Categories » ‘U.S. Military’
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: email@example.com
Alt-Market is an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for mutual aid and defense. Join Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the system and build something better. To contribute to the growth of the Safe Haven Project, and to help us help others in relocating, or to support the creation of barter networks across the country, visit our donate page here: http://www.alt-market.com/donate
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.
February 8th, 2013 by olddog
Paul Craig Roberts
Institute for Political Economy
The Bush regime’s response to 9/11 and the Obama regime’s validation of this response have destroyed accountable democratic government in the United States. So much unaccountable power has been concentrated in the executive branch that the US Constitution is no longer an operable document.
Whether a person believes the official story of 9/11 which rests on unproven government assertions or believes the documented evidence provided by a large number of scientists, first responders, and structural engineers and architects, the result is the same. 9/11 was used to create an open-ended “war on terror” and a police state. It is extraordinary that so many Americans believe that “it can’t happen here” when it already has.
We have had a decade of highly visible evidence of the construction of a police state: the PATRIOT Act, illegal spying on Americans in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the initiation of wars of aggression–war crimes under the Nuremberg Standard–based on intentional lies, the Justice Department’s concocted legal memos justifying the executive branch’s violation of domestic and international laws against torture, the indefinite detention of US citizens in violation of the constitutionally protected rights of habeas corpus and due process, the use of secret evidence and secret “expert witnesses” who cannot be cross-examined against defendants in trials, the creation of military tribunals in order to evade federal courts, secret legal memos giving the president authority to launch preemptive cyber attacks on any country without providing evidence that the country constitutes a threat, and the Obama regime’s murder of US citizens without evidence or due process.
As if this were not enough, the Obama regime now creates new presidential powers by crafting secret laws, refusing to disclose the legal reasoning on which the asserted power rests. In other words, laws now originate in secret executive branch memos and not in acts of Congress. Congress? We don’t need no stinking Congress.
Despite laws protecting whistleblowers and the media and the US Military Code which requires soldiers to report war crimes, whistleblowers such as CIA agent John Kiriakou, media such as Julian Assange, and soldiers such as Bradley Manning are persecuted and prosecuted for revealing US government crimes.
The criminals go free, and those who report the crimes are punished.
The justification for the American police state is the “war on terror,” a hoax kept alive by the FBI’s “sting operations.” Normally speaking, a sting operation is when a policewoman poses as a prostitute in order to ensnare a “John,” or a police officer poses as a drug dealer or user in order to ensnare drug users or dealers. The FBI’s “sting operation” goes beyond these victimless crimes that fill up US prisons.
The FBI’s sting operations are different. They are just as victimless as no plot ever happens, but the FBI doesn’t pose as bomb makers for terrorists who have a plot but lack the weapon. Instead, the FBI has the plot and looks for a hapless or demented person or group, or for a Muslim enraged over the latest Washington insult to him and/or his religion. When the FBI locates its victim, its agents approach the selected perpetrator pretending to be Al-Qaeda or some such and ply the selected perpetrator with money, the promise of fame, or threats until the victim signs on to the FBI’s plot and is arrested.
Trevor Aaronson in his book, The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s War on Terrorism, documents that the FBI has so far concocted 150 “terrorist plots” and that almost all of the other “terrorist cases” are cases unrelated to terrorism, such as immigration, with a terror charge tacked on.
The presstitute American media doesn’t ask why, if there is so much real terrorism requiring an American war against it, the FBI has to invent and solicit terrorist plots.
Neither does the media inquire how the Taliban, which resists the US invasion and attempted occupation of Afghanistan, fighting the US superpower to a standstill after 11 years, came to be designated as terrorists. Nor does the US presstitute media want to know how tribesmen in remote regions of Pakistan came to be designated as “terrorists” deserving of US drone attacks on the citizens, schools and medical clinics of a country with which the US is not at war.
Instead the media protects and perpetrates the hoax that has given America the police state. The American media has become Leni Riefenstahl, as has Hollywood with the anti-Muslim propaganda film, Zero Dark Thirty. This propaganda film is a hate crime that spreads Islamophobia. Nevertheless, the film is likely to win awards and to sink Americans into both tyranny and a hundred-year war in the name of fighting the Muslim threat.
What I learned many years ago as a professor is that movies are important molders of Americans‘ attitudes. Once, after giving a thorough explanation of the Russian Revolution that led to communist rule, a student raised his hand and said: “That’s not the way it happened in the movie.”
At first I thought he was making a witty joke, but then I realized that he thought that the truth resided in the movie, not in the professor who was well versed in the subject. Ever since I have been puzzled how the US has survived for so long, considering the ignorance of its population. Americans have lived in the power of the US economy. Now that this power is waning, sooner or later Americans will have to come to terms with reality.
It is a reality that will be unfamiliar to them.
Some Americans claim that we have had police states during other wartimes and that once the war on terror is won, the police state will be dismantled. Others claim that government will be judicious in its use of the power and that if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear.
These are reassurances from the deluded. The Bush/Obama police state is far more comprehensive than Lincoln’s, Wilson’s, or Roosevelt’s, and the war on terror is open-ended and is already three times longer than World War II. The Police State is acquiring “squatter’s rights.”
Moreover, the government needs the police state in order to protect itself from accountability for its crimes, lies, and squandering of taxpayers‘ money. New precedents for executive power have been created in conjunction with the Federalist Society which, independent of the war on terror, advocates the “unitary executive” theory, which claims the president has powers not subject to check by Congress and the Judiciary. In other words, the president is a dictator if he prefers to be.
The Obama regime is taking advantage of this Republican theory. The regime has used the Republican desire for a strong executive outside the traditional checks and balances together with the fear factor to complete the creation of the Bush/Cheney police state.
As Lawrence M. Stratton and I documented in our book, The Tyranny Of Good Intentions, prior to 9/11 law as a shield of the people was already losing ground to law as a weapon in the hands of the government. If the government wanted to get you, there were few if any barriers to a defendant being framed and convicted, least of all a brainwashed jury fearful of crime.
I cannot say whether the US justice system has ever served justice better than it has served the ambition of prosecutors. Already in the 1930s and 1940s US Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland and US Attorney General Robert Jackson were warning against prosecutors who sacrifice “fair dealing to build up statistics of success.” Certainly it is difficult to find in the ranks of federal prosecutors today Jackson’s “prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.”
Just consider the wrongful conviction of Alabama’s Democratic governor, Don Siegelman by what apparently was a Karl Rove plot to rid the South of Democratic governors. The “Democratic” Obama regime has not investigated this false prosecution or given clemency to its innocent own. Remember how quickly Bush removed the prison sentence of Cheney’s operative who revealed the name of a CIA undercover agent? The Democrats are a cowed and cowardly political party, fearful of justice, and as much a part of the corrupt police state as the Republicans.
Today the purpose of a prosecution is to serve the prosecutor’s career and that of the party that appoints him or her. A prosecutor’s career is served by high conviction rates, which require plea bargains in which the evidence against a defendant is never tested in court or before a jury, and by high profile cases, which can launch a prosecutor into a political career, as Rudy Giuliana achieved with his frame-up of Michael Milken.
Glenn Greenwald explained how Internet freedom advocate Aaron Swartz was driven to his death by the ambition of two federal prosecutors, US Attorney Carmen Ortiz and Assistant US Attorney Stephen Heymann, who had no aversion to destroying an innocent person with ridiculous and trumped-up charges in order to advance their careers.
It is rare for a prosecutor to suffer any consequence for bringing false charges, for consciously using and even paying for false evidence, and for lying to judge and jury. As prosecutors are rarely held accountable, they employ illegal and unethical methods and routinely abuse their power. As judges are mainly concerned with clearing their court dockets, justice is rarely served in America, which explains why the US has not only a larger percentage of its citizens in prison than any other country on earth, but also the largest absolute number of prisoners. The US actually has more of its citizens in prison than “authoritarian” China which has a population four times larger than the US. The US, possibly the greatest human rights abuser in history, is constantly bringing human rights charges against China. Where are the human rights charges against Washington?
In America the collapse of law has gone beyond corrupt prosecutors and their concocted false prosecutions. Unless it needs or desires a show trial, a police state does not need prosecutors and courts. By producing legal memos that the president can both throw people into prison without a trial and execute them without a trial simply by stating that some official in the executive branch thinks the person has a possible or potential connection to terrorism, tyranny’s friends in the Justice (sic) Department have dispensed with the need for courts, prosecutors and trials.The Bush/Obama regime has made the executive branch judge, juror, and executioner. All that is needed is an unproven assertion by some executive branch official. Here we have the epitome of evil.
Evidence is no longer required for the president of the US to imprison people for life or to deprive them of their life. A secret Justice Department memo has been leaked to NBC News that reveals the tyrannical reasoning that authorizes the executive branch to execute American citizens on the basis of belief alone without the requirement of evidence that they are terrorists or associated with terrorists.
In “freedom and democracy” America, innocent until proven guilty is no longer the operative legal principle. If the government says you are guilty, you are. Period. No evidence required for your termination. Even Stalin pretended to have evidence.
The United States government is working its way step by step toward the determination that any and every critic of the government is guilty of providing “aid and comfort” to Washington’s “terrorist enemies,” which includes the elected Hamas government in Gaza. The only critics exempted from this rule-in-the-making are the neoconservatives who criticize the US government for being too slow to throttle both its critics and “anti-semites,” such as former US President Jimmy Carter, who criticize the Israeli government’s illegal appropriation of Palestinian lands. Most of Palestine has been stolen by Israel with Washington acquiesce and aid. Therefore, nothing is left for a “two-state solution.”
There is no doubt whatsoever that the Israeli government’s theft of Palestine is illegal; yet, Washington, on which Israel is totally dependent, does nothing about law.
Law, we don’t need no stinking law.” Washington has might. Might is right. Get used to it.
Not only for Palestinians has law ceased to exist, but also for Americans, and for Washington’s NATO puppets in the UK and Europe, pitiful remnants of once great nations now complicit in Washington’s crimes against humanity. The Open Society Justice Initiative, a NGO based in New York, has issued a report that documents that 54 governments are involved in Washington’s rendition and torture program. Twenty-five of the governments that help Washington to kidnap, disappear, and torture people are European.
The opening decade of the 21st century has seen the destruction of all the law that was devised to protect the innocent and the vulnerable since the rise of the now defunct moral conscience of the West. The West’s moral conscience never applied outside of itself. What happened to people in Europe’s colonies and to native inhabitants of the US and Australia is a very different story.
Nevertheless, despite its lack of coverage to the powerless, the principle of the rule of law was a promising principle. Now America under Bush and Obama, two peas of the same pod, has abandoned the principle itself.
The Obama police state will be worse than the Bush/Cheney police state.
Unlike conservatives who in times past were suspicious of government power, Obamabots believe that government power is a force for good if it is in the right hands. As Obama’s supporters see him as a member of an oppressed minority, they are confident that Obama will not misuse his power. This belief is akin to the belief that, as Jews suffered so much at the hands of Hitler, Israel would be fair to the Palestinians.
Glenn Greenwald writes that “the most extremist power any political leader can assert is the power to target his own citizens for execution without any charges or due process, far from any battlefield. The Obama administration has not only asserted exactly that power in theory, but has exercised it in practice.”
This is the power of a dictator. That Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were said to have this power was part of their demonization as “brutal dictators,” a justification for overthrowing their governments and murdering the dictators and their supporters.
Ironic, isn’t it, that the president of the United States now murders his political opponents just as Saddam Hussein murdered his. How long before critics move from the no-fly list to the extermination list?
Additional reading: The legal analysis in the article below written by seasoned attorneys shows that Obama is a tyrant. The point made by the attorneys is too clear to be debatable.
Assassin in Chief?
Exercising a power that no prior president ever thought he possessed — a power that no prior president is known to have exercised — President Obama admitted that he ordered the execution of American citizens, not on a battlefield, based on his belief that they were involved in terrorist activities. It is known that at least three U.S. citizens, including a 16-year old boy, were killed on the president's order in drone strikes in Yemen in 2011.
As the worldwide drone program ramps up, there have been increasing calls for the president to reveal the basis for his claimed authority. Only a few weeks ago, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon denied both the ACLU's and New York Times' requests under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain any and all legal documents prepared in support of the president's claim of unilateral powers. While Judge McMahon was concerned that the documents "implicate serious issues about the limits on the power of the Executive Branch under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and about whether we are indeed a nation of laws not of men," she felt constrained by precedent to withhold them. Now, a bipartisan group of 11 senators has written aletter to president Obama asking for "any and all legal opinions" that describe the basis for his claimed authority to "deliberately kill American citizens."
However, not until the Senate began gathering information for hearings on John Brennan's confirmation as CIA director, to begin February 7, has public attention finally been focused on this remarkable presidential usurpation of power.
On the night of February 4, the walls of secrecy were breached when NBC News released a leaked U.S. Justice Department White Paper entitled "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa'ida or An Associated Force." Now we can see why the Department of Justice has been so reluctant to share the basis for its legal analysis. It is deeply flawed — based on a perverse view of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Additionally, the white paper completely ignores the procedural protections expressly provided in the Constitution's Third Article — those specifically designed to prohibit the president from serving as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.
The white paper does not seek to delimit the federal power to kill citizens, but simply sets out a category of "targeted killing" of American citizens off the battlefield on foreign soil which it deems to be clearly authorized. Moreover, this power is not vested exclusively in the president, or even the secretary of defense, or even officials within the Department of Defense — rather, it can be relied on by other senior officials of unspecified rank elsewhere in government.
According to the white paper, there are only three requirements to order a killing. First, "an informed high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States." Second, capture is "infeasible." And third, the " operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with the applicable law of war principles." Indeed, from the white paper, it is not clear why killings of U.S. citizens on American soil would be judged by a different standard.
Mimicking a judicial opinion, the White Paper employs pragmatic tests developed by the courts to supplant the plain meaning of the Fifth Amendment Due Process and Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure texts. Balancing away the constitutionally protected interests of the citizen in life, liberty, and property against the more important "'realities' of the conflict and the weight of the government's interest in protecting its citizens from an imminent attack," the Justice Department lawyers have produced a document worthy of the King Council's Court of Star Chamber — concluding that the U.S. Constitution would not require the government to provide notice of charges, or a right to be heard, "before using lethal force" on a U.S. citizen suspected of terrorist activity against his country. How very convenient. The Obama administration lawyers appear to have forgotten that the Star Chamber was abolished by the English Parliament in 1641 in order to restore the rule of law adjudicated by an independent judiciary, terminating the rule of men administered by the king's courtiers.
Also, conspicuously missing from the Justice Department's constitutional analysis is any recognition that the Founders already balanced the life, liberty, and property interests of an American citizen suspected of "levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," and provided them the specific procedural protections in Article III of the Constitution. When a U.S. citizen is suspected of treason, the constitutional remedy is not to invent new crimes subject to the summary execution at the pleasure of the president and his attorneys. In Federalist No. 43, James Madison proclaimed that the Treason Clause would protect citizens "from new-fangled and artificial treasons … by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it[.]“ To that end, the Constitution does not permit the Obama lawyers to invent an elastically defined offense of “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States,” in substitution for the constitutionally concrete definition of “levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Moreover, Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution requires trial in "open court" — not in some secret "war room" in an undisclosed location. That same section of Article III requires proof by "the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession" — not by a unilateral "determin[ation] that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of an attack against the United States.” Finally, as is true of “all crimes,” Article III, Section 2 requires “trial … by jury” on a charge of treason, not trial by some unidentified “high-level official of the U.S. government[,]" no matter how well-"informed" he may be. In short, the Constitution provides that an American citizen must be tried and punished according to the judicial process provided for the crime of treason, not according to some newfangled and artificial executive "process" fashioned by nameless collection of lawyers.
These nameless lawyers have also ignored the Justice Department's own venerable precedents. The White Paper relies on the "laws of war" — but laws of war do not control here. On August 21, 1798, U.S. Attorney General Charles Lee — serving under President John Adams — directed to the U.S. secretary of state an official opinion in which he determined that in the undeclared state of war between France and the United States, "France is our enemy; and to aid, assist, and abet that nation in her maritime warfare, will be treason in a citizen[, who] may be tried and punished according to our laws[, not like a French subject, who must be] treated according to the laws of war."
