flag : http://theintelhub.com/2013/01/09/evidence-sandy-hook-
-and-mainstream-media/; Dunblane False Flag :
Jack Mullen has been a businessman for more than 25 years, owning 3 radio stations, several technology based companies and a resource development company
Read other articles by Jack Mullen Here
February 15th, 2013 by olddog
The Congressional Two-step with Mick Mulvaney
In an opinion requested by Kershaw County Sheriff Jim Matthews, SC Attorney General Allan Wilson suggest that if federal gun confiscation was ordered that neither state law nor state law officials may interfere or otherwise impede federal law enforcement officers as they perform their lawful duties. Sighting many examples of case-law (incremental social engineering by the use of precedent to move public policy) Wilson makes the case for federal supremacy, when and if the federal government should choose to enforce, whatever law that is passed. The seven page opinion was prompted when concerned residents asked the sheriff if he would take their guns if federal law required it. “A lot of sheriffs want to be able to fall back on what the AG says on what we lawfully have to do or don’t have to do,” Matthews said in a State paper interview. The report also states Matthews said it’s pretty clear that sheriffs do not enforce federal laws, and he doesn’t believe that he can stop federal agents from coming into his county to enforce them.
With this opinion by the SCAG, state law enforcement will not stand in the way of gun confiscation.
In the Attorney General’s opinion “federal agents are immune from state prosecution even when their conduct violated internal agency regulations or exceeded their express authority”. This means that an agent could come to your home, break into your home, ransack the place, seize anything, all without a warrant and he would be immune from state prosecution or even inference with his ransacking. The opinion also states “…that the Department (Kershaw County Sheriff’s dept.) should neither interfere with nor otherwise attempt to impede federal law enforcement officers as they perform theirlawful duties to enforce federal laws, and who act necessary and proper within federal authority.” Would enforcing an unconstitutional ”law” be considered to be an act of “lawful duties”? Are federal gun control “laws” “necessary and proper”for the federal government to be dictating? Finally in his conclusion SCAG Allan Wilson writes “…under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, neither state law nor state law officials may interfere with or otherwise impede federal law enforcement officers as they perform their lawful duties. We further advise that conduct intending to impede the discharge of the lawful duties of federal law enforcement officials may expose such persons to criminal liability.” and then he sights yet another in a long list of cases to back up his opinion but there it was again that pesky little phrase, “lawful duties“. Again, would some sort, any sort, of gun confiscation at a state or federal level be “lawful”? Think about it like this, if the federal government passed a law requiring every American to sign over their property would federal agents coming to remove you from your home be a part of their “lawful duties” and would that be “necessary and proper“?
The SCAG opinion when boiled down and filtered comes down to this, anyone who tries to stop a federal agent will wind up in court and likely lose according to results from past cases or “case-law”.
What does this mean for sheriff’s? They have to make a choice, protect the people and risk going to court or stand down and risk the rath of the people.
Instead of protecting citizens sheriff’s, with the AG’s blessing, will stand down and let it happen. Matthews has been quoted saying “I’m not going to take your guns” but he did not tell the people he will instead stand by and watch as federal agents seize weapons. In fact if a citizen was to refuse to give up his weapons to federal agents the sheriff would be forced to protect that federal agent from any action impeding the enforcement of federal law. What is not said or written about is the fact that sheriff’s rely on federal money, bribes if you will, to build their own forces.
Local Law Enforcement has become part of a national police force by grant.
Since 911 2001 the federal government under the guise of national security and the war on terror has been providing massive funding to state and local law enforcement agencies across the nation. Billions upon billions have been “given” for thousands of different reasons from tanks and armored personnel carriers down to radios and cameras all given by grant. Every grant comes with strings, hoops if you will that you must accept in order to receive this “free money”. Many departments are now part of the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global) under the Department Of Justice. Global is a national data base that the Kershaw County Sheriff joined as part of a grant requirement for five in-car cameras costing $16,000. Many other grants have similar requirements which if all tallied up leads to federal control by contract.
Do not bite the hand that feeds you.