It is a measure of how far we have fallen as a nation — not only that President Obama asserts and exercises such a terrible power, but that only 11 U.S. senators would be willing to affix their names to a letter to ask the Obama administration to provide its legal reasoning. If John Brennan is confirmed as CIA director, and the killings of U.S. citizens continue based on this whitewash of a white paper, then the U.S. Senate will have yielded up to the president without even a fight the power to kill citizens without judicial due process — a power that has been unknown in the English-speaking world for at least 370 years.
Herb Titus taught constitutional law for 26 years, concluding his academic career as founding dean of Regent Law School. Bill Olson served in three positions in the Reagan administration. They now practice constitutional law together, defending against government excess, at William J. Olson, P.C. They filed an amicus curiae brief supporting a preliminary injunction in the Chris Hedges challenge to the detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 ("NDAA"), addressing the Treason Clause, and also filed an amicus curiae brief in that case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. They can be reached at
firstname.lastname@example.org or twitter.com/OlsonLaw.
Extrajudicial Killing: Official US Policy
Stephen Lendman, Contributor
Since taking office, Obama headed America toward full-blown tyranny. He enforces Bush administration police state laws. He added more of his own. He governs like a tinpot despot.
He targets free expression, dissent, whistleblowing, and other constitutional freedoms. He usurped diktat authority.
He spurns civil protections, judicial fairness, and other fundamental rights. Abuse of power is institutionalized.
By executive order, he authorized anyone indefinitely detained with or without charge on his say. He promised to close Guantanamo but keeps it open. He operates a secret global torture prison network.
In January, Law Professor Jonathan Turley called America "no longer the land of the free," saying:
An authoritarian nation is defined not just by the use of authoritarian powers, but by the ability to use them
If a president can take away your freedom or your life on his own authority, all rights become little more than a discretionary grant subject to executive will.
Post-9/11, constitutional rights no longer apply. Diktat power replaced them. Bush took full advantage. So does Obama.
He governs extrajudicially. He claims the right to order anyone incarcerated indefinitely or killed on his say. US citizens are included. No reasonable proof is needed. No one anywhere is safe.
He ordered outspoken Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed. He was a US citizen. He threatened no one. He lived in Yemen. He opposed US imperial lawlessness. He committed no crime. He's dead for supporting right over wrong.
Others like him are vulnerable. No one's safe anywhere. There's no place to hide. Rule of law protections don't apply. Murder, Inc. was elevate to a higher level. It's official policy. Summary judgment targets state enemies.
Obama decides who lives or dies. He appointed himself judge, jury and executioner. He's got final kill list authority. Police states operate that way. America by far is the worst. It menaces humanity
Democracy is a figure of speech. American never was beautiful and isn't now. Diktat power is policy.
On February 5, The New York Times headlined "Memo Cites Legal Basis for Killing US Citizens in Al Qaeda," saying:
Administration lawyers turned jurisprudence on its head. They call it lawful to kill US citizens if "an informed high-level (government) official" says they belong to Al Qaeda and pose "an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States."
A Justice Department "white paper" inverted inviolable legal principles. It's titled "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a US Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa'ida or An Associated Force."
It's unsigned and undated. It's "the most detailed analysis yet to come into public view." It calls lawless killing without trial or evidence legal.
Thresholds of evidence and just cause aren't discussed. Vague language substitutes. "Imminent" threats are highlighted. So is ill-defined "terrorism."
Extrajudicial executive authority is usurped. Courts have no say. Nor does Congress.
Twisted logic claims judicially enforcing "orders would require the court to supervise inherently predictive judgments by the president and his national security advisers as to when and how to use force against a member of an enemy force against which Congress has authorized the use of force."
Last March, Attorney General Eric Holder made the case. He claimed America's lawful right to operate extrajudicially. He said Washington can kill US citizens affiliated with Al Qaeda if capture isn't possible.
'Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack,' he said.
In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force.
Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces.
This is simply not accurate. 'Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.
In other words, the UN Charter, Geneva Conventions, other inviolable international laws, constitutional rights, and US statute laws don't apply.
With no evidence or justification whatever, Holder said "a small number of US citizens" plot attacks on America. Citizenship grants no immunity, he claims. They're fair game. They can be targeted and killed extrajudicially.
Pentagon general counsel, Jeh Johnson, made the same case. He claims "(b)elligerents who also happen to be US citizens do not enjoy immunity where non-citizen belligerents are valid military objectives."
The legal point is important because, in fact, over the last 10 years Al Qaeda has not only become more decentralized, it has also, for the most part, migrated away from Afghanistan to other places where it can find safe haven.
Within the executive branch the views and opinions of the lawyers on the president’s national security team are debated and heavily scrutinized, and a legal review of the application of lethal force is the weightiest judgment a lawyer can make.
And, when these judgments start to become easy, it is time for me to return to private law practice.
ACLU National Security Project Director Hina Shamsi addressed the white paper. She calls it a "profoundly disturbing document.
It’s hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances.
It summarizes in cold legal terms a stunning overreach of executive authority – the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them far from a recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement.
ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer called the document "chilling." It manipulates legal standards. It turns them on their head. Doing so justifies the unjustifiable.
ACLU said extrajudicial killings occur "with virtually no oversight outside the executive branch, and essential details about the program remain secret, including what criteria are used to put people on CIA and military kill lists or how much evidence is required."
America kills illegally. Rule of law principles are spurned. Transparency and openness are gone. Accountability no longer applies. Diktat authority usurped it. Doing so is unconstitutional.
On February 5, the Center for Constitutional Rights responded to Washington's white paper.
CCR's senior attorney, Pardiss Kebriaei said:
This white paper’s claim of executive power is disturbing enough on its own, but it doesn’t describe the vast majority of targeted killings being carried out by the U.S. government, which now number in the thousands.
The government claims the authority to target a US citizen who is a 'senior operational leader of Al Qa’ida or an associated force,' but it doesn’t provide an analysis that would explain, for example, the killing of our client’s grandson, 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al Aulaqi, nor does it describe the so-called signature strike killings of people whose identities are unknown but who fit some undisclosed profile.
One of the most dangerous aspects of the white paper is the claim that 'there exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional considerations' either before or after a killing.
CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren added:
The parallels to the Bush administration torture memos are chilling. Those were unchecked legal justifications drawn up to justify torture; these are unchecked justifications drawn up to justify extrajudicial killing.
President Obama released the Bush torture memos to be transparent; he must release his own legal memos and not just a Cliffs Notes version for public consumption, particularly when scores of civilian lives are at stake.
Despite this attempt to appear transparent, the program remains opaque. This will rightly raise many questions for John Brennan.
He was deeply involved in Bush administration rogue policies. He a key architect of Obama's targeted killing program.
CCR filed suit (Al Aulaqi v. Panetta). It demands accountability "in a court of law."
On February 5, a New York Timeseditorial headlined "To Kill an American," saying:
Obama "utterly rejects the idea that Congress or the courts have any right to review (extrajudicial killings) in advance, or even after the fact."
Twisted logic defines administration policy. It exceeds the worst of George Bush. It includes a menu of lawless practices.
Congress hasn't officially seen the white paper. White House officials won't acknowledge administration authority to kill Awlaki. They provided no evidence justifying it.
"According to the white paper," said The Times, "Constitution and the Congressional authorization for the use of force after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, gave" Obama unchecked powers.
Definitions aren't forthcoming. Vagueness substitutes for specifics. Due process and judicial fairness don't apply. Geopolitical priorities alone matter.
The Times quoted Center for National Security Studies director Kate Martin calling the white paper "a confusing blend of self-defense and law of war concepts and doesn't clearly explain whether there is a different standard for killing a senior Al Qaeda leader depending on whether he is a citizen."
"Its due process is especially weak."
Congress needs to act. At stake are fundamental issues. They include balance of power and rule of law principles. They no longer apply. They need to be reasserted.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at email@example.com. His new book is titled How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War. Also visit his blog site atsjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.
If the reader is still not convinced that we have a TYRANT in the White House, or simply does not care, then maybe someday you will be on a kill list by patriots. Best advice is wake the hell up!!! Real American’s are reaching the boiling point, and the scalding pot is hot!
February 8th, 2013 by olddog
Back in the seventy’s I owned a burglar alarm company in Gary Indiana, was permitted to carry concealed, and answered my own alarms due to slow police response time. The local cops in a 90% black City were more interested in their health than catching burglars. Considering their compensation, I don’t blame them. As a private entrepreneur, I was making three times their salary.
On many occasions, I had to detain thieves until the police showed up, and never once did I have to shoot someone, as I carried some very intimidating hardware when responding to alarms. A 1911 colt 45acp and a Remington pump 12ga was always enough to make simple burglars stand down. Even the cops were intimidated when they showed up.
Today, I have no doubt that I would be shot dead by the cops, who have been totally brained washed in the police academy. The attitude shown by the police today leaves no doubt in my mind that they have been assured they will not be prosecuted for such actions as are now commonly committed against the innocent citizens. Moreover, their attitudes towards citizens who make attempts to be friendly are insultingly rude.
This attitude change seems to be more prevalent in the younger generations of police officers, and the older generation seems to be very concerned by their apparent disregard for the Constitution for the United States of America, which has been changed to the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES. If the reader does not see or understand the difference, you should read the archives of both my sites. http://anationbeguiled.com
Growing up during the 40s and 50s left a different impression on me than is common today, Back then I had the highest respect for the police, but today they seem to be Wanna Bee Killers. I will not deviate here and express my opinions on how this transformation occurred, but it is a reality nevertheless.
In my old mind there is nothing more disgusting than a traitor, be it a wife, husband, politician, or whoever, but for the people who we have been instructed are protecting us and our freedom, to consider us red meat to be killed at their pleasure just to enhance their standing between them and their peers is as dastardly as it gets. I have no respect in any amount for them and firmly state they should be boiled alive in raw sewage. Don’t tell me they are afraid of us because we have the freedom to be armed, that’s bull shit! These shit heads have one common dream, and that’s to be a feared member of the swat teem, all of which have managed to inspire fear in the hearts of their peers by their aggressiveness. I know from personal experience that it takes a hell of a lot of training to perfect that kind of skill and attitude. At 72 I can still put 17 rounds of 9mm in an 8.5 by 11 inch sheet of paper as fast as I can pull the trigger at 35 feet, but one of the detectives in a neighboring town once showed me he could dive into the prone position and down one target before he hit the ground, and he made detective only because his chief rewarded him for his dedication to increasing his skill. He was not old enough to have gained the investigative experience of a detective.
Recently in this small community I live in, a burglar running from the swat teem was shot in the arm as the swat teem sprayed the community with lead. This resulted in complaints from the community for bullet holes in their homes and praise in the news-paper for the swat teems actions.
At the risk of killing some innocent civilian’s the swat teem apprehended a wounded a burglar, whoope! For all you who don’t recognize the degree of difficulty of hitting a running man while running yourself, I hope your ignorance will not put you in this position in the future because these tyrants are deadly serious at developing this skill. They are intellectually infected with the Rambo attitude.
Now let me express my opinion of the military version of this subject. Any dumb ass in any branch of the military who would fire on civilians protecting the document that protects us all is the lowest form of humanity ever to exist.
It is inconceivable to me that a soldier would fire on civilians or confiscate their weapons of self-protection, unless they were doing something really illegal, like robbing a store/home or setting fire to private property. I do not condone civil disorder, but there is a time when civilians must protect their selves and property, from whatever threat they are facing, be it government or hordes of thieves, and there is no excuse for soldiers who don’t know the difference. Soldiers, if you don’t care who you kill, you are a piece of shit in my book. And that’s the real reason why so many returning soldiers are committing suicide. They were brain washed into killing first and then asking questions.
Dear readers, this is not the kind of military I worshipped as a child! There is a real and honorable difference between hero’s and killers. If the present condition of our law enforcement and military is acceptable to the reader, may God have mercy on your soul, because I will not. When they come to get me they will face a really pissed off old man with the skill and hardware to require extra body bags. And I hope your son is one of them!
January 4th, 2013 by olddog
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and/or of nature’s God(s) entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
The federal government headquartered in Washington, DC, having promised to the several states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” hath reneged on this vow. Several religions are banned, (1) multiple channels of the press eradicated, (2) and protest rights have been trampled upon. (3)
That federal government, having promised, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” hath infringed on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. (4) In this manner, that federal government not only infringes on the regulations set forth by the second constitutional amendment, it secures that its militia feels little need to be regulated by the other amendments.
That federal government, having promised, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,” hath, unwarranted, infringed on the security of our papers. (5)
That federal government, having promised, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” hath compelled those suspected of crimes to bear witness against themselves (6) (7). It hath deprived the citizens of these several states of lives, liberty, and property without the due process of law. (8) (9) It hath taken private property for public use without just compensation. (10)
That federal government, having promised, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence,” hath denied the right to trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed in matters concerning income taxation. (11)
That federal government, having promised, “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law,” hath denied this due process. (12)
That federal government, having promised, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” hath imposed excessive fines (13) and cruel and unusual punishments. (14)
We, therefore, the representatives of [insert your state here], in general congress, assembled, appealing to the rule of natural law for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by authority of the good people of [insert your state here], solemnly publish and declare, that [insert your state here] of right ought to be a free and independent state; that it is absolved from all allegiance to the federal government in Washington, DC, and that all political connection between them and the federal government in Washington, DC, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as a free and independent state, it has the full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.
I pray that it does not need be said, this document needs to be forwarded to your State Representatives for them to complete, sign, and present to the Federal Government, as the Constitution is a contract with the States and not with the general population of America. The results will surely convince you that a revolution is our only choice, and State Secession the outcome.
December 17th, 2012 by olddog
"Solving" mass shootings by starting a civil war. Yes, by all means, let's have a 'serious discussion' about more firearm rights restrictions.
By Mike Vanderboegh
It is the Sunday following the Connecticut massacre of innocents. All the usual suspects of the citizen disarmament lobby are on the talking head shows demanding a "serious discussion" about further proscribing the rights of American firearm owners. They are demanding, among other things:
1. A ban on private sales of firearms without first obtaining the federal government's permission. (This would mean that before a grandfather could hand a family heirloom to his son or granddaughter that he would have to get the government's permission to do so.) No one, and I mean NO ONE, would be able to legally transfer a firearm to ANYONE with first being entered into the government's database. This is what the antis call a "reasonable restriction." It also happens to be an infringement of individual rights that the Founders would have considered a casus belli, for not even King George the Third was so grasping.
2. A ban on "large capacity magazines", which seems to be anything over 10 rounds. The reasoning behind this is that "no one needs thirty rounds to hunt a deer," the so-called "sporting purpose" written into the 1968 Gun Control Act by Senator Thomas Dodd who apparently lifted it from the Nazi weapons law of 1938 (Dodd was a Nuremberg trials prosecutor). The Founders would have found this to be silly, for the Second Amendment is not about the right to bear arms to hunt game but rather to resist tyrannical government. Thirty round magazines come in handy for that.
3. A new "Assault Weapons Ban" like the 1994 law which was neither about "assault weapons" (those are, by definition, full automatic which can empty the magazine with a single pull of the trigger) nor was it a ban, since it merely regulated cosmetic features on military-style semi-automatic rifles (which fire one shot per pull of the trigger) and it grandfathered in all existing so-called "assault weapons," presumably because they knew that a confiscation bill would be resisted by force. Indeed, in the run up to the passage of the AWB, millions of such riles were domestically produced, imported and sold. This time, we are assured by the antis that not only will the new bill be "tougher" but that it will exempt several hundred semi-automatic rifles by name that are used for "sporting purposes." This is an attempt (and it may well work) to split off the hunters from the collectors of evil, black military-style semi-automatic rifles. How the bill will do these two seemingly mutually exclusive things is at this writing unexplained.
The fact that the weapons used to kill the little children and their teachers at the school were stolen from a legal owner in a state which strictly regulates firearm ownership (who was a crime victim herself) and that, like almost all mass shootings took place in a woefully-misnamed "gun free zone" (more like a criminal empowerment zone), makes no difference to the antis, whose only "solution" is to force lawful gun owners to surrender more of their rights. Within hours of the tragedy of unspeakable evil, these people were out in the media, social and traditional, dancing in the blood of the victims to make their points that the rest of us should submit to further circumscription of our God-given, inalienable traditional rights to liberty and property.
So now they are demanding a "serious discussion" about firearms, which translates into jaw-boning the weak-kneed GOP leadership in the House and Senate to agree to one or more of their proposals as outlined above. Yes, by all means, let's have a 'serious discussion' about more firearm rights restrictions.
My contribution to this "serious discussion" is this question that I would like the antis to answer up front: What do they intend to do with the millions of us "bitter clingers" who will disobey any more such laws? If they pass the "gunshow loophole" bill, we will simply host out own without background checks and defy the federal government to do anything about it. If they ban large-capacity, I can guarantee you that they will soon be turned out by the million in thousands of metal-working shops around the county. (Didn't anyone learn anything about Prohibition?) If they "ban" military-pattern semi-auto rifles, the same thing will happen. The only thing is, that if you make the punishment for possession of a previously-legal semi-automatic rifle (that he can no longer legally obtain) a felony, isn't that incentivizing the home gun maker to turn out small, concealable machine guns? You will have already made him a felon. What then does he have to lose?
So I'd like the antis to answer up front before their "serious discussion" — How many of us are they willing to kill to achieve their avowed purpose? A hundred thousand? A million? Two? Ten?
You may pass a law, but how will you enforce it? And, again, how many of us "bitter clingers" are you willing to kill in the process of this civil war you propose?
TO LIBERAL AMERICA, I SAY, DIVIDED WE STAND, AND DIVIDED WE’LL STAY
There are two types of gun control advocates, the intelligent manipulators of society, and the stupid assholes who believe their propaganda.
If a bunch of uneducated rag heads can convince one of their people to blow their ass up and kill a bunch of their enemies in the process, what’s to stop our rabid C.I.A. from programming some disturbed idiot to kill a bunch of children? And who in their right mind would believe the media’s presentation of the events surrounding this tragedy? I have yet to see a more staged event than this one, and the ignorant public lap’s it up, like its free candy.
Listen up folk’s, if our manipulators could cause the twin towers to pan-cake and convince an ignorant public it was done by 19 rag-heads with box cutters, killing a bunch of children in a secure building is a piece of cake for them. It was a no-risk exercise from the get go. Please crawl out of your ass and think for a minute. How many wars have they started and made you believe we were heroes for killing the other side’s civilians, including their children? What is so special about our children, and not other countries children? You don’t get all upset when our drones kill and mutilate their children do you. Just wait until they unleash their drones on your children. Can you not visualize one of those death instruments hitting one of your local kinder-gardens? Are you still so ignorant to believe America is the shinning light of society? The land of the free, and the home of the brave?????? Wake the hell up!
Instead of demanding, the butchers in D.C. steal our self-defense weapons, or limit us to muzzle loaders, how about doing a little research and learning what’s really going on in D.C. When TSHTF and starving hordes of scumbags break into your homes and rape, kill, and steal all you have, you will be glad to have someone with assault weapons living next door. In fact, you will be begging us to protect you! We will remember those who wanted the pigs in D.C. to steal our weapons and ammo, and leave us defenseless like you. Those who do not have the guts to protect their own families will sing a different tune then, and we will tell you to go piss up a rope. Never think we will give up our weapons like the stupid Australians’ did. IT WON’T HAPPEN! We would rather have the chance to kill those who come for our weapons, than lay down like a bunch of cowards like you. Dying while protecting what is mine is a hell of a lot better than living with the fear that you do. We are not your enemy, your government, and the media industry is your enemy. Why would you destroy your last chance to survive?
Never think that this diatribe is evidence that I don’t grieve for those children, because I do, and also for their parents and other family members, it’s just that I am so infuriated at your lack of common sense.
How in the hell could you be so stupid as to throw away your freedom from tyrannical governance? How could you be so naive as to think all will be well if no one had a gun? Have you ever seen a person who has been chopped up by a machete, or beaten to a bloody mess with a baseball bat? Remember, you are the jerks who believed 19 rag-heads hijacked those planes with nothing but box-cutters.
All of this self-defense aside, the founders real intent was for the people to be able to defend their self from their government, which is something that has come to pass in America. We will die fighting for our freedom, and consider it an honor. You on the other hand will kiss their ass, and thank them for eliminating those of us with the balls to call you cowards. You are a hopeless bunch of wimps, with the intelligence of a rat, and as long as we both inhabit this country there will be no peace! I pity you!
As for you scumbags in law enforcement and military who will come for us, there is no lower life form than you!
December 2nd, 2012 by olddog
"Since a politician never believes what he says, he is quite surprised to be taken at his word." – Charles De Gaulle
In my home country, the United States, we are watching the German and EU austerity demands destroy economies, social structures and entire nations all to protect the leading banking elites and their profits. In 2013 the false meme of austerity is also coming to the United States. Leading GOP politicians are now announcing plans to break their No Tax pledges just as we warned they would. After all, the word and honor of all but a very few senators and house members means nothing once election season ends.
Of course, common sense tells us that all governments need to spend and borrow less but they never will. After all, the long running recession/depression of the West means less tax revenue to governments because the taxable income of individual citizens is down dramatically.
The austerity meme is the false crisis solution being propagandized by the power elite in order to build public support for benefit cuts and wealth confiscation. This fake austerity solution sounds reasonable but it isn't because governments will continue to spend and borrow. They plan to make up the difference by cutting government services and programs and increasing taxes to draconian confiscatory levels.
Equal Opportunity For Once
While the top echelons of government bureaucrats just like the privileged big business corporate elites will be exempt except for minor personal tax increases, the burden will as always fall on the poor and middle classes.
The only good news is throughout the West many low- and middle-level government employees and bureaucrats will finally get a bitter taste of what they have been dishing out to those of us in the productive private sector for decades. There are few new jobs available in the private sector and private industry will seldom hire ex-government employees, for obvious reasons.
This means those on the government dole, whether working, on welfare programs or in unions, will do anything to keep their checks coming. Therefore, as part of the "necessary" austerity measures their generous healthcare and retirement plans can be cut, as well as salaries, as most of these wards of the state will still vote for the big government parties. They have no other alternatives. Thus, their core constituency status will remain while they now take their turn being screwed.
Simply watch what is happening to benefits, healthcare and retirement benefits in Greece, Italy and Spain and you'll see the future in the United States.
Many in the US will find themselves increasingly "means tested" out of their promised and guaranteed Social Security benefits and forced back into permanent life-long contributions.
Austerity is just another word for nothing left to lose to the government. It will end when your wealth, benefits and assets are gone. This false meme will be replaced with another once all of the available wealth, income and gold can be taken and your promised benefits cut to whatever degree possible short of generating violence and revolution.
Therefore, any supposed credibility in the success of politically enforced austerity is just another excuse to get more of your hard earned dollars. Like democracy, global warming and Keynesian economics, this is just another scam meme to con you out of personal wealth and liberties.
November 28th, 2012 by olddog
By: Michael Ivanovitch
President, MSI Global
When, towards the end of World War II, the British economist John Maynard Keynes led his country’s delegation to negotiate in Bretton Woods the IMF’s charter (articles of agreement), he argued that the stability of the international monetary system and world economy required that surplus and deficit countries should be held equally responsible to balance their trade accounts.
Keynes feared that America, relatively unscathed after nearly five years of brutal conflict, would be flooding Europe with its exports, creating a shortage of dollars and obstructing the recovery of a starving and war-ravaged continent.
As it turned out, Keynes’s worries about the possibility that America would selfishly pursue mercantilist policies were misplaced. Washington quickly moved to help Europe get back on its feet with a $13 billion Marshall Plan (formally known as the European Recovery Program) and kept its markets open for European goods and services.
During the three years of the Marshall Plan, the economies of 17 European countries benefiting from its assistance grew between 15 percent and 20 percent, and, largely as a result of growing imports from Europe, the U.S. trade balance recorded its first postwar trade deficit of $2.3 billion (0.2 percent of GDP) in 1971.
The US Remains Engine of World Economy
The U.S. is still the largest buyer of goods and services produced around the world. In the first nine months of this year, America’s trade deficit with China, Japan and Germany accounted for nearly two-thirds of its $559 billion trade gap.
Keynes must be turning in his grave: Even with a feeble 2.3 percent GDP growth, America is the engine of world economy, while the second, third and fourth-largest world economies are living off their trade surpluses with the U.S. and the rest of the world.
Those wondering about what went wrong with the world economy should look no further. With their huge trade surpluses, ranging from $86 billion (Japan) to $217 billion (Germany), these three countries – one-fourth of world GDP – are making no net contribution to global economic growth. Worse: they are, in fact, a drag on world economy.
And there is no end to this. Almost by design, Japan and Germany are export-led economies. Neither country wants to abandon this growth strategy by generating more demand and output from their domestic spending. China apparently wants to get off the export bandwagon, but it will take some time to significantly change the composition of its economic growth.
Japan’s Structurally Weak Domestic Demand
In terms of Keynes’s argument for symmetry in trade adjustment obligations of deficit and surplus countries, Japan has been – and still is – the most difficult case. Over the last 10 years, for example, about one-half of Japan’s economic growth came from its trade surpluses. During that period, exports – 8 percent of GDP – grew at an average annual rate of 6 percent, while household consumption – 60 percent of GDP – edged up only 0.9 percent.
These numbers clearly show that it is almost impossible to grow on the basis of domestic demand if its largest component is in virtual stagnation. And Tokyo is not doing much to change that. Ever since the “bubble economy” burst in the early 1990s, a succession of Japanese governments chose to finance public sector investments – about 4 percent of GDP – by building the proverbial “bridges and highways to nowhere” instead of stimulating household consumption. No wonder the economy largely stagnated over the last 20 years with an average annual growth of less than 1 percent.
(Read More: What Will Save the Japanese Economy?)
Admittedly, it is difficult to stimulate private consumption in an economy with declining and rapidly aging population. A study, published last January by Japan's National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, forecasts that the country's population will shrink by one-third over the next 50 years as a result of an alarmingly low birthrate of 1.39 per woman of childbearing age. The study also shows that, at this point, it looks like a mission impossible to even slow down the population decline, because Japan would have to raise its birthrate to 2.1 per woman.
It is obvious that to stabilize the economy Japan would have to address, with a great sense of urgency, the problem of its worsening demography. Only a steadily rising trend in net family formation and birthrates would underpin private consumption and residential investment (63 percent of GDP) to gradually wean the economy off its excessive dependence on export sales.
But that, unfortunately, does not seem likely anytime soon. Barring more dangerous developments in Sino-Japanese relations, Japan’s sinking exports to China (down 14 percent in the year to September) will just be dumped somewhere else.
China’s Slowly Changing Growth Patterns
China will probably do better than Japan in changing the current structure of its economy. With an apparent determination to anchor economic growth around household consumption and investments, Beijing wants to minimize trade frictions with the U.S. and Europe as it becomes one of the key players in world commerce and finance.
These changes will take time, though. One has to remember that most of China’s manufacturing sector was set up to serve exports, based on low wages and a favorable tax treatment of joint ventures with foreign companies.
Still, some important changes are happening already. Rapidly escalating wage and non-wage labor costs are making China increasingly expensive as a manufacturing export base. Some European companies are even repatriating their manufacturing from China due to the shortage – and rapidly rising costs – of skilled labor.
China’s current growth patterns are also likely to change as the planned reduction of large income inequalities and a more extensive welfare system – two of China’s new leader’s top priorities – are likely to stimulate household consumption (a relatively small 35 percent of GDP) since families would have to save less for education, healthcare and retirement.
(Read More: Why China’s New Conservative Leaders Will Be Reformists)
And while these structural changes are taking hold, China’s trading partners could sell more of their products and services by insisting on better access to Chinese markets. Beijing will have to yield because its own companies are seeking to establish trading and manufacturing positions in various countries around the world.
Obama’s Wrong Number in Europe
While China’s large trade surpluses are a relatively recent problem, Germany’s systematically export-led economy has been a destabilizing factor for Europe and the rest of the world since the early 1970s.
(Read More: Why the US-China Trade Spat Is Just Political Posturing)
President Obama learned all about it when he was trying to rev up the U.S. economy during his election campaign. Apparently thinking that he solved former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s old riddle – “Who do I call if I want to call Europe” – Obama hit the wall when he rang up that number in Berlin to ask for less austerity and more economic stimulus to protect one-fifth of American exports to the E.U.
Not only did the German Chancellor Merkel refuse to oblige, but she also haughtily dismissed American entreaties by saying that “it made no sense to be adding new debt to old debt.” And all that from a lady Obama decorated with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest civilian honor, in June 2011.
But Obama was right to ask Germany to buy more from its trading partners, because Germany had plenty of room to stimulate the economy and stop living off the rest of the world. With a virtually balanced budget, record trade surpluses (6 percent of GDP), stable and low inflation, and borrowing costs of its public sector at a record-low 1.3 percent, Germany should temper its austerity mantra and buy more goods and services from some of the hard-pressed and heavily indebted euro zone countries.
Germany, of course, won’t do that. A low unemployment rate, and a relatively placid social scene, will again allow Germany to ride out the euro zone recession on the back of exports.
Don’t Hold Your Breath for the G20
What can be done about the fact that 25 percent of the world economy makes no net contribution to global economic growth and acts as a drag on the economies of its trading partners? The answer is: not much, if anything.
The irony is that the world has a forum to deal with such problems. The G20 – a group of the world’s 20 leading economies, representing 90 percent of global GDP and two-thirds of the world population – has been set up to promote economic growth through better coordination of economic policies. In other words, through policies designed to reduce destabilizing trade imbalances in the world economy.
The need to implement better coordination of macroeconomic policies was one of the key decisions of the G20 meeting in the Mexican resort of Los Cabos last June. And what happened?
The G20 sherpas (representatives of the heads of state and government) had nothing to say about that when they met in late October to monitor the implementation of their bosses’ decisions, because there were no coordinated policy measures to support the weakening world economy undermined by excessively unbalanced trade flows.
The sherpas nevertheless congratulated themselves on the “good work” and passed the baton to Russians who will take on the G20 presidency next January.
But expect no more to be done in the imperial splendor of Saint-Petersburg’s Constantin Palace in September 2013 than the repeat of empty talk – at great taxpayers’ expense – of previous meetings.
That will suit Beijing, Tokyo and Berlin just fine. As in the past, they know they can bet on one thing and win: Driven by an extraordinarily loose monetary policy, the U.S. economy will continue to be their main export market for the foreseeable future.
Michael Ivanovitch is president of MSI Global, a New York-based economic research company. He also served as a senior economist at the OECD in Paris, international economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and taught economics at Columbia
© 2012 CNBC.com
November 24th, 2012 by olddog
NOTE: Please go to this link and watch the Rand Paul video. Activist Post
By Eric Blair
By now anyone who pays attention to politics knows that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 contained a provision that allows for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial.
Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA states that anyone suspected of being involved in terrorism or “belligerent acts” against the U.S. can be detained by the military under the so-called Authorization for Use of Military Force, including American citizens.
In other words, the war on terror has been officially declared on U.S. soil and everyone is now considered a potential combatant in this war.
Senator Lindsey Graham pretty much summed it up when he said, "The homeland is part of the battlefield and people can be held without trial whether an American citizen or not."
Even though this clause is a direct violation of citizen's rights under the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, there was scarcely any dissent and hardly a peep from the corporate media when Obama signed it into law under the cover of darkness late on New Year's Eve 2011.
This year Senator Rand Paul once again blocked the passage of the NDAA for 2013, which the Senate hoped to rush through before the Thanksgiving recess. Using a filibuster, Paul is attempting to force a vote on his amendment to exempt American citizens from the indefinite detention clause.