With the money to be had in federal grants sheriff’s have been recieving as much of the “free money” as they can get their grubby little hands on. Many, if not a vast majority of them, without reading or even caring what the fine print requires of them. Richland County sheriff Leon Lott says he will not stand in the way of federal agents as does sheriff Metts of Lexington county both of which have received millions in government grants with all the strings attached.
Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott has received many federal grants including his infamous APC. Lott, along with thousands of other sheriff’s across the country, have actively sought any federal grant possible without regard to any of the requirements of these grants. Most sheriff’s are more likely than not never even read the fine print. Sheriff Matthews admitted as much when questioned about one such grant during a Kershaw County Council Meeting. Asked if he had read the grant Matthews said “no I have not read it and I don’t know anyone who did.” He was then asked if this was good for the county to which he replied “yes, it is good for the county.”
Sources close to Lexington County sheriff Metts say that the sheriff backed off from becoming and oathkeeper because of threats of losing the departments federal grant funding. Although this report has yet to be verified Metts did in fact back away from his support for that organization shortly after endorsing the group which leads us to believe there is some basis to suspect the report is true.
With millions of dollars at stake it becomes harder and harder for sheriffs to resist. Grants don’t raise local taxes. They do not show up on a department’s budget which leaves room for other spending and it makes the sheriff look good as he brings in the pork to make the public safer while he may be helping to enslave us all.
The militarization of your local police
The main culprit of militarization was a 1994 law authorizing the Pentagon to donate surplus military equipment to local police departments. In the 19 years since, literally millions of pieces of equipment designed for use on a foreign battlefield have been handed over for use on U.S. streets, against U.S. citizens. Another law passed in 1997 further streamlined the process. AsNational Journal reported in 2000, in the first three years after the 1994 law alone, the Pentagon distributed 3,800 M-16s, 2,185 M-14s, 73 grenade launchers, and 112 armored personnel carriers to civilian police agencies across America. Domestic police agencies also got bayonets, tanks, helicopters and even airplanes.
“Simply put, the police culture in our country has changed,” Joseph McNamara, who served as a police chief in both San Jose, California, and Kansas City, Missouri wrote in a 2006 article for the Wall Street Journal. “An emphasis on ‘officer safety’ and paramilitary training pervades today’s policing, in contrast to the older culture, which held that cops didn’t shoot until they were about to be shot or stabbed.” Noting the considerable firepower police now carry, McNamara added, “Concern about such firepower in densely populated areas hitting innocent citizens has given way to an attitude that the police are fighting a war against drugs and crime and must be heavily armed.”
Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper finds all of this troubling. “We needed local police to play a legitimate, continuing role in furthering homeland security back in 2001,” says Stamper, now a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. “After all, the 9/11 terrorist attacks took place on specific police beats in specific police precincts. Instead, we got a 10-year campaign of increasing militarization, constitution-abusing tactics, needless violence and heartache as the police used federal funds, equipment, and training to ramp up the drug war. It’s just tragic.”
Allan Wilson and these sheriffs have it all wrong.
The sheriff, duly elected by the people, has as his one and only job to protect the individual rights of every person within the county. That is his only duty. Everything he is supposed to do is an effort to help residents protect their rights. Sheriff’s should be training residents and promoting that every citizen be armed and ready to defend themselves and their neighbors from violators of those rights. These duties do not however stop when the federal government comes knocking, in fact that is when the sheriff is needed most. If your sheriff says he cannot or will not stop federal agents from coming for your guns he is not performing his duty and should be removed, by force if necessary, and if he won’t go get out the tar a feathers and make a chicken out of him. County residents will be left with little choice indeed if their sheriff will not stand to protect them. South Carolinians should be very concerned as this opinion, statements by many sheriffs, and the strings that now tie sheriff’s hands, leave them without any protection from a tyrannical government save what they can provide for themselves.
The writing is on the wall, tyranny is coming like a storm on the horizon. The battle lines are being drawn. Your sheriff, if he is like these, is not your friend in fact is now a partner with the despotic federal government.
As the debate over gun control continues to rage it is with the sheriff that our final defense is supposed to be, the sheriff standing to say “no” and the armed citizens standing beside him but as we can now see from the Allan Wilson opinion we the people will be standing alone and the sheriff will be behind us ready to step in to protect the federal agents.