Rand Paul's amendment simply reaffirms the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
A citizen of the United States who is captured or arrested in the United States and detained by the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Compare that to the 6th Amendment of the Constitution:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
It's sad that it is so difficult to get elected officials to debate, let alone vote on, legislation that is in direct violation to the Constitution that they swore an oath to uphold. But these are certainly Orwellian times where normal thinking no longer applies.
As Rand Paul points out in the video below about the 2012 NDAA vote, “The senate voted 55 to 45 to allow indefinite detention of US citizens without jury trial. We have become Orwellian without even knowing it.”
When the Senate resumes after recess, the NDAA 2013 will likely pass even with a recorded vote on Paul's amendment, but at least the traitors will put themselves on display for all to see.
If there are any true oath keepers in positions of power, this would be a perfect time to arrest those who vote against this amendment. Their treason to the Constitution couldn't be any clearer.
FREEDOM from tyrannical governance, is not a gift, it is the product of men willing to give their life through constant battle with those who seek power in government. (Olddog) One does not obtain freedom by pursuing riches or entertainment; it is taken by force and held onto like it’s a life preserver in the oceans storms. It’s the food that nourishes your children’s bodies and mind. It is the one single thing that gives your aging parents comfort as their strength deserts them. Call you congress critters and senators, and tell them to support Rand Paul’s fight for freedom, or you will spend the rest of your life denigrating their name. Tell them you will pray for the Lord God to curse them and their families, and make them terrified to walk the streets of America. Talk to them like they are the scum of the earth if they support the NDAA-2012. Always remember, to judge a politician by what they do, and not by what they say.
November 19th, 2012 by olddog
THIS IS WHY OLDDOG SUPPORTS SECESSION
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
September 11, 2001: The Crimes of War Committed “in the Name of 9/11″
Initiating a Legal Procedure against the Perpetrators of 9/11
International Conference on “9/11 Revisited – Seeking the Truth”
Perdana Global Peace Foundation (PGPF)
Kuala Lumpur, November 2012
The tragic events of September 11, 2001 constitute a fundamental landmark in American history, a decisive watershed, a breaking point. Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of 9/11.
September 11 2001 opens up an era of crisis, upheaval and militarization of American society. The post September 11, 2001 era is marked by the outright criminalization of the US State, including its judicial, foreign policy, national security and intelligence apparatus.
9/11 marks the onslaught of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), used as a pretext and a justification by the US and its NATO allies to carry out a “war without borders”, a global war of conquest.
A far-reaching overhaul of US military doctrine was launched in the wake of 9/11.
9/11 was also a stepping stone towards the relentless repeal of civil liberties, the militarization of law enforcement and the inauguration of “Police State USA”.
In assessing the crimes associated with 9/11 in the context of a legal procedure, we must distinguish between those associated with the actual event, namely the loss of life and the destruction of property, from the crimes committed in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 “in the name of 9/11″. The latter build upon the former. We are dealing with two related dimensions of criminality. The crimes committed in the name of 9/11 involving acts of war are far-reaching, resulting in the deaths of millions of people as well as the destruction of entire countries.
The 9/11 event in itself– which becomes symbolic– is used to justify the onslaught of the post 9/11 US-NATO military agenda, under the banner of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), not to mention the ushering in of the Homeland police state and the repeal of civil liberties.
The crimes committed in the name of 9/11 broadly consist in two intimately related processes:
1. The launching of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), used as a pretext and a justification to Wage a War of Conquest. This GWOT mandate was used to justify the 2001 and 2003 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The GWOT mandate has since extended its grip to a large number of countries in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, where the US and its NATO allies are intervening selectively under a counterterrorism mandate.
2. The derogation of civil liberties and the instatement of an Orwellian police state apparatus within Western countries. In the US, the introduction of the PATRIOT legislation and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks set the stage for the subsequent restructuring of the judicial and law enforcement apparatus, culminating in the legalisation of extrajudicial assassinations under an alleged counter-terrorism mandate.
The 9/11 attacks constitute what is referred to in intelligence parlance to as a “massive casualty producing event” conducive to the deaths of civilians.
The dramatic loss of life on the morning of 9/11 resulting from an initial criminal act is used as a pretext and a justification to wage an all out war of retribution, in the name of 9/11 against the alleged perpetrators of 9/11, namely the “state sponsors of terrorism”, including Afghanistan, Iraq as well as Iran.
We are dealing with a diabolical and criminal project. The civilian deaths resulting from the 911 attacks are an instrument of war propaganda, applied to build a consensus in favor of an outright war of global domination.
The perpetrators of war propaganda are complicit in the conduct of extensive war crimes, in that they readily justify acts of war as counter-terrorism and/or humanitarian operations (R2P) launched to protect civilians.
The “Just War” (Jus ad Bellum) concept prevails: The killing of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq are “rightfully” undertaken in retribution for the deaths incurred on 9/11.
Evidence is fabricated to the effect that the “state sponsors of terrorism” had committed, on the morning of 9/11, an outright act of war against the United States.
Realities are turned upside down. The US and its allies are the victims of foreign aggression. America’s crimes of war in Afghanistan and Iraq are committed in the name of 9/11 under a counter terrorism mandate.
The 9/11 attacks are used to harness public opinion into supporting a war without borders. Endless wars of aggression under the humanitarian cloak of “counter-terrorism” are set in motion.
Chronology of Events
At eleven o’clock, on the morning of September 11, the Bush administration had already announced that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made prior to the conduct of an in-depth police investigation.
CIA Director George Tenet stated that same morning that Osama bin Laden had the capacity to plan “multiple attacks with little or no warning.”
Secretary of State Colin Powell called the attacks “an act of war” and President Bush confirmed in an evening televised address to the Nation that he would “make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those [foreign governments] who harbor them”.
Former CIA Director James Woolsey, without mentioning Afghanistan, pointed his finger at “state sponsorship,” implying the complicity of one or more foreign governments. In the words of former National Security Adviser, Lawrence Eagleburger, “I think we will show when we get attacked like this, we are terrible in our strength and in our retribution.”
That same evening at 9:30 pm, a “War Cabinet” was formed integrated by a select number of top intelligence and military advisors. And at 11:00 pm, at the end of that historic meeting at the White House, the “War on Terrorism” was officially launched.
The war cabinet had decided to launch an an illegal and criminal war on Afghanistan, based on essentially two interrelated concepts:
1. The 9/11 attacks although allegedly conducted by Al Qaeda were upheld as an all out military attack by a foreign power.
2. Afghanistan in allegedly supporting Al Qaeda, was responsible for an act of military aggression directed against the United States of America.
The tragic events of 9/11 provided the required justification to wage war on Afghanistan on “humanitarian grounds”, with the full support of World public opinion and the endorsement of the “international community”. Several prominent “progressive” intellectuals made a case for “retaliation against terrorism”, on moral and ethical grounds. In taking on this stance they provided legitimacy to the conduct of war crimes. The “just cause” military doctrine (jus ad bellum) was accepted and upheld at face value as a legitimate response to 9/11.
In the wake of 9/11, the antiwar movement was completely isolated. The trade unions and civil society organizations had swallowed the media lies and government propaganda. They had accepted a war of retribution against Afghanistan, an impoverished country in Central Asia of 30 million people.
The myth of the “outside enemy” and the threat of “Islamic terrorists” was the cornerstone of the Bush administration’s military doctrine, used as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the repeal of civil liberties and constitutional government in America. The post 9/11 era was also characterised by the development of Islamophobia, including routine ethnic profiling directed against Muslims.
Where was Osama bin Laden on September 11, 2001?
Is there any proof to the effect that Osama bin Laden, the bogeyman, coordinated the 9/11 attacks as claimed in the official 9/11 narrative?
According to CBS news (Dan Rather, January 28, 2002), “Enemy Number One” was admitted to the urology ward of a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi on September 10, 2001, courtesy of America’s indefectible ally Pakistan. Rawalpindi is the Headquarters of the Pakistani military including its intelligence apparatus. He could have been arrested at short notice which would have “saved us a lot of trouble”, but then we would not have had an Osama Legend, which has fed the news chain as well as presidential speeches in the course of the last eleven years.
DAN RATHER. As the United states and its allies in the war on terrorism press the hunt for Osama bin Laden, CBS News has exclusive information tonight about where bin Laden was and what he was doing in the last hours before his followers struck the United States September 11.
This is the result of hard-nosed investigative reporting by a team of CBS news journalists, and by one of the best foreign correspondents in the business, CBS`s Barry Petersen. Here is his report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARRY PETERSEN, CBS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Everyone remembers what happened on September 11. Here`s the story of what may have happened the night before. It is a tale as twisted as the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
CBS News has been told that the night before the September 11 terrorist attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan. (transcript of CBS report, see
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CBS203A.html , see also
CBS News footage of the Rawalpindi, Pakistan, hospital where bin Laden was allegedly treated the day before 9/11. [Source: CBS News]
The foregoing CBS report which is of utmost relevance indicates two obvious facts:
1. Osama bin Laden could not reasonably have coordinated the 9/11 attacks from his hospital bed;
2. The hospital was under the jurisdiction of the Pakistani Armed Forces, which has close links to the Pentagon. Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts were known to both the Pakistani and US military.
U.S. military and intelligence advisers based in Rawalpindi. were working closely with their Pakistani counterparts. Again, no attempt was made to arrest America’s best known fugitive. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed, at the time, that the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden were unknown. According to Rumsfeld: “Its like looking for a needle in a stack of hay”.
Recovering from his hospital treatment in Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, how could Osama have coordinated the 9/11 attacks?
How could Afghanistan be made responsible for these attacks by Al Qaeda? Bin Laden is a national of Saudi Arabia who, according to CBS News, was not in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan at the time of the attacks.
September 12, 2001: The Invasion of Afghanistan: NATO’s Doctrine of Collective Security
The immediate response of the US and its NATO allies to the 9/11 attacks was to the declare a war of retribution against Afghanistan on the grounds that the Taliban government was protecting “terror mastermind” Osama bin Laden, who at the time of the attacks was in Pakistan, protected by the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus. In a bitter irony, the Pakistani government and military, which had facilitated bin Laden’s hospitalization in Rawalpindi on September 10, offered to assist the US in “going after bin Laden”. An agreement to this effect was reached on September 12 in Washington between the head of Pakistan’s military Intelligence (ISI) General Mahmoud Ahmed and Secretary Colin Powell.
Parroting official statements, the Western media mantra on September 12, 2001 had already approved the launching of “punitive actions” directed against civilian targets in Afghanistan. In the words of William Saffire writing in the New York Times: “When we reasonably determine our attackers’ bases and camps, we must pulverize them — minimizing but accepting the risk of collateral damage” — and act overtly or covertly to destabilize terror’s national hosts”.
By allegedly harboring bin Laden, the Afghan government was complicit, according to both the US administration and NATO, for having waged an act of war against the United States.
This decision was taken by the Bush-Cheney war cabinet in the evening of September 11, 2001. It was based on the presumption, “confirmed” by the head of the CIA that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks.
On the following morning, September 12, 2001, NATO’s Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels, endorsed the Bush administration’s declaration of war on Afghanistan (taken by the war cabinet at 11pm on September 11), invoking Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.
Meanwhile, on two occasions in the course of September 2001, the Afghan government –through diplomatic channels– offered to hand over Osama Bin laden to US Justice. These overtures were turned down by president Bush, on the grounds that America “does not negotiate with terrorists”.
The War on Afghanistan: First Stage of the “Global War on Terrorism”
The war on Afghanistan was launched 26 days later on the morning of October 7, 2001. The timing of this war begs the question: how long does it take to plan and implement a major theater war several thousand miles away.
Military analysts will confirm that a major theater war takes months and months, up to a year or more of advanced preparations. Confirmed by press reports, the war on Afghanistan was already in an advanced state of readiness prior to September 11, 2001, which begs the question of foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
In other words, the 9/11 attacks were used as a means to trigger a military agenda which was already on the drawing board of both the Pentagon and NATO.
The repeal of civil liberties in America was launched in parallel with the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan. Immediately following 9/11, the PATRIOT legislation was adopted. The Homeland Security apparatus was launched, with a view to “protecting Americans against terrorists”. This post-911 legal and institutional framework had been carefully crafted prior to the 9/11 attacks.
Article 5 of the Washington Treaty: NATO’s Legal Argument
In invoking Article 5 on the morning of September 12, 2001, NATO’s Atlantic Council endorsed a criminal military agenda, in derogation of international law.
The legal argument used by Washington and NATO to invade Afghanistan was that the September 11 attacks constituted an undeclared “armed attack” “from abroad” by an unnamed foreign power, and that consequently “the laws of war” apply, allowing the nation under attack, to strike back in the name of “self-defense”.
On the morning of September 12, 2001, NATO’s North Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels, responded to the decision of the War Cabinet taken a few hours earlier at 11pm on 9/11, adopted the following resolution:
“if it is determined that the [September 11, 2001] attack against the United States was directed from abroad [Afghanistan] against “The North Atlantic area“, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty”. (emphasis added)
In this regard, Article 5 of the Washington Treaty stipulates that if:
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.” (NATO,
What is Article 5, NATO Topics – NATO and the Scourge of Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009, emphasis added)
An act of war by a foreign nation (Afghanistan) against a member of the Atlantic Alliance (the USA) was considered as an act of war against all members under NATO’s doctrine of collective security.
Under no stretch of the imagination, can the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon be categorized as an act of war by a foreign country. But nobody seemed to have raised this issue.
“Use of Armed Force” only “If It is Determined…”
There was an “if” in the September 12 resolution. Article 5 would apply only if it is determined that Afghanistan as a Nation State was complicit or behind the 9/11 attacks.
In practice, the “if” had already been waived prior to 9/11. The entire NATO arsenal was already on a war footing. In military terms, NATO and the US were already in an advanced state of readiness. Known to military analysts, but never revealed in the Western media, the implementation of a large scale theater war takes at least one year of advanced operational planning, prior to the launching of an invasion.
The use of article 5 of the Washington Treaty had in all likelihood been contemplated by military planners, as a pretext for waging war, prior to 9/11.
There was, however, no official declaration of war on September 12th. The Alliance waited until 3 days before the invasion to declare war on Afghanistan, an impoverished country which by no stretch of the imagination could have launched an attack against a member state of “The North Atlantic area”.
The September 12 resolution of the Atlantic Council required “determination” and corroborating evidence, that:
1) Al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden with the support of a foreign power had ordered the “attack from abroad” on the United States of America;
2) The terrorist attacks of 9/11 constituted a bona fide military operation (under the provisions of Article 5) by an alleged foreign country (Afghanistan) against a NATO member state, and consequently against all NATO member states under the doctrine of collective security:
“Article 5 and the case of the terrorist attacks against the United States: The United States has been the object of brutal terrorist attacks. It immediately consulted with the other members of the Alliance. The Alliance determined that the US had been the object of an armed attack. The Alliance therefore agreed that if it was determined that this attack was directed from abroad, it would be regarded as covered by Article 5. NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson, subsequently informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the Alliance’s decision.
Article 5 has thus been invoked, but no determination has yet been made whether the attack against the United States was directed from abroad.
If such a determination is made, each Ally will then consider what assistance it should provide. In practice, there will be consultations among the Allies. Any collective action by NATO will be decided by the North Atlantic Council. The United States can also carry out independent actions, consistent with its rights and obligations under the UN Charter.
Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to the situation. This assistance is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. Each individual member determines how it will contribute and will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.
By invoking Article 5, NATO members have shown their solidarity toward the United States and condemned, in the strongest possible way, the terrorist attacks against the United States on 11 September.
If the conditions are met for the application of Article 5, NATO Allies will decide how to assist the United States.
(Many Allies have clearly offered emergency assistance). Each Ally is obliged to assist the United States by taking forward, individually and in concert with other Allies, such action as it deems necessary. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in these particular circumstances.
No collective action will be taken by NATO until further consultations are held and further decisions are made by the the North Atlantic Council.
(NATO, NATO Topics – NATO and the Scourge of Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009, emphasis added)
The Mysterious Frank Taylor Report
The final decision to invoke Article 5 in relation to the 9/11 attacks came three weeks later upon the submission to the NATO Council of a mysterious classified report by a US State Department official named Frank Taylor. The report was submitted to NATO on October 2nd, 5 days before the commencement of the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan.
Frank Taylor was working in the US State Department. He had been entrusted with the writing of a brief to establish whether the US “had been attacked from abroad”, pursuant to the North Atlantic Council’s resolution of September 12 2001.
US Ambassador at Large and Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism Frank Taylor briefed the North Atlantic Council on October 2nd, five days before the commencement of the bombings.
On October 2nd he handed his brief to NATO “on the results of investigations into the 11 September attacks… ” NATO – Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the fight against Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009).
The classified report was not released to the media. And to this date, to our knowledge, it has remained classified.
NATO’s Secretary General Lord Robertson casually summarised the substance of the Frank Taylor report in a press release:
“This morning, the United States briefed the North Atlantic Council on the results of the investigation into who was responsible for the horrific terrorist attacks which took place on September 11.
The briefing was given by Ambassador Frank Taylor, the United States Department of State Coordinator for Counter-terrorism.
This morning’s briefing follows those offered by United States Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and illustrates the commitment of the United States to maintain close cooperation with Allies.
Today’s was classified briefing and so I cannot give you all the details.
Briefings are also being given directly by the United States to the Allies in their capitals.
The briefing addressed the events of September 11 themselves, the results of the investigation so far, what is known about Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida organisation and their involvement in the attacks and in previous terrorist activity, and the links between al-Qaida and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
The facts are clear and compelling. The information presented points conclusively to an al-Qaida role in the September 11 attacks.
We know that the individuals who carried out these attacks were part of the world-wide terrorist network of al-Qaida, headed by Osama bin Laden and his key lieutenants and protected by the Taliban.
On the basis of this briefing, it has now been determined that the attack against the United States on September 11 was directed from abroad and shall therefore be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack on one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.
I want to reiterate that the United States of America can rely on the full support of its 18 NATO Allies in the campaign against terrorism.” (Lord Robertson, NATO Secretary General, statement to the NATO Council, State Department, Appendix H, Multinational Response to September 11 NATO Press http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10313.pdf, accessed 24 November 2009, emphasis added)
In other words, 2 days before the actual commencement of the bombing campaign on October 7, the North Atlantic Council decided, based on the information provided by Frank Taylor to the Council “that the attacks were directed from abroad” by Al Qaeda, headed by Osama bin Laden, thereby requiring an action on the part of NATO under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty ( NATO – Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the fight against Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009):
NATO action under article 5, was outlined in an October 4 decision, 3 days before the commencement of the bombings.
Two days later, on 4 October, NATO agreed on eight measures in support the United States, which were tantamount to an illegal declaration of war on Afghanistan: to enhance intelligence sharing and co-operation, both bilaterally and in appropriate NATO bodies, relating to the threats posed by terrorism and the actions to be taken against it; to provide, individually or collectively, as appropriate and according to their capabilities, [military] assistance to Allies and other states which are or may be subject to increased terrorist threats as a result of their support for the campaign against terrorism;
to take necessary measures to provide increased security for facilities of the United States and other Allies on their territory; to backfill selected Allied assets in NATO’s area of responsibility that are required to directly support operations against terrorism; to provide blanket overflight clearances for the United States and other Allies’ aircraft, in accordance with the necessary air traffic arrangements and national procedures, for military flights related to operations against terrorism; to provide access for the United States and other Allies to ports and airfields on the territory of NATO nations for operations against terrorism, including for refuelling, in accordance with national procedures; that the Alliance is ready to deploy elements of its Standing Naval Forces to the Eastern Mediterranean in order to provide a NATO presence and demonstrate resolve; and that the Alliance is similarly ready to deploy elements of its NATO Airborne Early Warning Force to support operations against terrorism.
NATO – Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the fight against Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009
Press reports of Frank Taylor’s brief to the NATO Council were scanty. The invocation of Article 5, five days before the bombings commenced, was barely mentioned. The media consensus was: “all roads lead to Bin Laden” as if bin Laden was a Nation State which had attacked America.
What stands out are outright lies and fabrications. Moreover, prior to October 2nd, NATO had no pretext under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty to intervene militarily in Afghanistan.
The pretext was provided by Frank Taylor’s classified report, which was not made public.
The two UN Security Council resolutions adopted in the course of September 2001, did not, under any circumstances, provide a justification for the invasion and illegal occupation of a UN member country of 28 million people. (see Security Council resolution 1368 (2001) Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts).
UNSC Resolution 1373 (2001) called for prevention and suppression of terrorist acts, as well suppression of the financing of terrorism:
“(e) Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other measures against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts;
3. Calls upon all States to:
“(a) Find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational information, especially regarding actions or movements of terrorist persons or networks; forged or falsified travel documents; traffic in arms, explosives or sensitive materials; use of communications technologies by terrorist groups; and the threat posed by the possession of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups;
“(b) Exchange information in accordance with international and domestic law and cooperate on administrative and judicial matters to prevent the commission of terrorist acts;
“(c) Cooperate, particularly through bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts;
“4. Notes with concern the close connection between international terrorism and transnational organized crime, illicit drugs, money-laundering, illegal arms-trafficking, and illegal movement of nuclear, chemical, biological and other potentially deadly materials, and in this regard emphasizes the need to enhance coordination of efforts on national, subregional, regional and international levels in order to strengthen a global response to this serious challenge and threat to international security;
“5. Declares that acts, methods, and practices of terrorism are contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations and that knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts are also contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations (excerpts of UNSC Resolution 1373 (2001, See also UN Press Release SC 7178
SECURITY COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTS WIDE-RANGING ANTI-TERRORISM RESOLUTION; CALLS FOR SUPPRESSING FINANCING, IMPROVING INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION,
Security Council, 4385th Meeting, September 2001)
Nowhere in this resolution is there any mention of military action against a UN member State.
The US led war on Afghanistan, using 9/11 as a pretext and a justification is illegal and criminal.
The US and NATO heads of state and heads of government from 2001 to the present are complicit in the launching of a criminal and illegal war.
The Big Lie: Al Qaeda Made in America
Amply documented but rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA going back to the Soviet- Afghan war. This was a known fact, corroborated by numerous sources including official documents of the US Congress, which the mainstream media chose to either dismiss or ignore. The intelligence community had time and again acknowledged that they had indeed supported Osama bin Laden, but that in the wake of the Cold War: “he turned against us”.
Both the 9/11 Commission Report as well as the Western media have largely upheld the “outside enemy” mythology, heralding Al Qaeda as the “mastermind” organization behind the 9/11 attacks. The official 9/11 narrative has not only distorted the causes underling the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, it has also erased the historical record of US covert support to international terrorism, while creating the illusion that America and “Western Civilization” are threatened.
Without an “outside enemy”, there could be no “Global War on Terrorism”. The entire national security agenda would collapse “like a deck of cards”. The war criminals in high office would have no leg to stand on.
After 9/11, the campaign of media disinformation served not only to drown the truth but also to kill much of the historical evidence on how this illusive Al Qaeda “outside enemy” had been fabricated and transformed into “Enemy Number One”.
This is why a legal procedure directed against the actual perpetrators of 9/11 is absolutely essential.
History of Al Qaeda
Important to the understanding of 9/11, US intelligence is the unspoken architect of “Islamic terrorism” going back to the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war.
Bin Laden was 22 years old and was trained in a CIA sponsored guerrilla training camp. Education in Afghanistan in the years preceding the Soviet-Afghan war was largely secular. With religious textbooks produced in Nebraska, the number of CIA sponsored religious schools (madrasahs) increased from 2,500 in 1980 to over 39,000.
“Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the [Islamic] Jihad.” (Pervez Hoodbhoy, Peace Research, 1 May 2005)
”The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings…The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books,..”, (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)
Under the Reagan administration, US foreign policy evolved towards the unconditional support and endorsement of the Islamic “freedom fighters”. This endorsement has not in any way been modified.
In a twisted irony, throughout the post 911 era, US intelligence in liaison with Britain’s MI6, an Israel’s Mossad, continues to provide covert support to the radical Islamist organization allegedly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Al Qaeda and its various affiliated groups including the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and factions within the Free Syria Army (FSA) are directly supported by the US and NATO.
In a bitter irony, the US and its allies claim to be waging a “war on terrorism” against the alleged architects of 9/11, while also using Al Qaeda operatives as their foot-soldiers.
Front row, from left: Major Gen. Hamid Gul, director general of Pakistan’s
Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Willian Webster; Deputy Director for Operations Clair George; an ISI colonel; and senior CIA official,
Milt Bearden at a Mujahideen training camp in North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan in 1987.
Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985 (Reagan Archives)
Iraq: Alleged State Sponsor of the 9/11 Attacks
The formulation of a war of retribution conducted in the name of 9/11 was not limited to Afghanistan.
In the course of 2002, leading up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, “Osama bin Laden” and “Weapons of Mass Destruction” statements circulated profusely in the news chain. While Washington’s official position was that Saddam Hussein was not behind the 9/11 attacks, insinuations abounded both in presidential speeches as well as in the Western media. According to Bush, in an October 2002 press conference:
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime’s own actions — its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror.
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability — even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source [Iraq], that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America. President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat, October 7, 2002)
Barely two weeks before the invasion of Iraq, September 11, 2001 was mentioned abundantly by president Bush. In the weeks leading up to the March invasion, 45 percent of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was “personally involved” in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. (See . The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq / The Christian Science Monitor – CSMonitor.com, March 14, 2003)
Meanwhile, a new terrorist mastermind had emerged: Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.
In Colin Powell’s historic address to the United Nations Security Council, in February 2003, detailed “documentation” on a sinister relationship between Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was presented, focussing on his ability to produce deadly chemical, biological and radiological weapons, with the full support and endorsement of the secular Baathist regime. The implication of Colin’s Powell’s assertions, which were totally fabricated, was that Saddam Hussein and an Al Qaeda affiliated organization had joined hands in the production of WMD in Northern Iraq and that the Hussein government was a “state sponsor” of terrorism.
The main thrust of the disinformation campaign continued in the wake of the March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. It consisted in presenting the Iraqi resistance movement as “terrorists”. The image of “terrorists opposed to democracy” fighting US “peacekeepers” appeared on television screens and news tabloids across the globe.
Iran: Condemned by a New York City Court for Supporting Al Qaeda in the 9/11 Attacks
In the wake of the Iraq invasion, the same alleged “state sponsorship” of terrorism accusations emerged in relation to Iran.
In December 2011, the Islamic Republic of Iran was condemned by a Manhattan court, for its alleged role in supporting Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks.
The investigation into Tehran’s alleged role was launched in 2004, pursuant to a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission “regarding an apparent link between Iran, Hezbollah, and the 9/11 hijackers”. The 9/11 Commission’s recommendation was that this “apparent link” required “further investigation by the U.S. government.” (9/11 Commission Report , p. 241). (See Iran 911 Case ).
In the December 2011 court judgment (Havlish v. Iran) “U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels ruled that Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who are plaintiffs in the case”.
According to the plaintiffs attorneys “Iran, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda formed a terror alliance in the early 1990s. Citing their national security and intelligence experts, the attorneys explained “how the pragmatic terror leaders overcame the Sunni-Shi’a divide in order to confront the U.S. (the “Great Satan”) and Israel (the “Lesser Satan”)”. Iran and Hezbollah allegedly provided “training to members of al Qaeda in, among other things, the use of explosives to destroy large buildings.” (See Iran 911 Case ).
This judicial procedure is nothing more than another vicious weapon in the fabricated “War on Terror” to be used against another Muslim country, with a view to destabilizing Iran as well as justifying ongoing military threats. It also says a lot more about the people behind the lawsuit than about the accused. The expert witnesses who testified against Iran are very active in warmongering neocon circles. They belong to a web of architects of the 21st century Middle-Eastern wars, ranging from high profile propagandists to intelligence and military officers, including former U.S. officials.
But what makes this case absurd is that in September 2011, a few months before the judgment, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has questioned the official 9/11 narrative, was accused by Al-Qaeda leaders of “spreading conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks”. The semi-official media outlet of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, insisted that al-Qaeda “had been behind the attacks and criticised the Iranian president for discrediting the terrorist group.” (See Julie Levesque, Iran Accused of being behind 9/11 Attacks. U.S. Court Judgment, December 2011 (Havlish v. Iran),
Global Research, May 11, 2012)
Al Qaeda: US-NATO Foot-soldiers
Ironically, while Washington accuses Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran of complicity in the 9/11 attacks, the historical record and evidence indelibly point to the “state sponsorship” of Al Qaeda by the CIA, MI6 and their intelligence counterparts in Pakistan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
Realities are turned upside down. Al Qaeda death squads have been recruited to wage America’s humanitarian wars throughout the Middle East an d North Africa.
In Syria Al Qaeda units were recruited by NATO and the Turkish High command: “Also discussed in Brussels and Ankara, our sources report, is a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels.” (http://www.debka.com/article/21255/ Debkafile, August 31, 2011).
In Libya, jihadists from Afghanistan trained by the CIA were dispatched to fight with the “pro-democracy” rebels under the helm of “former” Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Commander Abdel Hakim Belhadj:
Western policy makers admit that NATO’s operations in Libya have played the primary role in emboldening Al Qaeda’s AQIM faction (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb). The Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution’s Bruce Riedel in his article, “The New Al Qaeda Menace,” admits that AQIM is now heavily armed thanks to NATO’s intervention in Libya, and that AQIM’s base in Mali, North Africa, serves as a staging ground for terrorist activities across the region. http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-and-natos-pan-arab-terrorist-blitzkrieg/
“Crimes against Civilization”
9/11 mythology has been the mainstay of war propaganda, which in itself constitutes a criminal act under international law.
Fiction prevails over reality. For propaganda to be effective, public opinion must firmly endorse the official 9/11 narrative to the effect that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks. A well organized structure of media disinformation is required to reach this objective. Perpetuating the 9/11 Legend also requires defying as well smearing the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Throughout the post 9/11 era, a panoply of Al Qaeda related events and circumstances is presented to public opinion on a daily basis. These include terrorist threats, warnings and attacks, police investigations, insurgencies and counter-insurgencies, country-level regime change, social conflict, sectarian violence, racism, religious divisions, Islamic thought, Western values, etc.
Muslims are presented as the perpetrators of the 9/11, thereby unleashing a Worldwide demonization campaign.
In turn, 9/11, Al Qaeda – War on Terrorism rhetoric permeates political discourse at all levels of government, including bipartisan debate on Capitol Hill, in committees of the House and the Senate, at the British House of Commons, and, lest we forget, at the United Nations Security Council. All these various bodies are complicit in a criminal project.
September 11 and Al Qaeda concepts, repeated ad nauseam have potentially traumatic impacts on the human mind and the ability of normal human beings to analyze and comprehend the “real outside World” of war, politics and the economic crisis.
What is at stake is human consciousness and comprehension based on concepts and facts.
With September 11 there are no verifiable “facts” and “concepts”, because 9/11 as well as Al Qaeda have evolved into a media mythology, a legend, an invented ideological construct, used as an unsubtle tool of war propaganda.
Al Qaeda constitutes a stylized, fake and almost folkloric abstraction of terrorism, which permeates the inner consciousness of millions of people around the World.
Reference to Al Qaeda has become a dogma, a belief, which most people espouse unconditionally. According to the media, “Muslims were behind the attacks”, thereby justifying a war of retribution against Muslim countries.
Racism and Islamophobia are an integral part of war propaganda.
Is this political indoctrination? Is it brain-washing? If so what is the underlying objective?
People’s capacity to independently analyse World events, as well as address causal relationships pertaining to politics and society, is significantly impaired. That is the objective!
The routine use of 9/11 and Al Qaeda to generate blanket explanations of complex political events is meant to create confusion.
It prevents people from thinking. It strikes at the core of human values. In a sense, it destroys civilization.
All of these complex Al Qaeda related occurrences are explained by politicians, the corporate media, Hollywood and the Washington think tanks under a single blanket “bad guys” heading, in which Al Qaeda is casually and repeatedly pinpointed as “the cause” of numerous terror events around the World.
The criminality underlying post 9/11 propaganda is of much broader nature, affecting people’s mindsets, redefining fundamental social, political and institutional relations.