I suspect Sheriff Matthews already knew what he would do, after all he has been a federal agent his entire career. He already thinks that way ( if the fed says jump he asks “how high sir!”) and I suspect he just wanted to remind those who question the supremacy of the federal government that they will be standing alone. The irony is those who stand against tyranny will be backed by the people and those who stand down and let it happen, like Matthews, Lott, and Metts, will be left standing alone.
The NRA bargains away your rights
Most Americans believe the National Rifle Association is pro 2nd amendment but the evidence is contrary and in fact shows that they are the compromiser of choice.
The truth is, NRA supports many gun laws, including federal and state laws that prohibit the possession of firearms by certain categories of people, such as convicted violent criminals, those prohibiting sales of firearms to juveniles, and those requiring instant criminal records checks on retail firearm purchasers.
March 29, 2002
“The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871.”
—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth NRA’s American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22
The war on guns began long ago and has been aided by the champion of the 2nd amendment, none other than the NRA. In 1934 the NRA was right there to ban automatic weapons and help make a distinction between “military: and “civilian” weapons.
“The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. … NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts.” —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 2
Assault weapons are not the target.
While the MSM is talking about magazines and assault rifles the real gun control measures relate to mental health and the prevention of crazies getting guns. Enter new mental health regulations. This is the golden goose for all big government globalist both republicans and democrats.
Jump on board the conspiracy train for an all out ride into the twilight zone.
Suppose republicans and democrats come together in compromise and they pass sweeping new safety measures to keep guns out of the hands of potential mentally deranged souls. And let’s just say that the new law requires that anyone who wishes to purchase a firearm must now have a mental health exam. Now just suppose, for a minute, that this guy takes a Zanax every now and then and the doctor, using government regulations, determines he is unfit to own a firearm. Now because he is unfit to purchase a firearm he is also unfit to own any firearms after all he is a potential threat right? And let’s suppose that after being diagnosed a federal judge orders that the man surrender all of his weapons. The man, distraught at this cruel treatment, holes up in his house and says he will not give up his guns. The federal agents move in and surround the house. Who does this man call? Will your sheriff stand? More than likely your sheriff will enter the situation on the side of the federal agents at least that is what Allen Wilson is saying along with the three stooges of South Carolina law enforcement, Jim Matthews, Leon Lott, and of course James Metts.
Think about PTSD and veterans mental health. Any veteran is subject to be singled out, depending on government dictate, as mentally unstable and asked to surrender his firearms. The list of possible mental health disorders are endless and will not be written into a bill, that will be left to the executive branch and its thousands of bureaucrats with the help of many a think tank. We call this rule by regulation.
The NRA will again compromise, republicans and democrats will compromise, and the infringement of our right to bear arms will again take a severe blow.
The American people have been stripped of defense against tyranny.
Like a toothless dog, all bark and no bite, every layer of protection has been stripped away and the politicians know the American people are now left virtually defenseless. They no longer fear the people.
Slowly one piece at a time with the support of the NRA our second amendment right to defend against tyrannical government has been stripped away leaving little in the way of dictatorial rule by an elite oligarchy.
This will not be a door to door confiscation instead it will be one here and another there slowly over time everyone who wants a gun will be labeled with a mental health disorder.
They are coming for your guns.
I had wondered about this situation in my home county and questioned the sheriff, only to be told he would have to perform further investigation on the matter before making a commitment. I have not heard back, nor has he answered any of my emails, so having already made up my mind before talking to him, I resolve to fight to the death if and when they come for my weapons. I am well prepared to take a few with me, and have no regrets, other than my wife will probably be killed with me. If my children were still at home, they would probably be victims also. There is a point when men will have to die in the act of defending their natural rights, and I much prefer dying to living under tyranny. My only regret is not being young and wealthy enough to take hundreds with me. I cannot tell other men what to do, but if they elect to comply and surrender their weapons, I hope they suffer humiliation for the rest of their miserable life. To our federal government and the assholes that support them, I hope you spend eternity in the lake of fire.
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.