“Crimes against Civilization” have been committed.
9/11 mythology precipitates the World into barbarity.
Copyright © 2012 Global Research
November 17th, 2012 by olddog
Declaration of Independence 2.0: Restoring the Republic
Radio host Alex Jones today called for a secondAmerican Revolution led by states who would secede from the federal government and reconstitute the Republic under the terms of theDeclaration of Independence, bill of rights and constitution. (Read the transcript here).
The call for Americans to rally behind a restoration of the Republic and the bill of rights comes on the back of a burgeoning secessionist movement that has swept the country with residents from all 50 states submitting petitions to the White House calling for states to withdraw from the union and form their own independent governments. The petitions have received a combined number of signatures totaling over a million.
During his nationwide broadcast today, Jones laid out the battle plan for secession, emphasizing that states must first secede from the federal government, which has gone rogue, and then use the terms of the Declaration of Independence to restore the Republic, not create a new country.
Jones stressed that he was calling for a cultural restoration in the spirit of the bill of rights – a newly unified America under the Constitution – and not a violent overthrow, noting that it was the states that created the Constitution and the federal government in the first place.
Jones noted that the only course to restoring liberty was clear – “To follow the founding document of the Republic, the Declaration of Independence, wherein it is clearly stated that it is the right and the duty of the American people, when their government becomes destructive and tyrannical, to abolish and reconstitute it in a form that protects our liberties.”
“We are not calling for secession to form new separate countries, we are calling for secession because the states created the Constitution, bill of rights and federal government, and the federal government itself has been hijacked by foreign special interests – mainly banking cartels,” said Jones.
“I am calling for people to be educated about how we can secede to restore the Republic,” said Jones, warning that the media was attempting to characterize the entire movement as a plot to bring down America when in fact America has already been captured and taken over by the political and financial elite.
“This is the states putting their foot down and saying we are going to reconstitute the federal government under the bill of rights and constitution, we’re going to kick out the bureaucrats, the lobbyists, the foreign criminals, and the Federal Reserve who have taken over,” explained Jones.
The radio host also put the call out for Congressman Ron Paul to head up such a movement and utilize his vast network of grass roots liberty-loving activists to lead the charge, as well as using his contacts in each state to begin the process of secession in the legislature.
Harvard constitutional law scholar and adviser to Ron Paul, Edwin Viera, appeared on the syndicated radio broadcast and agreed with Alex Jones’ constitutional battle plan, with the declaration of independence as the centerpiece of legal authority.
Ron Paul’s former congressional chief of staff and founder of the Von Mises institute, Lew Rockwell, also appeared on the special broadcast and concurred with Jones’ strategy that now is the time to launch our offensive and restore the republic.
The right of the people to reconstitute their government if it becomes oppressive and onerous is clearly outlined in the Declaration of Independence.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Preamble, Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.
In the aftermath of petitions from all 50 states to secede being posted on the White House website and signed by over a million Americans, the secessionist movement has been portrayed as anti-American, unpatriotic and even treasonous. In reality, as Ron Paul has emphasized, it is as American as apple pie and George Washington.
The most popular petition out of all 50 that have been posted on the White House website applies to Texas and reads as follows;
“The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it’s citizens’ standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.”
The call for states to secede from the union, one now backed by over a million Americans, is part of a wider disenfranchisement with how the country has been infested and hijacked by a crony political elite and the principles of the founders decimated.
As over a million Americans express their disenfranchisement with the federal government by supporting a secessionist movement that has spread like wildfire, it is time to call for a new declaration of independence and a new commitment to restore the Republic in the face of an enemy that has subverted America from within.
The United States government has been seized by domestic and foreign banking cartels. This fact is so transparently obvious that talking heads on CNBC now laugh about it.
While Americans are being told to brace for tax hikes, spending cuts and a myriad of other austerity measures, the Federal Reserve has been sending trillions of dollars to foreign banks.
The federal government is supposed to represent the states, but it doesn’t, it represents the interests of the political and banking elite who themselves have no allegiance whatsoever to America.
Infowars is calling on patriots to start a movement to draft Ron Paul as the head of a brand new effort to restore the Republic, restore the bill of rights and opt out of the counterfeit America the banking elite has subverted and fashioned to serve their own interests.
The establishment media is already demonizing the secessionist movement as a rag-tag group of fringe kooks and paranoid racists, when in reality as the Daily Caller uncovered, it is comprised of former Marines, parents, business owners and ordinary mechanics.
Meanwhile, Obama supporters and other statists have called on the government to punish those putting their signatures to the secession petitions by having them stripped of their citizenship, deported and exiled.
It’s time to re-assert the narrative on secession and put it in its proper context, which is not an infantile reaction to the fact that Barack Obama won the election, but an expression of extreme uneasiness at the direction in which the country is heading, a widespread discontent that has been ongoing for long before Obama even took office, and a new commitment calling on states to nullify unconstitutional laws andregulations and secede from the increasingly tyrannical federal government.
Watch Ron Paul’s farewell speech below in which he skewers authoritarianism in all its forms and captures the true spirit of liberty which should drive the movement to secede from the federal government and reconstitute America under the Declaration of Independence.
October 27th, 2012 by olddog
“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever.” George Orwell
The Common Sense Show
As November 6th fast approaches and America is again provided with the globalist menu for President candidates which repeats the same old worn out theme of choosing between the lesser of two evils; With regard to Romney and Obama, one choice is decidedly more evil than the other.
Barack Obama is an undeniable communist and this fact has been well documented as this one man has dismantled more of the Constitution than any combination of Presidents in all of American history. As evidenced by the death panel legislation in Obamacare, he is an absolute eugenicist. Obama is a ruthless dictator hiding behind the cloak of being an elected leader within a pretend Constitutional Republic. Obama has issued ten times, more executive orders (EO) than all of the Presidents in our 237 year history. These facts are enough to frighten any freedom loving American and make all us wonder that if this despot is forced upon the American people, mostly by George Soros voting machines and the from the votes of the 47% of this country that are too lazy to stop taking Obama’s welfare handouts derived from fiat money, what this country will look like at the end of another four years of descent into tyranny.
Obama has provided a strong set of clues as to what his administration will do with his installation, several months ago of the executive order, THE NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCE PREPAREDNESS ACT. If Americans wonder how far this lunatic President will go towards fulfilling the dreams of his real father, and his original political handlers, Weathermen Underground and communist agitators, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorne, one should read this E.O. and thoughtfully consider the ramifications. This Obamnistic portend of the future is summarized in the following paragraphs.
The Legalization of Peacetime Martial Law
The descent into total and abject tyranny is almost complete. With President Obama’s latest executive order, THE NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS ACT, he has granted himself the authority to declare peacetime martial law. This Executive Order was posted on the WhiteHouse.gov web site.
The Elimination of Private Property
This executive order is particularly draconian in that it eliminates the private ownership of everything and Obama has delegated the complete control of the nation’s resources to his cabinet level department heads (i.e. Czars). The delegation of control of the nation’s resources and people is particularly troubling because the heads of America’s resources shall have this power “under both emergency and non-emergency conditions” to control every aspect of our lives. And under this executive order, the President is to the sole decider of what constitutes an emergency (Section 201, paragraph b).”
The Legalization of Government Sponsored Cronyism and Protection Rackets
Through Sections 301b and 302, Obama’s executive order legalizes governmental cronyism in which loans/grants are guaranteed by the Federal Reserve and the related actions are not subject to any kind of review or accountability process. Further, the development and implementation of a type of economic worthiness score, related to the relative importance of companies for “national defense,” will permit the government to decide what companies prosper and will receive stimulus money and which companies will fail in a strange version of “Fabian Socialism for corporations”. This is absolute fascism in which the government will ultimately control all business activity (see Sections 302, 303, 304, 305).
Due to the outcry of massively wasteful taxpayer giveaways to the solar industry which were dispensed to companies such as Solyndra and Pat Stryker’s Abound Solar, the American people have demanded accountability for this thinly veiled misuse of the public’s money. It should be noted that both solar companies heavily donated to the Obama 2008 campaign. Pat Stryker also contributed $50,000 to Obama’s inauguration ball. Now, both companies are near bankruptcy despite the government giveaway of billions of dollars to both of these Obama donating corporations. Boss Tweed would marvel at the firmly entrenched criminal enterprise system sponsored by the Obama Administration.
Section 303 provides a nonspecific delegated power which will presumably be delegated to the President, “to enable rapid transition of emerging technologies.” This precisely ties in with what I have publicly maintained for months: One of the goals of the globalists, in their engineering of “The Great Gulf Coast Holocaust,” was to destroy the Gulf’s shrimp and oyster industries in order to pave the way for the massive development of algae farms in support of the nation’s new biofuel craze. along the Gulf Coast To this day, the Gulf of Mexico is still being carpet bombed with Corexit and this toxic substance takes the CO2 out of the water and the only substance that can proliferate in this new environment is algae. Never mind that massive sinkholes complete with explosive methane have been produced by this process which gravely threatens the welfare of Louisiana residents.
Subsequently, globalist controlled algae farms are growing exponentially in the Gulf and is beginning to spread across our country. Buffet, Gore, Stryker and Soros are only a few of the billionaire globalists to invest heavily in the biofuel algae industry.
The Literal Legalization of Slavery
As if the previous sections of the already mentioned executive order are not enough to inflame already aware Americans, Section 601 signals the most Orwellian aspect of this executive order in which “upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services” (paragraph 2). What is particularly troubling is that the Secretary of Labor will possess oversight over the Selective Service process, instead of the Secretary of Defense. This revelation left me scratching my head as I wondered why would the Department of Labor be in charge of the coming military draft?
Then it dawned upon me that we were not just talking about military conscription. I refer to the 2008 Presidential campaign in which Obama stated that “we need to construct a national civilian security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded” (as the military). Obama is clearly planning to conscript civilians, train them and send them where they are needed and will pay them whatever wage the Secretary of Commerce determines (Section 601; paragraphs 3, 4-Section 801; paragraph C). In one fell swoop, Obama has sidestepped the 13th Amendment as we are talking about the introduction of forced labor (i.e. slavery). Does anyone else find it ironic and tragic that our first black president has declared his intention to impose government sanctioned slavery upon the American people? For those that know their history, it should also remind everyone of the forced labor camps run by the Nazi’s in which Jews and other political prisoners were forced into slave labor in support of the German war effort while they were being systematically starved to death. Is this why Jesse Ventura’s FEMA camp episode was scrubbed from Television and why TruTV ‘s archives are missing the FEMA camp episode? Perhaps, America would be well advised to pay attention to the good work being done by Gary Franchi on the topic of FEMA camps. Bill Ayers, the benefactor of Obama’s Harvard education and his original political sponsor is on the record of having stated one day, in America, “we will have to send 50 million Americans to re-education camps and murder 25 million of them.
The Legalization of Sexual Assault and Illegal Searches Upon American Citizens.
The Secretary of Transportation has been authorized control over civil transportation which “includes movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation in interstate, intrastate, or foreign commerce within the United States, its territories and possessions, and the District of Columbia, and related public storage and warehousing, ports, services, equipment and facilities, such as transportation carrier shop and repair facilities.” “Civil transportation” also shall include direction, control, and coordination of civil transportation capacity regardless of ownership” (Section 801 part A). Can there be any doubt that the expanded surveillance program by of the TSA, in their unconstitutional, hands down our pants VIPER program, is designed to control all travel in the United States? The former Soviet Union used to have checkpoints every 20 miles in order to restrict travel and to prevent the congregation of “revolutionary forces” for purposes of opposing government control as well as to limit the ability of political dissidents to flee from their governmental pursuers. I feel compelled to ask, what is the government going to do that is so nefarious and so intrusive that they are seeking to set up a control grid which will accomplish these same goals?
The Legalization of Eco-Terrorism and the Deindustrialization of America.
The Secretary of Energy will have control over all “Energy” (which) means all forms of energy including petroleum, gas (both natural and manufactured), electricity, solid fuels (including all forms of coal, coke, coal chemicals, coal liquification, and coal gasification), solar, wind, other types of renewable energy, atomic energy, and the production, conservation, use, control, and distribution (including pipelines) of all of these forms of energy…” This means the government will have total control over all utility prices, the installation of smart meters along with the implementation of the smart grid and the amount of energy which can be consumed by average Americans will be severely curtailed under this new system of energy feudalism which will be imposed on the new American serfs. Obama, in the 2008 Presidential Campaign, stated that “under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” Previously ignorant Americans will soon come to know the true meaning and the accurately prophetic meaning of these words (Section 801, part b).
The Legalization of Starving Americans Into Submission.
The Secretary of Agriculture will posses control over “fertilizer” (which) means any product or combination of products that contain one or more of the elements nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium for use as a plant nutrient.” The Secretary of Agriculture will also control “food resource facilities “(which) means plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribution, and storage (including cold storage) of food resources, and for the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer.” This is the total control of all food. This will allow Monsanto which demonstrably controls the Department of Agriculture, the FDA and EPA to move forward, unabated, for the total GMO takeover of our food supply. Even more disturbing is that a few men will have total control over all food production and the dissenting masses who oppose this fascist takeover can be effectively starved into submission or starved to death (Section 801, parts c-f).
The Legalization and Installation of Eugenics as National Policy
Under this E.O., the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall maintain control over all “Health resources” meaning drugs, biological products, medical devices, materials, facilities, health supplies, services and equipment required to diagnose, mitigate or prevent the impairment of, improve, treat, cure, or restore the physical or mental health conditions of the population.” This is a declaration of a forced form of Codex Alimentarius. Under this provision, it will not matter if Obama Care is repealed, his cabinet appointee will maintain control over all health care, both pharmacological and alternative/natural (Section 801, part i). Can there be any doubt that the death panel provisions of Obama Care will be implemented and carried out with no oversight or regulation in an manner reminiscent of Logan’s Run nightmarish scenario?
I have long maintained on my talk show that there is a decided effort by a relatively few elite to control the nation’s water and this provision will be utilized as a form of both political and population control. Of this, there can be no doubt as the Secretary of Defense will be placed in charge of all water resources Section 801, part n). I can draw no other conclusion that placing the control of water under the DOD represents the weaponizing of water and the intended target of this full frontal assault are the American people for the purpose of imposing population control and complete compliance.
This is only a partial view of what a second term will like under the despot, Barack Obama. If America permits this lunatic to serve a second term, many of us will not be around to vote for his replacement in 2016, provided there are still elections to vote in.
America, how could anyone be stupid enough to vote for this scumbag, when all you have to do is abandon your TV a few hours a week and get a real education? And to make matters even worse, Romney will continue with the SAME PROGRAM! Where the hell is your RAGE? Why do you continue participating in their obvious intent of your destruction?
October 26th, 2012 by olddog
Brandon Smith, Contributor
The idea of “collapse”, social and financial, comes with an incredible array of hypothetical consequences ranging from public dissent and martial law, to the complete disintegration of infrastructure and the devolution of mankind into a swarm of mindless arm chewing cannibals. In an age of television nirvana and cinema overload, I have found that the collective unconscious of our culture has now defined what collapse is based only on the most narrow of extremes. If they aren’t being hunted down by machete wielding looters or swastika wearing jackboots, then the average American dupe figures that the country is not in much danger. Hollywood fantasy has blinded us to the tangible crises at our doorstep.
The reality is that collapse is not a singular event, but a process. It is a symphony of doom, composed of a series of exponentially more powerful crescendos. If the past four years since the implosion of the derivatives bubble have proven anything, it is that catastrophe has the ability to drown a nation slowly like a river of molasses, rather than sweep it away like a flash flood. That said, almost every recorded collapse of modern societies in the past century has been preceded by a primary trigger event; a moment in which the mathematical certainty of failure becomes clear, even if the psychological certainty is muddled.
In 2012, we still await that trigger event, which I believe will be the announcement of QE3 (or any unlimited stimulus program regardless of title), and the final debasement of the dollar. At the beginning of this year, I pointed out that we were likely to see such an announcement before 2012 was out, and it would seem that the private Federal Reserve is right on track.
Last month, the Fed announced that it was formulating a plan to “expand its tool kit”. This includes an openly admitted possibility of a third round of quantitative easing starting as early as September:
This timeline appears to coincide perfectly with the breakdown of the EU, which may also see a climax event in September. In that month, EU policymakers will return from summer holiday. German courts will make a ruling which could put an end to any chance that the country will support a eurozone rescue fund. The Dutch, which are anti-bailout, will vote in elections. Greece will be attempting to renegotiate its financial lifeline. And, the ECB will have to assess the impending chaos in Spain and Italy:
As far as the Fed’s ability to remedy the fiscal situation goes, let’s clear something up right here; the Fed has NO TOOLKIT. Sorry, but central banks have only two options when attempting to shift the tide of the economy: They can lower interest rates to zero, and, they can print-print-print. That is it. We’ve had TARP, numerous bailouts, QE1 and QE2, Operation Twist, and interests rates have been kept near zero for years! These so called solutions have been strapped like millstones around our necks and absolutely nothing has been accomplished since 2008.
Real unemployment still stands at over 20%. The housing crisis remains an unstoppable juggernaut. Europe is on the verge of meltdown (despite the trillions in American taxpayer dollars handed to EU banks). The national debt continues to grow at a pace far beyond what the Obama Administration and mainstream economists (who should have been fired long ago) predicted in 2010. There are no secret magic tricks up the sleeve of Ben Bernanke. Even if the Fed actually wanted to save our financial system, and our currency (which they don’t), there is nothing they can do except make the situation worse. Central banks are perhaps the most useless institutions ever devised, unless, of course, their true purpose is to diminish the financial health of a country and siphon away its economic sovereignty…
Enter the death of the dollar.
The IMF has been consistently calling for the end of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, and for its replacement by the SDR (Special Drawing Rights):
The new president of France, Francois Hollande, has recommended the expulsion of the dollar as the go-to reserve, a deeper relationship between France and the BRIC nations:
China has been demanding an end to dollar primacy for years:
And so has Russia…
And so has the UN…
It’s not as if it’s a big secret that the dollar is on everyone’s hit list. Until recently, alternative economists could only point out circumstantial evidence that this sentiment was a product of collusion between the world’s central banks and elements of various governments. Suggesting that China, Russia, the UN, the IMF, and the Federal Reserve were working in tandem to devalue the dollar and replace it with a global currency has always elicited at least a few jeers and the ever present standby catch-all accusation of “conspiracy theory”. However, the times they are a’ changen’…
With the exposure of the Libor Scandal, we now have definitive proof and even open confessions from international banks, the Federal Reserve, and the Treasury, admitting that the true debt problems of major institutions have been hidden, deliberately, in tandem with multiple agencies in multiple countries, from the general public, with the full knowledge of numerous governments. The most vital and shocking element of the Libor Scandal is that it shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is indeed a conspiracy which has melded the corporate world and the political world into a single ominous creature.
The collusion has become so brazen, central banks around the globe now institute policy initiatives within the same hour of each other:
Years back, I wrote an article about the most important signs to watch for when facing a heightened state of collapse. One of those signs was the advent of openly admitted corruption on the part of the banks. When criminals become absolutely transparent and nonchalant about their criminality, it is usually because they no longer fear the threat of justice or reprisal. This is exactly the atmosphere we have in 2012. But, what could possibly have made the banksters so confident that they are willing to flaunt their racket to the world? I can only surmise that an event is on the horizon. One so distracting that the hucksters believe we will forget all about them.
Looking at it from another perspective; if I was a globalist hell bent on undercutting the dollar as the world reserve and replacing it with a centralized standard while turning the U.S. into a third world pit in the process, I would probably pull the plug soon. Here are some reasons why:
Drought Crisis Provides Inflationary Cover
The drought which has struck half of the U.S. agricultural centers and which has also hit Russian production is the perfect cover event for dollar devaluation. The full view of crop production and yields will be revealed this autumn, and according to the mainstream, the numbers will be dismal. Maybe they will be, maybe they won’t, but the likelihood of inflation in food prices all over the planet is high. If the Fed announces QE3 and sets an implosion of the dollar in motion, the price spikes this will cause in commodities, especially grains and other foodstuffs, can be easily blamed on drought, rather than the destruction of the greenback. At least for a time.
Syria And Iran Theater
If the UN pulls observers from Syria, expect an attack by either the U.S., Israel, or both is on the way. Expect Russia to be quite unhappy. Expect China to respond with financial warfare. Expect Iran to fulfill its mutual defense pact with Syria and come to their aid. Expect hard core catastrophe. I have been warning about Syria as a catalyst for global crisis for quite some time. Long before anyone ever heard the name “Assad”:
Every time I catch a glimpse of the MSM, whether it be MSNBC, CNN, or FOX, they are all spewing the same rhetoric: The U.S. should have invaded Syria months ago. It would seem that the American people are being psychologically prepped for a new war, but in reality, they are being prepped to be distracted from the banking sector’s primacy in the economic calamity that is about to unfold.
European Seesaw Of Destruction
With the EU in shambles, and only getting worse, the ECB has been attempting to work around the rules of its own charter which forbid the infusion of capital directly into governments. The latest weapon in the fight against the financial stupidity of EU member countries? European stimulus! That’s right folks, the U.S. is not the only country that will be raping its own currency this year! Be sure to catch the euro-sized version of QE:
I believe, in keeping with the collusion central banks have already shown, that the Federal Reserve and the ECB will announce new stimulus measures very close to each other, if not in tandem. The continued devaluation of the Euro will help to hide the effect of the falling dollar as the two currencies seesaw back and forth, allowing for a delayed reaction from the public as well as investment markets. Investors looking for a safe haven currency will be scrambling in confusion.
Stocks Ready To Bust
Finally, it is very likely that the Fed will wait for markets to dive in the wake of faltering demand for goods and raw materials in all major economies, as well as declines in manufacturing. As I have said in the past, the Fed wants us to beg for QE3. The only reason this decline has not occurred yet is because investors that are still participating are salivating for new stimulus and expect it shower them with riches soon. So, to put this in perspective, the Dow is above 13,000 right now because investors have already priced in a QE package not just in the U.S., but in the EU as well. If they do not get it fast, they will pull out, and stocks will plummet. The market addiction to fiat injection is so pervasive now, I cannot imagine how they would react if the pipeline was cut off. It would probably induce a fiscal bloodbath.
What Will Collapse Really Be Like?
I expect the event will be spectacular in some ways, but subdued and subversive in many other ways. Triggers may be swift and startling, but the reactions of the populace slow, uncertain, and presumptive. There will be fissures in our foundation, but the complete extent of the danger may take a few more years to become evident. While the public continues to maintain its fixation on some Mad Max nightmare scenario, the real collapse will be taking place right under their noses in the form of 25%-50% increases in food and fuel, tightened job availability with pensions swallowed by austerity, food lines hidden by food stamps until the government finally defaults and pulls the rug out from under entitlement programs, etc. For a time, it will look and feel like a slightly darker version of today, and not the cinematic melodrama that we have come to envision. The worst of times that we often find extolled in the pages of history books come at the cost of years of almost equal disparity, and usually, the lead up is far more difficult to handle than the finale…
You can support this information by voting on Reddit HERE
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:
October 23rd, 2012 by olddog
(Here s What I Ask In Return) |
I keep hearing from friends and co?workers, that I HAVE to vote for Romney to stop Obama from getting elected again. They say I have to sacrifice my principles, be a realist, not an idealist, and vote for Romney to at least slow down, the damage being done to this country by Obama.
Okay, here’s the deal. I will vote for Romney if two things occur. First, Romney reads, and swears to uphold a speech that I prepare for him, and secondly each and every Romney supporter who has nagged at me to vote for him signs a declaration, that I will also prepare for him or her.
Here is the speech that I would ask Mr. Romney to read, and agree too:
I, Willard, Mitt, and Romney do solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I will not sign into law any legislation which does not have as its foundation any of the specifically enumerated powers found in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. I will not abide a loose interpretation of the General Welfare, the Commerce, and the Necessary and Proper Clauses of the Constitution as a basis for enacting law.
As President, I will reduce our national deficit and begin paying off the national debt by $1 trillion per year. If I fail to reduce our national debt by $4 trillion by the end of my first term, I will not run for a second term. Along those lines I will work to get a flat tax, or a federal sales tax implemented, doing away with the graduated income tax, until the national debt is brought under control. Once that occurs I will no longer allow government to tax the earnings of the people to fund our operations. This nation got along fine enough for 124 years before the Constitution was amended to allow for an income tax. If government lives within its means, there is absolutely no reason to ask the people to fund it.
As President, I will hold the Bill of Rights as sacred and ensure that the rights of every American are protected. I will begin by dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and revoking every piece of legislation passed to fight the war on terror which in some fashion infringes upon an unalienable right of the people. I will reign in the Transportation Security Administration, (TSA), and find other ways of ensuring the public’s safety than by infringing upon their 4th Amendment right to be secure in their persons and property.
As President, I will begin dismantling this behemoth that is the federal government by abolishing the following Cabinet Posts and their associated agencies; the Secretary of Education, Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agencies. These are all areas that are best managed by the individual states, and not the federal government.
I will also recall our ambassador to the United Nations and give the member nations 30 days to recall their respective ambassadors before I schedule the UN building to be demolished.
I will also drastically cut back our military presence overseas unless the nations where we have military installations formally request a U.S. military presence. If that were the case then that nation will be responsible for paying the entire cost to sustain that installation, including the pay and benefits of every U.S. serviceman assigned to that installation. If not, that nation can fend for itself. It is not our place to police and defend the world. With that being said, if a rogue nation decides to attack the U.S. we will retaliate with the full force of our might but we will not invade and occupy a sovereign nation so that military contractors such as Halliburton can make a fortune off the misfortune of war.
I will revoke the charter of the Federal Reserve Bank and give the power to coin our nation’s currency back to Congress where it belongs. The treasury department is fully capable of printing all the money required to sustain our economy without America having to be enslaved to a cartel of globalist bankers who profit for our nation’s debt.
And finally, I will enact strict trade laws which grant no benefits to any nation, or company, which produces goods outside the border of the United States. For every item we import to America, one item will be exported to that country which is manufactured in America, or all trade with that nation will grind to a halt. We will rebuild America as a manufacturing force to be reckoned with.
These are my promises to you as president. If I fail to uphold even one of them, I will not seek re-election. I swear this under penalty of perjury, and may God and the American people hold me accountable.
That is the speech that Mitt Romney MUST give before I will vote for him. Otherwise, he can take his chances without me. And for you, the faithful republicans who nagged at me to support him, your declaration is much simpler. I would ask you to read and sign the following:
I _______________________, do hereby swear that I have investigated the candidate I support, to include their past voting record and stances on the issues. I have not based my decision strictly upon party loyalty, or that my candidate is the best chance to defeat the current incumbent.
I have also read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and understand that these documents are sacredly obligatory upon the government, limiting their authority and power. I have applied them as a litmus test to the candidate I support and believe that said candidate will best uphold the principles contained in those documents.
If, it is proven later, that the candidate I vote for fails to uphold the Constitution, or fails to uphold any of his campaign promises I, __________________, will rip my heart out of my chest and eat it.
There, that’s all you have to do to get me to vote for Mitt Romney. That wasn’t that hard, was it?
The most important thing Neal forgot was to put a limit on executive orders.
NONE would be better, and much needs be said about our Comprehensive Annual Financial Report profits being used as a rebuilding base and corporate taxation reduction. See: http://cafr1.com/
Mitt would also have to support a real Attorney General so the $23 trillion Leo E. Wanta funds are recovered. See: http://lucas2012infos.wordpress.com/tag/leo-wanta-official-biography-american-wanta-be-free/
October 21st, 2012 by olddog
Vote For “None Of The Above”!
By David A. McElroy
Are you sick and tired of the false choices offered at the polls? Do you refuse to vote for the “lesser of two evils”? Do you feel your voice is not heard, your vote does not count in an election system rife with corruption, intimidation, and vote fraud? Do you really want to vote for “None of the above”?
I recommend we go to the polls and sign in at the registration table as a voter. But in doing so, add a little note stating you refuse to participate in a system you have no confidence in. Speak for yourself. Use ink and this vote of “no confidence” in the election system will be a part of the public record. They can’t dispose of the sheets of voters’ registered signatures. Then politely explain to the election workers that you do not intend to cast a vote in a system of false choices corrupt beyond redemption. You should speak openly within earshot of other voters, but not be loud or disruptive explaining your action. Then just leave, hoping you don’t get bodily thrown out the door.
Rev. DeForest Soaries resigned as Chairman of the US Elections Assistance Commission, as of April 30, 2005, after being appointed by President George W. Bush. Soaries held a press conference to announce that he could not be associated with an election system that was “ripe for stealing elections and for fraud.” He characterized the election system as being a “charade” and a “travesty”. Of course, mainstream media did not broadcast or publish the videotaped statements Soaries made in his indignant resignation. Read his story on the front page of the Oct. 2006 Brad Blog. Are things any better under Obama?
You should recall testimony by electronics engineers that the electronic voting machines are designed to facilitate remote-control vote rigging via a perpetrator’s cell phone. They even demonstrated how this was done. See www.TomFlocco.com for Flocco’s detailed Oct. 30, 2002 expose Hacking the Presidency. Read Beverly Harris’ Black Box Voting: Tampering in the 21st Century, if you need references documenting the election frauds.
If enough of us register our vote of “no confidence” at the polls, the message should get through loud and clear to the electioneers and politicians. Let’s deploy this means of showing them what happens when they throw an election and nobody chooses to vote! Let’s vote against the system and register the fact that we won’t participate in the fraud! Let’s make it clear that we do not consent to be governed by either wing of the big bird of prey feeding on we the people. Reject the false promises of Dempublicans and the Repocrats and throw a monkey wrench into the turnstile of tyranny posing as democracy. Vote “no confidence” and vote “none of the above” by registering but NOT VOTING!
I have had a similar on going discussion with a local political columnist who advocates voting every incumbent out of office, but I cannot convince him that it’s not just the politicians, but the people who control the outcome that is the real problem. After all is said and done, the people who count the votes are the only one’s that control who wins. That is the reason all democracies have failed. On the other hand, I detest any political system that gives the majority the power to tyrannize the minority. If we had honest elections, there would be no difference in our government, as those who cannot manage their lives will always be in the majority. Only the dull and ignorant need governments to run their lives and there has never been a shortage of them in every system of government the world has tried.
Take responsibility for what is yours, protect it, have compassion for the weak, worship the Lord God, and thank Him for your abilities and abundance.
His government has always worked, try it and see for yourself! Even the dull and ignorant can remember ten laws.
June 26th, 2012 by olddog
A recent article in The Guardian UK offers evidence that “while cocaine production ravages countries in Central America, consumers in the US and Europe are helping developed economies grow rich from the profits.”
According to The Guardian UK story, the study by two Colombian professors found that “2.6% of the total street value of cocaine produced remains within the country [Columbia], while a staggering 97.4% of profits are reaped by criminal syndicates and laundered by banks, in first-world consuming countries.”
One of the researchers, Alejandro Gaviria said: “We know that authorities in the US and UK know far more than they act upon. The authorities realize things about certain people they think are moving money for the drug trade – but the DEA [US Drug Enforcement Administration] only acts on a fraction of what it knows.”
“It’s taboo to go after the big banks,” added Gaviria’s co-researcher Daniel Mejía. “It’s political suicide in this economic climate, because the amounts of money recycled are so high.”
Since Wachovia Bank (now owned by Wells Fargo) was levied a fine in 2010 (but no criminal charges) for money laundering hundreds of millions (perhaps billions) of illegal drug cartel dollars, there does not appear to be any large crackdown on the practice in the United States, although lip service is often given to coming down hard on money laundering.
Indeed, more than one analyst has speculated that the billions of dollars in drug cash are vitally important to US banks because so many of their financial assets are tied up in non-fluid assets.
According to a 2011 article in AlterNet:
Antonio Maria Costa, former executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime said in 2008, “there’s evidence to suggest that proceeds from drugs and crimes were the only liquid investment capital for banks in trouble of collapsing [during the financial crisis].”
If billions of dollars in drug money rescued banks and other financial institutions from closing down then it’s reasonable to argue that the economy itself is addicted to drugs.
As professor Dale Scott noted in his book, American War Machine: Deep Politics; the CIA Global Drug Connection: “A US Senate … banking committee reportedly estimated that between $500 billion and $1 trillion dollars are laundered each year through banks worldwide, with approximately half of that amount funneled through US Banks.”
In the ’70s and ’80s, Miami became known as a city that was experiencing an economic renaissance based on the flow of illegal drug money (mostly from Colombia at the time) into the city. But the cash didn’t just get laundered through banks; it was used to buy legitimate businesses; condos; houses; investments; and more than likely a lot of corrupt law enforcement, custom and government officials.
Estimated $50 Billion in Illegal Drug Sales From Mexico Can Only Occur With US Corruption
In interviews, Truthout has been told again and again that the chain of distribution for illegal drugs is changing. Whereas before it was divided primarily among Mafia families in big cities, the Latin American cartels have now set up networks within the US.
But one thing hasn’t changed; it still takes a lot of corruption to buy off virtual domestic impunity for the kingpins overseeing the domestic sale of prohibited drugs. Searching Google, you can find everything from Transportation Security Administration agents paid off to let drugs pass through airport checks, to cops who look the other way or actually steal the drug money, to border patrol agents letting drugs pass through, to local government officials overlooking illegal activity.
However, rarely does one come across the arrest and prosecution of a kingpin in the United States, or of a high-level law enforcement official in a major city or a politician being indicted. Does this mean that powerful individuals in the government and law enforcement are all squeaky clean as $50 billion in illegal drugs go whizzing through America, day in and day out? Not likely.
The emphasis of the DEA, FBI and the Department of Homeland Security is on catching the “guppies” without appearing to be working their way up to the people running the wholesale-to-retail illicit drug business in the US or their protectors. (In Latin America, however, the US is all about catching kingpins, although that doesn’t often happen.)
For instance, the El Paso Times reported last year that “two former law enforcement officers allege that they cannot get anyone to investigate allegations that the Mexican drug cartels have corrupted US law officers and politicians in the El Paso border region…. Gonzales and Dutton allege that the FBI dropped them after ‘big names’ on the US side of the border began to surface in the drug investigations.”
David Ramirez rose up the ranks of the Border Patrol to become a special agent at the Department of Homeland Security. He just wrote a book, “Beneath the Same Sky,” a candid analysis of the borderland drug war. Interviewed by the Texas Tribune, he described US customs corruption matter-of-factly:
I can only tell you my experiences and what I saw. It was the lure of the money and as I write in the book, they offer this inspector $50,000 for what I call a “wave” – a loaded vehicle to come through the port. And they guaranteed them five vehicles a week so you are talking that kind of money, which is tempting. You have to be a man or a woman who knows their moral ground to say, “No. I am not doing it….”
“It’s capitalism, I would think – supply and demand,” Ramirez said further. “The demand for the drug is here and then we say, ‘Okay Mexico or Latin America, fix your problem over there, but we still want our drugs.’”
Different Interests in the US Financially Gain From the War on Drugs
It’s not just that some law enforcement officials are corrupt. They don’t need to be for police departments to make money from arresting minor drug offenders.
Police departments around the nation gain from laws that allow the seizing of assets that the law enforcement officers allege may be related to drug crime, without even a court case involved. The libertarian CATO institute wrote about this practice that allows the agencies to use the proceeds from the confiscated money or property to enlarge departmental budgets. The report is called “Forfeit for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture.”
Law enforcement agencies can also get extra money from federal grants if they show a high number of arrests related to drug use and selling, so it is of financial value to the department to arrest as many people for drug related offenses as possible.
Neill Franklin is executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). He calls this change to an emphasis on arrests of the drug user as a “shift to the numbers game” for police departments to receive more funding. Franklin, a 34-year law enforcement veteran of the Maryland State Police and Baltimore Police Department, said, “we worked in predominantly white areas, yet most of our cases and lock ups were minorities. There were very few cases in the outlying areas that involved whites.”
Franklin told Truthout:
“Over my career I saw a shift to a war on the users of drugs. In the ’70s when I worked narcotics it was about working your way up the chain of the sellers to the kingpins. That’s how it was. As we got further into the ’80s and ’90s, we attacked the demand side. We concentrated on locking up the usual street corner suspects and before we knew it we had quadrupled the incarceration rate and most of that increase was from us arresting users. A lot of the small time dealers sell drugs because they need to support their habit of using drugs. The day of the law enforcement concentrating on kingpins has gone. It’s all about increasing the numbers of arrests.”
To Franklin this brings up the question of why privatized prison companies are simultaneously benefiting financially from the increased incarceration, a subject that has been analyzed many times on Truthout. If the Correction Corporation of America needs a 90 percent capacity rate to make a profit on a prison, then you need to put the bodies in the beds. Franklin pointed out that the profiteering doesn’t end with the prison business. There is the drug testing industry, parole officers, prosecutors, police, lawyers, rehabilitation counselors, psychologists etc. Arresting minor drug offenders, in short, is big business.
Race, Drugs, Incarceration and the New Jim Crow
Michelle Alexander, author of the paradigm-shifting book on racism through the criminalization of being a black male, “The New Jim Crow,” recently wrote a commentary in The Guardian UK in which she persuasively argues that “the US war on drugs created a whole new generation of the dispossessed, with millions of black people denied their rights.”
Alexander wrote of the racist impact of the war on drugs in the black community, particularly among young black males:
The uncomfortable truth, however, is that crime rates do not explain the sudden and dramatic mass incarceration of African Americans during the past 30 years. Crime rates have fluctuated over the last few decades – they are currently at historical lows – but imprisonment rates have consistently soared. Quintupled, in fact. And the vast majority of that increase is due to the “war on drugs” and the “get tough movement.” Drug offenses alone accounted for about two-thirds of the increase in the federal inmate population, between 1985 to 2000, and more than half of the increase in the state prison population.
The drug war has been brutal, but those who live in white communities have little clue to the devastation wrought. This war has been waged almost exclusively in poor communities of color, even though studies consistently show that people of all colors use and sell illegal drugs at remarkably similar rates. In fact, some studies indicate that white youths are significantly more likely to engage in illegal drug dealing than black youths. They also have about three times the number of drug-related visits to the emergency room as their African American counterparts.
That is not what you would guess, though, when entering our nation’s prisons and jails, overflowing as they are with black and brown drug offenders. In some states, African Americans comprise 80-90% of all drug offenders sent to prison….
Again, not so. President Ronald Reagan officially declared the current drug war in 1982, when drug crime was declining, not rising. From the outset, the war had little to do with drug crime and nearly everything to do with racial politics. The drug war was part of a grand and highly successful Republican party strategy of using racially coded political appeals on issues of crime and welfare to attract poor and working-class white voters who were resentful of, and threatened by, desegregation, busing and affirmative action.
If you follow Alexander’s analysis to its logical conclusion, the war on drugs in the United States fulfills a racist stereotype by disproportionately sending black males (and black women) to jails, where they are branded and marginalized as felons, while white users of illegal drugs – proportionately – are treated much more leniently by law enforcement and the judicial system.
This policy misleadingly confirms stereotypes of blacks that racists love, even though they are put in prison for offenses that are nonviolent in nature and that are driven by poverty, social neglect and incentivized police department arrest numbers.
But it also serves another important purpose. When poor, stereotyped members of society can only find an entrepreneurial future in the illegal drug business, or use drugs as self-medication to allow them to escape the squalidness of vast swathes of urban America that hold little opportunity of employment, the government does not have to attend to building neighborhoods and creating jobs. Drugs become the opiate of the masses, as meth also has in many poor, rural white communities.
As with the 50,000-plus mostly poor Mexicans who have died in the failed war on drugs, certain lives are deemed of less value in the US – and if there is big money to be made out of the drug trade, it’s going to end up in banks and business ventures, not in the hood (with few exceptions). The undesirable resourceless drug users are both profitable and expendable.
US Hegemony and Military Control Over Latin America and the CIA
An established journalist, Gary Webb, wrote a series of articles for the San Jose Mercury-News in 1996 with a shocking account of how the CIA, during the Reagan administration, allowed cocaine to freely be flown into the US (particularly crack cocaine) in return for drug cartel cooperation with funding and arming the Contras against the Sandinistas in the Nicaraguan civil war. At first, the series was a bombshell, but then the CIA fought back through established Eastern newspapers and the Mercury-News retracted the series.
Webb, however, wrote an even more in-depth and credible account of the CIA condoning drugs entering the US in a 1999 book: “Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras and the Crack Cocaine Explosion.” However, his reputation was so slandered by CIA flacks that he eventually committed suicide in 2004. Subsequent reports, after his death, corroborated the credibility of his investigative account.
It is not the only allegation of the US turning a blind eye or even politically using drugs entering the US as foreign policy strategic tools. Right now, the US is more or less ignoring the surge in poppy growth in Afghanistan so as not to complicate its precarious role in that nation – and the economic need of farmers there. President George Herbert Walker Bush, who headed the CIA for a time, didn’t object to Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega’s (he was a highly paid CIA asset) role in the drug trade until Noriega started to go rogue on US foreign policy, thus being perceived as becoming a threat to the Canal Zone.
In “Beyond Bogota: Diary of a Drug War Journalist,” Garry M. Leech described how the US focus on attacking the growing of cocaine in the Marxist FARC-controlled area is counterproductive, because the right-wing paramilitary area in Columbia grows more and sells it at a cheaper rate. Translated, this means that the US government is more concerned about the political threat of FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) than how much cocaine ends up in the United States.
The drug war in Latin America offers the opportunity to increase US military hegemony and thus preserve markets where the US can dominate governments and obtain cheap labor and natural resources (particularly mining and oil). It also sews death, fear and chaos that stifle populist revolts against oligarchical and military rule.
Drug Cartels Are Headed by Pirate Businessmen Marketing a Commodity in Demand and the American Corporate Class Loves Supply Side Entrepeneurs
Minus the gruesome violence in their host countries, drug cartels are just illegal businessmen, so the business class in the US can relate to them, as can the CIA. They are aggressive, ruthless and greedy, not unlike some of their bankers on Wall Street.
The cost of a drug war to achieve geopolitical objectives then is immense in the loss of life, the breakdown of civil society in the nations affected in Latin America, and in the moral grounding, racial injustice and credibility of our governmental and business institutions.
Eric E. Sterling, who wrote many of the severe anti-drug laws while serving as former assistant counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, indicated second thoughts in a recent Forbes commentary:
Excluding the significant markets in methamphetamine, Ecstasy, psychedelics and other drugs, this is a criminal retail market in the range of $300 billion annually. Most of the markup is at the retail level. This enormous market is evidence that our efforts to stop the drug supply create the incentives that have grown a global criminal infrastructure of countless drug prohibition enterprises….
All over the world, drug organizations depend upon corrupting border guards, customs inspectors, police, prosecutors, judges, legislators, cabinet ministers, military officers, intelligence agents, financial regulators and presidents and prime ministers. Businesses cannot count on the integrity of government officials in such environments.
And corrupted we have become, while publically taking the moral high ground and precipitating a blood bath in Latin America.
June 20th, 2012 by olddog
Dismantles Corrupt Govt Then Arrests All Rothschild Bankers
Posted by Admin
Since the 1900′s the vast majority of the American population has dreamed about saying “NO” to the Unconstitutional, corrupt, Rothschild/Rockefeller banking criminals, but no one has dared to do so. Why? If just half of our Nation, and the “1%”, who pay the majority of the taxes, just said NO MORE! Our Gov’t would literally change over night. Why is it so hard, for some people to understand, that by simply NOT giving your money, to large Corporations, who then send jobs, Intellectual Property, etc. offshore and promote anti-Constitutional rights… You will accomplish more, than if you used violence. In other words… RESEARCH WHERE YOU ARE SENDING EVERY SINGLE PENNY!!! Is that so hard? The truth of the matter is… No one, except the Icelanders, have to been the only culture on the planet to carry out this successfully. Not only have they been successful, at overthrowing the corrupt Gov’t, they’ve drafted a Constitution, that will stop this from happening ever again. That’s not the best part… The best part, is that they have arrested ALL Rothschild/Rockefeller banking puppets, responsible for the Country’s economic Chaos and meltdown.
Last week 9 people were arrested in London and Reykjavik for their possible responsibility for Iceland’s financial collapse in 2008, a deep crisis which developed into an unprecedented public reaction that is changing the country’s direction.
It has been a revolution without weapons in Iceland, the country that hosts the world’s oldest democracy (since 930), and whose citizens have managed to effect change by going on demonstrations and banging pots and pans. Why have the rest of the Western countries not even heard about it?
Pressure from Icelandic citizens’ has managed not only to bring down a government, but also begin the drafting of a new constitution (in process) and is seeking to put in jail those bankers responsible for the financial crisis in the country. As the saying goes, if you ask for things politely it is much easier to get them.
This quiet revolutionary process has its origins in 2008 when the Icelandic government decided to nationalise the three largest banks, Landsbanki, Kaupthing and Glitnir, whose clients were mainly British, and North and South American.
After the State took over, the official currency (krona) plummeted and the stock market suspended its activity after a 76% collapse. Iceland was becoming bankrupt and to save the situation, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) injected U.S. $ 2,100 million and the Nordic countries helped with another 2,500 million.
Great little victories of ordinary people
While banks and local and foreign authorities were desperately seeking economic solutions, the Icelandic people took to the streets and their persistent daily demonstrations outside parliament in Reykjavik prompted the resignation of the conservative Prime Minister Geir H. Haarde and his entire government.
Citizens demanded, in addition, to convene early elections, and they succeeded. In April a coalition government was elected, formed by the Social Democratic Alliance and the Left Green Movement, headed by a new Prime Minister, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir.
Throughout 2009 the Icelandic economy continued to be in a precarious situation (at the end of the year the GDP had dropped by 7%) but, despite this, the Parliament proposed to repay the debt to Britain and the Netherlands with a payment of 3,500 million Euros, a sum to be paid every month by Icelandic families for 15 years at 5.5% interest.
The move sparked anger again in the Icelanders, who returned to the streets demanding that, at least, that decision was put to a referendum. Another big small victory for the street protests: in March 2010 that vote was held and an overwhelming 93% of the population refused to repay the debt, at least with those conditions.
This forced the creditors to rethink the deal and improve it, offering 3% interest and payment over 37 years. Not even that was enough. The current president, on seeing that Parliament approved the agreement by a narrow margin, decided last month not to approve it and to call on the Icelandic people to vote in a referendum so that they would have the last word.
The bankers are fleeing in fear
Returning to the tense situation in 2010, while the Icelanders were refusing to pay a debt incurred by financial sharks without consultation, the coalition government had launched an investigation to determine legal responsibilities for the fatal economic crisis and had already arrested several bankers and top executives closely linked to high risk operations.
Interpol, meanwhile, had issued an international arrest warrant against Sigurdur Einarsson, former president of one of the banks. This situation led scared bankers and executives to leave the country en masse.
In this context of crisis, an assembly was elected to draft a new constitution that would reflect the lessons learned and replace the current one, inspired by the Danish constitution.
To do this, instead of calling experts and politicians, Iceland decided to appeal directly to the people, after all they have sovereign power over the law. More than 500 Icelanders presented themselves as candidates to participate in this exercise in direct democracy and write a new constitution. 25 of them, without party affiliations, including lawyers, students, journalists, farmers and trade union representatives were elected.
Among other developments, this constitution will call for the protection, like no other, of freedom of information and expression in the so-called Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, in a bill that aims to make the country a safe haven for investigative journalism and freedom of information, where sources, journalists and Internet providers that host news reporting are protected.
The people, for once, will decide the future of the country while bankers and politicians witness the transformation of a nation from the sidelines.
What a rotten shame that Americans are too uninformed and cowardly to do the same thing as Iceland. But you can bet your ass they won’t miss their ballgames, and other forms of entertainment. Why should they study when they still have money for beer and hot-dogs? Dumb ass’s to the last breath!